God came as Shankara to uplift the atheists who did not care for God

D

dattaswami1

Guest
God came as Shankara to uplift the atheists who did not care for God


God came as Shankara to uplift the atheists who did not care for God. If you do not care for the Prime Minister, the Prime Minister need not pay even one-millionth attention for you in view of his far superior status. In such case, God need not pay even a trace of attention towards the careless atheists. But God being the creator of all the souls, the parental attitude of God towards all the souls brings him down as human incarnation caring for the atheists. The attention of God to reform the atheists is the only remaining aim in throwing the atheists into the hell permanently (permanently means for a long time).

The hell is the operation theatre in which the long surgery is performed and thus the constant effort of God to uplift every soul is to be always identified. If the final message of Shankara is Advaita only, the closest students like Padmapada, Totaka, etc should have digested Advaita and should have behaved as friends with Shankara because they should have realized the oneness with Shankara. But we find that they were always falling on the feet of Shankara, who was their contemporary human incarnation, with full surrender praising Him “Karuna Varunalaya Palayamam…” If Advaita were to be true, each one of them was Shankara (Brahman) Himself and the above prayer would be self-praise. The present advaitin must have digested Advaita better than those close disciples of Shankara and therefore, is not even recognizing his contemporary human incarnation!
 
Namaste dattaswami,

thank you for the post.

dattaswami1 said:
The attention of God to reform the atheists is the only remaining aim in throwing the atheists into the hell permanently (permanently means for a long time).
Click to expand...

goodness... now you are threating us with hell.

seems you've learned something from the Christian missonaries :cool:

sorry, mate, but threats of hellfire and damnation are tales which i care little for. i've got my own religions hells and stuff to watch out for and they are far, far worse than anything you've got to offer.

you should become Buddhist!

The present advaitin must have digested Advaita better than those close disciples of Shankara and therefore, is not even recognizing his contemporary human incarnation!
Click to expand...

what does your religion refer to hubris as?

metta,

~v
 
dattaswami1 said:
<b><font color="#993366">If you do not care for the Prime Minister, the Prime Minister need not pay even one-millionth attention for you in view of his far superior status.
Click to expand...

A Prime Minister, in the general sense, is a public servant, not a Monarch unto whom great respect is owed. A PM is really only superior to anyone in the sense that their general relevance is to a greater audience than that of the average Joe.
 
dattaswami1 said:
God came as Shankara to uplift the atheists who did not care for God


God came as Shankara to uplift the atheists who did not care for God. If you do not care for the Prime Minister, the Prime Minister need not pay even one-millionth attention for you in view of his far superior status. In such case, God need not pay even a trace of attention towards the careless atheists. But God being the creator of all the souls, the parental attitude of God towards all the souls brings him down as human incarnation caring for the atheists. The attention of God to reform the atheists is the only remaining aim in throwing the atheists into the hell permanently (permanently means for a long time).

The hell is the operation theatre in which the long surgery is performed and thus the constant effort of God to uplift every soul is to be always identified. If the final message of Shankara is Advaita only, the closest students like Padmapada, Totaka, etc should have digested Advaita and should have behaved as friends with Shankara because they should have realized the oneness with Shankara. But we find that they were always falling on the feet of Shankara, who was their contemporary human incarnation, with full surrender praising Him “Karuna Varunalaya Palayamam…” If Advaita were to be true, each one of them was Shankara (Brahman) Himself and the above prayer would be self-praise. The present advaitin must have digested Advaita better than those close disciples of Shankara and therefore, is not even recognizing his contemporary human incarnation!
Click to expand...

I frankly don't know how Buddhism became associated with atheism -- I think it's due to the Hindu priests, Buddha is called Bhagavan, i.e. GOD, in all sutras.

In that sense, I would say Sankaracharya, was ignorant and led hindus away from God.
 
I do not know how god came to be associated with atheists, you cannot associate that which does not exist with that which does. As an atheist I challenge this conceptual nonsense known as god to refute me each and every day, perhaps it is a coward? or maybe just terribly shy?
 
