Prove God exists, how?

[Vrindavan]

hello,

Answering my son's question.

My son think people believing in God is not Science and something not proved.

[Kalicharan Tuvij]

Answering my son's question.

My son think people believing in God is not Science and something not proved.
Namaste Vrindavan,

Behind every equation of Science written there in a book there is a lot of creative work that went into formulating it.

Your son is still growing (yeah do tell him this), it is indeed excellent that he has keen interest in Science. But in case he takes up this interest seriously in the future, as a career-choice perhaps for example, then he will need to explore into that creative realm.

And surely, Dharma is not Science. Not everything is Science. To me, being able to become an elite Soldier for example is a far greater achievement than becoming a Noble laureate in Physics.

Again, the creative work, of which all this Science and Dharma and Arts are a product, goes on at the "back of our minds", and though we certainly can't prove or disprove (an activity of frontal brain) the existence of devata-s, we do know from experience that a lot can be gained from their acquaintance.


Shri Ram,

KT

[Ekam]

Namaste

He is right.

God is not proved by science. Consciousness and matter either.

Pranams.

[silence_speaks]

Can you prove existence or non - existence of "Dwindigole" ?

You will naturally ask me : what does the word mean ?

Long before I prove the existence or non-existence of "God", what does the word mean ?

The word God means "Existence Itself".
Then ... prove the existence of "Existence" is easy isnt it ?


So its important that one understands the word God ... what is SAT-CIT-ANANDA... then the question "Prove its existence becomes redundant" , since God is Existence indeed !


Love!
Silence

[Believer]

Gentlemen,

If you really want to help the OP, then you have to come off your high horse and say something that makes sense. Remember, he has to talk to his son, who might be a 15-20 year old kid and who does not believe in God. So, the terms consciousness and SAT-CHIT-ANAD don't mean much to him. If you can't come down to his level and talk some sense, then you are just exercising your ego and not helping anyone. That is how we get long threads when people post all kinds of incomprehensible, stupid things, just because they want to participate. So, please get real and post something that has value. Let us try to raise the level of discourse in the forum, instead of showing off with knowledge of definitions of religiously oriented terms. To a non-religious person they are meaningless. Come up with a five sentence post on why should a science oriented youngster believe that God is real. Everything else is bogus.

Pranam.

[silence_speaks]

Dear Believer,
:)
Shankara gave elaborate logic and presents the Truth with absolute clarity ! And we give our children half baked beliefs ! ??
Is this not the reason for their questioning. If a 20 year old still does not understand all the logic presented ... it means we are giving them what ? A belief which he can hold onto ? The very fact that he is questioning means he is not satisfied with beliefs and it also indicates present the logic properly ... dont merely give me a new belief. Its wonderful that a youngster asks such pertinent questions ! Because only by questioning and inquiring can knowledge be gained. It just shows a well prepared mind!

A God sitting on clouds is not "Vedantic" concept of God. Unfortunately, today people do not understand God as explained in Vedanta. Vedanta does not preach beliefs and a 20 year old wants not beliefs but clarity about what God means.

God seen as someone sitting "up there" trying to look into all our activities - if this is the kind of idea someone wants to present to a teenager, the teenager will obviously revolt ... thanks to the scientific background.

If you want to give a proper scientific explanation , give it through as presented in Vedanta ... in a totally appropriate way. Its only because we give half baked ideas that the youth do not appreciate the value of our tradition ... Vedanta is not speaking of beliefs and yet very few people know what Vedantic meaning of God is ! Thats why people have some questions. As people mature, they tend to ignore and stop questioning ... it does not mean they believe in God, it just means that they have grown old ... but the youth are not like that ... they will question and if you explain what God means in a proper vedantic sense, their understanding grows!! They tend to appreciate it better !

Lets not push everything under the carpet by saying "This is not for everyone" ... Proper and systematic presentation alone will solve doubts ... not new beliefs !

SAT CIT ANANDA ... has no religion in it, other than the fact tht the terms are sanskrit. IF the vedantic concept of God is understood ... science will have no problems with it ... please don't spread half baked ideas of god and create confusion in youngsters who are science oriented. Let them see the beauty of indian logic! Lets feel proud first tht we are not presenting beliefs ... lets feel proud of the kind of logical system we have , the kind of clarity ... and the systematic way in which God is defined in Hinduism.



You don't urinate every time you see a tree in India; so why post some non-sense every time you see an open thread?
And YOU OWE ME AN APOLOGY FOR CALLING MY PREVIOUS POST A NONSENSE AND ALSO COMPARING IT TO URINATION ... that too without proper understanding as to why I wrote it! If you do not want to appreciate god as "SAT-CIT-ANANDA" its your choice... but you have no business to call someone else's explanation nonsense ! It may not make sense to you unless you are open to it ... it does not mean you go and compare it to urination! I have a right to present my views ... and the views do not call anyone's ideas as "non-sense" ... they simply present an advaitic perspective ... and its my choice as to what I present, without hurting others ! So I think one should either be open to what the other person is presenting or remain mute if one doesnot understand the import!

Love!
Silence

[devotee]

Namaste Vrindavan,


Answering my son's question.

My son think people believing in God is not Science and something not proved.

If 'God' is meant by some old person sitting in heaven who is responsible for creation, sustenance and destruction, then there is no logical proof. I didn't use the word, "Scientific" ... because Science has not be able to prove that and will never be.

MAndukya Upanishad says that the third state of Self i.e. God is undifferentiated (or unified) mass of consciousness which is the origin and end of all beings and that is the Lord of the two worlds. "Undifferentiated" means there is no duality. This means that the whole universe is nothing but mass of Consciousness. Let's see what science has been able to prove so far :
a) Matter and energy are non-different entity.Space and Time are illusory i.e. non-different from Matter and Energy as it can all be merged into one point as was before Big-bang.
b) The laws of nature is well known to everything in this world even to the tiniest particle or even energy and everything in this world strictly follows the laws of nature. An ion of Na+ can identify the presence of Cl- and combine. An atom knows what it needs for a stable configuration whether to add or lose electrons and that makes it look for atoms who want to lose or gain electrons. The earth can feel the force of attraction exerted by the Sun and and that keeps her moving at certain speed and on a certain path. Electrons know on which side potential is higher and on which side it is lower otherwise flow of electrons under potential difference is impossible. Heat energy knows on which side the temperature is lower otherwise flow of heat in that pin-pointed direction is not possible. We also know that from inorganic matter intelligent virus can be formed in a laboratary (which proves that intelligence is inherent in even non-living substances). etc. etc.

Where is this consciousness stored in atoms, electrons, quarks or energy ? What is the essence of all these particles and energy from which they originate and merge back into that essence. All forms of matter and energy are changing except one thing that is Consciousness and therefore, it is logical top assume that these are nothing but different forms of Consciousness. This also proves that everything is born from Consciousness and merge back into Consciousness.

The above logic proves that Consciousness is everything and Upanishads say that Consciousness is God. Now, Consciousness by its very definition must be aware of everything i.e. there can be no knowledge which can remain outside Consciousness otherwise the definition of Consciousness will be violated. So, Consciousness must be Omniscient which is one of the attributes of God. As Consciousness alone exists which manifests itself in varied forms and actions, there is no challenge to it in the universe (as there no other entity) which makes it Omnipotent which is another attribute of God. As everything comes from Consciousness and merges back into Consciousness ... it is the Creator and Destroyer of this universe which is yet another attribute of God.

So, logically, God exists. Sorry, God alone exists and everything else is illusory.

OM

[Believer]

Namaste,

I apologize to you and to everyone else.
As you so proudly announce, friends I am not harsh, just candid. Or some such thing. :)


And YOU OWE ME AN APOLOGY ............. without proper understanding as to why I wrote it!
That is my frustration!
If I don't have a proper understanding as why you wrote whatever you wrote, how do you expect a youngster who thinks we are all nuts for believing in God understand anything? Why not simplify things so that you can communicate with a rebellious young man who has no need for, no reverence for God and who neither understands nor cares for the spiritual terms that are used in the post.

