Belief in personal God VS Belief in Brahman

[zebra16]

Share:

Facebook Twitter WhatsApp Email Share Link

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?

One raw material may produce so many different things. If the raw material is a physical stuff like steel, the same raw material can be used for building bridges or making machines or for manufacturing pipes etc. So the variety of the output produced need not strictly be dependent upon there being different creators. One Brahman is sufficient to produce the multitude of things, if he is capable.

If non-physical raw material is taken for examination, the example of electricity stands out. The same electricity can be used for cooling the room temperature or for heating stuffs in oven etc. giving opposite outputs from the same input.

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

The example provided in the scriptures is the example of spider and its web. The web is formed out of proteinaceous spider silk requiring no external substance. If Brahman is supposedly omnipotent, He can form the universe and its diversities out of his extrusions without depending upon external materials.

Moreover, the concept of existence of stuff external to Brahman should be erroneous when Brahman is the one and only thing supposed to be in existence in different nAmAs & rUpAs.

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.

There is nothing external to brahman because brahman is all inclusive, so the question of assembling things and stuffs to create something new is out of question. The scriptures are also emphatic that the will power of brahman ALONE is sufficient to transform stuffs (like constructing bridges out of steel)

That intelligence of Gold has to be there for someone to make a bangle. So Brahman has to be intelligent.

That the brahman is inert does not make brahman devoid of intelligence. The scriptures describe brahman as "SATYAM, GNYANAM, ANANTAM BRAHMA... representing truth, knowledge/wisdom/intelligence and being Endless.

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

The description and the role given to him in the scriptures make him all the three Omnis.

 

[prasad1]

Zebraji,
Thank you for your posts especially for post#81.

 

[thebigthinkg]

There are finite numbers and infinity. How are they related..?

Advaita:

From the view-point of infinity, all finite numbers are its sub-sets. Hence only infinity is reality.

Dvaita:
From the view-point of finite, no amount of addition of finite can add upto infinity. Hence the two are distinct realities.

Visishta-advaita:
From a third-party view-point, the number tends to infinite with a large value and becomes finite with a small value. Hence the two are distinct but part of one reality.

The difference in them is from where they view. Advaita from infinity, Dvaita from finite and visishta-advaita from a third party. From infinity, all finite are its sub-sets. From finite, it can never become infinity. From a third party, finite and infinite are different parts of the same thing.

My understanding of it.

-TBT

 

[Vaagmi]

There are finite numbers and infinity. How are they related..?

Advaita:

From the view-point of infinity, all finite numbers are its sub-sets. Hence only infinity is reality.

Dvaita:
From the view-point of finite, no amount of addition of finite can add upto infinity. Hence the two are distinct realities.

Visishta-advaita:
From a third-party view-point, the number tends to infinite with a large value and becomes finite with a small value. Hence the two are distinct but part of one reality.

The difference in them is from where they view. Advaita from infinity, Dvaita from finite and visishta-advaita from a third party. From infinity, all finite are its sub-sets. From finite, it can never become infinity. From a third party, finite and infinite are different parts of the same thing.

My understanding of it.

-TBT

Correct understanding and well expressed/articulated. Thanks.

 

[a-TB]

Dear Shri a-TB,

You have not read my post properly. I have mentioned why God choose to create. It is to have a totally different experience to that of his harmonious blissful experience. This lila gives him an experience which is marked by tension and uncertainty.

In this world there is interaction between the opposites .There is both suffering and joy. The suffering and the joy we experience are the experiences of god since we are in essence God. The sufferings and joy are because the souls are veiled. This is gradually removed. So in essence it is a hide and seek game of God. Contrast this to the harmonious timeless experience of God. Then the purpose of lila would make sense.

Dear Mr Sravana:

Thank you for taking the time to explain your POV.
It is understandable but it appears to be your assumption that it works this way.

If god created time, he/she/it is beyond time. So why should that god want to experience anything which can only be in Time??

There are many more 'why' for all your statements that have no answer. It is too complex to think reality is like that.

 

[a-TB]

Vaagmiji's point is purely a Dwita view, and that is contrary to the OP, which is based on Advaita.

A-TBji,

Without getting into high philosophy, let me bring my POV.
The simile may not be perfect but has to do, as nothing is similar to Brahman.
A steel ingot does not care as to what shape it is made into, it could a sword, needle, scalpel, etc.
Similarly, Brahman is not differentiating between goodness and badness. It is the basis of everything. (that is the hypothesis).

The qualities are an attribute and Temporary. (may not be for the sufferer).
Buddha did not say that he can take away the suffering of people in this life. But he showed a path to ultimate relief from suffering. Again suffering at body level is different than the suffering soul goes through.

