Existence and Non-existence

[dattaswami]

Correlation Of Vedic Statements

O Learned and Devoted Servants of God,


[Shri J.S.R. Prasad asked:- Sashtanga Pranams Swami. May I request You to please correlate the following Vedic statements –

A. Asdvā idamagra āsīt tato vai sadajāyata

B. Brahma vā idamagra āsīt, tadātmānamavet, Ahaṃ Brahmāsmīti (Bṛhadāraṇyakopaniṣad)

C. Sadeva Saumyedamagra āsīt (Taittirīyopaniṣad)

D. Anādimat Paraṃ Brahma na sattan nāsaducyate (Gītā 13.13). --At Your divine holy lotus feet]

Swami Replied:- There are two contexts (Prakaraṇams):-

i) Discussion regarding the existence of creation and

ii) Discussion about the existence of God.

iii) When the clue of the specific context is not available, we shall try to apply the Vedic statements to both cases (world and God).

The word ‘agre’ means beginning. Beginning may mean 1. Before planning in the mind or 2. Before materializing the mental plan.

I) Context of the existence of creation:

A) Asadvā idaṃ agra āsīt… - here the word ‘idam’ can mean creation. In the beginning, before the creation of mental plan by God, this world existed as non-existent (asat), which is absolute non-reality.

Tato vai sadajāyata:- Then, a mental plan of the world was formed in God and the non-existent world became existent. Even though, mental plan is subtle and not gross, still, the subtle plan also had gifted absolute reality of God and hence, world in this state was subtle-absolute reality.

C) Sadeva Saumyedamagra āsīt:- Here, the word ‘agre’ stands as the stage before the transformation of the subtle mental plan into gross physical world. This means that the mental plan of the world is not absolute non-reality because it is subtle and it is subtle absolute reality.

‘B’ and ‘D’ belong to the existence of God and not to the existence of the world.

II) Context of existence of God:

B) Brahma vā idamagra āsīt, tadātmānamavet, Ahaṃ Brahmāsmīti:- This is purely about God only. This means that the unimaginable God existed even before the mental plan of the world in the mind of God. Mind means awareness and God has awareness due to omnipotence and not because God has relative awareness that is born from inert energy and a materialized nervous system. Hence, the awareness of God before the mental plan of creation is unimaginable (unimaginable awareness). Unimaginable awareness can have unimaginable mind, unimaginable intelligence, unimaginable memory and unimaginable basic ego called ‘the feeling of I’. The unimaginable God got the feeling of ‘I’ and knew the meaning of such ‘I’. The unimaginable God thought “I am the unimaginable God.”

D) Anādimat Paraṃ Brahma na sattan nāsaducyate:- ‘Param Brahma’ means ‘Parabrahman’ or ‘unimaginable God’. This God having absolute reality is neither existent (na sat) nor non-existent (nāsat). 1) He is not existent (asat) means that He is not having relative reality since He is absolutely real. Here, reality (sat) may be absolute (paramārtha) or relative (vyavahāra). 2) He is not non-existent (nāsat) means that He is never absolutely non-existent (atyanta abhāva).

III) Existence of both cases (world and God):

‘A’ and ‘C’ are only to be discussed in the context of both cases since ‘B’ and ‘D’ are clearly in the context of God only. ‘A’ and ‘C’ in the context of world are already discussed in (I). Now, we shall discuss ‘A’ and ‘C’ in the context of God.

A) Asdvā idamagra āsīt tato vai sadajāyata:- The absolute God is already said to be asat or non-existent in the sense that relative existence (sat) is not present in the absolute God. Even before the mental plan of the world in God, absolute God indicated by the word asat as said above, is existing. Later on, the subtle mental plan having gifted absolute reality is born in the mind of God and this is said by ‘Tato vai sadajāyata’, which means that later on, the mental plan having absolute reality (sat) is born.

