imranhasan

 

There is not one but many stories in Puranas in which somebody could see God only because he was very sincere. I gave the story of Prahlad. If you read the complete story, you will find that Prahlad was a big devotee and was very much eager to see God. There are many other such stories as well.

You had actually stated in one of your earlier responses that there could be many many reasons unknown to man. That was the only reason why I felt the reason should not be a dervied or a deduced one, but a stated one. Ok. I understand now that the reason is derived and deduced from the circumstances surrounding each instance of incarnation, not one stated in the scripture.

 

I was not talking about intelligence and conscience. I was talking about a person getting direct knowledge from God in such a way that he knows (correctly) that he is receiving knowledge from God. As an example, many Muslims people claim that Allah revealed Quran to Prophet Muhammed. This is not simply because Prophet Muhammed used his intelligence and conscience. Otherwise if anybody writes something using his intelligence and conscience, then his words should be considered as revealed by God. I am talking about revealation from God the way Musims say that Quran was revealed by Allah. I gave the example of Quran not because your name is that of a muslim. But because I have heard that many Muslims consider Quran as revealed. It was just an example.

So, my question is:-

Do you believe it is possible that God has ever revealed some knowledge to mankind?

Yes. I would say it is possible.

Thank you, brother Avinash

 

In general there is no need for Him to come in front of our physical eyes and let us know that we are seeing God. In general, people are not so sincere to see God that they have earned the privilege of seeing Him.

Is this what the scripture says? Can you please help me see the words too?

 

1. Do you believe that God can end the sufferings of all living beings once and for all?

Yes.

 

2. Do you believe that God is merciful?

Yes.

 

3. Do you believe that there can be some scripture which God has revealed to mankind? By revealing I do not mean appearing before a person and giving him knowledge. By revealing I mean that God gave some knowledge to somebody in such a way that he knew that the knowledge was from God. It can be by any means. It may be because he heard God. Or, it may be because he got that knowledge through his inner knowing or by any other means. Only thing important is that God directly gave the knowledge to some person, that person got that knowledge and knew that it was from God. I am not asking only about Bhagavad Gita or any other scripture of Hinduism. It can be the scripture of some other religion as well. Example: Quran, Bible, Baha' scriptures etc.

So I repeat. Do you believe that God has ever revealed any knowledge to mankind?

If man is to be held responsible for the way he lives his life, then a Merciful God would surely guide Him, in some way. May be human intelligence and conscience is that guidance (or at least the first step in it).

 

But just the opposite has been stated in this thread regarding the Nitya-Lila of Krsna, the eternal pastime. He is always in appearance in this world in one or other of the many universes, yet simultaneously He is always in the Kingdom of God enjoying as He always does. So this is the general rule you adore so much. We earthlings just happen to be in wrong place or the wrong time. We missed Him.

"Generally" was with reference to our perspective, not from God's. What God does or decides to do in some other world or universe, I can neither find out nor verify and am not even concerned with, till the time that someone makes me understand that it relates to me in some way.

 

Do you believe in white bears, even though you've never been in the right place at the right time to see one?

Yes. I do believe that white bears exist. There is a complete consensus of all the sources of information that there is one. I can witness it, if I am willing to take the pain of going to the right place.

 

It now seems like simply argument, the feigned sincerity is dwindling and the cheating is becoming too obvious as you disregard that which you cannot defeat. Defeat does seem to be the goal. And that is simply a waste of your time - like trying to make the sun rise in the West.

My respected brother, I am sorry if that is the impression I have given you. Defeating or winning was never in my mind. Learning was my only target. I win, if I learn. You are welcome to take all the other prizes.

 

Guru Prabhupada when greeted with the paradox "Can God create a stone too heavy for Him to lift?", supported God's omnipotence by responding, "Yes. He will make a stone He cannot lift........ Then He will lift it".

Impressive answer. I will just like to add one small condition to it, on the basis of my faulty knowledge: "Yes. He can make a stone He cannot lift, if that is what His absolute wisdom and absolute knowledge require... Then He will lift it, if it is required by His absolute wisdom and absolute knowledge" As I understand it, God is not just omnipotent. He is omniscient and wise at the same time.

My dear brother, Avinash,

 

You are talking about "overall plan". If the evil which requires God to take action without making an appearance is within the scope of overall plan, then I do not understand why it requires that much leap of faith to believe that the evil which requires God to make an appearance is outside the scope of overall plan.