In my book if a teacher could not make a student understand something, the teacher failed in his mission. The teacher has to come down to the student's level to communicate, otherwise it is just another post which takes up some memory of a server. But don't mind my banter and keep guiding people on the path.

Pranam.

[silence_speaks]

Dear Believer,
:)

Even my asking for apology is a candid expression alone. Thank you. I respect the openness and maturity.

Youngsters have to be exposed to the teaching ... not to a belief.

if you tell me "there is a god who created this", am i not reasonable in asking "why can this not be mere dna based evolution?" ... and if we find it tough to answer that, it is only because we have not looked into our own teachers ... properly. Shankara , for example, did not merely say this and leave it at it. He gave a through explanation. The explanation is missing and so they don't get it.

in our tradition (hindu), we give the benefit of doubt to the person who is presenting an idea ... that is a mark of openness. If we immediately jump up and say "This is too much for novices" ... it is not being open to the person who is presenting the idea. Instead there should be a descent question "Don't you think this is hard to grasp for a youngster" ... and the answer is "No! I can prove it" ... and so an open person has to listen to the proof and inquire into it to come to a conclusion. Coming down to the student's level does not mean toning down the teaching ... but interacting with the student ... the student should be open and not straight away dismiss an idea as superior or too much ! Interact and see for yourself if its absolutely simple or not !

This is our traditional approach. That is why we have question and answer kind of discussions going on in our scriptures and prakarana granthas.

This is not to insult you or make you feel low ... We are all in the embrace of God 24 7 ... if we recognize this , we are all very pure ... there is no looking down on anyone ... looking into the eyes of an innocent person, i see that they are like me ... if i can understand they can ... provided they do not say to themselves that "they cannot". you are what I am, neither am i superior to you nor inferior. So if i can get it , no reason why you cannot ... and if you can get it no reason why you should exclude someone else and say they are lower. The problem is not in the toughness of the subject but in the non-openness on the students behalf. one who is open can get it ...


Love!
Silence

[saswathy]

Dear friends ,
God is energy , God is love , God is compassion , God is nature which can be experienced but can't be proved , since all these attributes and qualities are abstract in essence.

[Sudas Paijavana]

Morning, V:


Answering my son's question.

My son think people believing in God is not Science and something not proved.

No need to prove anything. Hinduism isn't Christianity or Islam. Such "can you prove God exists?" questions are of completely different, not to mention foreign, epistemic and ontological paradigms. Instead, "have you done your homework?" would be a befitting reply, quickly followed by "how was your day?".

[Mana]

Namaste Vrindavan,


Answering my son's question.

My son think people believing in God is not Science and something not proved.

You could perhaps recommend to your Son, that God is a conjecture and not a Proof.
The "evidence" or Proof of which, is perceived when following the advise and framework given by those who have experienced before us; as is the very definition of scientific experiment. You might then explain to him the difference between a conjecture and a proof, giving rise to the importance of understanding axioms, otherwise said, the limits of the reference frame of the observer and the system being used.

This is fully reflected by current scientific conjecture, which states that a large percentage of the universe is invisible* or undetectable to us.


Kind regards.

*We have other senses than sight. - you might explain the corresponding tattva here.

[silence_speaks]

Friends,
"What does the word God mean"?
Long before I can prove or disprove God... we have to define what the word means.

Otherwise it would be like the question: Can you prove the existence of dwindigole ?

unless the word is well defined you cannot prove or disprove.

Love!
Silence

[yajvan]

namaste,


hello,

Answering my son's question.
My son think people believing in God is not Science and something not proved.

First I think its a reasonable question. Yet one must ask : How old is your son ? What is his natural 'bent' ? That is, is he a simple person ? Scientific by nature ? Has he finished school and now pondering questions of a higher nature ? What is his ability to comprehend things that are abstract ? Does he or did he practice any worship ? What is his expecations of a 'right answer' to this question ?

As I have found with many questions of this nature, it turns into a game called 'bring me rock'.
The person asks, bring me a rock. So, you deliver a rock. Then the person says, oh I wanted one without sharp edges. So you fetch one with that quality. Then he says, oh but I wanted it to be blue. So you find one blue. Then he says , yes, that is blue but a bit darker blue. You find the blue rock. Then he says, oh yes, that is blue, with no sharp corners, but it needs to be a bit bigger rock.

As you can see this can become a frustrating exercise. Hence one needs to be sure the person really wants a rock, and get a clear understanding of his/her needs. I have been in this situation often - 'please tell me who this God is'. So, before playing 'bring me a rock' I try and lay out some of the terms, defintions I wish to enter into the conversation and make sure they are acceptable to the person. Acceptable means , they are comprehended and prove ( I hope ) benefical to the conversation.
This occured just yesterday... The person I was talking with was my senior and with great interest in the wisdom of sanAtana dharma. I took time ( a few days) before answering his question, as we spoke for a few days , 1 hr. at a time.

Yet the final answer to our conversation for this person, at his age, understanding, comprehension level, and ability to simulate this knowledge was that the Supreme is unspeakable. All that we will discuss about this Supreme will be the best approximation a human can talk of to another human. This set the stage for a fruitful conversation. It also suggestd that I was not the final authorty on this matter and some 'research' on his side was in order. Research for this 78 year man was knowledge + experience. He took it upon himself to move forward on this.

Would this be the best course of action for some one 10 years of age ? 15 years ? 20 years of age ? One can say , it all depends on the qualification of the student asking.

So, we all want to help. We all want to explain the light of the Supreme.... this is a good thing. Yet the knowledge as I see it needs to be metered out based upon the student. One needs to consider is there passing curiosity ( window shopping) or genine interest. This IMHO suggests how intently a person will listen.

... painted cakes do not satisfy hunger.

iti sivam

[markandeya 108 dasa]

Pranams,

I hope this thread continues longer as it one that I like, it has importance.

The first question to the scientists, is he studying within science something greater than himself.

The question also has to be looked at especially in the west from a Historical point of view and how science arrived at the point it is now.

Then we need to look at what type of God they deny, if it is one of the Bible, and no disrespect to that doctrine but that is what they mostly refute. This again falls into a subject of History. The bible is a book of faith, science is not about faith.

Then we can add how much does science really know about matter, what to speak of consciousness.

It is a tricky debate in the west, but they have missed out some vital areas of research, i.e themselves :)

Ys

Md

[Mana]

Namaste,


... Would this be the best course of action for some one 10 years of age ? 15 years ? 20 years of age ? One can say , it all depends on the qualification of the student asking.

Age is a curious notion, I worked for a long while as a portrait photographer working mostly with children; it is very clear from a very young age, the enormous expanse between the differing states of awareness of the children, and from a very young age.
It would seem to me, that the schools of Occidental education will try to assimilate all children with each other; as though trying to convince them that they are all the same and then test them against a linear scale, when they are clearly not such.

From such a foundation it is very difficult to analyse anything objectively; ones subjective view has already been badly obscured; leaving the child ill equipped to understudy even the most simple premise of both science and philosophy; should this is done to all, then who would notice?

As you rightly mention Md:

It is a tricky debate in the west, but they have missed out some vital areas of research, i.e themselves :)Then there is also the subject of time passed since realisation of that ... and then eventually, of time its self.

Now it seems ludicrous to me try to prove the existence of God; we must first find who we are, before we can understand and analyse our surroundings.
That we might become concious of God, then becomes a real possibility.

Kind regards.

[markandeya 108 dasa]

Pranams,

The question was asked by Vrindavan Ji, so obviously he does not know how to answer. The modern scientific model is more or less run by Atheists, check out Dawkins confusion to how a person of faith cannot be a scientist. (biting my lip to not say Bigot :)... )

They have strong propaganda based on empirical logic and observation, religion has empirical logic and observation too, samkhya, but within the paradigm of religion the property of consciousness is at the center, where as in empirical science they are trying to find consciousness through empirical means, although the scientist are often to dull to notice that without consciousness there could be no empirical observation, the simple difference between a living body and dead body.

