Could god be dimensionless point of consciousness AND-----------

[Prometheus]

Perhaps its time for you to reassess your thinking then.

 

It's always time to reassess my thinking.

 

 

 

Wallace is a Buddhist scholar and as he says those who think that Buddhism is non-theistic are inexcusably ignorant

 

Wallace is entitled to his opinion. But just because he says something doesn't make it true. You can find Buddhist scholars who think the Buddha had a golden bell end (glans penis, if that doesn't translate internationally) if you want to believe that too.

 

 

 

Your personal wish-thinking has no bearing in reality and in scriptural evidence.

 

Would that be the scriptural evidence i'm still waiting for you to post? BTW nothing Wallace writes, as imminent a scholar as he may be, will ever be scripture. You do realise this?

 

 

 

Tibetan Buddhism is the culmination of all Buddhist teachings, don't try to make it as a separate sect

 

I can only assume you jest. Or do you honestly believe Tibetan Buddhism is the culmination of all Buddhist teachings? They are a branch of Buddhism, among many. There are even branches within Tibetan Buddhism. But the to say that represents the entirety of Buddhism... wow.

 

 

 

Everything in Buddhism is made esoteric, just because you think that such a core concept doesn't exist in the eight fold path to nirvana doesn't mean that the people of Vajrayana tradition doesn't know to interpret the same core concepts from the same scriptures which you study.

 

Yes, the Vajrayana tradition does interpret scripture in very esoteric ways. What about the other Mahayana traditions, or the Theravadin traditions? Apparently they are not Buddhism - only the Vajrayana tradition?

 

 

 

Its disappointing to see people who claim themselves to be... Buddhists etc themselves don't know what are the true doctrines of their own religions.

 

Tell you what. I don't think anyone here actually cares about our discussion - and why should they, this is a science forum.

 

Why don't we take this debate to a Buddhist forum or two and continue where many Buddhists can contribute?

 

If it is amenable to the mod team here, perhaps we can provide a link to this Buddhist forum here so people can follow the debate (if someone has read all our squibbles this far, it is clear they have a genuine wish to know the truth about Buddhism and so it wouldn't be like sending traffic away).

 

Would you agree to this compromise?

[immortal]

Tell you what. I don't think anyone here actually cares about our discussion - and why should they, this is a science forum.

 

Why don't we take this debate to a Buddhist forum or two and continue where many Buddhists can contribute?

 

If it is amenable to the mod team here, perhaps we can provide a link to this Buddhist forum here so people can follow the debate (if someone has read all our squibbles this far, it is clear they have a genuine wish to know the truth about Buddhism and so it wouldn't be like sending traffic away).

 

Would you agree to this compromise?

 

Okay, fine, you wish to discuss it in a Buddhist forum so it be, follow here -

 

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/buddhism-dir/142512-buddhism-theistic.html#post3173466

 

Let's see how it goes but don't assume that it will be the opinion of genuine Buddhists from the far east, that forum too has the same ethnicity problem as this one.

[Prometheus]

Because genuine Buddhists can only come from the far east, right?

 

Are you Pleroma? I'll join the site and debate a later today or tomorrow when i get a chance.

 

Here are two more forums, which might have a higher percentage of your genuine Buddhists you might want to try:

 

http://www.dharmawheel.net/

 

http://www.dhammawheel.com/index.php

[immortal]

Because genuine Buddhists can only come from the far east, right?

 

Yes, I see a huge difference in how people with in the tradition interpret the scriptures and how scholars who study them only for academic purposes interpret it. Remember its people who are with in the tradition who have the practical knowledge to design the mandala for that respective deity and invoke it.

 

Are you Pleroma? I'll join the site and debate a later today or tomorrow when i get a chance.

 

Yes.

[imatfaal]

.....

Let's see how it goes but don't assume that it will be the opinion of genuine Buddhists from the far east, that forum too has the same ethnicity problem as this one.

 

 

We see our multicultural supranational nature as a benefit rather than a problem

[Prometheus]

Dude. You've managed to get the thread closed within a day and before I even get a chance to contribute?

[immortal]

Dude. You've managed to get the thread closed within a day and before I even get a chance to contribute?

