There is no proof of God ...

@Aupmanyav , how closely does your denomination / sect follow the Ten Disciplines?

The 10 disciplines in Hinduism include five political goals called Yamas or Great Vows, and five personal goals called Niyamas.

The 5 Great Vows (Yamas) are shared by many Indian philosophies. The Yamas are political goals, in that they are broad-based social and universal virtues in the form of moral restraints or social obligations.
Click to expand...
www.learnreligions.com

The 5 Principles and 10 Disciplines of Hinduism

The essence of Hinduism can be distilled into five principles and 10 commandments that can be said to form the bedrock of this religion.
www.learnreligions.com www.learnreligions.com
 
"We should understand well that all things are the work of the Great Spirit. We should know the Great Spirit is within all things: the trees, the grasses, the rivers, the mountains, and the four-legged and winged peoples; and even more important, we should understand that the Great Spirit is also above all these things and peoples. When we do understand all this deeply in our hearts, then we will fear, and love, and know the Great Spirit, and then we will be and act and live as the Spirit intends." -Black Elk

"At the center of the universe dwells the Great Spirit. And that center is really everywhere. It is within each of us." -Black Elk
 
otherbrother said:
What is achieved within will reflect on, pattern, that which is outside of self. And wholeness in the world will rub off on each individual as well. Works inside out and outside in.
Click to expand...
Nothing is outside Brahman. Individuality is an illusion - maya, 'anatta' (non-substasntial) and 'anicca' (non-permanent).
 
juantoo3 said:
I would say that without evidence, you have been misinformed. Politely.
Click to expand...
:) Thanks for being polite. I appreciate it.
'Lakum deenukum wa liya deen'
(Arabic, Surah Al-Kafirun, Al Quran al Karim)
For you is your religion, and for me is my religion.
 
juantoo3 said:
@Aupmanyav , how closely does your denomination / sect follow the Ten Disciplines?

www.learnreligions.com

The 5 Principles and 10 Disciplines of Hinduism

The essence of Hinduism can be distilled into five principles and 10 commandments that can be said to form the bedrock of this religion.
www.learnreligions.com www.learnreligions.com
Click to expand...
juantoo3, I am a lone ranger. No denomination, I go by what I think is correct. There are no 5 principles in Hinduism. It is a creation of the writer of the article.

'God exists' is not a condition in Hinduism. Atheism was there in Hinduism even before the Christian era (Samkhya, to mention one).

My view does not accept the word 'divine'. Of course, not just all humans, but all things that exist in the universe are the same.

I agree to unity of existence and religious harmony (that means 'no God'. Difference of religious views does not mean that we should hate each other).
Yeah, the river Ganga is sacred for Hindus and Gita can give good guidance, but Gayatri is no magic formula. It is only a prayer for wisdom.

Tat savituh vareniyam - that adorable brightness

Bhargo devasya dhi mahi - I meditate on that brightness

Dhiyo Yonah Prachodayat - he who shall sharpen my intellect

I accept nine of the ten disciplines except the last, 'Ishwara Pranidhana' (contemplation on God).
 
Aupmanyav said:
juantoo3, I am a lone ranger. No denomination, I go by what I think is correct. There are no 5 principles in Hinduism. It is a creation of the writer of the article.

'God exists' is not a condition in Hinduism. Atheism was there in Hinduism even before the Christian era (Samkhya, to mention one).

My view does not accept the word 'divine'. Of course, not just all humans, but all things that exist in the universe are the same.

I agree to unity of existence and religious harmony (that means 'no God'. Difference of religious views does not mean that we should hate each other).
Yeah, the river Ganga is sacred for Hindus and Gita can give good guidance, but Gayatri is no magic formula. It is only a prayer for wisdom.

Tat savituh vareniyam - that adorable brightness

Bhargo devasya dhi mahi - I meditate on that brightness

Dhiyo Yonah Prachodayat - he who shall sharpen my intellect

I accept nine of the ten disciplines except the last, 'Ishwara Pranidhana' (contemplation on God).
Click to expand...
Thank you for that. What I was trying to bring out and it seems you agree, there is a morality structure. Not that any of us follows our guidelines faithfully at all times, but that we have a moral structure to attempt to live up to and guide us.