The religious quest is to explore what is consciousness, most eastern religions will start from this premise and then further explore through practice and becoming versed in the mass amount of wonderful literature.

We need to identify what empirical science is, the study of phenomena and then we need to identify the study of religion ( dharma) which is a self study, or the study of the nature of consciousness.

Throughout known Vedic civilizations and perhaps before the recorded period of Vedas in written form the cultured man (sadhu, rishi, yogi) had no problem with the study of both phenomena and consciousness, so they include a more complete approach to knowledge.

If that balance is not aligned then we have a type of chaos, religious fanaticism and blind materialism, both of which lead to a type of hellish existence.

The answer is actually quite simple, keep studying all forms of knowledge, keep an open mind, there are elements of truth in all of the information we study, some have deeper meaning which can be understood by the depth of our understanding, the main thing is not be caught up dogmas, and if the Modern Atheist says he has no dogma and that only belongs to religion then he is either ignorant or dishonest.

Some people say that Dharmic paths is not a science, this is just not true, it may not be the type of science that fits into the modern education system, but at least some credit should be given that it is scientific in its approach. The problem with science now is that they have some how or another brainwashed everyone to think that the subjective experience is not that important, and when it is, its study is done in an objective way, ridiculous, and these people are considered top of the chain in intelligentsia , this is the biggest error for modern science to be considered in its existing format the main authority in the field of knowledge.

Things are much better now in some ways than before, maybe that balance is closer to coming to the harmony that is essential. Also the scientist need to be more honest in the way they have taken many things from ancient cultures and then claimed it as there own because of the way they fashion it, usually for prestige, money and noble prizes.

Ys

Md

[maxpsycho]

I welcome comments and would like to point out before I begin, that my intention isn't to deliberately offend anyone; nevertheless I know that I will.

Personally, I find the question to be quite pertinent and I think the answer lies in something slightly deeper than the chasm between religion and science.

Language plays a very major part in ideas about faith and belief. Primarily, it's the confusion about the meaning of words, and the gaps in definitions that allow unscientific concepts to creep in. For example, there is no common perception of a god. Every believer has a unique identity that they ascribe to their chosen deity. Furthermore even attributes that are supposedly assigned to these deities, which have been criticised and scrutinised for ages, are so badly defined that the believers are left with their own imagination to work out what they are. Take the case of Hindu believers who believe in the one cosmic creative force "Brahman" and its offshoots Brahma, Vishnu, Mahesh; the fact that already their are people here who are thinking of rebuttals to this model of Hinduism tells you how ill-defined these ideas really are.

These discrepancies are shared across faiths and religions. Some people try and posit a delineation between literalist reading of certain scriptures and "feeling the presence of God while not relying upon scripture too much". This of course is a fatuous argument as those who follow this line of reasoning fail to provide evidence that proves that they are the arbiters of how to believe in a given religion.

So I would actually like to answer your question with a few other questions that I hope will highlight the reasons why any thinking person cannot believe in a God -

- Who is this God that you believe in?
- If this God is undefined and indefinable - then isn't it akin to saying God is nahdkfmfbjwlaakakeo, I.e. white noise?
- How did you come to believe in the God that you believe in?
- Did you give every faith a fair chance by learning the tenets of each religion, before deciding which religion to follow? I.e. if you're not a Muslim/Christian/Buddhist/Scientologist what criteria did you use to discard these candidates for the position of ultimate truth?
- Did you use this same criteria against the faith you do follow? Or was that more of a legacy you inherited from your parents?
- If you're a non-denominational believer/deist, what led you to the belief in a creator of the universe?
- What is your starting point when it comes to the supernatural? Do you begin with a scientific starting point of the null hypothesis, which means that any hypothesis is considered false unless proven true. Or do you believe arbitrarily that the idea of God merits agnosticism? Do you feel the same way towards ghosts, leprechauns, witches, goblins, fairies and unicorns?
- How does your God fair against Euthyphro's dilemma?

Looking forward to replies. :-)

[markandeya 108 dasa]

Pranams

If its a case of language your after to define the religious experience then perhaps if you have not read this it may shed some light

http://www2.hn.psu.edu/faculty/jmanis/wjames/varieties-rel-exp.pdf

Ys

Md

[Eastern Mind]

Vannakkam Vrindavan: Your son is right, in that we can not prove the existence of God, in logical terms.

It's outside logic and the intellect, and that's where most of his experiences have been, I'm guessing. My suggestion would be to take him on a pilgrimage to India to one of the thronging temples. He needs to have the opportunities to experience the bhakti for God. He may not feel it himself, but he may then have the opportunity to feel watch others who do.

In the meantime, you can set an example for him, and give an alternate view whenever he speaks of atheism.

Good luck at giving him such an experience.

Aum Namasivaya

[maxpsycho]

Vannakkam Vrindavan: Your son is right, in that we can not prove the existence of God, in logical terms. It's outside logic and the intellect, and that's where most of his experiences have been, I'm guessing.

So how would you go about differentiating between a delusional, hallucinatory experience, and a real one, caused by an actual interaction with an almighty deity; taking into account that subjective experiences like this are utterly unverifiable?

[Mana]

Namaste maxpsycho,

What is the difference between a delusion and an alteration in ones neuro epigenetic landscape? More to the point, if any perceived change in your own genetic make-up is beneficial to your future generations, rather than simply to your own very limited self; why would one question this, other than for self admiration and a desire to live for ever; at your own children's great expense?

The ego that is unaware of its own self repetition amongst the future generations in space and time, which are an obvious result of a multiversity and of the multifaceted aspects of time; as is so very strongly implied by the highly apparent patterns of nature, observable by those who chose to see them.
Who then is deluded here: He who names the unnameable or he who believes only that which he sees; usually to the great detriment of his other senses?

Your perspective is, to my mind; somewhat blinkered by your own limited illusion of self.

No offence intended,

Kind regards.

[maxpsycho]

What is the difference between a delusion and an alteration in ones neuro epigenetic landscape? More to the point, if any perceived change in your own genetic make-up is beneficial to your future generations, rather than simply to your own very limited self; why would one question this, other than for self admiration and a desire to live for ever; at your own children's great expense?

What does this have to do with the topic at hand?


The ego that is unaware of its own self repetition amongst the future generations in space and time, which are an obvious result of a multiversity and of the multifaceted aspects of time; as is so very strongly implied by the highly apparent patterns of nature, observable by those who chose to see them.

Sounds like babble to me (no offense intended here either). Again, seems irrelevant to the topic and again; is it not a jump from recognising patterns to extrapolating that there is a perpetual self repeating ego, which is so "obviously" implied as a result of "a multiversity and multifacted aspects of time" (what does that even mean?!)


Who then is deluded here: He who names the unnameable or he who believes only that which he sees; usually to the great detriment of his other senses? Your perspective is, to my mind; somewhat blinkered by your own limited illusion of self.

Naming the unnameable is a contradiction in terms, which ties in with my idea that it boils down to poorly defined, often self-refuting and contradictory terms. Can you think of something that cannot be named, for example? To try and shroud serious questions about belief in god, faith and religion, with pseudo-mystical hogwash is just dishonest. All I am doing is trying to separate actual defined ideas that can be disputed, from ideas that are so ill-defined and elastic as to render them irrelevant. I don't have an illusion of self, I have a definition of it (admittedly limited by my own reference points). I am a mammal of the human species (specifically homo sapiens sapiens), and my identity is a collection of labels, memories, opinions, thoughts, beliefs, ideas, vocabulary among many others. If I rely on my sight to determine the validity of a claim, I don't immediately shut down my other senses. Neither do I discard empirical knowledge about said claim. I am however interested to know, how you're so sure of this whole other realm that presumably is outside the reach of sensory perception?


