(written 11-8-99)
Joe writes:
Dear Sitaram:
I never have a chance to talk with a knowledgable Hindu. One difference between what I grew up with (Catholicism) and Hinduism is a difference in our view of God: Hinduism, as I understand it, teaches that God and the universe (and we ourselves) are one, and that enlightenment is reached when we separate ourselves from the illusion of the "self" and find ourselves one with the universe. (Forgive my simplistic understanding).
Catholicism teaches that God is a personal God who created us separate from himself, so that we could be united with Him in a different sense: we retain our identity, not lose it, whereas again I believe enlightenment is attained by losing the self in such a way that there is no difference between God and self. Now here's my question: why would the Hindu God (is this Brahma? Is it + the universe?) or the universe exist in such a way that we needed to find "enlightenment" in the first place? In other words, why does the illusion of the self even exist? I've heard a Hindu maxim "one is truth, two is error". Where did the "error" come from? My confusion is that Catholicism teaches that God has a will. What about Hinduism? Does God have a will? If not, why the illusion of the self? (I am also posting this in the Buddhism newsgroup, because I confess I don't know the difference between Hinduism and Buddhism). Thank you to any replies.
Sitaram: Excellent post! You raise some fascinating and important questions!
One book you might enjoy is "Responses to 101 Questions on Hinduism" by John Renard (Paulist Press) ISBN 0-8091-3845-X
This book is written by Roman Catholics and for Roman Catholics (as far as I can determine, though I do not see a Nihil Obstat or Impremerature. It is endorsed by people who have S.J. and O.S.B. after their names).
The most important page to read, in my opinion, is page 109 , Question 68 "What did Vatican II say about non-Christian faiths in general and Hinduism in particular?"
First, it declared that the church rejects "nothing that is true and holy" in traditions such as Hinduism and Islam, leaving unexplored the question of how one determines just which teachings those might be. Second, the Council reinforced the notion that non- Christian traditions present the possibility of salvation insofar as they are vehicles of grace, and to the degree that they are authentic responses to God's specific communication to their adherents. Third, Catholics are not merely to sympathize and tolerate non-Christians but to seek a positive regard for what is truly wonderful in their heritages. Finally, wrote the Fathers, other traditions can teach Christians of the diverse ways in which God communicates with other people and the unique ways in which the Spirit enlightens them.
Nostra Aetate speaks explicitly of Hinduism in only two full sentences, but they are important ones. It notes approvingly Hinduism's contemplation of the "divine mystery" as expressed in its abundantly fruitful mythological literature and philosophical systems. Secondly, the document mentions Hinduism's search for release from the human condition through the three paths of ascetical action, meditation in search of knowledge, and Bhakti's "trusting flight toward God". The Council thus offers important clues as to what Catholics can see as "true and holy" in Hinduism, most importantly that it represents an advanced and refined quest for the ultimate realities.
You wrote: Hinduism, as I understand it, teaches that God and the universe (and we ourselves) are one, and that enlightenment is reached when we separate ourselves from the illusion of the "self" and find ourselves one with the universe.
This is an expression of the ADWAITA (not-two) Monistic side of the spectrum in Hinduism, represented by Vedanta teachings, Shankaracharyia, etc. But the other side of the spectrum is the DWAITA (two) Dualists, represented by Chaitanya and Vallabh and others. Then there is a middle ground of Vasisthdwaita (semi-dualism), represented by Ramanujan and others. Anyway... for the Monists, worshipper and worshipped are non-different. For the Dualists, worshipper and worshipped are FOREVER SEPARATE. For the semi-dualists, worshipper may merge "infinitessimally close" to worshipped, yet never becomes equivalent or identical.
Now, it is interesting to look at the statement of St. Athanasius of the 4th Century who wrote "God became man, so that man might become god".
So if we examine the spectrum of Hindu thought and devotion, we see it running the gamut from a total non-personal Pantheism (perhaps like Spinoza), where God simply IS the universe and its physical laws; to PAN-EN-THEISM, where God is the Universe, but God has a personality and also is something MORE than the universe; all the way to a totally Christ-like notion of the Supreme Personality of Godhead, Primal Lord, Krishna, who is EXACTLY AS YOU SEE HIM, a charming youth who not only creates the universe and all demi-gods and angelic beings, but also has a physical body, and enjoys companionship and passtimes. And you will find those who use images in their worship (or idolatry as you call it) as well as those who are totally iconoclastic or an-iconic in their worship.
Shivadaasa writes:
Although I loved Sitaram's little essay above, I could not help noticing that he has not addressed the question posed by Joe. And Joe's question IS a profound one. How did "Karma" originate? How did we disassociate ourselves from God? Where did the "error" originate?
From my childhood, I have asked this same question many many times but not one single acceptable answer (which can be verified by the scriptures) has been presented to me. For the most part, my "Gurus" have evaded the question. Since I have not mastered ALL the Hindu scriptures, I cannot quote anything here. But let me offer a simple explanation of why the division between Aatman and Paramaatman occurred.
In one of the Upanishads (I forget which), a description of Naaraayana is provided. (Naaraayana is a general term for God; not necessarily the Being shown with Conch, Discus, Mace and the Lotus). Brahmaa (the creator god, very different from Brahman) created the universe under the direction of Naaraayana or Parameshwara. To provide life to the universe, Naaraayana "entered" the bodies of humans, plants, animals, birds, bacteria, fish and the other innumerable beings. (Now, this is very contrary to my notion of evolution but I am not explaining my own notions here). By His entering the bodies, the bodies became alive. Since He entered the bodies, and since God is Infinite in Scope (which is the essence of the Shaanthimantra "Om Poornamadah Poornamidam..."), there was not any less of Naaraayana; because if you take a finite part away from infinity, the infinity continues to be infinity. And thus we are ALL NAARAAYANA and the original Naaraayana continues to be. We are all sparks of the Universal God Almighty, the Parameshwara, who is Vishnu for some, Great Lord Shiva to others, Mother Lalitha to some, etc.
Why did Naaraayana do this?
The answer is provided in (probably) the same Upanishad. (If someone is truly interested in delving into this, let me know and I will skim through the Upanishads and find out the sources). Originally the Brahman was (existing). It realized that It is the Brahman. It wanted to create (probably for company). So It created. So here we all are, bound by the Karmas that we have created.
Why did Brahman want to create us all? My explanation is that Time is Infinite (which is why Lord Shiva is referred to as Mahaakaala). We will be here for ever and ever. We have to find ways to while away time. It is a lot easier if we enter bodies that provide a sense of the finite, whether it is time, space or love. (Note that we humans truly cannot handle the notion of Infinity; just think of the infinite space we are in and the infinite time we have spent so far or we have to spend in the future, and our heads generally spin). So we engage ourselves in the game that we play day in and day out by locking ourselves in bodies that provide a finite glimpse of the whole Truth.
Now this explanation is why I call going after salvation a futile exercise. What does one achieve after salvation? Let's assume that by following the steps prescribed in the Gita, one becomes liberated. Then what? Then nothing. It is nothingness, although it can be wonderfully calm, serene, quiet and exhilirating. Nevertheless, one should not forget that the Brahman Itself wanted company, otherwise It would not have created the universe. Did'nt Brahman Itself in that state? (The term Brahmaananda was coined after the Brahman, not Brahmaa). So why strive for salvation? One should, on the other hand, help out the fellow creatures, including the poor and sick humans amongst our midst. For this reason, I have great respect for the concept of "Christian Love".
I hope this helps.
- Shivadaasa
Sitaram writes:
Excellent post on Karma! I only had limited time this morning.. and wanted to point a Roman Catholic to some books that might be helpful (written from by Catholics for Catholics).
