Article of the Month - Jun 2010

This article by Nitin Kumar

(Viewed 36118 times since Jun 2010)

Table of Content

  • Introduction

  • Objection of the Non-difference Between the ‘Eater’ and that which is ‘Eaten’

  • The Objection of the Lack of Motive

  • God is Partial and Cruel

  • The Nature of the World is Different from God, Hence God Cannot be Its Creator

  • Conclusion

While today it has become a fashion amongst the scientific community to call themselves atheists, it was not always so. In fact, amongst the truly great, it was exactly the opposite, as is evident from the following incident in the life of the famous scientist Isaac Newton.

Newton had a friend who did not believe in God. He was always asserting that the creation of the world and the activities in it do not imply any god. Once Newton was sitting by the side of a marvelous model of the solar system, absorbed in the thoughts of planetary motion. At that time his friend entered and started gazing at the model with great curiosity. After some time he asked Newton:
"Isaac, who made this?"
Without even lifting his head, Newton replied: "Nobody".
"Isaac, I am asking about this wonderful model. Who made this?"
"I told you no one."
The friend was peeved. Raising his voice, he asked, "Are you kidding me? This is working so wonderfully and when I ask you who made it you say ‘No one’. What do you mean?"
"My dear friend, if no one is necessary to create the solar system, do you mean to say that someone is necessary to make a trivial model of it?"

It's not a Creation... It's a Projection Through Expression - Book

This marvelous world needs a creator much more marvelous than itself. However, questions like how God created this world, why did He create it, how is this world different (or non-different) from its creator, and what is the nature of the creator who created this immensely diverse world, are bound to spring up in one’s mind. The group of ancient scriptures, collectively known as the Upanishads, amply explain these points. These exalted texts lay down the foundations of Vedic philosophy on a firm grounding, in a sublime yet forceful manner.

The Upanishads begin with the stock example of a pot and pot-maker.

At The Potter's Workmanship, A Moment Of Pure Wonder (Framed)

The pot-maker creates a pot using clay and a potter’s wheel. Thus we see that the creation of a pot requires three different causes:

1). The Potter: This is known as the Efficient Cause (Nimitta Karana in Sanskrit)

2). The Clay: Material Cause (Upadana Karana)

3). The Wheel: The implement used to create the pot (Sahakari Karana).

According to the ancient scriptures, God is at once all the three causes of the world. That is, the stuff (clay) out of which this world is made is God, the one who caused it (potter) is also God and the implement used for it is also God. In the technical language of Vedanta, this Supreme God is known as Brahman.’ In fact, the unambiguous definition of God given by Veda Vyasa is ‘God is that from which the world originates, sustains and then finally dissolves back into.’ (Brahma Sutra 1.1.2)

Brahma Sutra Bhasya of Shankaracharya - BOOK

Doubt: We see everywhere, as in the case of the pot, that all three causes are different. How then is it possible that all the three are the same in the case of the universe?

Resolution: This is a very important and basic question. In fact, it forms the very foundation of all Vedanta. Though it is right to say that generally the three causes are different, there are also cases where it is not so. Consider the example of a spider making a web. The spider alone is all three causes for the web – material, efficient, and implemental.

Thus we have a clear example of all three causes coinciding in one. Similarly, God or Brahman is at once all the three causes for the world. Therefore, because of this counter-example, this axiom of the scriptures cannot be rejected.

However, on accepting the above hypothesis, many objections come to a thinking mind. The ever compassionate scriptures have a resolution to each of them:

Objection of the Non-difference Between the ‘Eater’ and that which is ‘Eaten’

Objection: If God be considered the only cause of the world, then there is nothing different from It. In such a case, the distinction between a subject and its object would vanish. For example, if both Devadatta and the rice he eats are formed out of the same One God, then there would be no difference between the eater and what is eaten. This would amount to saying that Devadatta eats himself, which is obviously absurd. Therefore, the above declaration of God as the only cause of this world is invalid.

Resolution: This objection is not correct. Consider the example of a hammer and anvil. Both are in essence made of iron, even then, to our eyes, the hammer is not anvil and the anvil is not the hammer, both are different. Therefore, because of being different modifications, even though they have the same material cause (iron), there is scope for interaction between the two. One beat and the other gets beaten up. Even then, essentially, the iron neither beats nor gets beaten. It is only the two modifications of iron which interact with each other. In a similar manner, the subject and the object can interact, even though they are formed of the same material, and Devadatta can enjoy his rice without any disturbance.

