What is the origin of Hate OR why do we hate others?

[Guest guest]

Hari OM

 

It is said that

 

"Love is God"

 

&&&&&

 

"God is everywhere"

 

so i think this implies ======>

 

"Love is everywhere"

 

but in reality we don't see this as the case, in fact the opposite "hate is everywhere" seems to be the actuality.

 

Then my question is which of the two propostions are wrong, or is the logical inference wrong? or am i missing something?

 

Can somebody please explain in simple english? no esoteric, philosphocial explanations please (i would not be able to understand them)

[nitai16108 0]

Hare Krishna

 

All Glories to srila prabhupad

 

The reason for getting hatred at others is envious and Lust to attain that particular thing we are desiring for and at the same time the jiva (soul) (i.e ourself) thinks himself as the doer and does all the work. also he expects some kind of things and if that not happens he gets hatred on others jivas thinking that he is not doing according to my expectations and doing it in his own way.how can he do? and he must do it for my expectations.So giving up hatred and expectations can at once make love others and treat everybody as Soul not the doer and evrybody as the servant of Lord Krishna.

Please Chant Hare Krishna Maha mantra to get more purification as instructed by srila prabhupad and also previous acharyas.

 

Hari bol.

[Guest guest]

Hari OM:

 

Thanks for your nice advice, i too agree that following Gurus and Acharyas (displic succession) is the surest way.

 

However being contaminated by western education system, i (or my mind) is also interested in logical analysis of the things.

 

 

"God is Love"+"God is Everywhere"====> "Love is Everywhere"

 

But in reality "Love is everywhere" seems to be false, so if reality is true (??) then one of the factors in the left hand side should be false.

 

If both factors in Left hand side are true, then either reality is false, or i am unable to understand something.

 

So while fully agreeing to your reply, i would be also very much thankful , if you can explain this part, and clarify this doubt of mine.

[Avinash 0]

You have written:-

God is love.

Love is everywhere.

The above two conclude that love is everywhere.

 

The problem with the above conclusion is taking figurative statement as literal. Not only in statements related to spirituality but otherwise also we often make figurative statements. As an example, suppose that you have one son and one daughter. You love them equally. You may say, "For me there is no difference between my son and my daughter. They are equal."

Does it mean that your son and your daughter are identical? Not at all. It simply means that you give them equal importance.

 

The conclusion made by you is valid provided God and love are two different words to mean exactly the same thing. But this is not true. God is a being. Love is a quality. How can a being with indentical with a quality? Rather the statement "God is love" means that God is full of love. He loves all of creation. It also means that if you want to attain God, then love one another.

[Guest guest]

 

You have written:-

God is love.

Love is everywhere.

The above two conclude that love is everywhere.

 

 

 

Hari OM:

 

Thank you for the time and logical reply, i think being in bangalore, logic and software should be your natural traits.

 

but i being an inquistive demanding sub-logic person , i would like to raise more (silly) questions. Hopefully you are not irritated by that.

 

 

God is a being.

[ /QUOTE]

How can you be sure?

 

 

 

Does that mean God is "full" of love and has no place for any other feeling, or is "almost full" of love, but still has other feelings/qualitites

 

 

 

He loves all of creation.

 

 

How can you be sure? then what is the reason for natural calamities and universal destruction (of the creation)

 

 

It also means that if you want to attain God, then love one another.

 

 

Should i love one another or love God or both? also a more parable question what is meant by "attain God?" --- reaching the place where God stays, developing God like qualities (i.e., full of love), developing God like intelligence and power

 

i would be thank ful if you can answer in a simple and logic ways as your earlier thread, one, two or all my questions.

 

But if you refuse to answer me or just shout back at me, be assured i will not "hate" you

[Guest guest]

 

You have written:-

God is love.

Love is everywhere.

The above two conclude that love is everywhere.

 

 

 

Hari OM:

 

Thank you for the time and logical reply, i think being in bangalore, logic and software should be your natural traits.