No offence intended
Don't worry, none taken. :-)

[Mana]

Namaste,


What does this have to do with the topic at hand?

sanātana dharma.

Please do come back and discuss when you are versed in this pretext, we might then be able to converse reasonably upon this subject.
If it sounds like babble; please do consider the possibility that you are constrained by your own limited understanding.

For example, the human linguistic capacity places limits upon our understanding and a veil upon our minds; perhaps you might consider learning a second language, if you don't already speak one, my apologies if you do already. This opens up an understanding of the importance that the nature of nomenclature has upon our conciousness and our perception.

Kind regards.

[Mana]

Namaste,


... I am however interested to know, how you're so sure of this whole other realm that presumably is outside the reach of sensory perception?

Perhaps out side of your perception, but not that of others. We non of us see or hear in the same way, nor with the same light.
We are all different, some of us are able to detect much more subtle nuances than others; Where as others able to shout louder. Why limit our requirements of proof to one small subgroup who have, it would seem to me, a limited perception and particularly objective motivations?

Especially if it is damaging to the environment.

We might consider particle spin as a good place to start an explanation of this, if it works for Physics then I'm happy to run with it; then x-ray crystallography, perhaps Jyotiṣa?

[maxpsycho]

Namaste,
Perhaps out side of your perception, but not that of others.

I was quoting you in this case - so are you suggesting that your senses do perceive another realm which is, dare I repeat myself, unperceivable?


Particle spin would be a good place to start an explanation, if it works for Physics then I'm happy to run with it; shall we start with x-ray crystallography, or Jyotiṣa?
I hate to keep doing this - but what does this have to do with the question of the "proof of god"?


sanātana dharma. Please do come back and discuss when you are versed in this pretext, we might then be able to converse reasonably upon this subject.
If it sounds like babble; please do consider the possibility that you are constrained by your own limited understanding.
I wouldn't dream of saying that I know everything - the only thing I'm certain about is that I know very little. But again - appeal to supposed expert knowledge is no excuse here. The questions I asked in my first comment still stand unanswered. Why do you believe the tenets of Sanatana Dharma over Islam, or Christianity, or Bahai'ism? If your starting premise is belief, why is that? Why not start with non-belief and see if you can reason yourself towards belief?


For example, the human linguistic capacity places limits upon our understanding and a veil upon our minds; perhaps you might consider learning a second language, if you don't already speak one, my apologies if you do already. This opens up an understanding of the importance that the nature of nomenclature has upon our conciousness and our perception.
As a matter of fact I am able to converse and write fluently in at least two (English and Hindi), and am able to converse in an additional two languages (Punjabi and Gujarati). But I don't think of language as a limit upon understanding - there is no conspiracy by "language designers" to veil our minds. Language is a tool that our species has developed over time to describe objects and ideas. And I admit that in the absence of telepathy and clairvoyance, it's the best tool we have. Some people are clearly able to describe what they think and feel better than others. But just because one feels limited in their vocabulary to be able to describe an experience - doesn't imply that the experience is transcendent or supernatural or evidence for a creator.

[Eastern Mind]

So how would you go about differentiating between a delusional, hallucinatory experience, and a real one, caused by an actual interaction with an almighty deity; taking into account that subjective experiences like this are utterly unverifiable?

Vannakkam: I'm sorry to be going off topic here, as the topic at hand is helping a caring father man who sees his son straying from theism. It is not a debate on the merits of atheism.

However.... This argument has been going on for a very long time. Visions and overwhelming senses of God's presence (in other words, mysticism) happen, at least according to the tons of personal testimony. Scientists have often explained it as delusion. I'm sure many mystics of the Victorian era were put in insane asylums for expressing it. Maybe that's how the idea to remain silent about it came about. Some rationalists think yore just plain crazee!

The bottom line, in my opinion, is that until said scientist or 'logical' thinker has such experiences, they will simply never believe it can happen to others.

Aum Namasivaya

[maxpsycho]

Vannakkam: I'm sorry to be going off topic here, as the topic at hand is helping a caring father man who sees his son straying from theism. It is not a debate on the merits of atheism.

However.... This argument has been going on for a very long time. Visions and overwhelming senses of God's presence (in other words, mysticism) happen, at least according to the tons of personal testimony. Scientists have often explained it as delusion. I'm sure many mystics of the Victorian era were put in insane asylums for expressing it. Maybe that's how the idea to remain silent about it came about. Some rationalists think yore just plain crazee!

The bottom line, in my opinion, is that until said scientist or 'logical' thinker has such experiences, they will simply never believe it can happen to others.

Aum Namasivaya
Sir, with all due respect - I am not suggesting that those who have these experiences are lying. In fact I'm sure that many, many people truly have these experiences. My issue is with the source of these experiences, i.e. are they truly transcendent, or are they like myriad other experiences, completely explainable as a result of a hallucination, drug-induced euphoria, or seizure or another such phenomenon. Why believe that they are transcendent until you have actually exhausted all other alternative explanations?

Furthermore, I'm not talking about the merits of atheism either. I am trying to stay on topic by saying that since the beginning of human history, there has not yet been a single piece of verifiable evidence, presented for the existence of such a deity. It's all the more surprising, considering God, given his/her/its infinite power (by any religious definition), doesn't have to do much to convince anyone of their existence. And if presented with the hypothesis of God and faith, I think that if you are truly interested in the proof and truth of the concepts, then it's incumbent upon you to ask the difficult questions, and not hide behind mysticism.

With regards to personal testimony, I only have one question - what do you make of the personal testimonies of thousands if not millions of people, who don't follow the same faith as you? Do you believe in the personal testimony of people who say that Jesus spoke to them and told them that all other religions are false? Or substitute prophet Mohammed in his stead? Or L.Ron Hubbard?

[Mana]

Namaste,


... I hate to keep doing this - but what does this have to do with the question of the "proof of god"?


Linguistics, or words, are quite likely "stored" and are developed in the nuroepigenome, as such so is the word "God". This is a common notion in Vedic tradition as sounds are seen to emerge from a field having vibration, before form, and form before eventually being heard and lastly written.

I am not looking for proof of god, if you take the time to read my initial reply to this thread; I personally recommend God be viewed as a conjecture not a proof and that certain axioms should be first learned before tackling the concepts here.

sanātana dharma to my mind encompasses all belief, including those of the scientific schools, all branches.
Language evolves, and the way in which it evolves effects our thought. This happens over long periods of time and between cultures, math is of course as a pinnacle and crowning jewel of this, perhaps its origin ...

Telepathy, now I prefer to speak of empathy over telepathy, it is a rare enough commodity its self without seeking explanations of synchronisity of thought. Empathy leads to a greatly enriched heightened perception of the world.
This might be perceived as telepathy by some.
More importantly perhaps though, I believe that a much greater depth of resolution is found in all of the senses when empathy is cultivated and nurtured. Of course this notion would be incomprehensible to one who does not have any experience of it.

Kind regards.

[Mana]

Namaste,


... there is no conspiracy by "language designers" to veil our minds. Language is a tool that our species has developed over time to describe objects and ideas. And I admit that in the absence of telepathy and clairvoyance, it's the best tool we have. Some people are clearly able to describe what they think and feel better than others. But just because one feels limited in their vocabulary to be able to describe an experience - doesn't imply that the experience is transcendent or supernatural or evidence for a creator.


I shall have to admit to being a little bemused as to why you chose to speak of linguistic conspiracy, clairvoyance or telepathy. I have not made mention any of these concepts and nor has any one else; I can't help but wonder why you chose to bring them to the discussion? A curious position indeed; I hope that I have not offended you, perhaps in suggesting that your own limits may impeach your understanding of reality?

Now then, were we not going to investigate the existence of a 5th dimension through an examination of particle spin?

Kind regards.

[Kalicharan Tuvij]

So how would you go about differentiating between a delusional, hallucinatory experience, and a real one, caused by an actual interaction with an almighty deity; taking into account that subjective experiences like this are utterly unverifiable?
Namaste,

Don't worry, there are specific practices in Hinduism that make us differentiate between the imaginary (mithya) and the real (satya).