 

They just don't allow anyone to debate in the DIR forums, its their rule. They have moved the thread to the same faith debates you can contribute here -

 

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/same-faith-debates/142512-dharmic-only-buddhism-theistic.html

[Prometheus]

So first they moved your thread out of the Buddhism section and then you've managed to get that thread suspended too. When I finally get a chance to comment on the thread I will have to apologise to them.

 

Did you want to try one of the other Buddhist forums?

[immortal]

So first they moved your thread out of the Buddhism section

 

I sort of expected that because they don't allow anyone to debate in the DIR forums, its only to learn about the religion. One cannot go there and argue Buddhism is wrong or Christianity is wrong.

 

and then you've managed to get that thread suspended too. When I finally get a chance to comment on the thread I will have to apologise to them.

 

 

It was not intended, well I don't know what the moderators there found so offensive about, if one is not allowed to back up evidence to support their position and reply to an another member explaining one's own position then how can truth come out of such a discussion. They think I am ridiculing Buddhists while all along I am arguing for the existence of deities in the Vajrayana tradition which was in the best interests of Buddhism. No one is arguing that these deities exist externally which is an another strawman made against my view.

 

 

Did you want to try one of the other Buddhist forums?

 

If people ignore evidence and simply say you're entitled to your opinion then even if you try with another 100 Buddhist forums the effort is simply in vain to make them realize how wrong some of their pre-conceived notions are. Honestly speaking the Vajrayana tradition takes the existence of these deities very seriously and the so called non-theistic or atheistic Buddhism is a vehement lie born out of ignorance.

[Prometheus]

If you think you could go to a hundred Buddhist forums, speaking to several Buddhists from each, and they tell you your understanding of Buddhism is lacking, do you not think it might actually be true? How many Buddhists need to tell you before you believe them?

[immortal]

If you think you could go to a hundred Buddhist forums, speaking to several Buddhists from each, and they tell you your understanding of Buddhism is lacking, do you not think it might actually be true? How many Buddhists need to tell you before you believe them?

 

The simple popularity of a belief doesn't make it to be true. The misrepresentation of the traditional view that these deities are symbolic and aid only in meditative practices rather than believing in their existence as it is, is something which has happened over the years and it needs a fixing.

[Prometheus]

 

The simple popularity of a belief doesn't make it to be true.

 

No it doesn't, but we're not talking about whether gods actually exist but whether Buddhists believe in them. If you are unwilling to take the word of many Buddhists quoting from various sources that's your prerogative. There is a sufficient trail here now for any interested reader to know your views of Buddhism are not those held by Buddhists themselves, which is all i wanted to achieve, so i won't post anymore on this subject.

[immortal]

 

No it doesn't, but we're not talking about whether gods actually exist but whether Buddhists believe in them. If you are unwilling to take the word of many Buddhists quoting from various sources that's your prerogative. There is a sufficient trail here now for any interested reader to know your views of Buddhism are not those held by Buddhists themselves, which is all i wanted to achieve, so i won't post anymore on this subject.

 

You cannot escape from the truth of your own religion, Can you? Playing the numbers game won't help you, I gave you long reason why non-theistic Buddhists are not genuine Buddhists, the numbers of non-theistic Buddhists worldwide is irrelevant. Atheistic Buddhists don't know that atheistic Buddhism is simply dead, they are nothing different from the people who insist that earth is flat and deny that there are no gods in their religion.

 

BTW, who said Buddhists don't believe in deities? who said Buddha didn't taught about deities?

 

http://www.rinpoche.com/teachings/bardo.pdf

 

 

Question: You talked about the peaceful and wrathful deities. Most Westerners don’t know they exist. Is it possible to recognize fear, anger and wrathful things in bardo?

 

Rinpoche: This is the reason Trungpa Rinpoche had the Tibetan Book of the Dead translated, printed, and distributed everywhere. It is very beneficial in introducing people to the bardo.

 

 

Question: Who taught these teachings and where were they first revealed? Were they from the historical Buddha or from the Tibetan tradition?

 

Rinpoche: These are Tibetan teachings, but the source of these teachings is found in the tantras. In the tantras you can find the 42 peaceful and 58 wrathful deities. You can’t find this complete teaching in the tantra though, but you can recognize deities in specific tantras and know about what is held in the hands and all contents of this teaching. That was taught by the Buddha.