 

but i being an inquistive demanding sub-logic person , i would like to raise more (silly) questions. Hopefully you are not irritated by that.

 

 

God is a being.

 

How can you be sure?

 

 

Rather the statement "God is love" means that God is full of love.

 

 

Does that mean God is "full" of love and has no place for any other feeling, or is "almost full" of love, but still has other feelings/qualitites

 

[Avinash 0]

 

logic and software should be your natural traits.

That is correct.

 

To my statement that God is a being you asked

 

How can you be sure?

When I wrote 'God is a being.' I meant that God is not just a concept. Love is a concept. If we take 'God is love' literally it would mean that God is just a concept known as love. But I am trying to say that this thinking is wrong. If you ask how I am so sure that God is not only a concept, the answer is based on the definition of God. Even atheists do not consider God as just a concept. Of course, atheists do not believe in God. But when they say that they do not belive in the existence of God, it does not mean that they do not belive in the existence of love. Many atheists do believe that love exists, but they do not believe that God exists. Theists belive that there is a being whom we call as God and they associate many qualities with such a being. Atheists belive that no being having these qualities exist. In brief, the answer to the question "How am I so sure that God is a being" is that this is by definition.

 

 

Does that mean God is "full" of love and has no place for any other feeling, or is "almost full" of love, but still has other feelings/qualitites

 

Is it possible (at least in theory) for a person to be both completely honest? I am not sure that such a person exists or not. But, at least in theory, it is possible. If a person is completely honest, can we say that he has no place for any other feeling? Not at all. He can be completely honest and can also have other feelings.

When we say God is full of love, it does not mean that love is some object which is present inside God's body as if something is present inside a container.

 

When I wrote "God loves all of creation" you asked

 

How can you be sure? then what is the reason for natural calamities and universal destruction (of the creation)

I was merely explaining the meaning of the statement 'God is love'. I was only trying to explain that the way theists interprete 'God is love' does not lead to the conclusion that you drew in the first post of this thread.

 

 

Should i love one another or love God or both?

Both

 

 

what is meant by "attain God?" --- reaching the place where God stays, developing God like qualities (i.e., full of love), developing God like intelligence and power

Attaining God is also known as liberation (or mukti). Different people have different beliefs as to what liberation (i.e. attaining God) means. A few months back, I explained this to another poster in another thread. I will try to find that thread and post its URL here.

[Guest guest]

 

That is correct.

 

When I wrote 'God is a being.' I meant that God is not just a concept. Love is a concept. If we take 'God is love' literally it would mean that God is just a concept known as love. But I am trying to say that this thinking is wrong. If you ask how I am so sure that God is not only a concept, the answer is based on the definition of God.

 

 

Hari OM:

 

Thank you once again for the clear and logical answer.

 

Due to limitations of my brain, i will try to go point by point

 

i think both "Love is God" and "God is a being" are defined by Acharyas and we have to take their definiton (until we can see for ourselves personally)

 

You say that "Love is God" should be taken figuratively and not literally, i think then both the statements have to be taken figuratively.

 

if you think only the first statement is figurative, but the second statement is literal please explain the basis for that.

 

Once again thanks for your reply and all standard disclaimers apply

[Avinash 0]

 

You say that "Love is God" should be taken figuratively and not literally, i think then both the statements have to be taken figuratively.

 

if you think only the first statement is figurative, but the second statement is literal please explain the basis for that.

 

If we do not take 'God is a being' literally, then we would have to assume that God is just a concept. By concept I do not necessarily mean love; it can be any concept or a combination of many concepts.

 

By the word 'being' I do not necessarily mean a living being which is one of the living beings that we know of. All I mean is that God is a being with consciousnes (i.e. not just some inert matter). He can be with form and formless both. He can be in various forms simultaneously. (I am sure you have a question on this but I will wait for your question before giving an answer).

[Guest guest]

 

If we do not take 'God is a being' literally, then we would have to assume that God is just a concept

 

 

Hari OM:

 

to put your statement conversly, can we say since we can't assume God is just a concept, we take (or assume) God is a being?