No, I'll not tell you more about them. However, it is a lot more like a maestro teaching his pupil the art of painting; he says, "son, first prove yourself competent by depicting the world as it is - be it landscapes or portraits - and then you are ready (Adhikari) to go on creating your own masterpieces."

Similarly, Sat never leaves a Bhakta even while he/she is an Adhikari on the mystical adventure.



P.S.: no need to reply, this isn't a conversation.

[saswathy]

Dear friends ,
The proof of God's existence is one thing which is highly impossible to give. When one is hungry , one has to eat the food . No amount of the description of food relieves the pangs of hunger. The same way, when a person wants proof , he has to make a foray in to the spiritual path. It is one thing which is felt but can't be shown .
If some body tries to show, it is not the proof but cheap gimmick , or at the most siddhi , which does not contribute to the truth.

[silence_speaks]

So how would you go about differentiating between a delusional, hallucinatory experience, and a real one, caused by an actual interaction with an almighty deity; taking into account that subjective experiences like this are utterly unverifiable?

Dear MaxPsycho & Friends,
:)

I really like this argument.

Vedanta argues on exactly same lines ... it says "Experiences" cannot be differentiated from "Hallucinations". Entire Mandukya karikas along with the Bhasyas are on this aspect only.

Its unfortunate that people do not recognize this simple fact.
Any experience, however real it might appear, is not differentiable from a hallucination.

Love!
Silence

[markandeya 108 dasa]

These arguments are so old and cannot be answered by an objective study or debate, max phsyco you either have an experience and work from that or you do not have an experience and do not work on others, its that simple...

It would be worth while to read the link I posted it may shed some light to what your saying or trying to probe, but I only see logic which in and of itself is never really reflective of an experience, nothing that your saying is even original, its just a trap of intellectualism.

Personally I think your logic is at the bottom of the rung because its purely objective, when the deepest part of us is subjective in the phenomenal range of what we can measure, so why would two experiences ever be the same, essence can be transmitted via communication and the more ability one has in this essence the easier it is to communicate, the less ability one has it becomes an impossible subject to investigate or perceive. Its just like that, and will always be like that.

[saswathy]

Dear friend , That is the exact problem . those who experience do not bother to prove and those who do not experience can't prove .
All those who try to explain are in the middle path . For that matter , there are many mysteries in the nature which do not have
a tangible proof .

[silence_speaks]

Dear markandeya 108 dasa & saswathy,
:) All Experiences are hallucinatory - unreal.
There is no specific experience called the "Experience of God"

In fact , if "Isavasyam idam sarvam" ... then there is no way that you can miss the experience of God -- you already have it. If at all you still seem to think that the experience of God is not there, its merely a lack of recognition. Its like the story of Tulasidasa

Tulasidasa used to chant rama nama during his morning ablutions and pour water near a tree. Hearing his chanting of Rama Nama every day, a Brahma Rakshashi on the tree got free from its curse. So it appeared before Tulasi, thanked him and asked him to seek a boon within its limits. Tulasi Dasa asked the Rakshashi to show him Rama.

"I cannot show you Rama, but I can tell you one thing. Every day as teach Ramayana, Hanuman comes in the form of a leper and sits at one corner of your assembly. He might be able to help.", the Rakshashi said.

The next day Tulasidas catches hold of Hanuman in the form of leper and pleads him to show Rama. So Hanuman says "Ok, tomorrow you shall see Rama". The next day, as Tulasi was going about , Rama walked past him in the opposite direction , but Tualsidas missed him ! HE saw him and yet missed him!

In the evening, he once again requested Hanuman to show him Rama. Hanuman said "You saw him and yet did not recognize him, tomorrow you shall see again"...

the next day as Tulasidas was preparing Sandalwood, sri Rama came to him and asked him for a little of Sandalwood. Tulasidas gave him Sandalwood and yet did not recognize Rama ! This time, since Hanuman did not want him to miss ... he sat on the tree and chanted "Tulasi is indeed fortunate, Rama himself appeared to him to ask for Sandalwood"!!

Only then did he recognize.

We do not lack the experience of God. You can see him in the eyes of the poor person who sought some food from you, in the eyes of the child, in the eyes of your friends and foes... in your own eyes ... the one who is seeing through those eyes is God Himself !!

infact ... right now you are in the embrace of God ... but if we still think we lack the experience of God, its not a problem with experience but with the recognition of God , recognition of God's presence !!

For a moment if you remain in the present moment and look at anything ... you remain as mere presence, here and now ... it remains as presence ... that is God ! The Experience of God.

You meet God everyday 24 7 ... but you do not meet him with a bow and arrow or with a tail or a snake wound around the neck ... so you miss him!!

One day, i was meditating and pleading God to appear before me ... and it was suddenly as if God said "Why don't you recognize my formless Presence"! After that I never sought God to appear before me , because he is everywhere ! Everywhere !! You just cannot miss him!

Love!
Silence

[saswathy]

Dear friend ,

what I said you have put in other words . Call it experience , call it real , call it hallociation , all amounts to one thing .What is an anubhuthi to one person could be a halluciation to another . Now the non believers can say that the words of formless entity which you heard are hallociation

[silence_speaks]

Dear saswathy ji,
:) Anubhuti or anubhavam does not mean experience. That is an inaccurate translation -- just like sraddha is translated as faith!

anu = prefix that says "Following", following "Sravana-Manana"
Bhav = To be!

To "Be" Following Sravana-Manana is Anubhavam !

Sruti-Yukti-Anubhava ... correspond to Sravana-Manana-Nidhidhyasana.

So Anubhava or Anubhuti does not really mean an experience but it means "To Be" ... "Just Be , in Ramana's words" !!

Infact it has nothing to do with experience.

The Truth as taught by vedanta is not a matter of belief ... its not dismissible as hallucination ... its solidly reasoned out and well established!

to say "Everything is unreal" falls into Bertrand russell's paradox and is illogical statement.

Love!
Silence

[saswathy]

Dear friend ,
ANUBHUTHI is not experience, but anubhavam is experience . Anubhavam can be explained but anubhuthi can't be explained .There is a very remote chance for proving anubhavam but no such thing is possible for anubhuthi , since it is highly personal .Any way there is no point in trying to prove a thing which can't be proved with the limited human intellect , knowledge and reasoning.

[silence_speaks]

Dear saswathy ji,
:)

Both Anubhuti and Anubhavam point to the same "Self Abidance", following Sravana-Manana.
Neither refer to experience.

God is beyond intellect implies he need not be captured with the intellect, because God is Self Evident. It just goes to mean that intellect only serves to eliminate wrong cognition!!

If God is beyond mind, how does any one know about God ? Everyone knows about God because God is Self Evident. Intellect only is needed to remove wrong notions.

Love!
Silence

[Anirudh]

Dear friends ,
The proof of God's existence is one thing which is highly impossible to give. When one is hungry , one has to eat the food . No amount of the description of food relieves the pangs of hunger. The same way, when a person wants proof , he has to make a foray in to the spiritual path. It is one thing which is felt but can't be shown .
If some body tries to show, it is not the proof but cheap gimmick , or at the most siddhi , which does not contribute to the truth.

Namaste Saswathy ji,

I don't mince words when they shouldn't be.

It is difficult to prove GOD to a person who operates from a logical mindset because many situations can't be proved logically. Until then that particular person will consider that action/situation as a thing which has not yet been proved.

Keeping that in mind if we leave the topic at that state, it is an act of wisdom maturity humility.

But once we try to confuse the seeker (could very well be a non believer) with terms like siddhi etc etc it is NOTHING but an act of pure unadulterated baseless reckless offering.

By doing that you are insulting the Tapasvis and their Tapasya. I hope you understand what you have offered.