No religion or philosophy has a cure for suffering in this life. They all want to give you hope for future only. It may not be enough for some.

Dear Mr Prasad:

Mr Vaagmi's POV is contrary to most things here LOL

Your POV is clear, thank for the explanation. If whatever we say 'Good' is brahman and whatever we say 'bad' is Brahman, not sure how this POV is helpful in running our life. I suppose we carry on without looking for a savior god.

Agreed that religions (especially cults) take advantage of gullible

 

[a-TB]

This brings in the key belief. If you believe that God allowed the possibility of terrible things to happen, it presumes that there is an entity called "God". So let us get the relevant scenarios :

First possibility (a) An entity called God exists; it is brahman for some, inert etc. and a personal God for some others for whom He is active and saguna etc. and for yet others, He/She/It is ultimate reality.

Second possibility (b) The existence of God itself in is question; there is no creator God per se and things evolve themselves because of innate intelligence. There is no active evidence of God in the happenings in the universe or multiverses.

Sri Sravana, Sri Vagmi etc. seem to be arguing on the lines of the first possibility; whereas Sri Auh seems be adducing points in support of the second possibility.

It is not clear to me as to whether your belief is situated in the first possibility or in the second possibility, so it would be better if you could clarify whether you subscribe to the first or second possibility.

It has to be stated upfront that those who are arguing for existence of God, as per my understanding, are based on scriptural exhortations, as no one is claiming to have seen God (the best they have stated is that they have "FELT" God or seen his will executed through actions of others (mostly humans and in some cases other living being things and even inanimate things).

So replying to your queries would depend upon your premise of whether God exists. For example, there would be no gain in extolling the virtues of omnipotence, omniscience etc. in brahman (especially when he is inert) if your BELIEF is that existence of God is in doubt.

Dear Mr Zebra16:

Innate intelligence must have a cause - that is Brhaman I suppose.

Regarding my belief: Due to upbringing I have regard for our sacred books though I have no clue as to what is taught. We may go to temples out of tradition and respect only.

Honest answer is do not know if I have a core belief. The more I engage here the more I am certain most people do not seem know what is taught in our scriptures or that our scriptures have confused messages. No attacks intended on anyone by saying that.

Most statements made here are no better than what my Christian friends believe in (e.g., we all have original sin because Eve ate the apple against God's wishes and Jesus can save from that sin).

Some of your statements, few of Mr TBT'd posts, etc seem to be logically based. So at this point I am in a listening and challenging mode. Thanks for your responses

In the end it all comes to variety of beliefs and no belief is better than others

 

[a-TB]

I prefer to ignore this and move on as the source from which the post has come is obnoxious and myopic. Period.

Dear Mr LOL Vaagmi:

The source of the post is me! So you are back to your name calling when challenged.
OMG, you are always commenting on other people's ego - how insecure must you be? You call names of people when you cannot respond to a challenge. Your post hides behind buzz words and I just pointed that out.

Why is your ego so fragile that you get frustrated and angry spewing hatred so quickly??

May that Narayana bless with you with good health since your ego is not helping you in that regard.

Please be assured I will happily point out your contradictions in your posts, and call out your ego responses whenever that happens LOL

OK, LOL?

 

[a-TB]

One raw material may produce so many different things. If the raw material is a physical stuff like steel, the same raw material can be used for building bridges or making machines or for manufacturing pipes etc. So the variety of the output produced need not strictly be dependent upon there being different creators. One Brahman is sufficient to produce the multitude of things, if he is capable.

Well variety of human beings can be creators too when bridges etc are built. But we do not know the raw material for existence of animals, plants, insects , human beings etc - Not sure that the raw material is . It will come down to a belief in the end

If non-physical raw material is taken for examination, the example of electricity stands out. The same electricity can be used for cooling the room temperature or for heating stuffs in oven etc. giving opposite outputs from the same input.

Electricity and other material and many other 'innate intelligence' and Physical laws causes different output for the same input. It is not electricity only

The example provided in the scriptures is the example of spider and its web. The web is formed out of proteinaceous spider silk requiring no external substance. If Brahman is supposedly omnipotent, He can form the universe and its diversities out of his extrusions without depending upon external materials.

Moreover, the concept of existence of stuff external to Brahman should be erroneous when Brahman is the one and only thing supposed to be in existence in different nAmAs & rUpAs.

Does it mean Brhman has now BECOME the universe? What happened to Brahman if anything is left?



There is nothing external to brahman because brahman is all inclusive, so the question of assembling things and stuffs to create something new is out of question. The scriptures are also emphatic that the will power of brahman ALONE is sufficient to transform stuffs (like constructing bridges out of steel)



That the brahman is inert does not make brahman devoid of intelligence. The scriptures describe brahman as "SATYAM, GNYANAM, ANANTAM BRAHMA... representing truth, knowledge/wisdom/intelligence and being Endless.

