Jump to content
IndiaDivine.org
Sign in to follow this  
imranhasan

Believing a Scripture to be Divine

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

 

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.

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.

Checking evil was not the only reason for Nrisimha incarnation. God, as a mercy to Prahlad appeared before him.

 

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.

Seeing God can be the biggest mercy of all for some people.

 

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

;

Yes, Nrisimha incarnation was not of human form. However, there have been incarntations of humnan 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.

He can be a role model provided He does not use those godly powers during that incarnation.

 

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.

Yes. And if you read the stories related to incarnations you will find that the incidents mentioned in those stories are also exceptions.

 

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).

As I understand, by physical law here you mean general observations. Yes, it is true that as a rule God does not make an appearance. But it does not mean that He never incarnates. I agree that this is an exception to the rule. But the incidents (mentioned in scriptures) because of which He incarnated are also exceptions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

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.

Hinduism does say that the material world will be destroyed and recreated.

 

Secondly, from an overall perspective, was there not a first creation and a first destruction of this material world?

No.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

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?

Let me give some background.

Let me give some background. There were two brothers Dhritrashtra and Pandu. Dhritrashtra was elder. At the time of the war, Pandu was no more. He had died many years before that. The war was between Kauravas and Pandavas. Many kings on the Earth took the side of Kauravas and many took the side of Pandavas. Kauravas were the sons of Dhritrashtra. Pandavas were the sons of Pandu. So, Kauravas and Pandavas were cousins. As of now I am not mentioning why the war took place because I will have to write a lot to tell the complete background behind the war. Moreover, it is not necessary in order to understand Gita. But, let me say that Pandavas were on the side of righteousness and Kauravas were on the side of unrighteousness. Krsna (God) was on the side of Pandavas. Durodhana was the eldest Kaurava. Arjuna(whose name you will often see in Gita) was one of the Pandavas (not the eldest). Krsna had taken the role of Arjuna's charioteer.

Now, let us come to names. In the first verse of Gita, Dhritrashtra asks something to Sanjaya. I have already told about Dhritrashtra. Sanjaya was a charioteer cum minister of Dhritrashtra. A sage named Ved Vyasa had given a boon to Sanjaya. Accordingly, Sanjaya could see everything related to that war even if some things did not take place in front of his physical eyes. Resorting that power, Sanjaya answered the questions of Dhritrashtra.

If you read further you will find that Duryodhana is telling his teachers about the warriors on both sides. He takes the names of various people. As of now, let us not go into the details of who those warriors were. It is sufficient to know that some of those warriors were on the side of Kauravas and some on the other side. From the way Durodhana is explaining, it will be quite clear who were on which side.

If you read further, you will find that Arjuna, in spite of being a very brave warrior, was not willing to fight because those opposing him were his relatives. But Krsna explains to Arjuna as to why fighting in that war was Arjuna's duty. The verses after that contain the dialog between Arjuna and Krsna. As you read Gita, you will learn the teachings of Krsna. Even though the teachings were given because of Arjuna's unwillingness to fight, the teachings were not only to convince him to fight. There are many other teachings as well.

If you read you will find that the teachings are very sublime, very profound. I personally am not as much religious as many others on this forum. When I read scriptures, then I often get various doubts. There was a time when I had more doubts than you are having. As I studied, many of those doubts were clarified. But, I can honestly claim that no matter how many times I read Gita, I find its teachings to be perfect.

There was a time when I thought that I liked Gita because I am Hindu. But later I found that there have been many well known personalities (some of them being non-Hindu scientists, e.g., Albert Einstein) who love Bhagavad Gita.

I was once going through an Islamic forum. From the posts of the moderator of that forum, it is quite clear that he considers only Islam to be correct and all other religions to be fake. But, in one of his posts, even he called Gita as a marvelous book.

If you go through this (Audarya Fellowship) forum, you will find that I am of a very critical mind and I question things a lot. I have fought many here when they opposed some of the theories of science. But, in spite of this attitude of mine, I do not question Bhagavad Gita and I just love its teachings.

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Obviously, first God allows the king to get the exceptional powers and then makes an exception to make an appearance.

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

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.

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.

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.

