theist Posted March 26, 2006 Report Share Posted March 26, 2006 My attempts at spiritual understanding so far been been more stumbling and bumbling around than anything else. Trying to force myself into believing this and believing that. Finally though I have stumbled (or been lead) into an approach that is working for me for now. I no longer look for the Divine scriptures. I look for the Divine within the scriptures. And that I won't recognize until the Lord reveals it to me. Until then I remain ignorant. It really is that simple for me now and I like simple. If He chooses to reveal Himself to me more through this book than that book I will look for Him there. I just have this feeling that if I can ever become genuinely fully open to His presence everything from the Gita to nature herself will be seen as the Holy Writ that reveals the Lord. Until then it's just a thought. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apep Posted March 26, 2006 Report Share Posted March 26, 2006 My attempts at spiritual understanding so far been been more stumbling and bumbling around than anything else. Trying to force myself into believing this and believing that. Finally though I have stumbled (or been lead) into an approach that is working for me for now. I no longer look for the Divine scriptures. I look for the Divine within the scriptures. And that I won't recognize until the Lord reveals it to me. Until then I remain ignorant. It really is that simple for me now and I like simple. If He chooses to reveal Himself to me more through this book than that book I will look for Him there. I just have this feeling that if I can ever become genuinely fully open to His presence everything from the Gita to nature herself will be seen as the Holy Writ that reveals the Lord. Until then it's just a thought. Sounds like a good approach. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pankaja_Dasa Posted March 27, 2006 Report Share Posted March 27, 2006 Hare Krishna, imranhasan. I've just been reading about Islam from a devotee who used to be a Muslim. I read most of the history and was astonished! I have gained great appreciation for Islam. I can recommened the book to you, : Here is the link: http://www.veda.harekrsna.cz/connections/Islam.php to download click link, the hidden treasure of the Qu'ran by Airavata dasa Thx for NG dasa for giving me this link. The remark I made about Qu'ran being for meat-eaters is incorrect, because it talks about God. Anyway I don't know about it all. Just wanted to give you this amazing link. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
imranhasan Posted March 27, 2006 Author Report Share Posted March 27, 2006 Thank you, my brother for your wonderful prayers, good wishes and guidance. If you are really sincere about this, then as a starting point, the Bhagavad-gita is usually recommended. I really do not know if my asking questions would be construed as a sign of any lack of sincerity on my part. To be honest, it is not important to me how any one sees my sincerity, as long as the One who knows the deepest thoughts of every mind, knows what I am inside. My dear brother, following the link that you had guided me to. I started with the Preface written by the translator. He writes there: Our only purpose is to present this Bhagavad-gītā As It Is in order to guide the conditioned student to the same purpose for which Kṛṣṇa descends to this planet once in a day of Brahmā, or every 8,600,000,000 years. This purpose is stated in Bhagavad-gītā, and we have to accept it as it is; otherwise there is no point in trying to understand the Bhagavad-gītā and its speaker, Lord Kṛṣṇa. Lord Kṛṣṇa first spoke Bhagavad-gītā to the sun-god some hundreds of millions of years ago. We have to accept this fact and thus understand the historical significance of Bhagavad-gītā, without misinterpretation, on the authority of Kṛṣṇa Please note the underlined phrases. Firstly, do you really place me as a 'conditioned mind'? Do you think I am ready for this study? Secondly, it seems to me that the study of Gita, presupposes the belief that the respected Krishna was, in fact, an incarnation of God. I really find it hard to bring myself to accepting that, as I have not yet come accross a single satisfactory answer as to why would God incarnate himself. Please help me. What should I do? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 27, 2006 Report Share Posted March 27, 2006 Imran, Let us do this differently. You appear to have two basic questions which seem to be popping up multiple times. 1. Why does God incarnate? 2. How does a Hindu know his scriptures are divine? You say none of the answers you received so far are satisfactory. I think the chances are, no answer will be satisfactory as you have a preset notion (which is not subject to revision) based on your current belief that no such concept can exist. Many posts stated God incarnates to prove a point, set an example, etc. Any of these reasons out to be sufficient. If you do not find them satisfactory, then you need to explain why. Otherwise, there is no point in simply giving you long answers after which you thank the brothers for their kindness and then pop the same question again 3 more posts later. Cheers Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jahnava Nitai Das Posted March 27, 2006 Report Share Posted March 27, 2006 The emphasis of "accepting it as it is" is more on the lines of hearing the Gita as it was spoken by Krishna, not diluting it or altering it to fit someone else's philosophy. Krishna spoke the Bhagavad Gita, so if we want to study the Gita we should try to hear it as He spoke it. It doesn't mean that we should blindly accept it, but we should just try to hear His words as He spoke them. There are many versions of the Gita where people have tried to force their own philosophies into Krishna's words, even though Krishna speaks something completely different. So this is what the translator was warning against. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