If Brahman is not made up of assembled things, then hard to digest that it is made up of being inert and intelligence at the same time

The description and the role given to him in the scriptures make him all the three Omnis.

Answered in green color, Thanks for your patience to explain, Mr Zebra

 

[a-TB]

There are finite numbers and infinity. How are they related..?

Advaita:

From the view-point of infinity, all finite numbers are its sub-sets. Hence only infinity is reality.

Dvaita:
From the view-point of finite, no amount of addition of finite can add upto infinity. Hence the two are distinct realities.

Visishta-advaita:
From a third-party view-point, the number tends to infinite with a large value and becomes finite with a small value. Hence the two are distinct but part of one reality.

The difference in them is from where they view. Advaita from infinity, Dvaita from finite and visishta-advaita from a third party. From infinity, all finite are its sub-sets. From finite, it can never become infinity. From a third party, finite and infinite are different parts of the same thing.

My understanding of it.

-TBT

Dear Mr TBT:

Between two finite numbers there are infinite numbers. Infinite numbers of infinite sets are between infinite numbers of finite numbers. We will need another school of thought for that case LOL

 

[sravna]

Dear Mr Sravana:

Thank you for taking the time to explain your POV.
It is understandable but it appears to be your assumption that it works this way.

If god created time, he/she/it is beyond time. So why should that god want to experience anything which can only be in Time??

There are many more 'why' for all your statements that have no answer. It is too complex to think reality is like that.

OK Shri a-TB. what I am trying to do is to present a contradiction free theory. Any theory of science to my knowledge is not contradiction free.

 

[mskmoorthy]

Dear Mr TBT:

Between two finite numbers there are infinite numbers. Infinite numbers of infinite sets are between infinite numbers of finite numbers. We will need another school of thought for that case LOL

I think there may be a misunderstanding between ordinal and cardinals. Please look at this video https://youtu.be/uWwUpEY4c8o?t=5m40s to see the difference. [If you already know this and I am misinterpreting your statement my apologies]

It may be worth watching this video https://youtu.be/uWwUpEY4c8o to appreciate infinite!

 

[sravna]

Infinity is only a theoretical concept. But in reality, after extremely low or high values, things simply transcend that level and go to a higher level. I think lack of understanding of this truth has been responsible for a lot of contradictions to appear in scientific theories.

 

[thebigthinkg]

I was trying to explain Advaita, Dvaita and Visishta-advaita and not number theory. But I will explain number theory as well now.

From an infinite view-point all finites are its sub-sets and infinite makes them complete. That is advaita.
From any finite view-point, becoming infinite is not possible/practical. That is dvaita.
From a third party view-point, infinite seems to be a continuum of finite. That is visishta-advaita.

Infinity can be looked at in three different ways.

1. Poornam
2. Khahara
3. Ananta

Poornam is a bit like 'Advaitic' view. It is the view from the Infinity itself. 'Poornam' means complete. While infinity gives a sense of unlimitedness, poornam gives a sense of completeness.

What are the 'infinite' numbers between two real numbers say 3 and 4..? They are those real numbers that make it to 'complete' (poornam) from 3 to 4. What are the infinite numbers between two real numbers say 3 and 5..? They are those real numbers that make it to 'complete' (poornam) from 3 to 5.

And these two poornams/infinite numbers are equal poornams/infinite numbers. One is not bigger than the other. They are same. Mathematically this is proved by what is called 'Bijection theorem' (in one of the videos of PBS infinite series here). This means even if we take out poornam/infinite from poornam/infinite, it still remains poornam/infinite.

That is the nature of Poornam, which is complete, makes complete and remains complete.

"[FONT=q_serif]पूणम् अदः पूर्णम् इदम् पूर्णात् पूर्णम् उदच्यते । पूर्णस्य पूर्णम् आदाय पूर्णम् एव अवशिष्यते".
[/FONT]
*********

'khahara', which means 'divided by zero' and hence infinity is like dvaitic concept.

Here the view is from any limited real number. When any limited number is divided by zero becomes infinity. Similar to a dvaita concept, here the view of infinity is from limited number perspective. But dividing by zero does not make any practical sense and hence infinity is totally away from the grasp and realm of finite numbers.

******

Then there is the concept of infinity which sees it as a continuation of finite numbers like the Visihta-advaita concept.

Ananta is the 'end-less'. This is the infinity concept of natural numbers, integers, odd numbers, even numbers etc where we indicate that endless as 'infinity' and see it as a continuation of finite numbers.

