Believing a Scripture to be Divine

[Avinash]

 

The reason why I believe god is merciful is simply because we know mercy and kindness to be 'good' and because we know that God is all good.

But how do you know that God is all good? Some people say that we are God's children and therefore He must be good to us. Accepted that it is one possibility. But it is also possible that God enjoys torturing us. And that is why He created us and is giving us all kinds of problems. I can say that there are sufferings in the world because God enjoys when we suffer. So, how can we claim that God must be all good?

May be one can say that God is defined as all good and therefore, by definition, He is all good. But let me say that nobody who is omnipotent, omniscient, and good (call him OOG) exists. This OOG is what people call as God. Let me say that somebody who is omnipotent, omniscient, and bad (call him OOB) exists.

If you believe in OOG, then can you logically prove that your belief is correct? Similarly if I believe in OOB, can I logically prove that? Neither can be proven only on the basis of logic. Faith is also required. In fact, when it comes to God or anything religious, then faith is required more than logic.

If something cannot be proved logically, it may be that it is wrong. But it is also possible that it is right but it lies in a domain which cannot be understood purely on the basis of logic (at least as of now).

I gave the example of OOB not to show that I really believe there is somebody who is omnipotent, omniscient, and bad. I do not believe that God is tyrant. I believe that He is all-loving. But I gave the example only to show that we cannot ask for logical proof for everything.

 

Even if my apparent observation shows otherwise, I'd hold on to what I know with certainty and try to find an explanation for the latter. Rest assured, I am open for revision. Please do let me know if I am wrong.

The same can be true with some people whose beliefs are different from yours. May be they have personally experienced something which makes them believe in things which apparent observations seem to contradict.

 

No. I do not think this is completely represents my point of view. Would you like me to restate it?

Yes, sure, please.

 

Absolutely correct. Why should one? Just because I consider it possible for God to reveal anything does not necessitate that God actually did. This is precisely what I am saying.

It is possible that God can reveal some knowledge. It does not mean that there is really some revealed scripture. It is possible that God can incarnate. It does not mean He actually did. Fine. But at the same time it does not mean He did not. May be He did reveal some knowledge. May be He did incarnate. Your argument is that incarnation seems to be against what we generally see. Likewise, revealation is against what we generally see. We can ask for proof of incarnation as we find it as exception. We can ask for proof of revealation as this also is an exception. But what proof can one give? Let us say somebody claims that Quran is a revealed scripture. I ask him to give proof. He asks me back what proof would convince me. What do I answer? Somebody believes in incarnation. I ask for proof. Again, he asks me what proof he should give. What do I answer?

There are certain things which are logically neither provable nor disprovable (I again refer you to Godel's theorem).

There may also be certain things which can be proved to us but we are not ready to put the effore to see the proof.

 

Please allow me to revise the implication of your statement as 'I do not find the concept of a merciful God against my current belief, but the latter two I do and, therefore, will have some questions on.' Correct. Is it not natural?

Yes, it is quite natural to ask for proof if somebody asks you to believe in something which is against your current belief. But if you are yourself interested in learning some belief system, then it is not good to ask for logical proof for everything as some things can be beyond logic. It is similar to the fact that some things in your belief system can be beyond logic. So, it is good to learn a belief system not with the intention of judging it. But with the intention of only learning it.

 

I am, my brother and will continue to do so. Believe me.

In one post you expressed difficultly in proceeding with Gita because Gita presupposes Krsna as God but this concept is against your current belief. That is why I said that it is good to read a scripture in order to learn it and not to judge it. Whether to accept it or not should come after you have learned it. As your current post shows you also agree with that. So, no disagreement here.

[imranhasan]

 

How do we know that?

This is a very interesting point. Please allow me to make this a new thread, as I am sure this deserves the attention of a separate topic.

 

It would seem that our harsh standard for knowledge has left us friendless in a lonely void.

Harsh is fine by me, as long as it is not wrong. And if a harsh standard of knowledge were to leave us friendless, I'd rather live alone in the light that the 'Omniscient' God grants me, rather than have a million people around me without understanding.