In my haste, I didnt see the question about how Karma starts. Though I dont think I could have given as good an answer as Shivadaasa.
But, that excellent answer sets me to thinking.
In Vedas... there is a famous verse ".... perhaps God knows, or perhaps He knows not" regarding the ultimate cause of things...
An unsettling verse for the western analytical mind to encounter... a mind , shall we say, addicted to absolute knowledge and divine revelation. Also, a verse which for me reveals some of the poignant honesty and humility of Hindu scriptures.
But I am thinking now about what Socrates said in Plato's dialogues, when he discourses with his female "guru" Diotema, (or perhaps Diotema says this to Socrates): "The GODS do not love WISDOM because they POSSES IT". The point being... Philo-sophia is "love of wisdom" but love implies separation. Now the absolute OPPOSITE of separation is IDENTITY,... in otherwords BRAHMAN IS BRAHMAN IS BRAHMAN, and there IS NO OTHER (i.e. prior to the CREATION).
Now, Shivadaasa's excellent point that Brahman desires OTHER, companionship, DIVINE Lila
(passtimes), but... get this.....
Brahman DESIRES OTHER before other exists, I.E. it is this desire which brings OTHER into
being, AND hence maya, karma, the whole nine yards (or ball of wax). But in a way Brahman
DESIRES to desire, SINCE OTHER does not yet exist for there to be separation and desire,
yearning love. So, in a funny, mind-boggling way, THE PHENOMENAL UNIVERSE is God's Karma,
while... our INDIVIDUAL DESIRES are the driving force of OUR Karma. So, our MUTUAL KARMAS
(desires), i.e. BRAHMAN'S versus OURS, are sort of the driving force of
creation-preservation-destruction, the wheel of birth and death samsara.
I am typing this as fast as I can think, does this make any sense?
But, years ago (30 yrs ago) I read Kojeve "Introduction to the reading of Hegel's Phenomenology of Mind", in which Kojeve speaks at length about "the desire for a desire", to which Kojeve attaches great significance. But my memory is cloudy, and I must dust off my book by Kojeve, if I can find it.
Anyhow, its intriguing to think of Brahman having Karma, (or perhaps we should say anti-karma, in the spirit of modern physicists' matter- anti-matter concept).
Well, enought for now... but I am left once again with that nagging verse from the Rig Veda "perhaps He knows, or perhaps He knows not", ... but I am intrigued by the possiblity that Brahman both knows AND knows not, simultaneously.
Did you ever see a painting of Lord Krishna, covering his eyes, playing hide-and-seek with Radha? Ask yourself what happens when God plays hide-and-seek (He both knows AND knows not)... but then.. thats part of the game, if you want to have a party, right? Its sort of like God in Genesis, asking Adam and Eve in the garden "where ARE you?"; a rhetorical question certainly, but... still.. a question, and not an insignificant question.
I dont know if the following is an apocryphal story or not, but Ram Dass relates in his book "The only dance there is", that once someone asked Sri Ramakrishna, "Why is there evil in the world?", and Ramakrishna's eyes twinkled and he exclaimed, "To thicken the PLOT!"
Joe replies:
Sitaram, you wrote: In Vedas... there is a famous verse ".... perhaps God knows, or perhaps He knows not" regarding the ultimate cause of things... and unsettling verse for the western analytical mind to encounter... a mind , shall we say, addicted to absolute knowledge and divine revelation. Also, a verse which for me reveals some of the poignant honesty and humility of Hindu scriptures.
I guess I have what you would call a western analytical mind, but the verse is not unsettling to me. Remember I don't believe what you believe!
I dont know if the following is an apocryphal story or not, but Ram Dass relates in his book "The only dance there is", that once someone asked Sri Ramakrishna, "Why is there evil in the world?", and Ramakrishna's eyes twinkled and he exclaimed, "To thicken the PLOT!"
So then your concept of God (is this Brahma?) has a will? Or is the idea of a plot just anecdotal? What I'm trying to do is understand the difference between my God (a personal God who became incarnate in a real story - history), and yours. Does yours have a will, then?
Joe writes:
Shivadasa, your wrote: In one of the Upanishads (I forget which), a description of Naaraayana is provided. (Naaraayana is a general term for God; not necessarily the Being shown with Conch, Discuss, Mace and the Lotus). Brahmaa (the creator god, very different from Brahman) created the universe under the direction of Naaraayana or Parameshwara.
I wasn't expecting this point to come up, but since it did, I must ask the question: Brahma created under the direction of Naaraayana or Parameshwara? This means the latter two existed. So Brahma cannot have been the creator. Unless of course, the universe is not part of Brahma, but I thought it was. Please explain. (And by the way, thank you for addressing my original post! I am a devout Catholic who actually learns more about his own faith by learning about others').
To provide life to the universe, Naaraayana "entered" the bodies of humans, plants, animals, birds, bacteria, fish and the other innumerable beings... Why did Naaraayana do this?
That is roughly my question.
The answer is provided in (probably) the same Upanishad. (If someone is truly interested in delving into this, let me know and I will skim through the Upanishads and find out the sources). Originally the Brahman was (existing).
Actually, I have no objection to any quotations, but I do prefer a simple paraphrase! Remember, I'm not well-versed in your belief system. I'm only convinced of mine, and I hope that I'm asking the right questions to learn even more.
It realized that It is the Brahman. It wanted to create (probably for company). So It created. So here we all are, bound by the Karmas that we have created.
The company part I can identify with, being a Christian who believes the Creator to be a loving Father, Love itself.
Shivadaasa, you wrote: Why did Brahman want to create us all? My explanation is that Time is Infinite (which is why Lord Shiva is referred to as Mahaakaala). We will be here for ever and ever. We have to find ways to while away time. It is a lot easier if we enter bodies that provide a sense of the finite, whether it is time, space or love. (Note that we humans truly cannot handle the notion of Infinity; just think of the infinite space we are in and the infinite time we have spent so far or we have to spend in the future, and our heads generally spin). So we engage ourselves in the game that we play day in and day out by locking ourselves in bodies that provide a finite glimpse of the whole Truth.
Interesting. (Not illogical, but not exactly convincing.)
Now this explanation is why I call going after salvation a futile exercise. What does one achieve after salvation?
Salvation is perfection. There is no "after". Salvation is eternal. (Obviously, I'm giving the Christian answer, which is the one I subscribe to).
Let's assume that by following the steps prescribed in the Gita, one becomes liberated. Then what? Then nothing. It is nothingness, although it can be wonderfully calm, serene, quiet and exhilirating.
Forgive me again for finding what sounds inconsistent. Nothingness cannot be wonderful, serene, quiet and exhilerating. It can only be what it is: nothing. For wonder, serenity, silence, and exhileration especially, are very real things, not nothings.
Shivadaasa, you wrote: Nevertheless, one should not forget that the Brahman Itself wanted company, otherwise It would not have created the universe. Didn't Brahman Itself in that state? (The term Brahmaananda was coined after the Brahman, not Brahmaa). So why strive for salvation? One should, on the other hand, help out the fellow creatures, including the poor and sick humans amongst our midst. For this reason, I have great respect for the concept of "Christian Love".
I can understand your respect for the concept (after all, I put my faith in it!) and I hope we can learn from each other. Please keep in mind I'm not out to win an argument. I'm only out to win the truth (even if I lose an argument!) But I hope you're after the same.
Thank you again for responding instead of pointing me to nice but irrelevant sources.
Shivadaasa writes:
I keep forgetting that Christians who ask questions on Hinduism know nothing about Hinduism. I must apologize. I should have added more details before diving into a discourse on Vedantism.