I guess you believe that God is merciful. I guess you also believe that God has the power to end all kinds of sufferings once and for all. But, we do see sufferings in the world. Based on this observation, we can say that God is a tyrant and enjoys when people suffer. But, rather than giving this straightforward reason for the existence of sufferings in the world, we give various lenghty explanations as to why there are sufferings and still God is merciful.

In spite of God allowing sufferings in the world, if it is not difficult to believe that He is merciful, I do not understand why it should be difficult to believe that He sometimes exercises a power He has. (Here I am talking about the power to make an appearance.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Why is it so that God is not always in appearance in the world, generally?

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

 

In any case it is a meaningless argument. So many things are cyclic or intermittent just like God's appearance on this planet, like the seasons, the comets, ice ages, your appearance at this forum, and so on. That is the general rule from the earth's perspective: cyclic and intermittent, like the general rule of seasons and comets.

 

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.

 

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".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

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.

I agree that if you ask people if they have really seen God and assuming that they all answer honestly, then majority of them will answer 'No'.

 

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.

I do not agree with this "one-hundred percent" part. I accept that I have not seen. Or, even if I did, I did not recognize Him. But I have heard about some people about whom it is said that they have seen God. You can say that it must be a rumour. But we cannot rule out the possibility that they have really 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?

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.

 

Do you not believe that God has the power to do everything?

Yes

 

If God has the power to do everythiing, does this necessitate the belief that God actually did everythiing?

No

 

Do you not believe that God has the power to bring the sun out from the western side or our hemisphere?

Yes

 

Just because he has this power, would you be willing to believe anyone telling you that he did?

No

Now, let me ask you some questions:-

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

2. Do you believe that God is merciful?

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When I talked about earning the privilege to see God, you asked:-

 

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

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.

 

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).

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

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.

Actually, it is both. In some stories it is not clearly stated that God appeared to a person because the person was a sincere seeker. But in some stories God clearly states that He reveales Himself to sincere seekers. In some cases God Himself does not state such a thing but somebody else (e.g. a sage) states such a thing.

 

Yes. I would say it is possible.

You believe God can end all sufferings. But it is a fact that people are suffering from various kinds of problems. But still you believe God is merciful. Why can't we say there is suffering because God is a tyrant and enjoys torturing people? This statement is perfectly consistent with so many sufferings we see daily in the world. I know you can give various explanations as to how God is not ending all problems and still He is merciful. I am not saying that can't be a consistent explanation. Of course that could be. But the explanation that God is a tyrant is also consistent. Why should we accept the explanation of a merciful God over a straightforward explanation that God allows sufferings because He enjoys to see people suffer? Can you prove, by strength of reasoing, that God is merciful even though He is letting people suffer?

You find it difficult to believe that God has ever incarnated. Your argument is that you have not personally witnessed any incarnation nor have you come across any irrefutable proof that somebody else has witnessed an incarnation. (Please let me know if the reason you do not believe in incarnation is something different). But you believe it is possible that God has revealed some knowledge to somebody. I personally have not got any revealation from God. I have not come across any irrefutable proof that somebody else has got revealation from God. Of course I have heard claims that some people getting revealations. But I have not got any irrefutable proof that these claims are true. So, why should one believe that God has really ever revealed any knowledge to anybody?

You have written it is a fact that God in general does not appear. Accepted. But it is equally true that God in general does not reveal any knowledge to any person. If you are asking proof (based on strength of reasoning) that God has really incarnated, then why should we not ask for proof (again based on strength of reasoning) that God has really ever revealed any knowledge to any person?

Why is it you do not ask for proof that God is merciful even though you see sufferings in the world? Why is it you do not ask for proof that revealtion is possible even though people accept that in general there is no revealtion? The answer is that the concept of a merciful God and the concept of revealtion are not against your current belief. But the concept of incarnation is against your current belief. So, it is not merely because of any lack of reasoning that you do not believe in incarnation. It has mainly to do with your existing belief.

Does it mean that your existing belief must be wrong? Not necessary. But if you want to learn Hinduism, then you have to accept that it may contain some knowledge which are not consistent with what your current belief is. And if you ask for irrefutable proof based on strength of reasoning for any such knowledge, then you will not be able to proceed further in your learning. So, do not study scriptures with the intention of judging whether it is true or false. Study it only to know what the scriptures say. Finally you decide if you really like what you read.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

 

Is belief not to be based on understanding then?

