IDOL WORSHIP: Different minds have different thoughts, but every thought that’s in the minds of mass will ultimately boil down to two fundamental questions
- Is Idol worship right?
- Is idol worship wrong?
Once up a time a king who did not believe in idol worship asked his intelligent minister to explain him “What makes idol worship important?” one of king’s Intelligent minister called one of king’s guards and ordered him to bring the painting of king to king’s court. After the painting was brought in front of the court, minister asked the guard to spit on the painting of king. Struck between what is right and what is wrong, the guard responded immediately “How can I spit on my master, my king”. IDOL-YES are those who think on these lines and substitute GOD in the place of King. “We have faith in GOD and his idol both” is one of the many arguments by IDOL-YES.
“GOD is everywhere; he is formless, tasteless, and omnipotent. In such a case there is no reason for a idol, we just need to have faith and honest in our approach, we need not go to temples and go around a stone of a human or some other form to prove that we are having faith in GOD”. This one of many counter argument made by second set of people whom I have called as IDOL-NO
DOES GOD REALLY EXIST?
All human beings who live on Earth are not alike. The level of spiritual maturity varies across the Human beings. It means the ability of the human being to perceive god varies. Therefore in Shaastras (which define the principles of Hinduism) categorizes the human beings into three categories. Mandaadhikari(least qualified)
ReplyDeleteMadhyamaadhikagari(moderately qualified) and Uttamaadhikari(highly qualified)
The class of people who fall under Uttamaadhikari are those who have have the realization that GOD is omnipotent. There might be very few people on this Earth who have such a realization
Most of the population on the Earth are Mandaadhikaris. It is difficult for them to realize/see GOD as Omnipotent. In order that we Mandaadhikaris also obtain the grace of God, our ancients established the medium of temples. A structure must be built and an idol of God must be consecrated according to the injunctions of the Shastras.
Arya divides mass into three types
ReplyDeleteMandaadhikari(least qualified)
Madhyamaadhikagari(moderately qualified)
Uttamaadhikari(highly qualified)
If this is true, there must be some requirement or say a qualification for the Mandaadhikari to get into Madhyamaashikari and so on form Madhyamaashikari to Uttamaashikari.
So, do one of you know what might be those list of qualification, is it formulated somewhere?
I currently don't have the list of qualifications one needs to obtain to move to a higher classification.
ReplyDeleteEssentially a GURU(teacher) who is imparting the Samskara(Spiritual Knowledge) will know if the student has attained the qualifications.
If you have more information regarding this classification it would be beneficial.
The question is
ReplyDeleteDoes god exist?
And not
Who can realize the god?
@TKLG: Can you please provide more clarity on the difference between
ReplyDeleteDoes GOD exist?
and
Who can realize the god?
“TATVAMASI” – This is the termed as the Mahavakya in sama veda (Chandogya Upanishad 6.8.7). “Thou art That” is the meaning of this vakya. What dose that means is “I am same as that”. Here “that” refers to the Supreme Being, so “I am same as the supreme being”.
ReplyDeleteProbably one would be more confused with the lot of terminologies that define things in spirituality. GOD, ATMAN, SUPREME BEING, SOUL, BRAHMA, MOKSHA and so on. All these finally end up in the same quantity. The existence of GOD was questioned to Buddha by one of his disciples and the conversation went something like as follows
Disciple: Do GOD exist?
Buddha: When did I preach that?
Disciple: So, do you mean that GOD does not exist?
Buddha: When did I preach that?
What did Buddha mean when he gave same answers for two opposite questions? GOD do exist and GOD dose not exist.
“If you hurt a being, you will be punished by GOD for your mistakes”. GOD was a restriction to the set of ill deeds that a man can perform. With out the fear of GOD, probably man would have acted very wild against nature. Today we see the effect of human dominance on nature due to his depleting belief on GOD. But, even in those days we could find cruel people going against nature and causing damages. So, it’s purely the individuals thinking and wishes and will to decide the act that he performs. GOD would only cause a physiological effect on his thinking before any act. Everything is in the thoughts of the human being and term called GOD is acting as a virtual brain to have control on those thoughts. A person who know this truth of GOD will always try to gain mastery on his brain and will try to control the thought of his own, when he succeeds in doing so, he calls him self as GOD.
ReplyDeleteA person who has total control on his brain, thoughts can be called a perfect man. He is perfect because, he is capable of doing all those tasks that he thinks he can do. He is perfect because he can guide his mind. He is perfect because, he does not need a virtual brain to control him. Thus he is supreme. Thus he is GOD.
Ask nithyananda swamy for all ur qs.
ReplyDelete:-)
If you think GOD is there,you are right.
If you think GOD doesn't exist also right.
Why lot of people follow people like- satya sai baba, nithyananda, amma, kalki ..... They them selves telling avatara of GOD. Really are they GODs.
I come again, lot of things in mind not able to put here concisely.
Part1:
ReplyDeleteGod Really exists? is a question and it should be kept as an open question always. Because no answer will suffice that. thousands of years of research and thinking could not prove what god is then definitely it is not an easy job/task at hand.
Every individual has to believe in his karma thats all, existence or non existence of God will be then obvious to him/her.
Part2:
IDOL Worship YES/NO both are same if we follow the statements you have provided. Because if IDOL-NO people believe that God is formless, i.e; he/she can take any form, then doing idol worship should not be an objection for them.
If GOD can take any form [i.e; IDOL YES] then he is definitely formless [IDOL -NO].
It takes huge amount of sacrifice for any individual to understand that God is formless, dimensionless, nirguna.
There fore if people without enlightenment talk about IDOL NO, their brains are half cooked rice bowl. They are still in search of knowledge.
Well, the argument can be dragged like any thing. I will hence stop my statements...
When we start discussing, who can realize god?, we implicitly say that God exist.
ReplyDeleteArlagada, when says, Tat tvam asi, says that God exists, staying behind the Upanishadic Vakya.
Arlagada also defines God in his own terms.
Kiran says it is difficult - but the present task is to answer this difficult question.
It is strange to see indirect answers to the question.
Why can't we give OUR answers to the question
"Does God exist?" And How? (What is OUR reasoning behind our answer?)
It was said that: the question is difficult.
ReplyDeleteBut no one can stop answering the question.
Answers may be direct/indirect based on views.
Any how I put my views...
The Question actually will be "Do you feel God really exists?" and not "Does God really exist?"
The answer to former will be Yes, and the answer to the latter is always open to discussion. ;)
@Kiran:
ReplyDeleteQ:Do you feel God really exists?
A:Yes.
Good. why do you feel so?
Experience cannot be explained...
ReplyDelete@TKLG,
ReplyDeleteI have described GOD in the way I peruse. Question is not who is describing GOD as how, Question is how are you perusing GOD.
If you feel there is some flaw in the way, I am perusing please let me know. Else, please let us know the way you are perusing GOD. That would bring us probably on the same page.
I think we are digressing here. After re-reading the article and the comments made, I think the article itself lacks clarity. It is mixing up two concepts which we should discuss differently.
ReplyDelete1) IDOL WORSHIP (IW)
2) EXISTENCE OF GOD (EOG)
Points that follow from the above classification are
a) People who believe in IW also believe in EOG
b) People who do not believe in IW may/may not believe in EOG
c) People who believe in EOG may/may not believe in IW
d) People who do not believe in EOG will never believe in IW
and in my last post i had put forth a question to the readers if they have details about qualifications? Please share your views
Let get back to ancient times and see how might have the concept of GOD came into the play. Let me take two ancient civilization (Evidences are available)
ReplyDelete• Mesopotamia
• Indus Valley
There are numerous gods that are being worshiped from ages and it would be tough for us to dig down the history of each and every GOD that was worshiped. So, I shall take one or two from each of these Civilizations and write down my analysis.
Mesopotomia: Enki (Ea) god of Eridu. He was the god of rain, Iškur (or Adad) was the god of storms.
Indus Valley: Many Indus valley seals show animals. One famous seal shows a figure seated in a posture reminiscent of the Lotus position and surrounded by animals was named after Pashupati (lord of cattle), an epithet of Shiva and Rudra. Rudra is defined as agni in Rig veda(will get back with a proper reference). River Saraswati was also worshiped as a female GOD
Rain, Storm, River, Fire are some of those that are been worshiped. Can we conclude something from this?
@Arlagada: You have said "There are numerous gods that are being worshiped from ages..."
ReplyDeleteAre you referring to these GODS as Idols meaning physical representations
OR
Are you referring to these GODS as GODS without IDOLS
After answering the above confusion, can you please tell Is worshiping IDOLS good or not good!
Rain, Storm, River, Fire cannot be IDOLS Arya.
ReplyDelete"Physical representation" and "IDOLS" differs.
These above mentioned are Physical representation but not Idols.
I say its good, if you ask me why? I have only philosophical explanation and not logical one which you might be expecting.
@Arlagada
ReplyDeleteYou have said "
Rain, Storm, River, Fire cannot be IDOLS Arya.
"Physical representation" and "IDOLS" differs. "
You have also said "Mesopotomia: Enki (Ea) god of Eridu. He was the god of rain, Iškur (or Adad) was the god of storms.
Indus Valley: Many Indus valley seals show animals. One famous seal shows a figure seated in a posture reminiscent of the Lotus position and surrounded by animals was named after Pashupati (lord of cattle), an epithet of Shiva and Rudra. Rudra is defined as agni in Rig veda(will get back with a proper reference). River Saraswati was also worshiped as a female GOD
Rain, Storm, River, Fire are some of those that are been worshiped. "
So according to you EOG can either be in the form of an IDOL or a physical representation. He can't be both.
"EOG can either be in the form of an IDOL or a physical representation. He can't be both."
ReplyDeleteI never made this statement. However, before proceeding further let me define what I mean by "IDOL" and what I mean by "Physical representation"
IDOL: These are some physical structure in particular shape either carved or available in the form of a stone, wood, metal.
Physical representation: These are some physical entities existing in nature like tree, river, mountain, sun, moon, earth, stars and many similar.
Some times it’s quite possible that an IDOL of “Sun God” is carved and is worshiped. So, in this case SUN-P(Physical representation), SUN-I (IDOL) both exist in real. Might also be possible based on the artist’s creativity the SUN-I has eye, nose, mouth. However, I am not telling its wrong or its right. Basically what I trying to tell is IDOL worship helps people to get a better imagination.
@Kiran, Evasive?
ReplyDelete@Arya, Idol worship can be discussed only after answering the question "Does God exist?"
@Arlagada, When one says "God does not exist, the reason is "God is not seen by him/her". this is not a sound logic, as ALL of us know that there are many things in existence which we have (can) not seen.
Atheists are forthcoming and they are revealing atleast one reason for their stance. What is the reasoning behind the stance that "God exists"?
@Arlagada:
ReplyDeleteYou had earlier said in ur comment
"Arlagada said...
Rain, Storm, River, Fire cannot be IDOLS Arya.
"Physical representation" and "IDOLS" differs. "
Now you are saying
"Some times it’s quite possible that an IDOL of “Sun God” is carved and is worshiped. So, in this case SUN-P(Physical representation), SUN-I (IDOL) both exist in real. Might also be possible based on the artist’s creativity the SUN-I has eye, nose, mouth. However, I am not telling its wrong or its right. Basically what I trying to tell is IDOL worship helps people to get a better imagination."
Which one is right?
TKLG has raised a nice point.
ReplyDelete"logical reasoning" ? Can you let me know what logical reasoning do Atheists give for their stance?
Talking about confused Arya ;)
Lets try to resolve this issue by taking two men Rama and Shama
"Rama" prays to "Sun god" outside facing towards the raising sun.
Shama Prays to "Sun god" inside the temple where sun god is carved.
Which one do you think is IDOL Worship ?
@TKLG: I agree with you. As per my previous classification also this holds true i.e. only IF EOG is TRUE THEN THE question of IW comes!
ReplyDeleteSo we probably have to discuss the EOG. The first comment i have made on this article tells my point of view. I need more clarity to support it. Let us see if any one us can help.
@Arlagada: Well I am not confused. It is your comments which are giving contradictory implications. So i claimed clarification.
ReplyDeleteYou have said:
"Rama" prays to "Sun god" outside facing towards the raising sun.
Shama Prays to "Sun god" inside the temple where sun god is carved.
Which one do you think is IDOL Worship ?
It is obvious from your previous definition of IDOL that the second one i.e. Shama praying is Idol Worship
If you ask what is "Rama" doing and how is it different from Shama's prayer please read my first comment on this article.
Thank you for the clarification
In what way Mandaadhikari(least qualified)
ReplyDeleteMadhyamaadhikagari(moderately qualified) and Uttamaadhikari(highly qualified) link to Rama, shama's case.
Arya can you please explain?
@Arlagada:
ReplyDeleteFrom the example you have stated we can conclude that both believe in GOD because it is sun GOD both are praying.
The approach of visualizing SUN (as per the stated example) as GOD vary between Rama and Shama. One visualizes the SUN god as an Idol and the other visualizes as it appears in Nature.