Tao_Equus said:
I do not know how god came to be associated with atheists
Click to expand...

Consider the word "atheist"... The whole identity of atheists
is built around the rejection of God. So basically it is built upon
(i.e. dependent) on God's identity... Consider the following verse
in light of this new understanding (and your own existence Tao).

The seven heavens declare His glory and the earth (too), and those who are in them; and there is not a single thing but glorifies Him with His praise, but you do not understand their glorification...


As an atheist I challenge this conceptual nonsense known as god to refute me each and every day, perhaps it is a coward? or maybe just terribly shy?
Click to expand...
That very same verse ends in these words:
​

...surely He is Forbearing, Forgiving.

Chapter 17: Verse 44
​
 
Tao_Equus said:
I do not know how god came to be associated with atheists, you cannot associate that which does not exist with that which does. As an atheist I challenge this conceptual nonsense known as god to refute me each and every day, perhaps it is a coward? or maybe just terribly shy?
Click to expand...

your post would have been profound had you said, "as an athiest I challenge this concept known as god to refute me each and every day"

But if you call this concept non-sense right from the outset, that means you are prejudiced and your mind is already settled in this view.

Similar to a person who believes in God without ever having challenged the idea.
 
saddha said:
Similar to a person who believes in God without ever having challenged the idea.
Click to expand...

Ive challenged a lot of things in my life, but never the existence of God.
Does that mean Im prejudiced ????? ur damn rite it does !! :)
I remember when the thought even started to occur to me,
the thought which closely followed was:

"seriously? where the hell else could all
of this come from, snap out of it you idiot (slap!)"

Bias, believe it or not... is VERY under-rated. Prejudice
exists in each and everyone of us. Anyone who thinks they
are unbiased, is either nuts, or just unaware of what
the word bias/prejudice actually means. As for the idea that
man can arrive at the objective truth through the power of
sheer reason/logic... well, instead of trying to convince him
myself, I would just refer him to Kant and his critique of
pure reason.
 
saddha said:
your post would have been profound had you said, "as an athiest I challenge this concept known as god to refute me each and every day"

But if you call this concept non-sense right from the outset, that means you are prejudiced and your mind is already settled in this view.

Similar to a person who believes in God without ever having challenged the idea.
Click to expand...

Then your standard of what constitutes the profound is much lower than mine. Either way my statement was mere flippancy. Which to my mind is perhaps even more than the concept deserves given its track record.
 
Tao_Equus said:
Then your standard of what constitutes the profound is much lower than mine. Either way my statement was mere flippancy. Which to my mind is perhaps even more than the concept deserves given its track record.
Click to expand...

err... dude, you do realize that this is an > interfaith forum < rite?
I think britney spears deserves nothing more then "flippant" statements
given her track record either, and that is why you dont see me joining
a Britney Spears forum....... (see how that works??? ;) )

Also btw, the fact that most of your posts here end up dealing
with God one way or another, I doubt that you are somehow
over Him, as you are now suggesting.... :rolleyes:
 
c0de said:
err... dude, you do realize that this is an > interfaith forum < rite?
I think britney spears deserves nothing more then "flippant" statements
given her track record either, and that is why you dont see me joining
a Britney Spears forum....... (see how that works??? ;) )

Also btw, the fact that most of your posts here end up dealing
with God one way or another, I doubt that you are somehow
over Him, as you are now suggesting.... :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

No I am not over the concept. I have to live with it and its consequences regardless of my own feelings about it and thus I have every right to comment on it as I see fit. If you do not like that you are free to ignore me.

Note; I know you only post your highlights in Islamic green to try and irritate me. Therefore I shall hitherto refer to it by a much more fitting name. Loony Bin green.
 
Tao_Equus said:
Note; I know you only post your highlights in Islamic green to try and irritate me.
Click to expand...

LOL

Did you notice I use the same colors when
addressing others? Of course they have some abstract
meaning behind them, but just the thought that I picked
these colors especially for you.... now that is just precious.