[imranhasan]

Thank you, my brother Avinash

 

But how do you know that God is all good? Some people say that we are God's children and therefore He must be good to us. Accepted that it is one possibility. But it is also possible that God enjoys torturing us. And that is why He created us and is giving us all kinds of problems. I can say that there are sufferings in the world because God enjoys when we suffer. So, how can we claim that God must be all good?

May be one can say that God is defined as all good and therefore, by definition, He is all good. But let me say that nobody who is omnipotent, omniscient, and good (call him OOG) exists. This OOG is what people call as God. Let me say that somebody who is omnipotent, omniscient, and bad (call him OOB) exists.

If you believe in OOG, then can you logically prove that your belief is correct? Similarly if I believe in OOB, can I logically prove that? Neither can be proven only on the basis of logic. Faith is also required. In fact, when it comes to God or anything religious, then faith is required more than logic.

Please allow me to start a separate post on this topic, as this surely deserves the attention of a separate thread.

 

If something cannot be proved logically, it may be that it is wrong. But it is also possible that it is right but it lies in a domain which cannot be understood purely on the basis of logic (at least as of now).

I agree with your statement. It is true that something may be true even if it cannot be proved. But, why should I believe in that, then? When we know that something that cannot be proved may or may not be true. Why not take the stand of not ascribing to it, till the time that it can be understood.

 

I gave the example of OOB not to show that I really believe there is somebody who is omnipotent, omniscient, and bad. I do not believe that God is tyrant. I believe that He is all-loving. But I gave the example only to show that we cannot ask for logical proof for everything.

I fully understand, my brother.

 

The same can be true with some people whose beliefs are different from yours. May be they have personally experienced something which makes them believe in things which apparent observations seem to contradict.

Just one clarification. I was not referring to any personal experiences in my example. I referred to my inherent 'knowledge of goodness'. I am so certain about the universality of that 'knowledge of goodness', that without ever having met you, I know that yours is no different than mine.

Just as a case in point, when you wrote:

 

I gave the example of OOB not to show that I really believe there is somebody who is omnipotent, omniscient, and bad. I do not believe that God is tyrant. I believe that He is all-loving. But I gave the example only to show that we cannot ask for logical proof for everything

you really did not need to give this clarification. I already knew it, on the basis of my trust in the 'inherent knowledge' in every human being.

Now, coming to your point that some people may ascribe to a certain belief because of their personal experiences, I don't have a problem with that. However, I am sure you would agree that another person's personal experience does not provide me any grounds to ascribe to the same belief.

 

Yes, sure, please.

Before I state my reservations, I'd request you to please try to read it from my standpoint. Do not try to judge the negativity or otherwise of the mind, regarding any belief. In fact, for the time being, I would suggest that you don't even answer my questions with reference to this belief. Just try to understand my mind. I assure you, once you fully appreciate my mind (without any negative perceptions), you'd be in a much better position to address my reservations. I would, therefore, suggest that if you so desire, you may ask me all the questions that may help you understand my reservations and my standpoint. The ultimate test in this would be that you'd be in a position to state my reservations, even better than myself... . Please also note that I am writing this only from a human perspective, not a religious one.

