We discussed many things in the previous blog post. Interesting conclusions opened up. At the same time interesting questions came out. Many people have already summarized in a nicer way in the comments itself, and I need not put more effort. I shall do a copy past of couple of summary done.
Summary by Arya:
1) GOD is ever existing
2) GOD manifests himself in all the creations
3) GOD is omnipresent
4) An apparent/non-apparent form of GOD takes birth/grows/sustains/dies and it is formed by the combination of pancha-mahabhutas(5 elements)
5) Any form that encapsulates GOD is temporal
6) GOD is an entity which is the witness to all the above mentioned forms
7) In fact GOD is inexplicable because in explaining him(which i am doing now) I am applying my thoughts which itself is part of one of the above forms which is always prone to errors/bias/ignorance
Summary by GodCon:
GOD is :
1) ever existing (eternal), unborn, infinite, immutable aspect(sathyam, nityam, ajam, anantam, achyutam)
2) source of all energies, including life (kaaraNa sharira) (sarva kaaraNa kaaraNam)
3) source of everything that we see and know (similar to above but more at the object level; chara-achara prabhu)
3) the source, sustainer, and the final destination of everything (bhutakrit, bhutabrit, paramagatih); controller of everything (mayadhyaksehna prakritih suyate sacharacharam)
4) an infinitely intelligent being (discussed in the previous thread of discussion; Pious and GodCon)
5) the core / center of everything (sarvasya hridi sannivishTah)
6) controller / knower of past, present and future of beings (bhuta-bhavya-bhavat prabhuh)
7) He is beyond sensory perceptions, so can be understood (partially) through inference
8) all knowing (Omniscient; sarvagjna)
9) his energies are everywhere, inside and outside (sa-bhaaya-abhyantarah), and all energies comes from Him.
Defination of God In one line by Arlagada:
"Sarve jana sukhino bhavantu" –
I agree with Arlagada on this aspect.
We all do things to keep ourselves happy at the end of the day. We love our mothers because we are happy by doing so, we participate in blog because we are happy by doing so. In this way, every work we do in this karma bhoomi is for happiness (sukha). A sanyasi also is happy by being a sanyasi. So, Happiness itself is “GOD” and veda’s and all scriptures say one thing that is “Sarve jana sukhino bhavantu” meaning “let everyone be happy” OR let every one be one in GOD.
There is now a anomaly again between dvaita and advaita. You are invited to participate under this article
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Dear Arya,
ReplyDeleteI had posted this in the other thread, with some minor changes.
What is Human? Who is He? What is Ishvara? Who is Ishvara? What does Ishvara actually mean (sanskrit to english)? Isvara == Ignorance, oops?? How did you say that?
You seem to say that there is no Jiva there is only GOD. But Jiva is in ignorance, i.e. stupid, in Maya, i.e. illusioned. But since there actually is no Jiva as such (according to you; because it is just due to illusion that jiva is perceived), there is only GOD and that GOD is in ignorance, which is why I said we have a stupid GOD or a GOD who can be stupid (I am not saying that GOD is / can be stupid, I am deriving from your logic) He is deceived by Maya, so He is under illusion.
You have not clearly stated WHO IS BEING DECEIVED, who sees the "appearance of Jiva"? Is it GOD, but GOD is always in knowledge so He cannot be illusioned. You call that "Individual" but you have not defined what you mean by "Invididual"; you say "Individual" is ignorant!
You deny that there is any soul, there is only GOD! You say Human, who is this, what is this, what is it made of? just body and mind? then, where does rebirth come from?
"It is because of ignorance that individual feels he is different from GOD."
Again, that means that "Individual" is ACTUALLY GOD (it is only because of ignorance that he perceived Himself as different from GOD). That means that there is only GOD, and this GOD is under ignorance. In essence you are saying GOD is ignorant; there is an ignorant GOD (Individual) who does not know His true existence. What I am saying is if one is deceived, if one is ignorant, HE CANNOT be GOD because GOD is never ignorant. So there are two things here - an Individual and GOD.
