Right or wrong religion?

[Shantanu]

He is also Saguna Brahman, or God with qualities. Satchitananda, "Being, Consciousness, Bliss" is Saguna Brahman.

Brahman is total energy of the universe, not God; it consists of physical energy and consciousness energy, the latter composed of guna consciousness deities; these are not the Supreme Creater and Preserver God or Paramatma is the only Truth/God.

 

[Windwalker]

Brahman is total energy of the universe, not God; it consists of physical energy and consciousness energy, the latter composed of guna consciousness deities; these are not the Supreme Creater and Preserver God or Paramatma is the only Truth/God.

Saguna Brahman (lit. "The Absolute with qualities"[1]) came from the Sanskrit saguṇa(सगुण) "with qualities, gunas" and Brahman(ब्रह्मन्) "the Absolute", close to the concept of immanence, the manifested divine presence.

Saguna brahman - Wikipedia

That is the Absolute with qualities, or "God" is another way to say that. It's not Creation, but Creator. God Creating, or Manifesting, is still the Absolute. The Divine Presence, is God. It is Saguna Brahman, or Brahman (God) with qualities. Godhead, in Christian parlance is comparable to Nirguna Brahman.

The Unmanifest, or Formless. That's God without qualities, or Godhead. Nirguna Brahman and Saguna Brahman are simply different perceptions of the same Reality. That which is "form is not other to emptiness, and emptiness is not other to form." Nirguna and Saguna. Manifest and Unmanifest. One Reality. God, both manifest and unmanifest. That is nonduality.

 

[Shantanu]

Saguna Brahman (lit. "The Absolute with qualities"[1]) came from the Sanskrit saguṇa(सगुण) "with qualities, gunas" and Brahman(ब्रह्मन्) "the Absolute", close to the concept of immanence, the manifested divine presence.

Saguna brahman - Wikipedia

That is the Absolute with qualities, or "God" is another way to say that. It's not Creation, but Creator. God Creating, or Manifesting, is still the Absolute. The Divine Presence, is God. It is Saguna Brahman, or Brahman (God) with qualities. Godhead, in Christian parlance is comparable to Nirguna Brahman.

The Unmanifest, or Formless. That's God without qualities, or Godhead. Nirguna Brahman and Saguna Brahman are simply different perceptions of the same Reality. That which is "form is not other to emptiness, and emptiness is not other to form." Nirguna and Saguna. Manifest and Unmanifest. One Reality. God.

Brahman plus atman = Saguna Brahman, the created. The Creator is Nirguna that created through maya. Maya is the Creators magical powers to generate this illusion of vyvaharika.

 

[Windwalker]

Brahman plus atman = Saguna Brahman, the created. The Creator is Nirguna that created through maya. Maya is the Creators magical powers to generate this illusion of vyvaharika.

You're making a division between God and creation. God creating, is still God. That which is created through God, as Source, does not divide itself away from the Divine Source. It doesn't spin off into some vacuum where God does not exist. It's not a pop can tossed outside the window of the car into the ditch to sit alone.

Nothing can be outside the Source, or Godhead, or the Unmanifest. It is the very foundation that everything that exist has it's being within. The drawings on a piece of paper do not exist without the paper. If anything were outside it, then Nirguna Brahman is a god, a type of local deity, not All That Is. God is not a block of swiss cheese.

Nonduality teaches that the Unmanifest and the Manifest, are the same, not two, not dual.

 

[Shantanu]

You're making a division between God and creation. God creating, is still God. That which is created through God, as Source, does not divide itself away from the Divine Source. It doesn't spin off into some vacuum where God does not exist. Nothing can be outside the Source, or Godhead, or the Unmanifest. It is the very foundation that everything that exist has it's being within. If anything were outside it, then Nirguna Brahman is a god, a type of local deity, not All That Is. God is not a block of swiss cheese.

Nonduality teaches that the Unmanifest and the Manifest, are the same, not two, not dual.

God only manifests when the living being has surrendered to Him.

 

[Windwalker]

God only manifests when the living being has surrendered to Him.

God is seen when the living being has surrendered. It's not God manifesting to us, but seeing what has been there the whole time. Very different.