First of all: Hinduism makes a distinct difference between Brahma or Brahman and Brahmaa. Brahman is the Supreme, Indifferent, All Pervasive Neutral Thing that is the source of life for all in the universe. Brahmaa is the creator god. Brahman continues on and on. Brahmaa is born, does his job and croaks. Then another Brahmaa takes his place.
Since Brahman is neutral, and it is generally perceived that neutral materials cannot procreate, a Masculine or Feminine figure emerges when attributes are associated with Brahman. Thus Naaraayana or Parameshwara (Masculine) or Shakthi (Feminine) forms of Brahman are considered the Father and Mother figures for the universe. This probably came about since the Brahmaa is an inadequate god who has a limited life term. Another reason this might have come about is that it is difficult to pray to and adore a neutral thing. It is a lot easier to pray to someone who has a set of given attributes. There is no difference between Naaraayana and Parameshwara. He is simply the Male form of The Supreme. There is no difference between Shakthi and Lakshmee and Paarvathi. She is simply the Female form of The Supereme.
When we say the whole universe is part of Brahman, we don't say the universe is part of Brahmaa, the creator god. Brahmaa is a transient, like you and me. He is created, just like the other gods, to lend a helping hand; while at it, he has many rights and powers accorded to him by Parameshwara.
Finally, I hope you understand that there is fundamentally no difference between Parameshwara and Brahman. Parameshwara or Shakthi are the Saguna (one with attributes) forms of Nirguna (attribute-less) Brahman.
So hopefully you get the picture. There is the eternal life source - Parameshwara/Naaraayana/Brahman - from which emerges the Brahmaa, who creates the universe and eventually both the universe and the creator (Brahmaa) are dissolved in the Brahman; then the next cycle occurs.
This is the never ending cycle described in Hinduism. Nataraaja's dance represents this concept.
Joe writes: Shivadasa, you wrote "I keep forgetting that Christians who ask questions on Hinduism know nothing about Hinduism. I must apologize. "
I'm hope I'm misreading this as a less than charitable comment.
I should have added more details before diving into a discourse on Vedantism.
Actually, I'm not looking for details, just an answer to simple questions. Not that the answers have to be simple, but they should be shorter than the following exhortation:
Shivadaasa wrote: First of all: Hinduism makes a distinct difference between Brahma or Brahman and Brahmaa. Brahman is the Supreme, Indifferent, All Pervasive Neutral Thing that is the source of life for all in the universe. Brahmaa is the creator god. Brahman continues on and on. Brahmaa is born, does his job and croaks. Then another Brahmaa takes his place.
Shivadaasa wrote: Since Brahman is neutral, and it is generally perceived that neutral materials cannot procreate, a Masculine or Feminine figure emerges when attributes are associated with Brahman. Thus Naaraayana or Parameshwara (Masculine) or Shakthi (Feminine) forms of Brahman are considered the Father and Mother figures for the universe. This probably came about since the Brahmaa is an inadequate god who has a limited life term. Another reason this might have come about is that it is difficult to pray to and adore a neutral thing. It is a lot easier to pray to someone who has a set of given attributes. There is no difference between Naaraayana and Parameshwara. He is simply the Male form of The Supreme. There is no difference between Shakthi and Lakshmee and Paarvathi. She is simply the Female form of The Supereme. When we say the whole universe is part of Brahman, we don't say the universe is part of Brahmaa, the creator god. Brahmaa is a transient, like you and me. He is created, just like the other gods, to lend a helping hand; while at it, he has many rights and powers accorded to him by Parameshwara. Finally, I hope you understand that there is fundamentally no difference between Parameshwara and Brahman. Parameshwara or Shakthi are the Saguna (one with attributes) forms of Nirguna (attribute-less) Brahman. So hopefully you get the picture. There is the eternal life source - Parameshwara/Naaraayana/Brahman - from which emerges the Brahmaa, who creates the universe and eventually both the universe and the creator (Brahmaa) are dissolved in the Brahman; then the next cycle occurs. This is the never ending cycle described in Hinduism. Nataraaja's dance represents this concept.
Joe contineus: This was dizzying, and one question pops into my mind: If Parameshwara/Naaraayana/Brahman (let's call it Brahman for short!) is just a "life force", then why would Brahmaa emerge from Brahman in the first place? What is really behind my question is: if Brahman is only a force, and not a will, why the emergence of Brahmaa? What you call "probably for company" sounds like a personal will, not an impersonal "life force".
Shivadasa, you wrote: If you are convinced of Christianity, why are you curious about Hinduism?
Very simply to learn by contrast. The more I learn what Christianity isn't, the clearer my understanding of Christianity, and the clearer my understanding of Christ. The better I know him, the more I can love him.
In any case, I must congratulate you on your belief system. I myself do not have any beliefs, although the Hindu concept of birth and death sound very logical to me.
I respect that (even if I don't agree).
Nothing in the theories propounded by Hindus/Christians/Muslims is totally convincing. Nor is it possible to prove them. Again, I am pointing out that the Hindu theory is a lot more logical explanation for our existence and death than the Christian theory of one time birth and then eternal heaven or hell. Or the Islamic theory which is similar to the Christian theory.
A good point about being able to prove these things. I never claim to be able to prove or disprove my own faith or that of others. The evidence is there and we draw our conclusions (or, quite possibly, Someone draws us into the conclusion!) +++
Sitaram writes:
I have re-read this thread, and pasted below (with my own comments interjected) what I see as the most important questions/statements, but I must take more time to formulate my thoughts. :
Hinduism, as I understand it, teaches that God and the universe (and we ourselves) are one, and that enlightenment is reached when we separate ourselves from the illusion of the "self" and find ourselves one with the universe. (big mistake right here Joe, false assumtion, that Hinduism is monolithic and unilateral in the way that Roman Catholicism is, with the final authority of the Papal Encyclical, or an Authority like Aquinas, therefore it is misleading to say Hindus think this or Hindus think that even though there are 800 million peoople in the world whose beliefs may generically be described as "Hindu").
Catholicism teaches that God is a personal God who created us separate from himself, so that we could be united with Him in a different sense: we retain our identity, not lose it, whereas again I believe enlightenment is attained by losing the self in such a way that there is no difference between God and self. (Sitaram says: as I explained, many schools; monism IS impersonal, speaking of God as Nirguna Brahman, without qualities; Dualism, e.g. in the Chaitanya Sampradaya, Hare Krishna, speaks of God as having a physical body and a personality, and passtimes, a personal "will" and as someone with whom one can have a "personal relationship", just like Protestants constantly speak of their "personal" relationship Jesus [even though the word 'relationship' never appears once in the KJV Bible.... ok granted there is Psalm 23, however a Shepherd is not said to have a relationship with his flock).
Why would the Hindu God or the universe exist in such a way that we needed to find "enlightenment" in the first place? (Sitaram says: One might also ask why the Judaeo-Christian God creates man in such a way that he enters a hopelessly fallen state requiring redemption by a Savior... but one prayer in the Roman Catholic Rubrics refers to the fall of Adam and Eve as 'O FELIX CULPA' ...Oh happy, fortunate fault or sin.... since it allows that intimacy which St. Thomas' doubt, which the Greeks call Holy Doubt, leads Thomas to touch the Incarnate Logos).
Why does the illusion of the self even exist? (Illusion or Maya can be a form of protection and have a positive function; it is not necessarily a lie or evil.... the whole question of whether God can lie is very interesting and very significant. Many Christian schools of thought assume that God cannot lie... even St. Paul states this I believe... but it is not a self-evident truth. the midwives Shiphrah and Pua lied to Pharaoh and it is intimated that God made things go well for them because of the righteousness of their lie... sort of like a minister hiding jews in the basement... and a nazi knocks at the door and asks...'are you hiding any jews').