The Objection of the Lack of Motive

Objection: God cannot be the creator of the world because He has no motive to do so. It is pretty evident from our everyday experience that any reasonably intelligent person will not begin any work, however insignificant it may be, if he has no purpose to achieve. Here we are talking about the supreme work of the creation of this unimaginably complex and diverse world. Moreover, the Upanishads clearly state that God is self-content (apta-kama, Brihadaranyaka Upanishad 4.3.21). If we attribute some selfish motive to God, then it would be contradictory to His self-content nature. If we say that He has created this world without any motive, then we know that only someone who is mad does something without any purpose, like we often see madmen laughing or running without any reason. This is not feasible at all. Hence, your God cannot be the creator of this world.

BRHADARANYAKA UPANISAD with the Commentary of Sri Madhvacarya - Book

Resolution: The scriptures resolve this objection by pointing out that God created this world for the sake of all beings (jivas). Jivas have performed various karmas over their numerous births. During the dissolution of the world, saving these karmas in their seed forms, all jivas merged into God. To facilitate the reaping of the fruits of this karma for the jivas, God sets out to create the world again. It is like the father, who, even though he has no need for it himself, prepares a toy for his child weeping for the same. Similarly, does God create this world for Jivas?

However, the remarkable thing about this world is that not only does it provide the means for the inevitable reaping of our karmic fruits, but at the same time it also gives ample opportunity during the whole process to facilitate our Moksha too.

God is Partial and Cruel

Objection: There are a lot of dissimilarities in this world. Some people get a chance to lead a happy life, while animals generally lead an unhappy life. Some people live a mixed life, partly happy and partly unhappy. Therefore, your God is partial. Not only this but during the dissolution of the world, all jivas experience only extreme pain. Hence, not only is your God partial, but He is also extremely cruel. Therefore, He cannot be the creator of this world.

Resolution: The perceived inequality in the happiness of various beings of this world is due to the difference in their karma. It is not God’s fault at all. God creates this world taking into account our previous karma. If this were not so, He would be like an employer who pays all his workers the same salary, regardless of their relative work. The dissolution of the world too is according to the collective karma of all beings. Hence God is neither partial nor cruel.

Karma and Rebirth in Hindu Astrology (Explained Illustratively With Many Horoscopes) - BOOK

The Nature of the World is Different from God, Hence God Cannot be Its Creator

Objection 1: According to the definition of God in the Upanishads, when the world dissolves (pralaya), it merges into God. This means at that time all the attributes of the world merge into God. Now, this world is not only diverse, but also impure because it consists of pleasure and pain, attachment and hatred, joy and sorrow. Therefore, while merging into God, this world will contaminate Him, who is Eternally Pure, with its own impurity. Thus, God cannot be the creator of this world.

Gods and the World - BOOK

Resolution: When ornaments melt back into gold, their attributes do not contaminate it. An effect merging back into its material cause doesn’t contaminate it. Not only that, even at the time of its existence an object doesn’t have any affect whatsoever on its cause. An ornament may be big, loose, formed, deformed or broken. However, all these modifications are only in the ornament, not in the gold. Nobody says that gold is loose or broken. All such attributes are directed only at the ornament not at the gold. Similarly, neither when it is born, nor during its existence, nor when it dissolves back into It, does this world have any affect on God.

Objection 2: God is a conscious principle. Hence, we can believe Him to be the efficient cause of the universe, much like a potter is for the pot. However, a conscious principle (Chetan) cannot be the cause of this inert (jada) world. An effect cannot differ in nature from its cause. The characteristic features of the cause must be inhere in the effect. The world as an effect of God does not have His qualities. Therefore, God cannot be the material cause of this world.

Resolution: This objection can be divided into three parts:

a). All of God’s qualities are not present in this world, thus He cannot be the creator.

b). None of His qualities is present in this world, hence He cannot be the creator.

c). Since this world is inert, lacking the quality of consciousness (which God has), He cannot be its creator.

Resolution a): If all the qualities of the cause inhere in the effect then there would be no difference between the cause and its effect. In such a case the effect would not be able to manifest itself. Therefore, it is not possible for all qualities of the cause to appear in the effect. If all features of God were seen in this world, there would remain no difference between Him and this world. Then there would be no hope of proving the Upanishadic principle of creation of this world. Therefore, this objection is not valid.