 

or you have something substantial to say "God can't be just a concept" ?

[Avinash 0]

 

to put your statement conversly, can we say since we can't assume God is just a concept, we take (or assume) God is a being?

Yes, you can say that.

 

 

or you have something substantial to say "God can't be just a concept" ?

If God were just a concept then even atheists would believe in God because they do believe in the concepts that theists often associate with God, e.g., they do believe that love exists.

[Guest guest]

 

Yes, you can say that.

 

Hari OM

 

i think your patience is running out after answering all those silly questions (probably you are quite young). So if "God is a being" is just your assumption, or you not interested in knowing (or attempting to know) how close/far is your assumption to the truth

 

 

If God were just a concept then even atheists would believe in God because they do believe in the concepts that theists often associate with God, e.g., they do believe that love exists.

 

i dont think belief of (even) atheists can be a proof or disproof to God.

 

Atheists don't belive some concepts associated with God for e.g., eternity (no beginning and no end), what does this imply

[Avinash 0]

Suppose I ask you the following question:-

 

What is the proof that x multiplied by x is the square of x, where x is a number?

 

What would you answer? The correct answer is that it is by definition. We have defined 'square of a number' as the number multiplied by itself. Since it is by definition, it does not require any proof.

 

Likewise 'God is a being' is by definition. That is how the word 'God' has been defined.

 

When atheists say that they do not believe in God, it does not mean that they have some other definition of God. They also define God the way theists define. But they say that a being as per such a definition does not exist. To give an analogy, suppose a scientist says that he does not believe in the theory of Big Bang. It does not mean that he does not agree with the supporters of Big Bang over how to define the term 'Big Bang'. He agrees. But he says that the theory is wrong.

 

Likewise, atheists also agree that the word God is used to mean a being with various qualities that theists talks about. But they do not believe that such a being exists.

 

 

Atheists don't belive some concepts associated with God for e.g., eternity (no beginning and no end), what does this imply

When atheists use the word 'God' they do mean a being who is eternal. But they do not believe in the existence of such a being.

 

Asking the proof of 'God is a being' is the same as asking the proof that x multiplied by x is the square of x.

[Guest guest]

 

Suppose I ask you the following question:-

 

Since it is by definition, it does not require any proof.

 

Likewise 'God is a being' is by definition. That is how the word 'God' has been defined.

 

[\QUOTE]

 

Hari OM

 

fine , i agree with that, in fact i was not asking for proof of God

 

my theory "Love is God" is also by definition (since you said it should be taken figuratively, the question of God is a being is also arised)

 

now since it is decided that we need to take things as per definition, my original questions comes back to haunt us

 

"God is Love"+"God is Everywhere"===>"Love is everywhere"

 

is found to be false , question was WHY so?

[Avinash 0]

Yes, it is true that the statement 'God is love' is by definition. But the people who use this definition do not mean that God is just a concept (or feeling) called love. But the conclusion you have drawn would be valid only if 'God is love' meant God is another just another word for the concept (or feeling) called love.

Let me take an analogy. If a person becomes highly successful, then we often say that he has become synonymous with success.

As per dictionary meaning of the word 'synonymous', when we say 'X is synonymous with Y', it means that X and Y are two words to mean the same thing. Suppose that a person X is so successful that people often call him synonymous with success. Consider the following argument:-

X is synonymous with success. In other words, X means success.

I want success.

This means I want X.

But when I say I want success, do I really mean that I want X? No. So, what is the fallacy in the argument? The fallacy is in assuming that the word synonymous in 'X is synonymous with success' means literally the same as (as defined in dictionary). But this assumption itself is wrong.

Likewise, 'God is love' does not mean that God is just another word for love.

 

When a person says something and you want to prove his statement as logically faulty, then you must derive the same meaning of his statement as what he himself means. If two people use the same statement to mean entirely different things, then anything can be proven wrong.

[Guest guest]

Otherwise, humans would never experiance death, because Yami refused to do this killing work.

