Are atheists fools?

[JustRish]

 

This said, I am myself a strong, deep believer in a God (personal-cum-impersonal) who pulls the karmic strings and in that, I am widely at variance with what was taught by the Buddha. However, I'm not prevented by this from acknowledging and appreciating the greatness and validity of much of Buddhism, and I'd much rather see people take to the wonderful road that it is than spend their lives hopelessly entangled in mundane affairs.

 

Om tat sat

For me, Mahavir and Buddha are enlightened beings and I have a lot to learn from them. I do pray to them. The Tirthankaras are the Jain Gods in a sense. When I pray, or should I say solute, I solute our five spiritual masters who are: the Arihantas, Siddhâs, Âchâryas, Upadhyâyas, and normal monks. Anyone who achieves enlightenment is God. I only struggle to understand the creation part. I don't know if this makes me atheist, agnostic or theist just because my concept and understanding of God is different. So I solute them with this prayer but they have no way to communicate with us on earth now that they have become enlightened.

 

Our Mantra:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Navakar_Mantra

 

 

[url="

"]

[LoveroftheBhagavata]

Just keep progressing along the path that your heart feels comfortable with and that should take you safely where you're destined to go. The Buddha and Mahavira are enlightened gurus, no doubt about that.

[tackleberry]

A kind-hearted atheist is far superior to 'religious' people who kill and abuse fellow men in the name of god. Just see the thread started by one Muslim gentleman to get a better idea as to why most people fear religion and religious people.

[theist]

Life is meant to be progressive. There is no need to stay on a certain path just because a person is born into it or at one time held those views to be the best path.

 

JustRish is not engaged in gross mundane life killing animals and such with no idea of spiritual life so Buddhism would not be prescribed for her. She already has an understanding that spiritsouls are the living force behind every living thing no matter the form so for her to shoot for the void would be a step backwards.

 

Being born into a practicing jain family has given her a solid base for going futher. Jains already practice ahimsa to other living beings probably more intensly than any other group so she already has that platform established.

 

The progressive step is having once understand all are souls is to now contemplate the existence of one Supreme Soul and to reestablish our relationship with Him. The simple chanting of the Lord's names as in the Hare Krishna mantra is what should be recommended. Free from any religious organizational commitments or with such commitments as one likes it is the holy names of the Lord that is recommended for this age specifically.

 

We have heard the example of the particles of sunlight and their relationship to the Sun. The particles of sunlight have no existence without the Sun and the Sun has no meaning without the particles of sunlight. They are eternally one but yet separate.

 

Our relationship to God is like that.

 

We need to call attention to the Sun especially for those that already know themselves as a particle. That is the next essential step.

[shvu]

The word theist means different things to different people. One man's theist is another man's atheist. In general, most religious groups do not consider people outside their own group as theists in the true sense.

 

If the word theist lacks a universal definition, atheism which is defined as absence of theism also lacks a universal definition.

 

Cheers

[LoveroftheBhagavata]

 

Just keep progressing along the path that your heart feels comfortable with and that should take you safely where you're destined to go. The Buddha and Mahavira are enlightened gurus, no doubt about that.

 

 

As I said, JustRish, spirituality cannot be forced. Take to the route where your heart derives the most peace, fulfillment and satisfaction. There is no one prescribed path for all of humanity. Each soul has a specific nature unique to itself, and for this reason a multitude of traditions, both Vedantic and non-Vedantic, exist. Take your time to study the options that are available to you at length, and only take the dive after due and careful deliberation. The landscape of Indic traditions is vast, and eventually you are sure to find the cause that you're meant to serve, whether that is Jainism, Buddhism, Advaita Vedanta, Vaishnavism, Shaivism, Shaktism or Tantra Yoga. Some people even do some kind of blending of these philosophies, and it works well for them. The inescapable fact is that the complete truth is multifaceted, and as such there are countless valid ways of realising one's own self. Pray to Providence with sincerity and study teachings which make sense to you. Such an approach is sure to yield its fruits.

[shvu]

 

I only struggle to understand the creation part. I don't know if this makes me atheist, agnostic or theist just because my concept and understanding of God is different.

 

Which creation story is that? There are any number of creation stores - all different from one another. The moment you accept one, you are automatically rejecting the rest which means in the eyes of people who believe those rejected stories, you are a non-believer.

 

As you can see, it is purely relative.

 

Cheers

[LoveroftheBhagavata]

 

A kind-hearted atheist is far superior to 'religious' people who kill and abuse fellow men in the name of god. Just see the thread started by one Muslim gentleman to get a better idea as to why most people fear religion and religious people.

