Do sinful souls, who are born as plants and animals, ever get another human birth?

[dattaswami]

Then how would you possibly know how this being organizes Karma? and how one can be closer to God? Or that Jesus was an incarnation of God?
Can you not see that you are telling us ALL SORTS OF THINGS ABOUT GOD (including that God is beyond space) while at the same time telling us this God cannot be imagined.
[/quote]

Very good question. This is what i was telling all the time. The answer to above questions. God is unimaginable and His actions are also beyond our comprehension. He can run without legs, He can give fire without being fire, He can catch anybody without hands....etc etc.

Now how can be closer to Him?

When this same unimaginable God comes to this world in human form see Him. Since God is impartial He comes to this world in every human generation to preach and uplift us known as Human incarnation of God like Rama, Krishna, Jesus, Muhammad, Sai Baba, Shanakara etc. For us human beings this is the only way to see Him, no other way. The same unimaginable God first created an imaginable energetic form in the upper world and entered into It to become Father of Heaven/Allah/Yahewah/Narayana etc (different religions call Him in different names.) This energetic form of God is visible to the departed souls exists in the upper-world but we cannot see Him.

But the same God can be seen when He comes here in human form like Rama, Krishna, Jesus, Muhammad, Sai Baba, Shanakara etc. This is the only way for us human beings to see God. No other way than this!!

Thus God cannot be even imagined refers to God in His absolute state. God can be seen, refers to when He comes here in human form. Now you may say that God is split!! No God is not split or no two God exists, because God is unimaginable and 2 unimaginable items do not exists. The same God exists in the energetic form(in the upper world) and human form(here on earth).

Since God is impartial He comes to this world in every human generation preach and uplift us.

[promethean75]

"In those births as trees, the souls are quite peaceful, which helps them subside their anger. They also learn to sacrifice their fruits to human beings, which pacifies their greediness and anger."

i dunno what trees you're talking about, but it ain't these trees, swammi.

[Lacewing]

God is unimaginable

Then stop making up so much nonsense about God.

He can run without legs, He can give fire without being fire, He can catch anybody without hands

You can't seem to help yourself. You know why? Because that's how intent you are in serving yourself. Otherwise, you would realize how absolutely ridiculous your claims have become. You ignore that because it serves YOU. That's what it's really all about.

[dattaswami]

God is unimaginable

Then stop making up so much nonsense about God.

He can run without legs, He can give fire without being fire, He can catch anybody without hands

You can't seem to help yourself. You know why? Because that's how intent you are in serving yourself. Otherwise, you would realize how absolutely ridiculous your claims have become. You ignore that because it serves YOU. That's what it's really all about.

Whether unimaginable God exists beyond the boundary of space or within the space, its physical existence is immaterial, which is not its inherent nature. ‘Beyond space’ means not the sense of physical area only. It also means beyond spatial dimensions or volume so that one can never imagine it. When it exists beyond the boundary of space, you can mean that:

i) It is unimaginable having no spatial dimensions and also

ii) It exists beyond the physical area of space. When it exists in the space, you can mean that: i) It is unimaginable having no spatial dimensions, and also, ii) It exists in the physical area of space or world. Having no spatial dimensions is its inherent nature (SwarupaLakshanam). Existing beyond space or within the space is associated nature (TatasthaLakshanam). Existence of an item having no spatial dimensions within the space is possible for its unimaginable power. We are using unimaginable God and unimaginable power as two entities only for clear understanding of souls habituated to the imaginable domain (in which possessor of the power and power are viewed separately) and such difference does not actually exist in the item.

‘Unimaginable’ itself means that any impossible work is possible to the unimaginable. This does not mean that the unimaginable God does everything whether it is proper or improper to show that He can do anything as a proof for His unimaginable nature or power. Even though He can do anything, He does only proper things. Otherwise, you will say that He has no capacity to discriminate proper things from improper things and hence, due to lack of this one capacity, He is not omnipotent, which means that He is not unimaginable. To give perceptional proof for His existence to human beings is a proper thing and hence, He does it by entering the world since entry into the world is not impossible for the omnipotent God.

[Iwannaplato]

So are you saying that you can't imagine more than one unimaginable item?

Or to fussily focus this question...
So, are you saying that there can't be more than one unimaginable possibility?

Yes that is my entire philosohpy that God is unimaginable and there cannot be more than 1 unimaginable!!!!!! Hence God is one only....He exists...

There is no way you could know that. And notice that you assert again that he exists, but even your own assessment was 50%.

