The Concept of God

[Nawaz]

Dear Reader

As a human bieng this has come into our mind that who has created us
and providing us the sources of survival and nourishment. Is the name
of our creator is God? if God then what is a concept of God. I hope
you will find it worth reading.


The Concept of God and Its Relevance to Human Beings :-
------------------------------------------------------

In Part 1 of this article, we will examine how different people hold
different subjective concepts of God, which, in turn, lead to conflict
and contradiction not only in our lives as individuals but as peoples
and nations as well. In Part 2, we will strive to show how the
objective concept of "One" God can remove the conflict from our minds
and hearts, can transform our characters to become harmonious with the
most beautiful colors (2:138) represented by the most beautiful
attributes of Allah Almighty(7:180). These attributes, based on the
Quranic concept of God, serve as a complete and perfect model for
attaining peace and harmony within our selves and with our outside
world.

In examining the prevailing concepts of God with a series of
questions, the intent is enquiry rather than criticism. God commands
us to examine and analyze, even the Quran, with knowledge (12:108,
34:46, 16:44). God also commands us to respect other faiths (6:108),
other prophets (3:84, 4:164, 16:36), and other places of worship
(22:40).

Questions about the nature of God, the creation of the Universe, the
creation of mankind, the purpose of creation and the relationship of
humans to God and the universe have fired human curiosity and
imagination from times immemorial.


Nature of God :
--------------

Is God immanent? Or is He transcendent? Or is He both? How can God's
presence be felt?

Did God create human beings in His image? What is meant by the image
of God? Does God have an image or is it just in our imaginations?

Does God sit on a throne above the heavens? Abu Dawud and Thirmidhi in
Hadith No. 5480 Mishkat give physical details of the throne of Allah.
According to them, Allah's throne rests on the back of mountain goats
that are standing in an ocean above the seventh heaven!


Further reading! http://www.tolueislam.com/Bazm/Mansoor/MA_concept_of_God.htm

source: http://www.parvez-video.com/insight/islam/index.asp


Thanks and regards
Nawaz

[pund kamath]

Post by Nawaz
Dear Reader
As a human bieng this has come into our mind that who has created us
and providing us the sources of survival and nourishment. Is the name
of our creator is God? if God then what is a concept of God. I hope
you will find it worth reading.....

My friend, tell me who created God ?

[yassir]

Post by pund kamath
My friend, tell me who created God ?

If God is created then He no longer become the Creator.
He becomes a creation.

Wa Salaam.
Yassir.

[Chaos Entity]

Post by yassir

Post by pund kamath
My friend, tell me who created God ?

If God is created then He no longer become the Creator.
He becomes a creation.
Wa Salaam.
Yassir.

If God does not need a creator, why must we?

If it is a creator, and not a creation, then it's existence must be
eternal.

If it is possible that God has always existed, then it is possible
that the entire universe has always existed.

If the entire universe has always existed, and therefore was not
created, then it is not really a creation.

If there is no creation, then there is no creator.

[David Sitara]

Post by yassir

Post by pund kamath
My friend, tell me who created God ?

If God is created then He no longer become the Creator.
He becomes a creation.
Wa Salaam.
Yassir.

What was it doing before he created anything? Assuming it has a dick and
also a cunt, was it fucking itself before he created anything?

Thanks bud and piss to you.

Dave

[yassir]

Post by David Sitara
What was it doing before he created anything?

He was like you ,watching porno.



Assuming it has a dick and

Post by David Sitara
also a cunt, was it fucking itself before he created anything?

the answer is in your porno fillty fucking mind.

Post by David Sitara
Thanks bud and piss to you.

Yes ,piss is all you'r full of,you can't offer
what you dont have.




Yassir.

[M. Ranjit Mathews]

Post by yassir

Post by pund kamath
My friend, tell me who created God ?

If God is created then He no longer become the Creator.

Why is that? Why can a creator not have been created?

Post by yassir
He becomes a creation.

Yes, but that can be in addition to being a creator.

Post by yassir
Wa Salaam.
Yassir.

[pund kamath]

Post by M. Ranjit Mathews

Post by yassir

Post by pund kamath
My friend, tell me who created God ?

If God is created then He no longer become the Creator.

Why is that? Why can a creator not have been created?

Post by yassir
He becomes a creation.

Yes, but that can be in addition to being a creator.

Post by yassir
Wa Salaam.
Yassir.

I am getting off the floor. This business of God is just confusing. I
do not need him(her!).

[yassir]

Post by M. Ranjit Mathews
Why is that? Why can a creator not have been created?

Can a triangle be a square ?

Post by M. Ranjit Mathews
Yes, but that can be in addition to being a creator.

A square can be a triangle at the same time!

[M. Ranjit Mathews]

Post by yassir

Post by M. Ranjit Mathews
Why is that? Why can a creator not have been created?

Can a triangle be a square ?

Irrelevant. Assume the existence of a creator, Creator1. If Creator1
creates another creator, Creator2, then Creator2 would be both created
and a creator.

[jhone josef]

Post by M. Ranjit Mathews

Post by yassir

Post by M. Ranjit Mathews
Why is that? Why can a creator not have been created?

Can a triangle be a square ?

Irrelevant. Assume the existence of a creator, Creator1. If Creator1
creates another creator, Creator2, then Creator2 would be both created
and a creator.

Through Patience and Understanding
A Canadian Student Discovers Islam

come from a small town in Ontario. I was raised as a Christian and
attended a Pentecostal church. I stopped attending church because I
did not feel I fitted in with that setting, although I did keep
practicing Christianity.

I had no contact with Muslims, and had no idea what Islam was. My
conception of Islam was only what I heard at school, namely
stereotypes and misconceptions about the faith. This ignorance was
aggravated by a movie that I watched in the tenth grade called "Not
Without My Daughter." My teacher did not help to dispel the ideas that
were brought into our heads because of this movie, and so in my final
year in high school, I had the same teacher for a social studies
class, and once again we watched the movie.

The teacher gave us a huge essay, in which we could choose any topic
that commented on the family institution. I began looking into the
effects of religion on the family. I chose the topic because I had
gathered a small amount of information about Islam on the Internet
while chatting, and I thought it would be a perfect chance to learn
more about the religion while doing an essay on it. Allah Almighty
showed me the beauty of Islam during the four-month course of my
research. After a lot of reading, I reverted to Islam in January of
2002, alhamdulillah (all praise be to Allah)!

While doing my research for the essay, I was so intrigued by Islam
that every moment of free time I spent in non-stop reading about
Islam. When I finally wrote my essay, I strayed very far from my
thesis since I not only talked about family life but also about Islam
in general. I was so excited about all the new information that I had
learned. My essay may have helped the teacher to see what Islam really
means in sha' Allah (God willing), because in my essay I discussed in
detail how the media has misinterpreted Islam. When my teacher taught
the same class next semester, she did not show the movie.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It's hard to understand things that are so foreign to you, things that
you do not know a lot about.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The foremost idea that caught my attention was the Islamic concept of
one God, without son or anything other partner along those lines.
Additionally, I was amazed that the Qur'an is still in its original
Arabic language and has not been altered through time. The religion
opened my eyes up to many new ideas and a new way of living that made
so much more sense to me. All the aspects of praying and being modest
just really led me to believe this was what I should be doing.

All my life I felt different from my friends: I never had any real
religious friends who were like me, but even though I practiced
Christianity I did not really understand what it meant. I could never
grasp the idea of more than one God, I did not understand why I had to
pray to Jesus (peace be upon him). Thus, when I learned about Islam,
all my questions were answered. There was no way that I could turn my
back on it when the answer was right in front of me.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The religion opened my eyes up to many new ideas and a new way of
living that made so much more sense to me.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I knew there was so much more to learn, but from the little
information that I had, I said the Shahadah (declaration of faith) and
tried to learn how to pray out of a book, which was an interesting
experience, for it was not until I came to university that I really
learned how to pray properly. I made my first Muslim friends in
September when I enrolled at Guelph University. They were such a
wonderful help, may Allah reward them. Now, I cannot imagine my life
any other way.

