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

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.


Excellent comment, Ramaraksha, and welcome to the IO forums. :)
 
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!


Shankara was God. He did not come for God. If a god needs care then this god should be killed asap. Do not talk childish. You plz do not worry about God, Shankara and buddha, jesus and krishna and muhammada. You can not do anything for them. Not good nor bad.

I think you are worried about perticular religion. So be very truth in tour statement and write exact what is your concern.

www.royalmonk.in your personal tour guide in india
 
God came as Shankara to uplift the atheists

'atheists' ---here IMHO IOW 'nihilist' during the height of popularity of Buddhism in India.
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
Exhibit A --- The usual suspects:

Page 15 from an Amar Chitra katha Comic from India printed in 1974 [a classic IYKWIM] entitled "Adi Shankara" ACK-060 (656).

Bhaja Govinda!
 

Attachments

  • bhaja Govinda - Sankaracarya - Amar Chitra katha - 1974 ed.jpg
    bhaja Govinda - Sankaracarya - Amar Chitra katha - 1974 ed.jpg
    98.6 KB · Views: 500
http://www.interfaith.org/forum/the-6-schools-of-hindu-15335.html#post266921


“After studying the six philosophical theses, Vyasadeva completely summarized them all in the aphorisms of Vedanta philosophy.

According to Vedanta philosophy, the Absolute Truth is a person. When the word ‘nirguna’ [‘without qualities’] is used, it is to be understood that the Lord has attributes that are totally spiritual.”

COMMENTARY by A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami:

According to Lord Shri Caitanya Mahaprabhu, Shripada Shankaracarya preached the Mayavada philosophy for a particular purpose. Such a philosophy was necessary to defeat the Buddhist philosophy of the nonexistence of the spirit soul, but it was never meant for perpetual acceptance. It was an emergency.

Thus Lord Krishna was accepted by Shankaracarya as the Supreme Personality of Godhead in his commentation on Bhagavad-gita. Since he was a great devotee of Lord Krishna, he did not dare write any commentary on Shrimad-Bhagavatam because that would have been a direct offense at the lotus feet of the Lord.

But later speculators, in the name of Mayavada philosophy, unnecessarily make their commentary on the catuù-shloki Bhagavatam without any bona fide intent.

The monistic dry speculators have no business in the Shrimad-Bhagavatam because this particular Vedic literature is forbidden for them by the great author himself. Shrila Vyasadeva has definitely forbidden persons engaged in religiosity, economic development, sense gratification and, finally, salvation, from trying to understand Shrimad-Bhagavatam, which is not meant for them (Bhag. 1.1.2).

Shripada Shridhara Svami, the great commentator on Shrimad-Bhagavatam, has definitely forbidden the salvationists or monists to deal in Shrimad-Bhagavatam. It is not for them. Yet such unauthorized persons perversely try to understand Shrimad-Bhagavatam, and thus they commit offenses at the feet of the Lord, which even Shripada Shankaracarya dared not do.

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::




Thank you A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami for
presenting the "Bhagavad-gita AS IT IS"
you
are kindly preaching the message of
Lord Caitanya Mahaprabhu and
delivering the Western countries,
which are filled with impersonalism and voidism,

Bhaktajan




 
Invading the Sacred​
Critiques of Western Scholarship on religions in India.
Invading the Sacred - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Documenting protests and disputed studies​

The book documents essays, critiques and surveys of Western Scholarship on religions and traditions in India. Often, the current knowledge in America of Hinduism is shocking to Indians. The book also contains critiques of European ideas as applied to Indian culture. The last sections chronicles how key academic establishments in USA have responded.[6] The book documents protests that are not only of cognitive or factual basis but also often about interpretations. A non-cognitive approach that is non-falsifiable makes study of Hinduism more of an art correspondingly which leads to new challenge of differences of opinions between members and scholars. Critics of academics claim bias or gross errors in some aspects.[5] The book also disputes the studies by Wendy Doniger, Jeffery Kripal and Paul Courtright. It also critiques the efficacy of the excessive use of Freudian psychoanalysis in hermeneutics which some of these studies rely on.[1]
 
:) :) :) Datta, we meet again. One of those who propelled me to atheism was Sankara with his message of 'oneness' (non-duality) - 'advaita'. So, no God (I am no God).
 