[saswathy]

Dear friend ,
I mean the siddhis shown by many babas ,swamis ,gurus ,but not real siddhas.You are free to express to your views . I had seen many babas producing shiv lings , gold chains , watches and many things . An ordinary person thinks that the person doing all those tricks is a god .

[Anirudh]

Namaste Silence Speaks ji

I wish to concur whether both of us are in same page.

In nutshell you are saying :

When you are ready the teacher appear.

Grace is only to be found by effort,
although it is here and now.

To get ready there should be an effort and then everything fall in place.

It is like what you see in rear mirror when you drive. If you don't see the rear mirror, it is Not a proof for the non existence of the world that you see in mirror.

But to see that world you should make the effort to look at the rear mirror.

But are you trying to say every experience Good or Bad is a divine experience ? I don't think that way.

Here is where we have to apply many of the philosophical findings discovered / interpreted by our Achaarya (s)


Dear markandeya 108 dasa & saswathy,
:) All Experiences are hallucinatory - unreal.
There is no specific experience called the "Experience of God"

In fact , if "Isavasyam idam sarvam" ... then there is no way that you can miss the experience of God -- you already have it. If at all you still seem to think that the experience of God is not there, its merely a lack of recognition. Its like the story of Tulasidasa

Tulasidasa used to chant rama nama during his morning ablutions and pour water near a tree. Hearing his chanting of Rama Nama every day, a Brahma Rakshashi on the tree got free from its curse. So it appeared before Tulasi, thanked him and asked him to seek a boon within its limits. Tulasi Dasa asked the Rakshashi to show him Rama.

"I cannot show you Rama, but I can tell you one thing. Every day as teach Ramayana, Hanuman comes in the form of a leper and sits at one corner of your assembly. He might be able to help.", the Rakshashi said.

The next day Tulasidas catches hold of Hanuman in the form of leper and pleads him to show Rama. So Hanuman says "Ok, tomorrow you shall see Rama". The next day, as Tulasi was going about , Rama walked past him in the opposite direction , but Tualsidas missed him ! HE saw him and yet missed him!

In the evening, he once again requested Hanuman to show him Rama. Hanuman said "You saw him and yet did not recognize him, tomorrow you shall see again"...

the next day as Tulasidas was preparing Sandalwood, sri Rama came to him and asked him for a little of Sandalwood. Tulasidas gave him Sandalwood and yet did not recognize Rama ! This time, since Hanuman did not want him to miss ... he sat on the tree and chanted "Tulasi is indeed fortunate, Rama himself appeared to him to ask for Sandalwood"!!

Only then did he recognize.

We do not lack the experience of God. You can see him in the eyes of the poor person who sought some food from you, in the eyes of the child, in the eyes of your friends and foes... in your own eyes ... the one who is seeing through those eyes is God Himself !!

infact ... right now you are in the embrace of God ... but if we still think we lack the experience of God, its not a problem with experience but with the recognition of God , recognition of God's presence !!

For a moment if you remain in the present moment and look at anything ... you remain as mere presence, here and now ... it remains as presence ... that is God ! The Experience of God.

You meet God everyday 24 7 ... but you do not meet him with a bow and arrow or with a tail or a snake wound around the neck ... so you miss him!!

One day, i was meditating and pleading God to appear before me ... and it was suddenly as if God said "Why don't you recognize my formless Presence"! After that I never sought God to appear before me , because he is everywhere ! Everywhere !! You just cannot miss him!

Love!
Silence

[Mana]

Namaste,

A few musings upon the subjects at hand ...

Circular arguments are, to my mind, a proof of the lack of experience and of emotional vision, the sap by which the spiritual tree lives. Experience is manas tattva emanating or resonating within existence; the very vehicle of its construct are the construct of the risi who then describe.

Circular arguments, rather akin to proof of the void, are like a blank smile with many teeth yet with very little feeling emanating from inside; much exists out side of that. An energy is transmitted in humility, in a twinkle of the eyes; that is and is of that experience. A circular argument can never do this, it has no twinkle in the eyes.

Direct experience of that can cause the soul to vibrate in such a way; by way of Śaktipāta. Whether initiated by Guru or by self will depend entirely upon the capacity of the aspirant. One thing is to my mind certain; this is experienced or felt.

To state that Śaktipāta does not manifest in vibration; is to proclaim that one is already dead; retreat to the mountains advised. I think proof enough for the need of God, of duality; whilst removing the husk of delusion, illusion and allusion; so that reality can shine.

The reality being that there never was any illusion; it was śiva the time.

[Anirudh]

Namaste,

A few musings upon the subjects at hand ...

Circular arguments are, to my mind, a proof of the lack of experience and of emotional vision, the sap by which the spiritual tree lives. Experience is manas tattva emanating or resonating within existence; the very vehicle of its construct are the construct of the risi who then describe.

Circular arguments, rather akin to proof of the void, are like a blank smile with many teeth yet with very little feeling emanating from inside; much exists out side of that. An energy is transmitted in humility, in a twinkle of the eyes; that is and is of that experience. A circular argument can never do this, it has no twinkle in the eyes.

Direct experience of that can cause the soul to vibrate in such a way; by way of Śaktipāta. Whether initiated by Guru or by self will depend entirely upon the capacity of the aspirant. One thing is to my mind certain; this is experienced or felt.

To state that Śaktipāta does not manifest in vibration; is to proclaim that one is already dead; retreat to the mountains advised. I think proof enough for the need of God, of duality; whilst removing the husk of delusion, illusion and allusion; so that reality can shine.

The reality being that there never was any illusion; it was śiva the time.

Namaste Mana ji

Can you please explain your position in a lucid and easily understandable language.

I am young in my spritual journey. I couldn't understand your offering completely and partial knowledge is dangerous.

Hope you ll consider my request.

[Anirudh]

Namaste Saswathy ji

I have seen in internet arguments people change the goal post or play with words.

For eg : There is himalayan difference between the following two statements.

#1. MEN stare at WOMEN
#2. Evil minded MEN stare at WOMEN.

Every one has opinion but generalization doesn't serve any purpose.

Thank you...



Dear friend ,

I mean the siddhis shown by many babas ,swamis ,gurus ,but not real siddhas.You are free to express to your views . I had seen many babas producing shiv lings , gold chains , watches and many things . An ordinary person thinks that the person doing all those tricks is a god .


Quote:
Originally Posted by saswathy
Dear friends ,
The proof of God's existence is one
thing which is highly impossible to
give. When one is hungry , one has
to eat the food . No amount of the
description of food relieves the
pangs of hunger. The same way,
when a person wants proof , he has
to make a foray in to the spiritual
path. It is one thing which is felt
but can't be shown .


If some body tries to show, it is
not the proof but cheap gimmick ,
or at the most siddhi , which does
not contribute to the truth.

[Mana]

Namaste Anirudh,

Partial knowledge is not so much dangerous as it is ensnaring, yet that is the very fiber by which the threads of time grow; which paradoxical is also a function that preserves knowledge; either in a genuine form, else by example of that which is not sustainable, perhaps better said: sattvic. As the long standing temple is eventually cover by the growth of rajas a tamas in dispute

Delightfully then it is in time, that one might come to discover such a temple of knowledge; requiring only the brushing off of such encumbering, ensnaring fiber of roots and and threads; to reveal the glorious treasure within.


Namaste Mana ji

Can you please explain your position in a lucid and easily understandable language.

I am young in my spritual journey. I couldn't understand your offering completely and partial knowledge is dangerous.

Hope you ll consider my request.

I speak in analogies Anirudh; as I find any direct reference to be futile in comparison with reality, that of the beauty that is awareness of God conciousness. For the fear that any analogy be mistaken for a rigid truth and become yet another creeper upon the walls of the temple; when it is the door that which we wish and aspire to describe ...

By all means, if you would like me to rephrase any particular sentiment; please tell me which, I shall do my very best to do so and in a manor that best befits the time.