C) Sadeva Saumyedamagra āsīt:- The word ‘agre’ means beginning, which means before the expression of the gross physical world from the subtle mental plan. In such beginning state (state of mental plan), the world existing as subtle mental plan is also having gifted absolute reality (sat).

In ‘A’ and ‘C’ the word ‘idam’ (this) can stand for God (Brahman) or world (Jagat) because no adjective for the word ‘this’ is specified. In ‘B’ and ‘D’, God is specified. In ‘B’ also, the word ‘idam’ is used, but, it stands as an adjective for the word Brahman. In ‘D’, the word ‘idam’ is not used and directly the word ‘Parabrahman’ is used (Paraṃ Brahma).

[Harbal]

Shri J.S.R. Prasad asked:- Sashtanga Pranams Swami. Does God have a favourite Beatles album?


Sashtanga Pranams Swami replied: Yes, Shri J.S.R. Prasad, he does, and thank you for your fun question, it makes a very refreshing change.

God's favourite Beatles albums, in order of preference, are as follows:

Abbey Road.
Revolver.
Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band.

[Iwannaplato]

Shri J.S.R. Prasad asked:- Sashtanga Pranams Swami. Does God have a favourite Beatles album?


Sashtanga Pranams Swami replied: Yes, Shri J.S.R. Prasad, he does, and thank you for your fun question, it makes a very refreshing change.

God's favourite Beatles albums, in order of preference, are as follows:

Abbey Road.
Revolver.
Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band.

O infidel...do you think God created the universe for his entertainment?
Such frivolity.
Maharishi Mahesh Yogi is rolling over in his grave.

[puto]

Buddha did not accept a single god or a permanent self. Asat or Sat from Rig Veda 10.129. Composing, around 1200 BCE early priests asked question as the Vedic tradition evolved in explanation. The atman meaning personalities or the brahman meant prayer. External reality, the self, and ritual or symbolic practices united. Knowledge was not intellectual. Please as you are defining your terms, do not try to become a turner of the wheel. There is a non-duality way of doctrine of Emptiness. Buddha is wrathful in Tantric form, so be very careful in your poetic explanations of Buddhism. Thank-you for making me think, as I went back to college notes.

[dattaswami]

Buddha did not accept a single god or a permanent self. Asat or Sat from Rig Veda 10.129. Composing, around 1200 BCE early priests asked question as the Vedic tradition evolved in explanation. The atman meaning personalities or the brahman meant prayer. External reality, the self, and ritual or symbolic practices united. Knowledge was not intellectual. Please as you are defining your terms, do not try to become a turner of the wheel. There is a non-duality way of doctrine of Emptiness. Buddha is wrathful in Tantric form, so be very careful in your poetic explanations of Buddhism. Thank-you for making me think, as I went back to college notes.

Buddha kept silent about God. This means that God is beyond words, mind and logic as said in the Veda. Buddha means the Buddhi or Jnana yoga that speaks about the absolute God. Thus He is the greatest incarnation of God. If one thinks Him as atheist, there can be no better fool. Mohammed showed the formless medium in which God exists, which is energy and this is presented by Shankara, because basically energy and awareness are one and the same. The prophet itself means human incarnation.

Prophet is carrying on the message of God. The divine knowledge is in Him. Is He not greater than other human beings? Message of divine knowledge is the characteristic of God (Satyam Jnanam – the Veda) and so we say God is in Him.

Why do you deny it, when God is omnipresent? Then every human being should give the same message of God, since God is omnipresent. But why Mohammed alone gave it? Because the power of God or knowledge of God is in him only. Then the power of God, in the form of knowledge is not omnipresent.

In any case, you have to accept that either God or His Power is only in Prophet Mohammed. That is what human incarnation is. You are fighting with us, without analysing the concept of human incarnation. Thus Buddha, Mohammed and Shankara have made the single phase, which was essential to the level of the followers at that time.