 

Its quite clear that one has to believe in the existence of these deities to achieve nirvana and that's what Buddha taught. Modern Buddhists who are ignorant of the Vajrayana traditional view can go to any extent in twisting the dharmakaya and even distorting the sensitive traditional views, right? I am quite happy to see scholars and philosophers like Dr. Alan Wallace and Jonathon Duqette even though they are from the same academic world are beginning to realize that the traditional view should be given much credence which modern Dharmic people cannot see it lacking simple common sense.

 

You might not post anymore without giving some justification for this, but I really don't care because they themselves are at a loss and making fools of themselves.

Edited December 13, 2012 by immortal

[Dekan]

Does Buddhism really have 42 peaceful and 58 wrathful deities? That seems to load the odds in favour of the bad guys.

 

Compare that to Christianity. It has a much more favourable balance - just one bad guy "Satan", up against a Trinity of no less than three goodies "The Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost".

 

This provides a 3 to 1 numerical superiority over Satan. Quite attractive odds, in military terms. Offering good prospects for a Christian victory, and the rout of Satan. Followed by a peaceful heavenly future.

 

Whereas the Buddhists seem to have bleaker prospects, facing a 42/58 inferiority in the correlation of forces.

Perhaps they are relying on the blast of a Buddhist V-weapon, brighter than a thousand suns?

 

Or is it all gibberish.

Edited December 13, 2012 by Dekan

[immortal]

Does Buddhism really have 42 peaceful and 58 wrathful deities?

Yes.

That seems to load the odds in favour of the bad guys.

Religion understands good and evil as something which exists with in your Self and teaches one to transcend both good and evil.

Wrathful Deities

 

Wrathful deities suggest the mighty struggle involved in overcoming one's alienation. They embody all the inner afflictions which darken our thoughts, our words, and our deeds and which prohibit attainment of the Buddhist goal of full enlightenment. Traditionally, wrathful deities are understood to be aspects of benevolent principles, fearful only to those who perceive them as alien forces. When recognized as aspects of one's self and tamed by spiritual practice, they assume a purely benevolent guise.

 

Compare that to Christianity. It has a much more favourable balance - just one bad guy "Satan", up against a Trinity of no less than three goodies "The Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost".

With in orthodox Christianity itself there is this concept of light and dark forces and angels.

19. What, seemingly, we are to understand by the words, "God divided the light from the darkness."

 

Accordingly, though the obscurity of the divine word has certainly this advantage, that it causes many opinions about the truth to be started and discussed, each reader seeing some fresh meaning in it, yet, whatever is said to be meant by an obscure passage should be either confirmed by the testimony of obvious facts, or should be asserted in other and less ambiguous texts. This obscurity is beneficial, whether the sense of the author is at last reached after the discussion of many other interpretations, or whether, though that sense remain concealed, other truths are brought out by the discussion of the obscurity. To me it does not seem incongruous with the working of God, if we understand that the angels were created when that first light was made, and that a separation was made between the holy and the unclean angels, when, as is said, "God divided the light from the darkness; and God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night." For He alone could make this discrimination, who was able also, before they fell, to foreknow that they would fall, and that, being deprived of the light of truth, they would abide in the darkness of pride. For, so far as regards the day and night, with which we are familiar, He commanded those luminaries of heaven that are obvious to our senses to divide between the light and the darkness. "Let there be," He says, "lights in the firmament of the heaven, to divide the day from the night"; and shortly after He says, "And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: the stars also. And God set them in the firmament of the heaven, to give light upon the earth, and to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness." But between that light, which is the holy company of the angels spiritually radiant with the illumination of the truth, and that opposing darkness, which is the noisome foulness of the spiritual condition of those angels who are turned away from the light of righteousness, only He Himself could divide, from whom their wickedness (not of nature, but of will), while yet it was future, could not be hidden or uncertain....

 

11. Whether the angels that fell partook of the blessedness which the holy angels have always enjoyed from the time of their creation.

