Mourning rituals or customs in your religion

Cino

Big Love! (Atheist mystic)
Admin
Messages
3,779
Reaction score
2,031
Points
108
Location
Germany
A relative of mine died a few weeks ago, not close family, but close enough that I was made aware of it. This got me wondering, how is grief and mourning addressed in your religion or world view?
 

Aupmanyav

Search, be your own guru.
Messages
2,208
Reaction score
697
Points
108
Location
New Delhi, India
There is not much ritual involved on the first day. A few drops of Ganges water are poured in the person's mouth. The body is washed and kept on the floor in a rectangle marked by soil and turmeric. When all the relatives have arrived, it is put on a bamboo ladder and tied with strings. Relatives put flowers, garlands and shawls on the body. If it is an old person with great grand children, the family may send off the body with a band in attendance. There is a short ritual at the cremation ground. The funeral pyre generally requires 3 quintals of fire-wood. Usually the eldest son lights the pyre. In case the person has no son or the son is not present, the a nephew or the daughters son will light the pyre. The Ashes are collected on the third day and immersed in Ganges or some water body as per the family's tradition soon or at a convenient time.

Back at home, the first meal is brought by the daughter-in-law's family or any such relative and it is essential to take a bite from that.

After that the rituals depend on the tradition of the family. In some communities a mourning meet is arranged on the fourth day (Chautha) and a person from the family is designated as the care-taker of the family. In other communities, rituals are held on the banks of a river on the 10th and 11th day.
In villages, a feast to the community may be essential.

This is followed by monthly rituals for one year. And after one year, the departed soul is remembered during a particular fortnight (Shraaddha Paksha). A fast is kept on that day and charity is given in the name of that person.

Hindu funerals and rituals may not cost much, unless the family wants to spend money on it.
 

Namaste Jesus

Praise the Lord and Enjoy the Chai
Moderator
Messages
3,842
Reaction score
1,190
Points
108
Location
Between Celestial Planes
My wife's Hindu tradition is similar to what, Aupmanyav describes above, but when my mother-in-law passed last year, a new tradition got added to the mix. You see, do to covid restrictions in Fiji, gatherings were limited, which put a huge damper on traditional funeral proceedings. So, nearly overnight companies sprang up offering to live cast funerals on Facebook! Now, even though most all restrictions have been lifted in Fiji, live casting has become part of the funeral ritual. This is a real blessing for families like my wife's, who are scattered about the globe and being able to virtually participate, gave the wife and I a real sense of closure after her mother's passing.
 

wil

UNeyeR1
Moderator
Messages
23,194
Reaction score
2,664
Points
108
Location
a figment of your imagination
I wish we were allowed personal funeral.pyres in the states...I may become mushrooms or fertilizer for a tree both those are cropping up. But my current legal route is cremation then ashes placed in small containers gifted to friends with seedlings to fertilize trees wherever they choose to plant them.
 

Namaste Jesus

Praise the Lord and Enjoy the Chai
Moderator
Messages
3,842
Reaction score
1,190
Points
108
Location
Between Celestial Planes
The wife and I attended a memorial service today for a former coworker of hers who passed unexpectedly last week. It was a nice little Christian service with eulogies given by family and friends, followed by their family pastor reading from the old and new testament.

Pretty standard stuff, but there was one interesting twist. The family is from Jamaica, so Bob Marley was played in the background the entire time. Apparently he was a favorite of the deceased. So there's the good pastor, "The Lord is my Shepherd, I shall not want...." while Marley sings in the background, "We're Jammin, I hope ya like Jammin too..." :cool:
 

Aupmanyav

Search, be your own guru.
Messages
2,208
Reaction score
697
Points
108
Location
New Delhi, India
You see, do to covid restrictions in Fiji, gatherings were limited, which put a huge damper on traditional funeral proceedings. So, nearly overnight companies sprang up offering to live cast funerals on Facebook!
Yeah that was a tough time. No more than 20 people were allowed to attend a funeral whereas the normal numbers are more than 100. Then in the worst phase, there was a waiting period, because so many people were to be cremated.
However, I do not like the idea of live telecast or taking photos of the dead body and the rituals. Every one knows what happens. For me, the best disposal will be that my body is given to a medical college to be dissected, so that students learn. I have told my family about that but do not know if they will fulfill my wish. I do not want any funeral or rituals. I do not believe in existence of soul or God.
 