The concept of human incarnation was well established by Krishna and Jesus. You can find all three branches of Hinduism (Advaita, Visishta Advaita, Dvaita) in Christianity because Jesus told that He and God are one and the same (Advaita), that He is the son of God (Visishta Advaita) and that He is the messenger of God (Dvaita). The stage of philosophy was expressed according to the required stage of the people of that time.

Buddhism is misunderstood to be atheism. This is the most meaningless misunderstanding related to spiritual knowledge. Buddha only kept silent about God. He never declared that God is non- existent. Since God is beyond space and time, He is totally unimaginable for the human brain.

This is the meaning of His silence. The Veda also says clearly that God is beyond any imagination and is best represented by silence (yato vāco…). What the Veda told is also told by Buddha. Buddha said that the Vedas were written by souls, who were the sages. Actually, God told the Vedas to sages and the sages told the same Vedas to the rest of humanity.

When God told the Vedas to the sages, you can say that God is the speaker of the Vedas. When the sages told the Vedas to humanity, you can say that the sages are speakers of the Vedas. The Gita is told by God or Bhagavan. Hence, it is called as the Bhagavad Gita, which means that God spoke the Gita to Krishna.

Krishna spoke the same Gita to Arjuna. Both the invisible God and the visible Krishna are one and the same since God pervaded all over Krishna. The case of God and the sages is also similar. Hence, there is no contradiction between Buddhism and Hinduism since Buddha is one of the ten incarnations of God Viṣṇu.

[Harbal]

Buddha kept silent about God.

Have you considered following his example?

[dattaswami]

Buddha kept silent about God.

Have you considered following his example?

Atheists and even some scientists say that God does not exist and hence, there is no heaven, hell or any other upper world. On this point, they are in line with Cārvāka, who too was an atheist. But the atheists and scientists claim to support the rules of justice in pravṛtti or worldly life. It is only the hypocrisy of these people.

Actually, they are fully convinced that even if they secretly break the rules of justice in pravṛtti, they need not fear any punishment since, according to them, no God exists. But they externally claim to support justice. This superficial hypocrisy is only to cheat society and get a good name in spite of violating justice secretly. Their diplomacy is meant to help them in escaping the punishment from the law of the land for their secret injustice. These atheists maintain some external politeness even though they are actually cheating others. On the other hand, sage Cārvāka openly said that the rules of pravṛtti can be broken and sins can be committed without any fear.

We must appreciate both the frankness of the sage and the politeness of the modern atheist. Sage Cārvāka was a great scientist who discovered the essential nature of the soul. His discovery has helped us recognize that the soul is a part of creation and is not the Creator. God is very angry with this perverted ancient scientist not because he denied the existence of God, but because he totally broke the rules of pravṛtti. These rules are the basis for maintaining the balance of society.

After all, the fear of the punishment for sin intrinsically prevents a person from committing injustice. It is much more effective in controlling injustice than any external control such as the law of the land. This intrinsic fear of committing sins is based on the existence of God alone. It is God who punishes the sinner for his sins in unimaginable ways. The sinner may succeed in escaping the punishment from the law of land, but escaping God’s punishment is impossible since it is delivered in unimaginable ways.

[Iwannaplato]

Buddha kept silent about God. This means that God is beyond words

Actually what it means is the Buddha kept silent about God. It is not clear if the Buddha was agnostic, atheist or thought speculating, such as you do, about a deity was problematic.

[Iwannaplato]

Buddha kept silent about God.

Have you considered following his example?

Atheists and even some scientists say that God does not exist and hence, there is no heaven, hell or any other upper world. On this point, they are in line with Cārvāka, who too was an atheist. But the atheists and scientists claim to support the rules of justice in pravṛtti or worldly life. It is only the hypocrisy of these people.

Actually, they are fully convinced that even if they secretly break the rules of justice in pravṛtti, they need not fear any punishment since, according to them, no God exists. But they externally claim to support justice. This superficial hypocrisy is only to cheat society and get a good name in spite of violating justice secretly. Their diplomacy is meant to help them in escaping the punishment from the law of the land for their secret injustice.