No I am not over the concept.
Click to expand...
Clearly... I only brought it up cuz you said
that the whole "concept" was beneath even
your flippant statements... and yet, you find
yourself on an inter-faith forum....
thinking-020.gif




If you do not like that you are free to ignore me.
Click to expand...
And be like everyone else??? No way!
 
Tao_Equus said:
I must admit you are not the typical muslim we see here, you seem to enjoy freedom.
Click to expand...

Yea well, I don't believe in free will ...
but I'll take that as a compliment anyway....
(its the thought that counts :))

btw, don't know what your definition of
of the typical Muslim is... seeing as if most
Muslims I know seem to love "freedom"...
wonder if it is more comical then my definition
of the typical atheist.
 
Namaste Saddha,

thank you for the post.

saddha said:
I frankly don't know how Buddhism became associated with atheism -- I think it's due to the Hindu priests, Buddha is called Bhagavan, i.e. GOD, in all sutras.
Click to expand...

by and large it is due to the western idea that there is only one deity and it is the creator deity. as the Buddha Shakyamuni rejected the idea of a creator deity his teachings are described as atheistic. even a cursory reading of the Suttas would reveal that the Buddhas teaching *do* contain teachings regarding deities so, in that sense, Buddhism is not atheistic.

as the Chinese expression goes, the eye of the work is that Buddha Shakyamuni explained that deities, irrespective of their abilities, are not worthy of veneration for they cannot mitigate the vipaka of ones karma and reliance upon them to do so constitutes unskillful action.

the term "bhagavan" is very contextually dependent as it, like most Sanskrit terms, has a variety of meaning which is only clearly discerned when we know the nature of the discussion.

in the Buddhist context, the term "bhagavan" is used to indicate the Tathagata and is typically understood as "The substantives of the word bhagavat (bhagavat-śabda-vācyāni) are unlimited (aśes.atah.) knowledge (jñāna), energies (śakti), strength (bala), opulence (aiśvarya), heroism (vīrya), splendor (tejas), without (vinā) objectionable (heyair) qualities (guṇādibhiḥ)."

metta,

~v
 
Vajradhara said:
Namaste Saddha,

thank you for the post.



by and large it is due to the western idea that there is only one deity and it is the creator deity. as the Buddha Shakyamuni rejected the idea of a creator deity his teachings are described as atheistic. even a cursory reading of the Suttas would reveal that the Buddhas teaching *do* contain teachings regarding deities so, in that sense, Buddhism is not atheistic.

as the Chinese expression goes, the eye of the work is that Buddha Shakyamuni explained that deities, irrespective of their abilities, are not worthy of veneration for they cannot mitigate the vipaka of ones karma and reliance upon them to do so constitutes unskillful action.

the term "bhagavan" is very contextually dependent as it, like most Sanskrit terms, has a variety of meaning which is only clearly discerned when we know the nature of the discussion.

in the Buddhist context, the term "bhagavan" is used to indicate the Tathagata and is typically understood as "The substantives of the word bhagavat (bhagavat-śabda-vācyāni) are unlimited (aśes.atah.) knowledge (jñāna), energies (śakti), strength (bala), opulence (aiśvarya), heroism (vīrya), splendor (tejas), without (vinā) objectionable (heyair) qualities (guṇādibhiḥ)."

metta,

~v
Click to expand...

Interestingly enough, if you read enough suttas you will see Buddha being called the ultimate creator from whose Dhammakaya, the Dhamma sons/daughters are born again:

Buddha in the Anupada Sutta of MN 111 states clearly:

"If a person, rightly saying it of anyone, were to say, 'He is the Blessed One's son, his offspring born of his mouth, born of the Dhamma, created by the Dhamma, his heir in the Dhamma, not his heir in material things,' he would be rightly saying it of Sariputra if he were to say: 'He is the Blessed One's son, his offspring born of his mouth, born of the Dhamma, created by the Dhamma, his heir in the Dhamma, not his heir in material things.' Sariputta, monks, takes the unexcelled wheel of Dhamma set rolling by the Tathagata, and keeps it rolling rightly."

