Belief in personal God VS Belief in Brahman

[thebigthinkg]

Share:

Facebook Twitter WhatsApp Email Share Link

Every other Varna in your post seems to be changing depending on the economy and demand..for eg Kshatriya to Shudra..Shudra to Kshatriya..Vaishya to Shudra and vice versa.

But why no mention of Brahmana Varna?
Has this Varna changed into any other Varna becos of economic demand reasons?

No. Kshatriya to Sudra varna (i am not talking of people or jAtis here) differentiation is so thin. Service provider can become laborer (if skill becomes obsolete) if service is not in demand. If skill becomes in demand then laborer (sudra) can become Kshatriya (service provider).

Material providers (Vaishyas) and Knowledge providers (Brahmanas) nature is not that.

This is not about jAtis, this is not about people migrating from one profession to another. This is about the nature of the varna. At all times, these varnas will exist and this is how they will exist. That is dharma of the Varna.

Today all people in Brahmin jAti are not Brahmanas (knowledge providers). Some are Kshatriyas (service providers like doctors, self-employeed engineers eetc), some are zudras (unskilled/getting obsolete skilled labor like clerks, peons, jobs that would be lost in course of time), some are vaishyas (farmers, landlords, traders, businessmen).

-TBT

 

[renuka]

No. Kshatriya to Sudra varna (i am not talking of people or jAtis here) differentiation is so thin. Service provider can become laborer (if skill becomes obsolete) if service is not in demand. If skill becomes in demand then laborer (sudra) can become Kshatriya (service provider).

Material providers (Vaishyas) and Knowledge providers (Brahmanas) nature is not that.

This is not about jAtis, this is not about people migrating from one profession to another. This is about the nature of the varna. At all times, these varnas will exist and this is how they will exist. That is dharma of the Varna.

Today all people in Brahmin jAti are not Brahmanas (knowledge providers). Some are Kshatriyas (service providers like doctors, self-employeed engineers eetc), some are zudras (unskilled/getting obsolete skilled labor like clerks, peons, jobs that would be lost in course of time), some are vaishyas (farmers, landlords, traders, businessmen).

-TBT

I guess its your own theory?

 

[thebigthinkg]

That's the theory of varna dharma as I understood it, that I wrote about in all the responses..

-TBT

 

[sravna]

That is an easy escape, Mr Sravana.

Meant your statement did not make sense.. Your statement was

"Dear Shri a-TB,

Knowledge of brahman is said to be the highest knowledge. So it is apt that it is so difficult to grasp that knowledge. Brahman can be nirguna or saguna. The former is a timeless existence and its existence is just experiencing bliss and beyond thoughts and actions. The latter exists in the realm of thoughts and actions and is responsible for creation by willing it."


The above is a bunch of terms hard to understand etc. The problem is one entity called Brahman has diametrically opposite capabilities. That cannot add up. I cannot be both blind and see. I cannot be in a totally dark room and still have light.

Your words convey two Brahmans that is wrong. If it is one, then its nature has contradictory qualities rolled into one .. That is also wrong.

Care to explain this contradiction ...?

Let me explain how it is not a contradiction.

In the laws of physics, nothing can travel faster than light. Any theory which says that there is something that travels faster than light is contradicting a physical law. But consider there are two different existences where one of them affects the other but not the other way. We can understand this as two levels of existences. Now it is perfectly ok for me to say that nothing travels faster than light in the lower level existence , that is, in the physical world, but is not so at the higher level. According to my understanding, thoughts instantaneously are everywhere. It does not violate any physical law.

Our own body and mind illustrate how two different levels of existences can "co-exist"

If this still does not make sense, kindly ask for more clarifications.

 

[a-TB]

Let me explain how it is not a contradiction.

In the laws of physics, nothing can travel faster than light. Any theory which says that there is something that travels faster than light is contradicting a physical law. But consider there are two different existences where one of them affects the other but not the other way. We can understand this as two levels of existences. Now it is perfectly ok for me to say that nothing travels faster than light in the lower level existence , that is, in the physical world, but is not so at the higher level. According to my understanding, thoughts instantaneously are everywhere. It does not violate any physical law.