So, explain how you could know there is only one unimaginable thing
and
how you can recognize the unimanginable in Jesus and others you say have been that thing incarnate.

[Iwannaplato]

Very good question. This is what i was telling all the time. The answer to above questions. God is unimaginable and His actions are also beyond our comprehension. He can run without legs, He can give fire without being fire, He can catch anybody without hands....etc etc.

You just described the unimaginable, not in its totality, but in part. Do you not see the contradiction with what you have already said?

Now how can be closer to Him?

When this same unimaginable God comes to this world in human form see Him. Since God is impartial He comes to this world in every human generation to preach and uplift us known as Human incarnation of God like Rama, Krishna, Jesus, Muhammad, Sai Baba, Shanakara etc. For us human beings this is the only way to see Him, no other way.

But again, you are imagining him. I also notice that God only seems to come in men for you.
If you now want to mention incarnations in woman form, why don't women make your initial list?
Further, how can you possibly say that they only way to see HIM - note the male pronoun - is through these people?
How can you know the limits of the unimanginable???????????????? Are you saying God can't reach people any other way?

The same unimaginable God first created an imaginable energetic form in the upper world and entered into It to become Father of Heaven/Allah/Yahewah/Narayana etc (different religions call Him in different names.) This energetic form of God is visible to the departed souls exists in the upper-world but we cannot see Him.

And his avatars created very different religions, with different practices, morals, attitudes relationships to things like violence and women.

But the same God can be seen when He comes here in human form like Rama, Krishna, Jesus, Muhammad, Sai Baba, Shanakara etc. This is the only way for us human beings to see God. No other way than this!!

Which you said above and my response is the same.

Since God is impartial He comes to this world in every human generation preach and uplift us.

And here you are telling us 1) a quality 'impartial' so you can imagine and do imagine this God. 2) you are telling us the motives of the God in this sentence, again showing that this deity is imagined by you.

Let me ask you a question, given your guru role, are you capable of admitting mistakes?

[Harbal]

You imagined an item having spatial dimensions only hence it is not God.!!

Can I get round that by imagining that God does have spatial dimensions, do you think? I mean, what harm could it do?

[Impenitent]

sinful soles are born in rental bowling shoes

-Imp

[iambiguous]

I'm not asking scientists or atheists to demonstrate their belief that God does not exist. I'm asking those who do believe in God to demonstrate that, in fact, it is their God, their religious or spiritual path that is "the way" to immortality and salvation.

Why your path and not the path of others? Why your distinction between justice and injustice and not the distinction of others? Why your rendition of Judgment Day and not the rendition of others?

Again, with so much at stake on both sides of the grave.

People have experienced the unimaginable God through inference though not through perception. The unimaginable events called miracles performed by the mediated God are experienced directly through perception.

When the smoke coming from the top of hill is experienced by you through perception, are you not imagining or inferring its source, the fire on the hill? Inference is as good authority as perception.

You may say that you have seen both fire and smoke in the kitchen and may say that you have not seen the unimaginable God and unimaginable miracles together anywhere. Okay. In that case, you have seen both mediated God and performed miracle together.

Is it not? Okay. You think the mediated God Himself as the unimaginable God because the mediated God is the source of the unimaginable miracle. Now, you may say that the mediated God is imaginable and visible and can’t be the unimaginable God. Okay.

Then, I will ask you this question:- How imaginable person generated the unimaginable miracle? If imaginable person can generate the unimaginable miracle, why every imaginable person is not generating the unimaginable miracle?

Hence, the imaginable and visible person generating unimaginable miracle must have the unimaginable source of unimaginable miracle in Himself in hidden way. If you say that the entire imaginable person is imaginable only and there is no hidden unimaginable entity in Him, your argument becomes absurd.

All My above questions will hit you like arrows (in such case every imaginable person must generate unimaginable miracle etc.). Hence, you have to agree that in this imaginable person (performing unimaginable miracle) only unimaginable entity must have been hidden. Therefore, you have to agree to the existence of unimaginable God, who is the source of unimaginable events called miracles perceived by everybody.
For the sake of perception of unimaginable events generated by the mediated God, you can see the CDs of Bhagavān Śrī Satya Sai Bāba doing miracles. Hence, unimaginable God is established by scientific logic. You can propagate this knowledge after seeing the CDs of Bhagavān Śrī Satya Sai Bāba.

What on earth does any of this have to do with the questions I asked above:

Why your path and not the path of others? Why your distinction between justice and injustice and not the distinction of others? Why your rendition of Judgment Day and not the rendition of others?

