Personal vs. Impersonal God

[primate]

 

Actually it is very bewildering and i personally do not (if i may even say so.But it is in my mind and i might as well say it.) approve the ascension technique of Sri KRsna/sri Rama (I know I know !!! Who am i to even say so but..).

 

But these two....they could've just ascended in front of material eyes as well.

...

 

I guess Jesus Christ did a slightly better job. Not to change the subject to the Christian perspective, but the same confusing metaphysical idea is of course found in Christianity. How can God be a flesh and blood human being who suffers and dies, and then resurrects from the grave and rise up into heaven?

 

According to Paul, Jesus ascended to heaven in a spiritual body. Even ordinary humans will not enter the Kingdom of God in flesh and blood but by a spiritual body: "But some man will say, How are the dead raised up and with what body do they come? Thou fool, that which thou sowest is not quickened except it die; and that which thou sowest thou sowest not that body that shall be" (I Corinthians 15: 35-37). "It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body" (44) "Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the Kingdom of God" (50).

 

I think this is also the Vedic position. Every living being has an eternal spiritual existence and a spiritual body. Everything we consciously perceive in this material reality is just a limited projection of a much more elaborate underlying spiritual reality. We are simply unaware or ignorant of this fact.

 

So why then wouldn’t Krishna (or Christ for that matter) exploit this metaphysical mechanism of maya, in order to manifest or project Himself in the material world? People ignorantly perceived Him as a flesh and blood human being (just like they ignorantly perceive themselves as their material bodies), whereas in reality He existed as an eternal spiritual being with a spiritual body. God knows what actually happened in this spiritual reality when Krishna appeared to be shot in the foot and died. Moreover, Krishna is God himself, so all human form and consciousness is part and parcel of His all pervading spiritual body and consciousness. Confusing? Yes. But isn’t this what the Vedas tell us?

[ranjeetmore]

^ We are not a 'part' of Brahm exactly.Generally,the amsa of Something is of His own nature.

 

So if you say that Jeeva is an amsa of Bhagavan,it actually means Jeeva too should be able to control maya.

 

So the vaishnavas say that Jeevatma is Energy of Bhagavan and not His part as such.

So we are never a 'part' of His consiousness or His spiritual body.

 

Sri Krsna's hand is Sri Krsna.Sri Krsna's toe nail is Sri Krsna.So we cannot be part of His spiritual body.

 

Same applies to His consiousness.The Sri Krsna Who stays in an atom down in Hell is completely Indifferent from the Sri Krsna in goloka.

So we are not even a part of His consiousness.

 

If this were so,He wouldn't have existed separately in every living entity's heart.He lives almost just within the Jeevatma.Thus the upanishads say,"There are TWO birds."

 

Getting back to the point : I didn't know the bible holds the same stance !!! Omg,this is huge !!

 

Anyway,the body which we have is 100% true.We cannot percieve the spirit soul.Exactly the same way,we cannot percieve the Spiritual body of Bhagavan.

But He never leaves His body.That's like saying Jeevatma left His Jeevatma body.

 

Let's go to the definition of cit in gita.Bhagavan says,"You just cannot destroy something that is cit in nature."

Sri Maharaj ji says,"Challenge Bhagavan.Destroy us and show !! He cannot destroy the Jeevatmas.It's not possible.Why ? They are cit."

 

Even Shankaracharya says,"Rama,you are sat.chit.ananda."

Done.

 

It's signed by Sri Shankaracharya himself.There is not doubt that Sri Rama/Sri Krsna's bodies are eternal.

[primate]

 

^ We are not a 'part' of Brahm exactly.Generally,the amsa of Something is of His own nature.

 

So if you say that Jeeva is an amsa of Bhagavan,it actually means Jeeva too should be able to control maya.

 

So the vaishnavas say that Jeevatma is Energy of Bhagavan and not His part as such.

So we are never a 'part' of His consiousness or His spiritual body.

 

Sri Krsna's hand is Sri Krsna.Sri Krsna's toe nail is Sri Krsna.So we cannot be part of His spiritual body.

 

Same applies to His consiousness.The Sri Krsna Who stays in an atom down in Hell is completely Indifferent from the Sri Krsna in goloka.

So we are not even a part of His consiousness.

 

If this were so,He wouldn't have existed separately in every living entity's heart.He lives almost just within the Jeevatma.Thus the upanishads say,"There are TWO birds."

 

 

Getting back to the point : I didn't know the bible holds the same stance !!! Omg,this is huge !!

