Bharat Rakshak

God's are on two levels.

On the first level any being superior to man, including those who helped man settle on earth were referred by humans as Gods.

The second/higher level God was referred to as the word, a kind of universal law which was to be obeyed by everyone including the first level Gods/humans. No mention was made whether behind this 'universal law' there existed a 'law giver' ?

negi, eventually every philosophical idea will boil to one question -

How do we know what we know?


And eventually, some people ask an even finer version of this question -

Do we know what we know?


It's not semantics. It is t he very essence of what we call maya. Here's a zen parable for you to chew on -

Last night, I, a man, dreamt that I am a butterfly. Today, am I a butterfly, dreaming I am a man?

abhischekcc wrote:negi, eventually every philosophical idea will boil to one question -

How do we know what we know?

And eventually, some people ask an even finer version of this question -

Do we know what we know?

the problem lies with record-keeping.

Alok_N wrote:
let me expand on that ... most applied branches of science work with principles that were once invented and then applied to physical problems ... they work within the paradigm that the principles provide them ... for example, a large number of modern day chemists are in reality quantum physicists ... and they will continue to do excellent research using the tools provided to them by quantum mechanics ... however, they will never invent a new mechanics that provides them with new tools ...
this difference is fundamental ... period.

Alok ji using the same 'logic' isnt it correct to say that science isnt mature enough to accept(prove) the existence of God.Having said that the key to the whole issue is 'What is God' ,again there would be a debate as to whether we are qualified enough to define 'God' in order to be able to verify whether 'God' exists.

Raju wrote:

abhischekcc wrote:negi, eventually every philosophical idea will boil to one question -

How do we know what we know?

And eventually, some people ask an even finer version of this question -

Do we know what we know?

the problem lies with record-keeping.

Ah, the question of memory. But memory itself is limited by the brain, which in turn is limited by the limits of nature. So, are we to say that nature is the final determinant of our experience od reality? Or, to put it more finely, is there a reality not limited by nature, but which we cannot perceive because our experience is limited by nature?

The trick to solving that question is to ask whether memory is the right basis for forming world views.

I am not talking of memory as a tool for record-keeping. Since days bygone man has used religious scriptures to do record-keeping and interactions with various entities. Because of man's own frailities and fragile nature of existance many those records were lost/destroyed. Simple onlee.

There is a need for piecing all these records together to get a bigger picture and a big plan. Sadly ordinary mortals are denied access to the bigger picture and whoever few that know are not revealing it easily.

negi wrote:At the end of the day every thing boils down to whether one believes in God or not,a believer would use logic and try to prove the formers existence and a non believer would use logic to examine 'God's' existence,wait... btw what do I mean by God I am myself confused. .

You are not alone,- most people are confused about what they mean by "God".

Natural Selection has equipped humans with the ability to detect change and ascribe agency to change.

If there was grass moving in the African savannah on a windless afternoon, it could logically mean that a stalking predator was causing it.

That ascribing of agency was crucial to make the decision to climb the nearest tree, and save oneself from that stalking hungry lion.

Now, as a byproduct of that evolutionary ability helping one survive, came the side-effects,- questioning the local causality of everything that abounded Nature,- "where did these come from ?"

For most primal humans leading a rather difficult, hunter-gatherer existence, given the paucity of time to reflect and contemplate, the answer was difficult to posit outside of a linear infinite chain.

Thus was born the concept of a supernatural extra-cosmic power aka "God", which stopped the Ad Infinitum sequence of local causality.

Beyond words like "supreme being", omnipotent and omniscient, there is hardly anything to refer to this Judeo-Christian hunter-gatherer version of "God".

Now, since the "leading civilisation" of the world is Judeo-Christian in origin, this concept of "God" has stuck.

Also, because this concept of extra-cosmic entity called "God" is in direct violation of the Principle of Parsimony in Science, there is a conflict between Science and "religion" in the West.

That's not necessarily the "God" other - typically agricultural - civilisations (hence used to a cyclic model of life), conceived of.

For example, Hindu concept of "God" is utterly different.

And, if I understand correctly, such a concept of an immanent "God" can never at all be in contravention of science,- not now, not ever.