 

The Birth of Death, by mahaksadasa 1999

 

In the beginning of time, the human beings lived in the clear air, and as their sustenamce, they moved within the air without effort. The Earth was then made of pure honey, and, first a few, then many more, descended by the desire to taste the sweet flavor. An addiction developed, and though they did not require the honey, they began to eat more and more. Gradually, the human beings became too heavy to fly any more, and their wings fell off to become the world's mountains. These mountains formed a crust over the Earth's surface as well as harnessed the clouds to deliver the rains and the seeds of vegetation.

 

When the last human had landed to fly no more, male and female forms began to develop as compatible with terrestrial living. These forms developed desire for one another and were thus able to procreate the species.

 

Since at this time, the human beings were immortal, the increase of their kind created an unbearable situation for the Earth. Hearing the cries of the humans on Her surface, the Earth approached Lord Brahma, the creator. Lord Brahma was perplexed, and, finding no solution to the problem, He experianced great anger. This anger began to consume the entire cosmos with the fires of annihilation, and Lord Brahma was thus satisfied.

 

Lord Shiva arrived and immediately bowed to Lord Brahma's feet, begging, "Be merciful, O Lord, do not destroy what You have created."

 

Lord Brahma: "I have no mercy, just anger.

 

Lord Shiva: "If this were the case, I would not have come before You. Your whole creation is blasted with fire, please look upon the human beings in another way."

 

Lord Brahma: "Mata Earth begged for help, crying pitiously, but I cannot solve Her problem. I know why She cries, She is sinking in the Causal Ocean from the weight of Her people, but I have no solution."

 

Lord Shiva: "Then al creation is but ashes."

 

Lord Brahma: "I withdraw all anger and restore everything as before, but the problem remains, I have great doubt."

 

As Lord Shiva was about to leave, assured by the universal restoration, Lord Brahma noticed a being created by His six senses, a woman with red eyes and tanned skin, brilliant in beauty and ornaments. Smiling pleasantly to the Two Lords, She went her own way to the South.

 

Lord Brahma called out to Her, "Wait, Death. Kill all creatures, beginning with idiots and priests."

 

Death replied: "Never. It is cruel, go away from me."

 

She ran away, but Lord Brahma and Lord Shiva tolerated Her insistance, following her and persuading her, to no avail. Death was allowed to wander the creation without taking any life for 100,277,000,008,000 years. Lord Brahma again appeared before Her, Saying, "Death, I have not seen you for a moment, what are you doing?"

 

"I will never kill for You" was Her steadfast promise.

 

Lord Brahma looked at the winsome girl, and replied, "Then I must make them equal. You will not have to kill them, you will never kill gods, demons or human beings. I now create greed, envy, anger, and shame, jealousy and passion. From Your tears, I make war and disease. Do nothing, they will all come to You. You will not be the cause or the prevention of death, but You must greet all who come to You well in their hour. They will kill themselves, and only fools will weep over what none can avoid."

 

Upon hearing this solution to Lord Brahma's delimna, Lord Shiva began to dance, for until this time, though He had raised His foot, He had never put it down.

[Guest guest]

 

When a person says something and you want to prove his statement as logically faulty

 

 

Hari OM:

 

No i dont want to prove your statements as logically faulty.

 

i just want you to start questioning your assumptions and beliefs

 

As you can see in vedantas, Gita, Baghvatam and all purnas, nothing is considered sacroscant, it is full of questions by Brahama, Narada, Sukadeva, Pipilada, Sanka.... because questioning is the only surest way to attain knowledge , nobody is ever cursed there for questioning or blasphmey

 

If you feel lazy to question (mental jatiyam) and feel comfortable cocooned in your beliefs, then you may be stuck with some ideology like Abrahmic/capatlism/communism , or even iskconism, where you would hardly understand the ideology, even may hate it, but still force to defend it out of fear or some promised returns.

 

To come out of this trap, start questioning with a sincere heart and with honest intention, and belive me, the more you know about it the more you will love it.

