Site Search:
 
Dave's ESL Cafe's Student Discussion Forums Forum Index Dave's ESL Cafe's Student Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Students and Teachers from Around the World!"
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Creation is imaginable to us? If God is unimaginable....

 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Dave's ESL Cafe's Student Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Culture
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
sridatta



Joined: 16 Sep 2009
Posts: 44

PostPosted: Fri Oct 23, 2009 6:49 pm    Post subject: Creation is imaginable to us? If God is unimaginable.... Reply with quote

Creation is imaginable to us? If God is unimaginable how it is possible?


Question: The nature of the cause must enter the product. The Gold from the lump enters the golden ring. By this, the unimaginable nature of God must enter the creation also and the creation must be unimaginable. But creation is imaginable as you yourself say.

Answer: The shape of the lump of the gold did not enter the ring. The gold only entered the effect from cause. Therefore, the shape component of the cause does not enter the effect and the gold component of the cause only enters the effect. This means that a part of the nature of the cause enters and another part of the nature of the cause does not enter the effect. Therefore, the unimaginable nature of God entered the world through unimaginable miracles and unimaginable boundary of Universe. The deepest nature of the creation is also unimaginable according to scientists. All this is like the gold component entering the effect from cause.

The shape of the ring, which is the new component that is different from the shape of the lump, can be also seen as the new component appearing in the ring here. This point is that the imaginable nature of the universe, which is quite different from the unimaginable nature of the God appeared in the Universe as a new component of the effect. All this proves that the creation need not be completely unimaginable since its cause (God) is completely unimaginable.

In fact, God created this imaginable nature in the Universe so that the existence of unimaginable nature can be relatively established. In the absence of unimaginable nature, the imaginable nature cannot have existence because both the unimaginable and imaginable natures are relative terms. Moreover, when the cause is unimaginable the process of generation of an imaginable product from the unimaginable cause must be also unimaginable. In the world we are seeing the generation of imaginable effect from another imaginable cause. Therefore, the process of generation here is also imaginable. There is no example in the world for the generation of imaginable product from unimaginable cause. This world consists of all imaginable examples and the study of their relationships is the logic. Such logic fails because the generation of the Universe from its cause (God) is unimaginable. Hence, you cannot demand the entry of the nature of God into the Universe by logic of worldly examples.

Brahma Sutras say that there is no example in the world for God. This is the reason for the Vedic statement saying that God is beyond logic. When we compare God with the electricity, the electricity is also not a complete example to God. Since the electricity is unseen, the unseen nature is temporarily assumed as unimaginable nature. In fact, the electricity is also imaginable because it is a stream of imaginable electrons. There is no other way than to bring unseen item, which can be assumed as unimaginable item. Veda also says that no item in this world is equivalent to God.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
CP



Joined: 12 Jun 2006
Posts: 2875
Location: California

PostPosted: Wed Dec 09, 2009 11:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Question: The nature of the cause must enter the product. What does that mean? That is nonsense. The Gold from the lump enters the golden ring. By this, the unimaginable nature of God must enter the creation also and the creation must be unimaginable. But creation is imaginable as you yourself say. More nonsense. What are you trying to say?

Answer: The shape of the lump of the gold did not enter the ring. What does that mean? The gold only entered the effect from cause. Same question. Therefore, the shape component of the cause does not enter the effect and the gold component of the cause only enters the effect. Oh, brother, this is ridiculous. This means that a part of the nature of the cause enters and another part of the nature of the cause does not enter the effect. Rubbish. Therefore, the unimaginable nature of God entered the world through unimaginable miracles and unimaginable boundary of Universe. If the nature of God is unimaginable and the miracles are unimaginable, then you don't know what they are and shouldn't be writing about them. If they are imaginable, then what you are writing is rubbish. The deepest nature of the creation is also unimaginable according to scientists. That is absurd. All this is like the gold component entering the effect from cause. What does that mean?

The shape of the ring, which is the new component that is different from the shape of the lump, can be also seen as the new component appearing in the ring here. This point is that the imaginable nature of the universe, which is quite different from the unimaginable nature of the God appeared in the Universe as a new component of the effect. You need to quit using the word "unimaginable." Please.

All this proves that the creation need not be completely unimaginable since its cause (God) is completely unimaginable. See prior comment.

In fact, God created this imaginable nature in the Universe so that the existence of unimaginable nature can be relatively established. In the absence of unimaginable nature, the imaginable nature cannot have existence because both the unimaginable and imaginable natures are relative terms. Moreover, when the cause is unimaginable the process of generation of an imaginable product from the unimaginable cause must be also unimaginable. In the world we are seeing the generation of imaginable effect from another imaginable cause. Therefore, the process of generation here is also imaginable. There is no example in the world for the generation of imaginable product from unimaginable cause. This world consists of all imaginable examples and the study of their relationships is the logic. Such logic fails because the generation of the Universe from its cause (God) is unimaginable. Hence, you cannot demand the entry of the nature of God into the Universe by logic of worldly examples.

Oh, my God, I can't stand it any more. You don't make any sense at all. Sorry, but you just don't make any sense, and I can't stand reading nonsense like this. I don't know if anyone else agrees, and I don't care. I just can't stand such rubbish.