 

One of the points I made earlier. Many of the world's secular humanists are either atheistic or agnostic, and are as moral and as compassionate as one can be. They are to be respected, that's for sure.

[Sunds]

That I agree. The worst crimes in mankind is done in the name of 'GOD'.

[theist]

 

Which creation story is that? There are any number of creation stores - all different from one another. The moment you accept one, you are automatically rejecting the rest which means in the eyes of people who believe those rejected stories, you are a non-believer.

 

As you can see, it is purely relative.

 

Cheers

 

I don't find this to be a problem at all. I make the best use of my own ignorance and choose not to feel pressure to believe in all the details of any cultures or religions creation story. What they point to, the reality of a guided intelligence behind everything is good enough for me. This allows me also to see revelations arrived at through modern science as contributing to that understanding as much as anything else. Their details surely will be only partial true and incomplete but that's ok with me because accumulating strict details on the creation of this universe are not a goal I seek. More valuable to me is the feeling of awe and smallness before our Lord is where the real value lies as I see it.

 

And that realization of our relationship with the Supreme is absolute.

[JustRish]

 

If the word theist lacks a universal definition, atheism which is defined as absence of theism also lacks a universal definition.

Cheers

True I would be considered a theist if I do believe in God. Just because the definition is different does not make me atheist does it?

 

 

The landscape of Indic traditions is vast, and eventually you are sure to find the cause that you're meant to serve, whether that is Jainism, Buddhism, Advaita Vedanta, Vaishnavism, Shaivism, Shaktism or Tantra Yoga. Some people even do some kind of blending of these philosophies, and it works well for them.

I like to think of myself as a Buddhist-Jainist-Pantheist so I do alot of blending myself. I also think of myself as a Hindu in a way because much of our inspiriation is taken from Hinduism. Actually we've all influenced each other greatly. In fact, when I lose something or have exams I think of Jalaram Bapa. Don't know how I do that but always manage to think of him and chant his name lol. I know he was probably not a God but a saint.

 

But you are right. Spirituality cannot be forced. But there is no harm in understanding and then may be if I can understand I can accept . I might not and I might. As Buddha said (read the bold bit):

 

Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it. Do not believe in traditions because they have been handed down for many generations. Do not believe anything because it is spoken and rumored by many. Do not believe in anything because it is written in your religious books. Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders.

But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and the benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it

.

 

 

Which creation story is that? There are any number of creation stores - all different from one another. The moment you accept one, you are automatically rejecting the rest which means in the eyes of people who believe those rejected stories, you are a non-believer.

 

As you can see, it is purely relative.

 

Cheers

Just the creation part is what I find hard to understand not the whole creation story. Our guru never taught creation part. He just said this planet always existed and always will with some 'scientific explanation'. Now with modern day science we know this is not possible right? So I have to dig deeper than that.

[skp]

JustRish,

 

To start with I must admit that you are trying to use your intelligence to understand the Creation and also to certain extent whether there is a Supreme Creator or not. This in itself is a great attribue!

 

 

True I would be considered a theist if I do believe in God. Just because the definition is different does not make me atheist does it?

 

I like to think of myself as a Buddhist-Jainist-Pantheist so I do alot of blending myself. I also think of myself as a Hindu in a way because much of our inspiriation is taken from Hinduism. Actually we've all influenced each other greatly. In fact, when I lose something or have exams I think of Jalaram Bapa. Don't know how I do that but always manage to think of him and chant his name lol. I know he was probably not a God but a saint.

 

But you are right. Spirituality cannot be forced. But there is no harm in understanding and then may be if I can understand I can accept . I might not and I might. As Buddha said (read the bold bit):

 

Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it. Do not believe in traditions because they have been handed down for many generations. Do not believe anything because it is spoken and rumored by many. Do not believe in anything because it is written in your religious books. Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders.

But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and the benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it

.

 

 

 

Lord Buddha is an incarnation of Krishna, who appeared because during those times, the animal sacrifice was being performed just to satisfy the senses and not for the higher goal of giving the animal a human form of life. Therefore it is stated in Dashavatara-Stotra of Jayadeva Gosvami about Lord Buddha as:

 

 

[ Nindasi Yajna Vidher Ahaha Shruti Jaatam

 

Sadaya Hrdaya Darshita Pashu Ghaatam

 

Keshava Dhrta Buddha Sharira Jaya Jagadisha Hare

 

 

"O Keshava! O Lord of the universe! O Lord Hari, who have assumed the form of Buddha! All glories to You! O Buddha of compassionate heart, you decry the slaughtering of poor animals performed according to the rules of Vedic sacrifice" - Stotra 9 -

http://www.salagram.net/Dasavatara-page.htm

]

 

 

So, the reason Krishna as Buddha says the statements you have quoted is to mislead the people who do not want to believe in the authenticity of religious scripture stated by Krishna like the Bhagavad-Gita.

