PDA

View Full Version : Does God exist?



Rudy
27 March 2011, 06:53 PM
Hello I’ve been thinking over the last few days, does God exist? I know the bearded man on a cloud doesn’t, but what about Brahman? Sense at my current spiritual state I can’t experience Brahman how do I know It’s there? What about personal gods like Ganesha? What I’ve thought of is that people that have reached moksha know about them and tell us poor unenlightened fools about it. Why do you know or believe? Any Hindu arguments for God personal or impersonal or both?
Thanks for any replies. Feel free to redirect me to any other threads that explain this.
I hope He/It/She does exist

wundermonk
28 March 2011, 02:05 PM
:-)

What is your understanding of Brahman?

I personally tend to follow Advaita philosophy. It differentiates between Nirguna Brahman (featureless Brahman) and Saguna Brahman (deity that can hear/answer your prayers, etc., as you atheists would call it). Here (http://hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?t=6344) is a fairly detailed thread on atheism vs Hinduism.

I dont know if Brahman exists. I dont know if a heaven/hell exist. I tend to experience benefits from Yoga/Pranayama. I can tell you that I have experienced peace of mind/clear thought process/improved concentration after that. Now, could I experience the same without being a Hindu? I dont know. Why, should I try? Am I any less for believing in the existence of Brahman? If you would like, you could strip all supernaturalism out of spirituality and go this (http://www.naturalism.org/spiritua1.htm) route.

Are non-Hindus destined for Brahman's hellfire if they reject the concept of Brahman? Resounding no!

PS: Do you believe in complex numbers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complex_number)? Have you seen them? Do they exist?

NayaSurya
28 March 2011, 02:21 PM
Rudy...I can not answer this question for you.

Many many years ago I was very much devoted to a nameless form of Shiva...and though I had never seen proof of such existence I knew it to be so. In a billion years how could a perfect strawberry come to be upon this realm, so perfectly beautiful...and for us to taste and eat?

This was my only proof for many years, the simple things around us...the sunrise and sunset...such a miracle each day. That this rock spins with life abounding...this is a miracle despite the science I know is behind it.

But even this is not proof for you or an answer. Over time, discovering for ourselves can we know and understand this answer completely.

This time, happily came for me...I wasn't seeking it as I was very comfortable with the miracle of the strawberry as my proof.

You see I can tell you that I have seen things which positively prove that there is something beyond what these faulty senses can define. I have seen it, and I know it...and will never doubt it.

But what of you? Can you believe this Truth spoken from one who is nothing more than a name online for such an important Truth?

I wouldn't...it's so so much sweeter to know this one from your own experiences. Knowing it from your own place means you will never doubt it...never question yourself even when it appears silly.

So go out into this world, go everywhere... Run through a field and fall over breathless under the stars. Pray, with all your heart.

This answer is there, I promise<3

Eastern Mind
28 March 2011, 02:23 PM
Hello I’ve been thinking over the last few days, does God exist? I know the bearded man on a cloud doesn’t, but what about Brahman? Sense at my current spiritual state I can’t experience Brahman how do I know It’s there? What about personal gods like Ganesha? What I’ve thought of is that people that have reached moksha know about them and tell us poor unenlightened fools about it. Why do you know or believe? Any Hindu arguments for God personal or impersonal or both?
Thanks for any replies. Feel free to redirect me to any other threads that explain this.
I hope He/It/She does exist

Vannakkam Rudy: I believe God exists. I don't know God exists in the way you describe the knowers knowing. My belief comes from two things: a very strong intuitive sense and experiences that are not explained away in any other way, and the fact that great saints say God exists. If you're looking for some sort of rational proof, you won't get it from me. Its beyond words, and proofs. This is a Hindu (believers) forum primarily although many would say Hinduism is even broad enough to encompass atheists. Personally, I'm not so sure.

Aum Namasivaya

TheOne
28 March 2011, 02:47 PM
Do I have proof of a "personal God" in the way you described? No I do not but I do believe that the sages were spot on. The way to "know God" as many hindus say is to go deep in bhakti or deep in meditation. I experienced God as a combination of the two. Saying the gayatri mantra, which is a meditative experience(per the mantra) and a bhakti one(giving praise to the almighty). I can't express what happens to me in meditative states(and I';ve only scraped the surface!) in oridnary language but it is a great peace beyond any other. Some people often claim seeing things such as patterns or shapes of lights when they are in deep meditation or in deep bhakti. This happened to me as well and I feel it is the subliminal energy that we send out in these transcendental states.


Back on topic. Does it really matter if there is a "personal god" or not. To me it doesn't...it doesn't shake my belief in Brahman one bit it may require me to study the scriptures in a different light but that's about it.

Remember. As opposed to Abrahamic faiths our scriptures aren't used to show the "greatness" of God but to reveal the subliminal truths of reality.

wundermonk
28 March 2011, 03:01 PM
This is a Hindu (believers) forum primarily although many would say Hinduism is even broad enough to encompass atheists. Personally, I'm not so sure.
Aum Namasivaya

Well said EM. Although I would want to give the OP the benefit of doubt, he/she may be part of the new breed of neo-atheists who are very active on the web that would like to do the following:

(a)Ask religious folks for a rational verifiable proof of God's existence.
(b)With none forthcoming, they then say, "Ha! We win! Why dont you believe in a Pink Unicorn, you deluded morons?"

smaranam
28 March 2011, 03:25 PM
Namaste


[SIZE=3][FONT=Calibri]Hello I’ve been thinking over the last few days, does God exist?
He is with me right now.


I know the bearded man on a cloud doesn’t,

Why not ? God has infinite svarUp. The bearded man can well be Lord BrahmA but i would rather say AdvaitAchArya - MahaVishNu's avatAr in GaurLila. What ? Never mind i was muttering to myself.


but what about Brahman?

Existence is Brahman
Love is Brahman
Being is Brahman
Sarvam idam khalvidam Brahman - All this is Brahman
Just so you know, Brahman smiles, dances, plays flute, gives blessings and hugs, is the funniest, humblest prankster who loves you dearly and all that He can possibly be. Try handing the reigns over to Him for a change. Or the steering wheel.


Sense at my current spiritual state I can’t experience Brahman how do I know It’s there?

If the cool breeze blows, the moon shines out of the clouds, there are butterflies in the garden, and children playing in puddles after rain, Brahman is there.


What about personal gods like Ganesha?
Oh, GajAnan GaNesh is adorable, He skims looking over the material world, giving blessings, wisdom, removing obstacles, and making people comfortable if they ask for it. However, if you are looking towards the eternal, there is more, and you are asked to get beyond that state in this world.


Why do you know or believe?

I know that my GhanaShyAm Lord KrushNa loves me very much , as well as all living beings, the moon, sun and stars. I know that my heart is His home and my home is His abode.

I believe that His Lotus Feet are for me to serve.


I hope He/It/She does exist

If you stay skeptical He will stay away from you. He does not want to be known unless we develop basic faith in Him - this is called shradhhaa. In fact, He will not like it if we speak about Him to one who does not think He exists or even agnostic.

Finally, He gives free will.

praNAm

Rudy
28 March 2011, 04:44 PM
Thank you for the responses.

I can honestly say I'm not a Neo-Atheist looking for a reaction. I'm just trying to figure things out.

I get what you are saying that it is a personal thing and that you need to "feel" it yourself. I like that. Every logical argument for or agaist God will eventually be beaten by a better argument.

Probably time to start meditating.

Thank you again.

billhicks4Pope
28 March 2011, 07:21 PM
I view All Life as God! Each tree, each person, each animal is a manifestation of God, although I dislike using the word God! I prefer to use Source, or Divine Source. Sometimes we can become lost in the jungles of religious dogma and tradition, our sight fails to see what is right there before our eyes! I meditate, although not as often as I should! I read inspiring books and write poetry, and these help me to keep my focus! Occasionally I have my dark days and struggle with what I know to be true, but I hold on and always come out the bright side!

Blessings!

Lenny

yajvan
28 March 2011, 07:24 PM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namasté



One should go on looking, probing with interest and enthusiasm ( the wise call earnestness or one-pointedness) - this is sādhana.
One comes to know the truth by one's self - some like to call svatāsiddha i.e. svā + ta + siddha = one's own + crossing or virtue + accomplished i.e. self-accomplished, then one knows for themselves what is and is not.

You will hear many ideas here on HDF on what is or is not. This will feed the intellect and help you decide. Yet personal and direct
experience for such an important question should be considered, no?

If I talk to you about a banana, I can inform you of all its qualities - color, size, vitamins, all that. Yet you will not really know the banana till you take a bite. So, it seems to me, your inqarity into the Supreme may be bese serviced by being two-sided - knowledge and experience.


praṇām

Eastern Mind
28 March 2011, 07:45 PM
If I talk to you about a banana,

praṇām

Vannakkam: What kind of banana? Our Indian friends here might be surprised to know we mostly only have one variety available here. (Somtimes 2 in Canada, in the right store ... besides the standard one, we now can occasionally get a smaller yellow one ... much tastier, but twice the price!) Sad state when there are about 1200 varieties.

Nice analogy.

Aum Namasivaya

yajvan
28 March 2011, 08:08 PM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namasté EM



Vannakkam: What kind of banana?

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/126/350127991_47f89993da_o.jpg

NayaSurya
28 March 2011, 08:10 PM
Ahhahhh A Cosmic Banana.

Eastern Mind
28 March 2011, 08:14 PM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namasté EM




http://farm1.static.flickr.com/126/350127991_47f89993da_o.jpg

Vannakkam: Where DO you get these pictures? I may be going bananas soon. (For the non-English speakers, its a saying meaning becoming a bit crazy.)

http://www.google.ca/imgres?imgurl=http://r4dreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/more_bananas-300x172.jpg&imgrefurl=http://r4dreview.org/2008/09/organic-bananas-from-africa/comment-page-1/&usg=__pE_MLUQpxO9S1EwgoZLVDBmsANU=&h=172&w=300&sz=27&hl=en&start=0&sig2=wKtgs6ooyc9JQ4F536UHnA&zoom=1&tbnid=DAh9GifD6S6-_M:&tbnh=96&tbnw=167&ei=6jGRTauCFoiosAPDh6ilDg&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dtypes%2Bof%2Bbananas%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26sa%3DN%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-US:official%26biw%3D1440%26bih%3D729%26tbm%3Disch&um=1&itbs=1&iact=hc&vpx=908&vpy=110&dur=748&hovh=133&hovw=234&tx=127&ty=67&oei=6jGRTauCFoiosAPDh6ilDg&page=1&ndsp=31&ved=1t:429,r:5,s:0

Aum Namasivaya

devotee
28 March 2011, 11:29 PM
Namaste Rudy,

Hello I’ve been thinking over the last few days, does God exist? I know the bearded man on a cloud doesn’t, but what about Brahman? Sense at my current spiritual state I can’t experience Brahman how do I know It’s there? What about personal gods like Ganesha? What I’ve thought of is that people that have reached moksha know about them and tell us poor unenlightened fools about it. Why do you know or believe? Any Hindu arguments for God personal or impersonal or both?

Thanks for any replies. Feel free to redirect me to any other threads that explain this.
I hope He/It/She does exist
After a long time, there is someone on this forum who is thirsty for the Truth but is not ready to accept something which he doesn't find it logical ! :) That is a good sign. I passed through this phase long back. My advice is don’t believe anything unless you find it logically correct. I find that people are so much afraid of hell or God's anger that they barter their own logical thinking in the bargain. That is not good for aTruth- seeker. Think hard, reason ... draw logical conclusions and then believe in what is logical.

I advise the following steps for any seeker :

a) The first step :
Observe this world, yourself, others & ask questions ... deeply penetrating questions without fearing that God would be angry (be ready to sacrifice anything to know the Path to Truth … nothing comes for free. So, sacrifice all your fears here itself. Be ready to suffer any pains.)... etc. I may suggest you some questions :
i) Can a world like this spring out from unconscious things ? ==> This world is very well logically made. It is not possible to have such an arrangement without any very super intelligence working behind it. So, shall we assume that there is some very intelligent entity called God which is creating all this ?
Is it not possible that this whole world is itself intelligent ... is itself the material & efficient cause of itself ? Here there are only two logical conclusions arising out of this analysis. There is either something called God who is super intelligent & omnipotent who created this world all systems working within it OR the whole world itself is the Intelligent Creator of itself.

ii) Let's proceed with the first possibility that a God exists. If God exists then what should be the characteristics of such a God ? What are the assumptions before we accept that God exists ? The specification of God must fulfil these criteria, if God has to pass the test for being a true God :

1) He must be the origin and end of everything. If not, then that would mean that there was something which came into being on its own (or there exist some other agency which can destroy anything in God's created world) & that would need another God & that would be ridiculous regression. That further means that in the beginning there cannot be anything except God ... not even space (as everything has to be created from God as the material by God as the agent). So, God must create everything within Himself (as there exists nothing outside God) and by transforming Himself (as there is no other material to begin with, He alone exists).

2) God must be in complete control of this world .... as it is his design & result of his own intelligence & there is no intelligence apart from Himself. So, He must be omnipotent and omniscient.

3) Such a God who alone exists & anything which manifests in this world is His creation ... He can't be a jealous God as depicted in the Bible as He fully knows that there is no God except Himself. So, it would be ridiculous on His part to be jealous of something which He fully know that it doesn’t exist. Again, He must know the strengths & weaknesses of his design which He would must have made taking a conscious decision (because He is Super Intelligent). So, He is fully responsible for the strengths and also weaknesses of His own design. Therefore, He must be compassionate towards His own creations in spite of all their weaknesses. As He has not revealed Himself, he must be equally compassionate towards all beings whether they worship Him in one name/form or the other or even if they are atheist …. as any mistake committed by His own designed being is due to His own “faulty design”. Also, as He is super intelligent and omnipotent He must be able to predict what his own designed beings could do with the given logical design of their existence.

4) Why would God create such a world ? :
It is not logical to think that He created this world for people to worship Him or for praising Him or even for showing His opulence etc. Such an omnipotent who alone exists & when He alone is the material and efficient cause of everything which is there in this manifested world … must be free from such petty feelings. We can logically expect that He must be having the feelings of a Mother & also of a Father towards His own creation … as we have got all godly feelings from Him. Therefore, this creation must be some sport created due to His own peculiar Nature to create.

5) Can there exist a Satan?
Nothing can exist without His will as there is only One who is all knowing and Omnipotent. So, either no satan exists or if there is one It is because He wants satan to exist & Satan must be fully within His control. Therefore, He doesn't need our help to fight Satan as Christians & Muslims believe. We who don't know who we are … who don't know what the Truth is … who have very limited strength should not be in delusion that we can help God win a fantom war against some entity called Satan. If He cannot win a war against His own creation i.e. Satan then His being Omnipotent is challenged & it would also mean that a creation can be more powerful than creator which is ridiculous. Therefore, calls for all jehads or crusades is the foolishness of the first kind.

6) Can there exist an eternal fire of hell ?
As there is no fault which can be committed where God is not a party to it due to his own willed faulty design, there cannot be any permanent punishment like eternal fire of hell otherwise His sense of justice is challenged & He can't have any incentive to be unjust or partial or arbitrary. Also, there can be no punishment disproportionate to the gravity of mistake committed & therefore throwing Adams & Eve out of heaven and making all their progeny to suffer because of one innocent mistake of eating one apple from one's own Father's house can be only bogus & nothing else.

7) God cannot discriminate among His own creation as he has no incentive to do it.
Therefore, all superiority of race, creed, caste, skin colour and Nationality is bogus and false. As all must be equal in His eyes (because He has no incentive to be partial to anyone), all chances coming to one's life (getting good/bad parents, education, opportunities, health, spouse, children etc) must be due to the individual's own Karmas & cannot be random or arbitrary … as a system created by a Super Intelligent God must be fully logical and everything whatever happens in this must have a logical reason.

8) As the system must be logical & all are equally lovable to Him … He must have made rules to punish those who inflict pains on others and reward those who help others. Moreover, it is quite logical to assume that He must have created systems of discipline for this world alongwith this creation & He would not like to interfere with the system of judgement. So, even though He loves everyone, the rules must apply to all without any favour or bias towards any one.

9) He must be able to allow his children to worship Him/remember Him in whatever manner they feel is correct. He should come to His devotees (children who love Him) in he form or formlessness as the devotee wants. Therefore, all fights on whether God is of a certain form or God is formless must be bogus. For God there should be no difference between a form & formlessness ... It is actually He alone who is material cause & efficient cause of all forms and also formlessness.

That is enough for now as it would be a very lengthy discussion & there must be already questions on what I have proposed so far. So, I stop here & we may proceed further after we reach a certain degree of agreement.

The above is the model for the dualist .. where the world and the God are different. As we have logically drawn that there can be another possibility that God and World are really not different from each other i.e. the creator and the creation are not different. But that is very difficult to understand unless we understand this model which is simpler. So, we will take up Non-duality theory later.


OM

Obelisk
29 March 2011, 02:59 AM
Namaste Rudy,

Like Eastern Mind said, I think it is necessary for one to experience God himself/herself before they can come to a conclusion, and develop their faith. I believe that we need a healthy balance of both logic and intuition to progress in our spiritual journey. Read some of a comparatively less-known but well written book titled "The Circle of Fire" by Dr. Palash Mazumdar, where he made a great parallel of Advaita with modern science and said how anybody could agree upto that point and still consider themselves an atheist; only on going further than that does it become a spiritual path.

Personally I believe in the Saguna/Nirguna Brahman concept in Advaita and am hoping for when I'll finally have my own unique experience with God. :) Also, I'd say that God doesn't "exist"; existence implies being bound by time, space, impermanence and the cycles of life and death. God is infinite and I believe that He IS the very essence of existence itself. :)

Adhvagat
29 March 2011, 03:41 AM
Hello Rudy, first try to experience the basics. I've had experiences that made me sure that the path to God is great, so I don't believe that the path is fruitful, I know it is.

Realizing God is the last stage, so believing in him firmly is not the precondition to a spiritual life, it's its final goal!

Logic is not the only way to perceive life, as a matter of fact, the most important decisions are not made out of logic. You don't like good friends out of logic, you don't chose what food you most enjoy the taste out of logic, you don't love out of logic.


My example concerns a young woman patient who, in spite of efforts made on both sides, proved to be psychologically inaccessible. The Difficulty lay in the fact that she always knew better about everything. Her excellent education had provided her with a weapon ideally suited to this purpose, namely a highly polished Cartesian rationalism with an impeccably "geometrical" idea of reality. After several fruitless attempts to sweeten her rationalism with a somewhat more human understanding, I had to confine myself to the hope that something unexpected and irrational would turn up, something that burst the intellectual retort into which she had sealed herself. Well, I was sitting opposite of her one day, with my back to the window, listening to her flow of rhetoric. She had an impressive dream the night before, in which someone had given her a golden scarab-a costly piece of jewellery. While she was still telling me this dream, I heard something behind me gently tapping on the window. I turned round and saw that it was a fairly large flying insect that was knocking against the window from outside in the obvious effort to get into the dark room. This seemed to me very strange. I opened the window and immediately and caught the insect in the air as it flew in. It was a scarabaeid beetle, or common rose-chafer, whose gold-green color most nearly resembles that of a golden scarab. I handed the beetle to my patient with the words "Here is your scarab." This broke the ice of her intellectual resistance. The treatment could now be continued with satisfactory results.

Don't kill your true self living only through logic! :)


We should not pretend to understand the world only by the intellect; we apprehend it just as much by feeling. Therefore, the judgment of the intellect is, at best, only the half of truth, and must, if it be honest, also come to an understanding of its inadequacy.

Quotes from: http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Carl_Jung

upsydownyupsy mv ss
29 March 2011, 07:24 AM
Hello I’ve been thinking over the last few days, does God exist? I know the bearded man on a cloud doesn’t, but what about Brahman? Sense at my current spiritual state I can’t experience Brahman how do I know It’s there? What about personal gods like Ganesha? What I’ve thought of is that people that have reached moksha know about them and tell us poor unenlightened fools about it. Why do you know or believe? Any Hindu arguments for God personal or impersonal or both?
Thanks for any replies. Feel free to redirect me to any other threads that explain this.
I hope He/It/She does exist


Yur going the right way by questioning god's existence! :)
I dislike those believers who blindly believe in god, we must believe, but not blindly. Hmm... why don't you try experimenting to see whether god exists or not on you're own? and try observing your surroundings.... Search every place you can, believe me, you can find god in the most unexpected places. But, first of all, make sure that you know your 'personal definition' of the word, 'god'. Unless, you get that sorted out, you can't find him. According to Shankaracharya, god is the 'truth' or 'actual reality'. Some describe god as 'infinite knowledge', others call god as the 'one untouched by lies, injustice and ignorance.' From these definitions, I know god exists. I'd also like to add that he/she/it is the most awesomest companion to be with!! The fun part is, the more you are curious about him and the more you doubt him, then you will know about him more and more and love him more and more. The best part is, you can share any feeling with him, he doesn't mind taking poison nor does he mind stealing butter. God is the best person to whon you can open your heart and share your feelings, you can even scold him, till you get tired, when you're finished, he'll tell you what actually went wrong. God does exist with respect to me. I found god through questions. My mooto to find god, 'QUESTION EACH AND EVERY DAMN THING, REAL OR UNREAL YOU COME ACROSS AND NEVER GET TIRED OF QUESTIONING AND NEVER GET TIRED OF SEARCHING ANSWERS.