 

And since these things are so, those spirits whom we call angels were never at any time or in any way darkness, but, as soon as they were made, were made light; yet they were not so created in order that they might exist and live in any way whatever, but were enlightened that they might live wisely and blessedly. Some of them, having turned away from this light, have not won this wise and blessed life, which is certainly eternal, and accompanied with the sure confidence of its eternity; but they have still the life of reason, though darkened with folly, and this they cannot lose, even if they would. But who can determine to what extent they were partakers of that those who through it are truly and fully blessed, resting in a true certainty of eternal felicity? For if they had equally participated in this true knowledge, then the evil angels would have remained eternally blessed equally with the good, because they were equally expectant of it. For, though a life be never so long, it cannot be truly called eternal if it is destined to have an end; for it is called life inasmuch as it is lived, but eternal because it has no end. Wherefore, although everything eternal is not therefore blessed (for hell-fire is eternal), yet if no life can be truly and perfectly blessed except it be eternal, the life of these angels was not blessed, for it was doomed to end, and therefore not eternal, whether they knew it or not. In the one case fear, in the other ignorance, prevented them from being blessed. And even if their ignorance was not so great as to breed in them a wholly false expectation, but left them wavering in uncertainty whether their good would be eternal or would some time terminate, this very doubt concerning so grand a destiny was incompatible with the plenitude of blessedness which we believe the holy angels enjoyed. For we do not so narrow and restrict the application of the term "blessedness" as to apply it to God only, though doubtless He is so truly blessed that greater blessedness cannot be; and, in comparison of His blessedness, what is that of the angels, though, according to their capacity, they be perfectly blessed?...

 

- City of God, Saint Augustine.

 

This provides a 3 to 1 numerical superiority over Satan. Quite attractive odds, in military terms. Offering good prospects for a Christian victory, and the rout of Satan. Followed by a peaceful heavenly future.

Seems like a fascinating sport.

14. An explanation of what is said of the devil, that he did not abide in the truth, because the truth was not in him.

 

Moreover, as if we had been inquiring why the devil did not abide in the truth, our Lord subjoins the reason, saying, "because the truth is not in him." Now, it would be in him had he abode in it. But the phraseology is unusual. For, as the words stand, "He abode not in the truth, because the truth is not in him," it seems as if the truth's not being in him were the cause of his not abiding in it; whereas his not abiding in the truth is rather the cause of its not being in him. The same form of speech is found in the psalm: "I have called upon Thee, for Thou hast heard me, O God," where we should expect it to be said; Thou hast heard me, O God, for I have called upon Thee. But when he had said, "I have called," then, as if some one were seeking proof of this, he demonstrates the effectual earnestness of his prayer by the effect of God's hearing it; as if he had said, The proof that I have prayed is that Thou hast heard me.

 

15. How we are to understand the words, "The devil sinneth from the beginning."

 

As for what John says about the devil, "The devil sinneth from the beginning," they who suppose it is meant hereby that the devil was made with a sinful nature, misunderstand it; for if sin be natural, it is not sin at all. And how do they answer the prophetic proofs,--either what Isaiah says when he represents the devil under the person of the king of Babylon, "How art thou fallen, O Lucifer, son of the morning!" or what Ezekiel says, "Thou hast been in Eden, the garden of God; every precious stone was thy covering," where it is meant that he was some time without sin; for a little after it is still more explicitly said, "Thou wast perfect in thy ways?" And if these passages cannot well be otherwise interpreted, we must understand by this one also, "He abode not in the truth," that he was once in the truth, but did not remain in it. And from this passage, "The devil sinneth from the beginning," it is not to be supposed that he sinned from the beginning of his created existence, but from the beginning of his sin, when by his pride he had once commenced to sin. There is a passage, too, in the Book of Job, of which the devil is the subject: "This is the beginning of the creation of God, which He made to be a sport to His angels," which agrees with the psalm, where it is said, "There is that dragon which Thou hast made to be a sport therein." But these passages are not to lead us to suppose that the devil was originally created to be the sport of the angels, but that he was doomed to this punishment after his sin. His beginning, then, is the handiwork of God; for there is no nature, even among the least, and lowest, and last of the beasts, which was not the work of Him from whom has proceeded all measure, all form, all order, without which nothing can be planned or conceived. How much more, then, is this angelic nature, which surpasses in dignity all else that He has made, the handiwork of the Most High!...