As a human being, when we start our conscious lives, we are faced with many questions. We try to find answers to these questions. Sometimes more than one answer may be presented for any of our questions. We use our intelligence - sometimes even incorrectly - to select the answer that we understand to be correct. This is how our lives starts progressing. Among these many questions, one of the very important questions that we are faced with relates to where we came from? Did we come into existence on our own? As we progress to understand the cause and effect relationship in this physical world, and as our knowledge of the things surrounding us increases, we are faced with the question of whether all that exists, including ourselves and all the surrounds us, came into existence on its own or was it created by someone. We may stop thinking further, knowing that whatever might be the cause, why waste time on trying to analyze it. On the contrary, we may arrive at the conclusion that this whole physical existence could not have come into existence without a magnificient planner, architect and creator. By whatever names we may call it, this is where we discover our God. Now, the next obvious question is where is the God that I have discovered, but cannot see anywhere. If God has truly made everythiing, why has he kept himself hidden from me. Would I ever be able to see him? Bewildered in these questions, my mind takes me further to ask Why did the hidden God create me and the whole world that surrounds me? You see, may be if I can understand why God created me and other living things around me, this may lead me to the answer of why God remains hidden from me. It is here that I am standing. I know many things about God by studying the physical world around me and the moral existence within me, but these are the questions that I have not yet been able to find answers to. In my endeavor to finding answers to these questions, I reach here. I am told that God does make appearances and requires me to believe that too. Now, I know for a fact that God has not manifested Himself to me, I know that He never manifested Himself to anyone that I know. Why not? Why did God manifest Himself at one time and not at another? Why did God need to manifest Himself? Once again, I tried to find out the purpose of life, as held by those who ascribe to this belief of God's incarnation, so that I may be able to see the whole teachings in their right perspective.

When I said that none of the answers that I received on the concept of incarnation were satisfactory for me, it meant only that these answers did not provide me sufficient basis to believe that God incarnated. Please do not take this as a criticism. The problem could indeed be in my twisted mind, rather than in the strengths of the arguments. Nevertheless, for me unless all the pieces of the puzzle fall in place, I'd not ascribe to a belief merely on the grounds that it were possible. I would, however, not only defend but respect the beliefs of every individual here.

If you wish to address my question on this belief, you'll have to teach me on the purpose for which God created man and explain why he remains hidden, in the light of that purpose; and then explain why He allows situations to exist that would force him to make an appearance, in the light of that purpose. This can help me see the belief in its complete perspective.

This may also help you understand why I have not even commented on my respected brother gHari's responses that God is always in appearance in some universe. You may ascribe to this belief. I respect that. However, I cannot care less if that is the case. If God is making an appearance on the moon, at this moment, it does not make a difference to the fact that he remains hidden, from my perspective.

This is where I stand, now. If you find this to be a completely unreasonable position, please ignore this and excuse me for wasting your time. My inquisition starts from what I know for a fact, not from something experienced by someone centuries ago. Many brothers have tried to brush my questions away by pointing out the flaws in Islam, thinking that I am a Muslim. I assure you, I'd be one, if I am convinced through understanding, not through my neighbor's or an alleged prophet's, sage's or even god's experience.

 

It is possible that God can reveal some knowledge. It does not mean that there is really some revealed scripture. It is possible that God can incarnate. It does not mean He actually did. Fine. But at the same time it does not mean He did not. May be He did reveal some knowledge. May be He did incarnate.

My brother, I am sure that you would agree that believing in two of the possible maybe's, is a very flimsy ground to ascribe to a belief. You don't believe in God's incarnation because 'may be' it did happen. You ascribe to this belief because that is what a scripture says. For you, it is not just ascribing to one of the two possible may be's. I have yet to discover the reliability of these scriptures. If I am convinced that these scriptures reveal the truth to me, I will also ascribe to this belief. In that case, my conviction on the scriptures would not be based on my feelings alone. It would be based on a communicable reason. My reason may be wrong, but it would be communicable, for sure.

 

Your argument is that incarnation seems to be against what we generally see. Likewise, revealation is against what we generally see. We can ask for proof of incarnation as we find it as exception. We can ask for proof of revealation as this also is an exception. But what proof can one give? Let us say somebody claims that Quran is a revealed scripture. I ask him to give proof. He asks me back what proof would convince me. What do I answer? Somebody believes in incarnation. I ask for proof. Again, he asks me what proof he should give. What do I answer?

Very good point, my brother Avinash. Let us take the case of revelation first. Please consider these scenarios:

a) I say that I hold a book to be revealed by God, and want you to ascribe to the same belief, then I will at least have to tell you the basis on which I hold that book to be as one from God. You may or may not find my basis to be sufficient, but the basis should at least be communicable to me. Furthermore, it is not necessary that what you find as sufficient basis to ascribe to a certain belief should be a sufficient basis in my eyes too.