My brother, it really seems that I have been unable to put my point accross. I will try to restate the issue, as soon as I can find an alternative way of doing so.

For the time being, can you please let me know if you agree with the fact that generally, God does not make an appearance and controls everything without having to do so. This, "generally", is so general that it may safely be stated that one-hundred percent of the people treading this earth today have not seen God. If it is so, can you please tell me what the Hindu scrptures say about this witholding of appearance of God? Why is it so that God is not always in appearance in the world, generally?

 

You have mentioned in one of your posts that you believe that God has the power to make an appearance. But what you find difficult to agree is that He sometimes exercises this power.

My dear brother, because it seems that we are at a kind of dead-end here, I request you to grant me the liberty to request you to please free your mind of the issue of incarnation for a while and please allow me to know your opinion on the following:

 

• Do you not believe that God has the power to do everything?
• If God has the power to do everythiing, does this necessitate the belief that God actually did everythiing?

Do you not believe that God has the power to bring the sun out from the western side or our hemisphere? Just because he has this power, would you be willing to believe anyone telling you that he did?

 

Let me give some background.

Please accept my and most sincere gratitude for your kindest offer and guidance. Please also allow me to be able to post my questions on the text that I read here, in the hope that you will grant this student your continued personal attention. I am not saying that you are more knowledgeable that all else on the forum, for I am not even in a position to judge that. But I do request you to contribute your time to answer my questions, as I find your answers to be more precise and understandable to my untrained mind.

 

I understand that I (or somebody else) saying that Gita is a great book will not convince you of its greatness. Nor should it convince you because I and many others can be wrong. So, please study Gita on your own and let us know what you feel about it.

Thank you very much for your understanding and appreciation. I will not hold anything back, if I have to ask. Thank you very much, indeed.

 

God personally did not give those powers to the king. The king got those powers through some other means. You can ask that why God allowed him to get those powers. Well, it is similar to God allowing evil in this world.

Very good point, brother Avinash. However, very respectfully, my brother. It is quite one thing to say that God allows evil to exist, within the scope of the overall plan and purpose for which life was created and it is quite another to allow evil to reach a level where the overall plan and purpose is so hindred that God has to make a personal appearance to stop it.

 

I gave the example of Nrisimha (man-lion) incarnation. One reason for that incarnation was to check the evil of Hiranyakashipu. As I mentioned in that post of mine, Hiranyakashipu could not die how creatures in general die. God had to incarnate to kill him. If you say that God could still kill him without making an appearance, then one can say that he could kill by making an appearance. If you say that making appearance is an exception, then the case of Hiranyakashipu was also an exception.

Brother Avinash, please excuse me but this seems to be a somewhat circular argument. Obviously, first God allows the king to get the exceptional powers and then makes an exception to make an appearance.

Thank you.

 

Let us say that there are some very pious people. As a blessing to those God incarnates and lives with them. Why can't it be a proper reason for incarnation?

Brother Avinash, I have posted my question on this topic in the thread titled "Incarnation of God..". Thank you.

 

According to Hinduism, the creation and destruction of material world are cyclic. The world is created and destroyed, created and destroyed, ....

Brother Avinash, if that be the case, then, firstly, there will be a new begining of the material world, every time it is created after each destruction. Secondly, from an overall perspective, was there not a first creation and a first destruction of this material world?

 

Out of these, let us concentrate on scriptures. If you take all the all the scriptures of Hinduism, then the total content will be real huge. There are certain parts which are more easily understood by taking Siva to be supreme and certain others by taking another to be supreme. There is also possibility that there are some later interpolations. Howver, if you study more and more of scriptures and see them in totality, you will find that the differences keep on decreasing as you study more. This is because many differences are because of taking certain parts in isolation. What I am trying to say is that if you read some part in a scripture. Then you read some part in another scripture. You may feel that they are inconsistent. It is possible that you may always see that inconsistency. But if you keep on reading more and more, then you may even feel that they are not really inconsistent. It is just that there were certain things which you were not aware of earlier and you made some assumptions which are not really supported by scriptures.

My brother, you say that there is also a possibility of later interpolations. Can you please elaborate on this? Has this possibility ever been analysed and checked for confirmation or complete rejection?