PARAM
29 March 2011, 11:47 AM
Hello I’ve been thinking over the last few days, does God exist? I know the bearded man on a cloud doesn’t, but what about Brahman? Sense at my current spiritual state I can’t experience Brahman how do I know It’s there? What about personal gods like Ganesha? What I’ve thought of is that people that have reached moksha know about them and tell us poor unenlightened fools about it. Why do you know or believe? Any Hindu arguments for God personal or impersonal or both?
Thanks for any replies. Feel free to redirect me to any other threads that explain this.
I hope He/It/She does exist

If you are talking about personal like Ganesha, then they too exist, Don't you remember milk miracle by Ganesha, and Third Eye Miracle in Shivlingas ?

Vishnu's help to Ramanujacharya, Krishna's help to Dhanna Jat, Rahim etc ?

They do exist.

However the events are very old
As about Shiva Vishnu Brahma
their time given in various text must be the time between Kalp, and there stories are Maya

Sri Krishna in Geeta also tells that they all exist but they are Maya, in fact Om himself create it to educate Atmas what to do and what to not, why to do and why not, how to do and how not.

sunyata07
29 March 2011, 12:22 PM
Namaste Rudy,

The others have already expressed much of my own thoughts eloquently, so what I add may sound redundant. Doubt is not a bad thing. In fact, it is often the precursor to true spiritual and self-inquiry. To question why is wonderful. It is not a cause for sorrow or uncertainty! I myself have never been explicitly atheist, but like many others I have had moments of doubt and confusion. Just over a year ago I went through a questioning phase like yourself. I also "hoped God was real", and would lie awake at night wondering if He was all just a dream or fantasy we had made to make ourselves feel better, to know there was something greater. Were it not for this, I ardently believe I would have never progressed much further. It is all part and parcel of one's spiritual journey, IMO. To quote another member's comment once, "No doubt will lead to no enlightment, but much doubt can lead to great enlightenment!"

To say I and the others believe strongly in God would be clearly meaningless for you. What does it mean, and how can you take our word for it? How, indeed. God is to be experienced personally. There is no other way for you to know Him. Pietro makes an apt observation: you cannot know God through mere logic, just as you cannot know love through logic. Love, if anything, is the antithesis of logic! How else can we explain self-sacrifice, effort to work for others, compassion for another living creature, forgiveness for the transgressions of others? You don't question the existence of love and goodness, surely, even though you cannot prove these. They are not physical, you cannot see or measure love, but you see it is the cause and the good things that arise from it are the effects. The same analogy can be made of God, of Whom love as we understand is just a tiny component of His many faces.

As upsydownyupsy mv ss says, question as much as you need to! Learn to think for yourself and meditate on this and don't feel unhappy for not knowing. You can come to your own conclusions. God will not be angry or even annoyed at your questioning Him. Millions do everyday! Many outright reject His existence, but still He smiles on them and tenderly watches over all. He placed the decision to believe squarely into your own hands. This is His gift of free-will to everyone.

That we can and cannot see Him, can and cannot prove or disprove Him... this is all part of God's lila, His sport for His own divine amusement and joy. He is beyond the reach of everything else except Love of and for Him. Nothing else can make you know Him directly.

Om namah Shivaya

TheOne
29 March 2011, 02:48 PM
I think Sunyata put it the best.

No matter what we say it's ultimately worth a grain of salt if you don't try to "experience" God yourself.

Rudy
29 March 2011, 04:51 PM
To "upsydownyupsy mv ss" I'd have to say I'll need to sort out my definition of God. What do you mean by "see wether or not God exists on your own? and try observing your surroundings"?

Obelisk: Thank you for the book recommendation

PARAM: "If you are talking about personal like Ganesha, then they too exist, Don't you remember milk miracle by Ganesha, and Third Eye Miracle in Shivlingas ?

Vishnu's help to Ramanujacharya, Krishna's help to Dhanna Jat, Rahim etc ?"

Well sense I'm not Hindu and I live in the northern parts of the north east of America the only one I've heard about is Genesha drinking the milk.

Now all I have to do is experience God! But that could take a few life times to figure out how to and do... Better start now... ;)

pineblossom
29 March 2011, 05:05 PM
After a long time, there is someone on this forum who is thirsty for the Truth but is not ready to accept something which he doesn't find it logical ! :) That is a good sign. I passed through this phase long back. My advice is don’t believe anything unless you find it logically correct. I find that people are so much afraid of hell or God's anger that they barter their own logical thinking in the bargain. That is not good for aTruth- seeker. Think hard, reason ... draw logical conclusions and then believe in what is logical.

snip


The above is the model for the dualist .. where the world and the God are different. As we have logically drawn that there can be another possibility that God and World are really not different from each other i.e. the creator and the creation are not different. But that is very difficult to understand unless we understand this model which is simpler. So, we will take up Non-duality theory later.

I find Devotee's post illuminating.

The reason I have left Christianity is the dualist nature of its teachings. (As opposed to what Jesus actually taught - but that is another matter).

I came to explore Hinduism because of what I read in the BhagavadGita - that we do not need to be constrained by dualistic thinking.

Thus the question: Does God exist? does not makes sense unless one is locked into dualism. As I have been concerned with extracting myself from the dualist nature of this world the question of God is simple another example of our inherent ignorance as to the branwashing power of society.

Rasa1976
29 March 2011, 07:33 PM
Brahman is described in the Gita as "the constitutional position of ultimate happiness". Think of freedom, and all the things you would like to be free from - hate, envy, jealousy, pain, fear...

That freedom is worshipable. That is love. That is God.

Ramakrishna
29 March 2011, 09:17 PM
Namaste Rudy,

I have been asked by my atheist and agnostic friends if I can prove that God exists to them. The answer is that ultimately I can't. While I have no doubt that God exists, it is something that one can only prove to his or herself. Only you can "prove" or experience God by yourself, and then you will have no doubt about it. You can accomplish this through meditation, puja, japa, and many many other things. I personally also experience small everyday miracles that further reinforce my belief in God.

Here is an account from Swami Vivekananda of his first encounter with Sri Ramakrishna:
"He [Ramakrishna] looked just like an ordinary man, with nothing remarkable about him. He used the most simple language, and I thought 'Can this man be a great teacher?' I crept near to him and asked him the question which I had been asking others all my life: 'Do you believe in God, Sir?' 'Yes,' he replied. 'Can you prove it, Sir?' 'Yes.' 'How?' 'Because I see Him just as I see you here, only in a much intenser sense.' That impressed me at once. For the first time I found a man who dared to say that he saw God; that religion was a reality to be felt, to be sensed in an infinitely more intense way than we can sense the world."

Jai Sri Ram

PARAM
30 March 2011, 11:43 AM
Well sense I'm not Hindu and I live in the northern parts of the north east of America the only one I've heard about is Genesha drinking the milk.

Now all I have to do is experience God! But that could take a few life times to figure out how to and do... Better start now... ;)

Yes start now
Work for him, do for him, live for him
Then you will find him.


Namaste Rudy,

I have been asked by my atheist and agnostic friends if I can prove that God exists to them. The answer is that ultimately I can't.

Do they prove that ॐ do not exist ?

wundermonk
31 March 2011, 01:43 AM
Do they prove that ॐ do not exist ?

The standard atheist response to this is to shift the Burden of Proof (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophic_burden_of_proof) onto the theist. "You claim God exists, prove it. No, we will not accept questions like 'Who created the world?' or any proof per accidens. You want to know how we atheists think the world started? Something just all of a sudden sprang out of nothing. There."

Ramakrishna
03 April 2011, 04:13 PM
Namaste PARAMji,



Do they prove that ॐ do not exist ?

No, they don't :). My atheist/agnostic friends are not the militant types who think that all religion is evil or that all religious people are deluded. They usually just use Wundermonk's argument or they just say that God cannot be proven or dis-proven and leave it at that.

Jai Sri Ram

PARAM
04 April 2011, 11:22 AM
The standard atheist response to this is to shift the Burden of Proof (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophic_burden_of_proof) onto the theist. "You claim God exists, prove it. No, we will not accept questions like 'Who created the world?' or any proof per accidens. You want to know how we atheists think the world started? Something just all of a sudden sprang out of nothing. There."

standard atheist ? are there more then that ?

Do all of them believe in Darvin theory of evolution? Or they have some other theories too ?

If monkeys are there forefathers then they should at least respect Hanuman




No, they don't :). My atheist/agnostic friends are not the militant types who think that all religion is evil or that all religious people are deluded. They usually just use Wundermonk's argument or they just say that God cannot be proven or dis-proven and leave it at that.


There is no much harm, if they do not want to accept it even by logic. At least they will not become monsters for Adharm either.

Adhvagat
04 April 2011, 12:09 PM
Just a small inquiry: Can't God be existence itself?

http://pedrumgolriz.com/blog/?p=225

wundermonk
04 April 2011, 12:11 PM
standard atheist ? are there more then that ?

Do all of them believe in Darvin theory of evolution? Or they have some other theories too ?

If monkeys are there forefathers then they should at least respect Hanuman


I dont know a lot about the types of atheists out there. But they are usually adamant about one or more of the following:

(1)Theists are deluded.
(2)One can *not* be a theist and a respectable scientist. (See this (http://scientopia.org/blogs/galacticinteractions/2011/02/03/why-i-dont-like-the-term-gnu-atheist/) link.)
(3)World would be better off if everybody converted to atheism.
(4)*Only they* have the copyright over human rights, women's rights, homosexual rights, transvestite rights, bisexual rights, global warming rights, labour rights, etc.
(5)Spirituality is a cooked up term. We are all just a bunch of chemical reactions and electrons flying around.
(6)Everyone is born as an atheist.

wundermonk
04 April 2011, 12:33 PM
Just a small inquiry: Can't God be existence itself?http://pedrumgolriz.com/blog/?p=225

Great series of pics there, Pietro. As Bhakta Prahlad said in response to his father Hiranyakashp's question - "Where is your God, you devil son?" - "He is in the smallest of the smallest particles of dust, he is in the largest of the largest objects out there".

Arjuni
06 April 2011, 12:30 AM
Namasté,

Just a small inquiry: Can't God be existence itself?

Pietro, just a small reply:
To some degree, that is how I read this: "For each and every form He is the Model; it is His form that is to be seen everywhere." -RV 6.47.18.

:)

Indraneela
===
Oṁ Indrāya Namaḥ.
Oṁ Namaḥ Śivāya.

sunyata07
09 April 2011, 03:17 PM
Just a small inquiry: Can't God be existence itself?

http://pedrumgolriz.com/blog/?p=225

Excellent viewpoint. It's a very Zen way of looking at it, certainly. Cut out all the existential bulltalk about proving/disproving God and everyone can have his or her own answer. I remember reading about some revered spiritual teacher who refused to use the words God or Lord, because he felt these terms limited people's understanding of the Supreme. Instead, he chose to use words like Universe, Nature, etc. perhaps appealing to people's direct experience with the world around them, which naturally includes those who are of the theistic and atheistic mindset. I don't suppose anybody knows who I'm referring to?

Om namah Shivaya

TheOne
09 April 2011, 04:56 PM
I agree words like "God" are trite, I would prefer to use the phrase "Ground of being".

I also believe everything and no-thing are two aspects of Brahman of which there are countless. We Hindus(Imo) focus on more of the "everything" aspect of Brahman while others(Daoists, Zen Buddhists) focus on the no-thing part of Brahman / Reality.

charlebs
09 April 2011, 05:32 PM
there is no comprehendable logic about life without a supervisor

let us think about a nothing which can produce something for no reason, then is restricted from doing it again since suddenly rules come to apply to everything. where does this come from, the mind of a confused or enlightened person?

maybe we're just living someone's dream again. if you can sustain the lucid dream, you can also create by willing it. but temper the will, otherwise the reactions are too strong, and it turns into a nightmare.

TheOne
09 April 2011, 05:38 PM
6. Who verily knows and who can here declare it, whence it was born and whence comes this creation?
The Gods are later than this world's production. Who knows then whence it first came into being?
7. He, the first origin of this creation, whether he formed it all or did not form it,
Whose eye controls this world in highest heaven, he verily knows it, or perhaps he knows not.

Rig Veda Mandala 10 Hymn 12

A rather interesting and beautiful example of how the Gods existence/none existence should not worry our hearts.

iksvakave
09 April 2011, 06:30 PM
Yes! Ofcourse! The last verse in Gita is a proof that he exists. Please read my interpretation of last verse --- titled in BhagavatGita section as Last verse -- proof that God exists. Let me what you think. I hope it does not make you angry that I came up with my own meaning.

rcscwc
18 April 2011, 07:23 AM
Hello I’ve been thinking over the last few days, does God exist? I know the bearded man on a cloud doesn’t, but what about Brahman? Sense at my current spiritual state I can’t experience Brahman how do I know It’s there? What about personal gods like Ganesha? What I’ve thought of is that people that have reached moksha know about them and tell us poor unenlightened fools about it. Why do you know or believe? Any Hindu arguments for God personal or impersonal or both?
Thanks for any replies. Feel free to redirect me to any other threads that explain this.
I hope He/It/She does exist

Very very long ago, Nyaya school had advanced a set of 8 proofs. But all of them were refuted by all the other schools. After that there has been no debate. It was recognised that logical proofs or disproofs are not possible.

Rudy
18 April 2011, 09:23 AM
rcscwc: Could you or anyone else direct me to a source where I could read up on this?

Thanks.

charlebs
18 April 2011, 10:09 AM
Yes! Ofcourse! The last verse in Gita is a proof that he exists. Please read my interpretation of last verse --- titled in BhagavatGita section as Last verse -- proof that God exists. Let me what you think. I hope it does not make you angry that I came up with my own meaning.

meditating upon sentences and words can also be enlightening sometimes.

wundermonk
19 April 2011, 02:22 AM
rcscwc: Could you or anyone else direct me to a source where I could read up on this?
Thanks.

Some preliminary ideas about the Nyaya school of thought can be gleaned from here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nyaya).

Atheistic schools of thought have had a long history within Indian philosophy. The materialistic Lokayata/Charvakas are probably the best known of them. Unfortunately we dont have a lot of details about their philosophy - probably because of the following reasons:

(1)the materialistic philosophy was discarded over time in favour of other Vedantic philosophies - we Indians like to argue just about everything and Vedantic philosophers like Sankara, Ramanuja, Madhavacharya and others went from place to place debating and convincing others about their POV.

OR

(2)vedantic philosophy/practitioners engaged in cruel destruction and killing of materialistic people and their books. (I am reading an extreme left-wing Marxist/communist book that stretches details to absurd limits to try and convince readers that it was indeed this that happened) I dearly hope us Vedantins didnt have to kill a fellow human-being in order to ensure continued practice of our philosophies. If that indeed happened, it is condemnable.

What we know of these philosophies is only via its refutation by Vedantic/Jain/Buddhist scriptures. The Lokayatakas were probably influential during their times to invite refutations from nearly ALL Dharmic philosophies in one form or another. Madhavacharya, in his Sarva-Darsana-Sangraha (http://www.archive.org/details/thesarvadarsanas00madhuoft), attempted to explain and refute the Lokayata philosophy.

Sahasranama
19 April 2011, 03:52 AM
(2)vedantic philosophy/practitioners engaged in cruel destruction and killing of materialistic people and their books. (I am reading an extreme left-wing Marxist/communist book that stretches details to absurd limits to try and convince readers that it was indeed this that happened) I dearly hope us Vedantins didnt have to kill a fellow human-being in order to ensure continued practice of our philosophies. If that indeed happened, it is condemnable.

I don't think that this is what happened. Preserving teachings is done through a sampradaya. Since most of the lokayatas theories were already refuted, there was no one left to carry on this sampradaya. I know atheists will love to believe that they were prosecuted, but this is unlikely since even Dharmakirti, a Buddist, was not prosecuted for saying:
वेद प्रामाण्यं कस्य चित् कर्तृवादः स्नाने धर्मेच्छा जातिवादाव लेपः|
संतापारंभः पापहानाय चेति ध्वस्तप्रज्ञानां पञ्च लिङगानि जाड्ये||

Believing that the Veda are standard (holy or divine), believing in a Creator for the world,
Bathing in holy waters for gaining punya (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punya), having pride (vanity) about one's caste,
Performing penance to absolve sins,
Are the five symptoms of having lost one's sanity.

It is just speculation on the atheist part to say that the Charvakas were prosecuted by brahmanical Indians. It fits in their romantic view of atheism.

wundermonk
19 April 2011, 04:17 AM
It is just speculation on the atheist part to say that the Charvakas were prosecuted by brahmanical Indians. It fits in their romantic view of atheism.


Possibly quite true. It was not my intention to portray the impression that there was prosecution. Just that communists/marxists tend to push that line a lot. Of course they have their own agenda - and that agenda requires all of us to bow down to craftsmanship, give up usage of machines, give up usage of currency, go back to the barter system and listen and follow like robots what the 0.0001% of the population that constitutes the Politburo can concoct in their minds alone. Anyway discussion of communism/Marxism can be taken up on a different thread.

That there are different strands of philosophies that are all included within the umbrella of Sanatana Dharma is in itself a proof that Vedantins didnt engage in violent bloodletting that characterizes nearly every other major philosophy in the world.

Sahasranama
19 April 2011, 04:32 AM
Possibly quite true. It was not my intention to portray the impression that there was prosecution.

Yes, I know that it wasn't your intention. I am just adding some reasons why it would be unlikely. I have also read these claims on atheists blogs, but they seem to be making this stuff up and are not relying on historical sources.

maxpsycho
01 June 2011, 08:05 AM
Hi Rudy,

Perhaps I can offer a slightly different take on this question from the rest of the members here as I am an atheist.

Just to clarify the term (as I've met countless people who erroneously think that atheism is a belief system) - atheism is simply a lack of belief in a supernatural deity or faith system. It means I have studied the "magic" scriptures, I have heard the arguments (transcendental experiences, the ontological argument, fine-tuning of the universe, beautiful sweet strawberries etc etc) and I have found the supernatural claims to be ridiculous.

First of all I would like to point out that neither a believer nor a non-believer can give you evidence for or against the existence of a creator.

The most interesting, and I find the most seductive, theological argument you will hear from a believer about the existence of a God is usually some variation of the fine-tuning argument. For example, that the beauty, of the sunrise and sunsets, is evidence for a creator, or something along the lines of how is it that the earth is exactly the right distance from the Sun; everything seems to be finely tuned for us - well many of these are simply non sequiturs because all that a sunrise or a sunset proves is that planets are in motion. The simplest refutation of the fine-tuning argument is to remind ourselves of just a few facts - one, what we see as finely tuned really is pure chance. Let's take the example that NayaSurya presented in his comment earlier -


Rudy...I can not answer this question for you.
In a billion years how could a perfect strawberry come to be upon this realm, so perfectly beautiful...and for us to taste and eat?

Well you see what this poster is conveniently forgetting, is the larger percentage of vegetation on this planet that is not perfectly beautiful or edible and largely poisonous. Similarly, when we look at the idea that among all these spinning rocks there is one, ours, that is at the right distance to allow life, we are forgetting that it is only in these circumstances that life CAN begin; we have millions if not billions of examples of planets where life cannot begin precisely because they are not in the "Goldilocks zone". We are presuming that there exists a creative force that could decide on whether life should start on a planet or not - this presumption must be discarded if we are to truly understand how life came about.

So when we look at this and retrospectively remark that we're here due to divine providence, we are forgetting that for billions of years before our planet even formed, there were millions of galaxies that came into existence and were obliterated, millions of planets and stars formed and destroyed much like the fate of our own galaxy which is on a collision course with the Andromeda Galaxy. How can this in any way be convincing as evidence that this planet was fine tuned for us? If anything, life on this planet has adapted to the environmental changes of this planet, which is usually on a climactic knife-edge. Think about it; parts of our own planet are either much too hot or much too cold for vegetation or life to sustain. Is this really fine-tuning?

As I pointed out, I would not be able to give you evidence that God does not exist, just as a believer could not give you evidence that God does exist.

So here, you must decide what your starting premise is. I find that, when confronted by any claim, the starting premise should always be the null hypothesis. Let me illustrate with an example; if your best friend was to come running toward you in the street, and frantically explained to you that he/she had seen a ghost around the corner, and he dragged you along with him/her, and when you reached the location of the alleged apparition, you could not see anything, what would be your conclusion - you could either decide that your friend definitely did see a ghost, or you could decide that your friend was under a misapprehension (or if it was my friend, he just probably had one to many hash brownies and was now seeing ghosts).

My starting position to this situation would be that there is no such thing as a ghost as there is no evidence for such an entity and so if my friend could not back up his claim that what he saw really was a ghost, then I would have to conclude that, although he may be convinced that he's seen a ghost, he is mistaken. Even if I witnessed an apparition when he took me to see it, I would still have to exhaust every possible rational explanation before I could consider it as a sign of the supernatural.

Now what your starting premise usually is, is definitely affected by your upbringing and prior experiences; for example if you are brought up to believe that ghosts really do exist, and are surrounded by others, children and adults, who believe that ghosts exist, and have heard hundreds of personal anecdotes surrounding this idea, chances are that the lack of the ghost around the corner would not deter you from believing in your friend's tale either. (And obviously in this case, a ghost ride in an amusement park is clearly not a good idea for you either).