People always ask what does your family think. In truth, they are not
pleased with my conversion because they feel that I am rejecting my
culture and them. My friends were very surprised, and also not happy.
I felt like an outsider for a long time, but I could understand where
they are coming from because its hard to understand things that are so
foreign to you, things that you do not know a lot about. As time
progresses, I am trying to show them that my choice was the best for
me, Allah willing. I also try to give them information so they can
understand Islam.

I want to say to the other brothers and sisters who are reverting or
thinking about coming into Islam that it may seem so scary at first;
in fact it can be scary I cannot say that it is an easy thing. But it
is worth it. I've never been so happy in my life. Islam is the most
precious and beautiful religion, and alhumdulillah we are so lucky to
have been shown the light. When you see it and grasp its value, you
should make the struggle, because in the end you will benefit more
than you can ever imagine.

You may feel alone and an outcast, but you are not alone because Allah
is always there for you. When you feel like you cannot do it any more,
pray and supplicate to Allah and read the Qur'an: it will uplift your
spirits. You will then realize why you are doing what you are doing.
You can also pass the knowledge onto your family and friends. Through
your actions, they will see that Islam is not so scary after all. It
simply takes a little time and a little patience.

[yassir]

Post by M. Ranjit Mathews
Irrelevant. Assume the existence of a creator, Creator1. If Creator1
creates another creator, Creator2, then Creator2 would be both created
and a creator.

Then Creator1 and creator2 are equal and the same.
is this what you'r saying?

A man create a car ,can a car create a man?

Thanks for your reply.
Yassir.

[M. Ranjit Mathews]

Post by M. Ranjit Mathews
Irrelevant. Assume the existence of a creator, Creator1. If Creator1
creates another creator, Creator2, then Creator2 would be both created
and a creator.

Then Creator1 and Creator2 are equal and the same.

They wouldn't be the same any more than you and your mother are the
same. They wouldn't necessarily be equal in capability either. For
example, if Creator1 is able to (and does) create Creator2 in such a
way that Creator1 can destroy Creator2 any time he wants and Creator2
cannot destroy Creator1, then they would not be equal in capability.

is this what you'r saying?

I haven't said they were equal.

A man create a car, can a car create a man?

Only if man can (and does) create a car that can create a man. In the
sense that manufacturing a car is creating a car, man (Creator1)
creates robots (Creators2) that can create cars (creations).

Thanks for your reply.
Yassir.

[yassir]

Post by M. Ranjit Mathews
I haven't said they were equal.

Are you saying that creator1 is superior to creator2?

Post by M. Ranjit Mathews
man (Creator1)
creates robots (Creators2) that can create cars (creations).

can creatore2 knows that it is created by creator1?

Thanks for your reply.
Yassir.

[Madhu Sudhan]

Post by yassir

Post by M. Ranjit Mathews
I haven't said they were equal.

Are you saying that creator1 is superior to creator2?

Post by M. Ranjit Mathews
man (Creator1)
creates robots (Creators2) that can create cars (creations).

can creatore2 knows that it is created by creator1?
Thanks for your reply.
Yassir.

Creation is not and cannot be bringing into being anything that was
never existent before. "Creation" cannot arise out of nothingness.
"Creation" can only be transformation. Man cannot create anything out
of nothing. Creating anything out of nothingness is irrational and
against our experience.

Hence the concept that God "creates" can only mean God "created" out
of Himself/Herself and was preexistent and was transformed.

A car cannot be created from nothingness by any man. Materials are
necessary(preexistent). Man did not create materials. Creation is just
an idea which transforms.

Creation from nothingness is a myth.

Transformation is the only possibility.

[Uncle_Sinbad]

Post by Madhu Sudhan
Creation is not and cannot be bringing into being anything that was
never existent before. "Creation" cannot arise out of nothingness.
"Creation" can only be transformation. Man cannot create anything out
of nothing. Creating anything out of nothingness is irrational and
against our experience.

Comment:
I agree. If creation means creation outof nothing, then a creature can
not do that.

Post by Madhu Sudhan
Hence the concept that God "creates" can only mean God "created" out
of Himself/Herself and was preexistent and was transformed.

Comment: However Creator if defined as the cause of causes or first
cause or the Absolute that is by definition not material (since all
mattter is dependent and relative). It means the Creator does not
"play" the game as the material relative world and thus there is no
reason to believe "He" cannot create (from nothing).

Infact there are two options:
1) the universe is eternal and absolute and there is no other Absolute
2) the universe is temporary and relative and the Absolute transcends
it (thus God and the relative universe exist).

From observation we can perceive":
1. That the universe including ourselves are relative, everything
depends on something else. BUt maybe everything depends on everything?
If everything in the universe is relative, then relativity itself must
be relative to something that is called the Absolute. So there is no
escape there.
2. The big bang shows the universe came into existence from
"nothingness", but still this is a conclusion based on logic and
perception.
3. That is why we say: In the end all we have is perceptions and we
can not reach the Absolute reality by perceptions of our relative
organs formed in our relative brains.
What we see is a copy formed in our brains and to find the Souce of
creation we must transcend this path. To believe in Absolute reality
is to believe in a transcendent notion, that is what people should
call God.

But this is a matter of insight. FOr the one who wants to follow his
prejidices, he/her will always find away to fool her/himself

La illaha illalah wa7dahu la sharika la :
No god but God (Allah), He is One there is nothing/noone else that
"shares" with Him

god refers to the created relative world.
God (Allah) refers to the true God the Creator.

He is The Only One, We can accept that with confidence.

Post by Madhu Sudhan
A car cannot be created from nothingness by any man. Materials are
necessary(preexistent). Man did not create materials. Creation is just
an idea which transforms.

Comment:
That matter is necessary is another assumption. What we know for sure
is that they are perceptions and nothing more. Perceptions are by
definition relative or copies of the Real or Absolute.


Wasalaam

Kamal

[pund kamath]

***@hotmail.com (Uncle_Sinbad) wrote in message
...text snipped..

Post by Madhu Sudhan
A car cannot be created from nothingness by any man. Materials are
necessary(preexistent). Man did not create materials. Creation is just
an idea which transforms.

...
Um! Is God Muslim or could He(She, It) be something else?

[Madhu Sudhan]

Post by pund kamath
...text snipped..

Post by Madhu Sudhan
A car cannot be created from nothingness by any man. Materials are
necessary(preexistent). Man did not create materials. Creation is just
an idea which transforms.

...
Um! Is God Muslim or could He(She, It) be something else?

God is God. Names, categories are for our convenience. We should use
categories but should never be imprisoned by them. They are tools. We
should focus on what they mean. The essence is the focus and not the
name. If you focus on the essence, then the name liberates. That is
vedanta.

[Madhu Sudhan]

Post by Uncle_Sinbad
I agree. If creation means creation outof nothing, then a creature can
not do that.

If creation means creation out of nothing, then there is no creator.
There is no creation. Not just for a creature but there is no
creation.

Post by Uncle_Sinbad
Comment: However Creator if defined as the cause of causes or first
cause or the Absolute that is by definition not material (since all
mattter is dependent and relative).

If the postulate that creation cannot be from nothingness, there is no
first cause or absolute. There is no cause or effect. Hence
Cause-effect phenomenon is not ultimately real and are only
experiential from a human point of view. Talk of matter is also only
from an experiential point. Everything has to be from God, including
what we experience as matter etc even if it is seen a as dependent.
Everything is Divine. Period. There is no first cause etc. Everything
is God and is a manifestation of God. There is no other possibility.
Humans experience what is seen as relative but the "relative" is the
Absolute.




It means the Creator does not

Post by Uncle_Sinbad
"play" the game as the material relative world and thus there is no
reason to believe "He" cannot create (from nothing).