agyat_theunknown Posted March 27, 2006 Report Share Posted March 27, 2006 Acceptance cannot happen without understanding. And understanding can never be forced upon someone. It can only be cultivated by you. None can help you for this cultivation. Only you have the right to cultivate it in the field which is your own mind. You will have to find you own means and ways to do this cultivation! How do you understand incarnation is what can or cannot bring acceptance to you? It all depends upon you, as an individual! God's incarnation as understood and accepted by me - None of incarnations of God has been preconceived. Krishna, Rama etc. are considered incarnations of God only after their life and teachings from them where understood. In 'Hinduism', it is believed that each and every person has divine within him. When this divinity is understood, it gets manifested to the outer world through the understanding, knowledge and wisdom of that person. There is a big difference when you see a person as God himself and as a messenger of God. When you find divinity within you or see yourself as God, you become responsible for the entire world through your actions and deeds. You can never run away from taking responsibility for your actions and deeds by say - 'I am not God or a sage, I am just an ordinary person'. When you get inspired from a person, it means you are inspired by his understanding, knowledge and wisdom. You see him as a God and wish to become like him. This inspiration comes from within as a reflection from your own understanding. You need to keep the reflector as clean and polished as possible. Its all upto you! Same applies to scriptures being divine. If you have the understanding only then you will find or see divinity in the scriptures. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gHari Posted March 27, 2006 Report Share Posted March 27, 2006 Imran, I guess not. Continue as you are for now. Seeing God as a Person is difficult after worshipping His energy as 'God' for so long. He will reveal everything in due time. If you can accept that somewhere in the middle of eternity God suddenly decides to create other beings in a complicated material world - and then destroys that world for all eternity, then there is hope that one day you can see that God can do anything, even manifest His greatness in the world before our very eyes demonstrating His complete dominion over all that be. His kindness in revealing His existence to us beyond a shadow of a doubt is certainly one of His most compassionate qualities. If He can send His messenger, then cannot He come Himself? Perhaps we should ask ourselves why we limit Him this way, if indeed we are calling Him omnipotent. gHari Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
imranhasan Posted March 27, 2006 Author Report Share Posted March 27, 2006 Thank you, Shiv You say none of the answers you received so far are satisfactory. I think the chances are, no answer will be satisfactory as you have a preset notion (which is not subject to revision) based on your current belief that no such concept can exist. I think that is indeed possible. However, equally possible is the fact that none of my questions is perceived as relevant or pertinent by you, because you have a present notion (which is not subject to revision) based on your current belief that such a concept did exist. Many posts stated God incarnates to prove a point, set an example, etc. Any of these reasons out to be sufficient. If you do not find them satisfactory, then you need to explain why. One person says God incarnated to check the evil of someone or some nation. I know that God checks many evils everyday, without making an appearance. In my mind, if this is the case, then checking anyone's evil cannot be the basic cause of an incarnation. Another person quoted the scripture saying that God incarnated to show mercy to His devotees. I know that God shows mercy on many of his devotees everyday, without having to make an appearance. In my mind, then, showing mercy on His devotees cannot be the basic cause of incarnation. Another person says that God incarnates as human being to be a role model for ordinary human beings. However, firstly, the incarnation under consideration in that post was not one of a human form; secondly, if God incarnates as a human being with all his absolute powers and attributes, how could a man with godly powers be a role model for fallible and imperfect human beings. Another person says, because God can do anythiing with or without making an appearance, therefore He could have controlled some things without making an appearance, while for others He made an appearance. The fact is that the overwhelming principle in the running of this world is that God does not make an appearance, as far as our direct knowledge is concerned. If that were not the case, there would have been no problem to accept anything about God's appearance in any age, for any reason. However, we know that if God is running the affairs of this world on the general principle of remaining hidden, then God's absolute wisdom would require that the principle be excepted only under clear circumstances which require that exception. This may indeed be because of my limited and obscured vision. If someone were to tell you that you should believe that the sun came out from the west one day. Would you just believe it because someone told you so? Would it be sufficient for him to say that you must believe it merely on the basis that because God can do it, He did it? You would find it hard to believe because you find it clearly against the physical laws of God, according to which this solar system is running. I am facing the same problem in accepting the concept of incarnation. It is clearly against the general physical laws, on which this universe is running (in my mind, at least). You may term