So in a nutshell, most of the ideas around the existence of God and the truth claims of religions are quite deeply influenced by your upbringing and your surroundings. I am not doubting personal euphoric transcendental experiences that one may have; there's just simply no reason to correlate these numinous experiences with anything supernatural.

In a nutshell, I would summarise it to this; as there is no evidence of the existence of God, there is no reason to believe that God exists.

Hope that helped.

Mayank

Adhvagat
01 June 2011, 08:24 AM
Hello Max, I think this understanding of consciousness and how life biologically manifests should be less anthropocentric, a beautiful creation is not just a beautiful flower (as by our judgement) or a plant we can eat, I'd start with something as simple (and amazingly complex) as a single cell.

I'd also like to ask why do you give so much credit to the rational analysis of life, life is not only based on rationality, most part of our lives are decided by a) unconscious effects onto our conscience and b) emotions.

No one choses to pursue their path of life based on cheer rationality and cold anaylis, well, at least not those in a healthy state of mind I hope!

Considering that the psyche is the one and only proof of the matters of the soul, how can you conclude that God does not exist or that a Ghost does not exist when a friend, that used the same organ that you use to perceive everyday world (the psychic organ), perceived God or ghost? Considering it's hard to admit, scientifically, that exists anything separated from consciousness, since without consciousness even if there was something, how could it be perceived? And by whom?


Without consciousness there would, practically speaking, be no world, for the world exists as such only in so far as it is consciously reflected and considered by a psyche. Consciousness is a precondition of being.

Upbringing and surroundings can mold how a psychic content manifests, but the same contents are always present, be it a primitive indigenous or an extremely rational scientist, one fear ghosts the other has panic attacks.

A good read on this transition on how psychological contents changed their presentation based on our surroundings is this one: http://www.amazon.com/Flying-Saucers-Modern-Things-Skies/dp/0691018227/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1306934641&sr=8-2

I'm not sure you've read it, but it's a great read.

Om

NayaSurya
01 June 2011, 08:47 AM
Rudy...I can not answer this question for you.

Many many years ago I was very much devoted to a nameless form of Shiva...and though I had never seen proof of such existence I knew it to be so. In a billion years how could a perfect strawberry come to be upon this realm, so perfectly beautiful...and for us to taste and eat?

This was my only proof for many years, the simple things around us...the sunrise and sunset...such a miracle each day. That this rock spins with life abounding...this is a miracle despite the science I know is behind it.

But even this is not proof for you or an answer. Over time, discovering for ourselves can we know and understand this answer completely.

This time, happily came for me...I wasn't seeking it as I was very comfortable with the miracle of the strawberry as my proof.

You see I can tell you that I have seen things which positively prove that there is something beyond what these faulty senses can define. I have seen it, and I know it...and will never doubt it.

But what of you? Can you believe this Truth spoken from one who is nothing more than a name online for such an important Truth?






It means I have studied the "magic" scriptures, I have heard the arguments (transcendental experiences, the ontological argument, fine-tuning of the universe, beautiful sweet strawberries etc etc) and I have found the supernatural claims to be ridiculous.

First of all I would like to point out that neither a believer nor a non-believer can give you evidence for or against the existence of a creator.



Well, that's millions of miles away from my post, I can see where mine would be selected as an example.:p




The most interesting, and I find the most seductive, theological argument you will hear from a believer about the existence of a God is usually some variation of the fine-tuning argument. For example, that the beauty, of the sunrise and sunsets, is evidence for a creator, or something along the lines of how is it that the earth is exactly the right distance from the Sun; everything seems to be finely tuned for us - well many of these are simply non sequiturs because all that a sunrise or a sunset proves is that planets are in motion. The simplest refutation of the fine-tuning argument is to remind ourselves of just a few facts - one, what we see as finely tuned really is pure chance. Let's take the example that NayaSurya presented in his comment earlier -



Well you see what this poster is conveniently forgetting, is the larger percentage of vegetation on this planet that is not perfectly beautiful or edible and largely poisonous.


I am a she...and I am aware of the millions of plants not available for us to eat. I am also aware of the fact that none of them had to be fit to eat and we wouldn't be having this conversation right now....as we would have never propagated this earth without ones that were.

I find simple...and I really want to stress that... It's a simple miracle we are here. Be it science or God, the fact we've made it this far is a miracle to me.




As I pointed out, I would not be able to give you evidence that God does not exist, just as a believer could not give you evidence that God does exist.

So here, you must decide what your starting premise is. I find that, when confronted by any claim, the starting premise should always be the null hypothesis. Let me illustrate with an example; if your best friend was to come running toward you in the street, and frantically explained to you that he/she had seen a ghost around the corner, and he dragged you along with him/her, and when you reached the location of the alleged apparition, you could not see anything, what would be your conclusion - you could either decide that your friend definitely did see a ghost, or you could decide that your friend was under a misapprehension (or if it was my friend, he just probably had one to many hash brownies and was now seeing ghosts).

My starting position to this situation would be that there is no such thing as a ghost as there is no evidence for such an entity and so if my friend could not back up his claim that what he saw really was a ghost, then I would have to conclude that, although he may be convinced that he's seen a ghost, he is mistaken. Even if I witnessed an apparition when he took me to see it, I would still have to exhaust every possible rational explanation before I could consider it as a sign of the supernatural.

Now what your starting premise usually is, is definitely affected by your upbringing and prior experiences; for example if you are brought up to believe that ghosts really do exist, and are surrounded by others, children and adults, who believe that ghosts exist, and have heard hundreds of personal anecdotes surrounding this idea, chances are that the lack of the ghost around the corner would not deter you from believing in your friend's tale either. (And obviously in this case, a ghost ride in an amusement park is clearly not a good idea for you either).

So in a nutshell, most of the ideas around the existence of God and the truth claims of religions are quite deeply influenced by your upbringing and your surroundings. I am not doubting personal euphoric transcendental experiences that one may have; there's just simply no reason to correlate these numinous experiences with anything supernatural.

In a nutshell, I would summarise it to this; as there is no evidence of the existence of God, there is no reason to believe that God exists.

Hope that helped.

Mayank

You, yourself have no evidence that God exists, therefore you have no reason to believe that It exists. But that doesn't mean We don't.

I have said this many many times on here...belief is like a solo science experiment that you can not recreate for others. Everyone has beliefs, even atheists...they are just not "Religious beliefs".

There are political beliefs...and even parental beliefs...even belief that other religious beliefs are "ridiculous" as you stated...is a belief.

So please, do not take my strawberry example as proof of God...as I said...for years in my childhood....I was satisfied with the visual things around me as proof. Only as a analytical adult did I begin to ask questions and seek answers to the things I experienced.

Just as I have never seen a man land on the moon with my own eyes....I have to accept some know this is a fact and have experienced it....and so I ask for this same courtesy of my own experiences.

Just because I do not have the same beliefs as you, does not mean I do not wholly and 100&#37; respect and appreciate Atheists. My best friend is an Atheist who is dying of cancer...and all of these years we have had a loving devoted friendship despite our different views of this world.


I am at your feet Mayank...

maxpsycho
01 June 2011, 09:00 AM
Hello Max, I think this understanding of consciousness and how life biologically manifests should be less anthropocentric, a beautiful creation is not just a beautiful flower (as by our judgement) or a plant we can eat, I'd start with something as simple (and amazingly complex) as a single cell.

I'd also like to ask why do you give so much credit to the rational analysis of life, life is not only based on rationality, most part of our lives are decided by a) unconscious effects onto our conscience and b) emotions.

No one choses to pursue their path of life based on cheer rationality and cold anaylis, well, at least not those in a healthy state of mind I hope!


Thanks for your reply Pietro; I hope I was not so poor as to advocate a strictly clinical approach to life. I certainly hold certain things sacred, like the love of parents for their children, landscape, art, music and the truth to name a few. I would certainly not want anyone to be devoid of emotion or passions, and hope that I have not demonstrated myself to be a mindless robot as you stipulate.

However I would take this opportunity to draw the distinction between emotional and the irrational. I do think that I am quite emotional (one of the moments I'm not very proud of would be crying when Mufasa dies in the Lion King ;) ). But I don't think that being emotional merits the right to either unwarranted respect, or unwarranted respect for emotional philosophies. I do think that rationality is very important, precisely because emotional decisions, at least in my experience, end up being the ones that we regret. Having said that, I am not making an attempt to pit rationality against emotions; I think both come part and parcel of being human. I just don't see the connection between emotions and believing without evidence.

I do, by the way, think that the single cell is a remarkable thing, and that attempts to understand the origin of the cell will take more time than perhaps in my lifetime, to affirm. But again, just because I'm afraid of the uncertainty attached to the origin, deciding that there was a creator involved without any evidence seems to me a little intellectually dishonest.


Considering that the psyche is the one and only proof of the matters of the soul, how can you conclude that God does not exist or that a Ghost does not exist when a friend, that used the same organ that you use to perceive everyday world (the psychic organ), perceived God or ghost? Considering it's hard to admit, scientifically, that exists anything separated from consciousness, since without consciousness even if there was something, how could it be perceived? And by whom?

My first clarification would have to be that I perceive the everyday world through my five senses, and no psychic organ whatsoever. And my question is precisely this, what is your basis for believing that there is a "soul" and that the psyche is the one and only proof of the matters around it (you will have to elaborate on this idea further, as this sentence seems to go right past my bat I'm afraid). As I mentioned, I conclude that a ghost or a god does not exist even if my friend swears to having witnessed it, because there are many other explanations, much simpler and natural, that can account for this experience. He could have been having a hallucination, he could have been fooled by a person in a white cloak, he could have seen a white cloak gliding through the air by a powerful wind, or the easiest explanation, he could just be lying. Therefore unless all these explanations come up as completely falsified, there is no reason to start believing that the situation has reached the realm of the supernatural.


Upbringing and surroundings can mold how a psychic content manifests, but the same contents are always present, be it a primitive indigenous or an extremely rational scientist, one fear ghosts the other has panic attacks.

I'm not sure I completely understand what you mean by "psychic content" but I think your point above works more in my favour, in that it explains that yes we have many fears (fear of the dark is something that almost all humans share), and yes the brain works to create patterns even where they may not be. And yes, people across the ages have had problems with their mental states, but that does not in any way prove that phenomena such as ghosts exist. It is, as is quite clear from your statement, an issue of the brain.


A good read on this transition on how psychological contents changed their presentation based on our surroundings is this one: http://www.amazon.com/Flying-Saucers-Modern-Things-Skies/dp/0691018227/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1306934641&sr=8-2

I'm not sure you've read it, but it's a great read.

Om

I haven't had the pleasure of reading this book yet, but I will add it to my reading list. Thank you for sharing this.

Mayank

NayaSurya
01 June 2011, 09:19 AM
I wanted to come back and share a story about my third oldest son, he is 4 out of our 8...so the middle child. This very Sunday, my oldest son and I were talking about beliefs, he is also an Atheist, and a sophomore in college. So my third oldest son comes to me as me and this son are talking about beliefs and says "I don't believe in God at all either." My reply was "GOOD! You should never take anothers word as your own truth!" I encouraged him to find his own Truth of this world.

In my heart I believe, no one should take my experiences as as their own proof. I mean this so wholly...that it applies even to these ones I love so dearly. It made me proud of him to be such an independant thinker.

maxpsycho
01 June 2011, 09:25 AM
I am a she...

My humblest apology first and foremost for using the "his" - I try to maintain gender anonymity as much as possible, but I think that one slipped the net.



I find simple...and I really want to stress that... It's a simple miracle we are here. Be it science or God, the fact we've made it this far is a miracle to me.

I find it very awe-inspiring myself.


You, yourself have no evidence that God exists, therefore you have no reason to believe that It exists. But that doesn't mean We don't.

I would love for anyone to share these with me, and would welcome a correction, as clearly I have not been able to see any evidence to date.


I have said this many many times on here...belief is like a solo science experiment that you can not recreate for others. Everyone has beliefs, even atheists...they are just not "Religious beliefs".

There are political beliefs...and even parental beliefs...even belief that other religious beliefs are "ridiculous" as you stated...is a belief.

Again, I can only hope that I did not explain myself so poorly as to warrant a label of "belief" when I was opining on the veracity of said faiths. I think that the word "science" is probably ill-fitting in this experiment as by definition we are talking about a subjective experience (I'm also not completely sure what political or parental beliefs are).


So please, do not take my strawberry example as proof of God...as I said...for years in my childhood....I was satisfied with the visual things around me as proof. Only as a analytical adult did I begin to ask questions and seek answers to the things I experienced.
Just as I have never seen a man land on the moon with my own eyes....I have to accept some know this is a fact and have experienced it....and so I ask for this same courtesy of my own experiences.
Just because I do not have the same beliefs as you, does not mean I do not wholly and 100% respect and appreciate Atheists. My best friend is an Atheist who is dying of cancer...and all of these years we have had a loving devoted friendship despite our different views of this world.
The Moon landing is not disputable the same way as belief in a God, personal or impersonal, is. There is good evidence, video and photographic that proves that Neil Armstrong walked on the Moon.

I'm certainly not suggesting that you are lying about your experiences; that these experiences take place is not the issue, but the derivation of a supernatural cause from these experiences is something which I think can be discussed. And I am doing this with utmost respect toward you as a fellow human being. I offer my best wishes for your friend who is suffering from this ghastly disease. I lost my mother to cancer when I was 11, so I can understand what a difficult time it must be for him and those dear to him.

I am at your feet Mayank...
Please don't be, they tend to get smelly :D

NayaSurya
01 June 2011, 09:32 AM
A hug to you<3

My own mother battled breast cancer for 12 years. She fought it as she lived, with fist and grit. She died in 2001 after a trial with photolight therapy to help test its effectiveness on BC. Thanks to her, and the other brave women who died...no one will go through the hell of photolight therapy to treat it.

A parental belief: I believe that my children should never be hit...unless it is an absolute act of defense.

My political beliefs are a bit Libertarian mixed with conservative democrat.:p

You have NO idea how many folks here do not believe the moon landing happened! It's a huge group! Same folks still asking for the president's birth certificate.:p

maxpsycho
01 June 2011, 11:16 AM
My own mother battled breast cancer for 12 years. She fought it as she lived, with fist and grit. She died in 2001 after a trial with photolight therapy to help test its effectiveness on BC. Thanks to her, and the other brave women who died...no one will go through the hell of photolight therapy to treat it.

My condolences for your loss. My mother too fought the disease for 5 years with every type of treatment imaginable; from radiation/chemo to the other end of the spectrum (born-again evangelism, brazilian red scorpion venom etc). However unfortunately, the stage at which the cancer was detected was stage 4 and as you may well know, there is no stage 5. And coupled with marital problems, toward the end she seemed glad for it.


A parental belief: I believe that my children should never be hit...unless it is an absolute act of defense.

My political beliefs are a bit Libertarian mixed with conservative democrat.:p

I think in the example of parental beliefes, although we use the word "believe", this is not synonymous to religious faith - just as the word "set" can be used to mean a group of collectible items or a temporary structure used for filming purposes. They are different ideas.

As far as political beliefs are concerned, I think the same applies, although in a more nuanced way. What I mean by this, is that you could believe that certain methodologies are more suitable for running a country as opposed to others, however this may not be based on unfounded or unsupported beliefs. For example, you can deduce that an officially communist state is doomed to failure, from the various examples of doomed communist states, and therefore there must be aspects of both socialism and capitalism within a society to work. At the same time, choosing a democratic system of government makes more sense than an autocratic or theocratic government as it gives everyone a voice. Whether everyone deserves a voice is a matter of a different debate perhaps. ;)


You have NO idea how many folks here do not believe the moon landing happened! It's a huge group! Same folks still asking for the president's birth certificate.:p
I do find it slightly amusing but mainly frightening when I think of the state of the world, populated by people who believe things like these - I have met many flat-earthers and young-earth creationists here in London which was startling in itself. I guess, as John Milton states in his Areopagitica, freedom of speech means nothing unless it also means the freedom of those that hold the contrary view.

Adhvagat
01 June 2011, 03:27 PM
Thanks for your reply Pietro; I hope I was not so poor as to advocate a strictly clinical approach to life. I certainly hold certain things sacred, like the love of parents for their children, landscape, art, music and the truth to name a few. I would certainly not want anyone to be devoid of emotion or passions, and hope that I have not demonstrated myself to be a mindless robot as you stipulate.

However I would take this opportunity to draw the distinction between emotional and the irrational. I do think that I am quite emotional (one of the moments I'm not very proud of would be crying when Mufasa dies in the Lion King ;) ). But I don't think that being emotional merits the right to either unwarranted respect, or unwarranted respect for emotional philosophies. I do think that rationality is very important, precisely because emotional decisions, at least in my experience, end up being the ones that we regret. Having said that, I am not making an attempt to pit rationality against emotions; I think both come part and parcel of being human. I just don't see the connection between emotions and believing without evidence.

I do, by the way, think that the single cell is a remarkable thing, and that attempts to understand the origin of the cell will take more time than perhaps in my lifetime, to affirm. But again, just because I'm afraid of the uncertainty attached to the origin, deciding that there was a creator involved without any evidence seems to me a little intellectually dishonest.

My first clarification would have to be that I perceive the everyday world through my five senses, and no psychic organ whatsoever. And my question is precisely this, what is your basis for believing that there is a "soul" and that the psyche is the one and only proof of the matters around it (you will have to elaborate on this idea further, as this sentence seems to go right past my bat I'm afraid). As I mentioned, I conclude that a ghost or a god does not exist even if my friend swears to having witnessed it, because there are many other explanations, much simpler and natural, that can account for this experience. He could have been having a hallucination, he could have been fooled by a person in a white cloak, he could have seen a white cloak gliding through the air by a powerful wind, or the easiest explanation, he could just be lying. Therefore unless all these explanations come up as completely falsified, there is no reason to start believing that the situation has reached the realm of the supernatural.

I'm not sure I completely understand what you mean by "psychic content" but I think your point above works more in my favour, in that it explains that yes we have many fears (fear of the dark is something that almost all humans share), and yes the brain works to create patterns even where they may not be. And yes, people across the ages have had problems with their mental states, but that does not in any way prove that phenomena such as ghosts exist. It is, as is quite clear from your statement, an issue of the brain.

I haven't had the pleasure of reading this book yet, but I will add it to my reading list. Thank you for sharing this.

Mayank

I'll try to expand a bit more since my mind is rested.

Regarding this rational vs emotional, my point would be more like this: Let's say a Hindu is a devotee of Ganesha, he isn't a devotee of Ganesha because he carefully analyzed him in every logical direct way and got some scientific truth about him. He feels that devotion naturally and it is very pleasurable and numinous to his mind to worship him. If we were to apply the scientific method in a purely statistical approach to the devotees of Ganesha we would perhaps see that worshipping Ganesha is a very auspicious practice, it's a natural mental inclination and religiosity manifests in the psyche from the sweeper on the street to the quantum physicist. So I guess that's the indication of something deep right there.

If we also were to understood Ganesha analytically, the proper way would have to be symbolically, what does these elements mean? The animal head? The myth behind it? The symbols He sports? These also work at a very direct level in every mind. I'd say it would also be the proper way to view any relation in this world. Trying to explain that we love our conjugal partners because of sheer logic or perhaps a sheer biological truth would deem insuficient, perhaps not scientifically, but I'm sure deep down no one would reduce emotions to biology, the interesting thing is, one cannot say that chemicals in our body cause emotion but there's a synchronical relation between mind and body, if the relation was just one way BODY affects MIND and not the other way around as well, psychossomatic symptons would be impossible! And that's clearly not the case.

Not just the single cell is an amazing deed, I'd also add the non-tactile structure of the mind. If you start to study the mechanics of complexes and the strongest complex (the ego complex) and how mind forms itself one could easily come to an analogy of gravity and a solar system, no wonder astrology tries to understand the relations of our internal microcosm to the external visible one.

You say that your brain perceives, but I'm sure no one identify themselves with a brain, just look at this very basic example: When you say ME, and points towards yourself, do you point towards your face? That's not common, no one does that. We hear through our head, we see through our head, we speak through our head, we interact with society through our faces, and EVERYONE points at their heart. If logic is the ultimate definer of consciousness as Descartes puts it, why do we point at our chest? My bet would be because it represents the whole of our being, yes, brain (sahasra chakra) regulates it all, well, let's see it regulate something with no blood! Or perhaps regulate something with no nutrients absorbed by our intestine! :p It's indeed amazing how we are not a single system, but a collection of them with a sense of unity (ahamkhara).

So if we consider the mutation and dissociation of not just body, but also mind, and go in an investigative quest to find our unity, let's say in the cognitive process and thinking pattern:

External event > Perceived through senses > Identified > Judged by value > Intuition Applied > Memory recollected > Subjective speculations about it > Affections (Emotions) > Completly unconscious realm

In all this we have a chain of events mainly observable, but the interesting part is how can we observe what we are? Can the eye see itself? Can a single finger touch itself? We are getting close to a concept similar to the atman, a single speck of consciousness that is ruling this dissociation of cells and systems.