Resolution b): The objection that none of God’s qualities are discernible in the manifested world does have substance. If not even one of God’s attributes is present in this world then God cannot be proved to be the cause of this world. Therefore, at least one of God’s qualities definitely needs to be inhere in this world. The question is, which of God’s attributes is present in this world?

To answer this question, let us consider the following statements:

1). God is unchanging while the world is ever-changing.

2). God is conscious but the world is inert.

What we observe in common in the first and second parts of both sentences is the word ‘is’, i.e., the fact of ‘being in existence’. This is the attribute that is present both in the cause (God) and the effect (world). The great Shankaracharya says: ‘The characteristic feature of God, i.e. the fact of existence, is found inhering in the manifested world.’ (Commentary on the Brahma Sutras, 2.1.6). Thus, the argument that not even one feature of God is present in this world does not hold.

Adi Guru Shankaracharya - WHITE MARBLE STATUE

Resolution c): The last objection says that consciousness, which is a characteristic feature of God, should be present in this world. To this, we pose a counter query. How can you make a rule that a particular feature of the cause should be present in the effect? Like the material sugar cannot be ‘touched’ in lemonade but only perceived through its sweetness, similarly, even though the conscious principle is not present in the physical world, we can still conclude that God is the material cause of this world.

Even after this discussion, agreeing that God, who is of the nature of consciousness, could create this diversely opposite inert world, is still hard for some. For such skeptics, an example from modern science will suffice. According to science, the material cause of the water is oxygen and hydrogen. Out of the two, hydrogen is combustible, while oxygen is a supporter of combustion. However, their product water has none of these characteristics, rather it is the opposite, having the property of extinguishing fire. What’s more, water is liquid, as against both oxygen and hydrogen, which are gases. Therefore, here we have an example where an effect doesn’t have a property existing in its cause, namely liquidity; not only that, it has a property diametrically opposite to its material cause – namely an extinguisher of fire. Therefore, that this inert world has as its cause God, who is of the nature of consciousness, is no contradiction at all.

References and Further Reading:

This article is based almost entirely on the teachings of Param Pujya Swami Paramanand Bharati Ji. However, any error is entirely the author's own.

