On The Topic of Religion...

[NovaFire]

For one, when you refer to "the natural extension of God's love," this boils down to saying that God creates because it is His nature to create.

Not to create. Creation is the outcome, but not the reason.

Secondly, when you refer to "other beings" you're talking about creation, which also begs the question.

The problem isn't just with God needing or having to do something. It is also with God wanting to do something that places Him in an inferior position.

I should omit the word want from my earlier response. by defenition
a self sufficient god cannot have any wants.
My point is that god created for the sake of the beings themselves.

Your answer above implies that God is also attracted to these things.

Psalm 104:5 "he has founded the earth upon its established places;
It will not be made to totter to time indefinite or forever"

 

[n9newunsixx5150]

I've noticed people who "find" Krishna connect with him more than any other God or Prophet. What is Bhagavad-gita about? It's about two meters away from me, so I could start reading it anytime I feel ready. My father read it first when he was in University, and he wrote down notes beside each paragraph. You're convincing me more to check it out, but I know it's not gonna change my no-God beliefs.

Is the Bhagavad-gita near you the one with translations and purports by His Divine Grace A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada? That's the one I recommend. The whole text can actually be found here: http://www.asitis.com

The Bhagavad-gita is found within a larger text, the Mahabharata. It is set on the battlefield of Kurukshetra when two sides are on the verge of battle. Arjuna is leading one side and Krishna agrees to drive his chariot. Right before the battle ensues, Arjuna asks Krishna to drive between the two sides so he can see who he is fighting against. Arjuna sees relatives, friends, teachers, etc. and becomes overwhelmed with feelings of lamentation. Then he asks Krishna for His advice, and the rest of the Bhagavad-gita is Krishna explaining the Vedanta philosophy, which includes the nature of the self, the material nature, the controller of nature, action and time.

 

[FreedomLost]

But of course, we all know that after death, all that happens is bugs eat your corpse.

Seek and you will find the Truth

 

[1God]

Is the Bhagavad-gita near you the one with translations and purports by His Divine Grace A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada? That's the one I recommend. The whole text can actually be found here: http://www.asitis.com

Yes, I have that one. Actually, I have three of them. Two are in Serbian and one is in English. The Serbian versions have 700+ pages, while the English version has only 300+, but I think that's because they took out the original scripts out and it might be a bit dumbed down for the average American reader, since the first page of the Introduction, it says, "An American lady asked me to recommend an English version of the Bhagavad-gita which she could read". Which one did you read? I don't really want to read it off the computer screen, though.

 

[n9newunsixx5150]

My point is that god created for the sake of the beings themselves.

If the "beings" you're referring to are also created, then that begs the question.

Psalm 104:5 "he has founded the earth upon its established places;
It will not be made to totter to time indefinite or forever"

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here. Please explain.

 

[n9newunsixx5150]

Yes, I have that one. Actually, I have three of them. Two are in Serbian and one is in English. The Serbian versions have 700+ pages, while the English version has only 300+, but I think that's because they took out the original scripts out and it might be a bit dumbed down for the average American reader, since the first page of the Introduction, it says, "An American lady asked me to recommend an English version of the Bhagavad-gita which she could read". Which one did you read? I don't really want to read it off the computer screen, though.

Yeah, I wouldn't want to read it off a computer screen either. The best one (in English) is around 900 pages, which includes the original Sanskrit, Roman transliteration, word-for-word English equivalents, full English verse and purport. The 300-page version is missing a lot. I think it may even be missing some of the purports. I can send you a full copy; just hit me up in PM.

The preface to the full version begins as follows:

Originally I wrote Bhagavad-gita As It Is in the form in which it is presented now. When this book was first published, the original manuscript was, unfortunately, cut short to less than 400 pages, without illustrations and without explanations for most of the original verses of the Srimad Bhagavad-gita. In all of my other books--Srimad-Bhagavatam, Sri Isopanisad, etc.--the system is that I give the original verse, its English transliteration, word-for-word Sanskrit-English equivalents, translations and purports. This makes the book very authentic and scholarly and makes the meaning self-evident. I was not very happy, therefore, when I had to minimize my original manuscript. But later on, when the demand for Bhagavad-gita As It Is considerably increased, I was requested by many scholars and devotees to present the book in its original form, and Messrs. Macmillan and Co. agreed to publish the complete edition. Thus the present attempt is to offer the original manuscript of this great book of knowledge with full parampara explanation in order to establish the Krsna consciousness movement more soundly and progressively.