According to Vedanta philosophy, the Absolute Truth is a person. When the word ‘nirguna’ [‘without qualities’] is used, it is to be understood that the Lord has attributes that are totally spiritual.”
If it a person, then is it a male or a female or both or somewhere in-between? Who are its parents? Married or unmarried, divorced, widowed? Any children?

Don't twist the term 'nirguna' and stick to the classical 'without qualities'. Absolute Truth is unknowable, not fully known at least at the present time. What we have come to know is that 'physical energy' constitutes the universe and all things contained in it, and that no other such (constituting) entity exists. That is what our sages said - 'Eko sad, dwiteeyo nasti' (what exists is one, there is no other), or 'sarve khalu idam Brahma' (all things existing here are Brahman). Perhaps 'physical energy' is Brahman. On what basis, you turn it into a person? Is sand a person? Is water a person? Is air a person?
 
:) :) :) Datta, we meet again. One of those who propelled me to atheism was Sankara with his message of 'oneness' (non-duality) - 'advaita'. So, no God (I am no God).

Can you not read comic strips?

Shankara said:
Bhajam Govinda
Bhajam Govinda
Bhajam Govinda

Worship Govinda (aka Krishna as a boy Cow Header)
Worship Govinda (aka Krishna as a boy Cow Header)
Worship Govinda (aka Krishna as a boy Cow Header)

Stated three times for the 'hard of reading'.

PS: Your posts are almost ALWAYS depressing.
 
If it a person, then is it a male or a female or both or somewhere in-between? Who are its parents? Married or unmarried, divorced, widowed? Any children?

I gladdly explain what you could be told directly or read for your self ---but I care little for speaking to Mannequins

Absolute Truth is unknowable, not fully known at least at the present time.

Yes. Speak for your self.

What we have come to know is that 'physical energy' constitutes the universe and all things contained in it, and that no other such (constituting) entity exists.

Hawkins would have used you as a substitute teacher?

On what basis, you turn it into a person? Is sand a person? Is water a person? Is air a person?

I wish you well on your path to being Square, or Triangular, or bent, or twisting, or torquing, or ballooning, or fluttering, or flat, or curved, or stuck between a rock and a hard place.

I will remember what I knew of your brief human form,
Bhaktajan
 
We all (you too) remember things till we are living our short lives. After death there is no 'I', 'you', or 'we'. We are (really) that (Tat twam asi - Brahman).
Stated three times for the 'hard of reading'.
That is not 'absolute reality' (Paramarthika satya). :)
 
After death there is no 'I', 'you', or 'we'.

"The science of dead souls"

After Death we automatically become "One with Brahman"?

Isn't that the laziest spiritual 'Patha' ('Path' is sanskrit) conceivable?

Is the "Lazy Spiritualist's Path" free of karma & samsara?

Presto the birth of the absent minded Yogi?

The new Yogi does no Yogi. Now free-for-all!

After any "point in space" is passed-by ---it remains there to be re-visited when or wherever the whim or severe endeavor brings you.

No matter what happens to people and their lives ---
The Salvation Army will catalogue and
box away and
stack-up in the basement
and later re-sell
all your belongings.
Amen for that.

IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
Here is something I invite you to latch on to:

http://www.interfaith.org/forum/isha-upanishad-recited-by-george-15923.html

I would love to read your analysis of my proposed "Reading" of the Isha-Upanishad.

What do you think? Can you escape my invitation?
 
After Death we automatically become "One with Brahman"?

http://www.interfaith.org/forum/isha-upanishad-recited-by-george-15923.html

I would love to read your analysis of my proposed "Reading" of the Isha-Upanishad.
Even while we are alive, we are brahman (Tat twam asi). Saw something of the link. I may have differences with with the views expressed in this upanishad and others. We hindus are very individualistic and it is not considered heresy in hinduism. However, thanks for the invite.
 