You do realize that your path is but one of hundreds and hundreds -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_r ... traditions -- of others, don't you?

And that each and every one of the folks on these One True Paths will be out to save your soul as well.

I have absolutely no illusions about sustaining an exchange with you that revolves around my own understanding of either philosophy or religion.

Either through indoctrination as a child or through particular personal experiences that you had later on, you became locked into this specific "general description spiritual contraption" that comforts and consoles you by allowing you to feel anchored to an overwhelming reality that seamlessly intertwines "here and now" and "there and then".

If it does soothe your soul then, okay, you need go no further.

But I always like to give folks a chance to take things a little deeper. This being a philosophy forum and all.

[dattaswami]

described the unimaginable, not in its totality, but in part. Do you not see the contradiction with what you have already said?

Let us take the statement that God is unimaginable. By this statement, you have only the superficial information but not the perfect knowledge of God. If you consider the information itself as knowledge about God, according to your theory God is known through this statement.
Let us take directly the statement that God cannot be known (unknowable). The information given by this statement is giving knowledge of God according to you and thus, God is known through such knowledge. Such knowledge of God contradicts the very statement that the knowledge of God is impossible since God is unknowable. The meaning of the statement should not contradict the very statement. Hence, the meaning of this statement is not the knowledge about God, but, is only information about God that the knowledge of God is impossible.

Even in the imaginable domain such a statements are possible. A common man sees the sunlight and says that sunlight is present. This does not mean that the common man knows all the concepts of the light energy like scientist. If you utter the word “light”, it means only the information about
light and not the knowledge of light energy as possessed by a scientist. Since the common man is not a scientist to know all the concepts of light, can you order him not to utter the word ‘light’? You must distinguish between information and knowledge. An illiterate person also speaks that God is pleased with him. This does not mean that he knows that God is unimaginable due to the solid proof of unimaginable boundary of the cosmos. Information is just superficial. Knowledge is deep resulting on discussion through several angles. The information of unimaginable domain can be allowed and you need not fear that mere information makes the
unimaginable domain to become imaginable.

[dattaswami]

And his avatars created very different religions, with different practices, morals, attitudes relationships to things like violence and women.

: People in different regions on the earth have different languages and cultures. To preach these different people, God came in different human forms suitable to these cultures and languages and due to this, different religions are formed. If you look all these religions through the lenses of logic-spectacle, called Universal Spirituality, you will clearly understand that God is only one and the subject preached by Him is also one and the same.

[dattaswami]

And here you are telling us 1) a quality 'impartial' so you can imagine and do imagine this God. 2) you are telling us the motives of the God in this sentence, again showing that this deity is imagined by you.

Let me ask you a question, given your guru role, are you capable of admitting mistakes?

There is a difference between associated characteristic and inherent characteristics.The Veda says that God is unknowable or unimaginable to any human being (Yasyāmatam..., Yato vāco..., Yo buddheḥ parataḥ..., Na medhayā..., Atarkyaḥ... etc.). The Gītā says that no human being can know God (Māṃ tu veda na kaścana...). The Brahma Sūtras also point to the fact that God is unimaginable, at the very beginning of the sūtras. The first sūtram says that the enquiry about God will be made.

It means that there will be an effort to reveal the inherent nature (svarūpa lakṣaṇam) of God. But the second sūtram says that God is He who creates, controls and destroys this world. This is only an associated characteristic of God (taṭastha lakṣaṇam). It only reveals the nature of the work done by God. It does not reveal even a trace of His inherent nature. This means that God is unimaginable to any human being. The Gītā also says that nobody knows the original unimaginable God (Māṃ tu veda na kaścana...). Here, the word ‘Me’ (māṃ) used by Kṛṣṇa indicates the unimaginable God merged with Kṛṣṇa.

Svarūpa lakṣaṇam and taṭastha lakṣaṇam: Svarūpa lakṣaṇam means an inherent quality that is useful to identify the possessor of the inherent quality. E.g. “This brown cow belongs to Devadatta (Kapilā gauḥ devadattasya)”. The cow may be in any place and we will still identify it by its inherent brown colour. Hence, it is a real identification and the brown color is its inherent quality or svarūpa lakṣaṇa. The taṭastha lakṣaṇam is an associated quality. That association of the quality with the possessor of the quality is only temporary and so, the associated quality will not be useful in identifying the possessor.