Source: http://www.asitis.com/preface.html

 

[NovaFire]

If the "beings" you're referring to are also created, then that begs the question.

why do we love?

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here. Please explain.

The reason I included the quote from psalms is because, since i believe in the bible, i believe that god did not make this world for a definite time. I believe that this world was made to last to time indefinite.

 

[1God]

The reason I included the quote from psalms is because, since i believe in the bible, i believe that god did not make this world for a definite time. I believe that this world was made to last to time indefinite.

But science has proven that wrong, just like it has proven the Bible wrong, since it was written by the most boring man on Earth. I can't believe it turned into a best-seller.

 

[n9newunsixx5150]

why do we love?

Whatever the reason we love, that still doesn't explain why God creates. If the implication is that because God loves creation, therefore He creates, then we're still dealing with the same logical problem.

The reason I included the quote from psalms is because, since i believe in the bible, i believe that god did not make this world for a definite time. I believe that this world was made to last to time indefinite.

When I read, "It will not be made to totter to time indefinite or forever," I interpret that as saying that the earth will not last forever. How are you getting the exact opposite from that?

 

[n9newunsixx5150]

But science has proven that wrong, just like it has proven the Bible wrong, since it was written by the most boring man on Earth. I can't believe it turned into a best-seller.

I think I know what he is talking about. He's referring to the idea that the earth will be made new and New Jerusalem will descend upon it, etc. etc. Vedic religion has a similar idea: we say that after the end of the current age (kali yuga,) which is considered the most degraded of the 4 yugas, we will enter another satya yuga, or age of truth, enlightenment, etc. However, by traditional calculations, the kali yuga doesn't end for roughly another 427,000 years. Also, the new satya yuga doesn't last forever, as it will eventually begin to degrade as it has before. These yuga cycles go on and on, for billions upon billions of years. At some point the entire universe collapses on itself. But even the universe cycles through periods of manifestation and unmanifestation. So, in a sense, the material world is forever, but it flickers in and out of existence, so to speak.

 

[Neshani]

Who's the philosopher that came up with the idea that god created humans to better understand himself? I dunno, that theory always seemed interesting to me.

 

[n9newunsixx5150]

Who's the philosopher that came up with the idea that god created humans to better understand himself? I dunno, that theory always seemed interesting to me.

I don't know who first suggested this idea, but I've heard ones similar to it before. It seems to evoke a very different idea of "god."

 

[LyfeCentenz]

Well, the Vedic explanation is that God is within every living entity, even down to the atoms. This is called Paramatma or the Supersoul, which is not so different from the Christian Holy Spirit.


Miniature creators, perhaps. But even then, God is, by definition, the overall controller/creator. The best we can be is creators after the fact. That is, if we're using the word "creator" in a loose sense.



Well, whether you identify that "higher power" as a god or as nature, the fact of the matter is that we are all subject to it. You can't fly at will or dive head-first off the Eiffel Tower and live, for example. There are laws that govern your physical existence, in other words.

The idea that we can each be our own gods is considered a symptom of Maya, or the illusory material nature. In fact, it is explained that the material universe is created because a portion of the souls desire to try and become their own enjoyers and controllers apart from God. God is, in this view, THE controller and enjoyer, whereas it is our position to take part in God's bliss, being part and parcel of Him. But currently we have decided to try and find bliss separate from God, which is considered the root of all illusion.

I often see both theists and atheists stressing God as creator, but if you think about it, "creator" isn't really one of God's core, transcendental features. God HAPPENS to create, but He doesn't do it upon His own consideration. For, if it were solely up to God, what possible reason would He have to create a world of temporary forms? God, as typically defined, is self-sufficient: He needs nothing and has nothing to gain. So, the Vedic version is that God creates because lesser (i.e. fallible) beings desire it. It is really only inferior beings who put value in creation or the ability to create. If God ever seems to put value in those things, it is only with qualification. In other words, God might value creation indirectly because He values His eternal souls, who in turn value creation.