We hindus are very individualistic and it is not considered heresy in hinduism. However, thanks for the invite.

All the more intellectually stimulating.
What more could I ask for.

I can not imagine debating nor contending with any comment you make on this Thread that I linked.

Any opinion or relevant observation would be great to read and compare to.

My only desire is that no specious posts be made that digress from the topic of "Alternative" renderings (translations).

Originally Posted by bhaktajan
http://www.interfaith.org/forum/isha...rge-15923.html

I would love to read your analysis of my proposed "Reading" of the Isha-Upanishad.
 
My only desire is that no specious posts be made that digress from the topic of "Alternative" renderings (translations).
But that is a fact, Bhaktajan. I have Prabhupada's Gita on my bookmarks. It is excellently presented and I love it. It does add a few things which the original does not contain. I know a little Sanskrit, so I can know. But I do not mind it knowing the tradition that Prabhupada followed. The same thing, in a more grotesque manner was done by Swami Dayananda Saraswati of the Arya Samaj in his rendering of the meaning in Vedas. His translation is a caricature of what Vedas mean. That is why I always prefer Ralph Griffith's translation of RigVeda at 'Sacred-texts' even if it may not be perfect. Scholarship is about being honest.
 
God is not a useful concept, indeed, it is probably the principle delusion in religion. What Shankara and many others teach is a way to encounter the divine within each one of us, "thou art that". Now, the concept is no more useful because you know what God is - that utter oneness of existence and its common source which is non-perceptual.

When we make God something other, we have entered maya. Whatsoever arises in consciousness is exactly maya, every object is a delusion caused through clinging to particular subjective identifications. We divide reality, and then we wonder why we feel distant from it.

Eventually, each one will realize the error in this, must realize. Until such a point is reached, God is the buzzword for this very oneness which is each ones true nature, constantly reminding us to limit the ego because there is something which ego has appeared in, that is far greater than it.

Make no mistake, though, God is another delusional concept for the mind, eventually it too must be dropped. This is not an atheist statement, it is simply not theistic, no concept can help us overcome the delusional mind - they can only assist in combating delusion, a thorn removing a thorn, only throwing away both is helpful.
 
I'd like to counter this
God is not a useful concept,
Not useful for Hedonists

indeed, it is probably the principle delusion in religion.
It is the sole priciple

What Shankara and many others teach is a way to encounter the divine within each one of us,
Okay

"thou art that".
Shankara did NOT coin this. We all art That. All there is --is That. In the beginning all was in darkness

Now,
Sanskrit scholars must always cite chap & verse, lest "The Life Of Brain" & "Svengali" & "Cool-Aide" victim-hood occurs

the concept is no more useful because you know what God is
You have stated that You are God ---wont you proclaim it Proudly

- that utter oneness of existence and its common source which is non-perceptual.
EXACTLY! WE CANNOT perceive it except via Instruction from the source documents. Why does it take the Vedas and sutras so many pages to explain a singular Poetic rule-of-thumb? It doesn't ---there are things that only be known by "Descending down to us from up on high"

When we make God something other,
We see how infinitely tiny and insignificantly small and inconsequential to the Cosmos We individual souls are. This could make the inner "Earnest Hemingway or F.Scott Fitzgerald" in any body greatly depressed.

we have entered maya.
It's all one. We are in Maya. Being outside Maya is not equal to being born and living and existing in the Cosmic Prakriti in the cycle of samsara. We escape Maya when we are not existing in Maya. Seems there is another mountain to climb.

Whatsoever arises in consciousness is exactly maya,
See my comment above.

every object is a delusion caused through clinging to particular subjective identifications.
Every object is REAL but TEMPORARY ---this reconciles this age-old maxim. Of Course "We are not the Material [maya-Prakriti] Body, We are Spirit [divyam-Prakriti]"

We divide reality, and then we wonder why we feel distant from it.
We are tiny spark of God illumination ---spending time "enjoying" in a world where Time is manufactured

Eventually, each one will realize the error in this, must realize. Until such a point is reached,
We will spend time "enjoying" in a world where Time is manufactured

God is the buzzword for this very oneness which is each ones true nature,
Did we come from apes? Apes invented this idea of God? Did you invent who your real father is, or did you receive that Knowledge from the mother source?

constantly reminding us to limit the ego because there is something which ego has appeared in, that is far greater than it.
????????????? ---Up-holding the Greater Good causes hardship for the Minor Good?