my questions to be a result only of a mind clouded under some preconceived ideas. You have a right to do so. Just as much as I have a right to post my questions here. Please bear in mind that even if I do not find the evidence presented so far to be sufficient for me to accept that God incarnated in a physical form, yet I respect your belief and would refrain, to the best of my abilities, to say anything that may sound disrespectful. If you do not find my questions to be coming from an honest mind, you have the right to not answer them. Best regards and thank you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apep Posted March 27, 2006 Report Share Posted March 27, 2006 Thank you, Shiv I think that is indeed possible. However, equally possible is the fact that none of my questions is perceived as relevant or pertinent by you, because you have a present notion (which is not subject to revision) based on your current belief that such a concept did exist. One person says God incarnated to check the evil of someone or some nation. I know that God checks many evils everyday, without making an appearance. In my mind, if this is the case, then checking anyone's evil cannot be the basic cause of an incarnation. Another person quoted the scripture saying that God incarnated to show mercy to His devotees. I know that God shows mercy on many of his devotees everyday, without having to make an appearance. In my mind, then, showing mercy on His devotees cannot be the basic cause of incarnation. Another person says that God incarnates as human being to be a role model for ordinary human beings. However, firstly, the incarnation under consideration in that post was not one of a human form; secondly, if God incarnates as a human being with all his absolute powers and attributes, how could a man with godly powers be a role model for fallible and imperfect human beings. Another person says, because God can do anythiing with or without making an appearance, therefore He could have controlled some things without making an appearance, while for others He made an appearance. The fact is that the overwhelming principle in the running of this world is that God does not make an appearance, as far as our direct knowledge is concerned. If that were not the case, there would have been no problem to accept anything about God's appearance in any age, for any reason. However, we know that if God is running the affairs of this world on the general principle of remaining hidden, then God's absolute wisdom would require that the principle be excepted only under clear circumstances which require that exception. This may indeed be because of my limited and obscured vision. If someone were to tell you that you should believe that the sun came out from the west one day. Would you just believe it because someone told you so? Would it be sufficient for him to say that you must believe it merely on the basis that because God can do it, He did it? You would find it hard to believe because you find it clearly against the physical laws of God, according to which this solar system is running. I am facing the same problem in accepting the concept of incarnation. It is clearly against the general physical laws, on which this universe is running (in my mind, at least). You may term my questions to be a result only of a mind clouded under some preconceived ideas. You have a right to do so. Just as much as I have a right to post my questions here. Please bear in mind that even if I do not find the evidence presented so far to be sufficient for me to accept that God incarnated in a physical form, yet I respect your belief and would refrain, to the best of my abilities, to say anything that may sound disrespectful. If you do not find my questions to be coming from an honest mind, you have the right to not answer them. Best regards and thank you. You are trying to use the limited human mind to understand the higher divinity. Yours as well as my perception is not perfect. Therefore how can a human being with a limited mind understand everything about divinity? The divinity who is the closest thing to perfection. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
imranhasan Posted March 27, 2006 Author Report Share Posted March 27, 2006 You are trying to use the limited human mind to understand the higher divinity. Yours as well as my perception is not perfect. Therefore how can a human being with a limited mind understand everything about divinity? The divinity who is the closest thing to perfection. Is belief not to be based on understanding then? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
imranhasan Posted March 27, 2006 Author Report Share Posted March 27, 2006 The emphasis of "accepting it as it is" is more on the lines of hearing the Gita as it was spoken by Krishna, not diluting it or altering it to fit someone else's philosophy. Krishna spoke the Bhagavad Gita, so if we want to study the Gita we should try to hear it as He spoke it. It doesn't mean that we should blindly accept it, but we should just try to hear His words as He spoke them. There are many versions of the Gita where people have tried to force their own philosophies into Krishna's words, even though Krishna speaks something completely different. So this is what the translator was warning against. I understand. I think that makes a lot of sense. This should indeed be the standard, if one wants to understand any writing. Thank you very much for the clarification. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gHari Posted March 27, 2006 Report Share Posted March 27, 2006 It is clearly against the general physical laws, on which this universe is running Now we are stating that God is limited, unable to transcend the physical machinery of the material world. Hence, He is not omnipotent. The Why is overcome by the How. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