God can do what He wants. He is Omnipotent. To say He cannot is to
limit Him.
He can create out of Himself, like a spider spinning a web. The
material is Himself. The power to "create" is Himself and the
Intelligence is Himself. He can "play" in the material world but can
transcend that Himself. He can do that if that is His Will. To say He
cannot is to say He is not powerful or intelligent etc.

Post by Uncle_Sinbad
1) the universe is eternal and absolute and there is no other Absolute
2) the universe is temporary and relative and the Absolute transcends
it (thus God and the relative universe exist).

In fact there is only one possibility. The relative experiential
universe is the Absolute, conditioned by space-time. The relative is
an aspect of the Absolute under His power and Will. It is His tool.
The relative is just as Divine.

Post by Uncle_Sinbad
1. That the universe including ourselves are relative, everything
depends on something else.

Not really. Everything is indestructible. If anything is destroyed,
something *always* remains. Nothing can be completely destroyed.
Everything only transformed.



BUt maybe everything depends on everything?

Post by Uncle_Sinbad
If everything in the universe is relative, then relativity itself must
be relative to something that is called the Absolute. So there is no
escape there.

This is the famous circular argument. Old one. In fact, there is no
reason to say everything depends on any one thing. Many events and
entities are multicausal. We cant say child depends only on mother.
The child depends on so many factors, including father, mother, oxygen
etc! The old worn out logic presimued unicausality for things, not
interdependence. The falsehood of unicausality led to First Cause
argument.

Post by Uncle_Sinbad
No god but God (Allah), He is One there is nothing/noone else that
"shares" with Him

Wrong concept actually. To say nothing else shares with Him implies
something other than Him exists. That is a mistake. Nothing else
exists.

Post by Uncle_Sinbad
God (Allah) refers to the true God the Creator.

There is no creator really as expalined above. It is just a perception
and semantic convenience.

Post by Uncle_Sinbad
He is The Only One, We can accept that with confidence.

Again inaccurate. Only He exists is correct. Not the Only One!

Post by Uncle_Sinbad
That matter is necessary is another assumption. What we know for sure
is that they are perceptions and nothing more. Perceptions are by
definition relative or copies of the Real or Absolute.

Nearly correct. Hence relative is nothing but absolute and there is no
creation or creator.

[Uncle_Sinbad]

Post by Madhu Sudhan

Post by Uncle_Sinbad
Comment: However Creator if defined as the cause of causes or first
cause or the Absolute that is by definition not material (since all
mattter is dependent and relative).

If the postulate that creation cannot be from nothingness, there is no
first cause or absolute. There is no cause or effect. Hence
Cause-effect phenomenon is not ultimately real and are only
experiential from a human point of view. Talk of matter is also only
from an experiential point. Everything has to be from God, including
what we experience as matter etc even if it is seen a as dependent.
Everything is Divine. Period. There is no first cause etc. Everything
is God and is a manifestation of God. There is no other possibility.
Humans experience what is seen as relative but the "relative" is the
Absolute.

The relative maybe absolute in an esoteric way but that is only when
you transcnd the outward of things. exoterically, if you say the
Absolute is relative then those words have no meaning. It is like
saying "everything" is "nothing" or saying the All-powerfull is weak,
the Eternal is temporary , The All-knowing is forgetfull etc. In the
end the implication is God is man.
Those are contradictions in terms.

Post by Madhu Sudhan
God can do what He wants. He is Omnipotent. To say He cannot is to
limit Him.
He can create out of Himself, like a spider spinning a web. The
material is Himself. The power to "create" is Himself and the
Intelligence is Himself. He can "play" in the material world but can
transcend that Himself. He can do that if that is His Will. To say He
cannot is to say He is not powerful or intelligent etc.

If God can do anything, then can He make Himself dissapear? or Can HE
create a mountain that is too heavy for Him to lift it?
Those questions are impossible to answer because they are logically
inconsistent. God can not do that because the questions are ill.

Post by Madhu Sudhan

Post by Uncle_Sinbad
1) the universe is eternal and absolute and there is no other Absolute
2) the universe is temporary and relative and the Absolute transcends
it (thus God and the relative universe exist).

In fact there is only one possibility. The relative experiential
universe is the Absolute, conditioned by space-time. The relative is
an aspect of the Absolute under His power and Will. It is His tool.
The relative is just as Divine.

If you say that the relative world are manifestations of the Devine I
would agree with you. YOu can see the Absolute as the Light and
relative as a shadow. The shadow is just the absence of light but not
an independant existence. The Light however exists before and after
the shadow.
BUt to say the relative is the devine is just as non-sensical as to
claim the Absolute is relative or or Light= shadow or 1=0.

Post by Madhu Sudhan

Post by Uncle_Sinbad
1. That the universe including ourselves are relative, everything
depends on something else.

Not really. Everything is indestructible. If anything is destroyed,
something *always* remains. Nothing can be completely destroyed.
Everything only transformed.

As long as the Light wants shadows will exist. However there is no
reason to believe the shadow is eternal and all of creation will
vanish if the Light or Absolute wants, juts like a shadow can vanish
in a second.
As space is getting bigger there was a time just after the big bang
that teher was only very view matter. Before that time only energy
existed. But what was before time? Maybe this is an ill question but
if time and space are related and space had a beginning, what reason
is there that time always existed?
As sceince progresses we now have information theory that says beyond
matter and energy there is only INFORMATION. That is what people call
the Wisdom of God, The All-knowing. WHo created the universe from
relative nothing in material sense but by "everything" in His wisdom,
since everything was and is in His mind.

Post by Madhu Sudhan
This is the famous circular argument. Old one. In fact, there is no
reason to say everything depends on any one thing. Many events and
entities are multicausal. We cant say child depends only on mother.
The child depends on so many factors, including father, mother, oxygen
etc! The old worn out logic presimued unicausality for things, not
interdependence. The falsehood of unicausality led to First Cause
argument.

I tried to take one step before this by showing that whole circle
needs to have a cause and even if not then it's still an experience or
copy of reality that "asks" for an explanation. The shadow
(experience) is there..where is the Light (absolute Source of
experience)?

Post by Madhu Sudhan

Post by Uncle_Sinbad
No god but God (Allah), He is One there is nothing/noone else that
"shares" with Him

Wrong concept actually. To say nothing else shares with Him implies
something other than Him exists. That is a mistake. Nothing else
exists.

Well you are saying the same thing, read what you wrote. You say
nothing else..<--else implies another. Trying to settle the thing in
semantics or words is not working. The idea is there that Absolute is
one by definition and the relative is no other existence next to the
relative. The shahada is very clear on this. There is no other (or
else as you might wanna say) but Allah.
NOtice that shahada first denies and than accepts. -> no god but God.
Firts it denies the false concepts that accept a dualty in reality and
then ot confirms the absoluteness of reality. Reality or alHaq is one
of the names of Allah in arabic.

Post by Madhu Sudhan

Post by Uncle_Sinbad
God (Allah) refers to the true God the Creator.

There is no creator really as expalined above. It is just a perception
and semantic convenience.

Post by Uncle_Sinbad
He is The Only One, We can accept that with confidence.

Again inaccurate. Only He exists is correct. Not the Only One!

I can use the same argument against you. To say "only" implies
"another", just like "one" would imply a "second". This kind of
wordgames won't help us. As, I understand we are saying the same
thing. The Absolute is "One" by definition or "Only" as you want to
call it. The meaning is the same for me.
In islam we call this concept "Tawheed" or absolute "Unity".

Post by Madhu Sudhan

Post by Uncle_Sinbad
That matter is necessary is another assumption. What we know for sure
is that they are perceptions and nothing more. Perceptions are by
definition relative or copies of the Real or Absolute.

Nearly correct. Hence relative is nothing but absolute and there is no
creation or creator.