 

Anyway,the body which we have is 100% true.We cannot percieve the spirit soul.Exactly the same way,we cannot percieve the Spiritual body of Bhagavan.

 

But He never leaves His body.That's like saying Jeevatma left His Jeevatma body.

 

Let's go to the definition of cit in gita.Bhagavan says,"You just cannot destroy something that is cit in nature."

Sri Maharaj ji says,"Challenge Bhagavan.Destroy us and show !! He cannot destroy the Jeevatmas.It's not possible.Why ? They are cit."

 

Even Shankaracharya says,"Rama,you are sat.chit.ananda."

Done.

 

It's signed by Sri Shankaracharya himself.There is not doubt that Sri Rama/Sri Krsna's bodies are eternal.

When I said, we are a part of God, I didn’t exactly mean this in terms of space or locality. I think our individual being is a specific dynamical aspect of God’s primordial cosmic energy (or shakti). Your statement, "Jeevatma is Energy of Bhagavan" might cover that.

 

Since we are obviously nothing but consciousness, the divine creative energy (of which every living creature is a fractional dynamic aspect) can be posited as total or complete consciousness (even though there may be much more to it).

 

Consciousness (chit) implies existence (sat). Hence, our sense of Self (I think, therefore I am). Total consciousness (God) must then have a total (or transcendental or supreme and blissful) sense of Self-existence (sat-chit-ananda). Thus, God is a Person..

[theist]

Primate, the same doubt somehow always lingers with me after reading your posts. You agree that God is a person. Now please let me hear you clearly and simply state that there is more than one person in Godhead.

[primate]

 

Primate, the same doubt somehow always lingers with me after reading your posts. You agree that God is a person. Now please let me hear you clearly and simply state that there is more than one person in Godhead.

Do you mean Vishnu/Krishna (i.e., the all-pervading transcendental Supersoul/Paramatma) and the jivas? In as far as jivas exist in Vishnu and are therefore qualitatively the same, both are conscious persons at a different quantitative level. I guess it can then be said that Jivas are part of Godhead, thus there is more than one person in Godhead. However, ultimately Jivatma and Paramatma are (also) one. So I’m not sure. Maybe I don’t understand you correctly..

[kaisersose]

 

Do you mean Vishnu/Krishna (i.e., the all-pervading transcendental Supersoul/Paramatma) and the jivas? In as far as jivas exist in Vishnu and are therefore qualitatively the same, both are conscious persons at a different quantitative level. I guess it can then be said that Jivas are part of Godhead, thus there is more than one person in Godhead. However, ultimately Jivatma and Paramatma are (also) one. So I’m not sure. Maybe I don’t understand you correctly..

 

I can help you there. He means you have to agree with him or else you are going on his ignore list.

 

But seriously, your position does not appear to comply with standard Vaishnavism, unless I am reading you wrong. How do you define Liberation? Do you see the jiva worshipping Vishnu in Vaikunta?

 

Cheers

[theist]

 

However, ultimately Jivatma and Paramatma are (also) one. So I’m not sure. Maybe I don’t understand you correctly..

 

By in Godhead I meant post liberation and living in the realm of eternity together.

 

I take it your thought is that the jivas merge into the one great non-differentiated Self at liberation and their identities all merge as well.

[primate]

 

But seriously, your position does not appear to comply with standard Vaishnavism, unless I am reading you wrong. How do you define Liberation? Do you see the jiva worshipping Vishnu in Vaikunta?

 

Well, I can’t tell you first hand, but I believe enlightenment (or liberation) refers to a continuum of illuminated states of consciousness (chit) in which the ultimate (spiritual) nature of reality has become apparent to some degree. Sense perception is essentially illusory in that it does not represent the ultimate nature of the reality we encounter. To experience the ultimate nature of reality, one must meditate on the fundamental outlook that all beings and material structures are not outside you, but emerge from within (as released from Brahman into existence). Illumination is then traditionally described as a mysterious arising of being out of not-being.

 

"All progress leads from the more material to the less material; until at length it conducts us into regions where reality is perceived without the use of any laborious material structure at all. You yourselves know that individuals of higher mentality do not always have to pass through a material experience. If they are cognizant of its cause and effect, they can grasp it without painstakingly suffering it: they do not need the laborious material structure to see its reality. It is the same way in the still higher levels beyond. You are all leading up to a consciousness of reality without its material shadows, its material reflections, its material manifestations, as aids to comprehension." (Stewart Edward White, Across the Unknown)

 

 

 

I take it your thought is that the jivas merge into the one great non-differentiated Self at liberation and their identities all merge as well.