God bless you, my brother Avinash

 

That is right. Soul is not created by God. That is why in one of my posts, I was very careful in saying that whatever has been created has ultimately been created by God. I did not say everything has been created by God. Soul has not been created by God.

In one of the earlier posts, I am really sorry for I could not find it to reference it, one of the brothers had said that my soul is actually the real me while this body is only a vessel. So, this mean that only my material vessel is created by God, while the real 'me' is not created. Why then am I made to be a prisoner of the cycle of life and death. Was it only because God was stronger than my eternally existing soul and thus forced 'me' into this cycle?

Brother gHari, my cited question was not with reference to incarnation or re-incarnation. I just wanted to know if the material world, according to Hinduism, had a begining in time or not. However old it may be, did it have a begining? Is it a creation of God or has it eternally existed, with God.

 

Thank you.

 

Now we are stating that God is limited, unable to transcend the physical machinery of the material world. Hence, He is not omnipotent. The Why is overcome by the How.

No brother, that is not the case. Please don't misconstrue me. I am not saying that God cannot transcend the physical machinery. I am only saying that, as a generally known principle he does not.

 

I guess not. Continue as you are for now. Seeing God as a Person is difficult after worshipping His energy as 'God' for so long. He will reveal everything in due time.

Thank you, my brother. I will continue, as you say.

I was just going through the first chapter of the Gita and it full of references to names, which I know nothing of. Would you recommend a commentry that may help me know the background and the names referred to, there?

 

If you can accept that somewhere in the middle of eternity God suddenly decides to create other beings in a complicated material world - and then destroys that world for all eternity

Just out of curiosity, do you not believe that this material world has a begining?

 

...then there is hope that one day you can see that God can do anything, even manifest His greatness in the world before our very eyes demonstrating His complete dominion over all that be.

Just a point of clarification, please. I have absolutely no doubt that God can do anything. Believe me, my questions may please not be taken as my skepticism about God's omnipotence. My questions are only to understand the wisdom for something that is believed to be his action.

 

His kindness in revealing His existence to us beyond a shadow of a doubt is certainly one of His most compassionate qualities.

This point needs some clarification. I am sure you would appreciate that, at least to my mind, there is a difference between "God revealing His existence to us" and "A book declaring that God revealed His existence to us". Why is God not revealing himself now? Why has He subjected us to believe a 'book' while he privileged some to witness him directly? I really feel that for all the eyes that see, God's existence is revealed in every thing around us as well as within us. Is it not?

 

If He can send His messenger, then cannot He come Himself? Perhaps we should ask ourselves why we limit Him this way, if indeed we are calling Him omnipotent.

My Brother, as I have stated earlier, for me it is not a question of God's powers or whether he 'can' do a particular thing. If, as a general principle, (which I have been subjected to and so too my father, grand father and great grand father and all those before them) God does not make an appearance, then this principle is based on the absolute wisdom of God. An alleged exception to this principle must not only explain why did such an exception take place, but also why the general principle was otherwise.

These lines are only written to express my mind. Please do not waste your time in replying to them, if you don't find them deserving of your attention. I am reading the Gita, as you have directed me to.

Thank you very much.

 

The emphasis of "accepting it as it is" is more on the lines of hearing the Gita as it was spoken by Krishna, not diluting it or altering it to fit someone else's philosophy. Krishna spoke the Bhagavad Gita, so if we want to study the Gita we should try to hear it as He spoke it. It doesn't mean that we should blindly accept it, but we should just try to hear His words as He spoke them. There are many versions of the Gita where people have tried to force their own philosophies into Krishna's words, even though Krishna speaks something completely different. So this is what the translator was warning against.

I understand. I think that makes a lot of sense. This should indeed be the standard, if one wants to understand any writing.

Thank you very much for the clarification.

 

You are trying to use the limited human mind to understand the higher divinity.

Yours as well as my perception is not perfect.

Therefore how can a human being with a limited mind understand everything about divinity?

The divinity who is the closest thing to perfection.

Is belief not to be based on understanding then?

My brother Avinash, this was the second essential belief that you had posted in one of your earlier replies.

 

Eternal soul:- One's body dies but his soul is eternal.

WIll I be correct to interpret that your statement means that the soul has no begining and no end? If yes, would it mean that the soul is not created by God?

Thank you.