If you say GOD is NOT stupid and an INDIVIDUAL is stupid then thats exactly what I am saying. There is an Individual who can be in ignorance, but there is GOD who is always there never stupid :)
Dear Govinda:
ReplyDeleteI have never said that God created "DEATH", I simply said death is absence of life. Similarly, GOD never created ignorance, one need not create ignorance, lack of knowledge is ignorance. I cannot say GOD created darkness, lack of light is darkness. And, I also said that GOD is full of life, eternal, so there is no association of death to Him. GOD is full of knowledge, so there is no question of ignorance. GOD is always in light, there is no question of darkness (na tad bhaasayate suryah na shashankoh na pavakah)
Dear Govinda:
ReplyDelete"Why do you think GOD cannot be ignorant? Did he come and say that I am not ignorant? "
Why do you think He is ignorant or can be ignorant, did he come and say that? :) hehe ;)
GOD is full of knowledge. We have derived this. If He is ignorant then He is non-cognizant of His creation, hence cannot be GOD (Omniscient, Omnipresent, Omnipotent).
Duality of existence is part of this material creation. There is life and death, ignorance and knowledge, day and night, good and bad etc because we are on a relative platform. We have derived in the past that GOD is in ABSOLUTE platform and thus is not subject to death, ignorance, bad etc. As I said in a previous post, ignorance cannot stand on its own, it is just the lack of knowledge and by definition GOD cannot be subject to that just as He cannot be subject to death.
Dear Govinda:
ReplyDelete"I am not telling that I am GOD, neither I am telling I am not GOD."
Then, what are YOU saying? :)
"But, what is the difference between me and GOD?"
You acknowledge that there are two things here - "ME" ("YOU") and "GOD" and you say there is a DIFFERENCE. So, YOU are NOT GOD, why the dilema?
"You always have stood for the statement which says "Atma and Paramatma are different". My question was very simple "HOW?"
I have explained in complete detail several times in the past why Atma and Paramatma are different. I have used shastras and logic both in that regard. I am sorry that I may have failed to convince others, but this is my conviction. I wish not to repeat but let me restate things in a gist again.
From Bhagawad Gita alone:
"tany aham veda sarvani na tvam vettha parantapa". GOD never forgets, but Jiva forgets.
"aham sarvasya prabhvah mattah sarvam pravartate". That HE is the controller or LORD of EVERYTHING. Jiva cannot say this because Jiva also comes from that LORD, Paramatma, and Jiva is a said to be a fractional aspect of GOD (mamaiva amshah jiva loke).
Jiva takes multiple births and nothing is in his control, not even his birth or activities. Jiva is under the control of prakriti and senses, whereas the prakriti (and everything) is under GOD's control (maya adhyakshena prakritih suyate sacharaacharam).
GOD is above Karma while is Jiva is subject to Karma. GOD does not have to endeavour for self-realization because He is in full awareness while the Jiva has to engange in self-realization.
The list can go on.
Dear Govinda:
ReplyDeleteI am under the belief that just like atma, the paramatma is also formless, taseless, colorless, oduor less, thought less entity..
I have argued about this in the past (May 7, 2010 10:28 AM; May 5, 2010 12:20 PM), that atma and paramatma are qualitatively similar. But I have also proposed that similarity does not warrant sameness. A crude example, watermelon is 99% water but that does not make watermelon water. We need to be careful of the differences and mindful of the similarities. So, even though atma and paramatma are of the same quality - Spiritual - there are differences that I have listed earlier.
If you want to support your argument the only way is to make people understand the creation process..
We were heading in that direction until we took this deviation yet again :) ;)
@GodCon:
ReplyDeleteI don't understand your irrational comments. Sorry I cannot respond to such comments from you.[Please don't think i am running away accepting whatever you have told] I am leaving this discussion just because you are not talking to the point and you have been writing stories.
Thank you for a healthy discussion till now. Anweekshaki, thank you for providing a platform where i learnt many things. I thank all others who participated here.
I will surely get back once some rules/standards are followed while commenting. All the best!
Dear Anweekshiki:
ReplyDeleteThanks for the summary.
So, Happiness itself is “GOD” and veda’s and all scriptures say one thing that is “Sarve jana sukhino bhavantu” meaning “let everyone be happy”
Happiness is one of our key natures: of our true sat-chit-ananda nature. We never want to die because of our sat nature. We inquire and seek knowledge because of our chit aspect. And we seek happiness in everything because of our ananda nature. So, we should all endevaour to seek our true states in relation to GOD.
OR let every one be one in GOD
Thanks for putting it this way. This is exactly what I have been arguing for, that we all be one in GOD. Arya and Aralagada seem to say that "Let everyone be GOD". Govinda seems to be somewhere mid-ground ;)
Dear All,
ReplyDeleteTHIS COULD BE MY LAST POST. THANKS FOR ALL THE WONDERFUL EXCHANGE OF IDEAS.