Last edited:

Namaste Jesus

Praise the Lord and Enjoy the Chai
Moderator
Messages
3,842
Reaction score
1,190
Points
108
Location
Between Celestial Planes
I wish we were allowed personal funeral.pyres in the states...
I tell you, having experienced it, unless you are born to such culture, the site of a loved one set ablaze can be quite disturbing. Especially as in my wife's tradition, where the eldest son is charged with lighting it. Then there's the next day ritual when they gather again to clean the area and dispose of the bits that did not burn completely. I got to actively participate in that when my father in law passed. :eek:
But my current legal route is cremation then ashes placed in small containers gifted to friends with seedlings to fertilize trees wherever they choose to plant them.
Aussie's family tradition is to till the ashes into the main barley field on their farm. Now, most of their harvest goes into beer and wine production, so Aussie use to say, "Think about that the next time you hoist a pint, mate!" ;)
I do not like the idea of live telecast or taking photos of the dead body and the rituals.
In the memorial service the wife and I just attended, I noticed several folks whip out their phones to snap photos of the deceased lying in repose. No doubt some were Facebook bound. A few years ago, I would have found that quite morbid. Different times we live in though, spawning new traditions.

Incidentally, when the wife and I returned home yesterday, her Hindu tradition kicked in and she insisted we sprinkle each other with water before entering the house, a symbolic cleansing of sorts. :)

For me, the best disposal will be that my body is given to a medical college to be dissected, so that students learn. I have told my family about that but do not know if they will fulfill my wish.
Burials are insanely expensive here and I don't find the idea of my carcass ending up in a lab all that appealing , so I'd just as soon go with cremation. I'll leave that up to the wife though, what to do with my earthly remains. Quite sure I'll have no further use for them. ;)
 

Aupmanyav

Search, be your own guru.
Messages
2,208
Reaction score
697
Points
108
Location
New Delhi, India
Incidentally, when the wife and I returned home yesterday, her Hindu tradition kicked in and she insisted we sprinkle each other with water before entering the house, a symbolic cleansing of sorts. :)

.. so I'd just as soon go with cremation. ;)
Yeah, we do it, water from River Ganges. But I am an atheist. I prefer to have a cup of tea while people are preparing for the cremation.
For me, it would be a final catharsis, that the body was Brahman before death, it is Brahman even in death - the stuff that constitutes all things in the universe. No privileges.
 

dattaswami2

Well-Known Member
Messages
109
Reaction score
9
Points
18
A relative of mine died a few weeks ago, not close family, but close enough that I was made aware of it. This got me wondering, how is grief and mourning addressed in your religion or world view?
! Even though I have preached the true background of these death rituals to you several times, you have to do these rituals. The reason is that you have to go along with the forceful flow of ignorant people when you cannot change them. You have to follow the majority even if it is wrong. In the Parliament, the Lok Sabha passes a bill when the Rajya Sabha approves it. The former often contains members elected by the public irrespective of the intelligence of the members while the latter contains members having some intelligence and education. The former is like the king while latter is like the wise minister. Similarly, the majority should always take the opinion of the intellectual preacher (Satguru) before adopting any tradition.


The wrong concept in these rituals is that the food eaten by the priest will reach the departed soul. The soul is basically awareness or nervous energy. At the time of death, the soul departs from the material body and enters into a body made of inert energy. Food is matter and the eater of the food is also present here on Earth in a material body. Material food is suitable for a human being having a material body whereas energy is the suitable ‘food’ for energetic beings. The ‘food’ of angels is the rays of the sun. Departed souls get their ‘food’ from the rays of the moon as told in the scriptures. So, it is clear that the departed souls neither need any material food nor can the food eaten by the priest somehow reach the departed souls. Sage Carvāka mocked at this false concept. He said that if food fed to the priest could reach the dead, then by feeding a person on the ground floor,the food should also reach one’s father who is upstairs! Even though the sage was an atheist, he should be appreciated for his systematic and scientific logic on this point.