Our own body and mind illustrate how two different levels of existences can "co-exist"

If this still does not make sense, kindly ask for more clarifications.

Sorry, Mr Sravana - These kinds of hand waving does not work.
You see, thoughts are not everywhere - they are just chemical messages (or electrical or both) in our body. There is no two existence (unless one is in the influence of drugs like LSD or committed in a mental asylum).

We are assembled unit - head, brain, hands and legs etc. We also have ideas, feelings, thoughts etc
Your example does not hold because Brahman is not assembled in terms of units of Brahman and so it cannot show exactly opposite qualities within one unit.

We do not want this physical and spiritual discussions here.

Is there anyone else in the forum with better answers?

 

[prasad1]

Haridas Chaudhuri, author of "The Concept of Brahman in Hindu Philosophy.." Brahman is the energy, and the creation of the world is a manifestation of that energy; the universe exists as a byproduct of Brahman.

Brahman is the origin and end of all things, material or otherwise. Brahman is the root source and Divine Ground of everything that exists, and does not exist.

The Hindu scriptures declare that Brahman (the impersonal God) is beyond description, and can be understood only through direct spiritual experience. Nevertheless, for the benefit of others, the ancient Hindu sages who experienced Brahman attempted to describe their experiences, as recorded in the ancient Vedic texts known as the Upanishads.

Brahman is conceived of as the very essence of existence and knowledge, which pervades the entire universe, including every living being.

The Absolute without qualities, is impersonal, without guna or attributes, Nirakara (formless), Nirvisesha (without special characteristics), immutable, eternal and Akarta (non-agent). It is above all needs and desires. It is always the Witnessing Subject. It can never become an object as It is beyond the reach of the senses. Brahman is non-dual, one without a second. It has no other beside It. It is destitute of difference, either external or internal. Brahman cannot be described, because description implies distinction. Brahman cannot be distinguished from any other than It. In Brahman, there is not the distinction of substance and attribute. Sat-Chit-Ananda (Truth-Consciousness-Bliss) constitute the very essence or Svarupa of Brahman, and not just Its attributes.
-----------------------------------

While Brahman lies behind the sum total of the objective universe, some human minds boggle at any attempt to explain it with only the tools provided by reason. Brahman is beyond the senses, beyond the mind, beyond intelligence, beyond imagination. Indeed, the highest idea is that Brahman is beyond both existence and non-existence, transcending and including time, causation and space, and thus can never be known in the same material sense as one traditionally 'understands' a given concept or object.
Imagine a person who is blind from birth and has not seen anything. Is it possible for us to explain to him the meaning of the colour red? Is any amount of thinking or reasoning on his part ever going to make him understand the sensation of the colour red? In a similar fashion the idea of Brahman cannot be explained or understood through material reasoning or any form of human communication. Brahman is like the colour red; those who can sense it cannot explain or argue with those who have never sensed it.
Brahman is considered the all pervading consciousness which is the basis of all the animate and inanimate entities and material. (brahmano hi pratisthaham, Bhagavad Gita14.27)


https://www.quora.com/Indian-Philosophy-What-is-Brahman

 

[sravna]

Sorry, Mr Sravana - These kinds of hand waving does not work.
You see, thoughts are not everywhere - they are just chemical messages (or electrical or both) in our body. There is no two existence (unless one is in the influence of drugs like LSD or committed in a mental asylum).

We are assembled unit - head, brain, hands and legs etc. We also have ideas, feelings, thoughts etc
Your example does not hold because Brahman is not assembled in terms of units of Brahman and so it cannot show exactly opposite qualities within one unit.

We do not want this physical and spiritual discussions here.

Is there anyone else in the forum with better answers?

Dear Shri a-TB,

You have notions which you do not want to be challenged. It is difficult to have a healthy debate in such a case. Good luck in your
search for answers.

 

[zebra16]

Dear Mr Zebra16,

This world seems to be assembled because it can disintegrate. Even atoms are smashed to some pieces. Also scientists create new items out of raw materials. So world is intelligently put together in my simplistic mind. Mars and galaxies have gravity, not an easy job for all these laws of nature to work together. How can there be not a creator since entire universe is intelligently assembled?