Actually belief is based on absence of understanding or faith. For example, what is there to understand in the story of the universe being created in a week? Nothing. It is beyond our comprehension as such an event is completely out of normal perception and also raises a million doubts which can never be cleared as there is no qualified source to clarify them. In such an absence of undertsanding you can either give up the story as fiction or else choose to accept it as an article of faith - that is, faith in the people who gave you this story. That is how belief works.

 

If you really understand something, there is no question of belief. It is either true or it is not. And it is impossible to understand something that is beyond our comprehension like heaven, angels, miracles, etc.

 

Cheers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Brother Avinash,

 

You believe God can end all sufferings. But it is a fact that people are suffering from various kinds of problems. But still you believe God is merciful. Why can't we say there is suffering because God is a tyrant and enjoys torturing people? This statement is perfectly consistent with so many sufferings we see daily in the world. I know you can give various explanations as to how God is not ending all problems and still He is merciful. I am not saying that can't be a consistent explanation. Of course that could be. But the explanation that God is a tyrant is also consistent. Why should we accept the explanation of a merciful God over a straightforward explanation that God allows sufferings because He enjoys to see people suffer? Can you prove, by strength of reasoing, that God is merciful even though He is letting people suffer?

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. 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.

 

You find it difficult to believe that God has ever incarnated. Your argument is that you have not personally witnessed any incarnation nor have you come across any irrefutable proof that somebody else has witnessed an incarnation. (Please let me know if the reason you do not believe in incarnation is something different).

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

 

But you believe it is possible that God has revealed some knowledge to somebody. I personally have not got any revealation from God. I have not come across any irrefutable proof that somebody else has got revealation from God. Of course I have heard claims that some people getting revealations. But I have not got any irrefutable proof that these claims are true. So, why should one believe that God has really ever revealed any knowledge to anybody?

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.

 

You have written it is a fact that God in general does not appear. Accepted. But it is equally true that God in general does not reveal any knowledge to any person. If you are asking proof (based on strength of reasoning) that God has really incarnated, then why should we not ask for proof (again based on strength of reasoning) that God has really ever revealed any knowledge to any person?

But, my brother, why should you ask me that, if I do not adhere to that idea myself. I think the right person to ask would be one who ascribes to the idea that God has actually revealed any knowledge to any person. I would be equally interested in finding out the basis of that.

 

Why is it you do not ask for proof that God is merciful even though you see sufferings in the world?

I have given my reason for that earlier.

 

Why is it you do not ask for proof that revealtion is possible even though people accept that in general there is no revealtion?

As for the possibility of revelation, I have no doubt about it. God can reveal knowledge to anyone He finds deserving. But, I would definitely want to know the basis of believing that God actually did reveal knowledge to someone.

 

The answer is that the concept of a merciful God and the concept of revealtion are not against your current belief. But the concept of incarnation is against your current belief. So, it is not merely because of any lack of reasoning that you do not believe in incarnation. It has mainly to do with your existing belief.

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?

 

So, do not study scriptures with the intention of judging whether it is true or false. Study it only to know what the scriptures say. Finally you decide if you really like what you read.

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

God bless you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Actually belief is based on absence of understanding or faith.

I am really bewildered for you have completely challenged the foundation of my discussions. If belief is based on absence of understanding, then what am I doing discussing and trying to understand things. I can just have any belief and be satisfied with it without fear of criticism or review. For if it is not based on understanding, it is based on some other faculty, which may or may not be communicable between two individuals.

 

For example, what is there to understand in the story of the universe being created in a week? Nothing. It is beyond our comprehension as such an event is completely out of normal perception and also raises a million doubts which can never be cleared as there is no qualified source to clarify them. In such an absence of undertsanding you can either give up the story as fiction or else choose to accept it as an article of faith - that is, faith in the people who gave you this story. That is how belief works.

Excellently put. This faith in the people who gave me this story should be based on some grounds or mere belief (viz. absence of understanding).

 

If you really understand something, there is no question of belief. It is either true or it is not.

I have always felt that belief is, in fact, an explanation relating to things we cannot see, understood with so much conviction that a person holds them to be true, without even witnessing them.

quote=Shiv]And it is impossible to understand something that is beyond our comprehension like heaven, angels, miracles, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

 

I am really bewildered for you have completely challenged the foundation of my discussions. If belief is based on absence of understanding, then what am I doing discussing and trying to understand things. I can just have any belief and be satisfied with it without fear of criticism or review...