 

You have the age, interest and intelligence, but you are spending it in writing some software which would become an useless piece in another 2-3 years, so just do it for your survival, but focus your time, energy and intelligence in resolving the spiritual puzzles, which can be eternally helpful.

 

PS: just one interesting question for your consideration, no need to reply for this.

 

In waking state, we can't see anything while we close the eyes, but in dreaming state we see clearly with the eyes closed, do you have any scientific logical explanation for this?

[Avinash 0]

I do not have any problems in questioning my beliefs. I always question my beliefs whether they are related to spirituality or science or anything.

Suppose somebody asks me questions on Huygen's wave theory of light. I will answer based on what that theory says. It does not mean that I believe in that theory. Suppose somebody asks me whether light is longitudinal or transverse wave according to Huygen's theory. I will answer longitudinal. But in reality I believe light to be transverse wave. Then why should I answer longitudinal? This is because the question is not what I believe. The question is what Huygen's theory says. In some cases, what I believe is the same as what the theory in question says and in some cases, it is different.

Similarly, when you are asking questions on 'God is love' and 'God is everywhere', then I am not answering based on what my beliefs are. Rather I am answering based on what people mean when they make the statements like 'God is love' and 'God is everywhere'.

When I used the word 'faulty logic', I am not talking about finding faults in my logic (or my beliefs). Rather I am talking about finding faults in the statements 'God is love' and 'God is everywhere'.

 

In the first post of this thread, you tried to show problem with these two statements. I am not claiming that the two statements can never be wrong. I am also not claiming that one should never question the beliefs in these two statements. All I am saying is that the two statements are not wrong because of what the conclusion you have drawn. There is a difference between saying that 'a statement is not wrong' and 'a statement is not wrong because of what you say'. See the difference?

[Guest guest]

 

Suppose somebody asks me questions on Huygen's wave theory of light. I will answer based on what that theory says. It does not mean that I believe in that theory. Suppose somebody asks me whether light is longitudinal or transverse wave according to Huygen's theory. I will answer longitudinal. But in reality I believe light to be transverse wave

 

 

Hari OM:

 

yes that's good

 

But also beyond that ( i.e., both the theory and your belief), you should also try to find out what is that light? because when you fully about anything you would also know about everything (a yogic theory!)

 

God says, "I am the light" (in BG) what does it mean-- should it be taken literally (like each individual soul is a quanta of light, i.e., photon and God is the same total of all quantas) or figuratively (to mean He is very bright) or some other ways?

 

i think we should throw away the inertia (ajatiyam) and delve deep into this issues and try first ourselves to understand and help others (who are interested in this line of thinking) , since the human life is rare and we don't know when (and where) would be our next chance.

[Avinash 0]

In the last post you have talked about my beliefs. But this topic is different from the topic in the first post of this thread. In the first post, you wrote that God is love and God is everywhere should mean love is everywhere. I merely tried to point out why we should not make the conclusion that you have made. It has nothing to do with whether I believe in these two statements (postulates) or not.

[Guest guest]

 

In the last post you have talked about my beliefs. But this topic is different from the topic in the first post of this thread. In the first post, you wrote that God is love and God is everywhere should mean love is everywhere. I merely tried to point out why we should not make the conclusion that you have made. It has nothing to do with whether I believe in these two statements (postulates) or not.

Hari OM:

 

OK thank you.

 

Yes it seems like "God is love" and "God is everywhere" should not or can't be concluded to mean Love is everywhere.

 

Your point is well taken and thanks for the nice logical replies.

[Avinash 0]

Now that you have got the answer to the question you raised in the beginning of this thread, let us tackle your another question.

 

 

God says, "I am the light" (in BG) what does it mean

As with any other statement, we should take "I am the light" also in its proper context if we want to learn what it means. The statement "I am the light" is taken from B.G. 7.8. The verse says: -

 

"O son of Kunti, I am the taste of water, the light of the sun and the moon, the syllable om in the Vedic mantras; I am the sound in ether and ability in man."