And it has to be an active creator with lot of power.. Where does all the power come from

Thanks

First, we have to define Brahman. I think the original poster, Sri Prasad1 meant Brahman as defined in advaita. That (brahman) is unchangeable, immutable, without form, shape, name etc. and IT is the ONLY reality.

Now advaita also defines what is REALITY or nityam or sAshwatam (in sanskrit). That Reality remains UNCHANGED forever.. it is the SAME for the trikAlam - past, present and future. (The definition of Reality is different from other Hindu school of philosophy like Vishist-advaita or dwaita etc.)

Now how does advaita dispose off your queries of disintegration, smashing of atoms, creation of new items out of raw materials etc.?

It gives the example of gold and bangles. Although bangle is circular in shape, ring is smaller than bangle etc. the underlying reality is gold, much the same as brahman is the underlying reality of the world. Without gold, there is no gold bangle. Although one might argue that a bangle can be made of glass, copper, iron etc. the underlying tatva of advaita remains firmly rooted, that is there is no glass bangle without glass, no copper ring without copper etc. Change of form and shape (also called nAmA, rUpA in sanskrit) does not constitute change in the underlying raw material.

Now a bit about reality or nityam. The World Trade towers constitute a ready example. Before 1973 the twin towers simply werent there, from 1973-2001 they existed in their total majesty, after 2001 they are no more in existence and efforts are afoot to rebuild them or at least one tower. No one could argue about the reality of twin towers when they existed, but they were never REAL FOR ALL TIMES, as per definition of advaita. But the steel and concrete are REAL as they have been in existence since the formation of earth from whichever stuff it was formed.

Now about scientists creating new items out of raw materials or forming alloys or smashing atoms etc. The scientists can NEVER create the original substance or basic raw material.

Now about an active creator with lot of power, not easy to mesh Mars, galaxies with gravity and implementing law of nature etc.. Richard Dawkins has brought out in his books "The Blind Watchmaker", there is no necessity of an Intelligent maker to bring out an Intelligent produce. I am saying this only for the purpose of highlighting the supposed inactivity of brahman, not for discounting his ability to be omnipotent etc.

 

[a-TB]

Dear Shri a-TB,

You have notions which you do not want to be challenged. It is difficult to have a healthy debate in such a case. Good luck in your
search for answers.

Dear Mr Sravana,

It is you who are unable to deal with challenge to your long held positions. You provided statement about Brahman and my comments challenged your understanding.

I want to search for contradiction free understanding , not one riddled with pet beliefs that have no basis in logic.

Hope you reflect on my comments and explore further. You and I are at the same level of confusion I am afraid ...

Good luck to you

 

[a-TB]

First, we have to define Brahman. I think the original poster, Sri Prasad1 meant Brahman as defined in advaita. That (brahman) is unchangeable, immutable, without form, shape, name etc. and IT is the ONLY reality.

Now advaita also defines what is REALITY or nityam or sAshwatam (in sanskrit). That Reality remains UNCHANGED forever.. it is the SAME for the trikAlam - past, present and future. (The definition of Reality is different from other Hindu school of philosophy like Vishist-advaita or dwaita etc.)

Now how does advaita dispose off your queries of disintegration, smashing of atoms, creation of new items out of raw materials etc.?

It gives the example of gold and bangles. Although bangle is circular in shape, ring is smaller than bangle etc. the underlying reality is gold, much the same as brahman is the underlying reality of the world. Without gold, there is no gold bangle. Although one might argue that a bangle can be made of glass, copper, iron etc. the underlying tatva of advaita remains firmly rooted, that is there is no glass bangle without glass, no copper ring without copper etc. Change of form and shape (also called nAmA, rUpA in sanskrit) does not constitute change in the underlying raw material.