In this case, the answer to your question is only to provide the proof that convinced you about your belief.

b) I say that a book claims to be revealed by God. I agree with this claim and hold this to be a book of God and would like you to ascribe to the same belief. In this case, it would only be reasonable to demand the basis on which the book claims to be from God. Without such basis, the claim of the book would merely be a claim and not a sufficient basis for me to ascribe to the belief.

In this case, the answer to your question would be to provide me the proof that the book itself has given.

Now take the case of incarnation. If you believe that God incarnated, you can simply explain the phenomenon as you understood it yourself. If on, the other hand, a scripture held to be divine, requires you to believe in incarnation, then the onus of providing the proof is on the scripture. This proof, obviously, does not have to be physical. Even a comprehensive explanation that solves the whole puzzle would indeed be sufficient.

 

There are certain things which are logically neither provable nor disprovable (I again refer you to Godel's theorem).

Agreed. I would then prefer to hang on to what I observe and, therefore, know for sure, till the time that I come accross evidence that convinces me to the contrary

.

 

There may also be certain things which can be proved to us but we are not ready to put the effore to see the proof.

That would indeed be a disqualification for the person and may deprive him from the Truth.

Thank you. God bless you.

[Avinash]

 

It is true that something may be true even if it cannot be proved. But, why should I believe in that, then? When we know that something that cannot be proved may or may not be true. Why not take the stand of not ascribing to it, till the time that it can be understood.

The same can be said about the opposite statement. Let us consider a statement S1. S1 can neither be proved nor disproved. So, we can say that we should not ascribe to S1 till it can be understood.

Consider another statement S2. The statement S2 is:-

S2: S1 is false.

Since S1 cannot be disproved, S2 (which is NOT S1) cannot be proved. So, we can say that we should not acribe to S2 till we get proof of this.

We should ascribe neither to S1 nor to S2. Since S2 is nothing but negation of S1, we can say that we should neither accept that S1 is true nor should we accept that S1 is false. But it has to be either true or false. So, what do we do in such cases?

I feel that, under certain conditions, we should continue to believe in whatever we already believe but keep our mind open. We should study the arguments of the people who have opposing belief. If someday the opposing belief starts appealing to us, then we should change our belief. Otherwise we will continue with our existing belief.

 

Now, coming to your point that some people may ascribe to a certain belief because of their personal experiences, I don't have a problem with that. However, I am sure you would agree that another person's personal experience does not provide me any grounds to ascribe to the same belief.

I agree with this. So, as I mentioned above, in such a case we should continue to hold on to our belief but keep our mind open. We should study the other belief also. If it appeals to us, we should accept it. If it does not, then we should continue with our existing belief. However, it is important to understand that, just as we have the right to hold on to our existing belief until we do not get sufficient reason to change it, those having opposing belief also have the same right.

 

Before I state my reservations, I'd request you to please try to read it from my standpoint.

You have used the word basis a few times in your posts. As I understand now, by "basis for a belief" you mean that you know certain things to be true. Based on this knowledge, you make some deduction. The input knowledge that you use to make the deduction is the basis and the result of the deduction is the belief. This belief in turn can be the basis of another belief. It is possible that based on your analysis you deduce some belief from a basis. But somebody else may deduce another belief from the same basis. However, you will agree that he has some basis for his belief if he can tell you what input knowledge (i.e. basis) he started with and why he made the deduction that he made. Accordingly, you want to know the basis for incarnation.

Have I understood you correctly?

[gHari]

 

" If you wish to address my question on this belief, you'll have to teach me on the purpose for which God created man and explain why he remains hidden, in the light of that purpose; and then explain why He allows situations to exist that would force him to make an appearance, in the light of that purpose."

Imran, this is a very complex topic, and is one that will be covered in the purports to the Bhagavad-gita As It Is that you are reading. However I can try to convey some of it here, because it is of prime importance to each of us. Please excuse me if my presentation is not very understandable.

 

Before we begin we should realize that God is never forced to make an appearance anywhere. In fact, He is never forced to do anything. He does as He pleases. He is that He is. Out of very intimate love He may feel compelled to act, bound by deep affection, but that is a different issue.

