Life before birth

[Nakosis]

I was thinking earlier if our parent aborted us early, "we" would have never existed. Which sounds common sense, of course, but from a, I guess, philosophical perspective I wonder if this where the case we would have another chance at existence from other parents. Kind of like being stuck in a maze with multiple exits. Some are fake exits while others are not.

According to Scientology yes, but you could be floating around without a body for millions of years.
Our natural state is to exist without a physical body.

 

[Aupmanyav]

I will speak from the Hindu perspective. The whole universe is manifestation of God. So you are God.

You have not answered my question. What does Islam has to say about it? Are you a manifestation of Allah? Are you Allah?

Manifestation is a thoroughly dubious word. What exactly does it say? Is the manifestation a creation of Allah or is it Allah himself? If it is a creation of Allah, then, certainly, it is different from Allah. Or is it a break-away part of Allah himself? Even if it is a mirror image of Allah, it is only virtual and not real. Something real cannot be termed as a mirror image.

There is no God in my "Advaita" perspective. In Madhvacharya's "Dvaita" philosophy, there are five fundamental, eternal and real differences:

- Between the individual souls (or jīvātman) and God (paramatma or Vishnu).
- Between matter (inanimate, insentient) and God.
- Between individual souls (jīvātman).
- Between matter and jīvātman.
- Between various types of matter.
Dvaita Vedanta - Wikipedia

Hindus have millions of perspectives. You cannot color all Hindus in one color. If everything is God, then what and why Hindus need to worship, if they are themselves God?

 

[Aupmanyav]

Does your last question not answer the one that precedes it?

I do not think it does. If you believe so, tell me why?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

They do have thought. Run hundreds of miles to get to home, are more attached to a particular member of the family (talking about dogs). And I am sure they relfect also, like the predators, on how and where to corner the prey. Saw a video or a lioness following a depression to get near the antelopes and not to be seen easily by the prey. It is not that animals do not have intelligence.

That sounds like evolutionary instinct. We have the same up to the point of reflecting about past experiences, making future abstract plans, and hundreds of definitions of the world love. Add to that each culture defines love and other aspects of life differently, and other animals don't have that differentiation.

 

[firedragon]

Hindus have millions of perspectives. You cannot color all Hindus in one color. If everything is God, then what and why Hindus need to worship?

I didnt say "hindus", I said "hindu".

There is no God in my perspective.

I know that.

Think of Madhvacharyas "Dvaita", the five fundamental, eternal and real differences are described in Dvaita school:

- Between the individual souls (or jīvātman) and God (paramatma or Vishnu).
- Between matter (inanimate, insentient) and God.
- Between individual souls (jīvātman).
- Between matter and jīvātman.
- Between various types of matter.
Dvaita Vedanta - Wikipedia

But the Dvaita Vedanta is not relevant.

Ekam Sath bahudhaa vadhaanthi.

Cheers mate. Thanks for the discussion. HIndu philosophy is so amazing.

 

[blü 2]

Where would we be if people like Einstein had been aborted?

Well, you couldn't have used him as an example, for a start.

But of course if God is in charge then God engineers countless abortions ─ miscarriages ─ every day, across all placental mammal species. And if the bible's to be believed, God has no argument with abortions and infanticides ─

Exodus 22:29-30 You must give me the firstborn of your sons. Do the same with your cattle and your sheep. Let them stay with their mothers for seven days, but give them to me on the eighth day.

Hosea 13: 16 Samaria shall bear her guilt, because she has rebelled against her God; they shall fall by the sword, their little ones shall be dashed in pieces, and their pregnant women ripped open.​

 

[RestlessSoul]

I do not think it does. If you believe so, tell me why?

In the sense that all of nature is an expression of divine will - the creator is in everything and everything is in the creator.

That’s what these verses from the Bhagavad Gita seem to me to be saying…

BG chapter 9, vs 7

Son of Kunti
all beings move
into my own substance
at the burning end
of a cycle of ages
And at the birth
of an age,
I again send them out

Chapter 9 vs 10

With me as witness
material nature
gives birth
to the moving and the still:
because of this
Son of Kunti
the world evolves
in various ways


To a Christian, this might equate to John 14:20
“I am in the Father, and ye in me. And I in you”

 

[Aupmanyav]

That sounds like evolutionary instinct. We have the same up to the point of reflecting about past experiences, making future abstract plans, ..

Ability comparison between humans and animals is a matter of percentage. Somethings we do better; other things, they do better. There is no fundamental divide.

 

[Aupmanyav]

I didnt say "hindus", I said "hindu".
"Ekam Sath bahudhaa vadhaanthi".

And pray, what difference does it make between 'perspectives of Hindus' and 'perspective of a Hindu'? Which Hindu are you talking about?
Now, that is not what all Hindus will agree to. The Vaishnavas, the Shaivas, the Smartas; and the villagers who worship their own village God/Goddess/protectors, thousands of them all over the country.