Now a bit about reality or nityam. The World Trade towers constitute a ready example. Before 1973 the twin towers simply werent there, from 1973-2001 they existed in their total majesty, after 2001 they are no more in existence and efforts are afoot to rebuild them or at least one tower. No one could argue about the reality of twin towers when they existed, but they were never REAL FOR ALL TIMES, as per definition of advaita. But the steel and concrete are REAL as they have been in existence since the formation of earth from whichever stuff it was formed.

Now about scientists creating new items out of raw materials or forming alloys or smashing atoms etc. The scientists can NEVER create the original substance or basic raw material.

Now about an active creator with lot of power, not easy to mesh Mars, galaxies with gravity and implementing law of nature etc.. Richard Dawkins has brought out in his books "The Blind Watchmaker", there is no necessity of an Intelligent maker to bring out an Intelligent produce. I am saying this only for the purpose of highlighting the supposed inactivity of brahman, not for discounting his ability to be omnipotent etc.

Dear Mr Zebra16:

Your response is well written and understandable. Thank you. I have some questions & objections.

1. Raw material(s) may remain the same, but there is still creation in creating a world trade center, bangles, etc. Raw materials did not just come together on their own to become something else. The world has so much variety even at a raw levels - so many animals, worms, insects, human beings .. There have to be one or many creators. If it is not Brahman, who is it?

2. There are creator(s) perhaps who are distinct from created. The person who made the bangle is not the bangle. So creation and created are not one and the same from the examples. This is contrary to one and only one Brahman

3. OK, so all the basic raw material may remain the same in all creations - you call that Brahman. Fine. But then the world did not come out of nothing. Someone had to be involved in assembling at a raw material level of intelligence. A bangle is possible because Gold has the property to be molded into any shape. That intelligence of Gold has to be there for someone to make a bangle. So Brahman has to be intelligent.

Looked up some write up on the 'blind watch maker'. It is true that nature goes through trillions of combinations (Mr Auh's point). It is like a child who has lego pieces to try all kinds of things and stumble on a shape. But Lego maker allowed for such a thing to be made. So the creator of the raw material in this world has to have been intelligent.

5. Richard Dawkin's point about variations giving rise to something intelligent cannot apply to living things and their variations. It can apply to nature of non-living things. For him to apply this to living things is a stretch.

6. So what is god in all this - who is omnipotent , omni whatever etc?

 

[sravna]

Dear Mr Sravana,

It is you who are unable to deal with challenge to your long held positions. You provided statement about Brahman and my comments challenged your understanding.

I want to search for contradiction free understanding , not one riddled with pet beliefs that have no basis in logic.

Hope you reflect on my comments and explore further. You and I are at the same level of confusion I am afraid ...

Good luck to you

Dear Shri a-TB,

I do not find in your replies any intention to engage in a debate but only an urge to put down the opponent. Good luck to you too.

 

[prasad1]

First, we have to define Brahman. I think the original poster, Sri Prasad1 meant Brahman as defined in advaita. That (brahman) is unchangeable, immutable, without form, shape, name etc. and IT is the ONLY reality.

Yes, I did define with Brahman with the Advaita view. I am only comfortable with that definition.

 

[Vaagmi]

Dear Mr Zebra16:

Your response is well written and understandable. Thank you. I have some questions & objections.

1. Raw material(s) may remain the same, but there is still creation in creating a world trade center, bangles, etc. Raw materials did not just come together on their own to become something else. The world has so much variety even at a raw levels - so many animals, worms, insects, human beings .. There have to be one or many creators. If it is not Brahman, who is it?

2. There are creator(s) perhaps who are distinct from created. The person who made the bangle is not the bangle. So creation and created are not one and the same from the examples. This is contrary to one and only one Brahman

3. OK, so all the basic raw material may remain the same in all creations - you call that Brahman. Fine. But then the world did not come out of nothing. Someone had to be involved in assembling at a raw material level of intelligence. A bangle is possible because Gold has the property to be molded into any shape. That intelligence of Gold has to be there for someone to make a bangle. So Brahman has to be intelligent.

Looked up some write up on the 'blind watch maker'. It is true that nature goes through trillions of combinations (Mr Auh's point). It is like a child who has lego pieces to try all kinds of things and stumble on a shape. But Lego maker allowed for such a thing to be made. So the creator of the raw material in this world has to have been intelligent.

