One or Two?

[Brian2]

I absolutely love this children's parable...

God alone existed for eternity, which is a very long time.

One day God was bored and lonely and wanted a playmate, so he came up with an idea. He decided to create a play and pretend to be ‘not God.’ So the play began of God and ‘not God.’ He set out pretending to be a universe with stars, planets, trees, plants, animals, and people.

Since God is God, he’s very good at what he does. So when he pretended to be ‘not God’ in the play, he was so convincing in his role of ‘not God,’ he forgot that he was God. So the play became a nightmare. So now God, playing the role of ‘not God’ and forgetting he is God and, as a result, suffering so much, finds himself in an ongoing search for God.

I've posted it elsewhere here, but your posts reminded me of it.

I suppose the part of God that remembers it is God, as there seems to be, could stop the game whenever it wanted, or maybe the whole thing has to be played out to the end with all the law of Karma etc working itself out.
It is interesting that, as I understand it, God is above good and evil and I guess that could mean that any evil or good deeds God does in this pantomime may not really be good and evil when seen from God's perspective, and especially since it is always God who is the lead character/s in the play anyway.
Does it all mean that the Hindu God/s are really one spiritual entity and the pantheism idea, with everything being God, comes from this pretending?

 

[Brian2]

It’s NOT you asking me this question, it’s “God with a lost identity” asking me this question.

This is how God/You forget

I certainly can't argue with that.

 

[chinu]

I certainly can't argue with that.

Of course, argument will NOT provide back the lost identity.

 

[chinu]

I absolutely love this children's parable...
God alone existed for eternity, which is a very long time.

One day God was bored and lonely and wanted a playmate, so he came up with an idea. He decided to create a play and pretend to be ‘not God.’ So the play began of God and ‘not God.’ He set out pretending to be a universe with stars, planets, trees, plants, animals, and people.

Since God is God, he’s very good at what he does. So when he pretended to be ‘not God’ in the play, he was so convincing in his role of ‘not God,’ he forgot that he was God. So the play became a nightmare. So now God, playing the role of ‘not God’ and forgetting he is God and, as a result, suffering so much, finds himself in an ongoing search for God.

Here the word children's remind me of the line..

Matthew 18:3 “Assuredly, I say to you, unless you change and become as little children, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven.”

 

[atanu]

Assuming there is a god, are we ultimately identical with that god, or are we ultimately separate from that god? That is, are we ultimately god, or are we ultimately not god?

It is actually ‘Not Two’. Please see below.

I am saying that God is forgotten though he is in the play.

"So the play began of God AND 'not God'"....​

Suppose you dream of a Mestemia in another city undergoing a harrowing experience. How appropriate it will be to say ‘Mestemia and Mestemia’?

...

 

[McBell]

It is actually ‘Not Two’ Please see below.



Suppose you dream of a Mestemia in another city undergoing a harrowing situation. How appropriate it will be to say ‘Mestemia and Mestemia’?

...

No idea what you are talking about

 

[atanu]

No idea what you are talking about

Well. Then this is not for you. Sorry.

 

[Fool]

Assuming there is a god, are we ultimately identical with that god, or are we ultimately separate from that god? That is, are we ultimately god, or are we ultimately not god?


BONUS QUESTION: Which is the truer statement...

@adrian009 secretly wishes he had armpit hair as beautiful as @Sunstone's.​

or​

@Sunstone secretly wishes he had brains as functional as @adrian009's.​

as individuals we are corpuscles of that god

 

[Aupmanyav]

Does it all mean that the Hindu God/s are really one spiritual entity and the pantheism idea, with everything being God, comes from this pretending?

That is for each Hindu to decide. Hinduism leaves that consideration open.
For me everything is not any God. I am an atheist. What exists is the substrate, the stuff, the star stuff, which constitutes it all.

 

[SalixIncendium]

Does it all mean that the Hindu God/s are really one spiritual entity and the pantheism idea, with everything being God, comes from this pretending?

This is the beauty of Hinduism. There is no standardized doctrine. There are at least six major schools of philosophy in Hinduism and may sub-schools under each of those.

I could give you my perspective, but you might get several others as well from the other Hindus on the forum. There is no one answer.

 

[ppp]

This is the beauty of Hinduism. There is no standardized doctrine. There are at least six major schools of philosophy in Hinduism and may sub-schools under each of those.

I could give you my perspective, but you might get several others as well from the other Hindus on the forum. There is no one answer.

Do you have any suggestions on texts that talk about these schools and their differences? I have had Hindus really emphasize that the gods are all one spiritual entity, and others who seem to say the opposite. I wondered if the former were assuming that I was a monotheist and had a bias against polytheism.