You are assuming a number of false things here: 1) the only reason people don't do bad things in fear. This is not correct. Is this correct about you? 2) Parenting leads to conscience, guilt, shame and awareness of the hurt others feel. One does not need a deity to learn these things. There are all sorts of reason theists and atheists alike do not do certain things. 3) there is no empathy, just fear of punishment. This is also not correct.

The saddest thing about your position is that you think only fear keeps people from murdering and raping, for example. Is that the only reason you do not do these things?

If so, how sad. If not, why assume others are like this.

What a horrible world you live in: no truly good people, only people who are too afraid to bad things and people who do them because they are not afraid (enough).

Not one good essence in the whole bunch.

[Harbal]

Atheists and even some scientists say that God does not exist and hence, there is no heaven, hell or any other upper world. On this point, they are in line with Cārvāka, who too was an atheist. But the atheists and scientists claim to support the rules of justice in pravṛtti or worldly life. It is only the hypocrisy of these people.

Actually, they are fully convinced that even if they secretly break the rules of justice in pravṛtti, they need not fear any punishment since, according to them, no God exists. But they externally claim to support justice. This superficial hypocrisy is only to cheat society and get a good name in spite of violating justice secretly. Their diplomacy is meant to help them in escaping the punishment from the law of the land for their secret injustice. These atheists maintain some external politeness even though they are actually cheating others. On the other hand, sage Cārvāka openly said that the rules of pravṛtti can be broken and sins can be committed without any fear.

Clumping atheists and scientists together in a homogenous group and saying they all behave exactly the same shows you are either dishonest or a fool. My opinion is that you are both. And that is also demonstrated in your implication that believing in God prevents people from wrong doing.

After all, the fear of the punishment for sin intrinsically prevents a person from committing injustice. It is much more effective in controlling injustice than any external control such as the law of the land. This intrinsic fear of committing sins is based on the existence of God alone. It is God who punishes the sinner for his sins in unimaginable ways. The sinner may succeed in escaping the punishment from the law of land, but escaping God’s punishment is impossible since it is delivered in unimaginable ways.

That isn't an argument in favour of the existence of God. It's an argument for believing he does exist even if he doesn't.

[dattaswami]

You are assuming a number of false things here: 1) the only reason people don't do bad things in fear. This is not correct. Is this correct about you? 2) Parenting leads to conscience, guilt, shame and awareness of the hurt others feel. One does not need a deity to learn these things. There are all sorts of reason theists and atheists alike do not do certain things. 3) there is no empathy, just fear of punishment. This is also not correct.

The saddest thing about your position is that you think only fear keeps people from murdering and raping, for example. Is that the only reason you do not do these things?

If so, how sad. If not, why assume others are like this.

What a horrible world you live in: no truly good people, only people who are too afraid to bad things and people who do them because they are not afraid (enough).

Not one good essence in the whole bunch.

I agree that to follow justice one need not believe in existence of God. An atheist also will be blessed by the same God if he follow justice strictly. My point is that such an atheist is very rare in this world...

[dattaswami]

The saddest thing about your position is that you think only fear keeps people from murdering and raping, for example. Is that the only reason you do not do these things?

If so, how sad. If not, why assume others are like this.

What a horrible world you live in: no truly good people, only people who are too afraid to bad things and people who do them because they are not afraid (enough).

Not one good essence in the whole bunch.

The concept of existence of God and hell etc is good because it can give an inbuilt resistance to sin in majority of theists. If that concept is also not there then the sins would have risen like tsunami in this world by now!

[dattaswami]

Buddha kept silent about God. This means that God is beyond words

Actually what it means is the Buddha kept silent about God. It is not clear if the Buddha was agnostic, atheist or thought speculating, such as you do, about a deity was problematic.

