"You probably don’t know that you have simply restated Vedic truth which explains manifestation and un-manifestation of energy, which simply ‘exists’ as part of the ‘energetic’, termed as God, except that you removed God from the picture."
I think I understand this, maybe not exactly the way you understand it. In fact, there need not be a distinction between energy and the energetic. They could be one and the same entities. I will give you my interpretations of how I understand these things. You could correct me wherever you feel I have got something wrong (assuming, you don't mind the time it might take you).
We could go into basically a few possible combinations of nature of God, his/her/its relation with the rest of the Universe, his/her/its role in "creation" of the Universe, and how we humans perceive God and the Universe:
1.1 God totally permeates whatever "exists": in fact whatever exists, and part of it that can be perceived by us are just the manifestations of this 'essence' of existence called God (I think which you to called above as "energy") [and hence there could/must be other aspects of this essence that we cannot perceive - the supernatural domain]. This essence even permeates the souls of all the living organisms; here souls could be separate from God, having a limited independent free will (probably, something stated by Vivekananda in an example he gave of a cow tied to a tree with limited mobility - an assertion for which I have serious objections, but might deal with it some time later) or the souls could be the manifestation of the God and whatever be the inclinations/tendencies/choices of these souls, they too are manifestations of the God, and occurring "within" God, with God's "will". This was pantheism. Here, what all we perceive - it could exist in "reality" or could merely be the constructs of our senses and thus be illusory.
1.2. God is a separate entity and has "made" the Universe: So, obviously even living organisms and souls are those creations and separate entities. This was panentheism.
If the first is the correct description of scheme of things, then, the entire theory stops there. Meaning, adding further attributes like omniscience, omnipotence, etc. to that essence of existence (God) would be redundant. Because the moment we assign such attributes, we are transforming God into a sentient being just like humans. Of course, that entity would be possessing the qualities in spectacular degrees (for instance, all-knowing, all-powerful), but we would still be humanizing God. Now, if we take the second case to be 'correct', we can have two more possibilities:
2.1. The above God could be impersonal as in not having a "will", "intention", "plan", "desires", "emotions", etc., with regard to 'how' (in what manner/state/condition) the Universe and its components (manifest as well as unmanifest) exist, or what 'changes' should occur in the Universe. This is deism. Here, the truth is that everything exists (or seemingly exists), and God has no 'stakes' in the manner in which they exist. So, one of the consequences would be that: to God, our prayers, desires, wishes would make no difference. But, just like any other cause-and-effect relationship (established by God), our actions through some chain-reaction will have consequences. These consequences need not affect us directly. They may affect an entity totally unrelated to the one doing the deed. And probably by stating this I have roughly stated the 'law of karma'. Here, if you see carefully, whether reincarnation occurs or not, it does not make a difference. Because for consequences to be realized, they need not occur to the same entity that had performed the deed. So, though the God would be omnipotent and omniscient, God would not "do" anything using those abilities because God would have no active will; whatever was to be done has already been done by God. And since, there is no particular "manner of existence" of Universe that God has adjudicated as 'good' or 'bad', defining God or events as 'good' or 'bad' is pointless. Or maybe, whatever God "thought" as 'good' is anyway happening, it is just that we humans perceive it differently. Here, the determinant of our decisions and choices is some pre-existing cause (akin to "destiny"). While, our decisions have consequences, those decisions are also pre-determined as a part of chain of cause-and-effect. So, we would not possess genuine free will.
2.2 The above God could be more like humans: who has definite ideas about how the Universe 'should' be. A God who listens to us, alters his plans due to prayers, or because of the way we think and behave. So, obviously such God will require to award the souls with complete independence of free will, so that the organisms could be rightly held 'responsible' for their actions. This is a God, who rewards, punishes and alters the courses of fate (if pre-determined by him) depending on various factors like person's actions, thoughts, etc.. And probably this is the kind of God that 99% of people believe in.
Okay, so with this I end my description of the various possible of attributes of God and how God is related to Universe and us, humans.
Probably (if my memory is not failing me), I had asked you before and you had refuted, but from my understanding, the "essence of existence" is what is known as Brahman in Vedic philosophy, and is equated with God. But I could not understand how the two things could be different! :) If one has to strike a distinction between them, then one of the two (i.e., God or brahman) will have to be relegated to the status of "creation" or the "effect", and the other would assume a more fundamental and absolute status of "cause".
So, all the above combinations (with minor variations in treatments of: God, absolute reality, perceived reality, possible modes of acquiring knowledge, relation to soul with absolute reality and the "amount" of free will they possess) are one school of Vedic thought or other, or that of the Abrahamic religions - Judaism, Christianity and Islam. The last three can be best described as the combination 2.2 that I mentioned (wherein God indeed has intentions, plans et al). I don't know much about Buddhist philosophy. Jainism believes in philosophy very close to the combination 1.2.