5. Richard Dawkin's point about variations giving rise to something intelligent cannot apply to living things and their variations. It can apply to nature of non-living things. For him to apply this to living things is a stretch.

6. So what is god in all this - who is omnipotent , omni whatever etc?

The veda says:

yathA vachO nivarthanthE, aprApya manassA sahA.............

So it is evident all these questions that have been raised here by several members have long back been raised by our ancestors too. Only they quickly came to the conclusion that God or creator or whatever else you call it is something that cannot be defined within the coordinates and with the languages that human beings know, understand and utilise.

So while some were stuck with the unknown indefinable and indeterminate entity as just the"unknown,indefinable,indeterminate" entity or at best a " all pervading universal consciousness", someothers, who could not stop trying, took the best available route to deal with this entity with their equipment. They gave it the best form, the best attributes and the best and beyond everything a human mind can comprehend and started calling it God for convenience. They too knew IT is not just God but it is the nearest to God they could bring into this world. They dealt with it like they would have dealt with a real God. They saluted their kings. So also these people did a pranAm to the God before them. They offered their valuable gifts to the king; So also they did the same to this God form created by them. When they needed help they begged of their king. So also these prayed to the God. When felt totally helpless they surrendered to their king and they did the same to their God whom they considered superior to all the kings. They benefited immensely with this form of identification of God and praying. Otherwise the doubt and the confusion would have taken their heavy toll.

It is a different story that God entity was also coming handy in organizing the society. God and temples in course of time also became rallying points for large sections of the society. It did not stop with that. Once organized, competition for available resources led to wars and stratification of society.

It is to the credit of our forefathers of this land called the karmabhoomi that they could think and explore so deep and far into the imponderable and discern forms and solutions to a basic dilemma which is as old as human existence.

In our scriptures there is scope for one to be an informed atheist, a believer in universal consciousness or a believer in a personal God with form and fame. We do not quarrel on this. That is the greatness of our heritage and culture and of course our genes. LOL. We have no infidels who deserve to be slain.

 

[mkrishna100]

In our scriptures there is scope for one to be an informed atheist, a believer in universal consciousness or a believer in a personal God with form and fame. We do not quarrel on this. That is the greatness of our heritage and culture and of course our genes. LOL. We have no infidels who deserve to be slain

True

 

[auh]

Hi Mr auh:

The highlighted items must be due to some basic intelligence that cannot be distributed because they all work together. Randomness is intelligence, hard to make random happen I have heard. Evolution is not stuck by repetitions like computer gets into a infinite loop but huge variations are seen. That is intelligence.

Even if many entities are there, still they all have to be coordinated by one who must have 'caused?' those entities.

Consider making your argument differently if you care to..What you have stated does not seem to hold your case..

Nobody has made anything happen. It happens. We observe as it happens and try to decode a logic in all its ways. The problem, if I may say, with your argument is that you have presupposed that a conscious intelligence exists that has the power to create something else.

The simplest answer is that we do not know. But I will try to indulge in the philosophical meanderings and try to clarify or confuse as the case may be !

There cannot be one cause or creator as it would seem illogical for so many reasons:

1) If everyting has to have a creator, then who created the creator?
2) What is the creator made of?
3) If there are raw materials that have a separate existence from the creator, then the creator is not omnipresent
4) If the creator is not omnipresent, he cannot be omniscient.
5) If the creator is not omnipresent and omniscient, he cannot be omnipotent.
6) If he cannot be omnipotent, he cannot be the creator. There must be some area that acts in defiance from him. Then it follows that he could not have created everything. So the title of creator falls flat.

The concept of something being created cannot then be correct. What then? Probably they may have "transformed". Is this not evolution? But why the transformation into so many different forms of life and non-life? If there was a conscious will that was behind all such transformations, it could have happened in a jiffy. There should not have been any logic ! In fact, I would say that a "conscious and powerfull will" need not abide by logic; all transformations could have been just willed. That there is a logic and a balance in nature is proof of the non-existence of a creator or a conscious-behind-the-scenes-director !!