Joe writes: My confusion is that Catholicism teaches that God has a will. What about Hinduism? Does God have a will? (Sitaram says: again Catholicism IS one,... but Christianity is certainly not ONE doctrinally or dogmatically; nor is HINDUISM one.... there is Vaishnave and Saivite, to name a few, but even in Vaishnave schools there is quite a bit of diversity of thought regarding the problem of good and evil; illusion, etc... between Shankar, Madhva, Ramanujan, Vallabh, etc).
Shivadaasa wrote: How did "Karma" originate? How did we disassociate ourselves from God? Where did the "error" originate?
Shivadaasa: Originally the Brahman was (existing). It realized that It is the Brahman. It wanted to create (probably for company). So It created. So here we all are, bound by the Karmas that we have created.
Shivadaasa: So we engage ourselves in the game that we play day in and day out by locking ourselves in bodies that provide a finite glimpse of the whole Truth.
Shivadaasa: Nevertheless, one should not forget that the Brahman Itself wanted company, otherwise It would not have created the universe. Did'nt Brahman Itself in that state?
Joe: I guess I have what you would call a western analytical mind, but the verse is not unsettling to me. Remember I don't believe what you believe! (Sitaram says: another big mistake joe...you must lay aside what you "believe" and "dont believe" if you want to profit from a genuine inquiry.... to give due consideration to any concept, you must entertain it AS IF IT WERE true... and then consider the consequences... what you are doing here Joe, periodically blurting out 'I dont believe THIS... and THAT is not part of my belief system' is mental laziness; even though I personally reject many Christian beliefs; I am still very capable not only of explaining them, but of instructing others concerning those Christian beliefs; my website is filled with that, and various devout Christians have even thanked me for clarifying certain issues for them)
Joe: What I'm trying to do is understand the difference between my God (a personal God who became incarnate in a real story - history), and yours. Does yours have a will, then?
Joe: Salvation is perfection. There is no "after". Salvation is eternal.
Joe: Please keep in mind I'm not out to win an argument. I'm only out to win the truth (even if I lose an argument!) But I hope you're after the same.
Joe: How does dualism explain the presence of evil and suffering?
Joe: doesn't anyone in that spectrum teach that the physical universe is "false" or "evil"?
Sitaram says: I am reminded of St. Paul's words I Corin. 13:12; "For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known", which is perhaps as close as one can come to a statement of Maya or Illusion in the New Testament.
How can a (presumably) Good, Benevolent God-Creator who never lies but creates a Universe in which there is evil and falsehood and perhaps even a totally evil being like Satan?
Is it possible to demonstrate both in Judaeo-Christian tradition and in Hinduism that God is a GOOD beyond good and evil, a TRUTH beyond truth and falsehood; that truth from human perspective is not ONE,... by multi-faceted like the Jain term ANEKANTAVADA implies?
Let us try and see Maya, Illusion, Error in the Bible, if that is possible... and perhaps try to see that such Falsehood, Illusion, or Maya may even serve some positive function:
(Bear in mind that EVEN IN MATHEMATICS, the purest form of 'truth' universally acknowledged by people of all creeds, the REDUCTIO AD ABSURDAM form of Theorem.. INITIALLY ASSUMES SOMETHING TO BE TRUE WHICH IS NOT... and ultimately arrives at the REAL truth! Is this not an example of a positive role which falsehood or illusion can play. In archetectural science, in the building of the Greek Parthenon, the roof was built WITH A MEASUREABLE CURVE, so that it would GIVE THE ILLUSION of PERFECT straightness to the CURVED retina of the human eye.... the limitations of human vision DEMAND such an illusion inorder to have the EXPERIENCE of perfection).
Isaiah 55:8-9 For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts. (given what this verse says, how can ANY DIVINELY REVEALED STATEMENT FROM GOD BE ANYTHING OTHER THAN misleading, false, inaccurate, A PARTIAL TRUTH, since human kind DOES NOT POSSESS the mind of God necessary to comprehend the TRUTH of God as God comprehends it. Ergo, anything which God chooses to tell us is but a partial truth, just as our explanations to a small child are couched in terms that the CHILD can grasp)
1 Samuel 16:7 for the LORD seeth not as man seeth; for man looketh on the outward appearance, but the LORD looketh on the heart.
Ecclesiastes 3:11 "(God) hath also put Eternity (the World) in (mankinds) hearts, except no one can find out the work that God does from beginning to end.
John 14:2 In my Father's house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you.
Job 12:16 With Him are strength and prudence. The decieved and the deceiver are His. he leads counselors away plundered. And makes fools of the judges..... He takes away the discernment of the elders.... He takes away the understanding of the chiefs of the people of the earth, and makes them wander in a pathless wilderness... He makes them stagger like a drunken man.
Psalm 139: 12 Yea, the darkness hideth not from thee; but the night shineth as the day: the darkness and the light are both alike to thee.
Isaiah 47: 7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.
Lamentation 3:2 He hath led me, and brought me into darkness, but not into light.
Deut 30:19 I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live:
I WISH I HAD MORE TIME TO WRITE ABOUT THIS , there is much more that could and should be said.
Joe wrote (below): Actually, I'm not looking for details, just an answer to simple questions. Not that the answers have to be simple, but they should be shorter than the following exhortation: [many paragraphs of Shivadaasa follow] ... This was dizzying..
Sitaram says:
Joe.... Simple answers to simple questions are for simple minds which study simple topics.
The average American with a college education finds Steven Hawkings book "A brief history of TIme" quite daunting and intimidating. And that book is a MARVELLOUS effort to eliminate much of the complexity and mathematical equations, and offer to the general public the FRUITS AND CONCLUSIONS of the work of modern physisists.
Regarding the paradox of a God with no will and illusion in the world (I suspect you are thinking of deception, and then asking WHO IS IT THAT DECEIVES... if Brahman has no will...). But consider something like Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle or various other conundrums in modern quantum theory (which is like St. Pauls 'through a glass darkly')... a veil FOREVER covering mans intellectual vision, since man can NEVER KNOW simultaneously both the position AND the velocity and direction of any given sub-atomic particle.. since any experiment which can determine ONE of those two parameters will BY ITS VERY NATURE disturb and change the other parameter).
This form of Maya, Illusion, Error... is not necessarily dependant on some Malevolent or Benovelent will.... it is simply "the nature of the beast"... just as the NECESSITY to make the roof of the Parthenon CURVED so that it will APPEAR perfectly straight... is simply 'the way things are' given the nature of the human retina, and human vision, which is an upside-down projection upon a curved surface.. the retina).
That is a masterpiece, Sitaram. Your observation is very accurate and very good.
Just a couple of points about our friend Joe.
(1) He wants answers but he wants very simple answers. Generally, when people ask for simple answers, they expect answers that they know already.
(2) When he is offered an answer, he cannot digest it and so he decides that it is insulting and completely brushes it aside. I can understand someone understanding the subject first and then asking intelligent questions but I have a problem with someone who refuses to understand and ask a question (like the one he asked on Brahmaa and the Brahman).
(3) When I ask him why he wants to know about Hinduism, he replies that he is not seeking truth outside of his religion; he is simply seeking to reinforce his beliefs in Christianity (which he says he knows to be the whole Truth!). How does one reinforce his beliefs in his religion? By proving to himself that other religions are very irrational!!! Obviously our friend has never studied philosophy or logic at any time in his life. By proving another's religion to be false, one does not prove that one's own religion to be true.
