The true knowledge about God You should not say that God is incapable of preaching the characteristics of God and that it shows only the ignorance about God. Most of the people are thinking God as imaginable item like awareness, all pervading energy, visible light, inert matter etc. Negating all these possibilities and establishing the true unimaginable nature of God itself is the perfect and complete knowledge of God. By realizing completely that God is unimaginable, you have attained the true knowledge of God. Nobody other than God can understand God (Brahamavit Brahmaiva….Veda). Therefore, God is not ignorant Himself. The inability to understand God belongs to the limited scope of intelligence of human being and it is not due to incapable explanation of God. A blind man can never see any object, however much it may be explained. The defect lies with the blind man and not with the preacher. The intelligence of any human being cannot cross the spatial dimensions and can never imagine God, the generator of space, existing beyond space without spatial dimensions. The reason for not understanding God is also clearly explained by God. Therefore, God is the best preacher of the ultimate truth and the main purpose of human incarnation is only to preach the true spiritual knowledge, which alone can save any human being in the ultimate sense. At the Lotus Feet of His Holiness Sri Dattaswami Anil Antony www.universal-spirituality.org Universal Spirituality for World Peace
if you were referring to us controlling our imagination if someone were actually capable of imagining 'God' 'god' or 'godliness' long enough they would perhaps result with being 'godlike' then they would perhaps result with being a 'god' and if it was all they imagined perhaps they would result with being 'God' to be able to imagine 'God' 'god' or 'godliness' we seemingly require a concept of 'God' 'god' and 'godliness' thus imagining 'God' 'god' or 'godliness' would perhaps basically be an attempt to reach 'God' 'god' and or 'godliness' - would basically be furthering defining and grasping 'God' 'god' and or 'godliness' - would basically be furthering expanding and perhaps generating 'God' 'god' and 'godliness'
God being the generator of space, is beyond space and therefore, can never be imagined The unimaginable God is beyond the four-dimensional model of space and time. You can imagine the dissolution of matter converting into energy filling the space. Subsequently you can imagine the disappearance of energy in the space and the result is final vacuum. But, even if you try for your lifetime, you can never imagine the disappearance of vacuum. God being the generator of space is beyond space and therefore, can never be imagined. If you have to imagine God, the pre-requisite is the imagination of disappearance of space or vacuum. Of course space is a form of very fine energy and in this context the word energy used by Me can be taken as crude form of energy. The only knowledge about God is that He is beyond the knowledge (Yasyaamatam… Veda).
That's just your belief. There are a hundred million other versions of what you believe in. Not one of them has any proof of being true. So trying to push these things on other people is rather pointless, it's all rubbish to me.
"vacuum disappeared" "And on this day God was imagined" if you can read it you probably can imagine it imagination =/= knowledge
Hello Dataswami, This is Leon Sumbitches, real name Brian Wheat (as I will prove later). My uncle Mengis Adoso, as you have heard, is involved to the ongoing ties between the decommissioned American embassy in Switzerland and my home of Mombasa. At stake, and needing financial asylum, is our family fortune (made largely in oil). Your commission will be 20% of held funds. We need your contact by no later than this evening. To call this a small matter would be rediculous. ATTACHMENT: brian_wheat_proof.exe
Several statements of Veda clearly speak that God is completely unimaginable under any circumstances. Silence can only indicate God. Silence means that no word can be used to indicate God. In the creation every imaginable item has the specific name, which cannot be used for any other imaginable item. For example the word pot means only a particular object. The word cloth means another particular object. You cannot use one word for any other object. But God can enter any item of the creation. Therefore, the name of every item can be used to indicate God because there is no specific word for God, who is not at all a specific object. Even if God does not enter an item, the name of that item can be used to indicate God, because you are keeping that item as the representative of God. For example God never enters the inert planet like sun. But still Sun can represent God due to some similarities. God removes ignorance. Sun removes darkness. The lotus buds are opened by sun. The ignorant intelligence is also enlightened by God. Therefore, sun can represent God to some extent. Therefore, the word “sun†can also represent God. Thus, in