If this concept is not true, then why did the ancient sages establish this tradition of feeding the priest? Actually, when you give food, clothes and a money offering (dakṣiṇa) to a deserving priest, apūrvam is said to be generated. Apūrvam means merit, which brings good fruit not only to the the departed soul existing in an energetic body after death but also to the performer of the ritual. The most essential condition for that to happen is that the priest must be deserving of your donation. If the priest is undeserving, instead of earning merit, both will incur sin.


The fruitfulness of the entire ritual depends on the deservingness of the priest alone and not on the place of donation or on the time of donation. In other words, there is no necessity to do the rituals only on a certain date, such as the date of the death of one’s parents. If the receiver of your donation is undeserving, instead of the ritual helping the soul, it will bring trouble for the departed soul as well as the performer.


The Veda states two requisites in the receiver which indicate his deservingness. They are: (1) the receiver must be well-versed in spiritual knowledge (Śrotriya) and (2) the receiver must not aspire for anything in return from anybody for his propagation of the Vedic knowledge in the ritual (Akāmahatasya). This means that the priest reciting the Veda during the ritual without knowing its meaning and without preaching the Vedic spiritual knowledge to the public is undeserving. Moreover, the present-day priest demands money for his wrong performance of the ritual! Neither does he know the knowledge of the recited Veda in order to propagate it nor does he perform the ritual without aspiring for anything in return. In both ways, the priest is undeserving. The non-performance of the ritual is better than such wrong performance because inaction is better than sinful action.


In the ancient times of the sages, almost everybody was deserving and hence, this problem never arose. At present, almost everybody is undeserving and hence, this problem is at its climax. The food offered even to a deserving priest never reaches the departed soul. Then why is this lie propagated that if you offer food to a deserving human being present in a material body here, it will reach the departed energetic being there? The performer of the ritual is totally fooled by this lie. He performs the ritual out of worry for his departed parents, thinking that they would starve if the ritual is not performed. This lie was not created by priests for fooling the publicand earning money from them. The lie was created by the sages so that greedy people would be forced to perform the ritual and donate to a deserving receiver,at least on the occasion of the death of his elders. This correct performance of the ritual does not harm anybody because the donation is given to a deserving receiver which will help not only the departed soul but also the performer. Any lie that leads to good action is not wrong. It is called arthavāda, which means a lie told for a good purpose. Arthameans for the sake of a good purpose and vāda means a lie told.


The mother tells a lie to her child that if the child finishes eating everything in the plate, the moon will come down to the child! The mother does not incur any sin in telling such a lie. On the other hand, speaking the truth can also be a sin on some occasions. A saint carrying some money was being chased by robbers. He quickly hid himself in a bush. A sage saw the hiding saint. When robbers asked the sage where the saint was, the sage, believing that it is always a sin to lie, told them where the saint was hiding. The robbers killed the saint, took his money and left. The sage went to hell because he told the truth when he should have told a lie! Even Śaṅkara told a lie that every ordinary soul is God. But that lie helped atheists believe in the existence of God since the atheists were sure about their own existence. Here, telling that lie helped the atheist become a theist and progress further. Helping good people is a higher justice whereas telling the truth is a lower justice.

This lie that the food fed to a priest reaches the departed hungry soul is not a sin since it is beneficial as long as the priest is deserving. People want to avoid the sin of not feeding a deserving priest. But due to their lack of proper analysis, they end up donating to undeserving priests. In their effort to avoid one sin, they end up committing another sin. Donating to the undeserving and not donating to the deserving are both sins as told by Vidura in the Mahābhārata. The present-day priests who are undeserving must be transformed to make them deserving. This can be done only by the performer of the ritual. The performer of the ritual is the customer of the priest’s services and it is said that the customer is God. So, the customer-god must insist that the priest preaches the knowledge of the Veda contained in the verses recited by him. This is the only way to forcibly bring a change in the priest. The priest must be convinced that there is no need of the blind recitation of the Veda since the Veda is already well-preserved by printing. The priest must be advised not to waste time in the blind recitation of the Veda and must instead use the same time for studying the knowledge preached by the Veda. The Gita says that the rituals must be performed only after full analysis and correct knowledge (Jñātvā kurvīta karmāṇi).