The level of samskara(spiritual maturity) attained by both vary. Although as said earlier i am not aware of the qualifications one should have, to be placed in the before said classifications I can tentatively classify Rama as Madhyamaadhikari and Shama as Mandaadhikari. Well infact the above classification is based on my knowledge and not a universal truth.
Where can we find these qualification details of
ReplyDeleteMandaadhikari(least qualified)
Madhyamaadhikagari(moderately qualified)
Uttamaadhikari(highly qualified)
And also, how do you think this information will help in understanding which method is good?
When you say Rama as Madhyamaadhikari and Shama as Mandaadhikari, Do you also mean to say IDOL Worship is wrong?
After reading all the discussion, I try to answer the question.
ReplyDeleteGod exist.
My answer is very clear,
ReplyDeleteGod does not exist.
@Arlagada:
ReplyDeleteEven i do not know where to find the details regarding the classifications. Maybe we have to do some home work to get the details.
There is no question of who is good or bad. To give you an analogy let us take 3 students
Student A - Studying in 7rd Standard
Student B - Studying in 10th Standard
Student C - Studying in 12th Standard
Let us consider that knowledge acquired by students improves with the standard they are in.
For a given concept let us name it as C1. The understanding of C1 w.r.t to A/B/C can be defined as
A(C1) < B(C1) < C(C1) --> which means the clarity in the concept C1 is the highest for C when compared to A & B
But this does not imply that A and B are bad when compared to C.
So here neither Rama or Shama is good/bad. They are good in their own terms. It is just a classification made to categorize the people to depict the level of understanding he/she has. This also implies that the complexity in the concepts which are imparted to different categories of people vary with the classification they are in. Comments welcome
@Arya,
ReplyDeleteKeeping Aside "IDOL Worship" as TKLG has already mentioned
"Idol Worship can be discussed only after answering the question "Does GOD exist?""
Whats your stance on this question?
Also we have "Pious" and "Impious"
welcome to the discussion :)
Please, justify your statements :)
My opinion:
ReplyDeleteGOD EXISTS
TKLG has made a point:
When one says "God does not exist, the reason is "God is not seen by him/her". this is not a sound logic, as ALL of us know that there are many things in existence which we have (can) not seen.
Atheists are forthcoming and they are revealing atleast one reason for their stance. What is the reasoning behind the stance that "God exists"?
Let us take an analogy. We all accept that oxygen is there every where on the earth (within its atmosphere).Do humans have the capability to see it. "NO" but we have experiments to prove that it exists
Similarly GOD exists but we cannot see him. We can still do experiments to prove his existence.
The complexity of the experiments and who is capable of doing the experiments is again based on the classification
HI Guys,
ReplyDeleteThere has been a problem in viewing the older comments posted by the reader. Looks like a bug in Blogger, I have sent a mail to google about this. Please bare with the inconvenience.
I have documented all the comment(From start) in my local disk and if anyone need it please feel free to ask.
@TKLG
ReplyDeleteYou and Arya both of you say that the atheist have got at least one logical reasoning for there stance. Please Tell me what is that stance Atheist has?
@Aralagada, see my 2.19AM comment!
ReplyDeleteI dont see God, So God does not exist. This is one of the main arguments of an atheist.
As Arya has told previously the argument is not boolean, This argument can be easily proved false.
ReplyDeleteSuppose Rama Slaps Shama on his face, neither rama nor shama can see the pain, But the pain exist. Hence, as you have told is not a sound logic.
Atheist: I dont see God, So God does not exist.
ReplyDeleteSo you cannot see oxygen, so does it mean you do not believe in the existence of oxygen?
@Thesit, @Arya, @Arlagada, @TKLG
ReplyDeleteOxygen is something which can be seen. If not through naked eye through an electron Microscope one can actually see two atoms of Oxygen. Its science, more than that AIR(Breeze) can be felt, it has weight, it occupies space. In no way you can compare existence of oxygen with the existence of GOD.
I say GOD does not exist, based on the following points
1. Can see him - Not even feel him -Not even in Electron Microscope
2. I have control on what I do, and my efforts have given me results not because of GOD
3. The opportunities that I have got is not because of GOD, but by some people. In that case I prefer praying them rather then praying someone whom I don't know
1. Can see him - Not even feel him -Not even in Electron Microscope
ReplyDeleteSo you believe in Electron Microscope. When the first human being landed on moon you looked at the photos and then believed that he landed on moon. Did you go there and confirm did he ever land on moon! YOU JUST BELIEVED
2. I have control on what I do, and my efforts have given me results not because of GOD
Yeah true! You have control on what you do. Who told it is not!
3. The opportunities that I have got is not because of GOD, but by some people. In that case I prefer praying them rather then praying someone whom I don't know
Yeah you can do that who has prevented you.
@ GOD,
ReplyDeleteYes, I believed, but not blindly.
And I believe this discussion is to understand the existence of "GOD".
About what I want to do and what not to do, I will do it even without you telling me ;)
Prove me wrong and I shall Accept whole heartedly
Good, so you are here to discuss the existence of "GOD"
ReplyDeleteWhen you say "I do not believe in GOD"
you must have understood what/who is GOD?
Can you please clarify?
Arlagada has described GOD as Fire, River, Sun so on and so forth.
ReplyDeleteI have just taken his description.
Water is a basic need for Human life, and it is a chemical again (H2O). Fire is used for cooking (Combustion of fuel) SUN is a star (Has start and end).
Arlagada Also said Rudra is referred to fire. These are something which people think is GOD. This is what even I know. is there anything else which is called as GOD by you Mr. GOD
So you don't have description of GOD by yourself! OK... You believe in what Arlagada has said! OK...
ReplyDeleteI dont see, you have any problem in believing FIRE/RIVER/SUN as GOD!
So why did you say "I don't believe in GOD"
Hey GOD, You tell me what you call as GOD. I will tell you if I believe in your definition of GOD or not.
ReplyDeleteArlagada told what is GOD, and I dont believe in what he describes as. I have already to you, If you are able to convince me I accept whole heartedly. But, Your statements more lean towards saying "GOD is just belief and nothing else". Is that what you are meaning to say?
@Bose
ReplyDeleteIf you read carefully, I have never described GOD as Fire, Sun so on so forth. What I have told is this was considered sacred among the people of ancient times.
In one of my previous Comments I have described GOD as the one who believe in himself and hold total control on his/her senses.
"An Atheist is the one who do not believe in himself - Swami Vivekananda"
What you clam to be my description of GOD itself is false. Please, Read the comments carefully before commenting
@ Arlagada,
ReplyDeleteFirst I apologies for mis-understanding of your comment.
Secondly, I appreciate your View point.
I accept totally your words
"In one of my previous Comments I have described GOD as the one who believe in himself and hold total control on his/her senses.
"
GOD-YES:
ReplyDelete1. GOD can be of any form. River, Water, Fire, Sun, Stars
2. GOD can be neither of these but can be just the subconscious of a human
3. GOD is just a belief and nothing else.
GOD-NO:
1. GOD cannot be seen neither can be felt
2. If you say GOD is subconscious, we agree.
3. GOD cannot be Water, Fire, River, Star.
4. GOD cannot be Metal, Stone or any other Idol.
Both the teams agree on one thing in common
“GOD is non other then Sub-consciousness”
If seen the 4 mahavakya’s we observe that it actually is in sync with the statement above
Aham Brahma asmi (I am GOD)
Ayam aatma Brahma (My soul is GOD)
Pragnanam Brahma (knowledge is GOD)
Tat twam asi (That which is Supreme is GOD)
@Anweekshaki
ReplyDeleteWhat is Sub-consciousness?
Answering to the question
ReplyDelete"What is SUB-Consciousness"
A state of mind not immediately available to consciousness is Sub-Consciousness
Consciousness is an alert cognitive state in which you are aware of yourself and your situation
Example:
You drive consciously.
You don't breath consciously. However, it does not mean you cannot breath consciously, it just means that you wont always worry about your breathing, it happens without your awareness.
So when you don't breath consciously is it sub-conscious?
ReplyDeleteSub-Consciousness is something that is intuitive.
ReplyDeleteYou apply break when you see some obstruction without even consciously thinking. Your conscious is focused on the traffic, road, obstructions but not on break.
Hence, I can say Sub-Consciousness is a natural tendency that comes by a long period of conscious observation and conscious practice.
There is one more problem here.
ReplyDeleteWhen we say "GOD", the GOD-Yes also say he is the creator of this vast never ending universe.
But, here in this discussion we seem to agree with the Sub-Conscious as "GOD". Once Sub-Conscious cannot create an entire universe. how are GOD-Yes group going to answer this issue?
Arlagada -12:48 AM
ReplyDeleteGOD is the one who believe in himself and hold total control on his/her senses.
"An Atheist is the one who do not believe in himself - Swami Vivekananda"
Bose - 12:53 AM
I accept totally your words
" GOD as the one who believe in himself and hold total control on his/her senses.
"
Anweekshiki - 3:19 AM
GOD-YES and GOD-NO teams agree on one thing in common
“GOD is non other then Sub-consciousness”
If seen the 4 mahavakya’s we observe that it actually is in sync with the statement above
Aham Brahma asmi (I am GOD)
Ayam aatma Brahma (My soul is GOD)
Pragnanam Brahma (knowledge is GOD)
Tat twam asi (That which is Supreme is GOD)
Arlagada, (a theist ?) and Bose (an atheist?) agree that "God is one believe in himself and hold total control on his/her senses"
Anweeshiki says "God is consciousness".
Mahavakyas "I /My soul/Knowledge/that which is supreme am/is GOD"
Everyone is agreeing on the definition of GOD, which is so varying.
Any one (with some special characteristic like total control over senses)
I
My soul
Knowledge
that which is supreme
Are these things equivalent?
Both Arlagada/Anweekshiki's definition of GOD is not satisfactory. It is very ambiguous and difficult to perceive. Can you give more clarity?
ReplyDeleteBose has raised a nice point
ReplyDelete@Arya
About the clarity, what clarity do you need?
Arlagada says...
ReplyDeleteSub-Consciousness is something that is intuitive....
........
Hence, I can say Sub-Consciousness is a natural tendency that comes by a long period of conscious observation and conscious practice.
So Consciousness/Sub-Consciousness is specific to each individual. So does it mean GOD is specific to each individual?
@Arlagada
ReplyDeleteI somewhat agree with GOD.. but still i am not sure. I still cannot assume Sub-Consciousness as GOD.
Not sure about this. I am confused by two points
ReplyDelete1. Is GOD Specific
2. Is GOD the creator of the Universe.
Either of these should be true.
If its both, then for every individual there must be a separate creator.
So, GOD = Sub-consciousness is again now into question?
One more question.
ReplyDeleteSub-consciousness is independent of whether the person believes in GOD or not because it is a characteristic of a human being.
If that is the case GOD exists even when the person believes it or not
Is this reasoning correct?
Till today I was thinking people see GOD as different IDOLS..
ReplyDeletebut today i am understanding from the discussion that there are so many different terms/definitions for GOD :)
No doubt everyone is confused!
If some one says 'I' and the 'supreme being' are equivalent and both mean God, I can not understand.
ReplyDeleteAn atheist is clear in the sense that - Not seen, No God.
If some one has experienced God, he does not participate in this discussion. May be like Kiran!
An atheist - who is in this discussion - is one who has not 'SEEN' /'EXPERIENCED' god and simultaneously does not stop at the argument
Not Seen - No God. When we say, Not seen does not imply Not existent, it only shows the hollowness of the argument of an atheist. It does not prove the existence of GOD (or strengthen the position of a theist).
The real question is 'How to go beyond the argument of 'Not seen - No God'?
Read
ReplyDeleteAn atheist - who is in this discussion -
as
An theist/atheist - who is in this discussion -
in the previous comment
In Taittiriya Upanishad, Bhrigu Valli there is conversation that happens between a Guru and a Shishya (teacher and a student) i.e. Varuna and Brugu. Brugu is in search for a similar question "WHO IS GOD?" In that discussion the teacher tells Brugu that GOD is that thing which gives "IMMENSE HAPPINESS and which is free from BIRTH and DEATH". Then Brugu explores which is that thing...
ReplyDeleteIf there is nothing which is free from Death and Birth, then we can safely conclude that "God does not exist".
ReplyDeleteIf such a thing is there, it should give "immense happiness". Even otherwise, we could conclude that "God does not exist"
If it is not AND inbetween these two things, then there are many things through which people are getting "immense happiness".
But can we call them as GOD?
So, did Brugu find what he was exploring
ReplyDeleteThere is one more aspect to the stance of Not seen - No God.
ReplyDeletei.e., if I see something, what is the gurantee that it is real? For eg, I see mirage which is not real. What I see in dream or under the influence of drugs/alcohol may not be real - I may be hallucinating.
So, next question to an atheist is that - How do you confirm what you have seen?
Atheists can also answer!
Pl. read
ReplyDeletetheists can also answer in the last line.
To confirm what I have seen, I can think of following
ReplyDelete1. The object/Substance/creature that I have seen should have a physical influence on me
2. The Object/Substance/creature should be perused by the 5 senses (Eye, ear, nose, skin, tongue).
Seeing is major component of the verification. So, when some one says "he/she has seen something", we typically end the discussion. Assuming that other minor components are taken care of. Strictly speaking, even when some one sees something, it has to be confirmed. It has be confirmed that it is not hallucination/dream. It has to be heard / sensed / smelt etc.
