Pulikeshi wrote:
Thanks for talking turkey!
You thought I was going to beat around the bush with generalities forever?
With Axiom #1 - you have to define this God (with big G) a very deep rabbit hole mind you....
Yes it's a deep rabbit hole. This being an axiom or starting point, it should not be necessary to fully trace the concept of God - after all, realizing God is the goal, and we're not going to get there through logical contortions. Nor do other scientific theories get called up on to fully define all the terms in their postulates or axioms, nor do other religions do it (like "Yahweh" which means "I am what I am").
However, some amount of definition is certainly called for. I would like to define God as the sum total of all possibilities. If you can think of or imagine a possibility or concept, that means that possibility exists, and it can only exist in God. Anything like "space" or "time" or "ability to time travel" or "a metal which is 20 times lighter than steel, but 20 times as strong" or that still elusive "cancer cure." Or how about "multiple universes" or "X gazillion monkeys with X gazillion typewriters typing away for Y bazillion years." All these possibilities exist as abstractions (hence - potential, not manifest).
If you are familiar with Object Oriented Programming, I would like to offer a rough analogy. In OOP, we have a base class, which we extend to derive useful classes. The base class contains the base functionality in the form of fields, properties, or functions, and we add on top of that.
With God, I would like to define Him as a "super-class" - this class already has all the functions, properties, fields, etc. that we can dream of, that are beyond our dreams and imagination, that just *are*. But these are all in the abstract, spiritual, non-manifest domain (avyakta, adrisya). When these are materialized for some reason (vyakta-rupa), they are
sub-classed, i.e., a minute subset of the potential attributes of the super class are given material definition within the material universe. This materialization could be of the form of a "dog" or a "tree" or a "rock" or a "sudarshan on BRF" or even "BRF" itself. In fact, the material universe itself is a manifest sub-class of the God super-class.
What is the reason for this material manifestation? Not some desire on God's part to materialize (since by axiom 1, God is defined as being indifferent to this material manifestation), but actually axiom 2 - *our* desire and thirst for material enjoyment.
With Axiom #2 - you have to define the ‘We’ not just some collective, what is materialize and what is abstract about the experience of this we?
Again, like I said, fully tracing the term to "basics" is futile, nor is any scientific axiom called upon to do it.
However, to offer a rough definition - since all of the "potential" (non-manifest possibilities) mentioned above are just that - non-manifest - the idea was that some of "us" (please bear with this term for a moment) become curious about what it would be like to materialize and enjoy this potential. Basically, we are also a collection of possibilities and potential, we have infinite senses of humor, infinite capacity for art or craft, infinite ability to enjoy good food or *ex, although our infinite possibilities and potential are still a minute subset of God's infinite potential. But we become curious about materializing it, i.e., "what's the point of being abstract and unmanifest? wouldn't it be nice if....?"
To put it in the OOP sense - each of us is an instance of a unique sub-class of the original super-class.
So the material universe is a simulation for our benefit, where we get to materialize our capabilities - but - axiom 3 - only to the extent that is defined by the principle of "karma." This materialization is, in some sense, unnecessary, because we are already everything we yearn to be, we already experience the end enjoyment of the materialization we crave, but in the abstract, non-manifest sense. And this of course leads to the notion of "moksha," where we no longer crave materialization, but just *are* whatever collection of possibilities we are. Merge back with God in that sense.
But who are "we" to begin with? Ah, there we get into advaita/ dvaita/ vishishtadvaita. How does the individual soul relate to the super soul? My best definition right now is that since all possibilities exist in God, therefore the possibility of "individuality" also exists in God, and we are expressions of this "individuality." The possibility of "materialization" and "yearning for materialization" also exists in God, and we are expressions of that! Is this what Swami Vivekananda meant when he said "Man is an infinite circle, whose circumference is nowhere, and whose center is at a fixed point. God is an infinite circle, whose circumference is nowhere, and whose center is everywhere."? That "fixed point" of man's center is the center of our individuality, the circumference encompasses all the infinity of possibilities and potential that the man is capable of. God however is centered in all our individualities, and also in points which extend way beyond the notion of individuality.
With Axiom #3 - you have to define and demonstrate the conquence and counter factuals and show independent cause, etc. painful rabbit holes
Not sure I fully understand this.
Ps; not all Indian schools view karma and rebirth the same way... some do not even accept it.
Could you give me some examples?
Please do not be dissuaded by my response - all I am asking you is what has been asked before to me, no more...
If you find time do read on why the various India schools of thought got on with arguing about the means to knowledge and not knowledge or truth claims themselves. This is the only tenable position I have found - arguing truth claims and even axiomatic knowledge is subjective, but arguing the means to knowledge and what are acceptable ways is more fruitful. The book religions I suspect have a book gaping hole here...
if you or others have come across formal argumentation by theologians or other scholars would love to get links and get educated.
Now the truly attained come to realize that all knowledge is experiential.
Therefore - Baja Govindam and all that jazz!
No worries
. But do you think the other religions are fully able to define every single term that is the basis of their books or their beliefs? They just brazen it out. I would suggest some brazening out on the part of Hindus also. If we feel the need to fully define all of our basics, that is a defensive mindset by itself, "this is what we believe" is, very often, a good enough response. Material enjoyment (bhoga) is something all humans, maybe even all living beings, instinctively understand and crave. The second axiom refers to this craving itself. To anybody who wants a full definition of this "craving for materialization" I would say "what is it that *you* enjoy doing?" Well, that is the desire which you crave to materialize. If the answer is "nothing," then why not just die right now? "Living for friends and family." Well, then *that* is your desire.
It provides a coherent grammar, a full language, but not some "fundamental set of axioms".
".