Alok_N, I think we should get some volunteers to archive Valkan's posts as a primer to clear the air about Hinduism and comparative religions if he agrees. Same with Rakesh's posts.

S.Valkan wrote:
Thus was born the concept of a supernatural extra-cosmic power aka "God", which stopped the Ad Infinitum sequence of local causality.

Beyond words like "supreme being", omnipotent and omniscient, there is hardly anything to refer to this Judeo-Christian hunter-gatherer version of "God".

Now, since the "leading civilisation" of the world is Judeo-Christian in origin, this concept of "God" has stuck.

Also, because this concept of extra-cosmic entity called "God" is in direct violation of the Principle of Parsimony in Science, there is a conflict between Science and "religion" in the West.

That's not necessarily the "God" other - typically agricultural - civilisations (hence used to a cyclic model of life), conceived of.

For example, Hindu concept of "God" is utterly different.

And, if I understand correctly, such a concept of an immanent "God" can never at all be in contravention of science,- not now, not ever.

How ? I mean I did appreciate and understand the way concept of 'God' might have originated,but then how can you say the Hindu concept of God is different ,specially what you said .i.e.

Natural Selection has equipped humans with the ability to detect change and ascribe agency to change.

Now, as a byproduct of that evolutionary ability helping one survive, came the side-effects,- questioning the local causality of everything that abounded Nature,- "where did these come from ?"

should be true for the land where 'Hindu' religion originated.Could you elaborate more on 'Hindu' concept of God ,I promise wont ask you to prove the existence of the same.

How would you explain the common idea (even I beleive in) that God exists and different religions are merely different paths that seek the same almighty.Hey btw 'Fundoo post' as we in India would call it.

ramana wrote:Alok_N, I think we should get some volunteers to archive Valkan's posts as a primer to clear the air about Hinduism and comparative religions if he agrees. Same with Rakesh's posts.

ramana - I have created a religion discussion archive.
The archive has been set up hoping that the discussions will be serious, informative, free from flaming, and useful to those who use the forum.

http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewforum.php?f=19

If these conditions are not generally met - the archive can be trashed at the click of an admin button

The series of threads seems to have set up some kind of forum record with about 1300 posts in 14 days.

So there was a strong need for such a discussion that was suppressed for quite some time among the members. I guess it is time to clear the air.

My suggestion about archiving Valkan and Rakesh's posts is that they provide clarity which is lacking in most discussions on the subject. Let us see if there are any takers.The good will float and stand the test of time.

negi wrote:Could you elaborate more on 'Hindu' concept of God

The Hindu concept of "God" is on a fundamentally different plane.

It is the substratum of all existence, and non-different from all there is.

There is a completely logical basis for this conception of "God", commonly referred to as "Satyam Jnanam Anantam" ( Existence Awareness Limitlessness Absolute ).

However, it puts a lot of folks to sleep. So, I'll let it pass.

How would you explain the common idea (even I beleive in) that God exists and different religions are merely different paths that seek the same almighty.

That's simply called "mental conditioning".

Please elaborate. Those who want agynanam will sleep. This is better than going to any discourse.

ramana,

I have been after Valkan to write a book because his style of discourse is so much more available ...

your endorsement above is one more vote ...

in real life the dude is very humble unlike his web persona ... he is not convinced that he can add anything of value to the great body of literature already out there ...

I made a post in one of the four previous threads that a Hindu narrative is absent from general world literature.

In fact, I was doing a Google today for the origins of mathematics and I found and interesting link - and guess what - no mention of India. On the flip side - I find that my son prefers to do long multiplication sums (eg 4876 times 798) using a graphical Vedic maths method which makes it very simple. There is obviously a long Hindu history of math and science which has been forgotten, ignored or suppressed along with a whole lot of other things.

If Christianity and Islam have political systems intertwined with religion, Hindu knowledge has philosophy, science and math intertwined with religion.

If you cannot discuss geopolitics without discussing Islamism or Evanjihadism, you cannot really discuss Hinduism without bringing in science, math and philosophy. For these reasons a religion thread is bound to meander. But in the course of that meandering I hope there can be a better understanding of a Hindu worldview because there is one and it cannot be sidelined or ignored.