Another factor is how the contents of our psyche change dramatically over life, however, how can we still maintain a sense of identity? The ahamkhara works in mysterious ways! :)

My point being, we are aware of our senses, but we're not them. We are aware of hunger, fear, and other instincts, but we are not them, we mainly deal with them psychologically, we deal with their psychified form, because nothing non-psychified can exist in our mind. Our mind is the great material to spiritual (non-tactile, not directly observable by the senses) translator.

The example that you give about your friend just goes to show how little we should trust truths based on indirect experience, know thyself is indeed the motto.

I think the concept of supernatural is a weird, for example, for a medium that sees and hears ghosts and is not a medicated schizophrenic, spirits are not supernatural, well, let's ignore completely these example and talk hypothetically, why call the subtle nature of the world supernatural? If someone got hard evidence on ghosts (which there are a lot by now, I'm not entirely familiar with good parapsychology scientists, because let's not fool ourselves, these phenomenas do occur) why would it be ABOVE nature? Everything is incompassed in nature, it's prakriti, just because it's not hard, directly perceived through the eyes, it doesn't mean it's not natural, otherwise the mind would a lie, which our own experience says it's not, we are living through it right now, thinking, acting, and talking to each other through it.

Anyway, most of this psyche and body relation is carefully dealt with by Carl Gustav Jung in the book 'The Structure and Dynamics of the Psyche' (http://www.amazon.com/Structure-Dynamics-Psyche-Collected-Works/dp/0691097747/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1306960948&sr=8-1) in the chapters 2 to 5, however the chapter 1 may interest you, but since I haven't read it yet, I can't recommend.

You can see that my approach to this, "Does god exist" question is psychological, mainly because that's how Jung viewed, his stance would be somewhat like "let's ignore this need to prove something externally, but let's not ignore the fact that there are religions and the inclination towards it and the effects of things related to God are real". So to the mind, there's God. As several yogic processes observed, to some it may be personal, to others impersonal, but the concept of RE-CONNECTION, YOGA, is always there.

maxpsycho
03 June 2011, 02:22 AM
Pietro, I must admit I am enjoying this discussion with you. I won't paste in every paragraph of yours otherwise this post may not fit in one page. But I will try to go through your points paragraph by paragraph.

To start with, I agree that a Hindu is a devotee of Ganesha not as a result of careful deliberation or analysis or logic or thought or science. Unfortunately, as you may have seen, the pattern here is that the devotion comes not from anything rooted in reason or truth - it is simply faith. Now although what you suggest as an experiment sounds plausible, to make it truly scientific we must also include a measure of "auspicious occurrings" as a result of "not believing in Ganesha" and also as a result of "being a devotee of the Prophet Mohammed". Those could be the control groups in your experiment to truly ascertain whether devotion and worship of Ganesha have a bearing on the outcome of a particular undertaking. As far as natural mental inclination is concerned, it certainly wasn't natural to me and to millions of other non-believers or the billions who believe in other religions. So I don't think it is as deep as you may like to be. What it seems to resemble more is pattern seeking behaviour - take the name of a deity and the task goes well, repeat and you are successful two or three more times, and suddenly the taking of the name becomes a criteria in achieving success. A similar experiment done by Burrhus Skinner with pigeons hints on the idea of a similar pattern-seeking behavioural tendency.

Now if the understanding of Ganesha is to be symbolic, then it cannot be analytical in a scientific manner. Symbolic stipulates that it is a metaphorical figure, likely to be fictitious. Again I'm not advocating that we reduce love for our partners, families and friends to chemical reactions in the brain, however it would be unwise to think that therefore it is something supernatural. When I love my wife, I don't spend the majority of my time focussing on the fact that this is purely a biological and chemical process taking place - I much enjoy the feeling of being in love and loving my wife and my family and friends - my point is however that this in no way proves that there is a supernatural element to it. Now where you and I are completely at odds, fundamentally, is this - you believe that there is a duality to human consciousness, a distinction between the mind/soul/spirit and the body. Whereas I do not. Let me elaborate a little further.

It is one the peculiar shortcomings of our various human languages, that we talk in the same syntax when referring to "my car" as when referring to "my brain". Forgive me if I'm misrepresenting you here, but you seem to be a great admirer of Karle Jung. But let's not forget that Jung's own starting point when it came to psychology was spiritual to begin with. He approached the study of the brain, fairly convinced that there was a spiritual purpose beyond material goals. I mention this because when someone states that "We hear through our head, we see through our head, we speak through our head, we interact with society through our faces, and EVERYONE points at their heart", they are stipulating that because of this literary device of possessive grammar, it must mean that there is something controlling all of this which is beyond the physical. Well to start with, this is unnecessary, and secondly it is unsupported. Let's consider the basest example; we have the technology now to be able to destroy certain cells in the brain that would immediately stop a person recognising anyone they knew prior to the experiment, or would completely destroy their ability to speak, or understand language, or hear, or use certain limbs etc. Now if that proves anything, it must prove the fact that our constructs of consciousness are fundamentally dependent on the brain. I do not differentiate between myself and my brain, because it is true that I am my body, my brain, my collection of memories, my knowledge. And this collection of memories and knowledge are thoroughly dependent on the correct functioning of the brain. Yes our bodies are complex systems, but taking the leap of faith that these are so mysterious as to be revered is not the correct approach - understanding these systems is. Our fingers can't touch themselves, our eyes can't see themselves, because these are organs and appendages that have taken millions and millions of years to evolve serving particular purposes along the way.

Lastly, just to clarify, there has been absolutely NO proof or evidence till date, that has been able to withstand scrutiny, for the existence of ghosts. There are no good "parapsychology scientists" because parapsychology is not a science. It does not start with a position of no bias; it starts by believing in the proposition and then tries to find evidence for it - this is not scientific. And so there is no reason whatsoever to believe that these phenomena exist. Jung's view is flawed precisely because he sticks to the point, as you put it, that we don't need to prove it, we just need to take it a priori that religion is there and it's effects are real. Nobody would argue that there are certain side effects to religious faith, but he has given no reason to assert that we must ignore the need to prove something externally. I'm not at all saying, that we can't be spiritual. As I've said earlier, we can have these deeply spiritual experiences through meditation, or listening to notes of certain types of music, or art, but to draw these connections to God, which does come in the realm of supernatural, is a fallacy as far as I can see it.

Adhvagat
03 June 2011, 05:02 AM
My personal stance is that scientific study while extremely valid to investigate nature, it's rather poor to represent the actual experience of nature. Jung uses a very interesting analogy of statistical weighting of rocks in a river bed, if one were to determine the average weight to be 165g, a person could delve into the river and come out empty handed trying to find a single rock that weighs 165g. The averaging nature and repeatable scenario that science needs ends up not representing the peculiarities of life at all.


To start with, I agree that a Hindu is a devotee of Ganesha not as a result of careful deliberation or analysis or logic or thought or science. Unfortunately, as you may have seen, the pattern here is that the devotion comes not from anything rooted in reason or truth - it is simply faith.

"[Regarding religious experiences] you can only say that you have never had such an experience, whereupon your opponent will reply: “Sorry, I have.” And there your discussion will come to an end. No matter what the world thinks about religious experience, the one who has it possesses a great treasure, a thing that has become for him a source of life, meaning and beauty, and that has given a new splendour to the world and to mankind. He has pistis and peace. Where is the criterion by which you could say that such a life is not legitimate, that such an experience is not valid, and that such pistis is mere illusion? Is there, as a matter of fact, any better truth about the ultimate things than the one that helps you to live?"

This is from Jung's 'Psychology and Religion', given your personal focus it might be a good book to you.


Now although what you suggest as an experiment sounds plausible, to make it truly scientific we must also include a measure of "auspicious occurrings" as a result of "not believing in Ganesha" and also as a result of "being a devotee of the Prophet Mohammed". Those could be the control groups in your experiment to truly ascertain whether devotion and worship of Ganesha have a bearing on the outcome of a particular undertaking. As far as natural mental inclination is concerned, it certainly wasn't natural to me and to millions of other non-believers or the billions who believe in other religions. So I don't think it is as deep as you may like to be.

Why are you looking at my example so literally? I'm not saying that it's natural to worship Ganesha and it's the only spiritual practice that gives results and by results it's not something materially tangible, religion is not about materialism (!), of course someone that was born in a country that no one talks about Ganesha will not be a devotee of Ganesha. C'mon! But religious inclination is universal. Religion is more than the imperialist idea of a ruling man in the sky, that's the problem with how atheism orients itself, it's mainly to fight the (theo)logical fallacies of Abrahamism.


What it seems to resemble more is pattern seeking behaviour - take the name of a deity and the task goes well, repeat and you are successful two or three more times, and suddenly the taking of the name becomes a criteria in achieving success. A similar experiment done by Burrhus Skinner with pigeons hints on the idea of a similar pattern-seeking behavioural tendency.

That's where I'd have to disagree completely. This is the reductionist method applied to its extreme. I'm pretty sure human form is infinitely more complex to pigeon form and both forms have not just completely distinct objectives towards life (biologically and psychologically) but developed in entirely different scenarios.

However I get what you are saying, of course human biological development has a link towards animal development, humans didn't sprout out of nothing, but my main point of disagreement in it is linking religiosity with mere behaviorism. Since I ended up citing Jung, for this subject I'd recommend you the book 'Man and His Symbols', a great introductory work on Analytical Psychology.


Again I'm not advocating that we reduce love for our partners [...] it would be unwise to think that therefore it is something supernatural. [...] my point is however that this in no way proves that there is a supernatural element to it. Now where you and I are completely at odds, fundamentally, is this - you believe that there is a duality to human consciousness, a distinction between the mind/soul/spirit and the body. Whereas I do not. Let me elaborate a little further.

Hinduism does not believe in supernatural, everything is encompassed in the prakriti, the very concept of supernatural only exists for materialistic science, because it denies anything that it can't imediately perceive, even if there's subjective internal psychological proof for it.

What's so supernatural about observing a mere fact? Your hair grows and falls, your ideas change, mental affliction comes and goes, we grow old, we gain weight, we lose weight, we can lose a leg in accident, we can even lose part of our brain and by some miracle not have any severe adverse effect, and all of these changes didn't change the fact that there's an indivisible observer watching all of this. Hinduism calls it the atman.

Going deeper into just matter in something as quantum physics (let's remember the great names of quantum physics really admired the Upanishads) it behaves in a way that science would never admit before, and perhaps would call magical, supernatural, so I have faith that slowly science will recognize step by step the subtler reality of life.


Now if the understanding of Ganesha is to be symbolic, then it cannot be analytical in a scientific manner. Symbolic stipulates that it is a metaphorical figure, likely to be fictitious.

I'll just give you a tiny presentation of how Jung came to the observation of the collective unconscious: He was treating a poor uneducated black schizophrenic patient that narrated a tale of him of how the sun fertilized the earth, he couldn't understand what the crazy man was saying and ignored it as simple hallucinations, 6 years later a german scholar published material on the cult of Mithra that held that the view that the sun had a phallos that fertilized the Earth, Jung was amazed and began to focus his studies on this universal reservoir that is manifested through myths and religion that he termed the 'collective unconscious'.

Religiosity would act highly on these contents and the desire to unify oneself back with God would (yoga) is the desire to integrate with the whole of the psyche.


I mention this because when someone states that "We hear through our head, we see through our head, we speak through our head, we interact with society through our faces, and EVERYONE points at their heart", they are stipulating that because of this literary device of possessive grammar, it must mean that there is something controlling all of this which is beyond the physical.

My example was to illustrate how even though every cognitive function happens in the head, why do people point at their hearts? It's not for nothing that Hindu metaphysics claimed that the heart is the seat of the atman, it's the figurative center that we can't totally prove scientifically, but it's there biologically as the all-supplying heart, and we feel it ourselves.


Let's consider the basest example; we have the technology now to be able to destroy certain cells in the brain that would immediately stop a person recognising anyone they knew prior to the experiment, or would completely destroy their ability to speak, or understand language, or hear, or use certain limbs etc. Now if that proves anything, it must prove the fact that our constructs of consciousness are fundamentally dependent on the brain. I do not differentiate between myself and my brain, because it is true that I am my body, my brain, my collection of memories, my knowledge. And this collection of memories and knowledge are thoroughly dependent on the correct functioning of the brain.

You are terming consciousness to something like rational ability to control and not just pure witnessing, by not being able to remember, understand language there still a speck of consciousness to experience these adverse states, just like our speck of consciousness can experience a bad mental state today and tomorrow a completely different one, yet the speck of consciousness is the same. If I were to transport this analogy to the phyisical body, the cutting of someone's legs thereby making this person unable to walk would prove that there's no individuality that rules that leg? And that walking doesn't happen because someone wants too? Or humans are just a collection of limbs? Sounds illogical. Just as the individuality is not apparent looking at a leg alone, or at limbs alone, the soul is not apparent when we look at the multitude of disconnected neurons.


Yes our bodies are complex systems, but taking the leap of faith that these are so mysterious as to be revered is not the correct approach - understanding these systems is. Our fingers can't touch themselves, our eyes can't see themselves, because these are organs and appendages that have taken millions and millions of years to evolve serving particular purposes along the way.

It's not a leap of faith, as I said:

"What's so supernatural about observing a mere fact? Your hair grows and falls, your ideas change, mental affliction comes and goes, we grow old, we gain weight, we lose weight, we can lose a leg in accident, we can even lose part of our brain and by some miracle not have any severe adverse effect, and all of these changes didn't change the fact that there's an indivisible observer watching all of this. Hinduism calls it the atman. The observer is not scientifically known, but it's the basis of science itself being the base for BEING, observer and observed."


Lastly, just to clarify, there has been absolutely NO proof or evidence till date, that has been able to withstand scrutiny, for the existence of ghosts. There are no good "parapsychology scientists" because parapsychology is not a science. It does not start with a position of no bias; it starts by believing in the proposition and then tries to find evidence for it - this is not scientific. And so there is no reason whatsoever to believe that these phenomena exist. Jung's view is flawed precisely because he sticks to the point, as you put it, that we don't need to prove it, we just need to take it a priori that religion is there and it's effects are real. Nobody would argue that there are certain side effects to religious faith, but he has given no reason to assert that we must ignore the need to prove something externally. I'm not at all saying, that we can't be spiritual. As I've said earlier, we can have these deeply spiritual experiences through meditation, or listening to notes of certain types of music, or art, but to draw these connections to God, which does come in the realm of supernatural, is a fallacy as far as I can see it.

Do you know the field of parapsychology? I don't know the field of parapsychology just yet and franky it wouldn't really be a main focus of mine. But I give this preliminar credit because of Jung's credibility. When or If I get to investigate the works that he mentions (some are hard to find) I'll get back to you.

I'm asking you this because Jung wasn't really the type of guy that would believe in hearsay or pseudoscience. He is still extremely ostracized until this day merely because he claimed that psychology couldn't be reduced to sexuality alone, imagine how much less respect he would have today if he was keen to superstition and pseudoscience!

smaranam
03 June 2011, 09:45 AM
Namaste

A comedy skit on TV had this conversation between ghosts:

GHOST 1: You know I have heard that there are such beings called "humans" ! They try to drive us away !

GHOST 2: What have you been eating ?! There is no such thing as humans ! It is all a fairy tale. Mythology, you know...

GHOST 1: No, no, they were serious

GHOST 2: Who ?

GHOST 1: Our elders were speaking and i overheard...

GHOST 2: I think you just had a bad dream. Go to sleep.

GHOST 1: No no it wasn't a dream. I sneaked into the courtyard and overheard our folks discuss it...

GHOST 1: I am scared

GHOST 2: I shall hang a gizzygoozy by your door it will scare away the ... err.. "humans" ... if they exist....

TheOne
03 June 2011, 07:13 PM
There are plenty of explanations for life that DON'T require a God. Now, whether there are gods or not is up to debate but what difference does it make? So there are gods? So what? So there aren't gods? So what? None of this changes reality in any way, it can only add to reality or keep it the same?

I see this debate as rather pointless because on the one side, there are those that say "I feel, therefore I know" and the other side who say "I do not see, therefore I know".

The existence of gods has no bearing on the realization of the (no)self.

"God" in term of a divine creator, judge, has no support for it whatsoever, and is a commonly used tactic to fear people into submission. This theory is completely outdated and has no scientific, or observational evidence to back it up.

maxpsycho
04 June 2011, 06:37 AM
Thank you again Pietro for your response, it was very interesting to read. I hadn't yet met anyone who is so enamoured by Jung's philosophy of the mind. It's a refreshing point of view and again, I shall try to respond point by point. Please feel free to correct me where I might be misrepresenting or understanding your remarks.

I would like to start by clearing up some ambiguity that attaches itself to the concept of science. Science is essentially the methodology that we use to ascertain truth. So when we say a "scientific experiment" we are talking about an experiment that it is at the very least, empirical, repeatable and blind to any bias, among other criteria. I am not completely certain what you mean by poor representation of actual experience of nature. Personal experience of anything is subjective and therefore the experience itself, as far as I can understand it, may be allowed immunity from scientific scrutiny. However, the tangible, natural parameters that result in the experience, can be analysed scientifically. Science is not an ideology or a belief system. It is a method of study and analysis of the natural world.

In Jung's example, it seems he is disappointed that an average of the weights didn't give him the weight of a single rock, however that is due to a misunderstanding of statistics. In his example he is clearly talking about the mean value as the average. It's purpose is not to give us the value of any one of the range, but rather a measure of the "middle" value of the data. If he had decided to use the Median or the Mode averages, would that have alleviated his doubt that science ends up not representing the peculiarities of life? I certainly don't think so and I would wager, neither do you.

Now, asserting that those that have religious experiences have a great treasure is simply that - just an assertion. As I mentioned earlier, the majority of these assertions are based on your starting premises being that one, faith is a virtue, and two, religious experiences are a good thing.

Jung's view of a religious experience is somewhat limited to a positive, beautiful, splendid idea; however let's not forget that "religious experience" does not only stipulate something positive. There are hundreds of recorded cases annually, of patients in psychiatric institutions or prisons who claim that God appeared to them and asked them to maim and decapitate their partners, their families, or even plain strangers. And let's not forget, the millions of Muslims who have a religious experience and they feel that their young teenage daughter's should be circumcised. For them, this is a religious experience too. In Jung's view who am I or you to state that this isn't a valid religious experience? Would you defend this idea of a religious experience as a treasure? Would you say that these actions are therefore legitimate, that these experiences are valid? I would go one step further and say, not only is this experience a delusion, it is a harmful delusion and the individual involved is a psychopath.

More importantly, another point which I would make in response to Jung's remark about the beauty of a religious experience is this - just as I mentioned before and you seem not to refute, these experiences can be had by anyone, and are experienced by people of many and no faiths around the world. You could go and sit in a cave for a year as a true mystic and meditate and experience a oneness with the universe. That in itself doesn't contribute an iota to the idea that there is a God or that any religious scriptures or ideas are true. I agree that believing that there is an almighty creator, who will make sure that whatever you undertake will go well because you chanted a particular name prior to the undertaking, is a very comforting idea and one that helps many people live. I fail to see how Jung can make the assertion therefore that if an idea helps you to live, it must be true. Let me illustrate this very simply - I could believe that there is a bag of rare diamonds and gems buried in my back garden. I could live my life much happier as a result of it, not being stressed by money matters, having a much healthier disposition, be less miserly and more organised with my money matters, precisely because of this idea. However no matter how much better my life becomes because of the idea of buried treasure in my back garden, the rare gems and diamonds will remain illusory. Their existence is not affected by how much better my life becomes by the idea of them.

Now before I go any further, let me just say that by virtue of the fact that an individual is a great scientist or philosopher or a champion in his or her field, it doesn't automatically absolve that individual of all stupidity or credulity. One case in point would be Sir Isaac Newton; we all know Newton was a great physicist, astronomer and mathematician. But what some may not know is that he also believed himself capable of alchemy, i.e. the power to turn metals into gold and silver. Another example would Alfred Russell Wallace, co-discoverer of the theory of evolution via natural selection and colleague of Charles Darwin. A brilliant anthropologist, biologist and naturalist, he was never happier than when he was at a séance apparently communicating with the dead. It can be understood that spiritualism of this sort would have appealed to many prominent thinkers and philosophers of these times precisely because they no longer found traditional religious doctrine, such as that of Christianity, acceptable. Yet this form of wishful thinking does not grant credence to the idea that these phenomena exist, nor shelters the believers from the charge of being highly credulous.

The pattern-seeking behavious that almost all mammals share and exhibit, offers an explanation for the "religious inclination" that you mention. I was only refuting your example of Ganesha for the reason that you mentioned - atheists are not out to fight fallacies - I couldn't comment on what every other atheist in the world is doing or what he or she devotes much of their time to; but I, being an atheist, feel that it is high time, that we start a dialogue, and debate the ideas that form the basis of religion and raise awareness amongst ourselves and others that all religions come down to one thing and that is faith. Whether it's faith in the divine jewish/christian/islamic dictator in the sky, or whether it's a plethora of deities that are symbolic of the epitome of human emotions reflected onto a creative force - none of it is supportable by evidence and therefore cannot be constituted as "truth". It can only be regarded as "faith".

The pigeon example I gave was to illustrate that this pattern-seeking behaviour exists in other creatures too. I am well aware of the fact that that the biology of the pigeon is very different to that of a human being, as we are different species, but we as mammals do exhibit certain marks of our lowly origin, as Darwin put it, one of which is this.