ReplyDeleteIn summary, we have to infer that seeing is real.
So, It can also be a vice versa.
ReplyDeletePeople who say, I have not seen GOD can neither prove the authenticity of the speech.
Is that what you are trying to say?
This is indeed a great point raised by TKLG
ReplyDeletePeople who say
"I have seen GOD/Experienced GOD"
People who say
"I have not seen GOD"
Both can be believed to be in the same level of authenticity.
If The former is false, then the later can also be false and vice versa.
The person who has seen may be so convinced that he/she may not seek any further clarification. Or the person may try to infer/corroborate further through additional means. The person who has not seen can not remain without attempting to infer further. Whether they attempt to (or not) to infer, they could be true/false on their first conclusion!
ReplyDeleteGoing further, when you can/do not see something, and if you have to take a stance on that topic, we need to infer through some other means. Or stated from an atheist point of view, the conclusion of Not seen - No God has to be inferred further through other means.
I have not come across any such inference of an atheist. Have you seen any?
We have seen people (Atheist) always trying to disprove the argument of the theist and never they have tried to proved themselves right. This forum is a opportunity for all Atheist to prove their arguments.
ReplyDelete@Bose, What do you have to say for this?
It is right that the authenticity of a statements like "I have seen" and
ReplyDelete"I have not seen" is same. However,
There are things that we should observe.
1. When a person says the former, the next question thats posed to him is "Where did you see, how did you see, when did you see"
1. If the person says the later the questioning stops there. Might be this is the reason Atheist never got a chance or never thought in this direction. Indeed its a right opportunity Mr. Arlagada
So you all think if GOD can't be seen.. he can be investigated through other senses.
ReplyDeleteSo is GOD confined only to senses?
Brugu did find what/who is GOD. But I have still not!
ReplyDelete@TKLG: You have a good point
So haven't atheists experimented with other ways at all.
Bose said:
ReplyDelete1. When a person says the former, the next question thats posed to him is "Where did you see, how did you see, when did you see"
A theist makes a mistake, tactical in nature, when he/she says I have seen god. The right expression would be "it can not be agreed that God does not exist"
When a person says "I have seen God", the next question thats posed to him is "Where did you see, how did you see, when did you see"
ReplyDeleteA theist makes a mistake, tactical in nature, when he/she says I have seen god. He should not say that. The right expression at this point of time would be "it can not be agreed that God does not exist"
When we can not see something, like electron, what can we do? It is derived by logical inferences from observation and experiment (Source: wiki: Section Inference and also section on electron http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron#Observation).
ReplyDeleteWhen both an atheist and a theist can not see God, they could do the samething. Infer about God from observations and experiment. A theist says "God exist" from observation. An atheist, it appears to me, does not observe.
@TKLG: You have said
ReplyDeleteA theist says "God exist" from observation. An atheist, it appears to me, does not observe.
What is the experiment and its observation to determine the existence of GOD?
Any rational person who observes this creation (existence of the universe) - its complexity, its structure, coordination and beauty - makes an attempt to identify its cause (the sustaining principle behind it). As there is a potter behind the creation of a visible pot, Atheist, says "there could be a God behind the creation (or sustenance) of this universe.
ReplyDeletesee Bose -2:19 AM
GOD is the creator of this vast never ending universe.
He said it slightly ahead of the appropriate timing!
Here I would like to interrupt.
ReplyDeleteI have never told GOD is the creator of the vast universe. I just said that, it will be the argument of more of non-Atheist
And about the point which you have raised about observation. There is observation in the case of my argument of the non-existence of god
@Bose
ReplyDeletewhat is your observation?
Based on some arguments which I had in past with the theists this is what they talk.
ReplyDeleteThey Start with the start of this universe (Big Bang). The theory states "Universe started expanding from a infinitely small object", Where did this come from? This is Highly logical and unanswered question, They say it was created by "GOD".
Cont ....
ReplyDeleteFew days back I never had and counter argument for the above said logic by Thesit, But now I do have after the LHC experiment was success. Matter was created from nowhere.
This is pure science, Its evolving. Few centuries back we never know that we could connect the whole world (Internet) now we know.
Just like they conclude(Make conclusions/Inference) I too conclude that Its just unexplored science
Inference is the process of drawing a conclusion logically based on observations or hypotheses; or by interpolating the next logical step. It has to be used to gain knowledge with/without direct perception. The starting point of science is observed by atheist and theist (big bang / LHC experiment). As atheist has observed a creator behind every creation. So, the inference about the God as the creator of the existence.
ReplyDeleteIf some one is insisting on replacing God with 'unexplored science' it should be okay for a theist.
The nature of the 'unexplored science' would be equivalent or superset of the nature of the God. The problem of this approach is that , it would lead to reinventing the wheel. It indicates that 'unexplored scientist' is irrational!
@Bose:
ReplyDelete"Matter was created from nowhere. "
Can you please explain what is this nowhere mean?
Also regarding "Unexplored science" as mentioned by Bose need not be GOD.
ReplyDeleteAnalogy can be provided:
"Suppose you have explored 20% of subject XYZ(say).
XYZ: a Subject
1. That does not mean that remaining (unexplored)80 % only is XYZ.
2. It is the process of completing its each and every aspect. Then only one can state that, he/she knows XYZ."
In the similar way one can argue that;
1.it is the complete science of nature understanding whom one can understand what is GOD, and not the unexplored science.
2. Hence we can say that unexplored science is not GOD. The argument "Unexplored science is GOD" does not seem to be holding ground.
Both TKLG and student are confusion me
ReplyDeleteTKLG says
"The nature of the 'unexplored science' would be equivalent or superset of the nature of the God"
Student says
"Hence we can say that unexplored science is not GOD"
The word unexplored as per my understanding means "undiscovered".
@Student, can you rephrase the argument made by you supporting your statement ""Hence we can say that unexplored science is not GOD"
", I am unable to comprehend it (I am NOT so good in English, Please excuse me).
In other words...
ReplyDelete@Bose: undiscovered science
Do you mean to say that whatever is discovered is not?
And whatever is undiscovered is GOD?
@Bose: Matter created from nowhere
What is this nowhere? Can you please clarify?
Please clarify...
Sorry in previous mail, the question was:
ReplyDeleteDo you mean to say that whatever is discovered is not GOD?
GOD word was missing in the question.
@Student,
ReplyDeleteSince you are new to this discussion, I would like to tell you, the reason I am here in this discussion is to find out what GOD means.
I have never told that "Unexplored science is GOD" OR "Explored is not GOD", I dint even mean such, in my previous comments.
What I was trying to tell is very simple. We do not know that start of the universe and it is not possible to believe that GOD created the universe first
The nature of the 'unexplored science' would be equivalent or superset of the nature of the God.
ReplyDeleteSo does this mean unexplored science is Superior to the nature of GOD?
How did we decide it is a superset. It can be a subset as well!
TKLG says
ReplyDelete"unexplored = unknown"
"GOD = unknown"
Hence, talking about unexplored science is similar to talking about GOD. It does not add any value to the discussion.
@Bose:We do not know that start of the universe and it is not possible to believe that GOD created the universe first.
ReplyDeleteBy the above statement it is not clear that whether you are accepting GOD is there but not the creator and creation is some other aspect other than GOD?
Belief is on
a. GODs non existence or
b. No Role of GOD in creation of universe
Please clarify...
if undiscovered is superset or equivalent of GOD then
ReplyDeletevalue(undiscovered)>=value(GOD)
Q. Does it mean that when a part of undiscovered is discovered that can no longer be called as GOD?
Q. Also, will the of undiscovered facts/science never come to be more known as time progresses?
I cant accept
ReplyDeleteboth a and b
@ Bose:
ReplyDeleteSo does it mean that:
a. GODs existence is true
b. GODs role is there in the creation?
"Unknown GOD" and "Unexplored science" both are, as TKLG has told has same character. This will again lead us no-where.
ReplyDelete"Sub-conscious" this is what is GOD. None of you were able to break this though that came out of this discussion.
Sub -conscious seems to be there for every individual. And more over on what basis one can tell that Conscious is not GOD and Sub conscious is GOD? And GOD cant be Conscious?
ReplyDeleteIn conscious or Sub-conscious state of mind, only one thing is possible for an individual. To perform action.
If Yes, then what sort of actions of Sub-conscious make it GOD?
Having already defined Consiousness and Sub-consciousness.
ReplyDelete(If anyone dont know please read comment 7:09 PM by Myself).
Consciousness cannot be GOD for following reasons
1. The action performed in the aware state of mind is present
2. Present is the only state where there is no thought.
3. Past and future are just thoughts and nothing else.
4. Your present action is dependent always on your past thought to gain some future result.
By this we know that consiousness is dependent on Sub-Consiousness, hence the later is suprem to the former. Thus, that kick consiousness out of the game.
Mr Arlagada, what makes you think that there is nothing beyond Sub-consiousness?
ReplyDeleteI agree with TKLG's argument
when a Theist says it as "GOD" and an Atheist says it as "Unexplored Science" then argument is closed.
Does an Atheist have any other argument?
before proceeding. I want know if people are ok with my reasoning about the supremacy of sub-consciousness over consciousness
ReplyDeletePlease answer to Arya and then proceed...
ReplyDeleteDoes the Unexplored include Unexplained?
ReplyDeleteHey Guys,
ReplyDeleteArya asked
"Mr Arlagada, what makes you think that there is nothing beyond Sub-consiousness?"
I am ready to answer to this question. But, I can proceed answering only if people are ok with my reasoning about the supremacy of sub-consciousness over consciousness. I wont proceed without this.
You put forth your reasoning, then only a discussion can be done on whether people agree(OK) or not...
ReplyDeleteDon't force us to agree Please ...
Atleast that much freedon must be provided to an individual you see...
:D
Ha Ha Ha
@ Student,
ReplyDeletePlease read 7:07 AM. I have already put my reasoning.
What do you call if you are Conscious about your Sub conscious?
ReplyDeleteWill the Subconscious remain Subconscious or does it become Conscious?
And Also as per your concept, is the sub conscious one or many. i.e; Is your sub conscious and other sub conscious same? If they are different or same what makes them so?
ReplyDeleteStudent asked
ReplyDelete"Is your sub conscious and other sub conscious same? If they are different or same what makes them so?"
Sub Conscious for every individual is different. The reason for this I have already stated. I shall re-state it again here
"Sub-Consciousness is a natural tendency that comes by a long period of conscious observation and conscious practice."
Arya asked
ReplyDelete"Mr Arlagada, what makes you think that there is nothing beyond Sub-consiousness?"
Answering this ...
1. You are aware of an action performed by you (Running) = Consciousness.
2. You are unaware of an action performed by you (Breathing)= Sub-consciousness.
I dont see any other scenario which can make me think of one more component apart from Consciousness and Sub-consciousness. Hence, I feel there is nothing beyond Sub-Consciousness
Nice discussion. Several points have been raised and may be I have joined in a bit late. Anyway.
ReplyDeleteThe question is: Does God exist! If yes, then how to know about Him, that He exists. If no, then what logic do you have for it?
Personally, I have no doubt that He exists, so I will present the perpective of the former. Why do I think He exists: because I exist and an absolutely well designed universe exists, because morality exists, because of the miracles of nature that we evidence everyday exist. But, are these enough to affirm that He exists! May be, may not be, depending on how you want to see it.
First of all, how do we know about anything at all. Our scriptures provide a clear demarkation for the different levels of learning: a) pratyaksha, b) anumana, c) shastra. Somethings can be understood or perceived through experimental and observational methods; most of these are perceived through the gross material senses. Next level is the anumana - by speculation or contemplation or by thought. The highest level is the shastra pramaNa (or authentic sources of knowledge), that which cannot be understood or learnt through the former methods. But, most of us do not want to go beyond the first two, gross level pramaNas.
How did we understand Physics laws? how did we understand Mathematics? By speculation or through education? Stupid, silly, nonsense aspects such science and maths need training, and we claim to be experts in science of God through self-speculations. How many of us have received the education to talk about God? Where is the logic? Anyway.
So, to understand God (and even to argue whether He exists or not) we need to read the "Text Books" that talk about God (the Upanishads, Bhagawad Gita, and PuraNas for example).
Now, what evidence do we have to ascertain that God exists? Infact we are sorrounded by evidences in infinite counts, but if you choose to neglect the evidences through the facade of science that who can help? One can see evidence in the way the whole wonderful system of creation has sustained itself (with whatever laws of physics science has "discovered"; science has merely observes a phenomenon) for billions of years. Look at the wonder called Human Body; for example just look at the number of nerve ends in a simple sense called eye. Such examples are numerous. Anyway.
Most important aspect of all, the evidence of creation is its creator. If there is energy, there is a source of energy. If there is a relative universe then there needs to be an absolute source.
There is catch in the statement made by Arlagada.
ReplyDeleteBreathing, which can we controlled by consciousness. Running is however consciousness. But, what do you call Heart beat, digestion, involuntary organs of the body? which cannot be controlled by subconsciousness
Anyone have any answer ?