-TBT

 

[Vaagmi]

I was trying to explain Advaita, Dvaita and Visishta-advaita and not number theory. But I will explain number theory as well now.

From an infinite view-point all finites are its sub-sets and infinite makes them complete. That is advaita.
From any finite view-point, becoming infinite is not possible/practical. That is dvaita.
From a third party view-point, infinite seems to be a continuum of finite. That is visishta-advaita.

Infinity can be looked at in three different ways.

1. Poornam
2. Khahara
3. Ananta

Poornam is a bit like 'Advaitic' view. It is the view from the Infinity itself. 'Poornam' means complete. While infinity gives a sense of unlimitedness, poornam gives a sense of completeness.

What are the 'infinite' numbers between two real numbers say 3 and 4..? They are those real numbers that make it to 'complete' (poornam) from 3 to 4. What are the infinite numbers between two real numbers say 3 and 5..? They are those real numbers that make it to 'complete' (poornam) from 3 to 5.

And these two poornams/infinite numbers are equal poornams/infinite numbers. One is not bigger than the other. They are same. Mathematically this is proved by what is called 'Bijection theorem' (in one of the videos of PBS infinite series here). This means even if we take out poornam/infinite from poornam/infinite, it still remains poornam/infinite.

That is the nature of Poornam, which is complete, makes complete and remains complete.

"[FONT=q_serif]पूणम् अदः पूर्णम् इदम् पूर्णात् पूर्णम् उदच्यते । पूर्णस्य पूर्णम् आदाय पूर्णम् एव अवशिष्यते".
[/FONT]
*********

'khahara', which means 'divided by zero' and hence infinity is like dvaitic concept.

Here the view is from any limited real number. When any limited number is divided by zero becomes infinity. Similar to a dvaita concept, here the view of infinity is from limited number perspective. But dividing by zero does not make any practical sense and hence infinity is totally away from the grasp and realm of finite numbers.

******

Then there is the concept of infinity which sees it as a continuation of finite numbers like the Visihta-advaita concept.

Ananta is the 'end-less'. This is the infinity concept of natural numbers, integers, odd numbers, even numbers etc where we indicate that endless as 'infinity' and see it as a continuation of finite numbers.

-TBT

Well said.

 

[Vaagmi]

dear mr lol vaagmi:

The source of the post is me! So you are back to your name calling when challenged.
Omg, you are always commenting on other people's ego - how insecure must you be? You call names of people when you cannot respond to a challenge. Your post hides behind buzz words and i just pointed that out.

Why is your ego so fragile that you get frustrated and angry spewing hatred so quickly??

May that narayana bless with you with good health since your ego is not helping you in that regard.

Please be assured i will happily point out your contradictions in your posts, and call out your ego responses whenever that happens lol

ok, lol?

lol.

 

[a-TB]

OK Shri a-TB. what I am trying to do is to present a contradiction free theory. Any theory of science to my knowledge is not contradiction free.

OK, Mr Sravana:
Your answers are as if you never read my responses and objections. I have pointed out contradictions in what you have presented. I cannot argue about science. Anyway let us leave it at that....

 

[a-TB]

I think there may be a misunderstanding between ordinal and cardinals. Please look at this video https://youtu.be/uWwUpEY4c8o?t=5m40s to see the difference. [If you already know this and I am misinterpreting your statement my apologies]

It may be worth watching this video https://youtu.be/uWwUpEY4c8o to appreciate infinite!

Thank you Mr mskmoorthy :

My knowledge of math is not much more beyond the number line.
No need to apologize - the video seemed interesting but I was unable to follow.

If there are infinite numbers between any two finite numbers, that is not talking about size being measured but about counting only (in my layman thinking)

 

[prasad1]

Thank you Mr mskmoorthy :

My knowledge of math is not much more beyond the number line.
No need to apologize - the video seemed interesting but I was unable to follow.

If there are infinite numbers between any two finite numbers, that is not talking about size being measured but about counting only (in my layman thinking)

I too did not understand that video, she seemed to explain it but I did not get it. I was too ashamed to admit it.

 

[sravna]

Regarding what I said about your confusions: Example is Nirguna and Saguna Brahman statements by you. There has to only one Brahman . It cannot be like one package with many parts (like we have body and mind and the two can be at odds with each other). If there are no parts assembled in Brahman it cannot hold completely opposite functions (nirguna and saguna whatever that means). This is confusion

Dear Shri a-TB,

If the above is what you are referring as contradiction let me try to explain it. There is only one brahman. Saguna brahman is just a projection of nirguna brahman. Nirguna is free of actions and thoughts. It is just the experiencer. It is saguna brahman that is responsible for creation through its thoughts. Using the analogy of Sankara, Saguna brahman is the the snake we see when the reality is rope which is nirguna brahman.