If a deserving priest is not available, you can postpone the ritual to some later date on which the deserving priest will be available. You cannot find fault with such a valid postponement. Do you not postpone these rituals for the sake of even a mechanical astronomical phenomenon like an eclipse? People are hasty in making donations. They onlygive importance to the place and time of donation. They think “Today is the auspicious occasion of Śivarātri and we are in the holy city of Varanasi. So, we must donate today”. Thus, they make some hasty donation to somebody without checking whether the person is deserving or undeserving.

Lord Krishna made only one donation in His entire life, which is giving infinite wealth to Sudāmā. The day He made the donation was not an auspicious day and the place where He made the donation was not a holy city like Varanasi. All He saw was that Sudāmā was the most deserving person who had true Vedic knowledge. He had clearly understood the essence of the Vedic knowledge, which is seen from His devotion to Krishna, his contemporary Human Incarnation of God. Even though Krishna was his childhood classmate, he was not negligent towards Krishna. Moreover, Sudāmā never aspired for anything from Kishna in spite of his severe poverty. Instead, he offered to Krishna, a little parched rice which he had borrowed from a neighbor. That rice was his sacrifice of wealth or karmaphala tyāga to Krishna, the contemporary Human Incarnation of God.
 

Aupmanyav

Search, be your own guru.
Messages
2,208
Reaction score
697
Points
108
Location
New Delhi, India
The wrong concept in these rituals is that the food eaten by the priest will reach the departed soul. Sage Carvāka mocked at this false concept.
Actually, when you give food, clothes and a money offering (dakṣiṇa) to a deserving priest, apūrvam is said to be generated.
In other words, there is no necessity to do the rituals only on a certain date, such as the date of the death of one’s parents.

The Veda states two requisites in the receiver which indicate his deservingness. They are: (1) the receiver must be well-versed in spiritual knowledge (Śrotriya) and (2) the receiver must not aspire for anything in return from anybody for his propagation of the Vedic knowledge in the ritual (Akāmahatasya). This means that the priest reciting the Veda during the ritual without knowing its meaning and without preaching the Vedic spiritual knowledge to the public is undeserving. Moreover, the present-day priest demands money for his wrong performance of the ritual! Neither does he know the knowledge of the recited Veda in order to propagate it nor does he perform the ritual without aspiring for anything in return. In both ways, the priest is undeserving. The non-performance of the ritual is better than such wrong performance because inaction is better than sinful action.

In the ancient times of the sages, almost everybody was deserving and hence, this problem never arose. At present, almost everybody is undeserving and hence, this problem is at its climax. The food offered even to a deserving priest never reaches the departed soul. Then why is this lie propagated that if you offer food to a deserving human being present in a material body here, it will reach the departed energetic being there? The performer of the ritual is totally fooled by this lie. He performs the ritual out of worry for his departed parents, thinking that they would starve if the ritual is not performed. This lie was not created by priests for fooling the publicand earning money from them. The lie was created by the sages so that greedy people would be forced to perform the ritual and donate to a deserving receiver,at least on the occasion of the death of his elders. This correct performance of the ritual does not harm anybody because the donation is given to a deserving receiver which will help not only the departed soul but also the performer. Any lie that leads to good action is not wrong. It is called arthavāda, which means a lie told for a good purpose. Arthameans for the sake of a good purpose and vāda means a lie told.