Again correction for you. What we perceive is a copy of reality. Even
a "perfect" copy is still a copy and not the Source. The relative
Relative is a shadow or manifestation of the Absolute. However our
spirit can transcend this relative world and find the Absolute or God.
Do not confuse the shadow with the Light. People before you have taken
men, nature and idols as gods, though confusing the relative with the
Absolute and commiting what muslims call "shirk". That is to
"Associate" with the Absolute what is not. That is why accroding to
judaic,islamic and even hindu scriptures it is forbidden to make idols
of God.
To give another eg. a physical boddy is not the soul of a person. To
mistake a person for "just" a boddy is very degrading. Same would be
or saying the soul is the boddy. For we know that Ugly (boddely)
people can have a beautiful soul.

Warm regards,

Kamal

[Madhu Sudhan]

Post by Uncle_Sinbad
If God can do anything, then can He make Himself dissapear? or Can HE
create a mountain that is too heavy for Him to lift it?
Those questions are impossible to answer because they are logically
inconsistent. God can not do that because the questions are ill.

I am afraid, you miss the point completely again. Let me say this
again.
All appearances and disappearances are in the experiential world. God
can make Himself disappear, certainly yes.

Can He create the said mountain? Yes, He can. He is the lifter and the
mountain at the same time.

The simple point again is: God is the Only entity. There in nothing
else. There is no you, I or any entity other than God. Period.

All talk of relative, absolute etc is just words to say the same thing
for human comprehension.

Again, there is nothing other than God, no tree, no universe, no you,
me or anything.

Hope you got it.

I hope I dont have to go over the same thing again.

There is ONLY God. There is nothing else

[Uncle_Sinbad]

Post by Madhu Sudhan
I am afraid, you miss the point completely again. Let me say this
again.
All appearances and disappearances are in the experiential world. God
can make Himself disappear, certainly yes.

Maybe I stated it wrong. Can God make Himself to not exist. SO not
only His experience dissapears but even His essence? If yes, then God
can make Himself a non-God wich means He will not exist anymore. If
no, then God can not do everything.
The best answer is to say there is no good answer for an ill-question.
It's like asking can God make a square-circle, beying fully square and
fully circle at the same time. Obviously this can not be, because a
fully circle doesnt have corners amd flat sides and if it does then it
can't be called fully a circle anymore.

Post by Madhu Sudhan
Can He create the said mountain? Yes, He can. He is the lifter and the
mountain at the same time.

Then you are saying God can not lift a part of Himself.

Post by Madhu Sudhan
The simple point again is: God is the Only entity. There in nothing
else. There is no you, I or any entity other than God. Period.

So you are saying I am God, you are God, we are all God? I'm not
omnipotent, so I cant be fully God.
Are are you saying I'm partly God? Butto be partly omnipotent is not
to be fully God and God is complete and perfect by definition. A
partly God is a non-God. God can not be devided because to devide is
to reduce His power and unity.
It is to make the Absolute relative.

Post by Madhu Sudhan
All talk of relative, absolute etc is just words to say the same thing
for human comprehension.

Well you are using words too to explain it. But you are using the term
God, absolute and relative inconsistent.

Post by Madhu Sudhan
Again, there is nothing other than God, no tree, no universe, no you,
me or anything.

Then how can you explain something to me if we both don't exist?
As I said b4 you are confusing the shadow with the Light.

Regards

[harmony]

shouldn't all you be talking about maya at this point?

hey samartha, agamya, poorana
moha maya dhaar
hey govinda hey gopaal hey dayalu laal

Post by Uncle_Sinbad

Post by Madhu Sudhan
I am afraid, you miss the point completely again. Let me say this
again.
All appearances and disappearances are in the experiential world. God
can make Himself disappear, certainly yes.

Maybe I stated it wrong. Can God make Himself to not exist. SO not
only His experience dissapears but even His essence? If yes, then God
can make Himself a non-God wich means He will not exist anymore. If
no, then God can not do everything.
The best answer is to say there is no good answer for an ill-question.
It's like asking can God make a square-circle, beying fully square and
fully circle at the same time. Obviously this can not be, because a
fully circle doesnt have corners amd flat sides and if it does then it
can't be called fully a circle anymore.

Post by Madhu Sudhan
Can He create the said mountain? Yes, He can. He is the lifter and the
mountain at the same time.

Then you are saying God can not lift a part of Himself.

Post by Madhu Sudhan
The simple point again is: God is the Only entity. There in nothing
else. There is no you, I or any entity other than God. Period.

So you are saying I am God, you are God, we are all God? I'm not
omnipotent, so I cant be fully God.
Are are you saying I'm partly God? Butto be partly omnipotent is not
to be fully God and God is complete and perfect by definition. A
partly God is a non-God. God can not be devided because to devide is
to reduce His power and unity.
It is to make the Absolute relative.

Post by Madhu Sudhan
All talk of relative, absolute etc is just words to say the same thing
for human comprehension.

Well you are using words too to explain it. But you are using the term
God, absolute and relative inconsistent.

Post by Madhu Sudhan
Again, there is nothing other than God, no tree, no universe, no you,
me or anything.

Then how can you explain something to me if we both don't exist?
As I said b4 you are confusing the shadow with the Light.
Regards

[Madhu Sudhan]

Post by harmony
shouldn't all you be talking about maya at this point?
hey samartha, agamya, poorana
moha maya dhaar
hey govinda hey gopaal hey dayalu laal

Better to avoid terms like Maya. They are often poorly understood.

[Madhu Sudhan]

Post by Uncle_Sinbad
Maybe I stated it wrong. Can God make Himself to not exist. SO not
only His experience dissapears but even His essence? If yes, then God
can make Himself a non-God wich means He will not exist anymore. If
no, then God can not do everything.

Who will judge His disappearance, including the essence?

All categories such as numbers ( one etc), triangle, square are all
human categories born out of human experience. These should not be
taken as the *real*. The color blind person's world is not less real
than the others. Nor a dog's or buterflies' world is less real than
human's. Humans think their world and their concepts and categories
are indicative, closer to *truth*. Perceptions and concepts are for
communication and convenience. They are not reflective of the
*reality*.

He could be said the have a transcendental realm and an Immanent
realm. The immanent realm is what we experience as the universe bound
in space-time-cause effect phenimenon.

God, as we can put it in human language and our limited understanding,
is the basis of all experiential world. He is *the experiential world
as well* as the author. Hence the concepts such as disappearance and
appearance, numbers do not apply in His transcendental realm. But they
apply in His Immanent realm. He can be immanent and transcendent.
Both.

To say He is only transcendent and not Immanent or vice versa is
obviously wrong.

Hence He can appear and disappear from the immanent realm. The
question does not even apply in His transcendent realm as there is no
*observer* in the transcendent realm.

Post by Uncle_Sinbad

Post by Madhu Sudhan
Can He create the said mountain? Yes, He can. He is the lifter and the
mountain at the same time.

Then you are saying God can not lift a part of Himself.

God can appear in the immanent realm in Flesh and enact many roles.
That can be to be *human* and be one with human society to enable them
to interact with Him.

Post by Uncle_Sinbad

Post by Madhu Sudhan
So you are saying I am God, you are God, we are all God? I'm not

omnipotent, so I cant be fully God.
Are are you saying I'm partly God? Butto be partly omnipotent is not
to be fully God and God is complete and perfect by definition. A
partly God is a non-God. God can not be devided because to devide is
to reduce His power and unity.
It is to make the Absolute relative.

The simple point is there is no You or Me etc to relate with God. He
alone IS.

There is no such thing really as you are God or I am God. The simple
answer is God alone IS! Just like the person is and functions thru the
body,mind, eyes,fingers etc!

[Uncle_Sinbad]

Dear Madhu Sudhan,

Please explain for us what you mean by Transcendent, Immanent and
experience and reality.

Does reality conform to the Transcendent and experience to the
Immanent? If yes then you accept my analogy of the shadow and the
Light.

Do you find it for eg ok if people start worshipping idols or men or
their ego or do you think they should worship the "Transcendent Unity"
that transcends these experiences?