You can discuss and ask questions and ultimately learn that there is nothing to understand. Through a successful discussion, one of these 3 will happen.

 

1. you reaffirm your current faith

2. Move to a different faith

3. Give up all faiths.

 

In traditional Vedic systems, first priority is assigned to information that can be perceived in real life. Following that, scripture is a source for information that cannot be obtained by any other means. Brahman/Vishnu is to be known only through scripture with no earthly signs of evidence of any kind. Hence, it is necessary for scripture to be divine and not man made or else the whole logic of the system is flawed.

 

Here comes faith. Why do you believe any of this and what are your means of validating your beliefs? There are no means. You just believe scriptures are divine or you do not.

 

If you observe carefully, you will notice that all the complex so-called logic used in religion (all religions) is based on a set of core beliefs or axioms which are simply to be accepted and not questioned. But once the basis itself rests merely on faith, what is point of all that contrived logic built above faith? It is just a grand sham. You can just tell people to accept everything you say on faith and spare them the logic.

 

 

If such concepts are beyond comprehension and understanding then why, in God's name, should we believe in them. That is precisely what I want an answer to.

While all evidence points to evolution, why do people still choose to believe in Adam, Eve and the Apple with no evidence?

Why do people believe they will go to heaven for killing people who hold American passports?

Why do people believe ash coming out of a Sai baba photograph is an act of divinity and not an el cheapo magic trick?

Why do people invest so much time and energy in religion, denying themselves the basic joys of life, firmly convinced (with no evidence) they will go to a permanent heaven after death?

 

So the answer to your question is people will believe because that is what they want. They want to somehow live on after death, so they believe in Heaven and religions that offer a path to this permanent heaven. People need to see some sign and so they believe in the photograph producing ash randomly.

 

In concusion, understanding is not what matters. Do you find it appealing or not? If you are excited by the concept of heaven, then you are in. If you are excited by the concept of reincarnation, you are in. If you are excited by the concept of obtaining higher grades in exchange for prayer, you are in. This guy has wise looking eyes, so I will pick him as my master. This guy wears saffron and eats vegetarian food, so I will pick him as my master. This dude is from India the spiritual country, so I will pick him.

 

This is how religion works, in a nutshell.

 

Cheers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My brother, Shiv

 

You have a great flair in writing. Even if your writing was against what I so hoped to hear, it was very beautifully written.

 

I respect your opinion and would love to hear the opinion of other brothers on it, but I would like to use the most precious faculty that God has granted me, to understand more about Him. It is my firm committment with Him that I will accept what I understand through this gift of his, irrespective of what it is. And if the result is to live a life without ascriptiion to any creed, I will do that. With the satisfaction that I did not betray God and myself in whatever intelligence He granted me.

 

Thank you very much for your kind words and advice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

"God is not just omnipotent. He is omniscient"

How do we know that?

 

What is our basis of knowledge? What sources are we accepting as valid, supernatural, since these two conclusions are surely not logically apparent from the ontological position of God? What processes are we accepting as valid ways to produce supernatural knowledge? Can I go there and verify the processes to my satisfaction? If not, I must disregard the evidence. Even if the knowledge was given by a prophet or God's messenger, unless that is the general rule, that is, unless there are always prophets writing down wisdom from God, and I can go and verify that it is not a hoax, then since it is not the general rule where we see no prophets then one cannot believe stories of such happenings in an unverifiable distant past. It is against the general rule we see, so such knowledge must be viewed with caution.

 

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

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.

Then you'll be pleased to learn that you can also go to see Krsna incarnate. One need only become qualified. Then one will be born in the universe where God next appears in the world.

 

But first we have to get over this hump, where we think that Krsna is lying to us or at least the Bhagavad-gita's author is lying to us, and of course all the authors of all the Vedic and Puranic scriptures too, plus an endless conspiracy of countless gurus and saints over the ages it would seem. Perhaps it is a quantum leap at that.

 

But it is possible. I accepted nothing in the beginning. God seems to take care of doubts along the way naturally. He is much better than we are at dispelling doubts, if we let Him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...