(4) He referred to his mind as the typical analytical western mind (Hmmmm). This is quite shocking. I hope other Christians don't refer to themselves as highly analytical as well. Christianity does not need an analytical mind. It just needs belief (which is what our friend Joe has). If the western Christian mind became analytical, Christianity does NOT stand a chance.
Obviously this discussion is getting nowhere. I am beginning to believe that Joe is more interested in proving how stupid Hinduism is rather than try to understand it dispassionately or seek answers to genuine questions he has on Hinduism (or The Truth).
I am done with this thread.
Thanks a lot, gentlemen.
--
Shivadaasa
Joe writes:
First and foremost, thank you for responding!
Sitaram you wrote: One book you might enjoy is "Responses to 101 Questions on Hinduism" by John Renard (Paulist Press) ISBN 0-8091-3845-X
Actually, I'm not interested in more books (I've read too many already). I'm now interested in talking to people. (I'll have to settle for this newsgroup, though I prefer face to face).
First, it declared that the church rejects "nothing that is true and holy" in traditions such as Hinduism and Islam, leaving unexplored the question of how one determines just which teachings those might be.
Obviously it is the responsibility of the Catholic to know as best he can the rest of Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition to discern those teachings. This is probably why it is left unexplored in that particular book. It's probably beyond the scope of the book. I mention this to erase any misconception that the Church teaches that the differences are not extremely important.
Second, the Council reinforced the notion that non- Christian traditions present the possibility of salvation insofar as they are vehicles of grace, and to the degree that they are authentic responses to God's specific communication to their adherents.
This is correct.
Third, Catholics are not merely to sympathize and tolerate non-Christians but to seek a positive regard for what is truly wonderful in their heritages.
I also know this to be correct.
Sitaram wrote: This is an expression of the ADWAITA (not-two) Monistic side of the spectrum in Hinduism, represented by Vedanta teachings, Shankaracharyia, etc. But the other side of the spectrum is the DWAITA (two) Dualists, represented by Chaitanya and Vallabh and others. Then there is a middle ground of Vasisthdwaita (semi-dualism), represented by Ramanujan and others. Anyway... for the Monists, worshipper and worshipped are non-different. For the Dualists, worshipper and worshipped are FOREVER SEPARATE. For the semi-dualists, worshipper may merge "infinitessimally close" to worshipped, yet never becomes equivalent or identical.
How does dualism explain the presence of evil and suffering?
Now, it is interesting to look at the statement of St. Athanasius of the 4th Century who wrote "God became man, so that man might become god".
This is easily misunderstood. It is good that you spelled "god" in lowercase, not to confuse man with God (uppercase). The great saint knew the destiny of God's children in a glorified state, united with God, but not being God.
Sitaram, you wrote: So if we examine the spectrum of Hindu thought and devotion, we see it running the gamut from a total non-personal Pantheism (perhaps like Spinoza), where God simply IS the universe and its physical laws; to PAN-EN-THEISM, where God is the Universe, but God has a personality and also is something MORE than the universe; all the way to a totally Christ-like notion of the Supreme Personality of Godhead, Primal Lord, Krishna, who is EXACTLY AS YOU SEE HIM, a charming youth who not only creates the universe and all demi-gods and angelic beings, but also has a physical body, and enjoys companionship and passtimes. And you will find those who use images in their worship (or idolatry as you call it) as well as those who are totally iconoclastic or an-iconic in their worship.
Sitaram, you wrote: Actually, the "Christ-like notion of the Supreme Personality of Godhead" does not mean that God has a physical body. Christianity professes that God became man, not that God is man. But my real question in response to your summary of the Hindu spectrum (which is quite nice!) is: doesn't anyone in that spectrum nonethess teach that the physical universe is "false" or "evil"?
Sitaram you wrote: You might enjoy visiting my website "Hinduism and Interfaith Dialogues" where some of this is discussed in much more detail. http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Atlantis/3425
Again, I have nothing against such public forums, but I like this one-on-one dialogue, if you don't mind . There is another page entitled "Can someone be Christian AND Buddhist".
No they cannot. (Perhaps I'll get into this later)
Sitaram, you wrote: Since it is always my personal instinct to "defend the under-dog".... I have only VERY POSITIVE things at my website to say about Judaism; and I say many positive things about Roman Catholic tradition. The "bad guys" at my site are the Fundamentalist hell fire and brimestone bible beaters.
I also do not appreciate bashing anyone or anyone bashing me, so we are in complete agreement there.
Sitaram, you wrote: Also, I analyze Islam, the Koran, and the life of Prophet Muhammed to demonstrate that Islam is the most false, man-made and evil of all religions; a threat to world peace, free speech, and freedom of worship. I try to demonstrate that the prophet Muhammed was more evil, depraved, dangerous and self-serving that any Hitler that we could imagine. So, I try to be a modern day Paul Revere, galloping through every village and farm shouting "The Muslims are coming", because I forsee a world-wide Jihad or Holy War which will dwarf World War II.
As a Christian, I share part of your feelings, but not all, about Muslims. But I don't want to sidetrack. There's still my biggest question: What is the cause of the illusion of the self, or Why do we NEED enlightenment? We are we not simply born enlightened? This implies a God who CALLS us (like the Christian God). In other words, the rest of my post:
In other words, why does the illusion of the self even exist? I've heard a Hindu maxim "one is truth, two is error". Where did the "error" come from? My confusion is that Catholicism teaches that God has a will. What about Hinduism? Does God have a will? If not, why the illusion of the self?
This is my question. Thank you again so much!
Sitaram writes:
I dont have much time to respond at length right now.
I know you mention that you have had "enough of books".... but I should mention "A Survey of Hinduism" by Klaus Klaustermaier (SUNY PRESS) as the single most useful paperback to shed light on many of these issues, and give someone an unbiased background, insight, overview of Hinduism.
I shall just rattle off some things from the top of my head.
It is interesting that Rambam (Moses Maimonides) in his "Guide for the purplexed" mentions that he does not believe that God pays attention to ever movement of every atom (and all the chains of cause and effect) in creation. So in the Jewish tradition, at least in Rambam, we see the notion that the physical universe (matter) is sort of set off on its own... (like the energizer bunny once you insert the batteries and it leaves the factory).
So, there are traditions in which the material world is separate from, other than, God..... in contradistinction to theologies in which God is "immanent and transcendent"... and as Lord Krishna tell his uncle/devotee Uddhava "You must see ME in all things, in all creatures; do this and no other offering, prayer, or ascetical discipline is necessary."
It is interesting that God's voice from the flaming bush tells Moses that the "ground upon which he stands" is holy, and therefore to remove his sandals. (we never again see the command for bare feet during worship, though it is essential in Hinduism/Buddhism to this day).
So ground can be holy, and the Mount Sinai is holy as well.
Now, the Greeks have an interesting, ancient prayer...
O pantachou paron kai ta panta pleeron
"O Thou who art everywhere present, and fillest all things"
O thesauveros ton agathon kai zoees horeegos
"Treasury of every good thing and giver of life"
Elthe kai skeenoson en eemeen
"Come and dwell within us"
"Kai KATHAREESON eemas apo pasis keeleethos"
And CLEANSE us from every uncleaness...
Kai SOSON AGATHE tas psychas eemon
And Save , o Good one, our souls.....
See how interesting this prayer is? If God is "EVERYWHERE PRESENT AND FILLS ALL THINGS"... THEN why is it necessary to request that God take a dwelling or residence within us.
If God is the SOURCE OF EVERY GOOD THING (what is the source of all the bad things?)
AND GIVER OF LIFE (shall we infer that life is one of those GOOD THINGS)...
NOW the prayer asks God to "come and dwell in us"... but THEN it adds... AND CLEANSE US OF ALL UNCLEANNESS.... so obviously, when
God first enters this "dwelling" it is still dirty...