I will freely admit that the English that I write here is no longer used in any conversational form, and perhaps never was. Then writing is a form of art and timing is everything in speech; so how best to bridge that gap or void, in an internet forum thread?

Kind regards.

[saswathy]

Dear friend ,
'' to prove is not possible '' ----- is a specific and clear statement but not a general statement . I don't think that proof was given at any time , in any place, by any one in our yuga as far as my knowledge goes . Argument for the sake of argument does not lead us any where .

[Anirudh]

Namaste Saswathy

This is turning into an absurd argument.

Read post#40. I replied to the highlighted portion in your post #31. Read your post #31 and then my reply at #40.

In the days of Azhwars, they have even spoken to God.

Why should I call Azhwars to bail me out?

My continued survival is a proof of existence of God. I have met God at different times in flesh and bone and many times in dreams. Realization happened as I grew spiritually.

Like Silence Speaks had said, Shree Raama Chandra Prabhu didn't appear with bow and arrow.


I have clearly answered to proving part also. Read post #40. Just because you met some frauds you can't generalize all others.

Please for heaven sake dont mix magic and siddhi. They are not synonymous. And don't shift goal post or twist statements. It doesn't help.

Your statements directly mean that Our Saints were all telling lies. Do you think earth is not flat but spherical. Have you seen the entire Earth at one instance or you believe because some one whom you haven't met in flesh and bones and some organization which you don't belong to told you or published that earth is spherical in shape?

The same question is for atom. Do you think atom has atleast 3 constituents protons electrons and neurons. Have you seen it?

I am not going explain this topic further.

Thanks...



Dear friend ,
'' to prove is not possible '' ----- is a specific and clear statement but not a general statement . I don't think that proof was given at any time , in any place, by any one in our yuga as far as my knowledge goes . Argument for the sake of argument does not lead us any where .

[saswathy]

Dear friend ,
Gimmics , magics , cheap tricks of fake babas , swamis or gurus are very much prevalent in to day's society . A real athma gnani never tries to prove any thing to any one . When I referred the so called siddhis I never meant the great yogis . My limited knowledge in
English or in the subject did not allow me to give a correct expression .The argument ends from my side on this topic. But it
would be highly appreciated if any body can prove God's existence or non existence.

[Mana]

Dear saswathy,

You highlight the importance of firm understanding or grounding in vedāṅga, education; so as not to become to easily led.
These are the first axioms required upon ones path, the conjecture to find God, starts in self awareness, and ultimately leads to God conciousness.
Patañjali's Yoga Sūtras are of course fine instruction in how not to be misled, how to see for ones self; compatible with any school or path.
I think most relevant to the subject of this thread.

Kind regards.

[silence_speaks]

Dear Anirudh,
:)



But are you trying to say every experience Good or Bad is a divine experience ? I don't think that way.


If you know how to recognize God there ! :)
Experiences are all mithya ... like a snake imagined on a rope ...

the Rope is God! Wherever you see the snake that is imagined on the rope ... there itself is the rope - God.

Love!
Silence

[Anirudh]

Dear Anirudh,
:)



If you know how to recognize God there ! :)
Experiences are all mithya ... like a snake imagined on a rope ...

the Rope is God! Wherever you see the snake that is imagined on the rope ... there itself is the rope - God.

Love!
Silence

How can you say that?

That's where the problem. This mythical notion is the single most important cause for the submissiveness seen among Indian Hindus in general.

We will have to revisit purushartha and validate your statements with that.

Assume there are two individuals X and Y. The worldly relationship relationship is husband and wife. Z appears from no where and harms Y. Y dies. X experiences sorrow.

Souls of X, Y and Z are immortal. Place holder suffered but not the souls of X and Y. So Z shouldn't be punished. But Shree Keshava didn't do that...Or did he?

Open and shut case because all experiences are mithya. Isn't it?

[Anirudh]

Namaste Mana

I wish not to change your writing style.

Thank you ....

[silence_speaks]

How can you say that?

That's where the problem. This mythical notion is the single most important cause for the submissiveness seen among Indian Hindus in general.

We will have to revisit purushartha and validate your statements with that.

Assume there are two individuals X and Y. The worldly relationship relationship is husband and wife. Z appears from no where and harms Y. Y dies. X experiences sorrow.

Souls of X, Y and Z are immortal. Place holder suffered but not the souls of X and Y. So Z shouldn't be punished. But Shree Keshava didn't do that...Or did he?

Open and shut case because all experiences are mithya. Isn't it?

Dear Anirudh,
:) Does the knowledge that earth is not flat but spherical (approximately) change your experience when you walk on it ? Do you start to wobble about rather than walk?

If someone tells you that due to the knowledge that earth is not flat, his actual experience has changed -- if he tells you that he has started to wobble around and roll rather than walk ... would you not tell him to go and meet a doctor ?

Knowledge does not change your current experience, it just allows you to appreciate the experience better (understand it) and enables you to do things which you could not even think of earlier. For example : knowing that the earth is not flat allows you to send a geo satellite. But it does not change your experience here.

Same thing with any understanding. When you understand that experiences are Mithya , its an understanding... one has to inquire into it and grasp the understanding. What does that mean ? Then when i say you have the experience of God in and through every experience ... its another statement for understanding. None of them change your experience of the world. You simply look at the same world differently. Even as , your knowledge that the sky is colorless does not stop you from writing a poem on the "Blue Sky" :).

Self Knowledge does not change your experience --- you continue to see the same world, even when you know it to be mithya, but knowing it as mithya [how is it mithya ?? ], you discover inner freedom ... total satisfaction [how this happens has to be understood properly once again ]... That purnatvam, or Completeness or Fulfilledness is another name for God [once again if it is properly understood].

I have left lot of statements unexplained ... since a sincere student has to inquire into them with the aid of a proper teacher to know the reality about it.

Love!
Silence

[markandeya 108 dasa]

Pranams

Interestingly this thread is the one of the most viewed, so the question if God exists or not is most certainly of high value.

For me personal the answer is quite simple, all beings bar non look up to something greater than oneself, even the most Atheistic of Scientist study what ever range of their field in great wonder and always find out new information, its an endless study, as soon as something is discovered then more studies are carried out to see how it works and what is the potential.

To simplify it there are two areas of study, that which we can observe, phenomena and that which observes, so far both are an endless study, in both phenomena and consciousness each separate study requires a very in depth analysis.

The Vedas would study the universe and creation but at the same time the subject that studied it would also include himself, as they were part of the experience of creation and a conscious being, so the two would be developed at the same time.

Is modern science limited by the range of how much they can know due to lack of conscious studies and development on them self.

The Vedas say that ultimately everything is consciousness, so the sadhaka and Rishis were accomplished in this area, the modern day scientist may not be individually.

If we boil water and see the maximum temp is 100 degrees then many people can objectively see this, but can they all objectively experience that the water is 100 degrees, only unless they submerge in the water can they know the experience. So objective study has its limits.

Bhakti Svarupa Damodara Swami, who worked very hard for a synthesis in science and religion always based every approach to knowledge first on the moral grounds of the individual, both the scientist and the religious person first should be a perfect human being. Then there will be more depth in the understanding of the two.

What I have noticed over the past years where Atheists used to be very defiant against all forms of spiritual aspects they soon found out that modern science with all technologies and advancement did not solve the basic existential problem of suffering. Now many of them are doing a U-Turn and trying develop unique ways of spirituality separate from religion. Again proving that conscious experience is more important that empirical knowledge.

So then we go back to what we are, we are conscious beings, all sentient life is filled with consciousness, all the major Vedic traditions live their whole existence around this simple principle. And all in the variety of expression will agree that God is consciousness, what that consciousness is is again something bigger than our self ( our present understanding of who we are ), this brings wonder and investigation to the sadhaka.

So God exists but within consciousness, and that is the final frontier of investigation for both the Scientist and the Religious people.

ys

md

[Mana]

Namaste Md,

Very nice post, thank you for that you have put a smile upon my face and warmed my heart a few degrees; which is much needed as it is rather cold were I am at the moment.