I think I understand this, maybe not exactly the way you understand it. In fact, there need not be a distinction between energy and the energetic. They could be one and the same entities. I will give you my interpretations of how I understand these things. You could correct me wherever you feel I have got something wrong (assuming, you don't mind the time it might take you).
We could go into basically a few possible combinations of nature of God, his/her/its relation with the rest of the Universe, his/her/its role in "creation" of the Universe, and how we humans perceive God and the Universe:
1.1 God totally permeates whatever "exists": in fact whatever exists, and part of it that can be perceived by us are just the manifestations of this 'essence' of existence called God (I think which you to called above as "energy") [and hence there could/must be other aspects of this essence that we cannot perceive - the supernatural domain]. This essence even permeates the souls of all the living organisms; here souls could be separate from God, having a limited independent free will (probably, something stated by Vivekananda in an example he gave of a cow tied to a tree with limited mobility - an assertion for which I have serious objections, but might deal with it some time later) or the souls could be the manifestation of the God and whatever be the inclinations/tendencies/choices of these souls, they too are manifestations of the God, and occurring "within" God, with God's "will". This was pantheism. Here, what all we perceive - it could exist in "reality" or could merely be the constructs of our senses and thus be illusory.
1.2. God is a separate entity and has "made" the Universe: So, obviously even living organisms and souls are those creations and separate entities. This was panentheism.
If the first is the correct description of scheme of things, then, the entire theory stops there. Meaning, adding further attributes like omniscience, omnipotence, etc. to that essence of existence (God) would be redundant. Because the moment we assign such attributes, we are transforming God into a sentient being just like humans. Of course, that entity would be possessing the qualities in spectacular degrees (for instance, all-knowing, all-powerful), but we would still be humanizing God. Now, if we take the second case to be 'correct', we can have two more possibilities:
2.1. The above God could be impersonal as in not having a "will", "intention", "plan", "desires", "emotions", etc., with regard to 'how' (in what manner/state/condition) the Universe and its components (manifest as well as unmanifest) exist, or what 'changes' should occur in the Universe. This is deism. Here, the truth is that everything exists (or seemingly exists), and God has no 'stakes' in the manner in which they exist. So, one of the consequences would be that: to God, our prayers, desires, wishes would make no difference. But, just like any other cause-and-effect relationship (established by God), our actions through some chain-reaction will have consequences. These consequences need not affect us directly. They may affect an entity totally unrelated to the one doing the deed. And probably by stating this I have roughly stated the 'law of karma'. Here, if you see carefully, whether reincarnation occurs or not, it does not make a difference. Because for consequences to be realized, they need not occur to the same entity that had performed the deed. So, though the God would be omnipotent and omniscient, God would not "do" anything using those abilities because God would have no active will; whatever was to be done has already been done by God. And since, there is no particular "manner of existence" of Universe that God has adjudicated as 'good' or 'bad', defining God or events as 'good' or 'bad' is pointless. Or maybe, whatever God "thought" as 'good' is anyway happening, it is just that we humans perceive it differently. Here, the determinant of our decisions and choices is some pre-existing cause (akin to "destiny"). While, our decisions have consequences, those decisions are also pre-determined as a part of chain of cause-and-effect. So, we would not possess genuine free will.
2.2 The above God could be more like humans: who has definite ideas about how the Universe 'should' be. A God who listens to us, alters his plans due to prayers, or because of the way we think and behave. So, obviously such God will require to award the souls with complete independence of free will, so that the organisms could be rightly held 'responsible' for their actions. This is a God, who rewards, punishes and alters the courses of fate (if pre-determined by him) depending on various factors like person's actions, thoughts, etc.. And probably this is the kind of God that 99% of people believe in.
Okay, so with this I end my description of the various possible of attributes of God and how God is related to Universe and us, humans.
Probably (if my memory is not failing me), I had asked you before and you had refuted, but from my understanding, the "essence of existence" is what is known as Brahman in Vedic philosophy, and is equated with God. But I could not understand how the two things could be different! :) If one has to strike a distinction between them, then one of the two (i.e., God or brahman) will have to be relegated to the status of "creation" or the "effect", and the other would assume a more fundamental and absolute status of "cause".
So, all the above combinations (with minor variations in treatments of: God, absolute reality, perceived reality, possible modes of acquiring knowledge, relation to soul with absolute reality and the "amount" of free will they possess) are one school of Vedic thought or other, or that of the Abrahamic religions - Judaism, Christianity and Islam. The last three can be best described as the combination 2.2 that I mentioned (wherein God indeed has intentions, plans et al). I don't know much about Buddhist philosophy. Jainism believes in philosophy very close to the combination 1.2.
No comments:
Post a Comment