You speak of the vedas and then you speak of your concept of god... you should know the vedas and upanishads teach you that you cannot know "god" conceptually... i hate even using the term god because that word has so much baggage attached to it. The hindu and later buddhist teachings speak of the supreme source of all manifest phenomena as beyond your intellect but also including your intellect... that everything is that. You are that, the chair you sit in is that, the computer youre looking at is that but that all these things only appear to be separate because of your conceptualizations of them. In the truest sense everything is the same manifestation, and you can see that by the fact that everything is made of the same constituant particles... and the particles themselves are only relationships themselves in the consciousness.

You think that you're a person, an individual named whoever and that you do whatever. But all that is just a thought. Even the concept that you are not that person is a thought. None of this can be known through thought. The experiencing is truly an unknowable happening. You call yourself by your name but you were told that at a certain age.. you were told that that is a chair you're sitting in, and that that is a computer. In reality all of that is beyond your thought. Your thought cannot touch that. For practical purposes sure we call them those names to function in the real world... but the maya arises when you take that to be true. All thought is conceptual. So your thought about "god" is a concept. Even that "you" are having a "thought" is a concept. There is only THIS. And it's happening NOW.

you ARE God. You are the source of everything. Without you there is no "god". You are THAT. And there is no You. And of course that isn't true when i use concepts to explain it. This truth can only be experienced. But there's no one there to experience it. There is only experiencing. Only knowing.

your concepts of a god is a fallacy. Your concepts of a soul is a fallacy. In the experiencing there is only the consciousness. The source from which the consciousness springs is unknowable yet there is no separation. The apparent dualities create the perfect unbroken wholeness. And you are already that and already perfect.

 

[LyfeCentenz]

and as for youtube personalities Scott Kiloby has a great message to give.

this kid 0ThouArtThat0 on there has good shit to say and posts his own videos

that dude Mooji has good shit to say and posts his own i think

and of course endless videos of the greats like Jiddu Krishnamurti, Alan Watts, UG Krishnamurti, Nisargadatta Maharaj, Ramana Maharshi etc... Its all out there

learn and unlearn!

 

[n9newunsixx5150]

You speak of the vedas and then you speak of your concept of god... you should know the vedas and upanishads teach you that you cannot know "god" conceptually... i hate even using the term god because that word has so much baggage attached to it.

Then you don't understand the Vedas and Upanishads. The Vedic texts very obviously convey a "concept" of the supreme being or *gasp* "God." And by "Vedic texts" I mean related literature as well. I could also clarify by calling them Vedanta or Vedantic texts, if that makes it easier for you.

The hindu and later buddhist teachings speak of the supreme source of all manifest phenomena as beyond your intellect but also including your intellect... that everything is that. You are that, the chair you sit in is that, the computer youre looking at is that but that all these things only appear to be separate because of your conceptualizations of them. In the truest sense everything is the same manifestation, and you can see that by the fact that everything is made of the same constituant particles... and the particles themselves are only relationships themselves in the consciousness.

Your philosophy is Mayavadi. You see that the material variegatedness is ultimately one, and then think this concept applies to spiritual understanding. In other words, you think form and variety are themselves Maya. If you are in the desert and see a mirage, that doesn't mean that water itself is an illusion. It just means that that mirage of water there in the desert is an illusion. Real water exists elsewhere. It is actually mahamaya that attracts you to your particular philosophy.

You think that you're a person, an individual named whoever and that you do whatever. But all that is just a thought. Even the concept that you are not that person is a thought. None of this can be known through thought. The experiencing is truly an unknowable happening. You call yourself by your name but you were told that at a certain age.. you were told that that is a chair you're sitting in, and that that is a computer. In reality all of that is beyond your thought. Your thought cannot touch that. For practical purposes sure we call them those names to function in the real world... but the maya arises when you take that to be true. All thought is conceptual. So your thought about "god" is a concept. Even that "you" are having a "thought" is a concept. There is only THIS. And it's happening NOW.

All of this conjecture is terribly sophomoric, as it really only deals with the mutability of names and words and the thoughts that encompass them. This is the big understanding you came out with after studying Veda? The Maya arises when I take what to be true? That we call certain things "chairs" and certain other things "computers"? Why wouldn't I take that as true? You yourself just referred to them by those names as well. If you're supposed to be my great enlightened teacher, you sure aren't doing a good job.

you ARE God. You are the source of everything. Without you there is no "god". You are THAT. And there is no You. And of course that isn't true when i use concepts to explain it. This truth can only be experienced. But there's no one there to experience it. There is only experiencing. Only knowing.