Add a review

Your email address will not be published *

    1. Common Concept of God in Hinduism: Hinduism is commonly perceived as a polytheistic religion. Indeed, most Hindus would attest to this, by professing belief in multiple Gods. While some Hindus believe in the existence of three gods, some believe in thousands of gods, and some others in thirty three crore i.e. 330 million Gods. However, learned Hindus, who are well versed in their scriptures, insist that a Hindu should believe in and worship only one God. The major difference between the Hindu and the Muslim perception of God is the common Hindus’ belief in the philosophy of Pantheism. Pantheism considers everything, living and non-living, to be Divine and Sacred. The common Hindu, therefore, considers everything as God. He considers the trees as God, the sun as God, the moon as God, the monkey as God, the snake as God and even human beings as manifestations of God! Islam, on the contrary, exhorts man to consider himself and his surroundings as examples of Divine Creation rather than as divinity itself. Muslims therefore believe that everything is God’s i.e. the word ‘God’ with an apostrophe ‘s’. In other words the Muslims believe that everything belongs to God. The trees belong to God, the sun belongs to God, the moon belongs to God, the monkey belongs to God, the snake belongs to God, the human beings belong to God and everything in this universe belongs to God. Thus the major difference between the Hindu and the Muslim beliefs is the difference of the apostrophe ‘s’. The Hindu says everything is God. The Muslim says everything is God’s. 2. Concept of God according to Hindu Scriptures: We can gain a better understanding of the concept of God in Hinduism by analysing Hindu scriptures. BHAGAVAD GITA The most popular amongst all the Hindu scriptures is the Bhagavad Gita. Consider the following verse from the Gita: "Those whose intelligence has been stolen by material desires surrender unto demigods and follow the particular rules and regulations of worship according to their own natures." [Bhagavad Gita 7:20] The Gita states that people who are materialistic worship demigods i.e. ‘gods’ besides the True God. UPANISHADS: The Upanishads are considered sacred scriptures by the Hindus. The following verses from the Upanishads refer to the Concept of God: i. "Ekam evadvitiyam" "He is One only without a second." [Chandogya Upanishad 6:2:1]1 ii. "Na casya kascij janita na cadhipah." "Of Him there are neither parents nor lord." [Svetasvatara Upanishad 6:9]2 iii. "Na tasya pratima asti" "There is no likeness of Him." [Svetasvatara Upanishad 4:19]3 iv. The following verses from the Upanishad allude to the inability of man to imagine God in a particular form: "Na samdrse tisthati rupam asya, na caksusa pasyati kas canainam." "His form is not to be seen; no one sees Him with the eye." [Svetasvatara Upanishad 4:20]4 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1[The Principal Upanishad by S. Radhakrishnan page 447 and 448] [Sacred Books of the East, volume 1 ‘The Upanishads part I’ page 93] 2[The Principal Upanishad by S. Radhakrishnan page 745] [Sacred Books of the East, volume 15, ‘The Upanishads part II’ page 263.] 3[The Principal Upanishad by S. Radhakrishnan page 736 & 737] [Sacred Books of the East, volume 15, ‘The Upanishads part II’ page no 253] 4[The Principal Upanishad by S. Radhakrishnan page 737] [Sacred Books of the East, volume 15, ‘The Upanishads part II’ page no 253] THE VEDAS Vedas are considered the most sacred of all the Hindu scriptures. There are four principal Vedas: Rigveda, Yajurveda, Samveda and Atharvaveda. Yajurveda The following verses from the Yajurveda echo a similar concept of God: i. "na tasya pratima asti "There is no image of Him." [Yajurveda 32:3]5 ii. "shudhama poapvidham" "He is bodyless and pure." [Yajurveda 40:8]6 iii. "Andhatama pravishanti ye asambhuti mupaste" "They enter darkness, those who worship the natural elements" (Air, Water, Fire, etc.). "They sink deeper in darkness, those who worship sambhuti." [Yajurveda 40:9]7 Sambhuti means created things, for example table, chair, idol, etc. iv. The Yajurveda contains the following prayer: "Lead us to the good path and remove the sin that makes us stray and wander." [Yajurveda 40:16]8 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5[Yajurveda by Devi Chand M.A. page 377] 6[Yajurveda Samhita by Ralph T. H. Giffith page 538] 7[Yajurveda Samhita by Ralph T. H. Giffith page 538] 8[Yajurveda Samhita by Ralph T. H. Griffith page 541] Atharvaveda The Atharvaveda praises God in Book 20, hymn 58 and verse 3: "Dev maha osi" "God is verily great" [Atharvaveda 20:58:3]9 Rigveda i. The oldest of all the vedas is Rigveda. It is also the one considered most sacred by the Hindus. The Rigveda states in Book 1, hymn 164 and verse 46: "Sages (learned Priests) call one God by many names." [Rigveda 1:164:46] ii. The Rigveda gives several different attributes to Almighty God. Many of these are mentioned in Rigveda Book 2 hymn 1. Among the various attributes of God, one of the beautiful attributes mentioned in the Rigveda Book II hymn 1 verse 3, is Brahma. Brahma means ‘The Creator’. Translated into Arabic it means Khaaliq. Muslims can have no objection if Almighty God is referred to as Khaaliq or ‘Creator’ or Brahma. However if it is said that Brahma is Almighty God who has four heads with each head having a crown, Muslims take strong exception to it. Describing Almighty God in anthropomorphic terms