 

God possesses innumerable energies but His three prime energies are described as His internal energy, His external energy, and His marginal energy. His internal energies are spiritual and thus eternal. His marginal energy is composed of innumerable living souls. The external energy supports unlimited cosmic material manifestations that arise and fall like bubbles in the foam of the ocean.

 

The internal and marginal energies of Krsna are eternal and unborn (that is, never did they not exist). Their nature is described as sac-cid-ananda which means eternal, full of knowledge and full of bliss. God's external energy however, forever supports the manifesting and dissolution of gigantic material worlds again and again. These temporary worlds are neither eternal nor full of knowledge, and they are definitely not blissful.

 

Krsna's marginal energy, consisting of unlimited living souls is situated between the internal and external energies, and can become attracted to either the internal or external energies. If a soul becomes apathetic toward the association of God, to the eternal internal energy, and thus becomes enamored with the temporary external energy, then the soul develops a desire to enjoy separately from the Lord.

 

Krsna allows and facilitates these desires because the soul is afforded free will. Without free will, the soul is not a true separate entity, and thus the manifestation of reciprocal love could not take place. Thereby the external energy is designed through physical laws and agents of the Lord to help the soul really believe that it is enjoying as the 'lord of all it surveys'.

 

In order to effect this illusion for the soul, the external energy will confine the soul and cloud its perception with a false ego that makes it believe that it is a temporary body which can enjoy and live apparently separately from God, not realizing that God remains with him as the Supersoul witness, its constant companion.

 

Starting from very very basic material life forms, the attachment to the concept of being a separate self-centered creature begins. The illusioned soul falls into a cycle of birth, growth, old age, disease and finally death progressing steadily into more complex life forms, all the while with a consciousness that finds its life form quite relishable. So the desired 'enjoyment' increases. Attachment to this illusion of being the enjoyer and controller is further increased at various points where the entire material world is dissolved and the souls are kept in suspended animation for trillions of years until another cosmos is created.

 

All the attachments each soul has acquired through their travels from species to species condition them to patterns of acceptance and rejection, and a variety of 'pleasures' that can be squeezed out of material life. Once the soul reaches the human form, it is possible for a downward spiral back into the beastly kingdom, where the whole progression again plays out until another human form is reached. This continues seemingly forever, eons.

 

By now, billions of lifetimes later, the soul is truly a conditioned-soul in full belief that it is enjoying separately from Krsna. Indeed, for most engaged in the false-ego impression that they are simply their bodily form, there is no understanding of the Kingdom of God or even God. Thus they can become as lords of the material nature, living apparently separately from God.

 

But that was their desire. And Krsna is so kind that from the seat of their hearts, as the Supreme Controller He arranges for the satisfaction of their desires. The living soul after all this conditioning has no idea that it is actually an eternal soul whose birthright it is to be a citizen of the glorious Kingdom of its Father, the seed-giving Father of all souls, Sri Krsna who is the cause of all causes and all that is.

 

However, (and I do promise a happy ending to this gruesome tale), God is unhappy to see the misfortune of His cherished ones, knowing that their true best interest is to be blissfully with Him in a perfect loving relationship eternally. To perfect this loving relationship, to cure the illusory desire to enjoy separately from God, God's tireless efforts constantly extend to His beloved children. Even the material nature itself in the external energy facilitates karmic reactions to lead the soul out of bondage.

 

Depending on the various levels of attachment and consciousness of the conditioned souls, God creates a variety of religious disciplines to nurse the soul toward perfection. Many lifetimes through many religious and philosophical schools eventually perfect the soul's consciousness and attraction to God. Perfect love of God, thereby becoming eligible to associate with Him in the Kingdom of God is the final perfection of the process of purifying the living entity.

 

So we can see that all of God's energies are lovingly employed to correct the apathy of the soul, perfecting its love. From perfecting the soul's illusion of separation, through to the soul's discovery of its true best interest, and then on to the perfection of its loving relationship - all is orchestrated by Sri Krsna, as a loving father tends to his children.