The mother tells a lie to her child that if the child finishes eating everything in the plate, the moon will come down to the child! The mother does not incur any sin in telling such a lie. On the other hand, speaking the truth can also be a sin on some occasions. A saint carrying some money was being chased by robbers. He quickly hid himself in a bush. A sage saw the hiding saint. When robbers asked the sage where the saint was, the sage, believing that it is always a sin to lie, told them where the saint was hiding. The robbers killed the saint, took his money and left. The sage went to hell because he told the truth when he should have told a lie! Even Śaṅkara told a lie that every ordinary soul is God. But that lie helped atheists believe in the existence of God since the atheists were sure about their own existence. Here, telling that lie helped the atheist become a theist and progress further. Helping good people is a higher justice whereas telling the truth is a lower justice.

This lie that the food fed to a priest reaches the departed hungry soul is not a sin since it is beneficial as long as the priest is deserving. People want to avoid the sin of not feeding a deserving priest. But due to their lack of proper analysis, they end up donating to undeserving priests. In their effort to avoid one sin, they end up committing another sin. Donating to the undeserving and not donating to the deserving are both sins as told by Vidura in the Mahābhārata. The present-day priests who are undeserving must be transformed to make them deserving. This can be done only by the performer of the ritual. The performer of the ritual is the customer of the priest’s services and it is said that the customer is God. So, the customer-god must insist that the priest preaches the knowledge of the Veda contained in the verses recited by him. This is the only way to forcibly bring a change in the priest. The priest must be convinced that there is no need of the blind recitation of the Veda since the Veda is already well-preserved by printing. The priest must be advised not to waste time in the blind recitation of the Veda and must instead use the same time for studying the knowledge preached by the Veda. The Gita says that the rituals must be performed only after full analysis and correct knowledge (Jñātvā kurvīta karmāṇi).

If a deserving priest is not available, you can postpone the ritual to some later date on which the deserving priest will be available. You cannot find fault with such a valid postponement. Do you not postpone these rituals for the sake of even a mechanical astronomical phenomenon like an eclipse? People are hasty in making donations. They onlygive importance to the place and time of donation. They think “Today is the auspicious occasion of Śivarātri and we are in the holy city of Varanasi. So, we must donate today”. Thus, they make some hasty donation to somebody without checking whether the person is deserving or undeserving.

Lord Krishna made only one donation in His entire life, which is giving infinite wealth to Sudāmā. The day He made the donation was not an auspicious day and the place where He made the donation was not a holy city like Varanasi. All He saw was that Sudāmā was the most deserving person who had true Vedic knowledge. He had clearly understood the essence of the Vedic knowledge, which is seen from His devotion to Krishna, his contemporary Human Incarnation of God. Even though Krishna was his childhood classmate, he was not negligent towards Krishna. Moreover, Sudāmā never aspired for anything from Kishna in spite of his severe poverty. Instead, he offered to Krishna, a little parched rice which he had borrowed from a neighbor. That rice was his sacrifice of wealth or karmaphala tyāga to Krishna, the contemporary Human Incarnation of God.
Who believes in that in this 21st Century? Sure, what is given in charity is good. And what is the evidence of existence of soul? Sage Charvak laughed at many things, including the concept of rebirth ('Bhasmibhootasya dehasya punaragamanam kutah?' - Once the body turns into ashes, where is coming back?)

Well, you have asked a priest to come and do some rituals for you, then you have to pay for his time and transport expenses. He has a family, he cannot do it for free. After all, he has to look after his family. So, what you give to a priest is not charity, it is his justifiable remuneration.

Any thing wrong if the charity is given on the death anniversary of one's parents or dear ones? A fixed date is preferable, otherwise one tends to forget it all together in the hustle of life.

If Vedas say that then it is wrong. Charity should be given for the need of a person rather than his knowledge of scriptures. Generally the needy person may not be educated.

To be continued in a next post.
 

Cino

Big Love! (Atheist mystic)
Admin
Messages
3,779
Reaction score
2,031
Points
108
Location
Germany
Welcome to the interfaith dialogue forums, @dattaswami2.

Even though I have preached the true background of these death rituals to you several times, you have to do these rituals.

You have? Several times? I must not have been paying attention.

Please read our Code of Conduct carefully. Preaching is strongly discouraged here. I'm looking forward to many good discussions with you!