Make no mistake, though, God is another delusional concept for the mind,
What if that is your mistaken Propaganda? Even if you are God ---you still answer to all the calls of nature. Mother nature trumps every endeavor and plan. You haven't mentioned "Beating the System". So far its about feeling content in the world of Maya.

eventually it too must be dropped.
This is thought this way because we take for granted to karmic path that brought us to where one is as they read this ---we are living short lives and we should engage in finding out the reason for living. The reason for living is Interpersonal Skill and etiquette ---our individual petty preferences lead us to further petty rewards--- but also, having great karma now is NO insurance for future good karma, unless their is Eternal vigilance.


This is not an atheist statement, it is simply not theistic,
This is an atheist's statement, BECAUSE it is simply not theistic. But can I assume you would not recognise Theistic statements?

no concept can help us overcome the delusional mind
All Concepts are Maya. We must receive scripture for what it is worth ---NOT denigrate it.

- they can only assist in combating delusion, a thorn removing a thorn, only throwing away both is helpful.
???? It takes a learned Doctor.
 
Not useful for Hedonists
Hedonism is a mocking of those who enjoy life. If your intent is not to enjoy this place, why stay? There is certainly far more to life than material pursuit, but there is also far more than spiritual pursuit. Religion means to rebind, it is to go beyond the opposites, if you divide life, you miss the whole point.

It is the sole priciple
It depends what you mean by God as principle. If you mean nonduality, oneness, union, certainly it is the point of all religion, if you mean some man in the sky who talks to some people and tells us how to live our lives, well I cannot agree.

Rather than God, it would be better if love became the focus of religion.

Shankara did NOT coin this. We all art That. All there is --is That. In the beginning all was in darkness
I have not said it is original to Shankara, I am not concerned with Shankara. It is, as you say, the very nature of existence, if you want to call this God it is perfectly good but where does this get us?

I am not for any devotional tradition simply because they cause us to identify with the ego and worship our true nature. For me, religion is about realizing our true nature, and BEING that. True Bhakti arises through encountering oneness, and the sheer ecstatic love which is felt for the entire existence. Without Jnana, Bhakti is poisonous, as countless wars prove.

Sanskrit scholars must always cite chap & verse, lest "The Life Of Brain" & "Svengali" & "Cool-Aide" victim-hood occurs
Scholars do not know divine bliss, they are trying to interpret texts based on their mind. The first thing to understand is no scripture is truth, they can only be attempts at pointing towards truth. Truth is an experience, text cannot be that experience.

You have stated that You are God ---wont you proclaim it Proudly
Ahem Brahmasmi.

EXACTLY! WE CANNOT perceive it except via Instruction from the source documents. Why does it take the Vedas and sutras so many pages to explain a singular Poetic rule-of-thumb? It doesn't ---there are things that only be known by "Descending down to us from up on high"
It is not perceivable because to perceive of anything there has to be division - a perceiver and perceived must be there. Dhyana is the perception that all is one, but Samadhi is as deep sleep, there is nothing in consciousness.

The reason so much is written on this is because it is very difficult to explain clearly something so simple. How have these texts come about though? They are people like you and me trying to explain how to encounter something they have experienced. It is nothing of divine origin, it is man trying to explain the divine, trying to convey and guide towards truth.

Once truth is known, all scriptures will be seen as weak, dead and meaningless text - although certainly you will be grateful they have tried, and you will understand the difficulty they have had trying to express this.

We see how infinitely tiny and insignificantly small and inconsequential to the Cosmos We individual souls are. This could make the inner "Earnest Hemingway or F.Scott Fitzgerald" in any body greatly depressed.
Atman and Brahman are one, soul is a delusion, it is the nature of our separation from the Whole, it is identification with the waves rather than the ocean. When we see we are the ocean, we realize the entire cosmos is who we naturally are, manifesting here and now to experience this miracle that we are.