 

 

Just the creation part is what I find hard to understand not the whole creation story. Our guru never taught creation part. He just said this planet always existed and always will with some 'scientific explanation'. Now with modern day science we know this is not possible right? So I have to dig deeper than that.

 

It will be indeed difficult to understand the creation part, considering that we are atomic souls smaller than ten-thousands part of a tip of hair (Keshaagra Shata Bhagasya Shatadha Kalpitasya Cha). But, if try to understand what Krishna has said and accept it then there is no problem. Krishna Himself states in Bhagavad-Gita that everything is emanating from Him (Aham Sarvasya Prabhavah).

 

Krishna says:

 

[ Aham Sarvasya Prabhavah Mattah Sarvam Pravartate

Iti Matva Bhajante Maam Budhaa Bhaava Samanvitaha

 

"I am the source of all spiritual and material worlds. Everything emanates from Me. The wise who know this perfectly engage in My devotional service and worship Me with all their hearts." - BG 10.8 - http://www.asitis.com/10/8.html]

 

Hope this helps. Hare Krishna!

[Kyros]

It is ultimately up to us whether or not we believe in reincarnation or not. The opportunity is always there, but most people decide to reject it.

 

We are all different from Krishna, with our own unique personality. To say that Krishna controls whether or not we believe in something is incorrect. It is our own choices we make that determine if we believe in karma or not, not Krishna, even though nothing happens without his permission.

 

If Krishna did choose if we believed in anything at all, he would immediately have us all believe in him, wouldn't he? Especially to those of us here that desire to understand him right now.

 

No, it's up to us if we believe in anything or not, for our own beliefs affect us.

[LoveroftheBhagavata]

 

Lord Buddha is an incarnation of Krishna, who appeared because during those times, the animal sacrifice was being performed just to satisfy the senses and not for the higher goal of giving the animal a human form of life. Therefore it is stated in Dashavatara-Stotra of Jayadeva Gosvami about Lord Buddha as:

 

[ Nindasi Yajna Vidher Ahaha Shruti Jaatam

Sadaya Hrdaya Darshita Pashu Ghaatam

Keshava Dhrta Buddha Sharira Jaya Jagadisha Hare

 

"O Keshava! O Lord of the universe! O Lord Hari, who have assumed the form of Buddha! All glories to You! O Buddha of compassionate heart, you decry the slaughtering of poor animals performed according to the rules of Vedic sacrifice" - Stotra 9 - http://www.salagram.net/Dasavatara-page.htm ]

 

So, the reason Krishna as Buddha says the statements you have quoted is to mislead the people who do not want to believe in the authenticity of religious scripture stated by Krishna like the Bhagavad-Gita.

 

Here comes another piece of sectarian propaganda. Jayadeva was not a Vedic rishi, and please excuse if many of us do not take his pronouncements as authoritative.

[Shivaduta]

 

Just the creation part is what I find hard to understand not the whole creation story. Our guru never taught creation part. He just said this planet always existed and always will with some 'scientific explanation'. Now with modern day science we know this is not possible right? So I have to dig deeper than that.

 

what is so difficult about creation... creation is at various levels...

 

like history has written proof (written by the victorious),

before that is mythology where belief is the sole criterion...

before that is the origin of the human species

before that the evolution which ended up creating the human species...

and before that is the birth of life

and before that the birth of the planet earth..

and before that the creation of the solar system

and before that the creation of the galaxy

and before that the creation of the big bang which ended up creating all the galazies and matter and energy which exists here and now

 

and before that a nothingness where there existed one single entity... without time and space... just a disembodied intelligence... this is often referred to as parabrahma... that which is beyond/not "para" BRAHMA

 

Parabrahma is the entirely neutral entity and can exist in a timeless void for eternity...

In this parabrahma there is a occasional stirring of desire "of shakti" and when this desire to manifest takes rooot in the parabrahma with its will the disembodied intellect sends forth a creation and when the stirrings of desire end the parabrahma wraps up his imagination and sits still for another eternity till there is another stirring of desire... and another creation is set forth...