(hmmmm Martha scurrying around tyding up while Mary sits at Jesus feet?)
CAN YOU SEE HOW THESE THINGS touch provocatively and poingnently upon your questions regarding God, creation, matter, and evil?
Not that I pretend to know all the answers........
but now.. hmmm... lets look to the Psalms.... and we see
"I went to the mountain tops, and YOU were there, I descended beneath the see, and you were with me..." (paraphrasing from memory)...
but also we see... "Praise him o Sun and Moon, praise him all ye stars and lights, praise him ye heavens of heavens, and thou waters that art above the heavens , let them praise the name of the Lord,.... for he spake and they came to be... he commanded and they were created,... he established them forever, yea forever and ever, He hath set an ordinance, and it shall not pass away....."
and we see Psalms like... "When thou openest thy hand, all things are filled with goodness, when thou turnest away thy Face, the mountains tremble and smoke".....
so we see the physical universe, PRAISING AND OBEYING God.... and we see in genesis that God proclaims all creation to be "very good"....
and yet... when Jesus commands thay they cast a line or net at a certain place... and a fish is pulled up with a coin in its mouth... to pay the taxes... well... hmmmm...... let us consider.... the MOST interesting interpretation is that God-man Theanthropos Jesus, mentally commands the fish to perform the difficult feat to fetch a coin which God knows in his omniscience to have fallen in the ocean, and to then perform the more difficult feat of biting onto the hook WHILE the coin is in the mouth..... (this is a more inspiring theory than the notion that Jesus simply CREATED the fish AND the coin EX NIHIL... or that the fish simply HAPPENED to already have a coin in mouth, and happened to be passing by...)... this theory reflects the Psalms notions of the Sun Moon wind, rain, hail, all material nature, obeying and praising God,... as well as the Great Leviathan.... and the little fish...
well... perhaps there is enough food for thought here....
I must go... but I find all this most interesting,.. I hope you do as well...
Joe writes:
Sitaram, you wrote: It is interesting that Rambam (Moses Maimonides) in his "Guide for the purplexed" mentions that he does not believe that God pays attention to ever movement of every atom (and all the chains of cause and effect) in creation. So in the Jewish tradition, at least in Rambam, we see the notion that the physical universe (matter) is sort of set off on its own... (like the energizer bunny once you insert the batteries and it leaves the factory).
I'm not Jewish, but I know this is definitely not Jewish teaching. The Talmud says that behind every blade of grass is an angel of God whispering "grow...grow....". The Judeo-Christian God did not leave the physical universe "on its own".
So, there are traditions in which the material world is separate from, other than, God..... in contradistinction to theologies in which God is "immanent and transcendent"...
Again, to clarify, these traditions you speak of are neither Jewish nor Christian. I would like to stick with true, not false, representations of my (and your) beliefs.
Sitaram, you wrote: It is interesting that God's voice from the flaming bush tells Moses that the "ground upon which he stands" is holy, and therefore to remove his sandals. (we never again see the command for bare feet during worship, though it is essential in Hinduism/Buddhism to this day).
I'm not sure what is interesting in this, except the ancient common response to a holy place.
So ground can be holy, and the Mount Sinai is holy as well. Now, the Greeks have an interesting, ancient prayer... see how interesting this prayer is? If God is "EVERYWHERE PRESENT AND FILLS ALL THINGS"... THEN why is it necessary to request that God take a dwelling or residence within us.
Because God can be present not only in everthing, but in different ways. Just as you can be present in a painting you painted, but differently in a photograph, or even more so in person.
If god is the SOURCE OF EVERY GOOD THING (what is the source of all the bad things?)
You first have to define "bad things." My faith teaches that evil is a parasite of good. God is not the source of evil. The abuse of free will is the source of evil. But we're just getting further and further from my original question!
Sitaram, you wrote: AND GIVER OF LIFE (shall we infer that life is one of those GOOD THINGS)... NOW the prayer asks God to "come and dwell in us"... but THEN it adds... AND CLEANSE US OF ALL UNCLEANNESS.... so obviously, when God first enters this "dwelling" it is still dirty... (hmmmm Martha scurrying around tyding up while Mary sits at Jesus feet?) CAN YOU SEE HOW THESE THINGS touch provocatively and poingnently upon your questions regarding God, creation, matter, and evil?
No. Forgive me, but I've long since been "touched provocatively and poignantly" on matters of the faith. And I would still like an answer to my question of the Hindu concept of evil, or the "illusion" of the self. Why is it there? What is its purpose? And if there is a purpose, whose purpose is it?
Sitaram, you wrote: Not that I pretend to know all the answers........
Me neither!
Sitaram, you wrote: but now.. hmmm... lets look to the Psalms.... ... so we see the physical universe, PRAISING AND OBEYING God.... and we see in genesis that God proclaims all creation to be "very good"....
Again, I'm not sure why you mention these instances, but I guess I'll comment briefly: Christianity teaches that nature, matter, is good by God's decree. I'm pretty sure Hinduism disagrees, doesn't it? Or am I thinking of Buddhism? Which one teaches that matter is evil?
Sitaram, you wrote: and yet... when Jesus commands thay they cast a line or net at a certain place... and a fish is pulled up with a coin in its mouth... to pay the taxes... well... hmmmm...... let us consider.... the MOST interesting interpretation is that God-man Theanthropos Jesus, mentally commands the fish to perform the difficult feat to fetch a coin which God knows in his omniscience to have fallen in the ocean, and to then perform the more difficult feat of biting onto the hook WHILE the coin is in the mouth..... (this is a more inspiring theory than the notion that Jesus simply CREATED the fish AND the coin EX NIHIL... or that the fish simply HAPPENED to already have a coin in mouth, and happened to be passing by...)... this theory reflects the Psalms notions of the Sun Moon wind, rain, hail, all material nature, obeying and praising God,... as well as the Great Leviathan.... and the little fish...
Wow, too dizzying for me! I'll pass on this one. I never analyzed it so much.
Sitaram, you wrote: well... perhaps there is enough food for thought here.... I must go... but I find all this most interesting,.. I hope you do as well...
I would be even more interested in discussing my original question.
I'm not asking for the origin of the illusion of self, a belief which, as a Catholic, I do not subscribe to. I have been taught (and I still believe) in a personal God who has a will.
I am trying to understand two points of eastern philosophy which may or may not be Buddhist or Hindu (another question in and of itself). But here is my original question, hopefully better worded:
There are the two eastern teachings which seem a contradiction to me: (1) An impersonal deity, and
(2) the illusion of the self.
If these are not Buddhist teachings, I apologize, and ask if they are Hindu (or vice versa).
In either case, I am trying to understand how these two beliefs are not contradictions. I can only understand the illusion of the self if there was a divine will which caused the illusion in the first place. If there was no such will, then why the illusion?
I hope this phrasing makes my question clearer (not to mention my sincere intention in asking the question.)
Sitaram writes:
I am finding this thread very stimulating.
I enjoy thinking about these issues.
I hope my manner of inquiry is not irritating for Joe.
I realize Joe wants to simply "cut to the chase" or "bottom line", (and no quotations from books if you please). I do not find all of this quite so cut-and-dry.
As to question of whether doctrines of Impersonal Diety and Self as Illusion are Hindu or Buddhist, I will observe that in the broad spectrum of what we call Hindu, pure adwaita monistic vendanta definitely (to the best of my understanding) perceives the Deity as impersonal, and the Self as Illusion; but other branches of Hinduism see the Self, the Jiva, as not an illusion, and the Deity as very personal, with which one can have a relationship. Theravadin Buddhism of today (and the original Pali Sutras that date back to Siddhartha Gautama), speak of An-Atman (i.e. that there is no self, that what we call self is a "gestalt" of the 5 skandas of the senses). But branches of Mahayana Buddhism such as Pure Land, see a very Personal Deity in the form of Amitabah Buddha, Who will come at the moment of death and deliver ones Soul to a rebirth in Pure Land (which is not an ultimate Paridisal goal, but a place where one can further cultivate oneself for final entrance into Nirvana, and no further rebirth).