Part 2:
ReplyDeletecan one use a microscope to measure electric current/power? can one experiment with micoorganisms using a barometer? ridiculous questions right?
So, we need certain specialized tools to analyze and understand certain concepts. We need an appropriate/suitable tool to measure a corresponding aspect.
Just as it is nonsensical to use an one-inch scale to physically measure the diameter of the earth, it is even more non sensical to understand an infinite aspect through finite senses. This human mind cannot think beyond what it knows, and it can only understand everything in relative to what it already knows. And, how do you hope to understand God through your limited senses?
These are crude examples for sure, but such are the arguments of the so called scientists and atheists that they deserve such ones.
Again, I have still not shown that God exists. But, all I am trying to indicate here is that the ascertainty of whether God exists or not is through experience. To say tht God does not exist, no experience is needed, but to understand its counter part you need to experience it once. If it can be experienced then its existence will be automatically established. If it cannot be experienced then you are incapable of experiencing it, and you incapability does not prove the absence of the aspect.
Another crude example: If we are incapable of "seeing" radio-waves or "hearing" ultrasonic sounds or "smelling" delicate scents (likes dogs do) then it does not establish that such aspects do not exist, but it only established your/our inability to perceive.
Similarly, God exists, but most of us are incapable of perceiving Him; lack of tools, knowledge, and abilities. There is ample evidence but we are incapable of acknowledging them.
@GodCon
ReplyDeleteI welcome you on behalf of everyone here though I am not authorized to do so..
Wonders(Eye), Marvels(Vastness of universe), Accuracy in nature(Size of human body, Size of earth). Indeed all these are amazing, thats the reason we are yet to find one more such planet like earth.
You also speak about Upanishads, geeta which are like text books. Titriya Upanishad speaks about evolution (Today we call it Science), Brahma sukta speaks about Embryology (Today we call it science). Ultimately ALL but none are knowledge. Evolution from Big bang till day explains the process.
What I mean to say here is, Every wonder, marveled concept, accuracy in nature, all are explained logically even in scriptures.
"GOD I guess as Arlagada has told is nothing other than Knowledge and Sub-consciousness
Thanks Bose.
ReplyDeleteThe same scriptures also talk about and explore about God to perfection :)
Bose said: "GOD I guess as Arlagada has told is nothing other than Knowledge and Sub-consciousness"
Knowledge and Sub-Consciousness are dependent aspects that are from God and not God (sarvasya cha aham hridi sannivishto mattah smritir gnyanam apohanam cha, vedaischa sarvair aham eva vedyo vendatavid vedavid eva cha aham). In one sense you are right, because God is sat-chit-ananda-vigrahah; Absolute truth/eternity, knowledge, and bliss. But the knowledge that you talk about is probaly relative knowledge (human knowledge) whose source is absolute.
"Capability" ???????
ReplyDelete"seeing" radio-waves or "hearing" ultrasonic sounds or "smelling" delicate scents (likes dogs do)
You have said this is just a crude example, so I shall not point out. however, I shall put my thought.
Sachin Tendulkar plays cricket (On a batting pitch). Vijay plays cricket (Bowling pitch).
Is it fair to compare these two?
What I am trying to say is, Capability and incapability OR Talent can be measured only by allowing the competition on a same ground, with same conditions.
Humans can compete with humans, but its unfair to compete with dogs and vice versa. We are all humans, why are one set of people incapable and one set of people capable
A Request.
ReplyDeleteI understand that many times thoughts flow heavily and to express it we need to write more, explain it with examples so on.
My request is, Instead of writing long break it into 2 or 3 comments so that it would be more easy to read
Thanks You
Arlagada defines SUB-Consiousness as
ReplyDelete"What is SUB-Consciousness"
A state of mind not immediately available to consciousness is Sub-Consciousness
Consciousness is an alert cognitive state in which you are aware of yourself and your situation
Bose says
"GOD I guess as Arlagada has told is nothing other than Knowledge and Sub-consciousness"
Bose also says
There is catch in the statement made by Arlagada.
Breathing, which can we controlled by consciousness. Running is however consciousness. But, what do you call Heart beat, digestion, involuntary organs of the body? which cannot be controlled by subconsciousness
Anyone have any answer ?
I think BOSE is contradicting himself.
GodCon also agrees to some extent sub-consious as GOD
WHO IS RIGHT? ARLAGADA/BOSE/GodCon
BUT any atheists out there who still don't believe GOD exists
Dear Bose,
ReplyDeleteIn the example I gave, do not get stuck at dog and human levels, get into the idea :) The idea is, there are things that are beyond our perceptions, which does not provide evidence to say that they do not exist. Just because we are incapable or unable to perceive those those does not mean that they do not exist. They exist and we only need to develop the right abilities, tools, capabilities to assess those subtle aspects that escape mundane senses and thought. So, is the concept of God. He exists but we need to develop the capability to see (perceive) His presence. na tu mam sakyase drastum, anenaiva sva-caksusa, divyam dadami te caksuh, pasya me yogam aisvaram (Bhagawad Gita, 11. 8).
@GOD
ReplyDeleteI think BOSE is not contradicting himself. He has said I agree that GOD as sub-consciousness. But he is asking what do you call Heart beat, digestion, involuntary organs of the body? which cannot be controlled by subconsciousness!
So Arlagada can you give clarity. Is there something beyond sub-consciousness
Two persons observe universe and say that
ReplyDelete1. there should be a creator and call him/her as God.
2. Science that is not yet discovered (unexplored science) will/shall explain the observed universe completely.
First of all, the second statement can not be considered as Inference.
The first statement is inference.
Inference is also called as Anumana.
while infering that there could be a creator/cause behind the creation of this manifestation, we could name it as God or Dog.
ReplyDeletethey could be equivalent, non overlapping, one subset of another or partially overlapping.
Arlagada has to still give clarity
ReplyDeleteTKLG said
while infering that there could be a creator/cause behind the creation of this manifestation, we could name it as God or Dog.
they could be equivalent, non overlapping, one subset of another or partially overlapping.
Now the question is
1) Are GOD and Unexplored science equivalent?
2) If not how can we relate them (non overlapping/subset/partial overlap)
3) Who is subset/superset?
Clarity about Sub-Conscious - Heart beat, Digestion and many other involuntary activities ?
ReplyDeleteHmmmm.. A tough question to answer Boss/Arya. However, I put my thought here.
We have seen lamas of Tibet who punish themselves (For the bad deed they have done) by sitting naked under the water fall whose temperature is less then 0 degree. Body temperature measuring instruments were kept by researches to observe how these lamas bare such cold. Observation reveled that they the body temperature remained normal. They inferred that these lamas are capable of controlling body temp (Program on NATGEO).
cont.....
ReplyDeleteJust like lama control body temperature, we have animals like sloth which saves energy by slowing down the heart beat voluntarily. Again, by observation we can infer that Heart beat can be controlled. So, Sub-conscious is still the supreme one. :)
@DogCon
ReplyDeleteyou said
"Similarly, God exists, but most of us are incapable of perceiving Him; lack of tools, knowledge, and abilities. There is ample evidence but we are incapable of acknowledging them."
When a student is academically poor he needs tution to become capable. Similarly there must be some why where we can become capable in perceiving GOD, some why where we can find tools, knowledge, and abilities. Dont you think so GodCon
@GodCon
ReplyDeleteHey I am extremely sorry :)
I miss spelled your name as DogCon.. My Apologies
Dear Bose,
ReplyDeleteCall me what, Godcon or DogCon, it does not change who I am, so it is ok :) I am not sensitive to such things :) There is God in Dog too (sarvasya cha aham hridi sannivishto).
Yeah, this is why I spoke about the tools. Because we cannot see or perceive radiowaves or microwaves and such through our naked senses we need specialized tools to recognize them, and training to use those appropriately. Similarly we need "divya chakshu", the intuition mixed education in God consciousness and help from those seers (experts in the area of this science who have "seen") who have expounded on this subject matter. We do need training and tools to understand the subject matter, which is more complex and fascinating than the miniscule subject matter called speculative/experimental science.
@Arlagada
ReplyDeleteSub-conscious is certainly an evidence of God or energy of God, and energy of God is non-different from God (just like my voice is non-different from me, but still different from me). This is confirmed in Bhagawad Gita in several places, one such is in the 15 chapter, apt for the example you have tried to give:
Aham vaishvanaro bhutva praNinam dehamashritaah; and that he is mattah smritir gnyanam apohanam cha.
For every energy there is source, an energetic one; the energy and the source. God is the source of all energies including our sub-consciousess. He cannot be limited to subconscious because He is the source of this creation and creation cannot come from subconsciouness unless you claim that this world is a mere imagination of the subconsciouness.
You mean to say, there are people who can teach us this techniques OR tools that you are talking about?
ReplyDeleteI am exited... I am a hungry atheist, I dont believe in GOD, but if someone can teach me, I will be more than glad to learn.
@Bose
ReplyDeleteYes, there are. You need to go to them, seek them, just like the way you went to school. You need to read BOOKS; no knowledge comes on its own (unless there is a special mercy of the Lord), right? They dont come to you. So, an endeavour is needed :) If you want to learn, you have to seek a teacher. And, do not expect to learn in 2 days (there is no crash course). If a menial, miniscule, ridiculously insignificant material education (call it engineering, medical, or commerce) takes 12-20 years to get to some level, then expect to invest some significant time to understand this beautiful subject matter.
May be a good first step could be to read some texts (preferably Bhagawad Gita) on your own, and you will see that the same God that you do not believe in will start showing evidences of His merciful and wonderful existence. He will lead you to a teacher, to the right path, to a schoool, if you are sincerely pursuing the knowledge.
He is the one who firms your belief in anything (yo yo yam yam tanum bhaktah shraddharchitum iccati... chapt 7.21; ye yatah mam prapadyante chap 4.11) irrespective of whether you are a theist or atheist.
Yes GodCon,
ReplyDeleteI agree, I never denied God does not exist. I am a theist. But, when I try explaining an Atheist, I have succeeded in past many times and also in this discussion only when I talk about Energy and not the source. Do you have any logic that can support the source (GOD).
Lord said you quoted
"Aham vaishvanaro bhutva praNinam dehamashritaah; and that he is mattah smritir gnyanam apohanam cha."
Question of an Atheist for the above statement will be, Confirm this statement to me through a logic? Answer theists like me give is "Everything cannot be logical in this world, just like Emotions, love and affection are not"
Which again they wont accept with there own arguments. How do you take such situation
Dear Aralagada,
ReplyDeleteI sincerely appreciate your intentions and approach, I just wanted to clarify based on what I have known and read. I just wanted to say that sub-consciousness is an evidence of existence of God and not God by itself. Sub-consciouness is but a minute, fractional energy of the infinite energies of God.
There are many things that escape logic because logic itself is limited by the limitedness of senses and mind. So, we are trying to capture an infinite aspect through finite means, which itself is beyond logic I suppose. Logic is based on connecting evidences with explanations, and when one cannot see the evidences around how can you help?
When one tries to claim that everything has come from nothing then what logic will help such logicless arguments? Where is the logic there? Matter comes from matter, we can be agree but where does life come from? where does consciousness come from?
So, do not worry about convincing atheists or anyone, be convinced thats enough :) they have to convince themselves.
Write what you can, they will read that they want to. Same with us too, right? :)
Enjoy life irrespective of whether you believe in Him or not; His Will and system will have to unfold by His grace. I believe and enjoy.
"I just wanted to say that sub-consciousness is an evidence of existence of God and not God by itself. Sub-consciouness is but a minute, fractional energy of the infinite energies of God."
ReplyDeleteWhat makes you say this? If not logic some convincing experience should be possible to describe... Dont you think so?
Summarizing,
ReplyDeleteIf some one sees / knows God and is convinced, for that person there may not have any NEED to participate in this discussion.
For those who have not seen God, theist or an atheist, the first means of acquiring knowledge - direct perception - has not worked. So, as next best option, he/she has to attempt to use the second means of acquiring knoweldge (infer) about existence/non existence of God. A theist infers positively about God observing the manifestation.
It is possible that people name/identify differently the inference about the cause of the manifestation. If we say that 'science will unravel the mystery of the manifestation' , we are restricting the solution to come from Science which is unnecessary. More importantly, it is admitted that there is a cause for this manifestation.
An inference could be explored, analysed, detailed. The process/arguments that an inference is based could be revisited and debated. But, an inference can not be contradicted / questioned without any of these.
Only after positively infering about the God, its nature, characteristics could be taken. When we explore the nature of the God, our inference would be strengthened. Exploration further may be beyond the scope of this blog post. Or it could be considered as falling within the scope of the ongoing discussion.
Good, GodCon has asked everyone who are seeking for existence of God to find a teacher who will teach.
ReplyDeleteArlagada, GodCon:
"I just wanted to say that sub-consciousness is an evidence of existence of God and not God by itself. Sub-consciouness is but a minute, fractional energy of the infinite energies of God."
So sub-consciousness is not GOD. It is fractional energy of GOD!
So what is this energy? How did this energy come in the first place! Did GOD it create it. If "YES" then what is GOD?