 

If you read this verse and later verses in that chapter (7) of Gita, you will find that Krsna is calling Himself as the source of everything. Indeed in 7.6, He says: -

"Of all that is material and all that is spiritual in this world, know for certain that I am both its origin and dissolution."

 

So when Krsna says, "I am the light in the Sun and the Moon.", it means He is saying that He is the source of the light as of everything else that exists.

[Avinash 0]

You may find the following threads relevant: -

 

http://www.audarya-fellowship.com/forums/spiritual-discussions/48086-brother-avinash.html

 

http://www.audarya-fellowship.com/forums/spiritual-discussions/43031-believing-scripture-divine.html

 

http://www.audarya-fellowship.com/forums/spiritual-discussions/42707-what-essential-beliefs-hinduism.html

[Guest guest]

From Chapter 16 of Hayagriva prabhus Hare Krishna Explosion.

The conversation is between Srila Prabhupada and Allen Ginsburg.

 

 

Prabhupada: "No. This will happen at least 400,000 years from now. By that time, my disciples will be with Krishna.”

 

“Jai!”

 

“And those who will not follow them,” Prabhupada adds, smiling, “will see the fun.”

 

And as Prabhupada laughs, I imagine Lord Kalki sweeping the world on a great white horse, severing heads as easily as a child stomps ants.

 

“Will people still be chanting Hare Krishna in 400,000 years?” Allen asks.

 

“No,” Prabhupada says. “Hare Krishna will be finished on this earth within ten thousand years.”

 

“So what will be left?”

 

“Nothing. There will be, ‘I’ll kill you and eat you,’ and, ‘You’ll kill me and eat me.’ In this way, we’ll have full facility for meat eating. There will be no milk, no grain, fruit or sugar. Still, Krishna is very kind.” Prabhupada shakes with laughter. “Yes, very kind. He gives full facility. ‘All right, why eat cows and calves? Eat your own sons.’ Yes, just like serpents, they’ll eat their own offspring. Like tigers. There will be no more preaching, no brain to understand preaching, no preacher. Civilization gone to the dogs, they say. And then Kalki will come and say, ‘All right, let Me kill you to save you.

 

“Do you also see this as an actual historical event? That is, Hare Krishna chanting will diminish in ten thousand years?”

 

“Oh yes, but now it will increase.”

 

“Until?”

 

“Ten thousand years, then diminish. People will take advantage of Hare Krishna for the next ten thousand years.”

 

“Then this is like the last rope,” Allen says, “the last gasp.”

 

“Yes,” Prabhupada says. “The duration of Kali-yuga is 432,000 years, of which we’ve passed five thousand. There’s a balance of 427,000, and out of that, ten thousand is nothing.”

 

Allen shakes his head, as if bewildered by such cosmic calculations. In the Western tradition, long spans of time are considered uninteresting. The Second Coming is always just around the corner.

 

“But where is all this stated?” he asks.

 

“In the last canto of Srimad-Bhagavatam there are descriptions, Prabhupada says. “For instance, it’s said that in Kali-yuga, marriage will be performed simply by agreement. And people will think they’re beautiful just because they wear long hair. Also, it’s mentioned that the Germans will become kings and that the English and Mohammedans will occupy India. Many incarnations are also foretold, Lord Chaitanya and Lord Buddha being two.”

[Guest guest]

 

Now that you have got the answer to the question you raised in the beginning of this thread, let us tackle your another question.

QUOTE]

 

Hari OM

 

Thanks for the reply.

 

My statements were meant to be just the finishing remarks to close a non-ending argument.

 

If you think deeply, you can "see" that "Love is everywhere" is neither false nor figurative, but literal. It is as universal as the law of gravity , even hate is a type of love expressed intensely in a reverse direction (as from Asuras towards God)

 

So as per my belief, neither the posulates, nor the conclusion is false or figurative , but literal.

 

However, i understood that this can't be easily accepted by others, neither can i 'proove' it. So let us close this thread on cordial notes and i have no "hate" whatsoever against you for having a different viewpoint.