Thank you, Shiv

 

You say none of the answers you received so far are satisfactory. I think the chances are, no answer will be satisfactory as you have a preset notion (which is not subject to revision) based on your current belief that no such concept can exist.

I think that is indeed possible. However, equally possible is the fact that none of my questions is perceived as relevant or pertinent by you, because you have a present notion (which is not subject to revision) based on your current belief that such a concept did exist.

 

Many posts stated God incarnates to prove a point, set an example, etc. Any of these reasons out to be sufficient. If you do not find them satisfactory, then you need to explain why.

One person says God incarnated to check the evil of someone or some nation. I know that God checks many evils everyday, without making an appearance. In my mind, if this is the case, then checking anyone's evil cannot be the basic cause of an incarnation. Another person quoted the scripture saying that God incarnated to show mercy to His devotees. I know that God shows mercy on many of his devotees everyday, without having to make an appearance. In my mind, then, showing mercy on His devotees cannot be the basic cause of incarnation. Another person says that God incarnates as human being to be a role model for ordinary human beings. However, firstly, the incarnation under consideration in that post was not one of a human form; secondly, if God incarnates as a human being with all his absolute powers and attributes, how could a man with godly powers be a role model for fallible and imperfect human beings.

Another person says, because God can do anythiing with or without making an appearance, therefore He could have controlled some things without making an appearance, while for others He made an appearance. The fact is that the overwhelming principle in the running of this world is that God does not make an appearance, as far as our direct knowledge is concerned. If that were not the case, there would have been no problem to accept anything about God's appearance in any age, for any reason. However, we know that if God is running the affairs of this world on the general principle of remaining hidden, then God's absolute wisdom would require that the principle be excepted only under clear circumstances which require that exception. This may indeed be because of my limited and obscured vision.

If someone were to tell you that you should believe that the sun came out from the west one day. Would you just believe it because someone told you so? Would it be sufficient for him to say that you must believe it merely on the basis that because God can do it, He did it? You would find it hard to believe because you find it clearly against the physical laws of God, according to which this solar system is running. I am facing the same problem in accepting the concept of incarnation. It is clearly against the general physical laws, on which this universe is running (in my mind, at least).

You may term my questions to be a result only of a mind clouded under some preconceived ideas. You have a right to do so. Just as much as I have a right to post my questions here. Please bear in mind that even if I do not find the evidence presented so far to be sufficient for me to accept that God incarnated in a physical form, yet I respect your belief and would refrain, to the best of my abilities, to say anything that may sound disrespectful. If you do not find my questions to be coming from an honest mind, you have the right to not answer them.

Best regards and thank you.

Thank you very much, all my brothers. God bless you.

 

In this post, I will refrain to post my questions on your answers. However, I will post another related question, which may appear to some as irrelevant to this thread. Nonetheless, I really feel that this may help me understand the idea of the belief in incarnation of God. My question is:

 

However large the numbers of the incarnations that one may believe in, it seems that normally God does not make a known physical appearance in this physical world. Why is that so? Why does God not make a known physical appearance, generally?

 

Will greatly appreciate your thoughts as well as some information on what the scriptures say about it?

 

Thank you, very much indeed. God bless you all.

Thank you, my brother for your wonderful prayers, good wishes and guidance.

 

If you are really sincere about this, then as a starting point, the Bhagavad-gita is usually recommended.

I really do not know if my asking questions would be construed as a sign of any lack of sincerity on my part. To be honest, it is not important to me how any one sees my sincerity, as long as the One who knows the deepest thoughts of every mind, knows what I am inside.

My dear brother, following the link that you had guided me to. I started with the Preface written by the translator. He writes there:

 

Our only purpose is to present this Bhagavad-gītā As It Is in order to guide the conditioned student to the same purpose for which Kṛṣṇa descends to this planet once in a day of Brahmā, or every 8,600,000,000 years. This purpose is stated in Bhagavad-gītā, and we have to accept it as it is; otherwise there is no point in trying to understand the Bhagavad-gītā and its speaker, Lord Kṛṣṇa. Lord Kṛṣṇa first spoke Bhagavad-gītā to the sun-god some hundreds of millions of years ago. We have to accept this fact and thus understand the historical significance of Bhagavad-gītā, without misinterpretation, on the authority of Kṛṣṇa

Please note the underlined phrases.