The phrase "subjective psychological proof" is meaningless. Proof, by definition, must be able to withstand scrutiny by an objective third party. A subjective psychological personal experience is not one that can withstand that scrutiny other than by assertion. You could continue to hold a view in light of contrary evidence, but being stubborn is no proof that the view is valid. If anything, it negates the validity of a claim.

I would just like to dissect your remarks that end with "all of these changes didn't change the fact that there's an indivisible observer watching all of this. Hinduism calls it the atman." From this paragraph, it seems to me that you are using the word Atman as a synonym for consciousness. For starters, observation is not a proof for Atman or soul as it's widely translated. I agree that one of the key areas of psychology and philosophy is the understanding of consciousness, and we have yet to learn more about it. However, this doesn't mean, that we can take it as a "fact" that there is an observer that is disconnected from the afflictions you mentioned. Hair growing and falling, gaining and losing weight are all natural phenomena. However each of these processes do have an effect on us emotionally and psychologically. How is any of this proof for the "fact that there's an indivisible observer watching all of this"?

As I think I have agreed with you before, there was a time that people thought that magic and witchcraft was real. There was a time that people thought that flying in the air was reserved for birds. Through science and technology we have now debunked countless myths and magic stories. Even if I take your point that quantum physicists admired the upanishads (although I haven't yet verified this for myself), the whole point goes in the favour of science. Yes, there are a lot of concepts and theories that are yet to be disproved. And yes the study of quantum physics does shed light on and even disprove certain set ideas from the past; but that just goes to show that there is no such thing as an unfalsifiable tenet in science. Theories have to be precise and the parameters have to be declared precisely because the scientific theories are in the end falsifiable. Think about this, through almost each of your posts, you are convinced of the "fact" of the atman; did you work backwards from the evidence for the atman, or were you convinced beforehand? And has any lack of evidence in favour of this claim deterred you or changed your mind about the validity of this "fact"?

I'm afraid, I really fail to grasp the point of the uneducated black schizophrenic; it really went past my bat. Suffice to say that the only thing I could grasp from it, is that Jung is very easily impressed by nonsense and universal reservoirs of credulity.

To return to your point about how "Religiosity would act highly on these contents and the desire to unify oneself back with God would (yoga) is the desire to integrate with the whole of the psyche." - I must ask this again at the risk of being repetitive, but where is the evidence for an assertion as fantastic as this?

I have to ask, who points at their hearts? Do you mean when people use catchphrases such as, the heart wants what it wants? Do you seriously think that there is any organ in your body that overrides the brain in terms of cognitive reasoning? Yes the heart is fundamental to our survival; and therefore objectifying it and talking about in terms of giving it to someone, provides a rather romantic setting to the idea that you would give up such an essential part of yourself for another human being. But we can't forget the fact, that if the brain wasn't working correctly in the first place, there would be no talking, no pointing at the heart, no reasoning or feeling that the heart is the "figurative centre" or the "seat of the atman". These are language tools, literary devices that have been used for centuries; we can perhaps even research the earlier uses of these phrases and concepts, but again, none of this proves that any one organ is the seat for anything.

In response to your point about "You are terming consciousness to something like rational ability to control and not just pure witnessing, by not being able to remember, understand language there still a speck of consciousness to experience these adverse states" - again, this speculation. A refutation of this would be the thousands of patients who are comatosed; the consciousness of these patients seems to go on holiday for upto 20 years at a time in some cases. For some of them, between the experiences they have prior to the coma, and the experiences they have if they come out of that comatosed state, lies nothing. A recent case report stated that when the patient came out of the coma with his brain state intact, he remembered precisely the moment before he became comatosed, and he could not grasp that he had been a vegetable for something like 18 years. Where, I wonder, is this speck of consciousness that experiences everything and is disconnected from the physical human body? You misunderstand me when you say "Or humans are just a collection of limbs? Sounds illogical." I precisely didn't say we are a collection of limbs. I stated that I am my brain, my thoughts, my memories my knowledge. But I cannot, and no person has ever been able to, prove without fail, a disconnection between the brain and the memories and knowledge and the identity of an individual.

As far as the point on parapsychology and Jung's belief in hearsay and pseudoscience is concerned, although I've covered this earlier, it seems that his starting premise was precisely non-scientific. He believed in the idea of a spiritual element to consciousness which is not how a scientific enquiry works. Similarly parapsychology is a field where people's desire to believe in paranormal phenomena causes them to discount strong evidence that it does not exist. Again, a non-scientific starting premise as it is biased.

In response to TheOne, I think I haven't been so poor in my remarks as to reduce my entire view to, "I do not see, therefore I know". ;)

devotee
04 June 2011, 06:50 AM
"Does God exist ?"

By asking this question, we make very vital assumptions & a good understanding of those assumptions is necessary to be able to reach the answer we are seeking.

a) "Does" --- Use of this word assumes that God is one.
b) "God" --- Use of this word assumes that God is an entity ... perhaps, someone like us ?
c) "exist" ---- assumes that we understand what "existence" means !

So, this question is too advanced to be correctly answered. I think we should ask these questions :

a) What is our idea of God ? Is it necessary that whatever idea we have ... God be similar to that ? Is there anything in this world which can be similar to God ?

b) What is existence ? How can we be sure that something exists or something doesn't ? What do we mean by "existence" ?

Do "we" exist or does "I" exist ?

The vital point is .... is it necessary that the answer that we are seeking should be understandable within the framework of our mental constructs ?
Our mental concepts are severely handicapped due to our limitation to have right perceptions through our sense organs. The answer we are seeking is beyond all mental concepts.

Let me assert here that there is no meaning of existence or non-existence in real sense. In reality, "nothing = something = everything". Are we ready to even visualise such a scenario when we may be able to understand a concept which is absolutely different from all our concepts gathered so far ? Then what shall be the reference point ? Then how shall we be able to judge whether our answer is right or wrong ?

****************************

I have given some idea to think logically in post no 15 of this thread (page 2).
In my opinion, it is better to take that route then come to some conclusion.

OM

TheOne
04 June 2011, 07:21 AM
I agree max, I certainly wasn't directing it at you, I was saying what most theistic and atheistic arguments are like.

Before you debate you must define what "God" is. If one party thinks God is a bearded man/women/animal/whatever, then you can have a debate and easily disprove him / her. But if one party says God is undefinable then there's no point in arguing, much less talking about something that is indefinable.

Adhvagat
04 June 2011, 11:38 AM
Jung's view of a religious experience is somewhat limited to a positive, beautiful, splendid idea; however let's not forget that "religious experience" does not only stipulate something positive. There are hundreds of recorded cases annually, of patients in psychiatric institutions or prisons who claim that God appeared to them and asked them to maim and decapitate their partners, their families, or even plain strangers. And let's not forget, the millions of Muslims who have a religious experience and they feel that their young teenage daughter's should be circumcised. For them, this is a religious experience too. In Jung's view who am I or you to state that this isn't a valid religious experience? Would you defend this idea of a religious experience as a treasure? Would you say that these actions are therefore legitimate, that these experiences are valid? I would go one step further and say, not only is this experience a delusion, it is a harmful delusion and the individual involved is a psychopath.

If you were to judge by my quote alone... I'll need to stop this discussion with you because I'm noticing a tendency from you to see things in an oversimplified manner. If you are interested in psychology and religion read the book, don't dismiss as foolish based on one single separated quote.


I'm afraid, I really fail to grasp the point of the uneducated black schizophrenic; it really went past my bat. Suffice to say that the only thing I could grasp from it, is that Jung is very easily impressed by nonsense and universal reservoirs of credulity.

That's a rather limited view, specially for something as complex as the collective unconscious, what I told you was a brief synthesis of the process. If you don't understand and didn't even study what really is the collective unconscious and how Jung came to this conclusion please don't say such things.

No psychological observation on this man's work was ever claimed without several studies to back it up, differently from Freud, Jung had facts and studies, not theories.


Now before I go any further, let me just say that by virtue of the fact that an individual is a great scientist or philosopher or a champion in his or her field, it doesn't automatically absolve that individual of all stupidity or credulity. One case in point would be Sir Isaac Newton; we all know Newton was a great physicist, astronomer and mathematician. But what some may not know is that he also believed himself capable of alchemy, i.e. the power to turn metals into gold and silver. Another example would Alfred Russell Wallace, co-discoverer of the theory of evolution via natural selection and colleague of Charles Darwin. A brilliant anthropologist, biologist and naturalist, he was never happier than when he was at a s&#233;ance apparently communicating with the dead. It can be understood that spiritualism of this sort would have appealed to many prominent thinkers and philosophers of these times precisely because they no longer found traditional religious doctrine, such as that of Christianity, acceptable. Yet this form of wishful thinking does not grant credence to the idea that these phenomena exist, nor shelters the believers from the charge of being highly credulous.

That is a byproduct of extremely exalted/differentiated thinking but poor feeling, therefore great rational minds tend to compensate by recurring to low religious and superstitious practices, a matter discussed by Jung in an area called 'typology'.


The phrase "subjective psychological proof" is meaningless. Proof, by definition, must be able to withstand scrutiny by an objective third party. A subjective psychological personal experience is not one that can withstand that scrutiny other than by assertion. You could continue to hold a view in light of contrary evidence, but being stubborn is no proof that the view is valid. If anything, it negates the validity of a claim.

Psychology has no business proving physics, psychology has no need proving chemistry, psychology has no business proving any other thing. God is a psychological reality, God is a reality to the psyche of men, specially religious men.

Jung himself said that spiritual matters and God need to be appreciated as psychic contents, analyzing how the human mind view these matters and its implications in a scientific manner, is the business of psychology, proving if they exist physically or not, lies beyond it.

And going by this line of thought, our entire psychic reality gets invalidated to mere subjective illusion.


To return to your point about how "Religiosity would act highly on these contents and the desire to unify oneself back with God would (yoga) is the desire to integrate with the whole of the psyche." - I must ask this again at the risk of being repetitive, but where is the evidence for an assertion as fantastic as this?

Since I'm clearly not the best person to expose his theories, here's a list of all his work: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Collected_Works_of_C._G._Jung

Ganeshprasad
04 June 2011, 12:04 PM
Pranam


I agree max, I certainly wasn't directing it at you, I was saying what most theistic and atheistic arguments are like.

Before you debate you must define what "God" is. If one party thinks God is a bearded man/women/animal/whatever, then you can have a debate and easily disprove him / her. But if one party says God is undefinable then there's no point in arguing, much less talking about something that is indefinable.



Mutually admiring society, God who? Proof, what proof? Bearded or not controller they all can be defeated,ye they can, we will be the judge and jury.

in all that God neither cares or is affected.

Funny thing is no body will believe, if I say this internet is product of chance, there is no reason or rime behind it what to speak of intelligence, I will be laughed off. I am ready to be ridiculed, this is nothing new, Bhagvan Krishna declares there are those who think that;

They say that the world is unreal, without a substratum, without a God, and without an order. The world is caused by lust (or Kaama) alone and nothing else. (16.08)

My experience stops at my father I have not seen my grandparent what to speak of my great, great, for them to be real I have to rely on the authority that be and so it should go all the way back. We have Shastra that speaks of higher authority, science deals in all thing material, it can never unravel the mysteries that lies beyond the prakriti.
Vedas not only speaks of prakriti but what lies beyond, only way this can be proved is to experiment your self, proof is in the pudding. Even the material knowledge without the Vedic seers would have been difficult.

Jai Shree Krishna

wundermonk
04 June 2011, 12:39 PM
I wonder why modern atheists (Dawkins, Hitchens, etc.) have become so militantly evangelical like Christian missionaries.

I mean, OK, so you think God doesnt exist. Why do you want to convince theists that God doesnt exist? Did Hindu theists come knocking on your door asking for money for the construction of a neighbourhood temple? Do they leave pamplets at the local mall saying that those who do not repeat "Jai Shri Raam" are hell bound?

I agree with you that it is better that there be separation of church/mosque/synagogue/temple and state. Can we work towards that goal instead of engaging in pointless navel-gazing philosophical back and forth?

Eastern Mind
04 June 2011, 01:11 PM
I wonder why modern atheists (Dawkins, Hitchens, etc.) have become so militantly evangelical like Christian missionaries.


Vannakkam: I often wonder this too, not only about atheism, but also politics, all kinds of special interest groups, and more. People tend to have this belief that argument and debate is a right, indeed a dharma one must enter. So environmentalists, animal lovers, vegetarians, meat-eaters, ... ad nauseum have this weird psychological need to convince everyone of whatever is their own point of view.

One idea I toss around in my head is that they're only trying to convince themselves. Another is that it's a product of the education system where questioning is strongly encouraged. Maybe its the sense that there must be universal truths applied to everyone.

But what I really think is that its just an unwelcome byproduct of a culture that promotes intellectual ego. Whom are we if we can't enter a great debate, and trounce the other side with our convincing language and long words? Nothing?

Just thoughts ... random thoughts.

Aum Namasivaya

Eastern Mind
04 June 2011, 01:32 PM
Vannakkam: I asked Boss this question, and she said that she thought the root cause was emotional: namely loneliness. If you can convince someone to think like you, then you've mad another friend.

Most likely there are many factors contributing to this behaviour.

Aum Namasivaya

charitra
04 June 2011, 02:23 PM
I wonder why modern atheists (Dawkins, Hitchens, etc.) have become so militantly evangelical like Christian missionaries.



I read their books and saw the youtube clips.

The two above atheists stoutly opposed indoctrination of innocent children in their preteen and early teen years with any belief system and instead they recommend the kids should be just taught morals, civic laws bereft of any religious paint. They loathed that tiny tots were told they were born sinners and someone died for their sins, understandably this brutal emotional blackmail goes a long way in a child’s development and it is that much more easy for each one of them to abandon the ship post-haste when they grow up out of this spell. These famous atheists don’t have issues with nice people practicing their chosen faith within the 4 walls of their home, as a grown man one can do what one wants in private, so long as one doesn't rub it off on others, they affirm. Also of course they argue that no law of the land must be based on any religious belief from alcohol to meat eating to divorce to abortion and so forth…..

wundermonk
05 June 2011, 02:56 AM
Vannakkam: I asked Boss this question, and she said that she thought the root cause was emotional: namely loneliness. If you can convince someone to think like you, then you've mad another friend.


EM: "Boss" meaning wife? Yes, such "boss"es are probably more right than any big "boss" up in the sky ;)

I find a lot of truth in the first definition of the evangelical atheist (Hitchens, Dawkins, et al.) here (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=evangelical%20atheist).

wundermonk
05 June 2011, 03:14 AM
I read their books and saw the youtube clips.

The two above atheists stoutly opposed indoctrination of innocent children in their preteen and early teen years with any belief system and instead they recommend the kids should be just taught morals, civic laws bereft of any religious paint. They loathed that tiny tots were told they were born sinners and someone died for their sins, understandably this brutal emotional blackmail goes a long way in a child’s development and it is that much more easy for each one of them to abandon the ship post-haste when they grow up out of this spell. These famous atheists don’t have issues with nice people practicing their chosen faith within the 4 walls of their home, as a grown man one can do what one wants in private, so long as one doesn't rub it off on others, they affirm. Also of course they argue that no law of the land must be based on any religious belief from alcohol to meat eating to divorce to abortion and so forth…..

I actually agree with everything here...except that it doesnt apply to Hinduism which is a highly philosophical (and not a literal) treatise. Hinduism is so vast and diverse that the question of mixing scripture/temple with state/governance will not arise (I hope). Hindus rarely talk about their religion in public and dont wear their faith on their sleeve. Maybe this has to do with what EM says...Hindus, for the most part, seem to be satisfied/convinced of their religious beliefs without feeling the need to overcompensate by convincing and converting the non-believer.

From a Hindu perspective, I was taught Ramayana when I was young...I was taught (and apparently used to recite) the story of the fight between Vali and Sugreeva. I believe this was when I was around 3-4 years old. I dont think my childhood innocence was violated when told that Rama killed Vali. But hey, these atheists probably know more about me than I do. Maybe I am deluded and my childhood was spent under heavy blackmail. Maybe I am still subconsciously carrying the vestiges of this emotional torture :(

maxpsycho
05 June 2011, 05:26 AM
In response to the crux of Pietro's points, I agree that we may be talking at cross purposes; in an attempt to address the question of "Does God Exist?" I was attempting to show that given the state of this world, given the extremely high improbability and taking into account the worrying lack of real evidence, the answer would seem fairly obvious, that there is no such entity as God, at the very least as understood by most people as part of their religious scriptures, whether these scriptures are related to Hinduism or Abrahamic traditions. However it seems that you are making the case for a type of God that exists in people's minds; that it seems to me does grant the concept of God somewhat of an immunity from any further scrutiny, as the retort will always be "Well, it's real for me, and if it isn't for you, then there must be something wrong with you". Believing something to be true doesn't make it true.

I was dissecting the points from Jung that you were paraphrasing precisely because I assumed that in trying to make your point, you wouldn't choose quotes that were misleading or concepts that were poorly expressed. As I said earlier, I am not as familiar with the works of Karle Jung as you clearly are, however I think you pretty much gave the game away when you said, "our entire psychic reality gets invalidated to mere subjective illusion". The question I posed in my previous post was exactly this - if I have a belief in a pot of gold in my back garden, it could very well be a psychic reality for me. If I believed that I was the reincarnation of Elvis, I could argue in pretty much exactly the same ways as you are, "it's a psychic reality, I don't have to prove that I am actually Elvis because it's not the job of my psyche to prove anything, it's just REAL for me that I am actually Elvis reincarnated". Well I guess good for me in that situation, except that neither makes me Elvis nor makes the idea of reincarnation a reality. So I guess there isn't much of a debate against a non-sequitur such as "it is a psychic reality". Because yes, to a large number of people, it seems more like a delusion.

In response to Ganeshprasad, yes you can decide that since you have not seen your grandfather, you have to take it on faith. I personally just attribute it to the simple idea that since humans procreate, the evidence for your grandfather's existence, and also your grandmother's existence, would have to be your mother and father. And so on in the case of your great great great grandfathers and grandmothers.

In response to Eastern Mind and wundermonk, I would like to clarify that lack of friends is definitely not my driving force for discussion and debate. Discussion and debate on topics results, in most cases, in breakthroughs and new ideas that are necessary for progress. I would gladly be proven wrong against all my points, in fact don't you think that it should be the easiest discussion to "win" considering the stakes? Shouldn't it give us pause to think why has this God taken such serious measures to remain so well hidden as not to be found anywhere in this universe?

wundermonk, I personally don't think that recital of parts of the Ramayana, are child abuse (although that could be argued either way ;) ) However the point that Dawkins makes about labelling of children hits on the concept of segregation. When we start the indoctrination, let's say for example by telling our children that we celebrate Diwali to signify the triumph of good or evil, and the Muslims don't and the Christians don't, it is something that does form part of their identity and is segregating the child against the Christmas celebrating Christians and the Eid celebrating Muslims (not the best example, however works to a certain extent). It is this segregation between children based on the beliefs of their parents that would appear as unfair and wrong. Would we do the same with our convictions about politics or music or sports? Would we jeopardise our children's critical faculties in light of arcane ideas such as "you should never question your parents". I am not advocating a case where the child must experience every single experience themselves; it is our job to keep our children safe and we can't have them playing with broken glass or fire in order to remain neutral to their inquisitive mind. I am not advocating sterility, I am putting a case forward against indoctrination, and this is purely in an effort to raise awareness (same as what Dawkins advocates).

Yes it is correct that Hinduism is so vast a term that it encompasses many many philosophies and ideologies. But if there is no distinction between a Hindu who lives a mainly secular life in the metros of Mumbai or Delhi, keeping his faith restricted to the Diwali and Holi celebrations and the occasional prayer to have his favourite IPL team win the tournament; and those that believe that sacrificing children would appease the Goddess Kali or the Aghoris that believe that cannibalising the dead is perfectly fine; then the term Hindu becomes meaningless. Who are you to say that they are not Hindus and that you are and vice versa?

wundermonk
05 June 2011, 06:20 AM
As I posted on the Sam Harris thread, this is just sophism. If we could, let us continue our discussions there.

Eastern Mind
05 June 2011, 06:50 AM
In response to Eastern Mind and wundermonk, I would like to clarify that lack of friends is definitely not my driving force for discussion and debate.


Vannakkam max: Then maybe you could explain to us just why you are here. I'm curious. It just seems so odd to me for anyone to try to convince another of anything.

I remember a time in my childhood while driving past a certain town, when my brother's memory failed him and he said it was a different name than it was. He was clearly and obviously wrong about it. No one in the car bothered to correct him, as he had this tenacious insecurity to argue at such times, and we'd all learned there was no point. Eventually he did learn he was wrong ... on his own.

Aum Namasivaya

Divine Kala
05 June 2011, 07:12 AM
The existence of God depends entirely upon the person. Depending on where they are in life they either will or they won't believe in God. They may even experience God but if their soul is not ready to accept God they will find every way to deny Its existence that they can.

devotee
05 June 2011, 07:14 AM
1. If "I" didn't exist before I was born and if "I" will disappear into nothingness once this body falls ===> It means non-existence gives birth to existence & vice-versa.