 

From this view of the purpose of our temporary world and the true nature of the eternal living entity, we can perhaps get a better understanding of why Krsna appears before some entities while seemingly remaining aloof to others.

 

The external energies cover the soul in illusion to please its desire, and then that illusion is mercifully dispelled, purifying the soul's love of God. When the soul is completely pure, free from material dirt and desire, then the glorious meeting of the eternal blissful soul with his best friend, his lover, his master, his most cherished Sri Krsna heralds entrance into the eternal Kingdom forever.

 

The greatest story ever told: everyone lives happily ever after.

 

gHari

[imranhasan]

 

The same can be said about the opposite statement. Let us consider a statement S1. S1 can neither be proved nor disproved. So, we can say that we should not ascribe to S1 till it can be understood.

Consider another statement S2. The statement S2 is:-

S2: S1 is false.

Since S1 cannot be disproved, S2 (which is NOT S1) cannot be proved. So, we can say that we should not acribe to S2 till we get proof of this.

We should ascribe neither to S1 nor to S2. Since S2 is nothing but negation of S1, we can say that we should neither accept that S1 is true nor should we accept that S1 is false. But it has to be either true or false. So, what do we do in such cases?

I would say that in such cases, if either of the two options is observable, i'll ascribe to that. Whereas if neither is observable, I will be forced to see it in the context of the overall explanation, as a whole and see which of the two options solves the complete puzzle for me. Would you suggest otherwise?

 

I feel that, under certain conditions, we should continue to believe in whatever we already believe but keep our mind open. We should study the arguments of the people who have opposing belief. If someday the opposing belief starts appealing to us, then we should change our belief.

I cannot agree with you more, my brother. Trust me, with God as my witness, this is precisely what I have always tried to do, with all my limitations.

 

I agree with this. So, as I mentioned above, in such a case we should continue to hold on to our belief but keep our mind open. We should study the other belief also. If it appeals to us, we should accept it. If it does not, then we should continue with our existing belief.

My brother, you speak exactly the same language that I do. I agree with the idea that you have presented here too. Studying the other belief with a very open mind is not only necessary to accept it but is also essential to presnet an academic critique on it, which again has to be with a clear and honest mind.

 

However, it is important to understand that, just as we have the right to hold on to our existing belief until we do not get sufficient reason to change it, those having opposing belief also have the same right.

I would go further to say that it is not just their right, it is their duty. And I honor and respect the right of fulfilling his duty towards god, for every individual.

 

You have used the word basis a few times in your posts. As I understand now, by "basis for a belief" you mean that you know certain things to be true. Based on this knowledge, you make some deduction. The input knowledge that you use to make the deduction is the basis and the result of the deduction is the belief. This belief in turn can be the basis of another belief. It is possible that based on your analysis you deduce some belief from a basis.

You've got it almost right. Now, I'll also take this opportunity to give you my method of analyzing a religion.

 

• Evaluating the relevance as well as the correctness of the arguments, on the basis of which, that religion claims to be divine;
• Evaluating the particular religion’s introduction to God and analyzing its bases;
• Evaluating the concept of that religion regarding the purpose of the creation of man in the light of the introduction to God;
• Evaluating the relevance as well as the purpose of the teachings with special reference to the purpose of creation, in the light of the introduction to God;
• Evaluating the arguments given for adherence to the basic articles of faith, and the relevance of these articles of faith with the purpose of life, as propounded by that religion as well as with the introduction to God;
• Evaluating the ethical and moral values promoted by that religion and the basis of these values;
• Evaluating any interpersonal and personal laws propounded by that religion in the light of:

• The introduction to God;
• The basic purpose of creation;
• The basic target of teachings; and
• The basic ethical and moral values inherent in all human beings as well as those promoted by that religion.

• Evaluating the overall coherence of the complete structure of that religion and to see whether any of its teachings are in contradiction with any others.

Please feel free to comment on these points, which I have laid down. This is just my way of doing it and I would like to reconsider my approach in the light of any guidance I get from you.