 

So, it seems that liberation or enlightenment is a staged process. Most probably human consciousness is already a higher stage than e.g. animal consciousness. And since we retain our individuality as conscious human beings, I don’t see why we wouldn’t retain our individuality at any subsequent liberated state of being. Even if it’s possible to completely merge into Brahman, I couldn’t say if this is to be preferred over personally "worshipping Krishna in Vaikunta"..

[theist]

 

So, it seems that liberation or enlightenment is a staged process. Most probably human consciousness is already a higher stage than e.g. animal consciousness. And since we retain our individuality as conscious human beings, I don’t see why we wouldn’t retain our individuality at any subsequent liberated state of being. Even if it’s possible to completely merge into Brahman, I couldn’t say if this is to be preferred over personally "worshipping Krishna in Vaikunta"..

. Yes it can be seen as a staged process and individuality does indeed continue after liberation. The Vaishnava's maintain that not only is individuality maintained after liberation but that there is one supreme individual who is unlimited whereas all the jivas are infitesimal. We have arrived back at the Sun and photons example which hopefully make sense to you this time around.

 

The variegated spiritual world is composed of the two types of individuals and their relationship.

[ranjeetmore]

^ i get you...a bit..except the "all beings and material structure emerge from within you." part.

[bhaktajan]

Primate wrote:

And since we retain our individuality as conscious human beings,

 

I don’t see why we wouldn’t retain our individuality at any subsequent liberated state of being.

 

Even if it’s possible to completely merge into Brahman, I couldn’t say if this is to be preferred over personally "worshipping Krishna in Vaikunta"..

 

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

"retain our individuality at any subsequent liberated state of being."

 

---without a 'relationship' to a transcendent Absolute ENTITY [God's Personage] . . . what constitues 'individuality'?

 

What makes one individual individual, except in contrast to other Persons?

 

Does Personal preference(s) constitute an individual? Does samsara steal-away our preference(s) or do our Personal preference(s) change birth-after-birth . . . since, amidst samsara, we are always self-ascribing temporary conditioned 'likes & dis-likes' as the definition of one's own individuality?

 

What makes for ABSOLUTE individuality?

[primate]

 

^ i get you...a bit..except the "all beings and material structure emerge from within you." part.

 

Yes, I guess that’s about the epicentral question in most religious doctrines: If ordinary (material) sense perception does not represent the ultimate nature of reality, then what is the ultimate (enlightened/liberated) nature of reality? The basic idea seems to be that you go back to your essential Self, and the smaller it gets (while you are still consciously aware of what you are doing), the more essential it is. Ultimately, you get to a point where you must admit that everything is essentially nothing but your consciousness or your Self. From that point onwards, it should be clear that everything (all material structure and beings) autonomously emerge from within you, or from your Self.

 

That’s my two cents, anyway..

 

Maybe Paramatma can be likened to the input signal of a television set. Many different broadcasts of different stations are encoded, superimposed upon each other, within a single, relatively simple alternating electrical signal. Each jivatma is tuned (by remote control) to pick out the partial signal of one particular station, which is simultaneously one with and different from the total input signal. A voila, the station’s broadcast is being received. This is also similar to, e.g., paying attention to one particular voice in a crowded and noisy public place. So, God can be both One (the simple complex signal) and variegated (composed of different conscious beings)..

[melvin]

I used to think that the name God was impersonal until I realized it was Govinda`s name shortened for God. So, everytime I hear the name God I know it`s Govinda`s name they are referring to.

[theist]

 

Yes, I guess that’s about the epicentral question in most religious doctrines: If ordinary (material) sense perception does not represent the ultimate nature of reality, then what is the ultimate (enlightened/liberated) nature of reality? The basic idea seems to be that you go back to your essential Self, and the smaller it gets (while you are still consciously aware of what you are doing), the more essential it is. Ultimately, you get to a point where you must admit that everything is essentially nothing but your consciousness or your Self. From that point onwards, it should be clear that everything (all material structure and beings) autonomously emerge from within you, or from your Self.

 

That’s my two cents, anyway..