There are different manners to interprete God;s manifestation with the
world of perceptions. To believe that the world of experiences is a
creation of The Transcendent is certainly an option for people.
Creation meaning from non-experience to experience, in that form it is
from "nothing" to "something" or from the "Transcendent to the
Immanent" or from "God to man". Ofcourse it is not from absolute
nothingness because all emanated from God's mind, the Transcendent's
mind.

To differentiate between the Transcendent and the Immanent seems very
useful to me because it puts your attention on the ESSENCE of Reality.
That is why I don't see a problem with the terms Creator and creation.
One refering to the Source (Essence) and the other to manifestations
of the natures of the Essence (Immanent).
It seems to me you differentiate too, because otherwise you wouldnt
use those two terms to explain two different facets.

How do you see this?

Regards

Kamal

Regards

[Madhu Sudhan]

Post by Uncle_Sinbad
Dear Madhu Sudhan,
Please explain for us what you mean by Transcendent, Immanent and
experience and reality.
Does reality conform to the Transcendent and experience to the
Immanent? If yes then you accept my analogy of the shadow and the
Light.

Important questions and thus the discussion inevitably is more
detailed. I will try my best to answer.

1)Human experiences are through the medium of body-mind(including
intelligence)-sensory complex( BMS complex). What we experience
*immediately* is the Immanent. For example, we see objects, hear
sounds etc. What is *not* available in the immediacy of human
experience is the Transcendent. The Transcendent can be *appreciated*
nevertheless, but not *experienced*, as the BMS complex can experience
only objects and not the Subject as explained below. These terms
Transcendent, Immanent are form the experiential point of view. Humans
are inundated by experiences and are preoccupied with Objects.
For example, when we see through a telescope, we see the objects the
telescope reveals. The telescope will never reveal the viewer himself,
the Subject. Thus the BMS will never reveal the subject but only
objects. BMS is a tool like the telescope.

2)Now the other aspect of all this is to analyse the Immanent world.
It is obvious and undeniable that *all* that we experience, with no
exceptions, is subject to change. Nothing remains the same in the
experiential world. Thus the universe has to perish. Change is
inevitable from the grossest universe to thoughts. No thought can
remain steady with no change. Every experience has to change and
something else arises. It is obvious though that changes have to take
place in a changeless medium. Also change *cannot* be perceived
without a changeless medium. Thus the immanent world is the Changing
Reality and its substratum the Permanent Reality( Transcendent).

3) Is the Immanent a different entity in its essence from the
transcendent? It cannot be, as the Immanent is dependent on its
substratum. I will give an example. The wave is not different from the
ocean. The wave is the expression of the ocean. It arises form the
ocean, stays in the ocean and dissolves in it.
The wave is temporary and the ocean is permanent. Another example is
gold and
the chain. Chain can be melted and another form such as a ring can be
made but remains gold. Thus here the Transcendent has to be
Omnipresent. Immanent is Limited.

4) Thus Reality is two fold- Temporary( or Immanent, Dependent) and
Permanent( Transcendent and Independent).

5) What is then the nature of human experience? Is human experience
based only on changing reality? No. There is the changing reality
experienced but it is against the backdrop of the transcendent. It is
the transcendent that provides the substratum and base, power and
manifestaion. Without the Base, nothing is possible. Without the
Screen in the Theatre no cinema is possible, another example.

6) The two fold aspects of Reality( God, if you will), are thus the
Infinite(transcendent) expressing through the medium of *space-time-
cause-effect* and presenting as the Finite(Immanent)



7) Can we worship the Transcendent? It is impossible to worship the
transcendent as it is Omnipresent. When we worship, all we have is the
BMS complex, all arisingg from the Base and all are an expression of
Reality. It is not One but Oneness. Oneness cannot worship another. It
can only revel in itself. Thus it is only possible to *Be
transcendent* but not possible to worship It/Him/Her.

8) Worship is necessary, to appreciate the nature of Reality. We are
deluded by the immediacy of experiences and are unaware of the play of
the Transcendent. We are also deeply saddenned by the transient nature
of things. To remove this sorrow, worship is an absolute necessity. WE
are deluded into thinking that the BMS complex is the ultimate reality
and cannot accept the ephemeral nature of BMS complex called death.
Thus we need to hold on to a Permanent Entity. Worship helps here even
if we think BMS is the ultimate entity by tagging it onto the concept
and consequently actions that enuntiate *faith*, beleifs, and actions
to denote the Permanent entity, even if there is no understanding of
the Whole. Here it is important to remember that worship can only be
in the Immanent sphere and the individual who has no consistent stable
identity tries to worship the Stable and Permanent entity. This is
akin to comparing our image in the mirror to us. The image and I are
not two entities but one is a reflection of the other but in a
different medium. The sun can be seen in ten mirrors but there are no
ten suns. Hence all this is only for training the mind and is not
reflective of the nature of Reality.

Post by Uncle_Sinbad
Do you find it for eg ok if people start worshipping idols or men or
their ego or do you think they should worship the "Transcendent Unity"
that transcends these experiences?

There are many ways to inform ourselves of the nature of God( the
Reality). As we are immersed in the experiential world, the obvious
way would be to use the same symbols. These may be pictures,
images,taste,smell. Even sounds are symbols. There is no worship
possible without use of symbols. Worsip is possible only when there is
the *concept of the Other*. But in actual reality, the Omnipresnt can
never be the Other. It can only be Itself.

Post by Uncle_Sinbad
To differentiate between the Transcendent and the Immanent seems very
useful to me because it puts your attention on the ESSENCE of Reality.
That is why I don't see a problem with the terms Creator and creation.
One refering to the Source (Essence) and the other to manifestations
of the natures of the Essence (Immanent).
It seems to me you differentiate too, because otherwise you wouldnt
use those two terms to explain two different facets.

When we use terms such as creation etc we have to see the limitaions.
All terms have limitaions.

God is All. There is Nothing Else ever.

Hope this explains

[Uncle_Sinbad]

I agree with most part of your article. Your idea of oneness is very
much like (muslim) Sufi's understood it.

Post by Madhu Sudhan

Post by Uncle_Sinbad
Do you find it for eg ok if people start worshipping idols or men or
their ego or do you think they should worship the "Transcendent Unity"
that transcends these experiences?

There are many ways to inform ourselves of the nature of God( the
Reality). As we are immersed in the experiential world, the obvious
way would be to use the same symbols. These may be pictures,
images,taste,smell. Even sounds are symbols. There is no worship
possible without use of symbols. Worsip is possible only when there is
the *concept of the Other*. But in actual reality, the Omnipresnt can
never be the Other. It can only be Itself.

Below, I have put some quotes from The Bible, the Quran and the
Hinduscriptures showing that they agree that God is One God and forbid
worshipping idols and images. The hinduscriptures even seem to reject
your idea of Transcendent incarnating or taking manufestations in the
created world and says you are ignorent if you believe that. Please
comment on that.


Hindu-scriptures:

Bhagavat Gita 7:22-24

Endowed with such a faith, he endevours to worship a particular
demigod and obtains his desires. But in actuality these benefits are
bestowed by Me alone.
Men of small intelligence worship the demigods, and their fruits are
limited and temporary. Those who worship the demigods go to the
planets of the demigods, but My devotees ultimately reach My supreme
planet.
"The ignorant believe that un-manifest Para Brahma (One God)
incarnates or takes manifestations, because they do not completely
understand My highest, immutable, incomparable, and transcendental
existence."
Bhagavat Gita 7:19-21: "All those who do idol worship, All those who
worship demigods are materialistic people."

Yajur Veda 32:3: "God is formless and bodiless"
Yajur Veda 40:8: "All those who worship the uncreated things, they are
in
darkness, and you'll enter more into darkness if you worship the
created things."
Yajur Veda 3:32: "...Of that God you cannot make any images."
Rig Veda, Vol.6,45:16: "There is only One God, worship Him."

The Bible
Exodus 20:4 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any
likeness [of any thing] that [is] in heaven above, or that [is] in the
earth beneath, or that [is] in the water under the earth:"

Leviticus 26:1 Ye shall make you no idols nor graven image, neither
rear you up a standing image, neither shall ye set up [any] image of
stone in your land, to bow down unto it: for I [am] the LORD your God"

Psalms 97:7 All worshipers of images are put to shame, who make their
boast in worthless idols; all gods bow down before him.