The Sun is always shining. It doesn't start shining when the clouds move away to reveal it. It is always manifesting. The sun doesn't turn itself on magically once we step outside the house. All we did was change how we were looking. That's all. It only seems as if God moved, whereas it was only us moving.

 

[Shantanu]

God is seen when the living being has surrendered. It's not God manifesting to us, but seeing what has been there the whole time. Very different.

The Sun is always shining. It doesn't start shining when the clouds move away to reveal it. It is always manifesting. The sun doesn't turn itself on magically once we step outside the house. All we did was change how we were looking. That's all. It only seems as if God moved, whereas it was only us moving.

God will never seek to manifest Himself to human beings as Real because He is Nirguna (Paramatma): it is the jiva that has to approach God to experience advaita.

 

[Windwalker]

God will never seek to manifest Himself to human beings as Real because He is Nirguna (Paramatma): it is the jiva that has to approach God to experience advaita.

Yes. You have to step outside the house to see the sun lighting the ground beneath your feet. But the sun is always shining. Just not always in view.

I would not use the expression as you have that, God "seek to manifest HImself". God does not seek. God Is. God is always manifesting, in every single nanosecond of every single eon since the Big Bang in this Universe. It always shines, always manifests, always creates, endlessly, ceaselessly, through Itself to all of Creation. This ceaseless shining and manifesting is OM, is it not?

Again, I very much agree with you that someone has to come to seek this in themselves. It is not apparent to most of our minds because we daydream inside our heads all day about what constitutes reality. Thousands upon thousands, millions, billions, walk through every day in a daydream of the minds, each in their own realities.

We live inside the houses of our heads, not seeing the Shining of the Manifest Divine in everything before us, every single moment of every single say, lives upon lives up lives, endlessly. God never moves. God never stops Shining. It is only when we "look up" out of our little houses and see Reality, that we know we are God.

And all the rest of this, was an illusion.

 

[Shantanu]

Yes. You have to step outside the house to see the sun lighting the ground beneath your feet. But the sun is always shining. Just not always in view.

I would not use the expression as you have that, God "seek to manifest HImself". God does not seek. God Is. God is always manifesting, in every single nanosecond of every single eon since the Big Bang in this Universe. It always shines, always manifests, always creates, endlessly, ceaselessly, through Itself to all of Creation. This ceaseless shining and manifesting is OM, is it not?

Again, I very much agree with you that someone has to come to seek this in themselves. It is not apparent to most of our minds because we daydream inside our heads all day about what constitutes reality. Thousands upon thousands, millions, billions, walk through every day in a daydream of the minds, each in their own realities.

We live inside the houses of our heads, not seeing the Shining of the Manifest Divine in everything before us, every single moment of every single say, lives upon lives up lives, endlessly. God never moves. God never stops Shining. It is only when we "look up" out of our little houses and see Reality, that we know we are God.

And all the rest of this, was an illusion.

God has manifested Brahman which is self sufficient as it makes the Sun shine, and human beings live, the rivers flow etc, in other words Nature has been manifested and takes care of itself automatically. Human beings only relate to Saguna Brahman as Brahman which consists of atman where billions of so-called gods and goddesses exist to guide humans in their thought processes depending on their genetics of which point in the guna consciousness triad of rajasic, sattvic or tamasic gunas the posses. So we do not normally see the Creator and Preserver God as Paramatma. That is the structure of Reality.

 

[Jainarayan]

Is Hindu belief a single point of view? My understanding is there are many different schools of thought, and no some central tenet of faith, like you might find in Christian churches.

There are many schools of Hindu philosophy. There are many beliefs but there are certain principles and beliefs that are the core of Hinduism. They can all be found in various scriptures which one might consider the authority. It’s the reason people refer to the “authority and authenticity of the Vedas”. To reject them is to essentially reject Hinduism, as the Buddha did. Among those core principles are the belief in the unity of all creation; Brahman; karma and reincarnation; for example.

Hinduism encompasses pantheism and panentheism, often at the same time, non-contradictory. The world is but an effect of maya; maya having a few meanings.