 

Maybe Paramatma can be likened to the input signal of a television set. Many different broadcasts of different stations are encoded, superimposed upon each other, within a single, relatively simple alternating electrical signal. Each jivatma is tuned (by remote control) to pick out the partial signal of one particular station, which is simultaneously one with and different from the total input signal. A voila, the station’s broadcast is being received. This is also similar to, e.g., paying attention to one particular voice in a crowded and noisy public place. So, God can be both One (the simple complex signal) and variegated (composed of different conscious beings)..

 

Basically you are speaking impersonalist ideas. I would suggest trying to hear Vaisnava doctrine for what it is instead of everytime trying to make it conform to your preconceived ideas on what is or should be.

 

You would still be free to disagree with the Vaishnava view of Reality, of course, but at least you would know what you are disagreeing with.

[Sonic Yogi]

This Abrahamic monotheism is, in my opinion, much less authentic and spiritual genuine that the polytheism of the Hindus.

The Hindus see fire as the body of the fire god and they respect it.

Hindus see air as the body of the wind god and so they respect it.

Hindus see Earth as the body of Bhumi Devi, so they respect it.

 

These Abrahamic religions don't have the proper respect for the elements or mother Earth, because they are "monotheistic" and only recognize their god as worth of worship.

 

Abrahamic monotheism is farce monotheism, because you cannot serve God whilst being disrespectful to the gods, the elements, other faiths and mother Earth.

 

Abrahamic religion is not monotheism, it is just monotonous.

[Redsox]

 

This Abrahamic monotheism is, in my opinion, much less authentic and spiritual genuine that the polytheism of the Hindus.

 

Abrahamic monotheism is as authentic and spiritually genuine as the polytheism of hindus.

 

 

The Hindus see fire as the body of the fire god and they respect it.

Hindus see air as the body of the wind god and so they respect it.

Hindus see Earth as the body of Bhumi Devi, so they respect it.

 

The abrahamic monotheism sees fire as the creation of God and they respect it.

Abrahamic monotheism sees air as the creation of God and they respect it.

Abrahamic monotheism sees earth as the creation of God and they respect it.

 

 

These Abrahamic religions don't have the proper respect for the elements or mother Earth, because they are "monotheistic" and only recognize their god as worth of worship.

 

looking at the stuff I wrote above your quote here , you can conclude that : Abrahamic religions have the proper respect for the elements or mother earth because they are "monotheistic" and only recognize their God as worth of worship.

 

 

Abrahamic monotheism is farce monotheism, because you cannot serve God whilst being disrespectful to the gods, the elements, other faiths and mother Earth.

 

Abrahamic religion is not monotheism, it is just monotonous.

 

 

Abrahamic monotheism is farce monotheism, because you can serve God by surrendering to that one true God and his messiah (their form of your idea of guru) , whilst being respectful to God's creations.

[Redsox]

 

I used to think that the name God was impersonal until I realized it was Govinda`s name shortened for God. So, everytime I hear the name God I know it`s Govinda`s name they are referring to.

 

yeah, and here are a few other things that might be useful for you...

 

you know Ramadan? why its holy for muslims? it comes from Rama & Dan, Rama is lord Rama and Dan means (if i remember this correctly) Donation. Lord Rama Donation, they are giving their devotion to allah and donating it to Rama who is none other than that Allah.

[theist]

 

Abrahamic monotheism is as authentic and spiritually genuine as the polytheism of hindus.

 

 

 

The abrahamic monotheism sees fire as the creation of God and they respect it.

Abrahamic monotheism sees air as the creation of God and they respect it.

Abrahamic monotheism sees earth as the creation of God and they respect it.

 

 

 

looking at the stuff I wrote above your quote here , you can conclude that : Abrahamic religions have the proper respect for the elements or mother earth because they are "monotheistic" and only recognize their God as worth of worship.

 

 

 

 

Abrahamic monotheism is farce monotheism, because you can serve God by surrendering to that one true God and his messiah (their form of your idea of guru) , whilst being respectful to God's creations.

 

Exactly! By respecting the the Supreme all the little nature spirit gods are respected also. No need to try to water the leaves of the tree one by one. Just water the root and the whole tree is nourished.

Edited August 4, 2009 by theist

[Sephiroth]

by Redsox

 

 

Abrahamic monotheism is as authentic and spiritually genuine as the polytheism of hindus.

 

Says who?

 

Judaism started when Moses brought down the Ten commandments from God for his people to follow.

 

Today, Christianity have tried to take over Judaism by stating that Judaism is obsolete and that everyone should follow Christianity and worship a dead guy, hanging on a cross. Then, Muhammad came along and accuse Jews of killing of Jesus and thus, this two groups have been trying to eradicate Jews for the past 2,000 years.