§ 100. {Iti 4.1; Iti 101}

This was said by the Blessed One, said by the Arahant, so I have heard: "I am a brahman, responsive to requests, open-handed, bearing my last body, an unsurpassed doctor & surgeon. You are my children, my sons, born from my mouth, born of the Dhamma, created by the Dhamma, heirs to the Dhamma, not heirs in material things.


Now this is not a fluke -- Arahants as being "bosom born sons of Buddha", is found throughout the earliest Pali scriptures. Similarly, if you read the Therigatha, you have women saying they are "daughter of Buddha".

Now you will say, Buddha only talks about humans being created, not the universe:

However, read further and you will see that Buddha calls the sun "my child" and all kinds of beings (humans, gods, animals, divine beings, etc.) take refuge in Buddha to ultimately become recreated in the Dhamma.
 
I am Hindu also but I totally reject the original poster's thoughts. I don't think he is Hindu either because he totally misses Hindu Values.

Hindus have never believed in Gods who threaten non-followers. To me those who do are cults. Cults usually give out goodies to those who may join and threaten those who might leave. This is not the faith that I follow.

Basically the world's main religions can be divided into two - King and Teacher religions. Abrahamic religions are King relgions whereas Hinduism/Buddhism are Teacher religions.
I
One needs a template for anything. When Michalangelo needed to depict God he chose a kindly old man for the job. Similarly Abrahamic religions chose a King for their template for God. God made in the image of a king.
In those days most kings were men, so God had to be a man. A king issues orders, commands and passes down judgements. When brought before the king, people usually fell to their knees and shake with fear, for this man could order your death! Hence a fear of God, referring to themselves as soldiers of God. Falling to their knees in front of God.

A king usually rules by threats of fear. He rewards loyalists and thretens those who oppose him, even if they are good people. Hence abrahamic heavens are limited to loyal people only, non-followers even if good people like a Gandhi, get hell.

I do believe that the original poster should convert to one of these religions that use threats. God who threaten have no place in Hinduism.

Hinduism/Buddhism are Teacher religions. The Buddha, Krishna were teachers. In a teachers classrom all are welcome. A teacher will make every effort to teach you, but you also have to do your part. You may choose to not listen to the teacher, if so, the teacher will not use threats or try to frighten you. In the end you pass judgement on yourself.

For example let's say a student does not listen to the teacher and keep skipping classes. He keeps failing and is held back. Once an adult with litter or no education he is forced to take menial jobs, even as he watches his peers in nice jobs. He learns his lesson.

This is the lesson of karma. We may choose to not listen to God but we won't get away with it.

As for Atheists, God's name is not Krishna, Buddha, Allah or Christ, God's name is Truth. All truth seekers are dear to God. Atheists are truth seekers. They are good people ready to believe in God. But they want evidence. For some of us, belief might be enough but atheists want more, and it is their right.

I will close with a story - In a village one man went to the temple daily, and daily asked God for more money. Never helped his fellow man. In the same village lived an atheist, who mocked the very concept of God, but spent his life helping others. It is the latter that God Rama welcomes into his arms!

All the pujas, prayers, gifts to God do not measure up to just one act of kindness.
 
Well that is mighty fine and dandy of your god... To care for us poor little atheists..... But please, humour me.... How does this god of yours care for atheists? Aim to put us into hell for a long time you say? *packs his speedos* PAH! I'm ready. Bring it.

Oh and ramajama guy.... All religions are cults... ALL cults are religions... **** how many times has this information got to penetrate dense skulls? It is only used as a "the dirty word" by people of a faith... They use it to degrade and belittle anothers and up their self righteouss ego and faith........ Tomatoes, tamatoes.
 
Well it does help to read the entire post. Please read the example story that I gave at the end of my post.

As a Hindu, I do not believe in Hell. Hell is a violent, abusive, denigrating place of torture unworthy of God. My Rama is no torturer. Karma & Rebirth is the non-violent, peaceful way. According to the good or bad that we had done in our previous life, we reach a better or worse state of life in the next. The goal of a Hindu is not a flesh-happy heaven but Moksha, an enlightened state.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top