 

At least this is the theory i was told and something i can relate to...

[LoveroftheBhagavata]

 

Parabrahma is the entirely neutral entity and can exist in a timeless void for eternity...

In this parabrahma there is a occasional stirring of desire "of shakti" and when this desire to manifest takes rooot in the parabrahma with its will the disembodied intellect sends forth a creation and when the stirrings of desire end the parabrahma wraps up his imagination and sits still for another eternity till there is another stirring of desire... and another creation is set forth...

 

This indeed approximates the Vedantic verdict of things.

[Shivaduta]

 

This indeed approximates the Vedantic verdict of things

 

Isnt Vedanta the very source where the rivers of all knowledge converge ... and when we speak of the creation beyond all creation we inevitably end up there

[Sunds]

<!-- BEGIN TEMPLATE: navbar_link --> Are atheists fools?

 

Rather than fools we ought to say they are ignorant. But that is okay. One day given the right circumstances, even they will learn to appreciate the presence of 'GOD'.

[JustRish]

 

what is so difficult about creation... creation is at various levels...

 

like history has written proof (written by the victorious),

before that is mythology where belief is the sole criterion...

before that is the origin of the human species

before that the evolution which ended up creating the human species...

and before that is the birth of life

and before that the birth of the planet earth..

and before that the creation of the solar system

and before that the creation of the galaxy

and before that the creation of the big bang which ended up creating all the galazies and matter and energy which exists here and now

 

and before that a nothingness where there existed one single entity... without time and space... just a disembodied intelligence... this is often referred to as parabrahma... that which is beyond/not "para" BRAHMA

 

Parabrahma is the entirely neutral entity and can exist in a timeless void for eternity...

In this parabrahma there is a occasional stirring of desire "of shakti" and when this desire to manifest takes rooot in the parabrahma with its will the disembodied intellect sends forth a creation and when the stirrings of desire end the parabrahma wraps up his imagination and sits still for another eternity till there is another stirring of desire... and another creation is set forth...

 

At least this is the theory i was told and something i can relate to...

 

This is a good way of looking it at, I'm sure. But I have absolutely no knowledge of science whatsoever. I have no idea how the big bang took place or even what there is outside this planet lol. May be when I can do these things, what you said will make more sense... .

 

It's very difficult for a theist to imagine life without a God isn't it? In the same way, perhaps its hard to imagine a life where there is a God for an atheist agnostic person like me. One can grasp the idea of god, the other can't.

 

I don't know if I'll ever understand. I came here to understand how a theist mind works since most people I associate with are not very religious at all. I live in England. My grandmother believes in God, but she doesn't discuss religion with me that much. Every time I try to discuss these things with her, she says not to digg to deep into religion or I might forget those around me. I thought she wanted me to believe in God

[LoveroftheBhagavata]

 

I have no idea how the big bang took place or even what there is outside this planet lol.

 

Big bang doesn't have that much currency anymore now. Superstring theory is what seems to have superseded it, from what I can see.

[JustRish]

 

Yes it is tough to grasp. In fact it is positively mindblowing and we are really way too small to take it in. I am also speaking of universal intelligence.

 

The complexity of a simple cell is beyond our grasp what to speak of the intelligence it takes for the entire cosmos to work harmoniously. Leaving aside the question of God or not for a moment let us decide on this point of intelligent design.

 

So much intelligence went into forming this computer and the internet. It would be ludicrous to say that it just appeared from nothing one day. There is intelligent design everywhere in human society. Even the formation of a simple pencil takes intelligence. So considering this how could we deny the intelligence that went into making the tree that the pencil was taken from?

 

When we recognize the intelligence in the tree then we must expand it it. How could there be a tree without the sun water and soil? So there must be intelligence in them also and how they are all working harmoniously to produce the tree.

 

In this way by seeing the interconnectedness of all living systems on earth and throughout the cosmos we can come to sense and appreciate the One Supreme Intelligence behind all material manifestation.

 

I believe this is an advanced level of pantheism. That is to accept an intelligent nature as God.

 

What do you think?

 

Sorry to bring this up again, but I have been reading this link and perhaps this is very close to what you're saying. I think it's really interesting. You might like it too: Click here.

[theist]

 

Sorry to bring this up again, but I have been reading this link and perhaps this is very close to what you're saying. I think it's really interesting. You might like it too: Click here.

Naw don't be sorry. You are helping me remember God and for that I am grateful.

 

Checked the site. There is some similarities but some differences also. On the agreement side they accept the universe as living and the form of God when taken as a whole. This is also called the virata-rupa or the Universal Form of the Lord.