 

so, don't give me that bull that Monotheism is authentic crap. ONLY Judaism is authentic here. NOT COUNTING HINDUISM AND BUDDHISM.

 

 

 

The abrahamic monotheism sees fire as the creation of God and they respect it.

Abrahamic monotheism sees air as the creation of God and they respect it.

Abrahamic monotheism sees earth as the creation of God and they respect it.

 

Mind showing me where does this beliefs stated so? Because I don't remember anything such.

 

 

Abrahamic monotheism is farce monotheism, because you can serve God by surrendering to that one true God and his messiah (their form of your idea of guru) , whilst being respectful to God's creations.

 

Wrong ... that concept comes from Islam and it has nothing to do with Judaism. Blind Faith is NOT part of Judaism. In Islam and Christianity, they have to follow blindly and believe (that Muhammad is a prophet of god or that Jesus is a son of a god).

 

In Judaism, Moses and the prophets have very little influence. Their way of living is not something others supposed to follow (because they are the Chosen ones). ONLY the Words of God (which they deliver to the people) are to be followed.

[primate]

 

Basically you are speaking impersonalist ideas. I would suggest trying to hear Vaisnava doctrine for what it is instead of everytime trying to make it conform to your preconceived ideas on what is or should be.

 

You would still be free to disagree with the Vaishnava view of Reality, of course, but at least you would know what you are disagreeing with.

Another analogy:

 

Suppose everything is consciousness. Since nothing in our individual reality (down to the absolute quantum level) is ever static, consciousness must be an extremely dynamical phenomenon. Nevertheless, each individual person must be a relatively stable recurrent dynamical pattern of consciousness, which forms a coherent dynamical conscious system in itself.

 

This may be seen as the small persistent eddies in an overall whirlpool. The small eddies are part of larger vortices, which are in turn part of larger vortices et cetera. If in this analogy each persistent dynamical pattern of a vortex is an individual person, the small eddies are individual persons and the larger vortices are also individual persons. Ultimately all individual consciousness exists within this overall whirlpool of consciousness that is itself a person.

 

Now, if the overall whirlpool is God, every individual vortex or person is part of God and ultimately one with God. However, each individual person is also different from God.

 

If you think this analogy is impersonalistic, then can you explain why..?

[theist]

Sorry primate, Please don't consider me rude but you are very much into the mental plane and I don't care to enter your mind along with you by analyzing one analogy of yours after another.

 

You are not the Supreme Self. You are part of the Supreme Self. That's all.

[primate]

 

Sorry primate, Please don't consider me rude but you are very much into the mental plane and I don't care to enter your mind along with you by analyzing one analogy of yours after another.

 

That’s no problem. It’s a bit of a shame though, because I think my latest analogy nicely illustrates the proposition in post #14, on the basis of which you accused me of impersonalism! I assume that you agree then, that this is not impersonalism:

 

#14 Our consciousness is personal (an obvious fact). Our consciousness, including our sense of Self, is part of reality (another obvious fact). If everything in reality is God (a premise), then God must be total consciousness (a logical conclusion). And if all consciousness is personal (a speculative proposition), then God must be personal (a logical conclusion)..

 

 

 

You are not the Supreme Self. You are part of the Supreme Self. That's all.

 

Agreed!

[raghu]

 

Exactly! By respecting the the Supreme all the little nature spirit gods are respected also. No need to try to water the leaves of the tree one by one. Just water the root and the whole tree is nourished.

 

An implicit part of respecting the Supreme Lord is respecting His empowered servants. They may be "little nature spirit gods" to you, but they can certainly ruin your day if they chose. And the Lord does not like it when His devotees are disrespected...

[Redsox]

 

by Redsox

 

 

 

Says who?

 

 

Says me, yes just go back to my post earlier and read it again and look at it closely, I just took the sonic yogi's argument and wrote "Abrahamic religion" where he wrote Hinduism and switched the word hinduism with whereever he wrote abrahamic religion.

You can see how his argument is quite meaningless, just like my argument and you can turn it either way.

[Redsox]

 

An implicit part of respecting the Supreme Lord is respecting His empowered servants. They may be "little nature spirit gods" to you, but they can certainly ruin your day if they chose. And the Lord does not like it when His devotees are disrespected...

 

So I have to fear these little gods now? why? because they can ruin my day? lol.

 

Note to self, be careful around the next tree you walk by, who knows? there might be an angry tree god who is having a bad day!