_________________
You live a new life for every new language you speak. -Czech proverb
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
pugachevV



Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Posts: 2295

PostPosted: Fri Dec 18, 2009 1:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

He's a believer in the unbelievable trying to justify his belief.
My eyes usually glaze over after the first paragraph.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
sridatta



Joined: 16 Sep 2009
Posts: 44

PostPosted: Sat Mar 13, 2010 5:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

CP wrote:
Question: The nature of the cause must enter the product. What does that mean? That is nonsense. The Gold from the lump enters the golden ring. By this, the unimaginable nature of God must enter the creation also and the creation must be unimaginable. But creation is imaginable as you yourself say. More nonsense. What are you trying to say?

Answer: The shape of the lump of the gold did not enter the ring. What does that mean? The gold only entered the effect from cause. Same question. Therefore, the shape component of the cause does not enter the effect and the gold component of the cause only enters the effect. Oh, brother, this is ridiculous. This means that a part of the nature of the cause enters and another part of the nature of the cause does not enter the effect. Rubbish. Therefore, the unimaginable nature of God entered the world through unimaginable miracles and unimaginable boundary of Universe. If the nature of God is unimaginable and the miracles are unimaginable, then you don't know what they are and shouldn't be writing about them. If they are imaginable, then what you are writing is rubbish. The deepest nature of the creation is also unimaginable according to scientists. That is absurd. All this is like the gold component entering the effect from cause. What does that mean?

The shape of the ring, which is the new component that is different from the shape of the lump, can be also seen as the new component appearing in the ring here. This point is that the imaginable nature of the universe, which is quite different from the unimaginable nature of the God appeared in the Universe as a new component of the effect. You need to quit using the word "unimaginable." Please.

All this proves that the creation need not be completely unimaginable since its cause (God) is completely unimaginable. See prior comment.

In fact, God created this imaginable nature in the Universe so that the existence of unimaginable nature can be relatively established. In the absence of unimaginable nature, the imaginable nature cannot have existence because both the unimaginable and imaginable natures are relative terms. Moreover, when the cause is unimaginable the process of generation of an imaginable product from the unimaginable cause must be also unimaginable. In the world we are seeing the generation of imaginable effect from another imaginable cause. Therefore, the process of generation here is also imaginable. There is no example in the world for the generation of imaginable product from unimaginable cause. This world consists of all imaginable examples and the study of their relationships is the logic. Such logic fails because the generation of the Universe from its cause (God) is unimaginable. Hence, you cannot demand the entry of the nature of God into the Universe by logic of worldly examples.

Oh, my God, I can't stand it any more. You don't make any sense at all. Sorry, but you just don't make any sense, and I can't stand reading nonsense like this. I don't know if anyone else agrees, and I don't care. I just can't stand such rubbish.


In the world any product gets the qualities of its cause. The color of gold is seen in its chain. But in the world the cause and effect are imaginable items. But, though the world is imaginable, God, its cause, is unimaginable. Hence, this case of God and world is beyond the normal logic of the worldly cause and effect. Hence, though world is effect, since it is generated from God, it is also not the effect, since the qualities of cause have not entered the effect.

Therefore, from the second angle the world can be treated as an independent entity giving entertainment to God like wife. Veda and Gita are authorities for both the concepts of world being the product of God and also not getting any quality of God. Veda says that world is produced by God (Yato vaa…). Gita also says the same (Aham sarvasya jagatah…). Veda says that no item in the world is God, which is completely different from God (Neti Neti…). Gita also says the same (Natvaham teshu….).


The cause is absolute plane and its effect is relative plane. Gold is the cause and chain is its effect. The lump of gold has no shape but its effect, the chain, has a specific shape. When you are talking about the beauty of the shape of the chain, the quantity or quality of gold is not touched. When you talk about the quality and quantity of gold, you should not talk about the beauty of the design of chain. The former is absolute plane and latter is relative plane. When you are in one plane, you should not bring the other plane and get confused.

There is a temptation for everybody to think that there is a possibility of touching God through the analysis of creation because God is the cause and the world is the effect. This temptation is justified if the cause and effect are linked to each other by logic as in the case of mud and the pot, or gold and the chain, etc.

The cause and effect in the world are both imaginable items. The characteristics of the cause are seen in the effect also since the cause spontaneously enters the effect during the very process of creation. But in the case of God, neither did God enter the world, nor did any characteristic of God enter the world. Therefore, the temptation is never fulfilled in the case of God. As already said, the simile is the magic master and the magic (castle) created by him. Neither the magic master nor any characteristic of him exists in the magic created. Shankara has given this example (Maayaaviva vijrumbhayatyapi…). Even the Brahma Sutras refer to this example (Atmanichaivam vichitraah…)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Dave's ESL Cafe's Student Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Culture All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Dave's ESL Cafe is maintained by the one and only Dave Sperling.
Banner Advertising | Bookstore / Alta Books | FAQs | Articles | Interview with Dave
Copyright © 1995-2011 Dave's ESL Cafe | All Rights Reserved | Contact Dave's ESL Cafe | Site Map

Teachers College, Columbia University: Train to Teach English Here or Abroad
SIT
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group