@TKLG
ReplyDeleteYou have nicely put the process.
I think we have debated the direct perception and the inference portions.
Should we do the exploration?
or
Firstly is it possible to do it here?
I think the confusion regarding sub-consciousness persists. GOD has a point!
@God:
ReplyDeleteIt is not just in this case that one has to find a teacher, it is the same whether you want to play cricket or learn music or even simple mathematics, you need to find a good teacher/coach. And, Sri Shankaracharya specifically says that every other vidya can be learnt through other means but this one.
Yes, "sub-consciousness is not GOD", but a fractional energy of the infinite energies of GOD!
There are several energies as I mentioned in my previous post. I suppose that you understand what energy is: sound, light, scent, heat, material, inertia, gravity, centrifugal, centripetal, nuclear, consciousness, physical, creative etc etc. Some subtle, some gross; some that can be perceived, some that can be contemplated on, some that are beyond both these. I am sure you can think of a lot based on our previous conversations.
What is a God? A question that has piqued many intellectual greats for millions of years and continues to pique many greats in this forum too :) But the question remains, can we do justice to such a great matter in such a medium? Anyway, lets try, we may go somewhere :)
Can we define God? Rather, when we try to define something, we rather confine it to the words we have to describe that aspect. And, when His names, forms, characteristics, definitions are infinite, as His nature is, how can we? or can we? So, in our laymen terms we may define God as brahma, the creative potency; the sustaining potency; the annihilating potency; parama, paramatma, parambrahma, paramdharma, paramdhama; from whom everything manifests and in the end eventually becomes one with into. the only independent aspect; the omnipotent, omiscient, omnipresent aspect; anadih aadih (one without a begining but which is the begining of everything; or the one thing that ever existed, exists, and will exist); that which is eternal, full of knowledge and absolute bliss; sarva karaNa kaaraNam (the source of all manifestations); sarvasya prabhavah (supreme controller); the conscious in consciousnes; aNor aNeeyaam, mahato maheeyaam; chetaso chetananam, eko bahunam; visvam, vishnuh, vashatkaarah, bhuta-bhavya-bhavat-prabhuh; butakrit, bhutabrit, bhutatma goes on (I suppose you know the source of these, so these are not my own statements but those of the experts in the field). Definitions can go on and on and on without an end, just like His wonders.
Too sleepy and too tired to think and write anymore. Again, if we really want to understand God (or anything for that matter) we need to approach someone who has studied the subject in depth and understands a little more than we have. We need to read books that talk in depth about the subject matter.
May the Lord be pleased with all our endevaours.
Wanted to add this, but forgot in my previous post:
ReplyDeleteSub-consciousness cannot be God, because of its unidimentional nature. It does not have creative, sustaining and annihilative potentials. If Sub-consciousness is accepted as God then the creation is only an imgination, because sub-consciousness is a subjective aspect on individual consciousness. But we can perceive sub-consciousness as a fraction of the super-consciousness or universal-consciousness, which is a fractional portion of the chit potency of God.
This is my understanding on this matter and would open this up for further debate.
@Godcon
ReplyDelete#Sub-consciousness cannot be God, because of its unidimentional nature.
What is unidimentional?
#Is God multidimentional? How?
It does not have creative, sustaining and annihilative potentials.
Should God be creative, sustaining and annihilating potentials? Why?
#If Sub-consciousness is accepted as God then the creation is only an imgination
What is the problem if creation is only an imagination?
#because sub-consciousness is a subjective aspect on individual consciousness.
How do we say this? What is the objective aspect of the individual consciousness?
#But we can perceive sub-consciousness as a fraction of the super-consciousness or universal-consciousness, which is a fractional portion of the chit potency of God.
How do you know / perceive universal consciousness; and conclude sub-consciousness as a fraction of this?
@Impious
ReplyDelete#What is unidimentional?
==== Unidimensional is unidimensional :) one that has only one (or call it few if you want for this case; limited) dimension; could be intuition or sixth sense or involunatary actions. Please refer to my previous post on this subject, if God is perceived in such multivariated dimensions then sub-consciousness cannot fit the plate.
#Is God multidimentional? How?
=== I think I have elaborated this a bit in my previous post. Let me know if we need to discuss on this further (see next question)
#Should God be creative, sustaining and annihilating potentials? Why?
=== Please "define" God, or elaborate as to what you mean or what you understand by God! may be we can continue from there.
#What is the problem if creation is only an imagination?
=== If creation is an imagination then you, this forum, and I are imaginations too, so is God. If I and you are such then there is no meaning to this discussion too and there is no consequence to any of our actions :)
#How do we say this ("sub-consciousness is a subjective aspect on individual consciousness")?
=== Because your subconsciousness is yours only, it will not work with my existence. I thought subjective was self explaining, sorry if it needed an explanation.
#What is the objective aspect of the individual consciousness?
--- Individual and objective? you have the answer!
#How do you know / perceive universal consciousness; and conclude sub-consciousness as a fraction of this?
==== Listening to "subject matter experts" (I suppose we dont have to debate on this, about the subjectivity/objectivity of such "tags"), reading texts from the subject matter, contemplating over the learning, debating over the issues, clarifying, factual corraboration of scientific thought and findings. Fraction here need not be "portional" fraction but "proportional" in terms of their relative standings, in terms of their spread and reach.
Hope this clarifies.
@Godcon
ReplyDelete#Sub-consciousness cannot be God, because of its unidimentional nature.
It is Godcon who is saying saomething about God. So, Godcon should specify the details. If unidimension is unidimension, I can not understand it!
#It does not have creative, sustaining and annihilative potentials.
In this discussion, someone said god could be infered as the cause of manifestation. that is all I know. Now, who says that God should have creative,... annihilating potentials. How? Why?
#..because sub-consciousness is a subjective aspect on individual consciousness.
##Individual and objective? you have the answer!
If individual is subjective, why usage of terms like the above? Really, I dont have the answer!!
#If creation is an imagination then you, this forum, and I are imaginations too, so is God. If I and you are such then there is no meaning to this discussion too and there is no consequence to any of our actions :)
If creation is imagination, God need not be imagination.
#But we can perceive sub-consciousness as a fraction of the super-consciousness or universal-consciousness, which is a fractional portion of the chit potency of God.
##Fraction here need not be "portional" fraction but "proportional" in terms of their relative standings, in terms of their spread and reach.
Could you please write in simple terms - proportional etc relating to ths present subject?
GodCon has concluded many things in this post. But when questioned he just asks us to go in search of a teacher. GodCon, I request you to be a teacher to us(Who ever are willing) OR help us find a teacher, Can you?
ReplyDeleteHi, I read the the entire comment chain and was shocked for a moment.
ReplyDeleteTo decide if GOD exists/not should I understand such complicated logic. I never thought GOD was such a complex entity.
What i take from this discussion is I won't read such blogs anymore because they talk complicated logic which just goes above my head. I simply believe GOD exists and go ahead with my life. All the best and i congratulate all the stake holders of this discussion for continuing so long with such a complicated logic.
Dimention: The magnitude of something in a particular direction.
ReplyDeleteSub-Conscious cannot be Uni-dimentional by the very nature. If you are imagining something, the imagination is based on your past experience. If I ask a Kid to imagine walking on moon, he imagines the moon as soon in cartoon OR smooth moon based on sub-conscious projection of moon. When a Scienctist is asked to imagine the same, the imagination will have his Sub-Conscious projection(Experience). What we understand by this is Sub-Conscious is specific to every indivisual but surely not uni-dimentional
why is it not uni-dimentional, The very nature of Sub-Conscious is like a space-time. You have a thought which is 10 year old and you also have a thought which is 10 sec old. Both the thoughts contibute for the third thought which is happening in present, which in turn will also become a past the next moment.
Sub-Conscious can go into past (Experience), Can go into future (Planning/concluding/idea based on experience), Help the present in its existance.
3 dimentions, Not sure if there are more, if anyone find more let me know.
Hence Sub-Conscious is not Uni-Dimentional
I agree with Arlagada on the multi-dimensional nature of Sub-consciousness but i am not sure in what sense did GodCon told it as unidimentional
ReplyDeleteAnd someone here who can really talk at all planes must help people like Thimma.
I sincerely apologize for complicating the issue/topic in hand! I was extremely sleepy and tired (as I had mentioned in my post).
ReplyDelete@Thimma: Sorry Thimma :) God is a simple concept if we simply accept or reject but when we try to discuss/debate on the topic it gets complicated because of its abstract nature.
@impious: I could write about all the points you have raised, but will refrain from that for now to avoid any more complexities. I apologize for that.
@Bose: I have not "concluded" anything, I have just presented my ideas of what I have learnt from reading and listening to those who have gone to little more depth in this matter. I was supposing that I was adding an additional perspective to the discussion. Sorry if it sounded a bit "I know it all". I dont :)
@Arya, Arlagada: thanks for the clarification on the matter, I will post my reply to your comments in a separate post.
@Bose: Finding a Teacher is part of the exploration and inquiry process, we will all find one (or many) depending on our sincerity :) About me, I am still unqualified for that :) I take your sarcasm with open heart :) Thanks :)
ReplyDelete@Arlagada:
In my previous post I had said:
"...is unidimensional :) one that has only one (or call it few if you want for this case; limited) dimension".
I have termed it "Unidimensional" to refer to its limited nature. Sorry about the confusion.
I have acknowledged in my previous post that subconscious has multiple functions but is limited to one's own existance. It can operate within the confinement of one individual being. And, God by the very nature is without such limitations. As I mentioned before too, subconsciousness is an evidence of the presence of the God within (and everywhere) but is not God by itself. It can help understand its source, God, but ....
Will continue later ....
GodCon Says the following
ReplyDeleteBut we can perceive sub-consciousness as a fraction of the super-consciousness or universal-consciousness, which is a fractional portion of the chit potency of God.
Yes, "sub-consciousness is not GOD", but a fractional energy of the infinite energies of GOD!
GodCon, speaks a lot about GOD's various powers. Infinite, SuperConsciousness, Universal Consciousness, Fractional energy, Chit Potency. etc etc etc. Name some to start with.
Arlagada properly had defined Consciousness, Sub-Consciousness. When Arya asked him about some other consiousness beyond Sub-Consciousness he gave an explaination which was satisfying response (read 5:22AM, 5:26AM), which proved nothing beyond Sub-Consciousness. So, explain what is this Super Consciousness, Universal consciousness, which you clam to be beyond.
God by the very nature is without "limitations".
Limitations? how do you know, God is without limitations? define limitations. neither I have limitations..
"infinite energies of GOD",
You said
we are trying to capture an infinite aspect through finite means, which itself is beyond logic I suppose
"LOGIC" ... very very funny.... what ever you speak is out of logic, instead your speak about logic
Any help asked, or questions asked, you call it sarcasm
"I take your sarcasm with open heart :) Thanks :)".
No offense ment personally GodCon, but you are speaking very much on a high level which people here like me cant understand. We have only five senses and one small brain with consciousness and sub-consciousness. I hope you to have the same. If you have more then let us know :) ... And also explain us in the way we are able to understand.
Nice one again Bose :) I agree with you and admit that I may have used too many jargons and complicated things. This is the beauty of this medium, you dont know who you are talking to but expect to be understood, which is why I expressed my sincere apologies :) Lets see if I can get simpler :)
ReplyDeleteI agree that God Exists, but do not agree that Sub-Consciousness is God. I had proposed that sub-consciousness is an evidence of God, but not God itself. In so doing, I tried to define God in one of my previous posts (the origin of everything; the all capable, all knowing, and all pervading entity; from who everything emanates and into eventually become one into (science, again, is getting there); the eternal, ever existing; and the list goes on).
Sub-consciousness, because of its subjective nature, cannot fit these characteristics. It cannot explain many aspects of creation, unless one accept that creation either is accidental (an atheistic perspective) or a mere imagination (philosophical one). As a theist one may have to then explain the existence of this world if it is for real.
If there is an (near-)infinite creation/(near-)infinite universes (I am not sure if you would agree to this too, but science is also getting there eventually), an near-infinite creation cannot be a result of a finite aspect, and thus there need be an entity of infinite nature, an infinitely conscious aspect (you may reject that concept but I can talk from my perspective). That then cannot be "limited" to a subjective sub-consciousness (SC). In that sense, SC is but a minute aspect of that infinitely existing one - the supreme-consciousness.
How do I know if God is without limits or limitations?
- Reading from and listening to experts in the subject matter (I have said this many times), and through debates, discussions, and sincere contemplation.
- purNamadah puraNamidam purNaath puraNam udhachyate purNasya purNamaadaaya purNameva avashishyate (Iso and few other Upanishads); pasyaami tvaam sarvato anantaroopam naantam na madhyam na punas tavaadim (Bhagawad Gita:BG), naastyaanto vistarasya me (BG), naantOsti mama divyanaam vibhutinaam (BG). We can find numerous citations to this idea of limitlessness.
- Acknowleding the "intelligent design" of innumerable (infinite?) Universes that the scriptures talk about(as I said before, science has started to discover this wonder only recently; about the possibiity of parallel universes) and their innumerable resources and potencies. Can these be accidental, and can these be manifested out of a finite/limited one? I have argued the same above, but wanted to summarize here.