Do you think God is any less bewildered that he is? Man can easily point at this principle and be grateful that He has created us, it is convenient because it causes us to think we have explained something, but nothing at all is explained. For me, true wisdom comes when you realize even God must be profoundly mystified that He exists, and then we can understand we are simply That trying to understand and confirm its own being.

It's all one. We are in Maya. Being outside Maya is not equal to being born and living and existing in the Cosmic Prakriti in the cycle of samsara. We escape Maya when we are not existing in Maya. Seems there is another mountain to climb.
Maya is simply identifying with the story, when we cease to identify with the story we are liberated. Mind is the basic cause of maya, seeing we are not the mind, that we are watching what arises in the mind, there is nirvana - no-thing-ness. We are the formless, timeless essence of Being, it is only necessary to detach from the mind stream and body identifications. Mind can be used to go beyond mind, but identifying the source of mind is far more fruitful.

Every object is REAL but TEMPORARY ---this reconciles this age-old maxim. Of Course "We are not the Material [maya-Prakriti] Body, We are Spirit [divyam-Prakriti]"
We are not anything we can experience, no object of consciousness is consciousness itself, it is only something arising in the play of consciousness. Material and spiritual, both, are delusion, they are a division, and there is no division possible in Reality.

We are tiny spark of God illumination ---spending time "enjoying" in a world where Time is manufactured
Time is a construct of the mind to make sense of maya, to cause an experience that is rational. We are not tiny sparks, we are modified consciousness, believing itself to be something appearing in consciousness rather than consciousness itself. God, too, is something appearing in consciousness, an object to direct constant love towards, to believe ourselves lovers. When object - God or Brahman, since it is said the world is Brahman - and subject - Self or soul, that which we believe ourselves to be - are no more divided, we encounter our divinity. Yet, they are not actually divided even now, it is only a mental delusion that makes it seem so.

Did we come from apes? Apes invented this idea of God? Did you invent who your real father is, or did you receive that Knowledge from the mother source?
I am not concerned with where we came from, what I am concerned with is what is here now. Since time is a delusion of mind, past and future are also delusions of mind, the only reality is this moment... it is our goal to understand what is actually here.

Past and future arise as memories or dreams NOW, they have no existential reality outside the mind. They are stories about how we got here and where we are going, they have to be dropped, we have to simply be here without bringing in anything, this is the nature of enlightened awareness, consciousness without the story.

????????????? ---Up-holding the Greater Good causes hardship for the Minor Good?
Who upholds the greater good? Who decides what is greater and minor good? These are all merely ideas in the mind, they are ego based, they uphold atman, which is the nature of perceived separation.

Evil exists so that we do not become too enthralled by maya, without it there is no reason to question what we are doing here, who we are. It can be said that evil is the greatest good because without it we would never look to the divine. You will not like this, yet it upholds the cosmic balance, fighting for good is the cause of most evil through history - I find this ironic.

What if that is your mistaken Propaganda? Even if you are God ---you still answer to all the calls of nature. Mother nature trumps every endeavor and plan. You haven't mentioned "Beating the System". So far its about feeling content in the world of Maya.
Inaccurate, this body has its needs, if we wish to continue experiencing this place, we must care for it. It is as a car, we get in the car so that we can get somewhere conveniently, it is absurd to then become fearful of leaving the car once it has served its purpose - once we arrive at the destination. Understanding we are not the car, it does not mean we shouldn't care for it, it only means we are no more attached to it.

All scripture is about finding unceasing happiness, happiness is contentment. How can you speak so negatively towards contentment yet claim to be on the path towards the divine? Satchitanand - Truth, Consciousness, Bliss - it IS contentment with what is. Discontent comes from trying to escape Dharma, trying to deny or escape what is the case now.