E.g. “The cow, which is eating grass on the south border of the field of Yajñadatta belongs to Devadatta (Yajñadattasya kṣetra-dakṣiṇasīma-tṛṇāśana-parā-gauḥ devadattasya)”. The cow may move to some other place by the time we go there to identify the cow of Devadatta. Hence, the associated quality does not enable a real identification. Similarly, we are informed of the associated characteristic of the unimaginable God, which is the fact that He is the creator, controller and destroyer of this world. This associated characteristic is not a real identification of God because not a single inherent characteristic of God is revealed to enable a real identification.

[dattaswami]

But again, you are imagining him. I also notice that God only seems to come in men for you.

There is only one God, whereas, devoted souls are many and they have different tastes regarding their relationships with God. As such, there cannot be any relation or bond between the unimaginable God and devotees due to His unimaginable nature. All these bonds that devotees have with God are only with the imaginable mediated God. When God is mediated, i.e., when He enters into a medium, the medium may be male or female. But generally, it is male. The soul is also mediated by a body, which too, could be either male or female with equal probability.

Generally, the male is supposed to protect the female since the male usually has a stronger and more powerful body. The female is generally protected by the male due to her comparatively tender body. Based on this fundamental difference observed among human beings, God is said to be male (Puruṣa) and the soul is said to be female (prakṛti). In Sanskrit, the word puruṣa, which means male, also happens to be a masculine noun (puṃliṅga) and the word prakṛti is a feminine noun (strīliṅga), since in Sanskrit, nouns have gender.

In the Hindu tradition, a woman who is bonded to a man as his married wife is considered to be very precious and holy. This is similar to a devoted soul bonded to God due to devotion. Hence, the media of God are always masculine, whereas, the media of the soul could be either masculine or feminine, in the external sense of the body. Actually, the unimaginable God present in the male medium is beyond gender and the soul present in either a male or a female body is also beyond gender. This distinction of gender is purely limited to the external medium or the body alone.

The man is slightly stronger than the woman. God is vastly more powerful than the soul since God is omnipotent. To indicate this difference in power and capabilities between God and the soul, God generally enters into a male medium. Even though souls could be either male or female from the point of view of their external body, essentially, all souls have a female nature with respect to God. It means that they depend on God for their protection. Hence, all souls are only included under the prakṛti category (creation) and not under the Puruṣa category (Creator) (Prakṛtiṃ Puruṣaṃ caiva...—Gītā). In this two-level classification of Puruṣa and prakṛti, Puruṣa exclusively means God. Prakṛti (creation) is further classified into awareness and inert creation, which is soul (parā prakṛti) and the body (aparā prakṛti), respectively. But it is important to note that awareness or soul is part of prakṛti alone.

[dattaswami]

So, explain how you could know there is only one unimaginable thing
and
how you can recognize the unimanginable in Jesus and others you say have been that thing incarnate.

God in human form like Jesus is identified from the excellent divine knowledge that He preaches. Scholars identify through knowledge only and ordinary souls identify through miracles. Recognition by miracles alone is not correct because even demons perform miracles. In fact, the Veda told that God shall be recognized through knowledge only (Satyaṃ jñānam anantamṃ Brahma, Prajñānaṃ Brahma). The Gita also says that knowledge alone is the real identification of God (Jñānītvātmaiva me matam).

Miracles are shown even by demons, which were got by them through rigid penance. Miracles alone can’t decide the divinity. His divinity can be identified through His excellent Spiritual knowledge and love to devotees. These two are the real inherent qualities of God for identity. Knowledge is His personality and love is His beauty. Both these can’t be separated from any human being.

Miracles are like jewels worn and can’t be inherent characteristics like knowledge and love. The jewels can be transferred to others like devilish people also. Between knowledge and love, knowledge is more important because knowledge alone can show the right path for any soul to reach and please God.

The jewels (miracles) can be hidden, but, the personality and beauty can’t be hidden. Knowledge can never be hidden because it is propagated by the devoted disciples of the incarnation. With the help of this excellent Spiritual knowledge itself, one can easily identify the incarnation.

[Iwannaplato]

described the unimaginable, not in its totality, but in part. Do you not see the contradiction with what you have already said?

Let us take the statement that God is unimaginable.

In philosophy this is called cherry picking. You do not just make very abstract vague statements about God. You tell us things like each event in creation is momentary for God. As if you know how God experiences time. You tell us his motives in making creation. You know his motives!!!!! It is not easy to know the motives of other humans who are here and much more imaginable. Yet, you know the reason God made creation.