also goes against the following verse of Yajurveda: "Na tasya Pratima asti" "There is no image of Him." [Yajurveda 32:3] Another beautiful attribute of God mentioned in the Rigveda Book II hymn 1 verse 3 is Vishnu. Vishnu means ‘The Sustainer’. Translated into Arabic it means Rabb. Again, Muslims can have no objection if Almighty God is referred to as Rabb or 'Sustainer' or Vishnu. But the popular image of -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 9[Atharveda Samhita vol 2 William Dwight Whitney page 910] Vishnu among Hindus, is that of a God who has four arms, with one of the right arms holding the Chakra, i.e. a discus and one of the left arms holding a ‘conch shell’, or riding a bird or reclining on a snake couch. Muslims can never accept any image of God. As mentioned earlier this also goes against Svetasvatara Upanishad Chapter 4 verse 19. "Na tasya pratima asti" "There is no likeness of Him" The following verse from the Rigveda Book 8, hymn 1, verse 1 refer to the Unity and Glory of the Supreme Being: iii. "Ma cid anyad vi sansata sakhayo ma rishanyata" "O friends, do not worship anybody but Him, the Divine One. Praise Him alone." [Rigveda 8:1:1]10 iv. "Devasya samituk parishtutih" "Verily, great is the glory of the Divine Creator." [Rigveda 5:1:81]11 Brahma Sutra of Hinduism: The Brahma Sutra of Hinduism is: "Ekam Brahm, dvitiya naste neh na naste kinchan" "There is only one God, not the second; not at all, not at all, not in the least bit." Thus only a dispassionate study of the Hindu scriptures can help one understand the concept of God in Hinduism. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 0[Rigveda Samhita vol. 9, pages 2810 and 2811 by Swami Satya Prakash Sarasvati and Satyakam Vidyalankar] 11[Rigveda Samhita vol. 6, pages 1802 and 1803 by Swami Satya Prakash Saraswati and Satyakam Vidyalankar] as from the sun." The Prophecy confirms: i. The name of the Prophet as Ahmed since Ahmed is an Arabic name. Many translators misunderstood it to be ‘Ahm at hi’ and translated the mantra as "I alone have acquired the real wisdom of my father".
    Jimmy July 09, 2010
  • How can you call whoever that is GOD? There is only ONE TRUE GOD. No matter what you people say. The god I serve is bigger than any of the idols that you serve. Much much bigger. Yes, I am a christian. And. It just really breaks my heart to see you calling this made up person god. Jesus loves you all. And the bible is the book you gotta check out. God bless.
    Jon July 06, 2010
  • The article on Creation of the World - Why - Who - How is very crisp, apt, nice & knowledgeably worth reading cum digestive. Continue the contributions.
    V. Lalithakumar June 23, 2010
  • Thank you so much for revealing Indian Secrets. I know about Cosma, Shiva, Brahma and other Gods/ Goddesses, but due to my heritage which is German/ Turkish and thanks to my parents,... I was free to chose my own belief. Believe it or not, my whole life, I dedicated to searching for answers and sense in life. In fact, I have always been interested in religion, though, I must admit, … at the age of 5 or 6, when my dear aunt died,... I turned my back to god. I so not could understand, why he took such a good hearted person, so early out of my life,.. I guess this is why I was looking for him. Unfortunately in my parents home,... there has been no religion,... we were free to believe but guided by parental values. However, about ten years ago, I got me the book about the 5 principal religions in this world (Universalism, Buddhism, Hinduism, Christianity and Islam, if I remember right). To be truth, I didn´t read it entirely, just read interesting or emerging parts to calm my soul and at this stage:...really... Buddha gave me such a clear answer:... by saying that every human being is God. And I truly believe so, that in each person there is a God. Please don´t mind my open words, but one point I missed in your article and namely the physical world:... is the fact of the devils´ existence. Herewith, I would like to take reference to Chinese Universalism, which is so directed or focused on balance!... Ying and Yang, Male and Female, Good and Bad/ Evil,.... ( it´s endless) What I am trying to point out here is: That as a human being, we first have to accept both powers... maybe I am wrong.... but it is just like a medal with two sides and both powers should be kept in balance. Regarding to the current political or world issues... let me try to put it on a higher spiritual level, cause logic, German rationality,...or similar... has no place in nature issues and our world is so affected and harmed by (I guess) mainly industrial states, corrupt people but worse corrupt organizations or associations,... Evil has always been present and will always be,... to me it´s like God and Devil playing chess,... looking onto the world, the people, nature, animals, etc. In my opinion there are so many lost souls out there! The last centuries and decades were handled fine!.... But with the uprising Technology and the humane instinct to get more more and more:... I shall assume that human beings or maybe nations (I can only speak for Germany at first as I was born here and grew up in that country) set themselves up to the position of God and playing in its name. God is so much greater: Of course he will give way to let a person try,... but the thing is...maybe with technology and the rudeness, unscruple/unconsciousness and egoism:.... this very human being might not be aware of playing with God or Devil,.... furthermore:... ignoring even the FAIR rules that good and evil powers have set,... therewith... if a human being loses against the devil,... I am sure that even God will give the Devil it´s way: … if the human being has ignored all Gods values. My name is Yasemin and I am a human being. The world got overloaded by amenities, which a few nations might not interpret clearly to its people and worse:... lying about it...