Dhari Devi, Yellamma, Kalu Nag Devta, and thousands of others.

 

[Aupmanyav]

In the sense that all of nature is an expression of divine will - the creator is in everything and everything is in the creator.

BhagwadGita is a revered scripture in Hinduism, revered even by atheists like me (wisdom from anywhere is welcome); but I think you know or need to realize that it is basically a Vaishnava scripture with Krishna playing the main role.

Gitas are a genre in Hindu scriptural literature (compendiums of wisdom) with verses compiled and interpolated by many unknown authors over the ages and ascribed to a God or a mythical Sage. Bhagwad Gita is not the only one. There are many other Gitas: Ashtavakra Gita, Avadhuta Gita, Uddhava Gita, Vyadha Gita and Yoga Vasishtha, which is a conversation between Lord Rama and his teacher/family priest, Sage Vasishtha.

Then there are conversations between people, like 'Yaksha Prashna' (dialogue between Yudhishthira and a Yaksha), Yama-Nachiketa Samvada (converation between Nachiketa, a boy who was sacrificed for the crime of asking questions, and Lord of Death, Yama), Yajnavalkya-Maitreyi Samvada (conversation between Sage Yajnavalkya who wanted to become a ascetic and his philosopher wife, Maitreyi). These also fall in the category of Gitas.These were all written after the time of Lord Buddha.

So, as an atheist Hindu, I will accept some verses of BhagawatGita, but will not accept the verses where Lord Krishna claims to be the Supreme God. However, I can accept Lord Krishna if he speaks as a virtual Brahman and not as the Supreme God. I have no problem if Krishna speaks as Brahman, without being the God, that I am in everything and everything is in me*.

* Note: The Krishna of the theists says something different. He says (to quote Prabhupada) "All beings are in me, but I am not in them." That is 'Dvaita' (duality) and not 'Advaita' (non-duality). Therein lies my difference with BhagawadGita.

"mayā tatam idaṁ sarvaṁ, jagad avyakta-mūrtinā;
mat-sthāni sarva-bhūtāni, na cāhaṁ teṣu avasthitaḥ." BhagawadGita 9.4

 

[firedragon]

And pray, what difference does it make between 'perspectives of Hindus' and 'perspective of a Hindu'

I didnt say " Perspective of a hindu". There is a huge difference between "a hindu perspective", and "a Hindu's perspective" or/and "perspective of a hindu". Both of your strawman attempts are talking about what people think and I was referring to the Hindu philosophy, not what a person or people think.

Try not to twist what other people say. If you are not clear, clarify.

 

[Aupmanyav]

I didnt say " Perspective of a hindu". There is a huge difference between "a hindu perspective", and "a Hindu's perspective" or/and "perspective of a hindu". Both of your strawman attempts are talking about what people think and I was referring to the Hindu philosophy, not what a person or people think.

What is Hindu philosophy? It is what a person or a group of persons believe in. That person could be a single human or the philosophy may be followed by 100 million people. That is immaterial. What is followed by 100 million does not belittle the philosophy of that one person.

Hindu philosophy is not a diktat by one person or one book. It is dynamic thing, and keeps on changing with different people and different times. That is why we have so many, and all of them are valid for their believers. we call that 'mata' (opinion). Buddha mata, Jain mata and Sikh mata also were 'matas' before they developed into different religions.

 

[firedragon]

What is Hindu philosophy? It is what a person or a group of persons believe in. That person could be a single human or the philosophy may be followed by 100 million people. That is immaterial. What is followed by 100 million does not belittle the philosophy of that one person.

Hindu philosophy is not a diktat by one person or one book. It is dynamic thing, and keeps on changing with different people and different times. That is why we have so many, and all of them are valid for their believers. we call that 'mata' (opinion). Buddha mata, Jain mata and Sikh mata also were 'matas' before they developed into different religions.

So what is hindu philosophy about evolution of human species?

 

[RestlessSoul]

BhagwadGita is a revered scripture in Hinduism, revered even by atheists like me (wisdom from anywhere is welcome); but I think you know or need to realize that it is basically a Vaishnava scripture with Krishna playing the main role.

Gitas are a genre in Hindu scriptural literature (compendiums of wisdom) with verses compiled and interpolated by many unknown authors over the ages and ascribed to a God or a mythical Sage. Bhagwad Gita is not the only one. There are many other Gitas: Ashtavakra Gita, Avadhuta Gita, Uddhava Gita, Vyadha Gita and Yoga Vasishtha, which is a conversation between Lord Rama and his teacher/family priest, Sage Vasishtha.