Isaiah 42:8 I am the LORD, that is my name; my glory I give to no
other, nor my praise to graven images.

"...The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; the Lord our
God is one Lord." (Mark 12:29)


The Quran
"Ye serve instead of Allah only idols, and ye only invent a lie. Lo!
those whom ye serve instead of Allah own no provision for you. So seek
your provision from Allah, and serve Him, and give thanks unto Him,
(for) unto Him ye will be brought back. {Holy Qur'an translation
29:17}

"And they set up (idols) as equal to Allah, to mislead (men) from the
Path! Say: "Enjoy (your brief power)! But verily ye are making
straightway for Hell!" {Holy Qur'an translation 14:30}

"And your God is One God: There is no God but He, ..." (The Qur'an
2:163)



Regards

Kamal

[Madhu Sudhan]

Post by Uncle_Sinbad
I agree with most part of your article. Your idea of oneness is very
much like (muslim) Sufi's understood it.

You "seem" to agree with most, you say. Truth is truth whether the
sufis say it, Hindus say it or Vietnamese say it.

You seem to accept God is immanent and transcendent, omnipresent.

However you seem to have trouble accepting that He should be
recognised and worshipped in His immanent manifestation! How can we
not accept to recognise His presence, the basis of all that moves,
does not move, all that shines and does not. Everything functions only
because of Him. He is everywhere. How can we not worship Him.

You also seem to quote the Gita, for evidence.

You may know the Gita is the dialogue between Arjuna the warrior and
the Supreme Lord, Lord Krishna. The Omnipresent Lord, the Being who is
transcendent and Immanent is in front of Arjuna in conversation. There
has never been a dialogue in history any where such as this even in
fiction, ever.
Arjuna asks Lord Krishna to prove He is God and Lord Krishna does
that- chapter 11. Lord Krishna is in front , presenting as a man, the
Lord of All in human form, proves to Arjuna He is the Omnipotent God.

The verse you quote 7-24 is exactly about this. The Lord says ignorant
people think He is an ordinary human being not knowing He is the
omnipotent Being in human form.

Lord Krishna also promises to repetedly come to Earth whenever He
deems it necessary- chapter 18

Now you quote the 7-24 to imply there is no incarnation. Clearly you
are unaware of the context and meaning of Gita.

I am not going to get into vedas.

[pund kamath]

Post by Madhu Sudhan
I am not going to get into vedas.

What is the point of discussing about God whereas He (She, it!) does
little or nothing in my everyday life?

[Kshatriya]

Post by pund kamath

Post by Madhu Sudhan
I am not going to get into vedas.

What is the point of discussing about God whereas He (She, it!) does
little or nothing in my everyday life?

Yes , what is the point of you even making this worthless post ?

If you feel God does little or nothing , and are happy then so be it.
There is no requirement for a Hindu to goto a Temple every Sunday or
fart in the direction of Mecca 5 times a day.

If you don't even believe in God then so be it , the Vedas recognize
Agnostics .

[pund kamath]

***@yahoo.com (Kshatriya) wrote in message news:<***@posting.google.com>...

...

Post by Kshatriya
If you don't even believe in God then so be it , the Vedas recognize
Agnostics .

Is this from new revised version of Vedas-paper back edition I suppose!

[Kshatriya]

Post by pund kamath
...

Post by Kshatriya
If you don't even believe in God then so be it , the Vedas recognize
Agnostics .

Is this from new revised version of Vedas-paper back edition I suppose!

There are numerous shlokas in the Vedas which recognize Athiests or
people who do not believe in the Vedas , and unlike other scriptures
it does NOT declare such people Infidels.

Some intesting links -

http://www.ece.mtu.edu/faculty/jeffc/students/sskaramp/second/atheism.html
http://atheism.about.com/b/a/088866.htm
http://hinduwebsite.com/history/athiesm.htm
http://www.positiveatheism.org/india/s1990a22.htm

[Madhu Sudhan]

Post by pund kamath

Post by Madhu Sudhan
I am not going to get into vedas.

What is the point of discussing about God whereas He (She, it!) does
little or nothing in my everyday life?

Please read what I posted already here. That explains it.

In simple words, even the energy you use to type, the words, the
concepts, your consciousness, your lack of awareness of God,your
existence, in short everything with no exception is God.

Hope that explains

[Kshatriya]

You seem to have a problem understanding the MOST basic difference
between Hindu and Semetic thought.

The Hindu line is All Gods are ONE.

The Semetic line is There is only ONE god , if i'm Xtian its JC , if
i'm muslim its Allah and if i'm jewish its Torah or whatever.

There is very big difference in thought here. You say the Vedas says
there is only one god , but that is not the truth . Vedas say all gods
are one and anyone can choose his own path to reach god. Also Veda's
do not pick and choose or insist on a "Favourite" god. They talk of
multiple gods and "Maya" , the illusion where one god takes multiple
manifestations whenever necessary.

Post by Uncle_Sinbad
Bhagavat Gita 7:19-21: "All those who do idol worship, All those who
worship demigods are materialistic people."

This statement is VERY true. The enlightened sages do not need an idol
to worship to , but 99% of Hindus and 99.99% of all non-Hindus are
materialistic and like you and me and require an idol to focus onto
god. If anyone tells you , that you become non-materialistic just
because you destroy idols or abhor them they are just lying.

Post by Uncle_Sinbad
I agree with most part of your article. Your idea of oneness is very
much like (muslim) Sufi's understood it.

Post by Madhu Sudhan

Post by Uncle_Sinbad
Do you find it for eg ok if people start worshipping idols or men or
their ego or do you think they should worship the "Transcendent Unity"
that transcends these experiences?

There are many ways to inform ourselves of the nature of God( the
Reality). As we are immersed in the experiential world, the obvious
way would be to use the same symbols. These may be pictures,
images,taste,smell. Even sounds are symbols. There is no worship
possible without use of symbols. Worsip is possible only when there is
the *concept of the Other*. But in actual reality, the Omnipresnt can
never be the Other. It can only be Itself.

Below, I have put some quotes from The Bible, the Quran and the
Hinduscriptures showing that they agree that God is One God and forbid
worshipping idols and images. The hinduscriptures even seem to reject
your idea of Transcendent incarnating or taking manufestations in the
created world and says you are ignorent if you believe that. Please
comment on that.
Bhagavat Gita 7:22-24
Endowed with such a faith, he endevours to worship a particular
demigod and obtains his desires. But in actuality these benefits are
bestowed by Me alone.
Men of small intelligence worship the demigods, and their fruits are
limited and temporary. Those who worship the demigods go to the
planets of the demigods, but My devotees ultimately reach My supreme
planet.
"The ignorant believe that un-manifest Para Brahma (One God)
incarnates or takes manifestations, because they do not completely
understand My highest, immutable, incomparable, and transcendental
existence."
Bhagavat Gita 7:19-21: "All those who do idol worship, All those who
worship demigods are materialistic people."
Yajur Veda 32:3: "God is formless and bodiless"
Yajur Veda 40:8: "All those who worship the uncreated things, they are
in
darkness, and you'll enter more into darkness if you worship the
created things."
Yajur Veda 3:32: "...Of that God you cannot make any images."
Rig Veda, Vol.6,45:16: "There is only One God, worship Him."
The Bible
Exodus 20:4 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any
likeness [of any thing] that [is] in heaven above, or that [is] in the
earth beneath, or that [is] in the water under the earth:"
Leviticus 26:1 Ye shall make you no idols nor graven image, neither
rear you up a standing image, neither shall ye set up [any] image of
stone in your land, to bow down unto it: for I [am] the LORD your God"
Psalms 97:7 All worshipers of images are put to shame, who make their
boast in worthless idols; all gods bow down before him.
Isaiah 42:8 I am the LORD, that is my name; my glory I give to no
other, nor my praise to graven images.
"...The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; the Lord our
God is one Lord." (Mark 12:29)
The Quran
"Ye serve instead of Allah only idols, and ye only invent a lie. Lo!
those whom ye serve instead of Allah own no provision for you. So seek
your provision from Allah, and serve Him, and give thanks unto Him,
(for) unto Him ye will be brought back. {Holy Qur'an translation
29:17}
"And they set up (idols) as equal to Allah, to mislead (men) from the
Path! Say: "Enjoy (your brief power)! But verily ye are making
straightway for Hell!" {Holy Qur'an translation 14:30}
"And your God is One God: There is no God but He, ..." (The Qur'an
2:163)
Regards
Kamal

[M. Ranjit Mathews]

Post by Madhu Sudhan

Post by Uncle_Sinbad
If God can do anything, then can He make Himself dissapear? or Can HE
create a mountain that is too heavy for Him to lift it?
Those questions are impossible to answer because they are logically
inconsistent. God can not do that because the questions are ill.