 

[Windwalker]

God has manifested Brahman which is self sufficient as it makes the Sun shine, and human beings live, the rivers flow etc, in other words Nature has been manifested and takes care of itself automatically. Human beings only relate to Saguna Brahman as Brahman which consists of atman where billions of so-called gods and goddesses exist to guide humans in their thought processes depending on their genetics of which point in the guna consciousness triad of rajasic, sattvic or tamasic gunas the posses. So we do not normally see the Creator and Preserver God as Paramatma. That is the structure of Reality.

That's interesting. I don't think I see any problem with this connecting with my thinking as well, using different language.

 

[Shantanu]

That's interesting. I don't think I see any problem with this connecting with my thinking as well, using different language.

Paramatma is Nirguna in absolute truth and is known as emptiness. It creates through maya the illusion of the visible reality where it appears as Sri Krishna/Durga God as a Personal God when truth is sought through truth accommodation.

 

[Windwalker]

Paramatma is Nirguna in absolute truth and is known as emptiness. It creates through maya the illusion of the visible reality where it appears as Sri Krishna/Durga God as a Personal God when truth is sought through truth accommodation.

Yes, and that corresponds with, in Christian parlance would be the "Father" in the Trinity. The unknowable God, manifests through the Logos where it appears as the Divine Radiance, or Light. The Logos is not separate from the "Father", but is that Unmanifest in Manifestation. The "guides" you mention as the gods in that sphere are the higher forms radiating from that Source, through the Logos. The higher subtle states. The closer to the Source, the surer and truer the Light.

The Divine Reality, is Brahman Manifest. The unmanifest and the manifest are the same. That is the Divine Reality. We are not other to God.

 

[Shantanu]

Yes, and that corresponds with, in Christian parlance would be the "Father" in the Trinity. The unknowable God, manifests through the Logos where it appears as the Divine Radiance, or Light. The Logos is not separate from the "Father", but is that Unmanifest in Manifestation. The "guides" you mention as the gods in that sphere are the higher forms radiating from that Source, through the Logos. The higher subtle states. The closer to the Source, the surer and truer the Light.

The Divine Reality, is Brahman Manifest. The unmanifest and the manifest are the same. That is the Divine Reality. We are not other to God.

God is not unknowable. Human quest must be fulfilled by his own efforts or by God as Creator and Preserver.

 

[Trailblazer]

Nope. What I meant is that having a faith by no means implies, or even really suggests, theism.

If anything, that is even more true in single-choice polls that separate specific denominations from "spiritual but not religious", "agnostic" and "atheist".

While the perception is that those are mutually exclusive situations is fairly widespread, it is also entirely mistaken.

Okay, thanks for explaining what you meant.
Believing in God in no way implies or requires theism.

 

[Trailblazer]

Somehow that sounds wrong. Why even have such a belief as a goal?

Belief is not a goal, it is just a position some people hold, just like atheism is a position some people hold.
Just because a religious belief cannot be proven does not mean it is unworthy of belief. God cannot be proven so no religious belief can be proven either. That is just the way it is I accept that because I know God exists without proof and I know my religion is true without proof. There is plenty of evidence.

 

[Trailblazer]

If you really are trying to say something like "you don't need faith to kniw your iwn mind," then I understand it. Otherwise, no.

No, that is not it at all.
I do not even know what you mean.

 

[Shantanu]

No, that is not it at all.
I do not even know what you mean.

Ditto.

 

[LuisDantas]

Okay, thanks for explaining what you meant.
Believing in God in no way implies or requires theism.

I take it that you are attempting to be funny.

Faith is (or may be, depending on how you define it) something useful and precious. Believing in a God is something very different, and often much poorer.

 

[LuisDantas]

Belief is not a goal, it is just a position some people hold, just like atheism is a position some people hold.
Just because a religious belief cannot be proven does not mean it is unworthy of belief. God cannot be proven so no religious belief can be proven either.

You keep confounding theism with religious belief.

In any case, faith is supposed to be its own proof.

That is just the way it is I accept that because I know God exists without proof and I know my religion is true without proof. There is plenty of evidence.

Why do you even want evidence? It suggests a flaw.