 

But somebody else may deduce another belief from the same basis. However, you will agree that he has some basis for his belief if he can tell you what input knowledge (i.e. basis) he started with and why he made the deduction that he made

Absolutely.

 

Accordingly, you want to know the basis for incarnation.

Have I understood you correctly?

Yes. I would like to understand God's incarnation, in the light of the attributes of God that we agree upon and the overall purpose of life, as propounded by the religion and then see if it sums up to a coherrrent whole, which obviously would be dependent on my further study of this religion.

My brother, please accept my sincere gratitude for your time and understanding. God bless you.

[imranhasan]

My respected brother, gHari, thank you for your answer. I have read your answer a number of times. I am presenting below what I dervied from it. Please check to see, if I have understood it correctly or not.

God has many energies, of which three energies are cardinal:

 

• Internal: These remain confined to His absolute self;
• External: what is manifested in the universe (material worlds that come into existence over and over again) these are neither eternal nor blissful; and
• Marginal: what consititue all the souls.

The souls (marginal energies) can get attracted to either the internal or the external energies; When the soul gets attracted to the external energies away from God, God facilitates it, as is so required by granting the souls free will. At this the soul gets even more deeply involved with material pleasures. The physical world makes the soul look only for the pleasures of this material existence and makes it forget God.

The Marginal energy starts from the most basic material-life forms and progresses towards the most complex life forms and the illusion of a separate self-centered creature begins from the most basic life forms. Every time the material-life form it is given is the one most appropriate for its level of consciousness and internal inclinations, so that its enjoyment of life increases. The soul is further illusioned into holding itself the benefactor and controller of the material existence, during the intervals between the destruction of the present material existence and the establishment of another. When the soul reaches the human-life form, it is already conditioned to its own patterns of acceptance and rejection, which it has acquired through all the previous lives it has lived. As a result, it can reach the human-life form in such a condition that it may fall back into lower life forms and start its journey upwards, all over again.

God is kind to provide the soul the particular existence that is most suitable for fulfilling its desires that it has acquired over its past lives. This has led many a soul to become oblivious of the fact that it should actually be aspiring to become a citizen of the Kingdom of God. However, because God does not want to leave these souls in their blindness, He takes a material form to remind them of what their real target should be. For the same purpose, God also creates various religious disciplines, each of which is suitable for a soul, with reference to that soul's level of attachment and consciousness. The ultimate target is to purify the soul and to perfect its love of God so that it becomes eligible to associate with God in His Kingdom.

Thus, all of God's energies are lovingly guiding the souls to this perfection of love for God and purification from attachment to the external energies. To the extent that when the soul is completely pure and free from mateiral love and perfected in its love for God, then God personally appears before that soul, announcing that soul's entrance into the Kingdom of God, forever.

Thank you. I await for your comments.

[gHari]

 

However, because God does not want to leave these souls in their blindness, He takes a material form to remind them of what their real target should be.

[...]

To the extent that when the soul is completely pure and free from mateiral love and perfected in its love for God, then God personally appears before that soul, announcing that soul's entrance into the Kingdom of God, forever.

Imran, you certainly seem to have lifted the essential conceptual words correctly, separating them from the bhakti. However, the highlighted parts quoted above were not in mind when I wrote the post.

 

The first highlight is true but not always true. The second highlight is even more the exception; again possibly true but not always true. You may remember an earlier reference to the proof of the pudding, about how rare great souls whose eyes are smeared with the salve of devotional love, see God in His eternal original Syamasundara form of bliss through the eye of their eternal self. That is, the purified living being can at once enter the Kingdom of God, even while apparently being situated in this world.