 

- City of God, Saint Augustine

Whereas the Buddhists seem to have bleaker prospects, facing a 42/58 inferiority in the correlation of forces.

Perhaps they are relying on the blast of a Buddhist V-weapon, brighter than a thousand suns?

Perhaps they have the necessary skills to create new forces of light.

From the ashes came Bhandasura Who made all the world as impotent and ruled from the city called Shonitha pura.He started troubling the devas.The devas then sought the advice of Sage Narada who advised them to conduct a fire sacrifice. From the fire rose Sri Lalitha Tripura Sundari.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lalita_sahasranama#Story

Its their sport.

 

Or is it all gibberish.

No, its not.

Edited December 14, 2012 by immortal

[immortal]

 

Thanks. My understanding of adwaita or nondualism is not very deep. So could I very humbly request you to improve upon it or even correct it completely from the perspective of your own knowledge, personal experience & scholarship ?

 

Kindly ignore scholars, scientists turned philosophers and metaphysicians who try to mix Advaita with either modern science or with metaphysics, the only path they lead us is into a blind darkness but read scholars who study religion in its own milieu giving respect to the traditional view.

 

 

Source

 

The pride and concept of the two foolish pundits

 

 

Siddhamuni continued the narrative.

 

Sri Narasimha Saraswati told the pundits that it was wrong, presumptuous and childish on their part to believe that they had mastered all the Vedas and gained all knowledge. It is indeed beyond the ken and capacity of anybody, even of gods, to have full and proper understanding of the Vedas.

 

The Vedas are indeed countless and endless - "Ananta Vai Vedah", it is said. Even Brahmadeva could not gauge the extent of the Vedas. The Lord Himself had to incarnate on earth as Badarayana, .ie, Vyasa, and he collated a small portion of them into the four Vedas, which we have heard of. It is indeed a very very tiny portion of the original Vedic lore abstracted for the purpose of making a beginning and for paving the way for Dharmic life. Even Badarayana, in truth, could not find the beginning and end of the Vedas. As even these four Vedas, tiny portions from the original which is limitless, cannot all be studied and understood by anyone, even if he is allotted aeons of life. Vyasa Bhagvan taught each one of the Vedas (some little portion of each) to one student each, each of whom was specially blessed with the full extent of a Kalpa for their study, Paila learnt a small portion which goes under the name of Rig Veda, Vaisampayana learnt another small portion which goes under the name of Yajur Veda; Jamini learnt Sama Veda and Sumanta learnt Atharva Veda. These at least they could learn, only because of the special grace of their Guru, Vyasa Bhagwan. That being the case, how ridiculous it was for any man, whoose life span was so short to claim and boast that he had mastered the Vedas!

 

In ancient times, Bharadwaja Rishi resolved himself that he should learn and master all the Vedas. As he proceeded with his study, he found that although decades and centuries were rolling by, the progress he could make was too little. He undertook penance to propitiate Brahma and when Brahma appeared before him, he prayed "Grant me as much life span as would suffice for my completing the study of the Vedas". Brahmadeva smiled, as if in derision, and said, "My child! I can make you Chiranjeevi (an immortal), but alas, it is beyond all my powers to help you to make a complete study of all Vedas. See there are infinite heights of the Vedas". As he said this, Bharadwaja Rishi could see the splendorous mountains of the Vedas, their peaks hardly visible, and penetrating into the highest skies. Their effulgence was like that of a million suns. Bharadwaja instantly realised his folly in hoping that he could master all the Vedas, which would never be possible even if he granted millions and millions of aeons as his lifespan. He was crest fallen and fell at the feet of Brahma, that he should somehow bless him with the Vedic wisdom. Brahma gave him three handful of material from the infinite mountain peaks and told him "If you can study and understand this much, you will be most blessed indeed." Bradwaja strove for all his life and he could not complete that much study even, of the three handfuls of material that Brahmadeva gave him. Guru Nath again said, that being the case, how fallacious it is for a mere mortal of he Kali age to claim that he has mastered all the Vedas, alas!