I SEEK APOLOGIES IF I HAVE HURT ANY FEELINGS.
MAY SRI KRISHNA, THE WONDERFUL LORD OF THIS UNIVERSE, BLESS US ALL WITH FULL KNOWLEDGE AND HAPPINESS. MAY BHAGAWAD GITA BE THE LIGHT IN OUR JOURNEY. MAY OUR MINDS BE INSTRUMENTS IN OUR UNDERSTANDING OF GOD. MAY WE ALL PROSPER.
SARVAM SRI KRISHNARPANAM.
GodCon, you are defining things and writing comments based on shastras. I am impressed by your hold on shastras but you have failed in logic
ReplyDeleteArya, looks like you have come to some conclusion now.. and you have taken some stance. But was impressed by the way you streamed the discussion.
Arlagada, you are taking real world examples and trying to sell your theories and logic. I was impressed by some of the logics
Student and TKLG, you are fed up of talking and talking.. you are feeling that none are responding to your logic.
In the mids there were many other who came and went. Anyway, if this is the end of the discussion, let me conclude this discussion.
I put my hats off to the level of discussion you underwent. No ego clashes, no dishonesty. However, Since I do not intend to close this discussion so abruptly. I myself define GOD something like this based on my learning, knowledge and experience.
GOD IS ONE WHO IS DIFFERENT FROM HIS CREATION YET SAME AS HIS CREATION.
OM ........ SHANTI SHANTI SHANTI HI ..... OM TAT SAT
@Arya,
ReplyDeleteSorry I had missed your recent most comment!!
I am sorry if I sounded irrational to you :) ;) I challenged your proposals because it had many undefined assumptions, which sounded irrational to me. Sorry that we are operating on relative platforms; what sounds rational to me may sound irrational to you and vice versa. Others and you had challenged me in similar ways in the past and I had responded positively with patience :) I am surprised by your response :)
Anyway. Do not worry, I am leaving the forum because I will be traveling for extensively for quite a while from now and will not have access to internet :) So you have the platform for yourself :)
Thanks to all, including you Arya :)
Cheers,
GodCon
Dear Anweekshiki:
ReplyDelete"but you have failed in logic"
Hehe Is it? :) Thanks :) I am not here to get a grade - pass/fail these things do not matter to me :) I know what I know, I know my logic, if you do not see logic in it I bow down to you :)
Dear Anweekshiki,
ReplyDeleteI just re-read all the posts and understood the confusion. THAT was NOT my LOGIC :) I was just teasing and having fun with Arya's logic of a GOD COVERED BY IGNORANCE, a GOD who is under ILLUSION :) I have just teasing him and GOvinda about how GOD cannot be under illusion or ignorance. I was just trying to emphasize using their logic that GOD cannot be INDIVIDUAL HUMANs as we all are. Anyway.
We have all moved on, for good :)
Madhava suggested to take on the topic of "I" and answer it.
ReplyDeleteDear Madhava,
As per my understanding we have already understood what is "I". However, for clarity...
"I" is Ahamkaara (Ego). This has been deduced in the discussion.
I was proud to be in the discussion where there were no ego clashes. But, there was a abrupt end to this discussion because of ego clashes. If someone had said something to somebody, he must have told it by his/her observation. It has to be taken sportively and must be either improved or left as it is, if improvement is not possible.
Instead, some people here are dragging the discussion away from the concept and trying to prove that they are right and other are wrong. I shall not name anyone specifically. This is a general comment.
Dear Anweekshiki,
ReplyDeleteI dont think there were any ego clashes, there were ideological differences for sure and that is to be expected when discussing topics such these. And, these confusions and differences are common in a media such as this one. Here, we are talking to "strangers" and using written communication as the media, both of which are recepies for disaster ;) It is hard to set the tone and context of what is written, and we do not know the person we are talking to. Moreover, given that one is constrained by words and vocabulary, the issue gets ever more complicated.
So, I dont think anyone was trying to prove anyone wrong, but challenging each other for clarfications.
We have all learnt and enjoyed this discussion. Thanks to you in particular for setting it up.
Good Luck. You will not always get trouble makers like GodCon, so do not worry. Keep up your good work :)