I apologize if even this is complicated! I apologize for my writing style, but this is how it is :) Let me see if I can be simpler in future posts.
There is absolutely no problem in your writing style, its just perfect for subject matter.
ReplyDeleteWhat that matters is the thinking style. I have couple of very simple question
Question 1
"Subjective Sub-Consciousness", why do you think this is finite and not infinite?
As said by yourself, all that you are speaking is by reading and discussion with experts and sincere understandings that you have underwent. I believe all these that you think is coming from your brain with helps you compile a write up on the basic of your past knowledge.
you have also said
"if there is an (near-)infinite creation/(near-)infinite universes (I am not sure if you would agree to this too, but science is also getting there eventually), an near-infinite creation cannot be a result of a finite aspect"
Question 2
"When your Sub-Conscious(SC) can perceive "to infinity and beyond", SC should be "Infinity and beyond". Again why don't you think its not?
#GodCon 1:05 PM: agree that God Exists - I tried to define God in one of my previous posts (the origin of everything; the all capable, all knowing, and all pervading entity; from who everything emanates and into eventually become one into
ReplyDelete# TKLG, 9.30pm, summary: God is infered from observing manifestation.
So, Origin of everything is acceptable. But how do we say that
1. God is all capable?
2. God is All knowing?
3. God is All pervading?
4. Into God eventually become one?
Dear Arlagada:
ReplyDeleteMy subconsciousness is limited to me, yours to you, it can only influence and impact the subjective experiences of that which it is part of. Being subjective to one individual's experiences can make it finite, confined.
So araise questions such as: What happens to my sub-consciousness when I die? (limited to finite temporal states) Can MY subconsciousness (literally?) impact YOU? (limited/finite sphere of influence) Can the subjective subconsciousness explain the creation and sustenance beyond one's individual existence; i.e. the existence of infinite universes in their physical forms? (limited/finite potencies).
Moreover, subconsciousness is an idea centered around cognitive states and has little to do with the existence of physical elements around us. It then probably has only the perceiving potency, not the creative potency. Can we explain the existence of material and cosmic elements, laws of nature etc through SC? I am not sure.
I believe that such doubts question the validity of the inifiniteness of SC. This is my understanding.
I can prove that Sub-Consciousness is not subjective. It surely will effect the Consciousness and Sub-Consciousness of the people around the individual.
ReplyDeleteThoughts that are flowing from your Sub-Conscious mind is affecting mine via this blog and vice versa. Both of us are trying to understand what each of us are up to.
You spoke about death....
hmmm.. Complicated issue.....
We shall not get into this issue. However, I shall just push a idea here
Arjuna asked krishna
"What happens to a person who dies before he reaches his goal"
Krisha answers
"He/she shall continue his journey in his/her subsequent birth and need not start it afresh" - May be Sub-Conscious is still alive... Not sure...
Dear Impious:
ReplyDeleteFortunately you took only a subset of the original list that I had posted :) Let me please try to elaborate on the points you have raised.
1. God is all capable?
Omnipotent aspect of God. If we accept that He is the origin of everything, then He should be capable of everything, right? And, given the perfection that can be observed in this creation that we see around us, He must be a genius by any measure :) Think of something and ask if He is capable of it; keeping in mind the one who is capable of producing system as perfect and vast as this one (which is filled with life, the multiple universes, and its elements).
2. God is All knowing?
Omniscient. If everything has come from Him, then so has to be any knowledge that we know of. If so then He has to be all knowing.
3. God is All pervading?
Omnipresent. The tricky one for sure and I am aspiring to be simple :) Let me try. Just as the power/presence of a Govt can be felt across the nation in the form of its laws, the presence/power of the creator can be observed through the laws of the creation. He need not be physically present but His presence can be experienced and observed everywhere. He is the center of everything, state the shastras. Some from the top of my head: sarvasya cha aham hrdi sannivishtah (Bhagawad Gita); anor aniyan mahato mahiyan (Katha Upanishad).
4. Into God eventually become one?
This is confirmed in Bhagawad Gita (sarva bhutani kaunteya prakritim yanti mamikam kalpakshaye punastani kalpadau visrujamyaham; this is one verse that I can remember now). Interestingly, the atheists/scientists have recently discovered this aspect of nature.
Tis is what the modern scientists say (for example Steve Hawkins and others) on this subject (in summarY): At the beginning the universe was smaller than an atom, which blasted out and created the world that we know of, resulting in stars, moons, planets, and their interdependent energies; at the end of of it all, everything would collapse down and disappear into this blackhole. Interestingly, black holes are not just the end points but also the beginning of everything, and also the center of all activities.
This is the way nature is structured; cyclic by nature, and designed to perfection. I am sure you have read this in little more detail than I have. But I have learnt to appreciate the convergence of classic and modern thoughts.
##1. God is all capable?
ReplyDelete#Omnipotent aspect of God. If we accept that He is the origin of everything, then He should be capable of everything, right?
Need not be. He might have created everything. It does not follow that he is capable of everything.
#And, given the perfection that can be observed in this creation that we see around us, He must be a genius by any measure :)
No problem in accepting that 'he is genius'. But 'ALL CAPABLE' tag can not be derived from this.
##2. God is All knowing?
#Omniscient. If everything has come from Him, then so has to be any knowledge that we know of. If so then He has to be all knowing.
Need not be. Some thing might have come from him without him having ALL knowledge about it.
##3. God is All pervading?
#Omnipresent. The tricky one for sure and I am aspiring to be simple :) Let me try. Just as the power/presence of a Govt can be felt across the nation in the form of its laws, the presence/power of the creator can be observed through the laws of the creation. He need not be physically present but His presence can be experienced and observed everywhere.
Such figurative meaning can not be used for characterising.
#He is the center of everything, state the shastras. Some from the top of my head: sarvasya cha aham hrdi sannivishtah (Bhagawad Gita); anor aniyan mahato mahiyan (Katha Upanishad).
What are Shastras? Why are you quoting them? Why should I accept your quotations?
##4. Into God eventually become one?
#This is confirmed in Bhagawad Gita (sarva bhutani kaunteya prakritim yanti mamikam kalpakshaye punastani kalpadau visrujamyaham; this is one verse that I can remember now). Interestingly, the atheists/scientists have recently discovered this aspect of nature.
See Point 3
@Impious
ReplyDeleteAll the answer need not be from Q1...3 establishes
that
1. he/she cannot be called as GOD, if he is not all capable. Very statement of GOD means that he is all capable. So, you are referring to (since it is now personified) another person who is not capable and not GOD.
2. The same argument holds true for All knowing/not all knowing.
3. All pervading;
-You are able to understand nature by its observation. In a similiar way a persons actions defines his behaviour, The way the nature behaves or works gives us the evidence the way in which it was created and the thought force behind it. There should be a thought force behind every creation. Hence, there is a creator behind the creation whom we refer to as GOD.
Finally GOD is some___ who;
1. knows all
2. all capable
3. all pervading
3. Shastras are stated and pointed here as reference. Acception/rejection one has to decide on his own.
You please tell why do you reject these quotations stated?
#GodCon 1:05 PM: agree that God Exists
ReplyDelete# TKLG, 9.30pm, summary: God is infered from observing manifestation.
# Student, 1.27am: There should be a thought force behind every creation. Hence, there is a creator behind the creation whom we refer to as GOD.
I dont have objection to God as creator. That is how we defined God.
But, Is 'All capable / knowing / pervading' are they new definitions? Or derived from old definition?
If they are new definitions, are they equivalent? among themselves? with the old one?
I dont reject the quotations from Shastras. But it should be clarified the definition / role / priority of the Shastras in the present discussion.
One says GOD is Sub-consciousness
ReplyDeleteOne says GOD is universal consciousness
One says
1. knows all
2. all capable
3. all pervading
So many definitions for GOD!
Or
Are they equivalent?
There are many Gods.
ReplyDeleteHi,
ReplyDeleteAll the definitions together can be explained what GOD is. They all form the behaviour or feature of GOD.
Part 1: Sub conscious is GOD and universal consciousness...
God's Sub-conscious: If nature is created by the creator with some thought, then definitely he will have his own sub conscious.
This sub conscious is split among the creation with an example as follows.
You take a mirror and see your face in it.
Break a mirror into pieces and you will be able to see the same face in all the pieces of mirror.
Even though face is same, but we are all able to see multiple images.
On similar lines, the sub conscious of GOD, which we can refer to as universal consciousness encompasses in itself the entire creation in it.
It is the thought through this very conscious that, made GOD to create the so called creation.
Hence it is the result of his thought that we all have sub conscious which direct themselves to Universal consciousness.
GOD:
1. Knows all--> The creation is by the action through the very thought of creator. Hence, if he is the creator,He knows all...
2. All capable--> Since, it is his creation, only he knows the in and out of the system of creation. In order to correct/fine tune the system of creation he is all capable.
3. All pervading--> The very thought of GOD is put is action. This is regarded as cause. The effect is this action transformed the very thought through the creation of sub consciousness of all the parts of nature, from microscopic to macroscopic. Hence, we can tell that he is all pervading.
But it again follows... If any more features of GOD can be explained, we can see how can be put in thogether to explain GOD. Such that there are no contradictions...
ReplyDeleteInstead we can try like this if every one accepts...
Alongwith the current definitions, we will start writing attributes of GOD(all knowing all pervarding etc...).
Along with them we will write why he is called so, or how such an attribute suffices to him.
We will start adding in a common template like:
GOD is:
1. :
a. Reason for such an attribute(Ex, etc...)
b. Contradictions with other attributes(if any)
2. ... The template repeats...
I feel like we should be able to come to some convergence in thoughts. Finally all the thoughts put together, explaining their explaination contradictions etc...
What others have to say...? Please provide your suggestions...
Template GOD definitions...
ReplyDelete1. attribute name1:
description/reason for attribute: explain...
contradiction: explain...
Examples:....
2. attribute name2:
description: explain...
contradiction: explain...
Examples:....
The list goes on...
Previous comment was by Student not Anonymous, sorry..
ReplyDelete#Student, Part 1
ReplyDeleteAlong with subconsciousness, God will have his conciousness and body. How do we say that through subconsciousness, God created the universe and not through consciouness or throug body. How one aspect of God - his/her subconciousness could be equate to God?
Are you saying that only subconciousness is split among the creation and not conciousness or body?
Why should our sub conciousness should direct to Universal conciousness?
#Student GOD:
Creator might have thought and acted to create universe. But how does it imply that he knows all ?
A creator may have more knowledge about his/her creation. But, he may not be all capable to correct / fine tune the system he creates.
All Pervading means, existing everywhere. God to be all pervading, he/she must be there physically, or by some other means everywhere. That is well understood. The point here is - How? and Why/how do we say what we say?
Comment on Part 1:
ReplyDeleteBody is one of the medium through which action like creation, sustenance, destruction can be carried out.
In order for the body to act, The thought to act has to arise through sub conscious and the intellect has to decide whether to act or not. Hence the creation is through the entire system.
I mentioned sub conscious since based on our discussion, Sub conscious is now regarded at the lowest level from where thoughts arise...
The pure action is the very reflection of pure thought(thinking in all dimensions, aspects etc...)
Hence, we say that we direct ourselves to the source from where this thought of creation, sustenance and destruction originated.
Because as we all know all the parts of this creation go through Creation, sustenance and destruction(though I am a bit digressing, it is reqd.)
Comments on Part2:
The very basic thought is that the nature can be fully understood not by you, me or any body, else.
Only the creator who has thought in all dimensions(some we know, some we may not) and acted accordingly has created this universe. Hence nothing can escape him.
Hence, he we have to state he knows all, otherwise if he doesnot knows all, then the question is who else. we may get many answers for this who else.
All these who elses together who provide the complete knowledge can be termed as GOD.
Going home, all pervadin will be answered, All please carry on your discussion and
Please comment on whether we can follow the template mentioned or not....
Like potter behind a pot, there was a conclusion that God behind manifestation. That is all.
ReplyDeletePotter may not everything about pot and pot may be bigger than potter. Potter may not have control over all aspect of the pot.
How God, got all these special powers.
Sub-Conscious:
ReplyDeleteSomething which is intuitive, available to the consciousness readily. Something that is an asset which has come from objects past.
Explanation:
Creation can be divided into following types.
1. Animals (Including Humans).
2. Plants.
3. Non-living (Air, Water, electrons, photons etc...)
Time can divided into 3 components
1. Past
2. Present
3. Future.
Present is the existence, while past and future are the thoughts. Past is something which is very crucial in every creature’s life span.
Examples:
1. A water is powerful enough to turn a turbine in the "present" only when it has gained some kinetic energy in the past.
2. A Boy can read a book only when he has learnt the language letter by letter, word by word in past.
3. A tree can give shade only when it had maintained its straightness as a plant.
4. An electron is capable of providing electricity (Free electron) only when it gained energy and went to the exited orbit in past.
5. A man/women fall under sorrow when death of loved once happen, but for a kid it makes no difference (Past experience is the reason).