I am afraid, you miss the point completely again. Let me say this
again.
All appearances and disappearances are in the experiential world. God
can make Himself disappear, certainly yes.
Can He create the said mountain? Yes, He can. He is the lifter and the
mountain at the same time.
The simple point again is: God is the Only entity. There in nothing
else. There is no you, I or any entity other than God. Period.

God, you're full of shit. (Since there is no entity other than God,
the message I'm replying to was posted by God, hence the salutation
God:-)

[Madhu Sudhan]

Post by M. Ranjit Mathews
God, you're full of shit. (Since there is no entity other than God,
the message I'm replying to was posted by God, hence the salutation
God:-)

Erudite comments indeed. Probably analysed form the posterior part of
the body, not from the head. Since there is really neither you nor I
and God, the only reality, is full of shit according to you, then
there is only shitmayam according to you. Holy shit!

[M. Ranjit Mathews]

Post by Madhu Sudhan

Post by M. Ranjit Mathews
God, you're full of shit. (Since there is no entity other than God,
the message I'm replying to was posted by God, hence the salutation
God:-)

Erudite comments indeed.

It was a pun (the lowest form of humor), since "God" in the sentence
can be interpreted two ways (1) an emphatic, and (2) an accusative.
Curiously, enough, "Man" would do just as well for the first meaning
("Man, you're full of shit") but since there is no Man (i.e., since
there's only God) according to you, that might have made no sense to
you.

Post by Madhu Sudhan
Probably analysed form the posterior part of
the body,

If there's only God, as you say, there's no body. If there's a
posterior part of something, it would have to be the posterior part of
God, since there's nothing other than God, according to you.

Post by Madhu Sudhan
not from the head. Since there is really neither you nor I
and God, the only reality, is full of shit according to you, then
there is only shitmayam according to you. Holy shit!

[Madhu Sudhan]

Post by M. Ranjit Mathews

Post by Madhu Sudhan
Erudite comments indeed.

It was a pun (the lowest form of humor), since "God" in the sentence
can be interpreted two ways (1) an emphatic, and (2) an accusative.
Curiously, enough, "Man" would do just as well for the first meaning
("Man, you're full of shit") but since there is no Man (i.e., since
there's only God) according to you, that might have made no sense to
you.

I never ever said there is no man. That is your understanding

Post by M. Ranjit Mathews

Post by Madhu Sudhan
Probably analysed form the posterior part of
the body,

If there's only God, as you say, there's no body. If there's a
posterior part of something, it would have to be the posterior part of
God, since there's nothing other than God, according to you.

I never said God has no body.

See how much you understand when you think through the posterior

[brent]

Post by Uncle_Sinbad
It is like
saying "everything" is "nothing" or saying the All-powerfull is weak,
the Eternal is temporary , The All-knowing is forgetfull etc.> Those are contradictions in terms.

These thing are true, and they are also "contradictions in terms".

Post by Uncle_Sinbad
In the end the implication is God is man.
Kamal

You can say "God is man" if you don't mean it absolutely.

Brent

[brent]

Post by Madhu Sudhan
Humans experience what is seen as relative but the "relative" is the
Absolute.

The relative experiential

Post by Madhu Sudhan
universe is the Absolute, conditioned by space-time. The relative is
an aspect of the Absolute under His power and Will. It is His tool.
The relative is just as Divine.

In fact, there is no

Post by Madhu Sudhan
reason to say everything depends on any one thing. Many events and
entities are multicausal.
The falsehood of unicausality led to First Cause
argument.

These statements are very good too.

The only absolute thing we know, is that we know nothing else ablolutely.

[brent]

Post by Uncle_Sinbad
1. That the universe including ourselves are relative, everything
depends on something else. BUt maybe everything depends on everything?
If everything in the universe is relative, then relativity itself must
be relative to something that is called the Absolute. So there is no
escape there.
2. The big bang shows the universe came into existence from
"nothingness", but still this is a conclusion based on logic and
perception.
3. That is why we say: In the end all we have is perceptions and we
can not reach the Absolute reality by perceptions of our relative
organs formed in our relative brains.
What we see is a copy formed in our brains and to find the Souce of
creation we must transcend this path. To believe in Absolute reality
is to believe in a transcendent notion, that is what people should
call God.
But this is a matter of insight. FOr the one who wants to follow his
prejidices, he/her will always find away to fool her/himself > Kamal

Kamal, I find much to agree with in you message and it is very
articulate. There are people in the world that have understanding, but
of course the world cannot listen to them. The world would rather
argue "or fool her/himself"

[M. Ranjit Mathews]

Post by yassir

Post by M. Ranjit Mathews
I haven't said they were equal.

Are you saying that creator1 is superior to creator2?

It's outside the scope of what I was saying. All I was saying was that
if a creator is capable of creating another creator, and does create
another creator, then the latter creator would be both created and a
creator. So, your opinion that "a creator" cannot be "a created"
doesn't seem to make sense.

Post by yassir

Post by M. Ranjit Mathews
man (Creator1)
creates robots (Creators2) that can create cars (creations).

can creatore2 knows that it is created by creator1?
Thanks for your reply.
Yassir.

[yassir]

Post by M. Ranjit Mathews
It's outside the scope of what I was saying. All I was saying was that
if a creator is capable of creating another creator, and does create
another creator, then the latter creator would be both created and a
creator. So, your opinion that "a creator" cannot be "a created"
doesn't seem to make sense.

So to make sinse of what you'r saying,I'am asking lets assume
that a creator can create a creator,does the creator2 knows
it is created by creator1?
can Creator1 be also created by an other creator?
If creator1 created a creator2,do they have limits,
in other words,if creator1 is infinit can creator2 be
infinit too ?

Thank you for your reply.
Yassir.

[brent]

Post by M. Ranjit Mathews

Then Creator1 and Creator2 are equal and the same.

They wouldn't be the same any more than you and your mother are the
same. They wouldn't necessarily be equal in capability either. For
example, if Creator1 is able to (and does) create Creator2 in such a
way that Creator1 can destroy Creator2 any time he wants and Creator2
cannot destroy Creator1, then they would not be equal in capability.

is this what you'r saying?

I haven't said they were equal.

A man create a car, can a car create a man?

Only if man can (and does) create a car that can create a man. In the
sense that manufacturing a car is creating a car, man (Creator1)
creates robots (Creators2) that can create cars (creations).

.
One of the problems here is language. We have words that we use that
mean certain things to us in a pure and theoretical sense. We
understand the concept of equality, for example, ...two things are
equal...even though we cannot find two things that are equal. In the
same way, there are no words that mean exactly what we think they do.
This realization is intertwined with the understanding of the God
idea, even though it may seem a side issue. When you talk or write you
have to realize that you can only use words that seem to have a
definite meaning, but this is an illusion to a certain extent. Brent

[Madhu Sudhan]

Post by yassir

Post by M. Ranjit Mathews
Why is that? Why can a creator not have been created?