 

[SalixIncendium]

Do you have any suggestions on texts that talk about these schools and their differences? I have had Hindus really emphasize that the gods are all one spiritual entity, and others who seem to say the opposite. I wondered if the former were assuming that I was a monotheist and had a bias against polytheism.

Wikipedia has a pretty good overview...

Indian philosophy - Wikipedia

 

[Aupmanyav]

This is the beauty of Hinduism. There is no standardized doctrine.

The only standard are your deeds. Are they according to your obligations, are they righteous? Will they help the society or harm it? That is 'dharma'. I term it as the "least common factor" in all Hinduism. The rest what one does or does not do is one's own choice. For example, I am a strong atheist.

 

[PearlSeeker]

Assuming there is a god, are we ultimately identical with that god, or are we ultimately separate from that god? That is, are we ultimately god, or are we ultimately not god?

We are ultimately one with God but we are not the same. A drop is not the same as the ocean.

 

[columbus]

Both, in a way. While we may be separate, or we appear or feel separate from God, ultimately, I believe, a time comes when we become one with God again, and there is differentiation no more.

This makes a lot more sense to me than the standard anthropomorphized sentient being described by most religious people, at least here where Abrahamic religionists dominate.

I absolutely love this children's parable...

God alone existed for eternity, which is a very long time.

One day God was bored and lonely and wanted a playmate, so he came up with an idea. He decided to create a play and pretend to be ‘not God.’ So the play began of God and ‘not God.’ He set out pretending to be a universe with stars, planets, trees, plants, animals, and people.

Since God is God, he’s very good at what he does. So when he pretended to be ‘not God’ in the play, he was so convincing in his role of ‘not God,’ he forgot that he was God. So the play became a nightmare. So now God, playing the role of ‘not God’ and forgetting he is God and, as a result, suffering so much, finds himself in an ongoing search for God.

I've posted it elsewhere here, but your posts reminded me of it.

This is definitely more kid friendly than the "vengeful sky king with superpowers" image that is so common. But it still seems to put God into a rather limited, human shaped, box. I cannot believe the Original Source of Everything is remotely like that.
Tom

 

[The Hammer]

Assuming there is a god, are we ultimately identical with that god, or are we ultimately separate from that god? That is, are we ultimately god, or are we ultimately not god?


BONUS QUESTION: Which is the truer statement...

@adrian009 secretly wishes he had armpit hair as beautiful as @Sunstone's.​

or​

@Sunstone secretly wishes he had brains as functional as @adrian009's.​

We ultimately are both. God(s) and not God(s). Liminal creatures living between the boundaries of the Worlds.

 

[chinu]

This is the beauty of Hinduism. There is no standardized doctrine.

Which also Includes NO standardised doctrine of having a contrary standardised doctrine by someone else ?

What a beauty

 

[chinu]

[/QUOTE]

The only standard are your deeds. Are they according to your obligations, are they righteous? Will they help the society or harm it? That is 'dharma'.

Then, what's the difference between.. General laws, rules and regulation created by government Vs Dharma ?

 

[Aupmanyav]

Then, what's the difference between.. General laws, rules and regulation created by government Vs Dharma ?

Yes, there are differences. There is no divorce in Hinduism, but in the civil law, there is. Monogamy is a suggestion and not a rule in Hinduism*, it is a rule in civil law. Marriage in the caste is a rule in Hinduism, but not in civil law. Hinduism does not challenge the civil law, exigencies of times.

* Polygamy; Krishna had at least eight wives. Polyandry: Draupadi had five Pandava brothers as husbands. There are various stories about daughters of the Indian Adam (Daksha Prajapati). Among others, 13 were said to be married to Sage Kashyapa and 27 to the Moon God, Chandra.
Daksha - Wikipedia

 

[chinu]

Yes, there are differences. There is no divorce in Hinduism, but in the civil law, there is. Monogamy is a suggestion and not a rule in Hinduism*, it is a rule in civil law.

In case, where both husband-wife doesn't want to live with each other and want divorce for very personal reasons. Can they ?

IF NOT, How it harms the society ?

Marriage in the caste is a rule in Hinduism, but not in civil law. Hinduism does not challenge the civil law, exigencies of times.

In case, where a Hindu girl is in love with a christian body, and further wants to marry him. Can she ?

IF NOT, How it harms the society ?

* Polygamy; Krishna had at least eight wives. Polyandry: Draupadi had five Pandava brothers as husbands

In case, where the member of a polygamy family marry to the member of a polyandry family ?

If NOT, How it harms the society ?