I would ask Valkan to go ahead and shoot.

What is God's relationship to Creation?

On the face of it, the characteristics of transcendence and immanence appear to be in conflict. A transcendent God is one who is beyond perception, independent of the universe, and wholly “otherâ€

>>he is not convinced that he can add anything of value to the great body of literature already out there

If so, and I have no reason to doubt Alok, then Valkan you are wrong. There is a great need for such an articulation of the Sanathana Dharmam. Judging by your posts on the subject, you have a unique ability to explain. You should write the book.

Ramana, do you remember our little discussion some months ago? We were right to persist!!!

S.Valkan,

What is your take of the Hindu "God" idea? Therefore would you picture that entity as transcendental or immanent?

Please keep the thoughts flowing... it is very enlightening.

well as usual everyone's around's to take credit. Credit must be given to shiv, he put in a lot of hard work initially.

I just have to post this from reference.com Very nice:

Immanence
Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia - Cite This Source

Immanence, derived from the Latin in manere "to remain within", refers to philosophical and metaphysical theories of the divine as existing and acting within the mind or the world. This concept generally contrasts or coexists with the idea of transcendence.

Immanence in religion
In worship, a believer in immanence might say that one can find God wherever one seeks Him. This understanding is often used in Hinduism to describe the relationship of Brahman, or the Cosmic Being, to the material world. (i.e., monistic theism). Hinduism posits Brahman as both transcendent and immanent - varying emphasis on either quality is made by the different philosophies/denominations within the religion. Immanence is one of the five key concepts in Druze, and is represented by the color white. Scholars such as Henry David Thoreau, who popularised the concept of immanence, were influenced by Hindu views.

Immanence and Jesus in Christianity
In Christianity, the transcendent, almighty, and holy God, who cannot be approached or seen, becomes immanent primarily in the God-man Jesus the Christ, who is the incarnate Second Person of the Trinity.
This is most famously expressed in St Paul's letter to the Philippians, where he writes:

Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.

Tzimtzum in the Kabbalistic theory
In Jewish Mysticism, Tzimtzum (צמצו×

JEM, Mea culpa!!!

Valkan,

folks are asking for it ... this will be better than the last time because BRF is a much better and controlled venue ... (no KKB-ji to get worked up over absolute vaccum, black holes and mythical housewives making the holy Dosa) ...

folks, I wish I had saved months and months of posts from another forum from about 5 years ago ...

the problem is that such a discourse is not necessarily universal ... because it consists of removing doubts, each individual gets a treatment that focuses on the doubts that the individual has to begin with ...

about 5 years ago Valkan-ji addressed my doubts regarding bhakti versus gyaan and I am eternally grateful ... it allows me to view a pursuit of physics as a religious/spiritual endeavor ... basically, don't worry, have curry in a nut-shell ...

ramana wrote:Alok_N, I think we should get some volunteers to archive Valkan's posts as a primer to clear the air about Hinduism and comparative religions if he agrees. Same with Rakesh's posts.

We need separate thread for philosophy, science and humanism and comparative studies. Valkan should be the lead poster in that. Others can draw upon those insights to come to the religion thread to discuss with correct information.

Alok_N wrote:Valkan,

folks are asking for it ... this will be better than the last time because BRF is a much better and controlled venue ... (no KKB-ji to get worked up over absolute vaccum, black holes and mythical housewives making the holy Dosa) ...

folks, I wish I had saved months and months of posts from another forum from about 5 years ago ...

the problem is that such a discourse is not necessarily universal ... because it consists of removing doubts, each individual gets a treatment that focuses on the doubts that the individual has to begin with ...

about 5 years ago Valkan-ji addressed my doubts regarding bhakti versus gyaan and I am eternally grateful ...

Yes.. yes...folks are asking for it . I am eager for the second round. My humble request to audience is to be critical to what Valkan says and question him on his assumptions. It gets more enjoyable and does the justice to the ocean of knowledge that he possesses.