Sage Carvāka mocked at this false concept. He said that if food fed to the priest could reach the dead, then by feeding a person on the ground floor,the food should also reach one’s father who is upstairs! Even though the sage was an atheist, he should be appreciated for his systematic and scientific logic on this point.

As an atheist with scientific training, I take that as a compliment.

I was surprised at the mention of Carvaka. I assumed his teachings were lost some time in medieval times? Thank you for this glimpse of a kindred spirit across the gulf of time.
 

dattaswami2

Well-Known Member
Messages
109
Reaction score
9
Points
18
Who believes in that in this 21st Century? Sure, what is given in charity is good. And what is the evidence of existence of soul? Sage Charvak laughed at many things, including the concept of rebirth ('Bhasmibhootasya dehasya punaragamanam kutah?' - Once the body turns into ashes, where is coming back?)

Well, you have asked a priest to come and do some rituals for you, then you have to pay for his time and transport expenses. He has a family, he cannot do it for free. After all, he has to look after his family. So, what you give to a priest is not charity, it is his justifiable remuneration.

Any thing wrong if the charity is given on the death anniversary of one's parents or dear ones? A fixed date is preferable, otherwise one tends to forget it all together in the hustle of life.

If Vedas say that then it is wrong. Charity should be given for the need of a person rather than his knowledge of scriptures. Generally the needy person may not be educated.

To be continued in a next post.
The deserving receivers can be classified into two types: (1) Sadguru, Guru and poor devotees and (2) beggars and poor people.

Sadguru establishes the concepts which is like laying the railway track, whereas the Guru follows the same track like a train. The Guru can elaborate upon the same concepts originally given by the Sadguru with more examples, but he shall not deviate from the concepts established by the Sadguru. In this first type of deserving receivers, you shall donate money and not materials. The reason is that the receivers of this first type have spiritual knowledge and so, they will not waste your donated money on vices. If you give them some materials, those materials might already be existing with them in plenty and they might require some other items, which need to be purchased by paying money.

If the materials given by you are already there with them, they will have to sell your materials for a reduced rate and purchase the materials actually required by them. In such a transaction, they will undergo a loss. The loss they incur will be gained by the businessman who purchased the materials from them. In that case, the amount that you actually donated to the deserving receiver gets reduced. Only a part of your donation goes to the deserving receiver. The rest goes to the businessman purchasing the materials for the reduced rate. That businessman is undeserving and so, you will also incur the sin of donating to an undeserving receiver.

In the second type of receivers, which is ordinary beggars and poor people, spiritual knowledge is almost absent. They are generally turned towards vices. If you give them essential materials like food, clothing, medicines etc., they will use them directly. If you give them money as a donation, these people infected by vices will misuse the money, due to which, you will incur sin for your donation. In this second category, even hungry animals and birds are included. Feeding hungry birds and animals is called bhūta yajña. Pacifying hunger is the most important aim in donating to this type of receivers. Even atheists come under this category. Since saving their lives and preventing them from dying of hunger is the main aim, we cannot look into the deservingness or non-deservingness of the receivers. Even the life of an atheist must be saved. Only then can you even try to convert him into a theist.

Regarding the extent of sacrifice, two factors play a role namely, the donor’s capacity (yathāśakti) and the donor’s devotion (yathā bhakti). If you, the donor, are impressed by the merits of the receiver and want to give him Rs. 100, but your capacity is only Rs. 10, you should only donate Rs. 10 since it is the lesser of the two. If you are not very impressed by the merits of the receiver and want to donate only Rs. 10, even though your capacity is Rs. 100, you should donate only Rs. 10. Your practical donation should thus, be as per your capacity and devotion (śakti and bhakti), whichever is lower.