 

Guru Nath now started speaking of the glory of the Vedas and their structure, which was unheard of before by any. Guru Nath said that this was what had been told Vyasa Bhagwan to each of his disciples regarding the respective Vedas he had taught them. Briefly it is as under;

 

Rig Veda has its auxiliary Ayurveda, the Science of Life. It is presiding deity is Brahma. Its Gotra is Atryasa. Its chandas is Gayatri. The Rig Veda Purusha has red lotus like broad eyes, and a three feet long shapely neck. He has beautiful flowing locks of hair. Rig Veda has all in all 12 sections or divisions. It's systematic recital, with the correct inontation, endows greatest merit. Much of the portion of Rig Veda is not known to any in the Kali Age.

 

Sri Narasimha Saraswati told the pundits that the Vedas are most profound. They are sole protection for mankind both in the world here and worlds thereafter. They are to be worshipped as Mother. Humility is the true mark of scholarship. He again emphasised that the knowledge, if at all anyone can gain and profess about the Veda, will be just no more than a grain of sand while the Vedic lore is like the unending stretch of the sandy shores of all seas of the earth.

 

The pundits, in their pride, could not grasp the wise counsel of Sri Narasimha Saraswati and still kept up the air of arrogance.

 

Thus ends the Twenty-sixth Chapter of Sri Guru Charitra giving "A brief account of the four Vedas and their infinite glory".

 

Glory to the All merciful, the OmniPresent and the ever responsive Guru Nath.

 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Source

 

 

The pride and concept of the two foolish pundits

 

 

From this chapter commences the Karma Yoga section of Sri Guru Charitra.

 

Namdharak was rapturously listening to the glorious narration of Guru Leelas being narrated by Siddhamuni, the blessed disciple of Guru Nath. Siddhamuni continued his narrative as under.

 

There was a muslim nawab ruling Vidur Nagar at that time. He had no respect or tolerance for the Hindu religion. He used to tempt Brahmins to come to his court by offering money and gifts, and make them recite the Vedas and explain the meaning. Public recital of the Vedas before anybody and everybody, and especially before the non-believers and who have no reverence, is against the very Vedic injunctions. After making them recite and explain, he used to ignore the deeper sublime meaning of the words, and drawing perverse and distorted meanings of the Vedic words and hymns, he used to taunt the Brahmins, deride the Hindu Religion and gloat over it. But most of the Brahmins never used to come forward, however much the nawab was tempting and pressing them. Veda is our very Mother. It is profound. It is divine. How can any self-respected person bear the Sacred Text being taunted by shallow minded persons viewing at the Text, wearing goggles of prejudice and hatred? None used to come forward to oblige the nawab.

 

However, there were two Brahmins who came forward to be used as pawns in the hand of the nawab. No doubt there were very scholarly persons. They knew the Vedas by rote but had not imbibed even a grain of true wisdom from the Vedic study.

 

The two Brahmin pundits impressed upon the nawab, that there was none in the land with scholarship comparable to theirs. They said that the Nawab should arrange a debate in scriptural and Vedic subjects in his court, and that they would be able to defeat anyone and establish the supremacy and superiority of their scholarship and knowledge over that of others. But none of the Pundits agreed to come to the nawab's court for the contest, because the Vedic subjects were sacred and were meant for Pathana, chanting and contemplation, and not for vada, (ie., not for acrimonious debates). The pundits said they would go out into the country and seek out contest in different villages and towns. If anyone ever dared contest against them, they were confident to defeat them. And in case nobody came forward, that meant an open acknowledgement by all, of the two pundit's supremacy and therefore, the ruler should recognise it and honour them benefitingly. The nawab encouraged them in this, only with object of enjoying watching the pundits disputing amongst themselves acrimoniously.

 

The pundits set out on their challenging campaign, puffed up with pride of the patronage and backing of the Yawan ruler. They came to Kumasi and they were told that Trivikrama Bharati was the most scholarly pundit of the area, and he was defeated, it would establish their unchallengibility. When the pundits proposed to Trivikrama Bharati that he should enter the contest against them, Trivikrama declined, saying it did not befit him, a renunciate and Sanyasi, to enter into discussions and debates for winning name and fame. The pundits said, if he did not want a contest against them, he should acknowledge them as unchallengeable and should accede "Jaya Patra' to them. Trivikrama Bharati saw their conceit and ambition and thought they should be taught a fitting lesson. He took them to Sri Narasimha Saraswati at Gangapur, as soon as they entered into the presence of GuruNath, Trivikrama fell down prostrate at Guru Nath's feet, offering his obeisance. The pundits, however, did not show any respect and they showed off their pride and arrogance.