(this is only speculation). However, I kind of exploded internally, because I don´t wanna cope anymore with that kind of lies, hypocrisy, corruption, modern slavery etc. etc. But the leading fact or trigger is and was the destruction of nature:...Gods given beauty and treasures so shamefully harmed by non cooperation, apart the fact that we really let it come that far. This is, why I saw or see my life senseless and therefore I handed over to the superior powers...: … at first: … of course God. Name him God, Buddha, Allah, Jah, Dios,... however,...I think that in this German Country,... I shall assume other countries as well,... but I think all Gods have been ignored somehow. And definitely human pride and dignity was ignored, harmed and spoiled. It is not my decision,.. not in my hands,... I know that I am only allowed (by Buddha) to consider myself as God... when behaving properly, or as far and much as my humane senses and logic tells me. Above that, I so deeply know, that there are issues which will only be handled by God or Devil like Nature issues and I so much hope and pray:... that God wins that battle. It was the human beings who wanted to play with the devil, maybe that´s why we lost control. I think that transparency have been provided know,... so God, finally can really see and fight the devil,... but we all should know, that it might take some time... For my peace in soul, I accepted the end of the world which was foretold by Nostradamus or others. As an only human I can´t do a lot... apart from the fact that I don´t have the Billions to support the work on the oil catastrophy... mainly the disequilibrium in the earth intern. I only hope not praying cause I honestly think that mankind deserved it as it made it come so far. However:... I see some reactions and movements in those issues,... therefore the only thing I can do is to provide information or pictures, therewith giving transparency to the superior powers and hope for the best. I don´t know whom I am talking to, God, Allah, Buddha Krishna or even the Serpent you described in the April´s article... Maybe no one is listening, maybe yes, this is all so new to me. My private life is quite a mess right now, which is why I have to fight as well for my food and alimentation, as my body suffered a lot, such as my rights as a human being.... the only burden I took... was to know my family, friends, true believers, such as good hearted and innocent people in peace. I quit my job,... apart from the fact that I have to watch my health,... the principal reason was:... that I won´t need a job nor money... if the world is going down... and wow: this was very scary. It seems that the US stepped into action. Not only that, they stand upright to their mistakes and incorrect behavior,... they started to take measures in repairing the caused damage. Although there was a time I neglected the USA,... there has also been such a long period of time I loved that country and now I know why. Their believe in God is so great, they got knowledge, democracy, understanding and good will... moreover... they know the meaning of LOVE,... so I can only hope and pray... that they will find a solution for this catastrophy, but I know or think that really an international, maybe spiritual, frontline..... has to be formed... to encounter the Devil and show/ demonstrate God... that mankind really cares,... regardless heritage, distance, economical status.... I tried to do so in Berlin,... unfortunately I had to realize, that it might be the wrong country to start with. It is the world which might go down... so wherever you or others are... I love and feel connected to a lot of people and I so not care about Nationality or Belief,... as long as you have a good heart and benevolent attitude. Thank you for your attention and the revealing but critical article... I hope this will not be posted directly.. but revised/ checked or improved by you... Should you think that my response should be posted entirely... feel free to do so,... then I am just sorry it turned out that long.... India is blessed anyhow,... you are so close to God and I only wished I had discovered this spiritualism at an earlier stage of my life... please thank your Gods/ Goddesses, your people, and even leading persons of your country,... for not playing with lost souls...
    Yasemin June 22, 2010
  • This article is a splendid commentary... Please accept my sincere thanks... and continue this service for the benefit of all mankind... there are many in the West who can and do benefit also besides us the Hindus.
    Prof. B. Thyagarajan June 22, 2010