Mystical hodge-podge. You haven't actually said anything here that you yourself don't immediately refute. It must just sound neat and poetic to you, as Maya dictates.

your concepts of a god is a fallacy. Your concepts of a soul is a fallacy. In the experiencing there is only the consciousness. The source from which the consciousness springs is unknowable yet there is no separation. The apparent dualities create the perfect unbroken wholeness. And you are already that and already perfect.

Your concept of source is a fallacy. Your concept of consciousness is a fallacy. Your concept of my concept of a god being a fallacy is a fallacy. Your concept of my concept of a soul being a fallacy is a fallacy.

See. I can do it too. All you've really done here is replaced what you perceive as the no-no words "God" and "soul" with the words "source" and "consciousness," respectively. You can't explain why your undifferentiated whole produces the illusion of form, variety, individuality, etc. if it is perfect as is. That reminds me: your concept of perfection is a fallacy.

 

[n9newunsixx5150]

and as for youtube personalities Scott Kiloby has a great message to give.

this kid 0ThouArtThat0 on there has good shit to say and posts his own videos

that dude Mooji has good shit to say and posts his own i think

and of course endless videos of the greats like Jiddu Krishnamurti, Alan Watts, UG Krishnamurti, Nisargadatta Maharaj, Ramana Maharshi etc... Its all out there

learn and unlearn!

Thanks for the recommendations.

 

[LyfeCentenz]

Then you don't understand the Vedas and Upanishads. The Vedic texts very obviously convey a "concept" of the supreme being or *gasp* "God." And by "Vedic texts" I mean related literature as well. I could also clarify by calling them Vedanta or Vedantic texts, if that makes it easier for you.



Your philosophy is Mayavadi. You see that the material variegatedness is ultimately one, and then think this concept applies to spiritual understanding. In other words, you think form and variety are themselves Maya. If you are in the desert and see a mirage, that doesn't mean that water itself is an illusion. It just means that that mirage of water there in the desert is an illusion. Real water exists elsewhere. It is actually mahamaya that attracts you to your particular philosophy.



All of this conjecture is terribly sophomoric, as it really only deals with the mutability of names and words and the thoughts that encompass them. This is the big understanding you came out with after studying Veda? The Maya arises when I take what to be true? That we call certain things "chairs" and certain other things "computers"? Why wouldn't I take that as true? You yourself just referred to them by those names as well. If you're supposed to be my great enlightened teacher, you sure aren't doing a good job.



Mystical hodge-podge. You haven't actually said anything here that you yourself don't immediately refute. It must just sound neat and poetic to you, as Maya dictates.



Your concept of source is a fallacy. Your concept of consciousness is a fallacy. Your concept of my concept of a god being a fallacy is a fallacy. Your concept of my concept of a soul being a fallacy is a fallacy.

See. I can do it too. All you've really done here is replaced what you perceive as the no-no words "God" and "soul" with the words "source" and "consciousness," respectively. You can't explain why your undifferentiated whole produces the illusion of form, variety, individuality, etc. if it is perfect as is. That reminds me: your concept of perfection is a fallacy.

YES!! The words are pointers as you seem to know.. take them lightly. Every form perceivable by the senses is transient, the truth is unknowable.. just as the vedic scriptures we're speaking of say 'just as a fire cannot burn itself... that which is the knower, or the ground of knowledge cannot be itself an object of knowledge.' We very much can sit here and have a discussion about this but i have no point of view to protect.. even the point of view that i don't have a point of view... the statements your god and soul are a fallacy were only to point you off of that but you seem to be quite aware of the game being that you came back with the consciousness and source were also fallacies... very good! That which all of these concepts point to is one and the same.

But mayavada yes i guess that would be closest to the mark. Advaita Vedanta and the realization those like Adi Shankara had. Or Dzogchen in buddhism also is very close to the mark as long as one isn't caught up in the extra shit and sees the core message it is trying to get across.