Sarva-karma-phala-tyāga means sacrificing everything possessed by you, without even caring for yourself. This is the extreme case and such people are countable on the fingers. Śaktuprastha donated all his food to the guest, who was God-in-disguise, even though Śaktuprastha and his family were starving for several days. This is sarva-karma-phala-tyāga. The Gītā also mentions that you should take care of yourself (Śarīrayātrā'pi ca te…), which is said with reference to a common man. If you take the case of Sudāma, his sacrifice even exceeded sarva-karma-phala-tyāga, in which the devotee sacrifices everything possessed by the devotee. Sudāma went a step further by borrowing a few handfuls of flattened rice to sacrifice it to God Kṛṣṇa, since he had nothing left in his house! This means that his sacrifice was even beyond the limits of sarva-karma-phala-tyāga. This is the reason why God Kṛṣṇa was ready to sacrifice all His wealth to Sudāma and become poor like Sudāma! These exceptional cases can be kept as goals, so that we can at least sacrifice to a certain extent.
 

dattaswami2

Well-Known Member
Messages
109
Reaction score
9
Points
18
Welcome to the interfaith dialogue forums, @dattaswami2.



You have? Several times? I must not have been paying attention.

Please read our Code of Conduct carefully. Preaching is strongly discouraged here. I'm looking forward to many good discussions with you!



As an atheist with scientific training, I take that as a compliment.

I was surprised at the mention of Carvaka. I assumed his teachings were lost some time in medieval times? Thank you for this glimpse of a kindred spirit across the gulf of time.

Hinduism stands for unity in diversity. In any religion, atheists exist. We shall condemn atheism in the case of the topic of existence of God. But, there are several good points like their criticism on the so called theists doing sins and praying God to escape the punishments of sins. The atheists stand as auditors for theists doing spiritual business!

They also stand as the examiners to test the intensity of devotion and act as measuring scales of the extent of devotion for God. Cārvāka, the founder of atheism was a great scientist, who discovered that the awareness is just a modification of the inert energy generated by the digestion of food. God will not maintain anything or anybody in this world without a positive use. Every quality created by God has both good and bad sides even in the realm of worldly life or Pravṛtti. Any side of any quality also becomes good, when it is diverted to spiritual life or Nivṛtti!
 

Aupmanyav

Search, be your own guru.
Messages
2,208
Reaction score
697
Points
108
Location
New Delhi, India
The deserving receivers can be classified into two types: (1) Sadguru, Guru and poor devotees and (2) beggars and poor people.
Sadguru establishes the concepts which is like laying the railway track, whereas the Guru follows the same track like a train. The Guru can elaborate upon the same concepts originally given by the Sadguru with more examples, but he shall not deviate from the concepts established by the Sadguru.
Even the life of an atheist must be saved. Only then can you even try to convert him into a theist.
Sarva-karma-phala-tyāga means sacrificing everything possessed by you, without even caring for yourself.
I am a DIY person and do not believe in Gurus. That is why my label, 'Be your own guru'. A needy person is a needy person whether one is a devotee or not. There should be no discrimination.
Which SADHGURU are you promoting here? Please note that this forum is not an advertising channel. Thanks for being kind to atheists, but why would one need to convert them to theism? Why interfere in their personal views?
Giving away everything will be foolish in the current material times. This is stuff of the stories and not practical. One needs to take care of the family. 'Yathashakti' is OK.
 

Aupmanyav

Search, be your own guru.
Messages
2,208
Reaction score
697
Points
108
Location
New Delhi, India
We shall condemn atheism in the case of the topic of existence of God.
Cārvāka, the founder of atheism was a great scientist, who discovered that the awareness is just a modification of the inert energy generated by the digestion of food.
Why condemn atheists? If you have proof for existence of God, then show it.
Charvak was not a person. Charvak means 'Sweet talk' (Charu Vak). The sage who established Charvak mata was Brihaspati. Most of Charvak views are lost. Where from did you get this energy from food idea that you attribute to Charvakists? Charvakists did not invented atheism. The oldest reference to non-existence of God is in 'Nasadiya Sukta' of RigVeda written by Prajapati Parameshthi.