 

Sri Narasimha Saraswati enquired as if he was not aware of what had brought them to him. Trivikrama Bharati narrated about the campaign on which the pundits had set out. The pundits demanded that Sri Narasimha Saraswati should enter into debate with them or should acknowledge their unchallengeability and should give them the "Jaya Patra".

 

Sri Narasimha Saraswati chided them saying what benefit would accrue to them by their showing off their intellectual scholarship. All the knowledge, knowledge of Vedas and scriptures, will have to be imbibed digested into integrated wisdom, into intuitive experience, fructifying in the realisation of the Self, the spiritual Reality. He cited the instances of Ravana, Banasura, etc, who were all very well versed and proficient in Vedic lore, but which made them highly conceited and egoistic. And what was the result? It led only to their total ruin and destruction, along with all their clan. The Vedic knowledge should be put to use for the conquest of one's senses and ego, and to realise the All pervading divine and spiritual Reality. All the loving well meant advice of Guru Nath fell on deaf ears. It did not change the minds of the Pundits, whoose hearts were deeply set on winning worldly acclaim for 'their scholarship'.

 

Thus ends the Twenty Fifth chapter of Sri Guru Charitra, describing about "the Vain glorious and conceited pundits."

 

Glory to the All merciful, the Omnipresent and the ever responsive Guru Nath.

 

The Vedas are meant for Buddhi-Yoga, but are not meant for Buddhi-Vada. Rationalism (especially the materialist rationalism) cannot reach us beyond Buddhi-Vada. It is only intellect and into the realms of the Spirit, which is the sole and true(ultimate) purpose and aim of the Hindu Scriptures, and for that matter, of all the Religious Scriptures of the world. From the plane of intelligence, into the realm of Intuition, they want men to rise.

 

Only fools think that they can understand Brahman and God through logic and dogmatically claim that they know the truth but their scholarship is worth nothing and they know nothing.

[Bill Angel]

I am a theist & tried to conceive god in various ways. The one way which has satisfied me most is that god is dimensionless point of consciousness & cosmic space is his mind & that universe is a day dream of god.

If God is a point of consciousness and the universe is his dream, then how does one account for the presence in this universe of quantum indeterminancy? If I dream that I see Schrodinger's cat, the cat that see in my dream is either dead or alive, it's not in some undetermined state with some probability of being dead or of being alive.

[chandragupta]

To Bill Angil. Thanks for sharing your thought .Weather God exists or not is dependent on one's faith at present. There is no empirical evidence at present to confirm GOD's existence. This is the universe- size weakness in the argument of existence of god. My idea of God is merely a theory like thousands of other ideas of God which requires empirical or scientific proof. There is a phrase in ADWAIT- VEDANTA re. the issue of proof of the existence of God. This is called " APAROKSHA - ANUBHUTI OF PARMATMA" which is translated in English as "DIRECT EXPERIENCE OF GOD". Till great majority of human beings can directly experience the existence of God by some means , the idea of God will merely be a theory .

[Moontanman]

To Bill Angil. Thanks for sharing your thought .Weather God exists or not is dependent on one's faith at present. There is no empirical evidence at present to confirm GOD's existence. This is the universe- size weakness in the argument of existence of god. My idea of God is merely a theory like thousands of other ideas of God which requires empirical or scientific proof. There is a phrase in ADWAIT- VEDANTA re. the issue of proof of the existence of God. This is called " APAROKSHA - ANUBHUTI OF PARMATMA" which is translated in English as "DIRECT EXPERIENCE OF GOD". Till great majority of human beings can directly experience the existence of God by some means , the idea of God will merely be a theory .

 

 

Not even a theory, until the experience of god can be shown to be more than a hallucination it will remain just something someone claimed to be true, not the definition of a theory...