2. What does existence mean ?

Can I say that this flower in front of me exists ? Will I see this flower as I see if I could see with eyes using x-rays instead of the wavelength of electromagnetic waves I am using currently ?

Does the flower's colour exist ? What happens to its colour when I have colour blindness ? Is the colour in the wavelength/frequency of the electromagnetic waves or in my eyes ?

3. The piece of solid stone in front of me is actually nothing but almost 100 % space filled with vibrating electromagnetic waves (if we go beyond even the sub-atomic particles) perceived as a stone by my sense organs. Where does the stone exist ... in the vibrating waves or in my mind ?

..... and we are giving our fatwa that "God doesn't exist" .... just because we don't find it matching with our faulty concepts and mental constructs.

Mind cannot understand God because It is the source of mind. It is the thinker of the thought. It is the perceiver and not an object of perception. Mind needs something to reflect upon. The mental world is all relative. There is no absolute reference to rely upon within mental framework. You really don't know about "anything". If you know the reality of anything then you would know the reality of everything. Because "Nothing is actually anything and that is actually everything and that is Self which is God in its third state".

The way to God is by going inside within yourself. Find yourself & you would find God. These mental arguments ... this show of argumentative capability takes you outwards ... away from where you have to go to find what you are looking for. God is peace ... the silence coming at the end of AUM ... when all vibration of this Infinite Consciousness (which manifests as your thinking mind and this world around you in its vibratory mode) stops. It is the end of all our restlessness of mind. This peace is found by surrendering your self to the Self ... it is found by going inside by the path of Yoga. This yoga will answer all your questions.

These arguments are taking you away from God. You are going towards restlessness. You are getting more and more attached to the mental constructs which are the hurdles in the path of Truth.

OM

NayaSurya
05 June 2011, 10:44 AM
This is why I did tap out of this conversation as how could anyone begin to show the rungs upon the ladder of which their faith has been built?

Even my own children have to make their own ladder...there is no shortcut to this process.

This whole conversation remind me of my friend and I. She one time said...."I don't know how you put up with me and my rigid beliefs(atheist)".

I said "Welll...you see....

If I am right, we both win...and if you are right? We both will never know!":p

Adhvagat
05 June 2011, 11:46 AM
In response to the crux of Pietro's points, I agree that we may be talking at cross purposes; in an attempt to address the question of "Does God Exist?" I was attempting to show that given the state of this world, given the extremely high improbability and taking into account the worrying lack of real evidence, the answer would seem fairly obvious, that there is no such entity as God, at the very least as understood by most people as part of their religious scriptures, whether these scriptures are related to Hinduism or Abrahamic traditions. However it seems that you are making the case for a type of God that exists in people's minds; that it seems to me does grant the concept of God somewhat of an immunity from any further scrutiny, as the retort will always be "Well, it's real for me, and if it isn't for you, then there must be something wrong with you". Believing something to be true doesn't make it true.

I was dissecting the points from Jung that you were paraphrasing precisely because I assumed that in trying to make your point, you wouldn't choose quotes that were misleading or concepts that were poorly expressed. As I said earlier, I am not as familiar with the works of Karle Jung as you clearly are, however I think you pretty much gave the game away when you said, "our entire psychic reality gets invalidated to mere subjective illusion". The question I posed in my previous post was exactly this - if I have a belief in a pot of gold in my back garden, it could very well be a psychic reality for me. If I believed that I was the reincarnation of Elvis, I could argue in pretty much exactly the same ways as you are, "it's a psychic reality, I don't have to prove that I am actually Elvis because it's not the job of my psyche to prove anything, it's just REAL for me that I am actually Elvis reincarnated". Well I guess good for me in that situation, except that neither makes me Elvis nor makes the idea of reincarnation a reality. So I guess there isn't much of a debate against a non-sequitur such as "it is a psychic reality". Because yes, to a large number of people, it seems more like a delusion.

Proof of God will never be possible, never. And for those who are truly religious, it means very little. Proving god through the means of man, means god is a man, plain and simple, thefore, why would religious people worship a man? God is symbolism, is mystery, is a concept, it's perceived through intuition and feeling.

Let's look at a more subtle facet of life, emotions: You can never prove ANYTHING that is psychological through physical means, you'll never prove to me that your love your wife, I can never prove to you that I like X, and Y, and Z, all that we can analyze EXTERNALLY are symptoms of internal contents, be it a speech, actions, etc.

Considering that life as we know it, our type of awareness that we have, any kind of understanding, affection, emotion, etc is a product of the psyche, the world is highly dependant on the psyche.

Regarding Jung's research, psychologists work with mentally ill people to better understand the dysfunctional mechanics of the psyche, that just like disease, aren't a paranormal morbidity, but a natural mechanism that is not behaving properly for certain reasons. The fact that a not very educated man manifested mythological (mythology being a mean of manifestation of unconscious/psychological contents) contents that he never heard about was what drove Jung to start his studies and discoveries of a natural reservoir of similar patterns that are present in every human that determines the life of mankind, I can't give you more details because I'm a mere beginner student and collective unconscious is a complex subject, so there's no better material to dissect than Jung's own books.

The quote of 'Psychology and Religion' that I showed was to illustrate how saying that religious experience is invalid is not fair, it's not honest, it' similar to the white men ariving in the land of indians and dismissing their practices as stupid, of course it's stupid, for those that don't understand one drop of the symbolism behind it and are not awake for it. It's not possible to look at one's practices without one's vision.

Being religious is a lot more than a delusion, it's a natural inclination and given its presence in whole history, it's an archetype. If religion is the same as a delusion to you, I'm just glad you're consciously chosing not to be delusional! ;)

NayaSurya
13 June 2011, 01:39 PM
This, friend I did post about here, died over the weekend from her cancer. I had hoped to die first you see...so that I could show her that this love never dies. But, as with many things in this realm...it goes in some unforseen direction.

Jainarayan
13 June 2011, 01:55 PM
My deepest condolences on the loss of your friend.

Jainarayan
13 June 2011, 02:23 PM
Yes, I believe God exists. Why can't or shouldn't He? Though I think God is ineffable and unknowable for 99.998% of us.

I wasn't sure for a long time if God exists. I considered myself an "agnostic deist"... if God exists (that's the agnostic part), He is too remote and impersonal to worry about us; He is just a cosmic consciousness (there's the deist part).

My belief in God is vastly different now than it was when I was Christian, which was in the time before my agnostic deism set in. Though I believe God is ineffable and unknowable I believe He makes a portion of Himself personal to us. That's why we have a closeness to Sri Krishna, Lord Shiva, or Whomever we have that closeness with.

NayaSurya
13 June 2011, 02:34 PM
No need to console<3 But thank you. Yama was a special wonderful Being to come to save this one from so much pain. Her children raised...she was able to be free.

sunyata07
13 June 2011, 04:20 PM
Nayasurya, my sympathies for your loss.

I can understand what you mean, and I feel it particularly keenly right now. A very dear one in my life has also just died today, one I have posted about before. It was a blessing tinged with relief and great sadness. Until a while ago, I had the vestiges of a resentment of death from my old faith. Now, I see that it is really a great mercy come to take the hand of the dying and the ill and move them onto the next life. The Love left behind we have for those gone can never die.

Om namah Shivaya

Ganeshprasad
13 June 2011, 05:07 PM
Pranam

I sympathize with both of you, loosing the dear ones, death is nothing but new opportunity with a new vehicle to carry on our journey for that final destination.

you can, if you like pray for their safe journey.

Om Tryambakam Yajamahe Sugandhim Pushtivardhanam Urvarukamiva Bandhanan Mrityor Mukshiya Maamritat.

Jai Shree Krishna

NayaSurya
13 June 2011, 05:47 PM
Dear, Beloved Portion.

This prayer...is upon my lips every moment...for they took me from that former place, stripped away everything...but the Maha Mrityunjaya Mantra...they could not take from my heart. The moment I heard it I knew.

and one day I will die and Shiva willing, it will be the final thing upon these tattered lips...but only after sending out this great love I feel for all of these ones I have had the deep honor of caring for one last time.

PatrickMB
15 June 2011, 02:43 PM
Hello. I used to plague myself and worry myself nearly into illness wondering whether or not God exists. I was reared in a Christian family and the existence of pain and sorrow seemed to negate the existence of God. When I discovered Hinduism and the truths of karma and reincarnation, somehow my doubts disolved.

My personal deity is God the Mother, Maa Durga. I also believe in the formless Brahma. Heavens and Hells are temprorary abodes in the Astral Plane. Ultimately, every single soul is destined for union with God. Now, that is what I call "The Good News!"

Rudy
17 June 2011, 09:26 PM
Here's what I've come up with last night

You start from agnosticism (because you can't prove or disproves) and from there you build up.

All this is from what I’ve heard or read not seen or experienced mind you

Yogi’s are able to do things to their body’s and minds no one else can do, Ye olde (old style spelling) scriptures reveal strangely accurate things about the world, many, many people have amazing religious experiences, said people are very happy, why not believe what some of these people say, who have experienced the Devas first hand, instead of the scientests who know the materiel universe (and not beyond) through a machine? :)

kallol
17 June 2011, 09:50 PM
Forget about the Devas or the old scriptures.

Look at this. Whatever we know around us, at least within a few hundred lightyears, there is nothing called LIFE (as we define it). Suddenly we find one planet brimming with life !!!!

What is this phenomenon called LIFE ?

When anyone dies, the body remains (LIFELESS). Then something must have gone out - what is that ?

If I take an analogy of a bulb. Then the bulb glows. The bulb is live. At some point of time it does not and we replace. What is behind this glowing ? Is it the bulb or something hidden ? We know it is the electricity which works invisibly to put life in a bulb, fan, AC, refrigerator, etc.

So until and unless we know electricity we cannot design the visible system better.

Another analogy is a visible object. We see the object not because the object is there but because LIGHT is there. LIGHT cannot be seen. But if some object comes in it, the object can be seen. That the LIGHT is there is an indirect inference.

So is LIFE or CONCIOUSNESS. This is the part which is behind the known creation. Because of the lower levels of senses and our incapability to move beyond the senses, we get stuck and attached to these lower level objects.

The understanding of the rules of creation, the nature of creation and the constituents of creation will lead us to Supreme Being (not another Human), and a better way to align ourselves to the Creation.

Love and best wishes

kallol
17 June 2011, 09:56 PM
Hello I’ve been thinking over the last few days, does God exist? I know the bearded man on a cloud doesn’t, but what about Brahman? Sense at my current spiritual state I can’t experience Brahman how do I know It’s there? What about personal gods like Ganesha? What I’ve thought of is that people that have reached moksha know about them and tell us poor unenlightened fools about it. Why do you know or believe? Any Hindu arguments for God personal or impersonal or both?
Thanks for any replies. Feel free to redirect me to any other threads that explain this.
I hope He/It/She does exist


Sorry Rudy, I saw your last post only.

The students who are entering pre school do not know what they will know after they complete education. Neither they should be impatient to say, I need to know all by today. There is a process, there is the maturity of mind and there is the Gurus. The journey has only begun. Some students are in class 10, some are in college, etc - this pehenomenon is continuous and moving. We should only be sincere so that we do not fail or get demoted.

Make the best use of this life. Who knows where you will be at the end ? May be PhD in knowledge !!!

Love and best wishes

Rudy
18 June 2011, 09:01 PM
The question does God exist is driving me crazy again tonight:banghead:. But your right I can't figure it all out at once. It is annoying though...

kallol
18 June 2011, 09:30 PM
The path to knowledge goes the following way - Bhakti yoga, Karma Yoga and Gyana yoga.

Let me try to bring some analogy to explain this.

Level 1 : I start a PhD work and my Prof gives me a subject. That subject is totally unknown to me. But you know PhD is a cherished goal for academicia. So I start. Though I do not know much about the subject, my faith, my belief in my Prof is there. Without it, I cannot even start. This is the starting Bhakti yoga.

Level 2 : Then I start on the research and other preliminary works towards the final fulfillment of PhD. This even without knowing - why I am doing ? or which direction I will have to move ? ". My devotion through these works is added to my faith and belief. It requires lots of guidance and coaching by my Prof. I need to attend a few courses also. I enter in the early Karma yoga. Keep in mind, the Bhakti has increased one step - devotion.

Level 3 : Then comes the hard work - initially blind doing with faith, belief and devotion - with the aim that it will fetch me the coveted PhD. Lot of hand holding and guidance by Prof in this stage. This period is the Sakama Karma Yoga & Sakama Bhakti Yoga.

Level 4 : As I grind, the knowledge embeds into the system and the path infront of me becomes more and more clear. The confidence rises and the faith, belief and devotion increases. The long grinding has subdued the rajas and brought in more satvik (philosophical) nature. The knowledge has started getting into the system. The hand holding part slowly diminishes and more and more self drive is the order of the day. This phase can be the Niskama Karma yoga or Niskama Bhakti yoga. Now the bhakti is not blind but out of the fact that I am guided but a Prof who knows the destiny, a subject which is now more achievable, probable, realistic.

Level 5 : Then comes the full self drive, where I am sure about the goal - I can see it coming. I move fervently in gathering more and more knowledge and the knowledge now pours in as the system is tuned to it. The faith, belief and devotion in the subject is many fold now. Now I myself can give lectures upon lecture on this subject. This is the Gyana Yoga and the final part of the bhakti yoga. The Karma yoga has shifted from physical activities to more mental activities.

Level 6 : Then comes the final thesis for the PhD. I am an authority on this subject. My faith, belief and devotion to this subject is unmatched. I am having full knowledge on the subject and I am totally satified and in blissful state. This is the ultimate of Bhakti, Gyana and Karma yoga.

The temples (the churches, the mosques), the rituals, the prayers are all for the begineers to develop the bhakti to tune the mind, to focus, to create devotion. These are all physical bhakti for yourself (body and mind).

As we move on in the spiritual journey the physical bhakti - turns into more mental bhakti from level 4. The mind constant churns the knowledge and searches for higher and higher knowledge. At one state i.e. level 5, the mind is more blissful and the assimilation of the knowledge goes on. The bhakti is almost at the highest. What started as skeptic belief is now a reality. So the belief, faith and devotion are of the highest order.

Love and best wishes

TheOne
19 June 2011, 06:09 AM
Why does it matter if a god exists or not?

Will the world be any different? No.

If your morality and religion are based on the existence of God than it is a very weak religion indeed.

The Gods themselves are still subject to birth and death, and does it not say that being born as a human(sentient being) is the highest blessing, even higher than being born as a god.

So the existence of Gods is about as important to my spiritual practice as the existence of aliens or something. Because if someone "needs" a god like figure to behave well or behave heedfully he is only using a crutch when his own two feet are perfectly able of running without them.


Now, I'm not saying the existence of gods is null. Because I do believe that there are devas, but they aren't "in control" of the world as a child plays with a toy. My view of the devas is like a very advanced computer. It has great information potential and knows many things and can react to humans prayers but what they lack is being able to do something about their condition in Samsara something which, to my knowledge only "human like" being can do.

kallol
19 June 2011, 06:42 AM
Why does it matter if a god exists or not?

Will the world be any different? No.

If your morality and religion are based on the existence of God than it is a very weak religion indeed.

The Gods themselves are still subject to birth and death, and does it not say that being born as a human(sentient being) is the highest blessing, even higher than being born as a god.

So the existence of Gods is about as important to my spiritual practice as the existence of aliens or something. Because if someone "needs" a god like figure to behave well or behave heedfully he is only using a crutch when his own two feet are perfectly able of running without them.


Now, I'm not saying the existence of gods is null. Because I do believe that there are devas, but they aren't "in control" of the world as a child plays with a toy. My view of the devas is like a very advanced computer. It has great information potential and knows many things and can react to humans prayers but what they lack is being able to do something about their condition in Samsara something which, to my knowledge only "human like" being can do.


Dear Theone,

You are very right. However if all were Jesus or Ramakrshna or Shankaracharya, etc then nothing is required.

However we normal people, walking in a pitch dark night with the hope that we will remain in the right path, mostly deviate due to worldly attachements.

That is why the knowledge is required which is like a torch in our hand and gaining the ultimate knowledge is like putting a lamp at the Goal (our intended end point).

Love and best wishes

smaranam
19 June 2011, 08:22 AM
If your morality and religion are based on the existence of God than it is a very weak religion indeed.

Our LOVE and EXISTENCE is based on the Supreme Lord. Why do you keep harping about morality ? He gives you free will - to not acknowledge His presence. Yes, He is THAT compassionate and kind. He sets the birds free. If they come back to Him they are His forever. Love cannot be forced.


The Gods themselves are still subject to birth and death

What you are talking about is the devas who are official positions, but the Supreme Lord is eternal beginningless and endless.

Yes, those positions are not eternal, they are taken up by very special empowered Beings or jivas even. Like Indra - weather, Vyas - compiler, BrahmA - engineer/creator, VaruN - preside over waters, Chandra, Agni - Fire Administrator,
these are POSITIONS of office held. Like President, Senator of state X, Mayor etc. The term ends and someone else becomes Senator.

When there is no one suitable to become Indra in one kalpa, say, the eternal anAdi-ananta BhagvAn Shri VishNu svayam - Himself takes on the position, but for the most part it is delegated.

However, God, Bhagvan, ParaBrahman, Parameshwar is eternal, beginningless and endless. BhagvAn VishNu ( Shri KrushNa ) is eternal. He never dies. I could bring tons of scriptural quotes but do not see the point.

BhagvAn Shri KrushNa warns in the end:

BG 18.67: This confidential knowledge may never be explained to those who are not austere, or devoted, or engaged in devotional service, nor to one who is envious of Me.
idaḿ te nātapaskāya
nābhaktāya kadācana
na cāśuśrūṣave vācyaḿ
na ca māḿ yo 'bhyasūyati



Om namo bhagavate vAsudevAya ~

bsati3
19 June 2011, 09:36 AM
As I see it, believing in god is not a question of getting rewards or studying the scriptures to try to understand the nature of God. Of course its good to know the Vedas. However, if one only is well versed in the scriptures and doesnt love god, all his/her knowledge is in vain. Also if one believes that God only rules, gives rewards and punishments without loving men. Yes ther are many deities,thats to say devas. But they themselve are servants and thus dependent. they are not eternal. Many religions say that there is only one supreme and eternal God. that is true. However this god is called differently: Allah, Christ, Buddha,Yahve and so on. In Shakti cult, God is Kali Maa. The adversaries say, she is evil and requires animal and even human sacrifices. but a true devotee doesn`t bother about it. He knows only that Kali Maa is his mother and loves him. A mother always loves her children, whether they are good or evil. A mother cannot derive pleasure from tormenting or killing her children. Everyone has his/her earthly mother, who bore him/her and who loves her child. We love our mothers as well. I am not an exception. In fact i love my mother very much. But my earthly mother will die one day and i also will die one day. Once departed we will never meet again. Kali Maa is eternal. She will always be with me, in this and all my next lives, whatever happens. She loves me and I love her. Just this love is the most precious thing for me. It gives me peace, hope, supports me in my troubles. And finally it makes me a little happy in our not very happy world.
Jai Kali Maa

wundermonk
19 June 2011, 11:07 AM
The question does God exist is driving me crazy again tonight:banghead:. But your right I can't figure it all out at once. It is annoying though...

:D

Rudy: This question cannot be scientifically proven or disproven. So, why the head banging?

TheOne
19 June 2011, 11:12 AM
I'm not harping on morality in the least. You belief that there is an omnipotent old man sitting in the sky is just that a belief which cannot be substantiated and trying to make it seem like it's a character fault that I don't believe in fairy tails is a wicked trick which is done on a constant basis by Muslims Christians and now apparently Hindus...

Quoting scripture is pointless if both sides do not see the scripture in the same light. I do not believe in a Divine Lord and even if I did I would realize that s(he) is still subject to karma and samsara.

Now then, we can agree to disagree and leave here with a mutual respect of each other or you can continue your fanatical idea that because I don't believe in a Supreme Lord I won't be "saved" and I have a moral defect.

wundermonk
19 June 2011, 11:26 AM
Now then, we can agree to disagree and leave here with a mutual respect of each other or you can continue your fanatical idea that because I don't believe in a Supreme Lord I won't be "saved" and I have a moral defect.

Saving is an exclusive Abrahamic concept. I doubt if BG says so. There are multiple interpretations of BG. I will let Smaranam defend himself. But for most Hindus like me [who dont wear their religion on their sleeve, are quite content not to insist on mixing religion with state and dont embark on grand evangelizing missions around the world] your argument is a strawman.



I do not believe in a Divine Lord and even if I did I would realize that s(he) is still subject to karma and samsara.


Well, technically and scripturally, I do think Smaranam is right here. The enhanced "Jivas" ARE subject to Karma but Brahman, the Supreme, is beyond Karma. Of course, you are free not to believe in our scriptures.

smaranam
19 June 2011, 11:41 AM
Thank You Wundermonk.


You belief that there is an omnipotent old man sitting in the sky is just that a belief which cannot be substantiated and trying to make it seem like it's a character fault that I don't believe in fairy tails is a wicked trick which is done on a constant basis by Muslims Christians and now apparently Hindus...
.....
or you can continue your fanatical idea that because I don't believe in a Supreme Lord I won't be "saved" and I have a moral defect.