अर्वाग देवा अस्य विसर्जनेनाथा को वेद यताबभूव ||
arvāg devā asya visarjanenāthā ko veda yataābabhūva ||
The Gods are later than this world's production. Who knows then whence it first came into being?
https://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/rigveda/rv10129.htm
 

dattaswami2

Well-Known Member
Messages
109
Reaction score
9
Points
18
Why condemn atheists? If you have proof for existence of God, then show it.
Charvak was not a person. Charvak means 'Sweet talk' (Charu Vak). The sage who established Charvak mata was Brihaspati. Most of Charvak views are lost. Where from did you get this energy from food idea that you attribute to Charvakists? Charvakists did not invented atheism. The oldest reference to non-existence of God is in 'Nasadiya Sukta' of RigVeda written by Prajapati Parameshthi.

अर्वाग देवा अस्य विसर्जनेनाथा को वेद यताबभूव ||
arvāg devā asya visarjanenāthā ko veda yataābabhūva ||
The Gods are later than this world's production. Who knows then whence it first came into being?
https://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/rigveda/rv10129.htm

“This space is infinite and neither you nor I can find its boundary. I cannot show you the existence of hell, heaven or God in this infinite space. But you too cannot show me their absence in this infinite space by taking me up to the boundary of space. Hence, hell may exist or it may not exist.

Here is where a 50-50 probability has to be accepted. Suppose, I believe in the existence of hell and hence, I do not commit sins. Even if, after my death, I find out that there is no hell, there is no loss for me. While I am still alive, I have already enjoyed the benefit of living a tension-free life and not having to bother about the police and courts, since I have not committed any sins. On the other hand, if you commit sins believing that hell does not exist and after your death, if you find out that unfortunately, hell does exist, you are totally lost!

So, whenever there is a 50-50 probability, a wise man always errs on the safe side. One must always choose the side with a lower risk. Let us say there is a blind person walking on the road. One person tells him that there is a fire ahead in his path and another person tells him that there is no fire ahead. Whom should the blind man choose to follow?

Certainly, if he is a wise blind man, he will turn back because even if the fire is absent, there would be no loss to him. But if the blind man is foolish, he will choose to disregard the warning and take the risk of going forward. If unfortunately, there is actually a fire ahead, he will get burnt!

Therefore, choose the side of lower risk given the 50-50 probability and believe in the existence of the unimaginable God, heaven and hell. Worship God with devotion and do meritorious deeds without committing any sins. Even if God, heaven and hell are absent, you will get enough benefit of believing in God, heaven and hell, which is a life of happiness, peace and freedom from even a trace of tension of the police and the courts.

After all, whether a person is a theist or an atheist, all the efforts the person makes in life is only to get this benefit of a peaceful and happy life. Apart from this benefit in this world, there is also the possibility of you getting a huge benefit in the upper worlds after your death, which is very clearly stated by several Godmen and divine scriptures.”

If the atheist leads a worldly life following justice and avoids sins (pravṛtti), it is more than sufficient. Devotional life (nivṛtti) is not mandatory for him. But accepting at least the existence of the unimaginable God is essential for everybody because it controls sins by instilling the fear of punishment from God. God and His ways of punishment being unimaginable, one can never escape from them, even though one might be able to escape from the police and the courts in this world. The concept of the Human Incarnation is not necessary for an atheist. The atheist should also have open mind to observe the genuine miracles in this world. The observed genuine miracles are essentially unimaginable events and they prove the existence of their source, who is the unimaginable God. The concept of the Human Incarnation is only essential for nivṛtti, which is the path chosen by devotees who aspire for the extreme grace of God.
 

Cino

Big Love! (Atheist mystic)
Admin
Messages
3,779
Reaction score
2,031
Points
108
Location
Germany
This space is infinite and neither you nor I can find its boundary. I cannot show you the existence of hell, heaven or God in this infinite space. But you too cannot show me their absence in this infinite space by taking me up to the boundary of space. Hence, hell may exist or it may not exist.

Here is where a 50-50 probability has to be accepted.

For goodness' sake.

Re-read what you wrote yourself in the first paragraph.

More like infinity to nothing, against the existence of heaven&hell, by your own words.

I don't begrudge you your beliefs, but please, don't try the numbers game to push them on me. Don't push them at all.

There are so many worthwile things we can learn about each other here. Basic math is not one of them. Let it be.
 
Top