Buddha kept silent about God because the absolute unimaginable God is beyond words. Even the Veda says that the absolute God can be explained only through silence. Buddha said that this entire world is nonexistent (śūnyam), momentary (kṣaṇikam), fully of misery (duḥkham) and made of matter and energy (vastusvalakṣaṇam). Vastu means an item of creation which is made of matter, which is gross.

Svalakṣaṇam means the property of the gross matter. It refers to energy which is subtle. Here, energy need not mean only the inert forms of energy. It also means awareness, since it is also a form of energy. The misery mentioned by Buddha, pertains to awareness, which confirms the fact that the term svalakṣaṇam includes awareness as one of the forms of energy. Buddha indicated the absolute God through silence. The absolute God is the God existing alone before creation. With respect to the absolute God, creation was nonexistent before its creation and is actually nonexistent even after its creation. Hence, Buddha refers to creation as śūnyam, which means ‘nothingness’.

God is the absolute truth whereas creation is always nonexistent with respect to Him. Even though creation is actually nonexistent for God, it appears to be existent to Him only because of His unimaginable omnipotence. The nonexistence of creation refers to the state before creation. The same nonexistence being perceived to be existence through the unimaginable power of God, refers to the state after creation. There is no contradiction between the nonexistence and the existence of creation owing to the unimaginable power of God.

While God is the absolute truth, creation, due to its apparent existence with respect to Him, is said to be a relative truth. The absolute God created creation for His entertainment. God watches the nonexistent creation as if it were existent and derives entertainment. Since God is eternal and has been watching creation for an extremely long period of time, any event in creation is only momentary for Him. Hence, Buddha calls creation kṣaṇikam, which means momentary.

[Iwannaplato]

You are assuming a number of false things here: 1) the only reason people don't do bad things in fear. This is not correct. Is this correct about you? 2) Parenting leads to conscience, guilt, shame and awareness of the hurt others feel. One does not need a deity to learn these things. There are all sorts of reason theists and atheists alike do not do certain things. 3) there is no empathy, just fear of punishment. This is also not correct.

The saddest thing about your position is that you think only fear keeps people from murdering and raping, for example. Is that the only reason you do not do these things?

If so, how sad. If not, why assume others are like this.

What a horrible world you live in: no truly good people, only people who are too afraid to bad things and people who do them because they are not afraid (enough).

Not one good essence in the whole bunch.

I agree that to follow justice one need not believe in existence of God. An atheist also will be blessed by the same God if he follow justice strictly. My point is that such an atheist is very rare in this world...

But that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that you think the only reason people avoid doing bad things is fear of God. Can you not see that that is a very dark view of humans. We have empathy and it's built into us, even if some people because of damage don't act that way. What your belief system allows for is good behavior based on fear of punishment. That is not a belief system that allows for good people. It's people who are afraid to do what (you think)they want.

[Iwannaplato]

Buddha kept silent about God because the absolute unimaginable God is beyond words.

Then why do you speak of God? How could you possibly recognize God when God incarnates in human form? Why does Jesus speak of God? Why does the Bible? Why do you talk about God's intentions and emotions? The Koran and thus Muhammad described God as merciful, omnicient, omnipotent and tells us God will ressurect all humans. This is tells us about not only what God is like but telling us what his intentions are for the future.

Even the Veda says that the absolute God can be explained only through silence.

But you, the Koran, Jesus and other relgious leaders talk about God.

While God is the absolute truth, creation, due to its apparent existence with respect to Him, is said to be a relative truth. The absolute God created creation for His entertainment.

And here you are telling us the motives of a God you say is unimaginable.

God watches the nonexistent creation as if it were existent and derives entertainment.

And here you tell us about his experience of the world.

Since God is eternal and has been watching creation for an extremely long period of time, any event in creation is only momentary for Him.

And here again you are telling us about what God experiences. If he is unimaginable, perhaps he can and does like to savor his experience of events in creation and plays them very slowly for himself.

You don't know, at least according to you, but yet you go ahead and talk about this unimaginable God all the time.