  • Namaste Nitin, is diffcult...and as an ignorant about these matters as I am, I can only speak about what I think and feel. Right...the world IS... the Universe IS, the galaxys ARE there. Science proved it. GOD. WHO IS God? WHAT IS God? A PERSON? A SPIRIT? A FORCE? ALL THE POSITIVES ENERGIES TOGETHER? GOD is Good...GOD is Justice...does He rules the world????? We all have the FREE WILL to chose our destinies. In that I believe. Before we are born, before re incarnation, WE chose our destiny...therefor our KARMA. To try to become better selves .... to reach the LIGHT...therefor God IS LIGHT. Another theory: we can not think that in this beautiful Universe...the Cosmos.....we are the ONLY inhabited planet. Why not a planet where only the very pure at heart can live??? Why nor think that God put the SEED in this planet , some form of life to become humans? Why not think that there was in fact a big "Boom" that generated many planets. one of them this one? Better ones and worse ones. In Portugal we have a prayer that in the middle goes like this " us our Mother, from this valley of tears. where we cry and mourn..." something like that. I do believe that THERE IS a better place near God, near the light...near that Force of Positive Energies....the place where we can find the bliss....the true happiness. The thing is..... along the centurys.... the catholics changed sooo much the original words and thoughts of Jesus, the Son of God, but then again we all have HIS sparkle, Not His pure Spirit! I think too fast...and then when I read it I realize that I have not writen what I intended to. Going back, for centurys the catholic church changed so much the words and facts of Jesus just to have the power over the people, they invented frighten be able to command their lives! I'm refering to the middle ages as we say....going to 12th/ 13th and 14th century. I dont know if I made a big mess about your questions. It's a difficult subject... I think that no one can be precise about it, unless they have special powers....and I also believe that there are. My best wishes,
    Maria Camara June 21, 2010
  • Thank you for the wonderful article.
    Simran Randhawa June 21, 2010
  • Excellent and very profound..thanks
    Rebecca June 20, 2010
  • I am very grateful for this article. It is making me think deeply about the world and what we believe about God.
    Regina Schulte, M.A., Ph.D., Theology. June 19, 2010
  • Namaste, Thank you for your article(s - I have enjoyed all I have received) . To some extent, it explains things, although it does seem to me, that Creation (verb and noun) are shown here as external; the examples seem to follow this line of thinking. Whereas, at the deepest level, we ourselves, individially, are God/Brahma, so creation proceeds interiorly rather than exteriorly... and when Brahma created the physical plane (this world and all others, etc) it was created . . . so that aspects of Brahma could experience karma and 'grow' therefrom. So the point of it all, is changing knowledge (ie, theoretical) into wisdom, experiential knowledge, (but, what one learns, depends on what one brings to the table (attitudes, ... ... ... ) and Brahma himself changes/grows thereby (???). I guess, attitudes taken are part of the karmic learning experience as well, perhaps that is more see-able, visible, obvious, from higher levels of being, where one is not so enmeshed in the 'game', even though enmeshment would seem to be essential for the growing experience, ... What I'm saying, is that it is all directly internally experience-able (theoretically; with the right understanding), and would it not be better, more helpful, if it were spoken about in those (personal experience) terms, rather than painted externally ?? Bearing also in mind, that time is LESS than The All, so, 'distant past' events are happening _now_. One just needs to understand the symbolism, yes? Coming back to the interiority of creation - there is Zhuang Zi's question - 'am I a man dreaming I am a butterfly, or am I now a butterfly, dreaming I am a man ?' (How would I know ?) What I perceive of the world (anything 'exterior') is always mediated by 'interior' senses, even direct knowing-ness is an interior experience, so what is 'reality' then ? And, to repeat, how would I know? It may seem a little off-topic, but I keep thinking here also of ?LaoZi's observation (of that echo of the ?next realm up), that it is the spaces within solids that make them useful (the interior of a potter's jar, the interior of a house, etc). It seems to me, all the interior-knowledge systems of the world, trace the connection of consciousness back from the individual to the Source. However, it also seems to me, that the gaining of wisdom by an individual, is dependent (also) on the support of society, the provision of food, clothing etc, to give respite from bare subsistence enough to make possible the mystic meditative journey. Sages may retreat to caves, but they weren't born there, they didn't get to that point, springboard, without someone else's help/guidance/nurturing/etc. Lord Siva had no parents, but how many sages can say that ? Society, essentially, is 'the other person'. And although in ultimate essence we all all one, yet there are those differences of flavour, as you put it, between the hammer and the anvil (and the tongs & the frame of the bellows...). So my question is, in terms of me/my 'existence'/my perception, what is the other person ? An answer comes - that they are a mirror of me. And in terms of karma, (how do I repsond ?) they are. ...well... ...hmmm... Yet the reflection doesn't come out of nothing, there is something there that reflects my perceptions back to me. For example, why, in this context (too) is one's 'special someone' unique ? not every mirror is the same (even if, in literal terms, all mirrors ARE supposed to be alike, in their reflective property at least). Curiously, and respectfully,
    Peter Bay Jespersen June 19, 2010