Firstly, do you really place me as a 'conditioned mind'? Do you think I am ready for this study?

Secondly, it seems to me that the study of Gita, presupposes the belief that the respected Krishna was, in fact, an incarnation of God. I really find it hard to bring myself to accepting that, as I have not yet come accross a single satisfactory answer as to why would God incarnate himself.

Please help me. What should I do?

Thank you, my brother

 

You hit the nail on the head. Belief doesn't mean simply accepting anything we read or hear; but it all ties together and makes sence. So in answer to your question we believe because it 'makes complete sense'.

I think this is indeed a very valid point. Please let me state in my words what you are saying, so that I can be sure I have understood you correctly. What you are saying is that because the concept of reincarnation and the concepts that animals have souls as propounded by Hinduism makes sense, therefore you believe that the scriptures giving this view are divine. Would you consider this an appropriate representation of your point?

Thank you and God bless you.

 

I don't know why are you quoting just one line from my whole para. I said i don't want to give usual replies which people of other religion gives...Did i say you are wrong to ask this?

 

I am sorry. I understand.

 

Why should i review? Why you always ask same things again? Yes, i said that in plain simple English.

Ok. Self-Realization is the basis of your belief. Obviously this is neither questionable nor discussable and so, not communicable.

Thank you.

Thank you, my brother Pankaja_Dasa,

 

I am speaking from your own scriptures. If you come asking about ours it seems fair that you speak from yours. Otherwise what are we talking about?

I am not qualified to answer these questions. I have addressed the same questions to Muslims and Christians. If I were to get a satisfactory answer, I would let you know. But, obviously, this forum would not be a good place for that. Don't you agree?

 

I said Qu'ran doesn't mention reincarnation, or that animals have souls. But in our Scriptures it is mentioned that we can be born as animals if we 'act like them'. They are conscious beings. In that way we can see what scriptures are saying I do believe.

My brother, I have no intention of debating an issue I know nothing of. I am asking you about the basis of your belief in the scriptures and in response you tell me that the Qur'an does not mention reincarnation of the soul. Ok, so it doesn't. But my question remains unanswered. What is the basis of your believing any of your scriptures to be divine?

 

So the answers maybe can be answered like this.

 

 

Bhagavad-gita As It Is:.2.13:As the embodied soul continually passes, in this body, from boyhood to youth to old age, the soul similarly passes into another body at death. The self-realized soul is not bewildered by such a change. Read

Now this is really interesting. What exactly are you answering? Does your quote give the answer to the question 'what is the basis of believing that your scripture is divine'?

Thank you.

Thank you very much my brother gHari, God bless you.

 

As far as knowing Their perfection, like a pudding, tasting is the proof.

What I understand from this is that you are saying that when one reads it, one feels it inside that it comes from God. Is that correct?

If so, which of the Vedas would you recommend that I start my reading from?

 

If They lead to God, then we know

The only problem that I face here is that if I were to start reading the Vedas and then were to tell you that I did not feel the same sensation in myself that you had. You would, most likely look at it as my bias and prejudice. Even if you would never have seen inside my heart. I will read the Vedas with honesty and openness. I promise God. But, what I am trying to say is that what one feels after reading a literature is actually sometimes more in oneself than in the literature that he is reading. You may never feel what a Christian feels while reading the Gospel or what a Muslim feels while reading the Koran. The problem is not in the Gospel or the Koran but in the mental and psychological bent with which one is approaching these books. Don't you agree with this?

 

...and many many saintly personalities in the past and present avow to Their authenticity

I am sure they did. However, being a matter of 'tasting the pudding', their sense of taste cannot benefit me or even you. We'll have to the 'tasting' on our own and then we'll have no choice but to rely on our own sense of taste.

 

...not to mention incarnations of God who offer absolute reverence to the Vedic knowledge.

God's incarnation is obviously a matter of belief. And as I have been informed by brother Avinash, it is not mentioned in the Vedas. Would you then recommend that I read the Puranas as well? Which other books would you recommend for me to read and in what sequence?

Thank you, my brother. God bless you.

 

Doesn't that mean you can be executed if you embrace another religion?

I don't know what will happen, if I embrace another religion. But should we allow the fear of the unknown, the unseen and the uncontrollable be a hindrance in our way of accepting what we have truly understood to be the Truth from God?