imranhasan Posted March 27, 2006 Author Report Share Posted March 27, 2006 I guess not. Continue as you are for now. Seeing God as a Person is difficult after worshipping His energy as 'God' for so long. He will reveal everything in due time. Thank you, my brother. I will continue, as you say. I was just going through the first chapter of the Gita and it full of references to names, which I know nothing of. Would you recommend a commentry that may help me know the background and the names referred to, there? If you can accept that somewhere in the middle of eternity God suddenly decides to create other beings in a complicated material world - and then destroys that world for all eternity Just out of curiosity, do you not believe that this material world has a begining? ...then there is hope that one day you can see that God can do anything, even manifest His greatness in the world before our very eyes demonstrating His complete dominion over all that be. Just a point of clarification, please. I have absolutely no doubt that God can do anything. Believe me, my questions may please not be taken as my skepticism about God's omnipotence. My questions are only to understand the wisdom for something that is believed to be his action. His kindness in revealing His existence to us beyond a shadow of a doubt is certainly one of His most compassionate qualities. This point needs some clarification. I am sure you would appreciate that, at least to my mind, there is a difference between "God revealing His existence to us" and "A book declaring that God revealed His existence to us". Why is God not revealing himself now? Why has He subjected us to believe a 'book' while he privileged some to witness him directly? I really feel that for all the eyes that see, God's existence is revealed in every thing around us as well as within us. Is it not? If He can send His messenger, then cannot He come Himself? Perhaps we should ask ourselves why we limit Him this way, if indeed we are calling Him omnipotent. My Brother, as I have stated earlier, for me it is not a question of God's powers or whether he 'can' do a particular thing. If, as a general principle, (which I have been subjected to and so too my father, grand father and great grand father and all those before them) God does not make an appearance, then this principle is based on the absolute wisdom of God. An alleged exception to this principle must not only explain why did such an exception take place, but also why the general principle was otherwise. These lines are only written to express my mind. Please do not waste your time in replying to them, if you don't find them deserving of your attention. I am reading the Gita, as you have directed me to. Thank you very much. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
imranhasan Posted March 27, 2006 Author Report Share Posted March 27, 2006 Now we are stating that God is limited, unable to transcend the physical machinery of the material world. Hence, He is not omnipotent. The Why is overcome by the How. No brother, that is not the case. Please don't misconstrue me. I am not saying that God cannot transcend the physical machinery. I am only saying that, as a generally known principle he does not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eternal Law Posted March 27, 2006 Report Share Posted March 27, 2006 Acceptance cannot happen without understanding. And understanding can never be forced upon someone. It can only be cultivated by you. None can help you for this cultivation. Only you have the right to cultivate it in the field which is your own mind. You will have to find you own means and ways to do this cultivation! I liked this reply! If without reading Quran or Quantum Physics(for example) even once....i keep on repeating ...i don't undertsand it....i don't understand what you are saying..that would be little silly. Sanatana Dharam's philosphy is far more complex , wide and deeper than 50 pages book based religions.....I am not surprised if a person is finding it littlebit difficult to understand who never read Bhagavad Gita , Upanishads.....not even Ramayana and Mahabharta. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theist Posted March 27, 2006 Report Share Posted March 27, 2006 SB 1.1.2 - Completely rejecting all religious activities which are materially motivated, this Bhägavata Puräna propounds the highest truth, which is understandable by those devotees who are fully pure in heart. The highest truth is reality distinguished from illusion for the welfare of all. Such truth uproots the threefold miseries. This beautiful Bhägavatam, compiled by the great sage Vyäsadeva [in his maturity], is sufficient in itself for God realization. What is the need of any other scripture? As soon as one attentively and submissively hears the message of Bhägavatam, by this culture of knowledge the Supreme Lord is established within his heart. Has anyone found a scripture revealing a higher truth then the Bhagavatam? If so what is it's name and in your opinion what makes it higher? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gHari Posted March 28, 2006 Report Share Posted March 28, 2006 Just out of curiosity, do you not believe that this material world has a beginning? Imran, this is a very crucial difference I find between the Vedic understanding and other scriptures. According to the Vedas, cosmic manifestations last trillions of years, and then are destroyed, with the remaining souls kept in suspended animation until the next cosmos is created. There are innumerable living souls and this process of creation and annihilation continues forever. Souls that perfect their love of God become eligible to enter the Kingdom of God where they remain with God and His pure associates eternally. But since there are innumerable souls, the mathematics of infinity indicates that these material worlds continue forever since infinity minus one is still infinity. The pleasant and comforting thing about this understanding is that it