In fact, modern day Hare Krishna Isckon members are constantly criticizing those Hindus and Buddhists whom they call MAYAVADINS (those who say that the phenomenal world is maya or illusion or error). On the other hand, the theology of Vallabh and Ramanujan (I believe) may be characterized as BRAMHAVADINS (i.e. asserting that EVERYTHING IS GOD, which I believe is a form of pan-en-theism... i.e. all things are God, but God also is 'personal', has a personality).
So... given that there ARE certain schools or sects or denominations both in Hinduism and Buddhism which emphasize an impersonal Deity AND Self as Illusion,... let us explore WHETHER this constitutes a contradiction, and if so, HOW it is a contradiction.
I am assuming that the contradiction would be that error or deception constitutes the Lie (but please bear in mind, that Hinduism and
Buddhsim speaks not in terms of Lie or Falsehood, but in terms of Maya or Illusion, i.e. the rope which only appears as a snake, until we are 'enlightened'). Also, in Hinduism, Maya can serve A POSITIVE or merciful or desired function. For example, in Srimad Bhagavatam, Lord Krishna is definitely the Primal Lord, from whom All else issues, and Lord Krishna has a personality and a will, AND LORD KRISHNA DESIRES TO INCARNATE as an Avatar, AND LORD KRISHNA desires to be a baby and experience a mother's love, the love of Mother Yashoda, His foster mother.
One day Mother Yashoda is feeding baby Krishna, and becomes concerned that he has eaten some dirt. She opens his mouth, and is stunned to see the vision of the ENTIRE UNIVERSE inside baby Krishnas mouth. This VISION of the INFINITE circumscribed by the Avatar, is IDENTICAL TO the sentiments expressed in an ancient greek Christian hymn to Mary the Theotokos (birth-giver of God), which says "Thy womb has become more spaceous than the heavens, for Thou hast contained the UNCONTAINABLE ONE).
Well, as soon as Mother Yashoda sees this AWESOME vision of world and galaxies and suns inside her childs mouth, she becomes awestruck and terrified and instantly LOOSES the mood or Bhava of a mother to a child, and feels the mood or Bhava of 'fear of the Lord'. But Lord Krishna WANTS to be a baby and WANTS a mothers love, so Lord Krishna casts MAYA or ILLUSION over Mother Yashoda, so that she FORGETS the AWESOME transfiguration, and again becomes a loving mother to her playful child. The western mind might look at this and say that God is lying or deceiving. The eastern mind sees this Maya or Illusion as a positive, and even protective gift of God.
I am thinking now of those Christian doctrines which stress that "God cannot Lie".
In fact, let us look at some interesting biblical passages regarding the notion of God lying.
Numbers 23:19: God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?
2 Thesselonians 2:11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:
(AHA, HERE WE SEE AN EXAMPLE OF THE CHRISTIAN GOD CASTING MAYA OR ILLUSION)
Titus 1:2 In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began;
(but here we see the assertion that God CANNOT LIE,... that God is in some sense self-limiting, and not totally omnipotent).
Hebrews 6:18 That by two immutable things, in which it was impossible for God to lie, we might have a strong consolation, who have fled for refuge to lay hold upon the hope set before us:
(once again, in Hebrews, it is said that God CANNOT lie, so... I could turn the tables so to speak... and question the seeming contradiction of a PERSONAL God who has WILL, presumably TOTALLY FREE WILL, and yet is INCAPABLE OF LYING, and yet his creations, satan (the father of lies), and humankind ARE CAPABLE of choosing to lie or tell the truth, of choosing life or death, good or evil).
(AND YET WE ENCOUNTER VERSES IN THE OLD TESTAMENT WHICH INDICATE THAT GOD CAN LIE AND DECEIVE):
1 Kings 22:23 Now therefore, behold, the LORD hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of all these thy prophets, and the LORD hath spoken evil concerning thee.
IN CLOSING THIS POST, I would like to mention, once again (as I mentioned in an earlier post) that mathematical proofs which employ REDUCTION AD ABSURDUM,.. i.e. initially assuming a FALSEHOOD as true, and then reasoning syllogistically to a contradiction... IS AN EXCELLENT EXAMPLE of the 'goodness' of maya, or illusion or error, in that it can serve a purpose and lead to the ultimate truth.
Shivadaasa, I am reposting Joe's post below, so as to be certain that you get to see it.
The three of us HAVE made some sort of progress in our thread, because we have (or at least I have) come to the realization that Joe's questions, in some sense, reflect a crisis in his OWN Christian faith (not to imply that Joe doubts), but that there is a nagging problem (actually several) at the heart of Christian Roman Catholic theology. I will stop chattering and let you read (or re-read as the case may be, the heart of the question below, which Joe has recapitulated):
====(start of Joe's earlier post):
Let me get to the most important part of your response:
(once again, in Hebrews, it is said that God CANNOT lie, so... I could turn the tables so to speak... and question the seeming contradiction of a PERSONAL God who has WILL, presumably TOTALLY FREE WILL, and yet is INCAPABLE OF LYING, and yet his creations, satan (the father of lies), and humankind ARE CAPABLE of choosing to lie or tell the truth, of choosing life or death, good or evil).
My friend, finally someone understands my dilemma! At the heart of my faith lies the apparent contradiction between a God incapable of lying and yet his creation capable of choosing to lie or tell the truth. Now I can honestly say that I CANNOT explain the contradiction in my faith!!!! The question is, can you explain the contradiction in yours (assuming it is yours: an impersonal god (or no god) while at the same time a false state of mind which seems to serve the purpose of being discovered and overcome in order to attain enlightenment.
I'm only sorry that others think I'm trying to justify my beliefs by trying to discredit others'.
=====(end of Joe's post)
Sitaram replies:
It is easy for any of us to misunderstand one another's motives. To be honest, I became quite iritated when Joe told me (in so many words) that I was "full of baloney" about Moses Maimonides, in his "Guide to the Perplexed", saying that God does not concern Himself about chains of cause and effect (e.g. man tosses stone, stone hits frog which jumps on hunters rifle, which accidentally fires... etc etc.. ). In fact, I started pouring through my copy of Maimonide's Guide, and finally came across the precise reference which I had in mind:
III-17, 36a on page 471 of Shlomo Pines translation (University of Chicago Press)
As for my own belief with regard to this fundamental principle, I mean divine providence, it is as I shall set it forth to you. In this belief that I shall set forth, I am not relying upon the conclusion to which demonstration has led me, but upon what has clearly appeared as the intention of the book of God and of the books of our prophets. This opinion, which I believe, is less disgraceful than the preceding opinions and nearer than they to intellectual reasoning. For I for one believe that in this lowly world - I mean that which is beneath the sphere of the moon - divine providence watches ONLY over the individuals belonging to the human species and that in this species alone all the circumstances of the individuals and the good and evil that befall them are consequent upon the deserts, just as it says: For all His ways are judgment. But regarding all the other animals and, all the more, the plants and other things, my opinion is that of Aristotle. For I do not by any means believe that this particular leaf has fallen because of a providence watching over it; nor that this spider has devoured this fly because God has now decreed and willed something concerning individuals; nor that the spittle spat by Zayd has moved till it came down in one particular place upon a gnat and killed it by a divine decree and judgment; nor that when this fish snatched this worm from the face of the water, this happened in virtue of a divine vilition concerning individuals. For all this is in my opinion due to pure chance, just as Aristotle holds. According to me, as I consider the matter, divine providence is consequent upon the divine overflow; and the species with which this intellectual overflow is united, so that it became endowed with intellect and so that everything that is disclosed to a being endowed with the intellect was disclosed to it, it the one accompanied by divine providence, which appraises all its actions from the point of view of reward and punishment. If, as Aristotle states, the foundering of a ship and the drowning of those who were in it and the falling-down of a roof upon those who were in the house, are due to pure chance, the fact that the people in the ship went on board and that the people in the house were sitting in it is, according to our opinion, not due to chance, but to divine will in accordance with the deserts of those people as determined in His judgments, the rule of which cannot be attained by our intellects.