This is thought this way because we take for granted to karmic path that brought us to where one is as they read this ---we are living short lives and we should engage in finding out the reason for living. The reason for living is Interpersonal Skill and etiquette ---our individual petty preferences lead us to further petty rewards--- but also, having great karma now is NO insurance for future good karma, unless their is Eternal vigilance.
Karma means action, Karma Yoga is action taken without identification, without a sense of doership. Without the sense of doership, we are free from all karma accumulation.

The reason for living is love, and our true nature is love. For me, love is not the attached kind - this for me is variously lust, infatuation, or dependency - for me, true love stems from non-dual wisdom. When we believe ourselves separate, we protect that separateness, and this is the cause of all strife and antagonism. This merely calls us to look directly at this notion of separateness - what I call ego, although not perhaps what psychology calls it - and ask what exactly we are protecting here...

What we are constantly protecting is self-love, but the Self is everything that is, not just the form we identify with. This basic misunderstanding is the root of all problems in the world, love for the Whole - the true Self - is the medicine for this ignorance, religion is an attempt to show us our true nature as the Whole. When this understanding enters us, we live as love.

This is an atheist's statement, BECAUSE it is simply not theistic. But can I assume you would not recognise Theistic statements?
For me, God is not the point, our own nature is the point - although these are not two things. When we overcome mind, this division of atheist and theist is simply not considered, similarly agnostic and gnostic doesn't matter. Divisions as such are created by the mind, they ARE maya. Whatsoever ideas the mind holds as true, it is all irrelevant, none of it is true because Truth is the witness of the mind.

This isn't to say that ideas don't say truth accurately, it is only to say that the statement of the idea, the words cannot be it - they too merely arise in it.

All Concepts are Maya. We must receive scripture for what it is worth ---NOT denigrate it.
This is my point, God is only an idea, a concept.

Once we have the experience, what use is the concept?
 
Ahem Brahmasmi.
Aham Brahmasmi = I am Spirit Soul. You are not the body (material energy)---you are conscious spirit soul. You are not God.

very difficult to explain clearly something so simple.
Atman and Brahman are one, soul is a delusion
What is difficult to explain ---ALL IS ONE--- Childs' play IMO. The individual Soul is made of Brahman (spirit)

We are not anything we can experience, no object of consciousness is consciousness itself, it is only something arising in the play of consciousness. Material and spiritual, both, are delusion, they are a division, and there is no division possible in Reality.
All negation followed by more negation as if something progressive is being stated.

Time is a construct of the mind to make sense of maya
False based upon the real & actual Existence of TIME ---as we know it . . .

that which we believe ourselves to be
This is where ego-based desperation originates.

I am concerned with is what is here now.
Okay but why the self-aggrandising?

Since time is a delusion of mind
Your mind appears and disappears ---Time is the distroyer of ALL ---that's quite a Job-Title for something that doesn't exist. What about pain & suffering? Illusion?

there is no reason to question what we are doing here
That does not clairify anything

It is as a car, we get in the car ... once it has served its purpose...does not mean we shouldn't care for it, it only means we are no more attached to it.
Because Maya is Real & Temporary ---Insurance and maintenance & Taxes are the owners responsibility--- why consider additional Un-Conscious inert objects to be part of your being?

Karma means action, Karma Yoga is action taken without identification,
Karma yoga means action done without expecting reward knowing who is the recipient of Sacrifice.

The reason for living is love,
Your love would be false and Temporary. Love is only real in the company of real Persons ---lest it be labeled 'animal instinct'.

For me, God is not the point, our own nature is the point
The nature in question is PERSONA. God is the first Person (adi-purusha)

All Concepts are Maya. We must receive scripture for what it is worth ---NOT denigrate it.
This is my point, God is only an idea, a concept.
Once we have the experience, what use is the concept?

So all your concepts are false? Thank you for your candor.
One cannot presume to understand the purport of ancient Sanskrit texts ---unless the purports of ancient Sanskrit texts are explained to them


Outer Space has room for everybody's dreams and fancies.
God is a very specific unique PERSON without peers ---this is the definition of Godhead. Evidently, you don't yet know the definition of God. What is the definition of God?
 
Back
Top