This is the real core of being an 'Argumentative Indian' that differentiates SD from Judeo-Chrislam.

Alok_N wrote:ramana,

I have been after Valkan to write a book because his style of discourse is so much more available ...

your endorsement above is one more vote ...

in real life the dude is very humble unlike his web persona ... he is not convinced that he can add anything of value to the great body of literature already out there ...

Every generation needs some people to open the mind and clear the cobwebs. I feel Valkan is one of them. What do you feel guys?

Alok_N wrote:in principle, I see the largest dichotomy as follows:

folks have used all forms of logical arguments to further their viewpoints on this thread ...

at the same time, they are unwilling to consider Logic as the supreme form of thought ...

what gives?

This is commonly known as cunning and trickery

Is S. Valcan = HH? Inquiring minds would like to know

Geez, Valkan, they were threatening to throw you out a year ago. Now they love you. Just remember that every Roman general returning to Rome in a triumphal parade had a servant whispering into his ear, "fame is fleeting"....

Joype wrote:Vishy_mulay wrote:

Second, why is it that everything wrong about India is associated with Hinduism

The real question now should be;

"why is it that everything Right about India is associated with Hinduism only?"

.

We know such questions. Vishy is only talking about the media perception and the bias in public created by a false sociology studies to show everything wrong with Hinduism. This is obvious to everyone but is not talked about in the open in public debate.
We know that the false sociology studies is being done from foreign countries and with outside fund. It is a legitimate to question foreign fund and research.

Abhijit wrote:Is S. Valcan = HH? Inquiring minds would like to know

No.

Abhijit wrote:Is S. Valcan = HH? Inquiring minds would like to know

No, I am in touch with HH

I'd certainly be willing to pay $$$ to buy a book from S.Valkan. I will not pretend to understand it at first glance, but i am patient and will read it again and again till i do. I think such a book, describing the very fundamentals of the hindu faith would be very valuable to not only indians but ignorant (about the hindu faith) folks like me.

shiv wrote: .....I find that my son prefers to do long multiplication sums (eg 4876 times 798) using a graphical Vedic maths method which makes it very simple.

Any chance i could impose on you to post some links to Vedic mathematic methods??

Sadler wrote: Any chance i could impose on you to post some links to Vedic mathematic methods??

http://www.cs.rpi.edu/~moorthy/vm/

Acharya wrote:

Sadler wrote: Any chance i could impose on you to post some links to Vedic mathematic methods??

http://www.cs.rpi.edu/~moorthy/vm/

For U.S folks , Below is the link to Vedanta Society founded by Swami Vivekananda in 1903 . They carry all kind of books, literature on Hindu Spiritual thoughts translated in English .

http://www.sfvedanta.org/

Sadler wrote: Any chance i could impose on you to post some links to Vedic mathematic methods??

Sadler,

There is an organisation that does a great job of spreading the knowledge of VM. Their website is www.vedicmaths.org

One of the main person there is a Kenneth Williams who has written books on VM that is being used by many schools in UK to teach VM to the kids. There is a store out in San-Francisco that carries a very large selection of VM books. If need be, let me know and I will look it up.

Cheers,
Sanju

The website is www.sacredscience.com

Wide range of topics and it is in Idyllwild. Worth a look for folks interested in metaphysical type of subjects.

ramana wrote:Please elaborate. Those who want agynanam will sleep. This is better than going to any discourse.

As you folks wish.

I'll try a brief logical explanation WITHOUT the need to take recourse to scriptures.

This may put some to sleep, drive some others to madness. So bear with me.

What we are trying to understand here is the elusive concept of "Truth".

What is the deepest Truth must necessarily be so always and everywhere.

Truth must be an ABSOLUTE Reality.

If so, then Absolute Reality can only be defined as that reality which cannot be negated in ANY locus in Space-Time.

Now, logically, anything in the 'past' is nothing but memory, and anything in the 'future' is nothing but imagination.

They are BOTH contradicted in what is the 'Present' ( NOW).

Similarly, what is NOT here is contradicted HERE.

So, essentially, the ONLY incontrovertible truth is that of the 'immediate present' ( HERE and NOW ).