Form and variety just are here to be translated into however they are to be experienced by each being. Maya is 'your' apparent point of reference. Attachment to form such as thought, emotions or objects and believing that you are an individual who is attached to these things and is in bondage or suffering. And seeking some type of liberation. The idea that these forms are illusory stems from the experience that not one of these apparently separate forms has any substantial lasting existence. Their transience is why they are illusory.. each object in its own state is impermanent. Every form you can perceive will die, deteriorate, decay, fall apart... every conceivable separation will be made between each conceptualized form. There is nothing to hold onto... and the want to hold onto these forms creates suffering. The holding onto thought is a big one... the thought arises and falls in your awareness and it's transience can be experienced in a split second. Only through memory do you string these thoughts together... or events in general. So there is attachment to these forms and expectations of how they are to play out and you project these things into a concept called the future and you suffer if you take these things to be true and that future doesn't come into fruition. Or the holding onto memories and considering them to be part of a concept called the past, and then identifying with those thoughts. The maya is that you take these things to be real (or fake), you don't look and see the present experience right in this moment. And that you are not the mind, body, thoughts, feelings etc... but that they are objects that arise in the awareness that you are. And you aren't even awareness.. awareness is a concept, thought or word arising and falling in what i am calling awareness... and yes the concept that awareness is a concept is a concept... the knower cannot be known.. but it is the immaculate, untouched witness of everything and is itself not separate from any of these forms.

Even these ideas that you attach to that would make you debate your point of view are just form that has been identified with. And the same goes for me typing this as well. None of this is true... I immediately refute all of this because if you really believe this stuff then you're stuck (but thats not true either)... you've then fixated on a point in awareness and don't see the whole. Nothing i say is true.. but it is the truth in the sense that it is THAT expressing itself in this way. The duality is created by thought attaching to one aspect of the totality. Everything is perfectly balanced. The bad/good, up/down, hot/cold, black/white etc... your attachment to one side of the apparent duality through conceptualizing and grasping is the illusion (and even me right now attaching to the idea that you can't attach to one side). You are utterly free to experience and act as you please. You just have to realize where the suffering arises from. That is why the Buddha called his doctrine The Middle Way.

But It is the realization that your awareness pervades all. Every form is a transient object in that awareness and are not separate from it. And that awareness is intimately tied to the present moment. You are not who you take yourself to be. There is only THAT.. or THIS. I won't give it a name even though i am free to.

I can't get this message across with these words man, this is seeing the meta-paradigm that all sides spring from. dunno what to say.. anything i say can be debated because as a form it automatically has it's dualistic opposite and by the thought arising and me typing it here i've already identified with one side of it conceptually... which is perfectly fine. But when trying to convey this message it just becomes lost.. even though it is everything, and shining in plain view as someone put it before.

There is a freedom when its seen. Or a recognition that what you truly are always stood prior to/and inclusive of all and always has been and always will be free... or always just "is".

 

[n9newunsixx5150]

You're being a bit presumptuous, don't you think? How do you know who I take myself to be?

 

[LyfeCentenz]

You're being a bit presumptuous, don't you think? How do you know who I take myself to be?

Is that a rhetorical question? Do you take yourself to be someone or something? Thats the corner stone of this whole "spiritual" teaching we're discussing.

Who do you take yourself to be? Who are you? Thats the famous inquiry. In my projection of you, you seem to be quite spiritually knowledgeable individual. Knowledge is a wonderful tool but its a double edged sword... it can really be an impediment to the goal that these teachings are supposed to deliver. The question "Who Am I?" is an extremely powerful method and avenue in these discourses offered by hindu or buddhist teachings.

You're free to take yourself to be anything you like... but if you really truly believe that you are who you take yourself to be you're dreaming (and i mean that in the kindest way possible). And I'm dreaming by addressing this. Relatively and for practical purposes you and me are here having this conversation but at the absolute level and at the most subtle level we are the same and there is no relative or absolute. And there is no you and there is no me. Theres only this and it is seamless. But of course none of that is true when its put into words.

So no... i'm not trying to be presumptuous, or sit on here and talk like i'm expounding some profound spiritual knowledge. I don't want you to believe me. I'm not trying to convince you of anything.

Who you take yourself to be, can only be known through thoughts. You are not those thoughts. How can those thoughts claim ownership? You watch them pass like clouds in the sky. And theres nothing to hold onto. They arise and fall within you.

 

[SeriouslyThug]

^props to you on your interest in advaita vedanta