(end of quotation from Maimonides Guide of the Perplexed III-17-36b page 472)
Anyway, I did feel somewhat upset, and wrote something to express my anger and frustration, which I never posted. And it is fortunate that I did not post it, because feelings and emotions would have only grown more tense, and communication would have deteriorated further. I have sent Joe and email, to see if he would care to continue dialogue and inquiry through that medium. I would very much enjoy doing the same with Shivadaasa. We can all learn much from each other, I feel.
As I poured through my copy of Maimonides, I did run across something MOST EXCELLENT and profound, which also touches upon our inquiry here concerning God's Will and Personality and Goodness verses evil and falsehood and deception and free will in the world.
Here is what Moses Maimonides has to say:
(The Guide of the Perplexed, part I, chapter 59)
As everyone is aware that it is not possible, except through negation, to achieve an apprehension of that which is in our power to apprehend and that, on the other hand, negation does not give knowledge in any respect of the true reality of the thing with regard to which the particular matter in question has been negated ---- all men, those of the past and those of the future, affirm that God CANNOT BE APPREHENDED BY INTELLECTS, and that none but He Himself can apprehend what He is, and that apprehension of Him consists in the inability to attain the ultimate term in apprehending Him. Thus all the philosophers say: WE ARE DAZZLED BY HIS BEAUTY, AND HE IS HIDDEN FROM US BECAUSE OF THE INTENSITY WITH WHICH HE BECOMES MANIFEST, just as the sun is hidden to eyes that are too weak to apprehend it. ...... The most apt phrase concerning this subject is the dictum occurring in the Psalms, SILENCE IS PRAISE TO THEE (Ps. 65:2), which interpreted signifies: silence with regard to You is praise. This is a most perfectly put phrase regarding this matter. For of whatever we say intending to magnify and exalt, on the one hand we find that it can have some application to Him and on the other hand we perceive in it some deficiency. Accordingly, SILENCE AND LIMITING ONESELF to the apprehensions of the intellects are more appropriate...just as the perfect ones have enjoined when they said: "COMMUNE WITH YOUR OWN HEART UPON YOUR BED, AND BE STILL. Sela (Psalm 4:5).
====end of quote from Maimonides' Guide to the Perplexed
Joe wrote, " Yes, I want simple answer, but no, I do not expect answers I already know. In fact, I've already received answers I did not know before.
Shivadaasa wrote: It is impossible to explain the complex reasoning in Hinduism with simple answers. People who insist on simple answers are simply advised (by Hinduism) to start reciting, "Hare Raama Hare Raama..". The idea is that if they do it in this life, they will be blessed with an ability to digest complex ideas and thoughts in the next life.
If you know some answers and want specific answers to specific questions, why don't you ask them? When I explain something, I assume that the reader knows nothing and I therefore start from the very fundamentals. I have no way of knowing what you know and what you don't.
(2) When he is offered an answer, he cannot digest it and so he decides that it is insulting and completely brushes it aside. I can understand someone understanding the subject first and then asking intelligent questions but I have a problem with someone who refuses to understand and ask a question (like the one he asked on Brahmaa and the Brahman).
Joe wrote: Definitely I have gotten defensive, but so have others. I don't mind defensive, but I do mind offensive. How many times have I asked if I have offended anyone, and apologized? Also, I've only brushed aside responses that are just too long.
You don't have to be defensive with me at all.
Shivadaasa wrpte: Joe, offensive or defensive is not a point here. You are asking a question and I am trying to answer it. The subject is Hinduism, and Hinduism's thought process, especially the Vedantism. If you need apologies from me, I can offer you plenty. And I am not in the least bit offended. I hope you are not either.
Shivadaasa wrote: (3) When I ask him why he wants to know about Hinduism, he replies that he is not seeking truth outside of his religion; he is simply seeking to reinforce his beliefs in Christianity (which he says he knows to be the whole Truth!). How does one reinforce his beliefs in his religion? By proving to himself that other religions are very irrational!!! Obviously our friend has never studied philosophy or logic at any time in his life. By proving another's religion to be false, one does not prove that one's own religion to be true.
Joe, you wrote: This is slander. You are twisting my words, and my intentions. I do wish to understand the differences better. Learning by contrast is not a bad thing, nor does it imply some hidden agenda of knocking someone else's beliefs. I have yet to claim anyone's beliefs to be false. Also, I have taken philosophy and logic. That may not come across to you, but you seem to be convinced of my integrity (or lack of). We just don't seem to understand each other (though others seem to understand me). I have been respectful up to now, but nevertheless you publicly slander my intention to learn with strong words (and then accuse me of not being dispassionate). Very well. I believe in learning by contrast. Let me show you that I have been dispassionate until now:
Shivadaasa wrote: I am glad for you that you are not trying to knock others' beliefs. I have been trying to knock others' belief systems for some time and I have gotten nowhere.
Shivadaasa wrote: Speaking of Christian versus Hindu beliefs, when they contrast each other, either one of them is wrong or both of them is wrong. So why are you not claiming others' beliefs to be false? Specially since you strongly believe in yours? Again, you should understand that I am just raising a point. I am not trying to slander you.
Shivadaasa wrote: It is possible that I misunderstood your intentions. Let's go on from now (unless you are so badly hurt that you do not want to engage in any conversations with me).
Shivadaasa wrote: One does not learn anything about one's own religion by contrasting it to other religions if one fully believes in one's own religion. You indicated in one of your earlier notes that you fully and staunchly believed in Christianity. You also indicated that you will not change your opinions in any way. And yet, you want to learn about Hinduism, right? So what conclusions can I deduce? Let me know if there is a flaw in my logic.
Shivadaasa wrote: (4) He referred to his mind as the typical analytical western mind (Hmmmm). This is quite shocking. I hope other Christians don't refer to themselves as highly analytical as well. Christianity does not need an analytical mind. It just needs belief (which is what our friend Joe has). If the western Christian mind became analytical, Christianity does NOT stand a chance.
Shivadasa wrpte: Obviously this discussion is getting nowhere. I am beginning to believe that Joe is more interested in proving how stupid Hinduism is rather than try to understand it dispassionately or seek answers to genuine questions he has on Hinduism (or The Truth). I am done with this thread. Thanks a lot, gentlemen.
Joe wrote, "G.K. Chesterton once said the best case against Christianity is Christians. So far the best case against hinduism for me has been Shivadaasa Sharma."
Shivadaasa wrote: I loved G.K.Chesterton's "The Invisible Man" and other stories but you may not be putting his words in the proper context. He was referring to the Christians' way of converting others, being obnoxious, sitting on high stools and judging others and other fine qualities. But if you take Shivadaasa Sharma's example and judge Hindus and Hinduism as unacceptable, I don't see any difference between you and those policemen down South who engage in racial profiling. --
The world is transformed with words, one person at a time.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.