 

There is a chapter in the Bhagavad-gita where Krishna revealed His universal form to Arjuna which you might like to read. It is chapter 11 and can be read here. http://bhagavadgitaasitis.com/11/en1

 

The link in my signature takes you to this site where many of Srila Prabhupada's books are.

 

The difference is they consider the universe to be the all in all and the intelligence behind it impersonal. As a theist I see the universal intelligence as belonging to the Supreme Person. And like Krishna told Arjuna when talking of His wonderous universal creations said, "These are but a spark of My splendour."

 

Seeing Krishna as the intelligent being behind the universal phenomena is a bone fide God conscious realization but it is just the beginning, just a spark. But it happens to be what I am working on because the beginning is the right place to start however we can know that beyond that there is infinetly more.

 

God doesn't forget He is God as that site suggested. He is always in full knowledge. But they have made an important leap beyond the gross material scientists who visualize the universe as nothing more than observable phenomena.

 

Hare Krishna

[bhaktajan]

 

. . . I have educated myself on scriptures (the Bhagyavad Gita mainly). But something is not working. I can’t get my brain around to think that the universe has been created by a supreme being. Call it “maya” or what not. I don’t understand, and its not as if I haven’t tried to understand. . . .

 

"The God is a Person Principle"

(or "How to cause a mayavadi to admit that there is a always a personality behind the scene"):

Q. Who is the personification of the American DollarBill?

A. George Washington.

Q. Who is the Living Personification of the American DollarBill?

A. George Bush.

Q. Who is the personification of the State of <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com<st1:place w:st="on">New York</st1:place></st1:State>'?

A. The Governor (Mr. Peterson).

Q. Who is the personification of one of the many regional Counties of New York State?

A. The <st1:place w:st="on">County Executive.</ST1:P</st1:place>

Q. Who is the personification of one of the many Congressional Districts of New York State?

A. The Congressman/State Representative.

Q. Who is the personification of <st1:City w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">New York City</st1:place></st1:City>?

A. The Mayor (Mr. Blumberg).

Q. Who is the personification of one of the many Districts of New York City?

A. The Concilman/Ombudsman.

Q. Who is the personification of any 'Block and <st1:place w:st="on">Lot</st1:place>' tax-parcel of land?

A. The title barer (The Land owner).

Q. Who is the personification of the any Apartment building?

A. "The Landlord".

Q. Who is the personification of any apartment?

A. The tenant.

Q. Who is the personification of the room with the football and the many toy Trains?

A. One of the male children.

Q. Who is the personification of nursery room?

A. The Baby.

The point of my illustration is:

"Without the presence of the persona, all paraphernalia is without meaning nor purpose for existing"

PS:

Q. Who is the personification of a mayavadi?

A. His temporary illusion? A Vaisnava to argue with?

[skp]

 

Here comes another piece of sectarian propaganda. Jayadeva was not a Vedic rishi, and please excuse if many of us do not take his pronouncements as authoritative.

 

If you don't accept Jayadeva, no problems. But, surely you do accept Bhagavatam.

 

So, it's stated in Bhagavatam:

 

[ tataḥ kalau sampravṛtte

sammohāya sura-dviṣām

buddho nāmnāñjana-sutaḥ

kīkaṭeṣu bhaviṣyati

 

"Then, in the beginning of Kali-yuga, the Lord will appear as Lord Buddha, the son of Añjanā, in the province of Gayā, just for the purpose of deluding those who are envious of the faithful theist." - SB 1.3.24 - http://vedabase.net/sb/1/3/24/en ]

 

 

Hare Krishna! Cheers!

[LoveroftheBhagavata]

 

If you don't accept Jayadeva, no problems. But, surely you do accept Bhagavatam.

 

So, it's stated in Bhagavatam:

 

[ tataḥ kalau sampravṛtte

sammohāya sura-dviṣām

buddho nāmnāñjana-sutaḥ

kīkaṭeṣu bhaviṣyati

 

"Then, in the beginning of Kali-yuga, the Lord will appear as Lord Buddha, the son of Añjanā, in the province of Gayā, just for the purpose of deluding those who are envious of the faithful theist." - SB 1.3.24 - http://vedabase.net/sb/1/3/24/en ]

 

 

Hare Krishna! Cheers!

 

 

I'm sure you must've heard of what many make of this verse. But hey, I respect your interpretation of shastra and it would be idiotic to initiate an argument over this.

 

Best regards