 

You will soon find a promise in the Bhagavad-gita where God says "To those who are constantly devoted and worship Me with love, I give the understanding by which they can come to Me". If you want to understand, this is the only way. Otherwise it will be like licking the outside of a honey bottle, for the topic is infinite and the mind is finite. From within your heart Krsna will provide you with buddhi-yogam, understanding that comes from the Supersoul to your soul down to the intelligence. This relates to the parable mentioned earlier about the two birds in the tree of the heart. God gives several such processes in the Bhagavad-gita Song of God by which the conditioned soul can break free of its conditioning and purify its existence. Following His words: with God at the reins of your body chariot thusly keeping the horse senses in check, that is certainly the path to opulence, victory, extraordinary power, and morality.

 

REFERENCES:

Ahankara - the False Ego

The Chariot Body

<a href=http://vedabase.net/bg/18/70/en target=new>Intelligence</a>

 

gHari

[imranhasan]

Thank you, brother gHari,

Do you think if I were to qualify the statements with a 'sometimes', then they would be representative of what you hold to be true? The referred statements would then read as under:

 

However, because God does not want to leave these souls in their blindness, He, sometimes, takes a material form to remind them of what their real target should be.

[...]

To the extent that when the soul is completely pure and free from mateiral love and perfected in its love for God, then, sometimes, God personally appears before that soul, announcing that soul's entrance into the Kingdom of God, forever.

Would you consider this to be accurate now. If not, then just let me know that you don't. At present I would only like to concentrate on your explanation, from your own perspective. Please do not give any additional information, just as yet.

Please also reconfirm that I have represented your explanation correctly, once we have corrected the two referred statements.

Thank you, my respected brother.

[gHari]

 

Would you consider this to be accurate now. If not, then just let me know that you don't.

I don't.

 

 

At present I would only like to concentrate on your explanation, from your own perspective.

For what purpose? The taste of the pudding defeats any ocean of sad logic the limited mind can possibly devise. My words are there, but it would be best to just read the book.

[imranhasan]

 

I don't

Ok. Please correct it then. Please do not enter into other explanations, just review and correct the statements.

 

For what purpose? The taste of the pudding defeats any ocean of sad logic the limited mind can possibly devise. My words are there, but it would be best to just read the book

I do not understand this. Why did you write any words if you would not even want them to be understood? Are you asking me not to try to understand what you wrote in your elaborate 'happy ending' story? I will refrain from doing so, if that is what you want.

Thank you for your time.

[gHari]

 

just review and correct the statements

But I thought I got it right the first time it was written.

 

The six links I provided above were to fill in the gaps omitted in the parsing, and to fill in between the lines of the original 'happy ending' story.

 

But I say to you, my friend, that this story pales compared to the story that is about to unfold on the Battlefield of Kurukshetra. The chariots are all in place now. Your hairs will stand on end as you are left in awe of the majesty and wonderment of the Song of God. It will ring true to your very soul. It cannot be otherwise.

 

You will soon thank me for encouraging you to not get distracted by these minor details. The stage is set. The battle is about to begin; and God is on our side, noble Imran.

 

gHari

 

P.S. In two hours you can listen to the whole Bhagavad-gita translation by clicking here. Reading the PURPORTS afterwards will give a much deeper understanding and perspective.

[Avinash]

 

I would say that in such cases, if either of the two options is observable, i'll ascribe to that. Whereas if neither is observable, I will be forced to see it in the context of the overall explanation, as a whole and see which of the two options solves the complete puzzle for me. Would you suggest otherwise?

I agree here. The overall explanation should be coherent.

 

Yes. I would like to understand God's incarnation, in the light of the attributes of God that we agree upon and the overall purpose of life, as propounded by the religion and then see if it sums up to a coherrrent whole, which obviously would be dependent on my further study of this religion.

God often does not make an appearance because there is no need. But it does not mean He hates to make an appearance so much that He will prevent any situation from occuring which will need Him to appear. Moreover, God is always willing to show Himself to His sincere devotees. The appearance of God (from our perspective) is rare because those who very sincerely seek Him are rare.

We agree that:-

1. God can make an appearance.

2. God is merciful.

To this let me add (as written in scriptures many places)

3. To a sincere seeker of God, seeing God in front of him is a mercy so great that the happiness of the person seeing God cannot be explained in words.

If we combine these, then it makes perfect sense if God appears in front of his true devotees.