Can a triangle be a square ?

Post by M. Ranjit Mathews
Yes, but that can be in addition to being a creator.

A square can be a triangle at the same time!

I think if a square can be a triangle then a riangle can be a square
as well!

Coming back to this myth about One God. One is a number, a category in
human conceptualisation. The attempt to define God in human linguistic
terms and to say that is the ultimate answer is to defy His
Omniscience and Omnipotence. We can describe for our sake but
understand its limitations, limited as we are in our language and
concept.

When you say One, you obviously mean there is a Second entity,
whatever that entity is. Hence the concept that the One created the
Second is false. The only answer to this is if you contend that the
One is without a second, in which case, the One is the Only One that
exists ever and the perception of the Second is not ultimately real as
much as the One is. The Second could be a reflection of the One and
other possibilities. In that case, where the Second and subsequent
entities(Third and so forth) are all "reflections" of the One, then it
is possible to say there is more than One, if we accord equal
"reality" status to all entities. If we do not do that, the only
answer and correct description is to say Only Entity and not One
Entity.

Hence One is incorrect. ONLY is correct.

Your turn ( or any missionary can try!).

[Sesh]

I am really really not sure if the vedantic concepts are really
comprehensible to ordinary Muslims. More so Muslims from outside of
India.

Let me ask you some questions. It is said in the Bhagavad Gita that
not even a blade of grass moves without the will of the lord. Now, if
we accept it as true, then, why did the lord accept the creation of so
many religions and the existence of extremism forms in them among some
people? It too must be the will of the lord isn't it? Now while I know
that the Muslims will hijack this question and adapt it to their
temperment, it is still a good question to think about. Queston two:
Why did Ramakrishna Paramahamsa validate them. Note: He did this only
after attaining nirvikalpa samadhi. Question3: Why did Shirdi Sai Baba
have to take the form(avatara) that removes differentiation from a
Islamic form of worship as taught by Sai Baba from the Hindu worship?

Religion is based on the temperment of the individual. Which is why in
Hinduism we have so many flavours/methods. We are used to this
concept. When in this thread, the author who created it says there is
one, he is merrily saying it from his temperment and its limitation.
He may not even have an idea that the "one" he says is as good as any
other name. To say "only" will in all probability fly over his head as
otherwise they will have to accept Omniscience/omnipresence and
Omnipotence of the lord in complete totality, which, I think they have
no idea about.

Post by Madhu Sudhan
Coming back to this myth about One God. One is a number, a category in
human conceptualisation. The attempt to define God in human linguistic
terms and to say that is the ultimate answer is to defy His
Omniscience and Omnipotence. We can describe for our sake but
understand its limitations, limited as we are in our language and
concept.
When you say One, you obviously mean there is a Second entity,
whatever that entity is. Hence the concept that the One created the
Second is false. The only answer to this is if you contend that the
One is without a second, in which case, the One is the Only One that
exists ever and the perception of the Second is not ultimately real as
much as the One is. The Second could be a reflection of the One and
other possibilities. In that case, where the Second and subsequent
entities(Third and so forth) are all "reflections" of the One, then it
is possible to say there is more than One, if we accord equal
"reality" status to all entities. If we do not do that, the only
answer and correct description is to say Only Entity and not One
Entity.
Hence One is incorrect. ONLY is correct.
Your turn ( or any missionary can try!).

[Chaos Entity]

I still can't find the answer to one question:

Why is it necisary for there to be something more to our existence?

There is a tendency to assemble elaborate ideas of dieties and
behavioral code and I can't figure out why. No matter what religion,
are we so lost that we cannot contemplate or accept a universe that
has no divine athority? Even the atheists, so certain that there is no
god, are flawed since certainty either way requires a leap of faith.

It appears likely that Man created God, for explanation and guidance
and excuses to behave the way we do. That is not to say that there is
no god, but that Man clings to the concept of dieties to such an
extent that if they find out that there are none they would either
deny it or become depressed.

I suggest that we can live a full and respectable life without
disecting our existence and filling in the blanks based on selected
teachings.

We do not need a Creator for us to exist. If the Creator can be
eternal, so can we.

We do not need a divine purpose. We are here, and as far as we can
tell we have free will.

We do not need an Afterlife or Reincarnation. I find it rather
dissapointing to assume Man must have an incentive to do good, such as
being rewarded after death. It is also not necisary to assume that we
do more than just decay when we die.

It appears that Man is lost without religion. I hope that some day we
can overcome this unfortunate byproduct of our consciousness.

[Sesh]

<<Why is it necesary for there to be something more to our
existence?>>
Its a very big question isn't it?
All these religions, and their and their-not dogmas, rules and
regulations. The wonderful thing that has happened to so many
people(charities and etc) and the so many worse things(beleiving that
"God" says kill and the genocide/ sanctified barbarism that follows
this flawed understanding or intolerence) is because of the very
question you have asked.

There is an equally important question and trust me, this question is
not easy to answer in its entiriety. The Question is "Who am I".
Transcending, time, geography, perceptons, attitudes, conditioning(of
mind), body based identity and etc the question is really puzzling.

It is in search of an answer to these questions have spawned so many
theories and understandings and debates. There is no easy answer.
Simply put, it is completely dependent on the temperment of the
individual. If you are comfortable in believing(it is still a belief)
the non-existence of God(s), so be it. If you are happy trusting the
existence then too so be it.

To clarify this belief into a fact, something you know for sure as a
fact, you need to start walking in the direction where you aquire the
knowledge for this purpose and validate the knowledge, this validation
provides experiences and the experiences does more than just
validation. This by itself is another subject and can be taken offline
if you want to.

Which is why in the way I have understood Bhagavad Gita, there is a
Yoga form called Karma Yoga. This espouses action and duty(in all
forms and is a vast subject by itself and too vast to summarise easily
and discuss in one or two threads), it does not require you to
necessarily believe in God. It says that when you are a perfectionist
in your duties which makes a positive difference, then that
perfectionist, wheather a believer or a non-believer , it is
irrelevent, is as great as the greatest devotee, or the greatest wise
sage or the greatest Yogi.

The theory of God as in a name and being, the forms and procedures are
to help the person understand and make the path twords "perfection"
that is addressed in so many ways and worshipped in so namy ways, easy
and there can be many ways twords it depending on the temperment,
maturity and other things, and this includes people who follow the
athiest forms.

- Seshadri.

Post by Chaos Entity
Why is it necisary for there to be something more to our existence?

[Ryan]

Post by Chaos Entity
Why is it necisary for there to be something more to our existence?

we are all hear for a reason, our excistance could be plain and boring
and dare i say it pointless, but we make our lives what WE want it to
be

[Madhu Sudhan]

Post by Sesh
Let me ask you some questions. It is said in the Bhagavad Gita that
not even a blade of grass moves without the will of the lord.

Please show the verses in Gita. I dont remember any grass in the Gita
although the principle expressed makes sense


Now, if

Post by Sesh
we accept it as true, then, why did the lord accept the creation of so
many religions and the existence of extremism forms in them among some
people?

The Lord is all knowledge and all power, no doubt. But He is not
going to do everything for us. We have no autonomy if He does
everything. Even a mother has to let the child make some mistakes so
the child learns by his own suffering and mistakes. But she cares.

Post by Sesh
Why did Ramakrishna Paramahamsa validate them.

The Paramahamsa and other saints always do what is appropriate. We
have to understand them only if we follow all of what they say. We
cannot take piecemeal, little by little. Even islam and xtianity have
some valid aspects.
Islam emphasies surrender. Xtianity emphasies love. Jainsism
emphasises ahimsa. Buddhism emphasises understanding. Judaism
emphasises a code of conduct. Which religion emphases all these?
Hinduism. Hinduism is the comprehensive religion. The others are just
an aspect, piecemeal approach. Hinduism is the ocean. The others are
ponds and lakes.

Theology is most developed, to the hisghest degree, only in Hinduism.
The others just prattle. They cant even dabble in the periphery of
vedanta