TheOne, your words i have highlighted in blue show very clearly that you are NOT READING. Don't put words in my mouth. I never said not believing in Parameshwar is a charachter fault ! my goodness ! Nor did i say anything about "saved" - all i said was He gives free will - do DO WHAT YOU WANT.

It does not take rocket science to see that you are a very sincere, moral, ethical, dedicated divine being. :)

PLEASE READ AGAIN:


Our LOVE and EXISTENCE is based on the Supreme Lord. He gives you free will - to not acknowledge His presence. Yes, He is THAT compassionate and kind. He sets the birds free. If they come back to Him they are His forever. Love cannot be forced.



Now then, we can agree to disagree and leave here with a mutual respect of each other

precisely my point, but please do not try to cover Sanatan Dharma with Budhist justification. I feel you post to convince yourself that Buddhism = Vedic Sanatan Dharma.
The Lord introduced Buddhism for a very good reason - it was necessary.
Your posts can mislead newcomers about what the essence of Sanatan Dharma is, and that is my only concern.



love and hugs
smaranam

Arjuni
19 June 2011, 12:02 PM
Namasté, all.

Warning: Lengthy rambling.

A lot of people have given good and cogent answers based upon personal experience, Hindu theology/scripture, or both.

Rudy, your attitude of questioning is good, and your recent idea to trust in those who have had intense religious experiences, is brave: it means you're willing to take a leap of faith. Sometimes I think that the ability to take that leap is what ultimately makes a believer in any faith.

The problem with others' experiences is that if you want to not believe, you can find alternative answers for everything. I could list every spiritual experience I've had since age five, and you could justify all of it with explanations such as physical or mental illness, personal prejudice or bias, coincidence, wishful thinking, random chance, or the subconscious mind operating in a way beyond the detection of science. Heck, my ishta-deva could come walking into my living room while I type this, and without religious faith, I would simply call an ambulance and go seek treatment for visual hallucinations. Here is one reason of many, why the senses and emotions are illusory and transient: because in most people, they are subject to a body that has an unhappy knack of breaking down. The human senses are a beginning to understanding, but annoyingly, they can also hamper understanding.

If we cannot trust our senses, then we can surely turn to our minds, which tend to be a little more stable and less haywire? Besides the many Hindu examples, I have another example to provide: Anselm of Canterbury, a Christian saint, once tried to demonstrate the existence of God via logical proof. He started with the idea that God would naturally be defined as "that than which nothing greater can be conceived." He then pointed out that a state of "existing" would be superior to "not existing," and therefore, a God that exists is the best definition of a supreme being. Then, since we can also agree that something which is real is better than something that we only dream of, then the very fact that we can conceive of God, is proof that God must be a real, existent being.

This oddly-charming argument serves to make my point: Anselm started with his own definition of God, then set out to prove his definition was correct, then pointed to that triumph as proof of God. And another fortunate (or unfortunate? :D ) aspect of religion is that my thinking, the satisfaction of my definition, does not suffice as dogma for the entire world!

So, my sense-impressions and personal experiences can't convince you, and my rational arguments can't think for you. What, then, could prove to you that my faith, or any other HDF member's faith, is justified? (And of course, I hope that it is, otherwise we're all wasting a spectacular amount of time in our shared delusion!) Well...I don't know. I guess that's why I'm posting in a forum instead of enlightening the masses worldwide.

My faith, and perhaps others', could even be considered selfish: one reason I have faith is because it makes my life better. I feel happier and better about myself when I try to live with humility, generosity, and gratitude instead of for myself alone, and when I consider my life an offering in the service of a greater being, instead of some random happenstance that ends in purposeless dust. It's not fear that drives me to this, but a deep inner conviction that the truth, our Sanatana Dharma, is endlessly beautiful.

Some excellent suggestions have been made here, as a basis for understanding God: to consider God as life and existence itself, or as the sum total of everything, or as the being(s) of various scriptures.

I've even had suggested to me that God is a "thought-form": a being that is created by the power of thought, and strengthened by true belief and elaboration. This idea is used occasionally by ritual/ceremonial magicians, by those who would call up "familiars" and the like. But the idea has been used in other situations: Santa Claus, for example, for whether or not there is/ever was a Saint Nicholas, now there is certainly a spirit of giving, generosity, and love attached to a specific image of a bearded, red-suited man, who is believed in - sometimes literally, sometimes metaphorically - by people worldwide. And I know several people who think that God may have been created by people in just this way.

Just more food for thought, and I'm certainly not suggesting that I think this way. But I have been where you are now, and what helped me was a temporary suspension of disbelief: living, for a little while, as if religion held some germ of truth, as if there was some reason people everywhere had this idea. Then I decided that my agonising over God was really mental clutter, chatter, and fear, and that I wouldn't make any progress by continuing to argue with myself in a roundabout way.

If you think this same choice might work for you, then clear your mind of the arguments, spend a few weeks or months with daily prayer/meditation, without expectation, and see what you get. :)

Indraneela
===
Oṁ Indrāya Namaḥ.
Oṁ Namaḥ Śivāya.

Miyazaki
19 June 2011, 12:18 PM
For me at least the question of whether God exists is a very simple one.

This probably due to my limited understanding of the Sanatana Dharma, but God and nature I believe are identical. You can no more refute God's existence than you can the chair you are sitting on or the computer you are using to read these words.

God is within you, your very essence is divine. Fret not, meditate and complete yoga frequently and you will follow the true path.

Onkara
19 June 2011, 01:00 PM
Namast&#233; Indraneela and all
I liked your post Indraneela. One point I can pick up on is that I can also confirm that suspension of disbelief or "skeptical inquiry" is one of the most important steps in helping the search come to more conclusions.

The fear or hesitation we sense, can be the sense that if we let our guard down we may end up doing or thinking something which ends up at our loss. Like investing in a loosing horse and later only having ourselves to blame. What results is really a state of imposed ignorance, it is like saying "I want others to tell me what lies out side my front door (i.e. why they think God exists), so I can convince myself that I don't really need to move out of my present comfort zone".

I am not suggesting the OP or any person here falls into that category, but I once did and still have that choice to reject "god", that is why without whole hearted investigation one is really imprisoned in their "house or comfort zone" despite flirting with theology.

The scriptures our the foundation for the investigation. Once they have been investigated with an open mind i.e. understood, we are then in a position to start making are own personal decisions. We can request the help of others (or a Guru) in order to address our personal questions, at which point, personal doubts can be addressed and removed.

TheOne
19 June 2011, 01:08 PM
To all whom I have offended or who I have been offended by excuse me and my rather rash posts. The Internet is not the best medium for communication and sometimes I interpret an honest statement as a sarcastic disdain and for that I am sorry because we certainly have a lot more common ground than separate.

smaranam
20 June 2011, 06:57 AM
Not a problem TheOne, everyone understands, no one is offended - concerned of the msg that a post was sending perhaps, but not offended. And those who know how old you are will definitely understand as they have also been of that age once. Also, it is a known fact that communication on the internet is not easy.

By the way, the Divine Lord is neither old, nor a man, He is ever-young, and He is God, not man. He is not made of material elements like our bodies.

Stages:

1. BAlya - infant, toddler < 5
2. Pauganda - 5 - 10 yrs
3. KaumArya - 10 - 15 yrs
4. Yauvana - 16+ ... 25 ish

The Lord never exceeds Yauvana. He is eternally in the other stages for devotees who see Him in those stages. On the battlefield of Kurukshetra, KrushNa was 92 with grandchildren, but did not look more than 25.

Jai Shri KrushNa

Rudy
20 June 2011, 05:26 PM
So I've decided. I always find the faults in what I believe, so for the next little while I shall go in the oppiste direction of God; Buddhism or just plain Atheism.

If I am correct I will find the falts in the atheistic path and then look at God again. I'll been gone for a little while.

Thanks for all your time and energy :)

Sahasranama
20 June 2011, 05:28 PM
Very true Rudy, if you honestly study science and philosophy, you will realise that these subjects have their own limitations.

Loki
20 June 2011, 06:59 PM
just reading the posts...

I'll try to relate how I see things at the moment...

It is evident to me, the cycles of the sun, moon, earth system that predicts lunar eclipses in cycles, and where the stars, sun, moon, earth all line up in cycles after hundreds of years...like a relative clockwork...

Of old, we marveled...

Our ancestors, and we are indo-european, and millenia ago we knew of each other...

we praised the sun, we praised the moon,...we pray-zed...we were not egotistical and proud enough to even question we were a part...we had not yet created our own marvels (through use of disassembling, manipulation, and in-tuition)...

and as my cursory knowledge of Hindhuism has uncovered, as well as my study of ancient western religion, we praised...we had gods and goddesses, we understood and interpreted what our unconscious informed us...then, there were shamans, brahmins...wise men, those apart, consumed with visions...these people still exist...

we see object-ively, we become an object...we see only physical-ly, and we falter there...we see only material-ly and we become materialistic...how we see, how we question, the scope of our questions, and our rigor and devotion, determine the in-tuitions we will receive...for we create nothing, we uncover...we receive knowledge...often only when we suffer and ask...when we humble ourselves...

I would say, look around you, at all these creations...breathe...are they intelligible to you? do you see an artisan behind these organic, physiological creations? do you see the intelligence of these sensory creatures?

and if it was left to us to disassemble and create such, impotence would be our only option. The electricity, the magnetism, the systems...and in us and many other animals, the emotions.

If you have lost your wonder, it is only through familiarity. If you see yourself apart, it, I would argue, speaks to the way you let your soul see.

If we fail morally, our dreams inform us, senses we have no access to within our very selves, inform us if we've taken a dark path. Or at least that's how it is with me.

The toughest action a proud man, proud of his reason, and his accomplishment, will ever take is that of prayer. Who would want to seem so ridiculous? Yet, many others, spiritual betters, have no such delusions.

I'm mainly arguing with myself, and I've said little, but it is worth thought.

Rudy
21 June 2011, 10:42 AM
It did not take to much reading that you can neather prove of disprove God (Atheist arguments weren't as good as I'd hoped) the only way to know for sure is to experience for myself. Why let others tell you what apple pie taste like if I can try to bake and eat one my self? But how do I exerpience God whith out much faith:confused: ?

sunyata07
21 June 2011, 01:10 PM
Namaste Rudy,

Back so soon? :) I can understand why you are still (metaphorically speaking) banging your head against the wall over this issue, my friend. I went through a phase of it for months only just last year. One day I'd believe there was most certainly a God, the next day I would see/read/talk to someone that would suddenly trigger an atheistic sense; and still yet on other days, I wondered if it even mattered or if you could know for sure and remained agnostic for a while. I'll admit that while this constant oscillation between believing and not believing was tiring, I can see now it was in a way necessary for my own spiritual development. Maybe it is the same for you. The karma of some of us in this lifetime have dictated that some are ardent devotees of God from a young age, for others it will take time to develop, and for others still, it is their karma to be atheist in this lifetime. This is just the way it is. Please don't beat yourself up over it. If you are unhappy with your beliefs in God, there must be a reason for it. In that case, go away for a while and discover more for yourself, take the time to think through what makes sense for you, and then come to your own decisions. Forcing yourself into believing or not believing God is not good, because you are only lying to yourself. If you find yourself unhappy with living in a state of atheism, again, there is a reason for that. It might take some more time for things to make sense for you.

You ask how can you experience God without faith? Faith is not instantaneous. You cannot will faith into being. It must be allowed to germinate, grow and them blossom fully into true shraddha. It no longer becomes a belief based on flimsy fancies of a God that exists from outside experiences and hopes for miracles, but from a real, direct knowledge of one's true nature, which is an incomparable peace of mind. It may take time to realise this, but real faith can only be built with this kind of patience and hard-work. That is what is so admirable about Hinduism. You must try hard to try and realise your true nature, which can give you this inner stillness - whereas this "heaven" is something that is a given in other religions, with very little thought or effort (or even belief!) one can be promised a place in eternity with God for just being an adequately decent person. How can one begin to cultivate faith? Become more acquainted with God and His names. Read the scriptures and consider the messages that are being offered to you. Listen to the songs of devotion that worshippers sing in His praise. When something good happens in your life, stop for a moment and just be thankful for your blessings. When something bad happens in your life, stop for a moment and reflect on what has happened, pray to that part of yourself to be strong enough to see it through. It's a matter of opening up your heart to Him, and when you're ready He will see to the rest.

But like I say, please don't force yourself into believing God. Faith of that kind is on a shaky foundation, and will probably collapse easily when things go awry.

Lastly, I don't think it is at all arbitrary that you cannot either prove or disprove God. If the Lord really is engaged in all this play for His sport, then He must have willed all this to be as it is. In this manner, He has given us a truly precious gift, the gift of choice. Because when it comes right down to it, you can have all the evidence in the universe piled in front of you that both proves and disproves the existence of a God, but nothing in essence has really changed, has it? Could anything ever really prevent you from choosing to believe?

Om namah Shivaya

NayaSurya
21 June 2011, 01:26 PM
So so true! Each of us has a personal ladder to Beloved. The ladder has rungs of experience and our understanding of those experience. It would be a very very rare thing to have an experience that is not your own that was so irrefutably strong that you could also use it to form your own ascent to Beloved.

If you form beliefs and faith based upon anothers words of their own understanding and experience, it is a house of cards which could tumble from its haphazard creation. Only you, and you own wellspring of lifetime experiences, thoughts and perhaps...if your lucky enough... a Guru's guidance could bring such things.

Such ladders can take a lifetime to create and are so strong that even when you stand before your own dead child...the only word from your lips is the very Name of Beloved...with every bit of Love in your heart...it came out as a bell rang in the room. When the whole world crash around you and you stay still in the wondrous Being which is sheltered inside this vessel.

Two of my own son say they are not sure they believe in Beloved and I tell them I was very happy to hear this, it would be nice if they can use some of my own experiencs and understandings to form the base of their ladder, but I know the rungs of it must come from Beloved Unfolding this Beloved Truth upon them in His own good time and theirs.:p

But, still I do say, that you have come this far means you are truly at the point of this seeking and I say again to you...strive on.<3

Eastern Mind
21 June 2011, 01:30 PM
.

But like I say, please don't force yourself into believing God.

Vannakkam Rudy, Sunyata et al: For some reason I find this very funny. I would say it impossible, but I see this little guy (you know - the guy, Rudy's other self) on Rudy's shoulder with a whip yelling in his ear repetitively with each lash of the whip. "Believe in God, Believe in God, Believe in God ... " Right out of the Simpson's or Monty Python, take your pick.

Aum Namasivaya

Rudy
21 June 2011, 04:05 PM
Hahaha

It's really kind of funny all the ideas and mindsets I'm going through so quickly.I want to believe in God, but a little voice says... I don't know what it says.That I don't have any proof? My mind swings from one side to the next but I'mmore accepting of my swings of thought "let’s see where this leads." But believing in God gives me something to shoot for. I know materiel objects don't give me happiness and people don't ensure it. I guess there is Buddhism but I just like Hinduism more...

Thanks for listening to my prattle :p

Eastern Mind
21 June 2011, 05:42 PM
Vannakkam Rudy: I remember as a small child having no religious belief at all. None. Nil. Nada. Parents never talked about it. Never went to church. it was just a few buildings we drove past. I didn't even know what they looked like inside. Didn't care. Sunday was a day to go fishing or swimming at the river.

Then one day my father mangled our dog's feet with the hay mower. Poor dog ran in front of the nasty cutting blades. I remember that as the first day I prayed. It was a selfish prayer and went something like, "God, if you exist, please don't let Kippie die." It was to some old man in the sky Abrahamic God I'd picked from somewhere. Kippie lived, but suffered horribly for a few weeks until my father compassionately put him out of his misery.

I never thought of God again for about 5 years, until I saw energy flowing in all form in some sort of primordial amazing glimpse into that reality. From then on I knew what God was. Certainly not the bearded guy in the clouds. The energy, and then later, much more.

So whatever will be will be. Choosing to believe in God is like choosing to be gay or hetero. It's really not a choice at all. It either is or isn't, happens or doesn't happen, and in the grand scheme of things is far less relevant than the kind of life you live.

Aum Namasivaya

Kismet
21 June 2011, 06:02 PM
Vannakkam Rudy: I remember as a small child having no religious belief at all. None. Nil. Nada. Parents never talked about it. Never went to church. it was just a few buildings we drove past. I didn't even know what they looked like inside. Didn't care. Sunday was a day to go fishing or swimming at the river.

Then one day my father mangled our dog's feet with the hay mower. Poor dog ran in front of the nasty cutting blades. I remember that as the first day I prayed. It was a selfish prayer and went something like, "God, if you exist, please don't let Kippie die." It was to some old man in the sky Abrahamic God I'd picked from somewhere. Kippie lived, but suffered horribly for a few weeks until my father compassionately put him out of his misery.

I never thought of God again for about 5 years, until I saw energy flowing in all form in some sort of primordial amazing glimpse into that reality. From then on I knew what God was. Certainly not the bearded guy in the clouds. The energy, and then later, much more.

So whatever will be will be. Choosing to believe in God is like choosing to be gay or hetero. It's really not a choice at all. It either is or isn't, happens or doesn't happen, and in the grand scheme of things is far less relevant than the kind of life you live.

Aum Namasivaya

Great story.

I myself have gone through a number of stages in my conceptions of God. First, I had the fearful intuition that God was this tyrannical joy-kill, and to some extent this thought lingers on. I feared God would punish me for enjoying life and being outgoing. This is one of the reasons I have had such a guilty holdover in terms of trying to know God.

Later on I thought of God as a kind of pantheistic energy pervading all things. Now, I consider that view inadequate and am looking for a more transcendent aspect to God.

Obelisk
22 June 2011, 02:21 AM
Namaste,

I totally agree with what's been said about faith. :) Faith is not something that can be handed out at stalls, or passed second-hand down generations. Faith is trust and trust cannot just magically appear overnight. It needs time, it needs experience, patience and effort. I think true faith is highly individual and not exclusive to any particular community as such.

This is why I find certain statements to be kinda misleading, such as "talking sense" into someone and relieving them of the "burden of their faith". I don't claim to be an expert, but I certainly do think that if someone loses their trust just because they talked to someone opposing their views or read some similar articles online (no matter how assertive, reasonable or convincing it is - read ahead), then it certainly wasn't "trust" in the first place! This is because an important part of developing faith/trust is eliminating confirmation bias, meaning that the person in question should've already done this talking/reading long ago before they developed this "faith"! :p

If the arguments against the "faith" are indeed so strong, then it would be nipped in the bud before it ever fully developed. And stubbornly continuing still while ignoring strong counter-arguments means that the "faith" is not worth defending in the first place, and somewhere in a distant corner of their mind, the person knows this. For this same reason I disagree with arguments that "faith" can make anyone do horrible things without evidence. I'm all for eradicating blind beliefs and superstitions, but calling those synonymous with true trust is extremely wrong as far as I'm concerned. Likewise I think that developing one's faith in God is highly individual and unless one experiences Him themselves, anybody else giving arguments for or against it isn't going to make much of a difference. They can be guidelines, advices or hints, but never definitive decisions.

And I do think that faith is important for developing a personal, loving relationship with God. Some people call faith/trust "blind" because of lack of evidence; I say that true faith sees through the eyes of love and devotion. This doesn't mean that the contrasting evidence is invalid; it means that it has a very different meaning, viewed in a different light. It could seem like one is twisting facts to suit the conclusion, but it's also important to note that one will come to a bold decision like that only after a huge amount of careful thinking before. Faith and reason should go side by side IMO, and together they'll lead us to the core of our Self, and God. :)

Obelisk
26 June 2011, 06:56 AM
On a related note, I happened to come across some Jain arguments for atheism by Acarya Jinasena in Mahapurana. Listed them below -


Some foolish men declare that creator made the world. The doctrine that the world was created is ill advised and should be rejected.

If God created the world, where was he before the creation? If you say he was transcendent then and needed no support, where is he now?


How could God have made this world without any raw material? If you say that he made this first, and then the world, you are faced with an endless regression.


If you declare that this raw material arose naturally you fall into another fallacy, For the whole universe might thus have been its own creator, and have arisen quite naturally.


If God created the world by an act of his own will, without any raw material, then it is just his will and nothing else — and who will believe this silly nonsense?


If he is ever perfect and complete, how could the will to create have arisen in him? If, on the other hand, he is not perfect, he could no more create the universe than a potter could.


If he is form-less, action-less and all-embracing, how could he have created the world? Such a soul, devoid of all modality, would have no desire to create anything.


If he is perfect, he does not strive for the three aims of man, so what advantage would he gain by creating the universe?


If you say that he created to no purpose because it was his nature to do so, then God is pointless. If he created in some kind of sport, it was the sport of a foolish child, leading to trouble.


If he created because of the karma of embodied beings [acquired in a previous creation] He is not the Almighty Lord, but subordinate to something else


If out of love for living beings and need of them he made the world, why did he not make creation wholly blissful free from misfortune?


If he were transcendent he would not create, for he would be free: Nor if involved in transmigration, for then he would not be almighty. Thus the doctrine that the world was created by God makes no sense at all,


And God commits great sin in slaying the children whom he himself created. If you say that he slays only to destroy evil beings, why did he create such beings in the first place?


Good men should combat the believer in divine creation, maddened by an evil doctrine. Know that the world is uncreated, as time itself is, without beginning or end, and is based on the principles, life and rest. Uncreated and indestructible, it endures under the compulsion of its own nature.