aligns with the scientific findings in the fossil records, and in the distant galaxies that hint at the universe's age. Of course all this surrounds the Vedic concept of reincarnation, where the soul travels through 8,400,000 species of life in the cosmos before reaching perfection and escape to the Kingdom of God. I have speculated why reincarnation has been omitted or removed from the teachings of other mainstream religions and feel that someone in the mode of passion if they thought that they would always get another chance to be godly in another life they might put it off so they could enjoy the bodily pleasures of this body's existence. And people in the mode of ignorance need to be scared with hellfire into being godly. But these are only my current guesses and are not necessarily based on scripture. So the Vedic timescale is unfathomable, explaining why incarnations are so rare. The next incarnation is prophesied to be over 400,000 years away - at least in this universe. However it is such that the incarnations are always happening in one universe or another, from one to the next in the cycle and then eventually back here again. It's just how God does it. May I say you forgot the most important reason for His adventing into the world - it pleases Him - it pleases Him to please His devotees, it pleases Him to personally protect them. While He has no duty, His every desire being fulfilled without effort, still it pleases Him to do some things very personally very intimately out of love. Even a billionaire has activities - he doesn't have to but he wants to. So God makes the rounds. Yet still He remains in the Kingdom of God always, but inconceivably He is also in the world in His pastimes known as Nitya-lila or the eternal pastime. Staring into the star-filled sky tonight out of the city, dwarfed by the billions of stars and galaxies, I realized I could never accept that this vast unfathomable world is only to last a few thousand years. It is just not reasonable to believe that only earthlings exist. gHari Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
imranhasan Posted March 28, 2006 Author Report Share Posted March 28, 2006 Brother gHari, my cited question was not with reference to incarnation or re-incarnation. I just wanted to know if the material world, according to Hinduism, had a begining in time or not. However old it may be, did it have a begining? Is it a creation of God or has it eternally existed, with God. Thank you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Avinash Posted March 28, 2006 Report Share Posted March 28, 2006 According to Hinduism, the creation and destruction of material world are cyclic. The world is created and destroyed, created and destroyed, .... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
agyat_theunknown Posted March 28, 2006 Report Share Posted March 28, 2006 Namaste! Namaste means - I bow to the divine within you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gHari Posted March 28, 2006 Report Share Posted March 28, 2006 he privileged some to witness him directly You have stated the truth here. Those blessed souls had earned the privilege of being there at that time. It's a matter of consciousness, of purity, of love of God. Even we are fortunate in that the record of such mercy still remains. The next 9,500 years are said to be the Golden Age of basking in the purification of the earth that God effected. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
imranhasan Posted March 28, 2006 Author Report Share Posted March 28, 2006 According to Hinduism, the creation and destruction of material world are cyclic. The world is created and destroyed, created and destroyed, .... Brother Avinash, if that be the case, then, firstly, there will be a new begining of the material world, every time it is created after each destruction. Secondly, from an overall perspective, was there not a first creation and a first destruction of this material world? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gHari Posted March 28, 2006 Report Share Posted March 28, 2006 Brother gHari, my cited question was not with reference to incarnation or re-incarnation. I just wanted to know if the material world, according to Hinduism, had a begining in time or not. However old it may be, did it have a begining? Is it a creation of God or has it eternally existed, with God. Thank you. I tried to convey the answer and it led into the other topics, as I guess the other topics had led to it in the first place. Time. In eternity there is no time, only the present, always perfection. God creates time/space/matter/energy/life forms in one material manifestation after another, each existing for trillions of years. In those material worlds, time affords perception of cause and effect thus enabling the soul to perfect its love of God. In eternity, in God's Kingdom, the only cause is love of God and the only effect is love of God; it is all perfection. So you see, your question "Is it a creation of God or has it eternally existed, with God" is difficult because it is all true. Eternally God creates material worlds. So it is a 'creation of God' AND it has 'eternally existed' (or at least some material world has existed). I am simplifying things because recreation doesn't actually follow immediately, but more or less, the essence is that God creates gigantic worlds and He has done so and will do so forever in the past and forever in the future. It's just the way He is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Avinash Posted March 28, 2006 Report Share Posted March 28, 2006 I have not yet come accross a single satisfactory answer as to why would God incarnate himself. Let us say that there are some very pious people. As a blessing to those God incarnates and lives with them. Why can't it be a proper reason for incarnation? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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.