 

[sravna]

Nobody has made anything happen. It happens. We observe as it happens and try to decode a logic in all its ways. The problem, if I may say, with your argument is that you have presupposed that a conscious intelligence exists that has the power to create something else.

The simplest answer is that we do not know. But I will try to indulge in the philosophical meanderings and try to clarify or confuse as the case may be !

There cannot be one cause or creator as it would seem illogical for so many reasons:

1) If everyting has to have a creator, then who created the creator?
2) What is the creator made of?
3) If there are raw materials that have a separate existence from the creator, then the creator is not omnipresent
4) If the creator is not omnipresent, he cannot be omniscient.
5) If the creator is not omnipresent and omniscient, he cannot be omnipotent.
6) If he cannot be omnipotent, he cannot be the creator. There must be some area that acts in defiance from him. Then it follows that he could not have created everything. So the title of creator falls flat.

The concept of something being created cannot then be correct. What then? Probably they may have "transformed". Is this not evolution? But why the transformation into so many different forms of life and non-life? If there was a conscious will that was behind all such transformations, it could have happened in a jiffy. There should not have been any logic ! In fact, I would say that a "conscious and powerfull will" need not abide by logic; all transformations could have been just willed. That there is a logic and a balance in nature is proof of the non-existence of a creator or a conscious-behind-the-scenes-director !!

The fact that we need to answer what created the universe or who created the creator logically leads us to only one answer. That the source of creation is timeless. The above is the most fundamental truth about reality. Everything other truth else should conform to that truth.

Once we understand that reality is timeless, then we need to explain time and space and physical entitites.

But let me go step by step. Anyone wants to present an alternate view to a timeless reality?

 

[a-TB]

Dear Shri a-TB,

I do not find in your replies any intention to engage in a debate but only an urge to put down the opponent. Good luck to you too.

Dear Mr Sravana:

Re-read the entire set of exchanges between us.

I said I am confused (by your statement), you told me (condescendingly that it is good that I am confused and asking questions). Then I asked you to explain, and I attacked (yes attacked) your logic but not you the person. You have vested so much of 'you' in your post that my attack of lack of logic hurt your ego (I am sorry for that if that happened). Then again you do not stick to the point and instead make a statement or attack about me ! Now you tell me I have urge to put down opponent.. May god help you.

Well, am I not engaged with Mr auh, he is responding to points not telling me about my intentions.

Most are sick of the S-word that you turn all discussions into. That is your brand of S which is actually talk about 'Sravana's power'. So wanted you to not bring thatS word in this discussion.


I know you want people to think you are this egoless fellow but please show that in your responses by sticking to message of the thread.

 

[a-TB]

The veda says:

yathA vachO nivarthanthE, aprApya manassA sahA.............

So it is evident all these questions that have been raised here by several members have long back been raised by our ancestors too. Only they quickly came to the conclusion that God or creator or whatever else you call it is something that cannot be defined within the coordinates and with the languages that human beings know, understand and utilise.

So while some were stuck with the unknown indefinable and indeterminate entity as just the"unknown,indefinable,indeterminate" entity or at best a " all pervading universal consciousness", someothers, who could not stop trying, took the best available route to deal with this entity with their equipment. They gave it the best form, the best attributes and the best and beyond everything a human mind can comprehend and started calling it God for convenience. They too knew IT is not just God but it is the nearest to God they could bring into this world. They dealt with it like they would have dealt with a real God. They saluted their kings. So also these people did a pranAm to the God before them. They offered their valuable gifts to the king; So also they did the same to this God form created by them. When they needed help they begged of their king. So also these prayed to the God. When felt totally helpless they surrendered to their king and they did the same to their God whom they considered superior to all the kings. They benefited immensely with this form of identification of God and praying. Otherwise the doubt and the confusion would have taken their heavy toll.

It is a different story that God entity was also coming handy in organizing the society. God and temples in course of time also became rallying points for large sections of the society. It did not stop with that. Once organized, competition for available resources led to wars and stratification of society.

It is to the credit of our forefathers of this land called the karmabhoomi that they could think and explore so deep and far into the imponderable and discern forms and solutions to a basic dilemma which is as old as human existence.