Rather oddly, I think these would probably work more against monotheistic creationism than something like the Vedanta. I'm curious to know, how have our rishis countered these arguments?

wundermonk
26 June 2011, 08:59 AM
Most of the arguments in the list are what I would call "destructive arguments" rather than "constructive arguments". That is, these are "piggy-back" arguments that seek to refute a theistic argument without providing any alternative suggestion worth looking into.

Our rishis countered these with some form of cosmological argument/teleological argument. For instance, do pots pop out of nowhere without a potter? Does grass automatically become milk without the existence of agents like cows, goats, etc.

The author's position
can itself be questioned. What proof does the author have in support of the assertion? It uses many words each of which needs to be defined precisely. Once defined, it would be easy to refute the assertion.

[QUOTE]Know that the world is uncreated, as time itself is, without beginning or end, and is based on the principles, life and rest. Uncreated and indestructible, it endures under the compulsion of its own nature.

sunyata07
26 June 2011, 09:00 AM
Namaste Obelisk,

I agree with you on your last point, and it doesn't seem odd. All these questions do seem like they are intended to be directed at Abrahamic monotheism rather than Advaita panentheism. I'm also wondering if any of our members here would be able to answer each of these questions to satisfy both the atheistic arguments and Vedanta.

Om namah Shivaya

Obelisk
26 June 2011, 09:16 AM
Agreed, the cosmological/teleological arguments would work strongly here. I found it a bit odd because in ancient India, the theists that Jains co-existed with followed the Vedic/Upanishadic philosophy, which is obviously very different from monotheism. So I don't get why they directed these questions at them.

wundermonk
26 June 2011, 09:32 AM
I found it a bit odd because in ancient India, the theists that Jains co-existed with followed the Vedic/Upanishadic philosophy, which is obviously very different from monotheism.


Actually, Advaita is an even MORE extreme form of monotheism. It is impersonal monism (Brahman = Real, everything else "unreal"). Dvaita/Visishtadvaita have gradual shades of theism - i.e. a personal God endowed with attributes of grace and love for its subjects.

It is a bit difficult to speculate on the societal conditions of our ancients. Whether our ancients worshipped Shiva, Vishnu or Shakti as DIFFERENT Gods [polytheism] or whether they saw them as different forms/names of the same Brahman, which still qualifies as monotheism, is unknowable, IMO.

NayaSurya
26 June 2011, 09:41 AM
Forgive the fool, but I can try-

If God created the world, where was he before the creation? If you say he was transcendent then and needed no support, where is he now?

Here, with or without creation He was always right Here...He remains.



How could God have made this world without any raw material? If you say that he made this first, and then the world, you are faced with an endless regression.

Beloved is the material. All Beloved.


If you declare that this raw material arose naturally you fall into another fallacy, For the whole universe might thus have been its own creator, and have arisen quite naturally.

The Universe is Beloved. If you wanted to expand this to say "The universe is its own creator"...then you would be right too...Beloved is the Universe.

If God created the world by an act of his own will, without any raw material, then it is just his will and nothing else — and who will believe this silly nonsense?

Beloved is the raw material.


If he is ever perfect and complete, how could the will to create have arisen in him? If, on the other hand, he is not perfect, he could no more create the universe than a potter could.

How does a parent decide to have children? Is it by some flaw? Or is it perfection within them to want to share this Love?


If he is form-less, action-less and all-embracing, how could he have created the world? Such a soul, devoid of all modality, would have no desire to create anything.


He is formless, and form-full...action-less...and action-full...always all embracing.

If he is perfect, he does not strive for the three aims of man, so what advantage would he gain by creating the universe?

What does anyone gain from becoming a parent? A wondrous angle of vision and experience. But, I won't even begin to assume this is the only thing motivating this decision...most of us will not know this for some time....only when Beloved unfold that Precious Portion of the Truth will it be known.


If you say that he created to no purpose because it was his nature to do so, then God is pointless. If he created in some kind of sport, it was the sport of a foolish child, leading to trouble.

Can one love without another...know of sharing without one to share? We can know, but to experience this is far sweeter.


If he created because of the karma of embodied beings [acquired in a previous creation] He is not the Almighty Lord, but subordinate to something else

Karma, is something we accrued by our intimate proximity to this gross physical reality. When digging deeper you will surely get dirty...


If out of love for living beings and need of them he made the world, why did he not make creation wholly blissful free from misfortune?

How can Love be defined well without the boarders of hatred and indifference? How would we even recognize Bliss...without remembering this harsher state of being? To know one, we must have intimate knowledge of both.


If he were transcendent he would not create, for he would be free: Nor if involved in transmigration, for then he would not be almighty. Thus the doctrine that the world was created by God makes no sense at all,

I have come to understand, that whatever doesn't make sense is not some flaw within belief but in my own ability to understand the most intimate portions of Beloved's Universe.

And God commits great sin in slaying the children whom he himself created. If you say that he slays only to destroy evil beings, why did he create such beings in the first place?

There is not death, only the Abrahamic worries about such things...we never die.


Good men should combat the believer in divine creation, maddened by an evil doctrine. Know that the world is uncreated, as time itself is, without beginning or end, and is based on the principles, life and rest. Uncreated and indestructible, it endures under the compulsion of its own nature.

The nature of the whole entire manifested creation is Beloved...made for and by....sustained and destroyed...unfathomable as it may be.


This is what was said to me this morning as I read those questions...and so forgive if it seem simple, but I am a simple piece.

Obelisk
26 June 2011, 10:00 AM
Interesting, and beautifully said. Thanks for the replies everyone. :)

devotee
26 June 2011, 11:58 PM
Nice Answers, NS ! I would have replied on similar lines which is in line with Advaita Vedanta.

OM

RVR
27 June 2011, 06:21 AM
Hindus see God every where. If we pick up a hand full of sand, bind with water and keep it, it becomes Lord Vinayaka.

One can see God within himself and need not look outside.

For the seekers, God can be realised but cannot be shown to others.

kallol
27 June 2011, 11:15 AM
This thread is still going strong. Most of us are trying to pove that God is there.

May be we need to define "What is God as per our definition ?" May be this itself is too abstract to many.

Once we define God then how to prove it ?

Next what we can say that God controls ? If nothing then why God ? If everything then what are we ? All difficult questions and fuzzy abstract answers.

Most of the people (the materialistic ones) do not understand abstract theories. They need proof which they can live with or are living with. How do we provide that proof ?

Ultimately it may be different layers of entities - from the permanent base to the most temporary wave crest which are there. This is a natural phenomenon. How do we bring in God here ?

Love and best wishes

NayaSurya
27 June 2011, 11:41 AM
Kallol, Hello<3

No reason to prove, and should not even, if could.

Everytime someone posted, read of thought of this thread, Beloved has been here.

Helping, posting asking question, posting answering questions, thinking, laughing...everything.

Only by living and experiencing, passing through this layer we exist on, will Beloved become to unfold the Truth.

We can help this by reading other Beloved Portions lives and explanations as I do here every time I visit. Chanting mantra, the yogas...all of this is like athletic training to help us become condition to receive this Truth when it finally come.

Those still remaining in the materialistic mindset will remain there until they have seen enough to move them beyond this...it happen everyday. One day it even happen to me.

Living so utterly blissfully ignorant...just praying simple prayer of love and enjoying this material world...then one day it began to unfold before my eyes and the way I was, no longer was...and the one who remain was very strong upon this path to the Truth, so strong no doubt remain.

In the place of my home, this Truth is absolute insane....I speak it from my mouth and others would be so disturbed they would lock me away. So you can imagine how disturbed I became when I realize that this simple way of thinking of Beloved...was just a coping mechanism to deal with my previous doubt.

With that doubt removed...the unvarnish Truth began to become recognize.

Doubt is healthy, very good fire forge for the sword to become tempered. The Truth become folded over an over as metal upon a sword. This make us very strong to know.

NayaSurya
27 June 2011, 11:45 AM
Nice Answers, NS ! I would have replied on similar lines which is in line with Advaita Vedanta.

OM

Thank you for this kindness.
I came to delete this morning, as I look in mirror, was reminded who I am this lifetime...not a fit one to answer, of course. But, your kind words kindle me to keep them here.

I am at your Feet.

kallol
27 June 2011, 12:02 PM
I am only observing and enjoying. Thought of putting some more spices.

Love and best wishes

NayaSurya
27 June 2011, 12:21 PM
It is very good to have spice.:p

Kumar_Das
25 September 2011, 09:22 AM
Who/What is God? What is the meaning of the term God?

Who were the first humans on earth to speak of the term?

That's the starting point.

The question does God exist? Either means you dont accurately understand who God is. Or you mentally know the concept but have not attained certainty with regards to it.

The question "does God exist?" Deals with two things. "God" and "existence".

What falls under existence? How do you define existence?

When you deliberate these. You have to confront "types of anything" and "existence". And then "reality".



There are some who acknowledge the existence of God. But what goes on in their minds? What is it that makes them agree to the phrase?

A christian speaks of the term "God" but then believes in a whole set of things and says "some person was nailed to the cross, died and resurrected and this is a miracle and this personality was God".

People believe in different types of "God".

How can you verify the different Gods?

Personally Hindu scriptures, logic and experience made me realize there is a Being or God. Who does not belong anything(whereas He owns everything). Does not fall under a set(whereas all else are His creations). No one can "claim" Him(everyone can worship God).

This God is not just any object of worship. He whom all is powerless before is God. This God has the ability to overpower anything, including any article of worship. This Being subjects everyone/thing to what He alone Wills. Anyone can worship anything, but nothing can do anything against God. God is the one who allows you to exist, allow you to be able to conceive anything mentally or come into contact with anything and be able to worship anything. God is an aware being, who can react to our own actions and can make known that He is the one in charge.

The person who first found God, didnt have a term lying around which they thought about and deliberated whether or not He existed. God came into human history when a person realized God first(meaning somehow he managed to reach a Being/became aware of His presence) and revealed about Him to everyone else.

Mana
25 September 2011, 09:52 AM
Namast&#233; Kumar Das,

Maybe we all new God intimately, then as language and society developed we moved further and further away, forgetting exactly what it meant to be connected to mother nature.

Then one day someone poked their head up out of the mAyA, then another then another.

Like Meerkats, all over the place. Similar visions but different words.

http://anneminard.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/meerkats1.jpg

And said what? How could they possibly describe that which they saw?



praNAma

mana

iksvakave
25 September 2011, 02:06 PM
I loved reading all your posts about "Does god exist." I am amazed by everything everyone had to say. If you ask me I would have to say, Yes! God exists.

Before you read what I have to say ---- you have go back on this thread and take a look at Yajvanji's flying banana in outer space picture. Then, the last picture of meerkats.


I know God exists ---- It's personal.
I also know God exists because how I interpreted the last verse of Gita. Please take a look at the pictures I was talking about one more time.

Chapter 18 ---- Verse 78 (The last verse in Gita)


Yatra yog’esvarah krsno yatra partho dhanur-dharah

Tatra srir vijayo bhutir dhruva nitir matir mama


Yatra – Journey
Yog esvarah Krsno---- perfected by esvarah krsno
Yatra – Journey
Partho --- Arjuna
Dhanur dharah --- armed with bow string (Telugu dharah is string )
Tatra --- There upon in that meeting on the battlefield
Srir ---- glories
Vijayo --- of victory [Telugu -- Vijayam ]
Bhutir – in human spirit
Dhruva – certainly
Nitir --- moral principals [ Telugu -- neetulu ]
Matir --- religion [Telugu -- Mata Religion]
Mama --- belongs to me

MY Meaning:

Journey is perfected by esvarah krsno. Journey belongs to Arjuna’s armed with bow string. In that meeting on the battlefield went on the glories of victory in human spirit. Certainly moral principals, religion belong to me.


Essentially what it is saying is your journey is perfected by esvarah krsno. Journey belongs to that Arjuna with bow string and in that meeting on the battle field went on glories of victory in human spirit. Certainly, moral principal and religion belong to me. Essentially saying I exit and I am the over seer of religion.



Have to say though I liked all your responses. There was more depth, thinking and personal experiences mentioned.


I love the picture of flying banana is outer space. :)

The only personal experience I can bring to this is to say ---- We will never have all the answers.

Iksvakave

iksvakave
25 September 2011, 04:26 PM
The funny thing about the last picture of meerakats is that none of them are looking in your direction. :)

Iksvakave

rajakrsna
26 September 2011, 12:26 AM
Yes! God exits.

Kumar_Das
26 September 2011, 05:11 AM
Maybe we all new God intimately, then as language and society developed we moved further and further away, forgetting exactly what it meant to be connected to mother nature.Sounds like that tower of babel myth. What is the equivocation with nature and God?This view sounds anti-Hindu. Hinduism teaches that we are all born out of desire and karma and that relief from suffering of existence is closeness to God.

sm78
26 September 2011, 05:16 AM
Hinduism teaches that we are all born out of desire and karma and that relief from suffering of existence is closeness to God.

Whose desire? Did I have some desires even before I existed? I know how you would solve this from your dogmatic position, but for us who don't believe permanence of jivas (or their souls), can u answer it? Don't say it is anti-hindu just because it doesn't tie with way you think or resolve your existential problems. Only thing anti-hindu is denying the human right to search for answers. It may be anti vaishnava or something similar, but definitely not anti-hindu.

Kumar_Das
26 September 2011, 05:25 AM
Whose desire? Did I have some desires even before I existed? I know how you would solve this from your dogmatic position, but for us who don't believe permanence of jivas (or their souls), can u answer it? Don't say it is anti-hindu just because it doesn't tie with way you think or resolve your existential problems.I was stating a basic Hindu tenet.
Only thing anti-hindu is denying the human right to search for answers.You can go diving into manholes and waddling through drains. I'm not stopping you. Just don't step into my temple and say its on par with it.

Mana
26 September 2011, 05:55 AM
Sounds like that tower of babel myth. What is the equivocation with nature and God?This view sounds anti-Hindu. Hinduism teaches that we are all born out of desire and karma and that relief from suffering of existence is closeness to God.

Namast&#233; Kumar_Das,

I am awfully sorry to tread on your Dharma!

I am not familiar with the tower of babel myth, perhaps you would be so kind as to enlighten me?

I'm describing quite simply ...

One should maybe not put all of their faith into Script, or hearsay. Light is every where, we run on it.

Nature and God; please tell where is the equivocation; it is you and not I, that suggest this relationship equivocal?

praNAma

mana

sm78
26 September 2011, 05:57 AM
I was stating a basic Hindu tenet.

This is where I have the problem. Dvaita is far from a basic Hindu tenent.
In south india elite vaishnava castes make up less than 1% (google) of hindus. What portion of those who call themselves vaishnavas know about their philosophy? Same hold for all the remaining orthodox traditions.

We use the term Hindu to refer to the culture and religious tradition of India and where people care the least for your basic tenents. Use it carefully please.


You can go diving into manholes and waddling through drains. I'm not stopping you.
He he. So your idea of staying pure is to throw **** and contents of manholes at others, eh? Nice concept.


Just don't step into my temple and say its on par with it.
Fine. Just also refrain from staking claims over all temples under guise of "basic" tenents please.

Jainarayan
26 September 2011, 08:42 AM
Namaste Mana.


I am not familiar with the tower of babel myth, perhaps you would be so kind as to enlighten me?

Having heard the silliness of that story ad nauseum in Sunday School, here's the gist of it:

1. The peoples of the Earth all spoke one language, the mythological original human Adamic (of Adam) language.

2. They decided to build a tower at Babel, in Mesopotamia, to reach Heaven.

3. God became angry at the arrogance of humans to presume they could invade Heaven.

4. God destroyed the tower, and confused the languages of the peoples so they could not re-group and understand each other to rebuild it. Hence the mythology of why humans speak different languages.

devotee
26 September 2011, 10:02 AM
Whose desire? Did I have some desires even before I existed? I know how you would solve this from your dogmatic position, but for us who don't believe permanence of jivas (or their souls), can u answer it? Don't say it is anti-hindu just because it doesn't tie with way you think or resolve your existential problems. Only thing anti-hindu is denying the human right to search for answers. It may be anti vaishnava or something similar, but definitely not anti-hindu.

Your questions disappoint me, SM ! ... not expected from an intelligent person that you are !!

Can anything come into existence which is non-existent to begin with ? Ponder over this ... you will find some clue. :)

OM

Mana
26 September 2011, 01:48 PM
Namasté TouchedbytheLord,

Thank you, no I'm not familiar with that legend. Sounds like a very early attempt at anthropology. But then again words can be so effemaire.

For that I can not wait to know more of the Sanskrit language, it seems to be imbued with culture its self. English is so darned ambiguous. I believe that this stems from the Latin root!

As for this tower idea, I would agree that language comes from a Proto-Indo-European root.I would not have the audacity to base a philosophical doctrine on something so fluid and time dependant.

Now mantra, that is some thing completely different. As I am sure that you are all aware.

Wisdom and knowledge very much require the other 90% or so of any conversation which is sent through secondary signals, such as intonation and body language. This evolves the participation of someone with the empathetic capacity to know whether the second party involved; has understood correctly, the message or wisdom in the "image" being transmitted. Thus depicting the need for a teacher or Guru in interpretation.

muditA = Empathy

Does god exist?

Do Gurus exist?

Where did all the teachers go?

praNAma

mana

Jainarayan
26 September 2011, 02:40 PM
For that I can not wait to know more of the Sanskrit language, it seems to be imbued with culture its self. English is so darned ambiguous. I believe that this stems from the Latin root!

Sanskrit is a highly inflected language that allows for a clarity and nuance English has lost. Not because of Latin, but simply over time. English lost so many case markers that a sentence can be very ambiguous. "Her" can be dative, accusative, demonstrative, maybe even nominative (I'd have to think about that one). Sanskrit retains those cases, and even more.


As for this tower idea, I would agree that language comes from a Proto-Indo-European root.I would not have the audacity to base a philosophical doctrine on something so fluid and time dependant.

There's a clear relationship between Sanskrit, Greek, Latin, Russian, (maa, mitera, mater, mat = mother; pitr, pateras, pater, utyets: OK, so that one developed some other way), et. al. that doesn't exist with Semitic languages (Hebrew, Arabic, ancient Egyptian, Phoenician, Aramaic, Canaanite). Or even with Sumerian and Babylonian. It's a nice mythology to explain that.

sunyata07
27 September 2011, 11:26 AM
Interestingly enough, TBTL, in the Ancient Egyptian language the words for mother (mut) and father (it) aren't lightyears away from the Sanskrit matR and pitR. Probably an isolated example I've given though, seeing as a lot of languages around the world have similar sound for the words mother and father, if not practically the same.

Om namah Shivaya

Jainarayan
27 September 2011, 11:39 AM
Interestingly enough, TBTL, in the Ancient Egyptian language the words for mother (mut) and father (it) aren't lightyears away from the Sanskrit matR and pitR. Probably an isolated example I've given though, seeing as a lot of languages around the world have similar sound for the words mother and father, if not practically the same.

Om namah Shivaya

I didn't know that about ancient Egyptian. Interesting considering that it is Semitic and totally unrelated to Sanskrit. Otoh...

A likely reason for the mother/father similarities around the world is that ma, ba, da are the easiest phonemes for a baby to say.

Loanwords are probably not even in the equation, but cognates probably are, within language families.

issacnewton
28 September 2011, 06:41 AM
in mathematics , when we prove some object exists , somewhere in the text a definition of that object is already given. so given the assumptions of a theorem , we can find if the object as specified in the definition exists or not.

so when we ask a question "does god exist" , we have to first define what
is the definition of 'god' .only then we can decide it such a thing 'exists', probably we will also need to be careful about the meaning of the word 'existence' . now even in hindu/india related world , many different definitions
of 'god' are there. so does question have meaning as such ?

sunyata07
28 September 2011, 03:23 PM
so when we ask a question "does god exist" , we have to first define what
is the definition of 'god' .only then we can decide it such a thing 'exists', probably we will also need to be careful about the meaning of the word 'existence' . now even in hindu/india related world , many different definitions
of 'god' are there. so does question have meaning as such ?

Namaste Isaacnewton,

Excellent point made! Yes, I agree with you totally. This is one of the reasons why I believe the argument rarely goes beyond any further than just asking for physical proof for the existence of God. There are many kind of theists (monotheists, polytheists, pantheists, panentheists, etc.) - and each group I'm sure has there own definition of what exactly constitutes God or gods. No wonder there's never been much progress about the God debate. Atheists have to decide from which point they have to begin arguing. For example, are they going to debate from a pantheist view? If they were to take the view that God is essentially the universe (God is materially the world, space and all the physical laws), this would be entirely different from the perspective of a monotheist (e.g. Christian) arguing for the existence of his concept of God.

Om namah Shivaya

Spiritualseeker
28 September 2011, 06:23 PM
Eknath Easwaran in his work, "Following the Teachings of the Upanishads" said (paraphrasing slightly) that when someone tells him they are atheist he does not bat an eye. He said he only asks them if they have ever looked there (Within).

This is powerful, because I have had my bouts of doubts about God, but now it seems to be ever evident that Supreme Consciousness does exists. The more we go deeper in meditation the more that consciousness reveals itself.

Om Namah Shivaya