6. Some are born artist, born actors, born geniuses. Might be past life experience is the reason.
Every action one performs will have its effect reflecting on the society, nature and hence affecting the Sub-Consciousness of other elements. Hence, even though it’s specific to an individual entity, there is no escape from it, for the surroundings (It is present even with its absents). Past is the reason for the present, and future is the projection of present. Present is just an action. The moment present is not an action it becomes a past (thought).
Humans are different from all other creatures because of three reasons "Speech, Intelligence, and erect back bone". He thinks of “GOD”, again his thought flows from his past. He thinks of Infinity, again it flows from his past, He thinks of marriage, He thinks of his future, thinks of people around him, he thinks and thinks infinite things. The Origin for all actions of present and all the thoughts of future is Past (SUB-CONSCIOUSNESS).
That’s the reason it’s Infinite, it’s limitless, it’s everywhere (Omnipotent), it’s deathless, it’s the supreme. Call it GOD.
Wow so much has happened since I last visited :) wow :)
ReplyDeleteThanks Student, Impious, Aralagada, and Pekra :)
@Pekra: Dear pekra, he he he I also laugh that way when scientists confuse blackhole to be the creator, sustainer, and annihilator of everything; that everything has come from nothing ha ha ha .... The "all capable" black hole ha ha ha :) keep laughing :)
@Aralagada:
Nice comments, but I am still addressing your previous post here. Thoughts could be flowing from your sub-conscious state, but it is the conscious state that has to present it to the external world.
We can perceive knowledge through your senses (reading - eyes, hearing - ears etc) and mind. The process reverses when it comes to receiving, you are taking these in through your senses, which are accessed by the conscious states.
(if you are a IT student then you know the network layers, data flows from application layer to physical layer and from physical layer to application layer)
I hope you are awake and aware when you are reading this, so it is the consciousness that is active (though your individual subconscious is active within yourself). This processing at the conscious state then could influence your sub-conscious state. But that depends on the level of your consciousness and is connected with what you are doing. So, your subconsciousness is impacted by your own consciousness and not my sub-consciousness (though your could argue about the indirect influence, but I suppose that is way away from the subject we are discussing). This is my take on it.
About what Sri Krishna says: from what I understand, this works more at the Karmic level than the subconsciousnes level. Karma is another vast area of discussion I believe. Sri Krishna also says that we could take various other forms depending on our level of consciousness. One could take the jaDa rupa also and there are instances of that in puraNas. Or, you could become a plant/tree too, which may not have the subconscious mind!! I am not sure. But this is my understanding.
Even if we accept that subconsciousness transfers with the soul then also it is subjective, because your subconsciousness remains with you and mine with me. Then, the subconsciousness is not independent, it has got no freedom (for example, to move from me to you and vice versa), which then means that it cannot be God; who is always free and independent and is the supreme controller (confirmed again in Bhagawad Gita). Moreover, if everything comes from God (aham sarvasya prabhavah, mattah sarvam pravartate), then how does sub-consciousess as God explain the presence of Life, Cosmos, Universe etc etc? We can take each attribute and analyze this way.
Sub-Conscious has the Potency to Perceive (I have said that before), it can learn, which means that at one point it "does not know anything", when it has no past. In that case, there are two things that happen: First, in that case God has a beginning, which is against His "anadi" (without a beginning) attribute. Similarly, it does not qualify several such attributes of God. Second, God all knowing, one who knows the past, the present, and the future (Impious may object to this, but let it be here for now) and everything comes from Him (Impious accepts this)! But my sub-conscsiouness exists if I exists, so it is not independent, but God exists by Himself - swayambhu.
This is my personal understanding of this. May God (sorry, I dont mean pun by I cannot perceive sub-consciousness here) bless us all.
@GOD:
ReplyDeleteA crude example (I wish I could think of better, but lets see):
If I say: An aeronautical engineer. A genius. The missile man. A scientist and an engineer. Receipient of Padma awards. Author of several books. Talented artist. The 11th President of India. etc etc ... Are these many attributes/definitions of APJ Kalam or am i talking about multiple people here? Can you define APJK without diluting his credentials? Any definition you give is right as long as that attribute does not negate the other.
If you know Vishnusahasranama, we glorify Him as Vishvam. VishNuh. Vashatkarah. Bhutbhavyabhavat-pabhuh. etc etc. All these names and atttributes belong to one, Vishnu.
@Impious:
ReplyDeleteLike you said Potter may not have control over all the aspects of Pot.
It is pot.
Potter knows how to design it for reliability, durability and what is to be done if something goes wrong, how to intervene in correcting the defects.
In a similar way, GOD is suppose to be the creator of the universe/nature.
Hence he knows all the in/outs of the system.
Again I am repeating here,
If he is not knowing all then somebody else will...
All these somebody elses will together be called as GOD.
He knows where to intervene and fine tune it in each and every aspect of nature.
@GodCon,
ReplyDeleteI hope you are awake and aware when you are reading this, so it is the consciousness that is active (though your individual subconscious is active within yourself). This processing at the conscious state then could influence your sub-conscious state. But that depends on the level of your consciousness and is connected with what you are doing. So, your subconsciousness is impacted by your own consciousness and not my sub-consciousness.
yes, this is what I am telling, I am reading this, participating here in this forum, posting, discussing only because in the "PAST" I have read and thought about it. It started in "PAST". After I read It will end in the "PAST".
Hello please post in a particular template or format otherwise following the comments/discussions are becoming difficult...
ReplyDeleteWhat people have to say about this?
Dear Impious:
ReplyDeleteI suppose you and student are engaged in some discussion from where we left. I would like to address just one aspect: what are shastras, why am i quoting them, why should you accept my quotations.
First of all, there are several vidyas that you may know of. Shastras are texts of science of specific vidyas; ao we have several shastra pertaining to yoga, bhautika (physical), rasayana (chemical), jeeva (biological), vaastu(architectural), shilpa (sculptural) artha (economics), neeti (political science) etc etc. These are all material/physical shastras that are based on obseverable phenomena. But this world is also comprised of not just physical but meta-physical phenomenon, I hope you acknowledge that. This vidya is called adhyatma vidya, which is consider the superior most of all vidyas (because of its very nature; one may agree to this or not, its a subjective statement). There is a shastra that elaborates on this subject matter - adhyatma shastra; there are other shastras that provide guidelines to human kind - dharma shastra, duties - karma shastra etc.
Any argument that one makes should be based on a corresponding shastra. For example, if I have to propose a theory on physics, or mathematics, or thermodynamics, or time, or whatever then I have to cite references from a corresponding shastras; works of experts from the past, even if you want to completely deny their work. Newton, Einstein, Descarates, Kant, Hawkins etc are the shastragjnas (the experts) of their corresponding fields and arguments are based on their work/theories. Similarly, when it comes to adhyathmic/metaphysical subject matter then the corresponding shastras as expounded by experts in that field need be cited in our argument, otherwise it is plagiarism. I suppose you acknowledge this aspect of a debate, discussion, or proposition.
I suppose this addresses your second question too.
Third question is subjective, and this assumes that one has alternative theories, explanations, and citations for the argument that he/she makes.
Dear Aralagada,
ReplyDeleteYou say: "yes, this is what I am telling, I am reading this, participating here in this forum, posting, discussing only because in the "PAST" I have read and thought about it. It started in "PAST". After I read It will end in the "PAST"."
In that case, there could 4.5 tillion Gods, because each subconscious state is independent of the other!! In the shastras it says, eko bahunam yo vidhadati kaamaan; ekam sat viprah bahudah vadanti. But that argument is more of the soul/supersoul, unless you say soul/supersoul and subconsciousness are the same. But, your arguments are based on subconsciousness as pertaining to mind, so I assume that you consider soul and subconsciousness are different aspects/entities (and they infact are). If you say they are same then we could be opening a new pandora box :) ;) So, I would not prefer going there and complicating the already complicated things :)
And, as I said before too, if sub-consciousness is God then at point zero, when you had no past, there is a possibility that there was no God. Then, we have trees that may not have subconscious mind, then from that perspective again there is no God. So, the existence of God (or not of it) fluctates according to that logic. And, the subconscious mind had no knowledge (because it had no past), so there would be a God without knowledge. Then, your subconsciousness has nothing to do with my friend sitting somewhere in US. So, it is not all pervading. Next, it has no access to future at all, it evolves into future. But one attribute of God is that He is Bhutabhavyabhavat-Prabhuh, the controller (Lord of) past, present, and future. Our subconsciousness on most occassions is just a witness, and it performs the way it has to, it has little control over many things. But, He is sarvasya prabhavah, the Lord of everything known and unknown. We can go on this way.
Nicely put GodCon,
ReplyDeleteYou said "If you say Soul and SC are same then we could be opening a new pandora box :)"
Probably I will want to do that :)
Plants show different reaction when a soothing music is played, Rock music is played, when sad song is played. Just that we are unable to link our consciousness with it, thats the reason we are not GOD.
When I say Sub-Consciousness. I dont mean "MY SUB_CONSCIOUSNESS". However, let me put my thought.
A mother knows what will be the kids reaction for a particular action (She is connected with her kids Sub-Consciousness). Many a times people's action will be based on the projected reaction of the dependent individual. A wild life photographer, A Veterinarian understands the reaction of the animals and performs the action. They are just liking themselves to sub-consciousness of the animals.
In the same way, My Sub-Conscious knows the sub-conscious of my father, mother, brother, few friends, it is also vice versa. I know just the right action to be performed in front of them.
"GOD Consciousness" is nothing but the Sigma of Individual Consciousness. Probably I would also want to open pandora's box by telling Sub-Consciousness and soul(Atma) are the same, which merges with Parama - Atma (God-Consciousness).
@Student:If he is not knowing all then somebody else will... All these somebody elses will together be called as GOD.
ReplyDeleteAre you saying that God could be a set. Need not be one?
@GodCon,April 13, 2010 10:02 AM :
ReplyDeleteI agree with you on Adhyatma Shastra. Here is the most accurate description of terms according to King James Version and New King James Version.
http://www.cogwriter.com/god-omnipotent-omniscient-omnipresent.htm
#Student,April 13, 2010 9:24 AM
ReplyDeleteGOD is suppose to be the creator of the universe/nature.
Hence he knows all the in/outs of the system.
It does not follow - unless you explain it. Potter does not complete control over Pot like the way we think about Universe and God. There is a qualitative difference. Protection of pot is not linked to potter. If everyone in this discussion is convinced with your explanation, I too stop.
@TKLG:
ReplyDeleteYou made a good question…
It gave some more inputs infact
Yes, GOD can be defined as a set too.
For Example as impious made a good point:
“Potter does not complete control over Pot like the way we think about Universe and God. There is a qualitative difference. Protection of pot is not linked to potter. If everyone in this discussion is convinced with your explanation, I too stop.”
A reasoning was made that there are many somebody elses… and GOD can be a set.
We define Paramatma-Divine Supreme soul towards which all the souls-Jivatmaas are directed. He is embodied with three aspects: Creation, sustenance and destruction
@ Impious:
After the Product is created . The Manufacturer himself tells how to maintain the Product to the user by giving some tips. If the costumer fails to do so and some defect develops, then the Maintenance personality will be called to repair the product. Final another person or another way is made to decommission the product
In similar way the God does not only create, he is suppose to have manifestations of creator, sustainer and destructor.
Bhagavad Geetha states Chapter 10. 32 verse (also 32... som more stanzas state this):
Sargaanam Aadihi Anthaha cha Madhyam cha eva aham|
Adhyaatmavidya vidyaanam vaadaha pra-vad-ataam aham||
Of created thingsI am the beginningand the end and also the middle. Of the sciences I am the science of the self; of those who debate I am the reason.
On similar lines:
Chapt 9, Verse 7, Everything comes from Him and eventually enters into Him
Chap 9, V 8, The whole cosmic order is under Me. By My will it is manifested again and again, and by My will it is annihilated at the end.
Chap 9, verse 10:
This material nature is working under My direction, O son of Kunti, and it is producing all moving and unmoving beings. By its rule this manifestation is created and annihilated again and again
Dear Aralagada:
ReplyDeleteI knew for sure that I would make you happy with that statement, and I intentionally put that there :) Lets puruse this simpler topic before venturing into the more complex and intriguing ones :)
This is your definition of sub-conscious: A state of mind not immediately available to consciousness is Sub-Consciousness. So, we are still hanging around at the level of "mind"; so the pandora box is better left alone for now :)
If we revisit your definition of sub-consciousness, you say that it is a state of mind! And minds are subjective. You have YOUR mind, I have MINE. So, your sub-conscious is yours, mine is mine. I dont know what you intend by saying "When I say Sub-Consciousness. I dont mean "MY SUB_CONSCIOUSNESS"". May be you want to revisit your definition.
Let me move on.
You seem to be talking about the "habituation" and "learning" processes. These do involve sub-conscious state, but again it is limited to individual sub-conscious states. I get habituated to stimuli and I have a ready response, thats it. And that behavior is just mine. I can react like that to a non-sub-conscious object too. For example (I keep taking crude examples. I am sorry. I will try to improve hehe), I have learnt that a rock on the edge of a cliff can fall anytime, and when it does fall, dont tell me that my subconsciousness was connected to that of rock's!!! This is just a case of individual/subjective learning process, there is no linking between two subconscious states whatsoever!!!! Honestly, I think you have yourself proved that sub-consciouness is subjective by mixing that with learning. I now understand you better, as to where you are coming from.