Our views are much more similar than they are different. The words are not identical, but the practice appears to lead in the same direction.
 
juantoo3 said:
I've seen this reference to "Mind" before, I'm not personally fond of using that, primarily for anthropomorphic disagreements. It implies, in some human minds, "the old grey beard reclining on a cloud." It is a strawman, but they trot it out anyway. I don't personally view it as an intellect as such, G!d simply IS.

I think it was Amir, quoted I think Isaiah, been awhile, about G!d creating Evil. I think taken in a slightly different context for illustration, positive and negative, like energetic poles which in turn allows reality as we know it to exist.

Whether there is what we as humans might call intellect, I don't think it is even the same. There is analogue in the Tree of Life illustration, which also implies other energetic beings of either persuasion.
Click to expand...
Most likely would have greater logic, not held back by Kant’s two presided (apriori) biases of inside vs outside (space, “simple location “) and past-present-future (time). If an intelligence was in a different dimension than a space and time bound one, it would be able to think differently. The möbius strip poem/lyric I shared earlier was an attempt to describe the logic of love. Love’s translocation qualities make it a good candidate for being a glimpse at a different kind of intelligence from deeper dimensions. So, “God is love” might be barking up the right tree (even though probably also anthropomorphically over simplified).
 
otherbrother said:
That is a view of wholeness that extends beyond a “self.” For self, we conceptualize an intra-personal wholeness. Interpersonal wholeness would seem to include the oneness sense that your Brahma belief entails. And I agree that there are no boundaries of wholeness. What is achieved within will reflect on, pattern, that which is outside of self. And wholeness in the world will rub off on each individual as well. Works inside out and outside in.
Click to expand...
Aupmanyav’s Hindu-thinking-like-energy line of thought resonates with me and my lean toward function over form. A “God Function” could be a wholeness rich energy field/format sensed by human minds, and, quite possibly, deep within our whole being. As such, it would be a transformative energy (subtle energy) and an underlying base/source. If a human mind can receive it, the mind connects deeper with a much bigger nest of consciousness.

I’m thinking that brain wave patterns Theta-Beta may well be tuned into actual layers/dimensions of overall reality. And, as Ken Wilber suggests, each consciousness that corresponds with each brain wave pattern, “nests” in one another from the bottom (deepest) up. Regular beta-oriented brain/mind activity nests in more fluid alpha wave activity, alpha in delta, delta in theta?
 
otherbrother said:
Most likely would have greater logic, not held back by Kant’s two presided (apriori) biases of inside vs outside (space, “simple location “) and past-present-future (time). If an intelligence was in a different dimension than a space and time bound one, it would be able to think differently. The möbius strip poem/lyric I shared earlier was an attempt to describe the logic of love. Love’s translocation qualities make it a good candidate for being a glimpse at a different kind of intelligence from deeper dimensions. So, “God is love” might be barking up the right tree (even though probably also anthropomorphically over simplified).
Click to expand...
OK...G!d is Love I have no argument with. Perhaps you see something I don't, so I am not in a position to agree or disagree.

I prefer to simplify, not add layers of complexity. The issue is complex enough as it is that most peoples' eyes glaze over at the mere mention of the subject. I find it helps when discussing this subject to prune away excess superfluity.

The OP is whether there is "proof" G!d exists. Objective proof is very rare, to the point it can be said it doesn't exist. However, subjective proof abounds, but subjective proof is not scientifically valid (or so "they" say), I think in part because the experiences are not possible to recreate in a controlled manner.

Not that folks through the centuries haven't tried, I pointed to the weight of the soul as one attempt. There are lots of philosophical, psychological and spiritual / ecstatic exercises that overall in a general sense seem to provide sufficient proof for various individuals...but your mileage may vary...and science doesn't like to deal with "your mileage may vary" scenarios.