In our scriptures there is scope for one to be an informed atheist, a believer in universal consciousness or a believer in a personal God with form and fame. We do not quarrel on this. That is the greatness of our heritage and culture and of course our genes. LOL. We have no infidels who deserve to be slain.

Dear Mr Vaagmi,

Congratulations on a post that comes across as sincere, and well written. First experience for me, I might add, with you LOL

The thread started with Mr Prasad saying he believes in Brahman but not in personal god.
You say (or Veda says?) Brahman cannot be put in words (?) and so our forefathers simply said - just worship an idol as if it is god. Understood that Hinduism is open to many kinds of interpretations.

Couple of issues with your assertions.

1. If veda say Brahman is not definable why are there so many scriptures and sacred books talking about it?? Why even create a name called Brahman. Simply say there is a God and it is in this idol. So something does not add up in your belief or understanding or both

2. God created rapists, serial killers, terrorists and worst of the worst also. You can say it is Karma etc but these people do exist. In fact world has almost equal number of good and bad elements at all levels.

So why should our forefathers assign only all the Good on this God?? If He is all Good how did he allow so much Bad in this world?

 

[a-TB]

Nobody has made anything happen. It happens. We observe as it happens and try to decode a logic in all its ways. The problem, if I may say, with your argument is that you have presupposed that a conscious intelligence exists that has the power to create something else.

The simplest answer is that we do not know. But I will try to indulge in the philosophical meanderings and try to clarify or confuse as the case may be !

There cannot be one cause or creator as it would seem illogical for so many reasons:

1) If everyting has to have a creator, then who created the creator?
2) What is the creator made of?
3) If there are raw materials that have a separate existence from the creator, then the creator is not omnipresent
4) If the creator is not omnipresent, he cannot be omniscient.
5) If the creator is not omnipresent and omniscient, he cannot be omnipotent.
6) If he cannot be omnipotent, he cannot be the creator. There must be some area that acts in defiance from him. Then it follows that he could not have created everything. So the title of creator falls flat.

The concept of something being created cannot then be correct. What then? Probably they may have "transformed". Is this not evolution? But why the transformation into so many different forms of life and non-life? If there was a conscious will that was behind all such transformations, it could have happened in a jiffy. There should not have been any logic ! In fact, I would say that a "conscious and powerfull will" need not abide by logic; all transformations could have been just willed. That there is a logic and a balance in nature is proof of the non-existence of a creator or a conscious-behind-the-scenes-director !!

If I see a helicopter in my backyard I will not say it just happened. I know someone flew it there, some people made it from raw materials, I know there is intelligence involved etc.

I am not presupposing anything that you say. I simply extrapolate what I see around and look for an explanation.

Agree with your simple answer that you and I not know answers to lot of things. But no one can know, or no one knows is a stretch. We are all confused humans..

There is no answer as to who created the creator .. It is meaningless if creator also created time, then question has no meaning.

Just like you presuppose some think that the god is everywhere even in atoms .. so bottomline is we do not know. We all have our favorite beliefs as this thread has established. Thanks for your response

 

[sravna]

Dear Mr Sravana:

Re-read the entire set of exchanges between us.

I said I am confused (by your statement), you told me (condescendingly that it is good that I am confused and asking questions). Then I asked you to explain, and I attacked (yes attacked) your logic but not you the person. You have vested so much of 'you' in your post that my attack of lack of logic hurt your ego (I am sorry for that if that happened). Then again you do not stick to the point and instead make a statement or attack about me ! Now you tell me I have urge to put down opponent.. May god help you.

Well, am I not engaged with Mr auh, he is responding to points not telling me about my intentions.

Most are sick of the S-word that you turn all discussions into. That is your brand of S which is actually talk about 'Sravana's power'. So wanted you to not bring thatS word in this discussion.


I know you want people to think you are this egoless fellow but please show that in your responses by sticking to message of the thread.

Dear Shri a-TB,

I understand and I do not want to prolong this argument further. I have posed a query in my last post. You are most welcome to give your point of view