If I might add just a little to your offering; Water boils at 100� only at one specific atmospheric pressure, so this "100�" is entirely relative to its own frame of reference and as such is not very objective, in fact rather circumstantial.
Unfortunately occidental science tends to look for happiness in the bottom of bottles; be they alcohol or drugs; always in bottles.
Now that said, mathematicians they find their pleasure in Klein bottles which is a whole other kettle of fish; if you will excuse me the carnivorous fishy pun.

I don't think you can put God in a bottle and label it, so sciences might have to leave its God shelf empty and put it down to math ...

"Scientist" might perhaps concentrate on proving that it is not the fruit of scientific objectivity that is causing our little Kline bottle to collapse ecologicaly. Not an acusation; just an interesting proof to tackle before moving on to any higher philosophy.

Lovely to read you.

[Eastern Mind]

Vannakkam: Reading it over again, I just wonder if we were any help at all to the OP. It was his last post on this forum. Hopefully he and his son haven't grown apart over it.

Aum Namasivaya

[Mana]

Namaste Em,

Quite; it would seem that Vrindavan is timid in conversational matters, having started a great thread.
Having grown up in a family with very strong scientific roots, devout atheists; I am naturally drawn to the subject. It is one that can also bring parents and children together when it is properly understood; the epitome of sin, is to my mind, the notion of the elderly eating the youth that they might live longer; Be that financially or spiritually.

Perhaps The Ops child did not believe in their specific portrayal of God; having them selves a more advanced understanding in these matters. Our path is not defined by our immediate surroundings, neither is the definition of our understanding. The connection between the generations, or, the lack there of, is the spirit of something much greater than the self.

Perhaps Vrindavan (http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/member.php?u=156) is more interested in e commerce than God? links to a respectable site such as hdf will up your traffic from Gods like Google. Their homepage looks more like a book of links than a website ... Just saying, amazon and ebay?

http://easss.com/

[Seeker]

hello,

Answering my son's question.

My son think people believing in God is not Science and something not proved.

Namaste Vrindavan Ji,

This may not be the news you want to hear. It wont be possible to prove the existence of God to someone who does not want to believe.


Your son may have to figure this out by himself. Hindus are allowed to have questions of these nature and explore and find an answer themselves.


Proof is deduced either by experimentation & repeatability , or by logical deduction.


First part involves engaging our senses , and they are known for false reporting. If someone observes the sun rising & setting , their senses will report that sun goes around the case. Most of the world believed so for a long time. Anyone stating otherwise was ridiculed or even killed. Our eyes do not see the full spectrum of light , our ears do not hear the full spectrum of sound and not everything that exists is touchable. Such is the state of our senses. So , goodluck employing experimentation for proof.


For logical deduction , you proceed from known to unknown in a step by step fashion. Even this will be futile , as told by sages in Kena upanishad.


“There the eye goes not, nor words, nor mind. We know not, we cannot understand, how He can be explained: He is above the known and he is above the unknown. Thus have we heard from the ancient sages who explained this truth to us.” - For someone unwilling to believe , even this will look like a play of words!


Let him grow with free thinking , guide him for a healthy life style with a vigorous mind & body. Rest will fall in place by themselves.

[saswathy]

Dear friend ,
when everything is in perfect order with a perfect sense of timing and operation , what could be the logic behind the phenomenon , if not science . Leave the spiritual aspect , if accepted as science who is behind this . If it is argued as the work of ' Nature ' , what is it . Who is controlling that .I sincerely
want to know the answers with academic interest .Personally I believe that It is the ' Ananthachithanyam' , Brahman , Vishwanthayami

[krishnabhumi]

Dear friends ,
God is energy , God is love , God is compassion , God is nature which can be experienced but can't be proved , since all these attributes and qualities are abstract in essence.

I am absolutely agree what you say. We all have soul. What we see , just a body. We can't not see inner things, that means energy. To feel this energy, you have to do meditation.

[grames]

Hi.,

The answer lies in knowing what "proof" means and then proving the existence of God with that method of proof.

A simple logic says, what is not proven cannot mean it doesn't exist! and mostly its only the available means of proof or proof itself! So, even if you don't prove with your available means, you cannot still deny the existence of God! or assume you have denied :). Until you absolutely deny God does not exist, He will continue to exists by the mean of this logic - and this Logic itself is the Proof! :)

Hare Krshna!

[Mana]

Namaste,

If one no longer need to see God in a personified form, perhaps then it becomes easer to accept a more meaningful form of proof. For example; a mathematical prof that something is not provable, is much harder to achieve than it is to prove something either true or false.
Now how might this relate to proof of the existence of God or Gods? Well we can reasonably assume that God, in a multi dimensional Universe, a universe with manifold space and time, would not be bound within solely our own dimensions. That the very concept of God is reduced to something much lesser than its entirety; in order to be conceivable for us, perceptible; as such we can not reasonably expect to prove existence in any way other than through our own sub conscious perception. The conscious mind and ego, its reasoning, rely far to heavily upon our own self made thought constructs and axioms, such as language.
Perhaps then proof might be found in better understanding of the question its self its construct and language; knowing then above all why some things are not fathomable. I wonder then if we might see what would become of our own thought, if we were able to gain just a gimps of the true depth of this world, then, having changed ones own perspective though the delight of thought and reflection; to then reconsider the original question.

Kind regards.

[Ashish_Marathe]

Namaste,

I am assuming your son is a teenager.


My son think people believing in God is not Science and something not proved.

Give him a crooked chisel and a broken hammer and ask him to prove Einstein's theory of relativity.

Pranam.

[Punit]

Before he believes or disbelieves in God he has to know what is God.
Show him the video "Who Am I?, Who is God? and What is the mind?" on this page on Upanishads (http://www.dharmatv.net/VideoList/11/Hinduism-Philosophy/Upanishads)
This was a lecture by Swamini Vimalananda at IIT Kanpur.

You can follow up with the videos by Swami Sarvapriyanandaji on Message of Upanishads and "Who Am I" - again delivered at IIT Kanpur.



hello,

Answering my son's question.

My son think people believing in God is not Science and something not proved.

[yajvan]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~
namasté


hello, Answering my son's question. My son think people believing in God is not Science and something not proved.

If the HDF reader happened to notice, there were 65 posts to this question and roughly 20,000 views . Yet our friend ( Vrindavan) has not posted within this string on the comments. We cannot be sure if we helped or hindered his son. That is to say, I was in hopes a dialog could have been sustained and more knowledge on this matter would unfold. But what did you think you could add yajvan ? I'd like to add just this one thing on proof.

uccārarahitam vastu - that Reality ( vastu) is devoid (rahitam) of utterance (ucāra) . If there is a conversation on the proof of God, it is within the world of words. Yet that Reality that one's wants proof is unspeakable ( so say the wise). So what is one to do ? Find out for yourself. That is, if one can hear, speak, see, smell ,touch and think, follow these senses back to their source. This source is none other than the Reality this son is looking for , questioning, wishes to have direct proof. What better proof than direct personal experience?

If one is informed ( person A) by another ( person B) regarding a matter of interest, person A can be convinced for a time, but there is always the possibility of doubt. The person A says, yes, but what about this ? He or she then poses another question and person B does the best s/he can to answer. Yet there are doubts. But of person A has a direct experience of the subject in question, the 'see for yourself' logic allows that person to determine for his or her self the validity of the experience.

When one's experience aligns with the scriptures and these are cooberated ( asserted) by the teacher ( the realized ācārya ) then one has perfect knowledge. That is, śāstra-s or āgama-s + ācārya knowledge + direct personal experience = perfect knowledge.

It is my opinion that trying to convince the son without his participation will give lackluster results. There is no effort on his side - he is a customer coming to purchase something at the shop and gets to pick'n-choose. Does this make him a ~bad~ person ? Surely not. It just limits the qualifications for him to get valuable knowledge.


iti śivaṁ