Again, when you say "My Sub-Conscious knows the sub-conscious of my father, mother, brother, few friends, it is also vice versa" and "I know just the right action to be performed in front of them", you are infact stating that which YOU have "habituated" or "learnt". There is no connection between sub-conscious states but a mere reflection of one's individual SC stat. A simple stimuli-response sequence involving indivual SC thats all.
@GodCon,
ReplyDeleteYou told,
we are still hanging around at the level of "mind".
I would like to understand few things, Just to link myself to your Sub-Consciousness :). I guess you have already acquired my SC based on the following statement you made
" I now understand you better, as to where you are coming from" :)
This is really great. Probably this what I wanted.
Let me instead of giving my logic and counter logic and explanations and examples ask you few question. Might be that would help me understand me better. ... Questions in my next post... please have a look
@GodCon
ReplyDeleteSecnario:
Rama and shama are twins. Obviously raised and nurtured by same parents. they finished there education from same school, college and also did there professional study in the same college.
Question:
In-spite of all the similarities rama's thinking differs from shama's thinking why?
(This is a real world scenario, only names have been changed)
Question 2
ReplyDeleteYour statement:
we are still hanging around at the level of "mind".
My question:
If we see the blog comment chain, we know we have arrived till here with some reasoning. Might be the path was wrong, might be it was right. But, presently we are struck in the level of mind is what you mean
What is the next level? and what will be the reasoning for us get into the next level
@Student,
ReplyDeleteWe define Paramatma-Divine Supreme soul towards which all the souls-Jivatmaas are directed. He is embodied with three aspects: Creation, sustenance and destruction
When you say, God has three aspects, the same problem comes again. How can we add two aspects of sustenance and destruction to the creator without any basis.
Instead, I have a suggestion. Let there be three Gods, a creator, a sustainer and a destructor.
But is it possible to infer sustainer and destruor in the same way as creator was inferred?
@Bose,
ReplyDeleteCreator is inferred from Creation,
Sustainer from continued presence of creation,
annhiliator from the annihilation that is going on around us.
Looks decent.
Student, Bose, TKLG,
ReplyDeleteA weak but deceptive and misleading argument.
You are trying to create two more gods to find an escape route.
How do you observe sustenance and annihilation?
Potter creates the pot from the mud. Mud is the raw material for the pot. For the nest, grass and leaves are the raw materials. For God, what is the raw material?
ReplyDeleteEverything else other than God are created by him. So, God has no raw material. God must have created the manifestation from nothing. God could use himself as raw material. This is an important difference from the analogy of Potter.
In fact, God created manifestation from him/her self. In otherwards, God manifests as creation. In this way God is all pervading. Omnipresent.
@student, bose, TKLG, Impious:
ReplyDeleteNice! The discussion has taken a few turns since I last wrote on this topic :) I did not want to complicate things, but I am now tempted to write :)
There is only one God, of which I have no doubt.
Creation, Sustenance, and Annihilation are three stages of any aspect. That which is created (exists) need to be sustained and after a period of time it ceases to exist. These activities cannot be independent of each other, but are on a continum, or are mutually depended aspects. These three activities have different names, but in essence they co-occur at a subtle level.
My body is created, my body is sustained, and my body annihilates, but I remain one in all these.
vasamsi jirnani yatha vihaya navani grhnati naro 'parani
tatha sarirani vihaya jirnany anyani samyati navani dehi (Bhagawad Gita)
The body is continually dieing (If I remember it right, by the time we are toddlers or pre-teens the original cells that we were born with do not exist anymore or something like that), continuously creating (we evolve from birth, to childhood, to adult, to old age and finally death) where we are "recreated" all the time, and we continously sustain the process. I dont know if I am adding more confusion, sorry if I am.
I am a passive witness to creation and annihilation, but more direct/active participant in the sustenance. But when it comes to God, He has complete control over and exhibits creation, annihilation, and sustenance potencies and can be see as three different aspects or actions, but in essence is from the same one God.
*** atha tais tri-vidhair vesair,lilam udvahatah kila (Brahma Samhita):
Thereupon, the same Lord plays the pastimes of preservation, creation and destruction of this world.
*** avibhaktam ca bhutesu, vibhaktam iva ca sthitam, bhuta-bhartr ca taj jneyam, grasisnu prabhavisnu ca (Bhagawad Gita):
So, He Himself is the Bhuta-Bhrt, Grasisnu, and PrabhvishNu: The creator, Annihilator and Sustainer.
*** yasmad bhavanti vibhavanti visanti yam ca (Brahma Samhita):
from whom they originate, in whom they exist and into whom they enter
*** kshiram yatha dadhi vikaara-vishehsa yogaat, sanjaayate na hi tatah prthag asti hetoh, yah shambhutam api tatha samupaiti kaaryaad, govindam aadi purusham tam aham bhajaami (Brahma samhita)
:
Just as milk is transformed into curd by the action of acids, but yet the effect curd is neither same as, nor different from its cause, viz., milk, so I adore the primeval Lord Govinda of whom the state of Sambhu is a transformation for the performance of the work of destruction.
So, through logic and also through the contemplation over shastric injunctions I personally do not find it difficult to visualize one God who gets various activities executed.
Dear Aralagada:
ReplyDeleteReply to your April 14, 2010 12:40 AM posting:
"I would like to understand few things, Just to link myself to your Sub-Consciousness :). I guess you have already acquired my SC" ....
Hmmmmm ... You say that subconsciousness is not available to your own consciousness, but you say that you can link yourself to my SC and that I can **acquire** your subconsciousness :)Infact, a very interesting anamoly. I am thinking, if you have not read or understood my previous post on "learning". Anyway.
Hmmm ... let me try with another example. My child cries. I dont know why. But, through my past "learning" I think of a few possible reasons (consciously, and some conscious reasoning). And then try out a few things. Some things work, some dont, I continue to learn. I am not acquiring or connecting to the child's subconsciousness or whatsoever. I am working at my conscious and subconscious levels.
My understanding of you is through a conscious assessment (that involves a conscious application of logic, learning and exclusive processing at the level of "intelligence") of your words and your **probable** thought process. Same applies to you while you process my words and probable through process through "conscious reasoning" and "learning". There is no link between our inaccissible subconscious minds at all, whatsoever.
I have repeated this several times now: YOU can work at the level of YOUR consciousness in accordance to YOUR learning abilities, based on YOU memory, with the help of YOUR subconscious states etc etc. I on the other hand, can work on MY counterparts of the above. There is no link at all other than the learning that the brain is naturally atuned to. I am not sure how to express this idea better :)
Dear Aralagada:
ReplyDeleteResponse to you April 14, 2010 12:45 AM posting (Rama and Shama):
I am not sure how relevant the scenario is for the topic under discussion. Anyway.
Rama and Shama's thinking differ because they are two independent people with different brains and intelligence levels they are born with and they evolve into. I know of twins of whom one is mentally challenged and the other is sound.
We think based on our exposure and openess to things around us, our conscious effort in understanding and interpreting them, in reading and listening to others. We learn differently and thus think differently.
May be in the school Rama was sleeping and Shama was listening. May be Shama did not want to learn, He had OTHER INTERESTS. Too many anamolies can be perceived.
@Bose:
ReplyDeleteYes!!! But we create two more GODS, in total three, the effect remains the same. I meant that these
1. creation
2. Sustenance
3. Destruction
are three aspects of GOD. Whether we see them as different or same, the effect remains the same.
What do you feel? I just wanted to know if there is any contradiction here where it can fail. Please do mention...
Even TKLG has commented in the similar manner I feel.
@Impious:
We are not creating two more GODs.
It was just until now we were more focussed on creation rather than sustenance or destruction.
Hence, the other 2 aspects or stages of sustenance and destruction are necessary for any matter in this nature Right?
How do we account for them then?
Hence, even quotes from Shaastras (Bhagavad Gita) and Brahma Samhitas suffice the explanation.
These quotes are even being referred by GodCon also in his explanation of Creation, sus, destr.
Are there any other such quotes any where , wherein a matter is devoid from these three stages of Creation, Sustenance, and destruction? If so, please mention ...
We will better try to refine the definition much more.
Dear Aralagada:
ReplyDeleteResponse to April 14, 2010 12:48 AM
Posting (Question 2)
Request: Please read with an open mind. Please forgive me if I have offended anyone of you, in anyway. I promise you, I write here with utmost sincerity with an intention to express my modest understanding on ths subject matter. I just love discussions (not even trying to debate, but it ends up being that), thats it. Anyway.
What is the next level? and what will be the reasoning for us get into the next level.
You may already know that which I am writing below, but still let me give it a try.
According to the yoga sutras there are five layers/levels/sheaths that are embodied in the human system.
Annamaya Kosha - The sheath of gross material body; pancha jnanendriyas reside here.
PraaNamaya Kosha - The sheath of life air; energy center, centre of all activities.
Manomaya Kosha - The mind, mental, psycho-emotional sheath; centre of instinctual, stimuli-response, basic emotions etc
Vijnyaanamaya/Jnyaanamaya Kosha - The intellectual sheath; center of one's identity, of all processing, where morality, differentiation, understanding, contemplation, speculation etc.
Anandamaya Kosha - the sheath of bliss; where our true self resides, the center of our very existence, from which everything else is rooted, for which and because of which we all live and strive.
Please read a good yoga book to get into little more detail. This is just a gist from my understanding on the wonderful exposition in our shastras and Bhagawad Gita.
As we move from the outsheet to the inner, the level of subtlety increases and we move to our core, true self.
All Jiva tatvas (plants, animals, humans, devas, gandharvas, gaNas etc etc) have annamaya and pranamaya koshas; basic sustenance level, with body and activity. But, plants may or not have mano maya kosha (you have given an example that they may have, but I feel it is more the annamaya kosha because of the bilogical configuration rather than mind/mental platform). The different koshas overlap between different living entities by varied degrees.
What differentiates animals and above from plant is the manomaya kosha. And what differentiates humans from animals is the prominence of vijnyanamaya kosha, ability to reason and contemplate. What differentiates realized human beings (superior jiva tatvas) and us is the degree to which they reside in Anandamaya kosha.
So, we need to move from the grosser to the more sophisticated ones towards understanding self.
Sri Krishna confirms this in Bhagawad Gita, chapter 3:
indriyani parany ahur
indriyebhyah param manah
manasas tu para buddhir
yo buddheh paratas tu sah
The working senses are superior to dull matter; mind is higher than the senses; intelligence is still higher than the mind; and he [the soul] is even higher than the intelligence.
And, He also confirms that God is above all these, from who everything comes.
So, we may need to go beyond mind to understand our true self. And we need to strive beyond self to understand God. I hope we can appreciate this wonderful knowledge of our ancestors, who are even today revered (westerners have learnt to appreciate more than we do, may be because they try to read and understand) in the form of shastras.
Nicely put,
ReplyDeleteGodCon has forced me to revisit on my definition of Consciousness and Sub-Consciousness.
Consciousness exists not as a one-dimensional point, a two-dimensional line, or a three dimensional solid. It is four-dimensional. Each of its dimensions are successively more profound experiences of itself. From waking to dreaming to the experience of deep sleep and beyond. Although in one sense the first three of these dimensions are material and the fourth alone transcendent, each of them, if analyzed in terms of the experience they afford, they point us in the direction of deeper experiences of the experiencer, the self.
You have spoke about various kosha's from taitriya upanishad.
Going beyond the body, we realize the power of mind, and going beyond the power of thought we realize the self. Reaching the limits of reasoning, we are pointed in the direction of ourselves.We can only reach that self by not only ceasing to exercise the body in terms of its demands, but ceasing to think as well.
Thought has a ground from which it springs Thought and its object are experienced as distinct from one another, yet one has no meaning without the other. From this we can speculate the existence of a realm from which they both arise and in which they cease to be distinct (nonduality). Thought itself is outside of the self, as is, and even more so, the objective world. Where thought meets object and the subsequent judgment causes us to “know,” we may know everything but our own selves and our source
giving a small crude example (Just like you take :) )
ReplyDeleteWe all have experience of the waking and dreaming dimensions of consciousness. In these realms, the soul experiences the physical and psychic reality, yet it its asleep to itself. In deep dreamless sleep, when the physical and psychic dimensions close down, we continue to experience. Upon awakening, we remember that we slept well. One can only remember that which he or she has experience of. Remembering the peaceful experience in dreamless sleep amounts to a vague yet definite experience of the soul, an existence independent of thought and objects of thought.
If Shastras tell that fire does not burn, Shastras are to be discarded. Because, fire burns.
ReplyDeleteQuoting from shastras can not be the final proof. We know what is there in Shastras. Quoting its precise reference - from Upanishad - stanza, line etc. is v.good. But it is not be the final word.
@Arlagada, Impious, aTEHT
ReplyDeleteImpious is right. Merely quoting from shastras is no good. How part is missing in many posts.
Arlagada,
Good that you are talking of experience.
aTEHT
Good that you are attempting to talk logic.