Then there are conversations between people, like 'Yaksha Prashna' (dialogue between Yudhishthira and a Yaksha), Yama-Nachiketa Samvada (converation between Nachiketa, a boy who was sacrificed for the crime of asking questions, and Lord of Death, Yama), Yajnavalkya-Maitreyi Samvada (conversation between Sage Yajnavalkya who wanted to become a ascetic and his philosopher wife, Maitreyi). These also fall in the category of Gitas.These were all written after the time of Lord Buddha.

So, as an atheist Hindu, I will accept some verses of BhagawatGita, but will not accept the verses where Lord Krishna claims to be the Supreme God. However, I can accept Lord Krishna if he speaks as a virtual Brahman and not as the Supreme God. I have no problem if Krishna speaks as Brahman, without being the God, that I am in everything and everything is in me*.

* Note: The Krishna of the theists says something different. He says (to quote Prabhupada) "All beings are in me, but I am not in them." That is 'Dvaita' (duality) and not 'Advaita' (non-duality). Therein lies my difference with BhagawadGita.

"mayā tatam idaṁ sarvaṁ, jagad avyakta-mūrtinā;
mat-sthāni sarva-bhūtāni, na cāhaṁ teṣu avasthitaḥ." BhagawadGita 9.4

Yes, that verse did intrigue me. My copy of the BG has a slightly different English translation, but the message seems the same.

Can you shed some more light on what is meant by “unmanifested form”, and also that last line? All beings are in Krishna but not one with Krishna? We are he, but not he we - what does that mean?

Thanks for your insight

 

[SalixIncendium]

Anyway, there were Islamic philosophers like Ibn Arabi who made the same exact claim made in the Advaita claim. Everything is God. So when people make this kind of distinction it is because of a little lack of these matters.

One difference here is that Ibn Arabi claims everything is God, while Advaita claims that everything is an appearance in Brahman.

When I dream, the environment and characters in the dream are not me, save the character that I think is Salix in the dream. But that is not really Salix, nor are the characters or the environment, because Salix is lying in bed asleep. Salix, the character in the dream, is ignorant to the fact that the real Salix is asleep, creating this reality as a result of dreaming just as Maya creates transactional reality. Everything in this dream reality is an appearance in Salix just as everything in transactional reality is an appearance in Brahman.

Unless one believe that there is only God, and everything else as an appearance due to ignorance of one's true nature as God as a result of time, space, and causation, then I cannot disagree with @Aupmanyav's claim that "Brahman is not God."

 

[firedragon]

One difference here is that Ibn Arabi claims everything is God, while Advaita claims that everything is an appearance in Brahman.

The only difference is the term "Brahman".

Unless one believe that there is only God, and everything else as an appearance due to ignorance of one's true nature as God as a result of time, space, and causation, then I cannot disagree with @Aupmanyav's claim that "Brahman is not God."

So your agreement and/or disagreement relies upon other peoples agreement or disagreement, not the reason itself. Thats ca modal collapse.

 

[SalixIncendium]

The only difference is the term "Brahman".

No, the difference is exactly what I said it was.

So your agreement and/or disagreement relies upon other peoples agreement or disagreement, not the reason itself. Thats ca modal collapse.

If people can't agree on how a term is defined, then any discussion or debate on that term is merely people talking past each other.

 

[firedragon]

No, the difference is exactly what I said it was.

The difference is the term. Nothing else.

If people can't agree on how a term is defined, then any discussion or debate on that term is merely people talking past each other.

So how would you define the term God and how is it universal in history, today, and probably will be tomorrow? Please explain.

 

[Aupmanyav]

So what is hindu philosophy about evolution of human species?

There are many versions. In one the Suprme God says "Ekoham Bahuyami" (I am one, I will be many). So, that happens. Others say Lord Brahma created this person or that (Daksha, Kashyapa, Manu., etc.) and humans are all there progeny.

My advaita (non-duality) goes absolutely with science. Creation of molecules, joining of molecules to form RNA and that leading to forming DNA, etc. - Macromolecular assemblies. My advaita does nowhere denies science.

Structure of Nucleoprotein

 

[firedragon]

There are many versions. In one the Suprme God says "Ekoham Bahuyami" (I am one, I will be many). So, that happens. Others say Lord Brahma created this person or that (Daksha, Kashyapa, Manu., etc.) and humans are all there progeny.

My advaita (non-duality) goes absolutely with science. Creation of molecules, joining of molecules to form RNA and that leading to forming DNA, etc. - Macromolecular assemblies. My advaita does nowhere denies science.

Structure of Nucleoprotein

Right. So which specific hindu mans version of God is that? Because you insist that Hinduism is subjective and you insist on individual Hindus. Please negate this definition based on individuals in India, all one and what ever billion of them.

What you believe is irrelevant by the way because you have said you dont believe in God.