But what is this 'Present' ?

In one instant, the 'present' will become the 'past'.

So, obviously, the 'Present' is simply ONE instant of experience.

Now, what experience does anyone/anything have in ONE instant that is NEVER contradicted ?

The CONTENT/OBJECT of an experience in one instant is contradicted in the next.

But there is one experience that is NEVER contradicted,- the experience of the existence of the experiencer.

So, the only self-evident ( uncontradictable ) experience is "I AM",- the experience of Existence of the experiencer.

But even my concept of "I" is a matter of a whole lot of axioms, which are all not necessarily self-evident.

'I' can refer to the body(I am tall), senses( I am near-sighted), mind(I am unhappy), intellect(I am successfull) and so on.

So, this "I" is contradicted from one instant to another.

This cannot be the uncontradictable SUBJECT of the experience from instant to instant.

So, what is that uncontradictable 'I' that is the experiencer ?

Since there can be no experience without a Subject ( Experiencer ), and 'I' am the Subject of ALL that I experience at every instant ( if I am not experiencing, WHO is ?), 'I' must be the irreducible SUBSTRATUM of ALL my experience.

So, what is this irreducible substratum ?

The only self-evident, irreducible component of all my experience is "AM", or - more precisely - "IS". ........ Strike 1.

Object IS. Thought IS. Emotion IS.

The 'IS' is ALWAYS present in all experience.

This "IS" is an experience of Existence in general.

Now, what is the difference between Existence and Non-Existence ?

This is the most difficult part to grasp.

Think deeply.

The difference is simply the AWARENESS of Existence.

So, Existence is synonymous and coterminus with Awareness. One cannot be conceived without the other, LOGICALLY. ........ Strike 2.

Now, can there logically be a boundary/limit for Existence ?

If there is such a boundary, it is logically of the nature of Existence too.

So, there can logically be NO LIMIT on Existence.

So, Existence is LIMITLESS. ....... Strike 3.

Now, put all of them together.

Existence/Awareness is Limitless.

So, the uncontradictable experience of the 'Present' is simply that of Existence-Awareness-Limitlessness.

This is logically true for ANY experiencer, and ANY locus of experience.

So, ALL experience of the 'Present' is ultimately of the nature of Existence-Awareness-Limitlessness ( Satyam Jnanam Anantam ).

Now, logically, if only the experience of the 'Present' is the uncontradicted reality in ANY locus, the ABSOLUTE REALITY in ANY locus must be of the nature of Existence-Awareness-Limitlessness.

By definition, Absolute Reality or the "Truth" is "God".

So, the Hindu concept of "God" ( Brahman ) is "Satyam Jnanam Anantam".

Now, since the SUBSTRATUM of ALL my experience is the uncontradictable 'I' ( subject ), and since the Substratum of ALL my experience is Existence-Awareness-Limitlessness, ....

The real 'I' must be Existence-Awareness-Limitlessness as well.

.....

So the real 'I' is non-different from "God" ( Aham Brahman Asmi ).

Just as a Wave is non-different from Water as the underlying absolute reality, although each wave seems to be "different" from each other conceptually as a 'form'.

And this is what the Great Rishis of the Vedas realized 5000+ years ago.

S.Valkan wrote:And this is what the Great Rishis of the Vedas realized 5000+ years ago.

as I recall, there is always the quibble about "realized" ... that word can mean:

1. "realized by countless debates and hammering out of truth"
2. "realized by meditating and having a visionary experience"
3. "realized as in told by God in a flash"

not that it matters, except for history, but what is your take on it?

Bravo!!!

Alok_N wrote:

S.Valkan wrote:And this is what the Great Rishis of the Vedas realized 5000+ years ago.

as I recall, there is always the quibble about "realized" ... that word can mean:

1. "realized by countless debates and hammering out of truth"
2. "realized by meditating and having a visionary experience"
3. "realized as in told by God in a flash"

not that it matters, except for history, but what is your take on it?

My take on it is (1), albeit in the form of quiet contemplation of the mind.

The process is succinctly described in the scriptures as Yukti (logic) and Anubhuti (intuitive grasping).