Gould rightly pointed to the two competing magisteria of religion and science...though as a meme, science too is a religion at its core (a comment I make that draws ire from "scientists" - typically the armchair type that are more interested in undermining religion). Gould posited that Science and Religion approach questions from different perspectives, which is why they tend to talk past each other.

Using Science to prove G!d is a fundamentally flawed endeavor. Likewise, Religion views G!d through stained glass. Ultimately one must decide and take on faith whether G!d exists. For some, no amount of evidence will ever suffice. For some, no amount of evidence is required. For some, all we have is our subjective experiences and trying to make sense of it all.

In the end, whatever religio-philosophical (that includes science) ideas command our thinking ("memes"), the bottom line is what we do with what we know or believe we understand. Perhaps I see G!d for Whom He IS; but if I do not treat my neighbor as I wish to be treated, then what I believe is worthless and my life is a waste of time and energy. If I see G!d incorrectly, and still do what is right, it doesn't matter...all will be well in the end. When we stand before G!d at the Great White Throne, we aren't going to be asked what faith we followed...we will be asked what we did for our brothers and sisters and neighbors, and what we did for Him. All around the world, all across human time, folks have just wanted the opportunity to live in peace and raise their families as G!d intends. But humans are human, and peace isn't always possible, and intrusions into and encumbrances placed onto our lives must be dealt with.

It isn't about what you believe, it is about what you do with what you believe. That's where the rubber meets the road.
 
otherbrother said:
Aupmanyav’s Hindu-thinking-like-energy line of thought resonates with me and my lean toward function over form. A “God Function” could be a wholeness rich energy field/format sensed by human minds, and, quite possibly, deep within our whole being. As such, it would be a transformative energy (subtle energy) and an underlying base/source. If a human mind can receive it, the mind connects deeper with a much bigger nest of consciousness.

I’m thinking that brain wave patterns Theta-Beta may well be tuned into actual layers/dimensions of overall reality. And, as Ken Wilber suggests, each consciousness that corresponds with each brain wave pattern, “nests” in one another from the bottom (deepest) up. Regular beta-oriented brain/mind activity nests in more fluid alpha wave activity, alpha in delta, delta in theta?
Click to expand...

Not quite. The essence of the universe is far more complex than a set of nesting dolls.

1717527634000.png


“It is in the darkness of their eyes that men get lost” - Black Elk
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: RJM
juantoo3 said:
True, but almost all of the major world faiths have very similar foundations to build on.
Click to expand...
Naturally, people are the same everywhere. Concern for future and fear of death created God and then came the so-called messengers. 'God wants you to do this and God wants you to do that. I have direct instructions from God.'
 
Aupmanyav said:
Naturally, people are the same everywhere. Concern for future and fear of death created God and then came the so-called messengers. 'God wants you to do this and God wants you to do that. I have direct instructions from God.'
Click to expand...
Politely, this is oversimplistic, and ignores pre-historic humanity. The reality is far more nuanced than this suggests.

Concern for future requires abstract reasoning...only humans exhibit abstract reasoning, and only developed abstract reasoning after the Agricultural Revolution +/- 12K ybp. Since humans have been connecting with the IS long before developing abstract reasoning, this presumption of concern for future is tenuous at best.

Messengers are not required...never have been. Each of us has a direct connection built in...all life has this connection. Doesn't matter if you ignore it or dismiss it, it is there. Why the emphasis among the Yogis (and other adepts) for the Solar Plexus?

If people are the same everywhere, and share very similar moral constructs, does this suggest morality is objective, not subjective?
 
Last edited:
juantoo3 said:
Why the emphasis among the Yogis (and other adepts) for the Solar Plexus?
If people are the same everywhere, and share very similar moral constructs, does this suggest morality is objective, not subjective?
Click to expand...
Some were ignorant, some are charlatans.
Morals are not the same everywhere. Wearing scanty clothes is considered immoral in many societies.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top