one extreme end no word can indicate God (Yato vachah-Veda). At another extreme end, the name of any item into which either God can enter or any item, which can represent God, can indicate God. All the prayers of God by thousand names (Shasra Nama) indicate God. When a word indicates God, it is the name of medium into which either God entered or which stands as representative God. This means you can experience God through a specific medium when God enters it. Alternatively you can also imagine the experience of existence of God through a representative item like sun. You can experience the existence of God through Lord Krishna because God entered and exists in the human body of Krishna. In case of sun you can imagine the existence of God through the properties of the sun. Thus, there is difference between the worship of human incarnation and worship of the representative item like sun, statue etc. Veda says that you can worship sun as God, which means that sun is not directly God (Adityam Brahmaiti…Veda). There is difference between the direct worship of king and indirect worship of his photo. In both cases the king is pleased. But in the direct worship the king is extremely pleased because every bit of your service is experienced by king directly. When God enters the human body, God has not become the human body. God is in the human body. Therefore, the human body is not God. You can only experience God through human body. Therefore, by seeing the human body you have not seen God, but you have only experienced God through that human body. Therefore, God is invisible. Of course, a devotee can be satisfied by treating the human body as God and can feel satisfied that he has seen God. From this angle Veda says, “A blessed fellow has seen God†(Kaschit Dhirah…..).
Indeed, god is everywhere and nowhere, all things and nothing. However, while a painting is worth an infinite amount of words, nothing is said.
God is neither every where nor God is awareness; God is unimaginable We have to cross both the arguments of God being every where and God being awareness. With the help of scripture, we have to reach the goal, which is unimaginable God. We are denying the two arguments viz., the argument of awareness being God and the argument of the all pervading God. We are establishing the argument of unimaginable nature of God. The above two arguments are like deep pits existing side by side and we have to travel in the narrow path existing between these two pits to reach the goal of unimaginable nature of God. Since awareness is the specific work of inert energy in the functioning nervous system and the concept of all pervading God does not require the need of any spiritual effort as every one is God, the above two pits are to be avoided. These two arguments can be denied by the scripture also. Veda says that God is the controller of souls (Atmesvaram…) and this denies that God is soul or awareness. Veda also says that nothing and none in this creation is God (Neti Neti…) and this denies that God is every where in this world. There are several Vedic statements speaking that God is unimaginable and even Gita says that no body knows God. Like this, we have to escape the danger of falling in the above two pits and reach the true goal of the unimaginable nature of God.
Then how are we discussing the subject? Surely something unimaginable must be imagined to be declared unimaginable.
In such case, you cannot use the word “Unimaginable†at all! Then, why that word is created? What is the meaning of that word? If you choose that way, silence only indicates God and some have followed this way also. Suppose you say, “I cannot utter thatâ€. Does this mean that you have uttered that? Therefore, it is one and the same to indicate God through silence or through the word unimaginable. If a word is not assigned, mention of God becomes impossible in the spiritual knowledge. Veda uses the word “Unimaginable†for God (Atarkyah…Aprameyah…).
The existence of Para Brahman (God) is not the existence of non-God items in which the knowledge of the non-God items is a prerequisite condition. Para Brahman exists as per the statement of Veda. All the non-God items are worldly objects, which are parts of creation. All these items are known first and then only their existence is mentioned. When you say that a pot exists, it means that you are stating the existence since you know the pot already. Hence, the existence of any worldly item requires the knowledge of that item already. If you do not know anything about an item, you will not say that it exists. Hence, the existence always requires the prior knowledge of the item. But God is beyond world and is unimaginable since God is not known. Hence, the existence of God is not similar to the existence of the worldly items. Since the existence of worldly items, which requires prior knowledge of the item, is absent in the case of God, God can be said as an item not having the existence of worldly items and hence God is non-existent (Asat) in this sense. This does not mean that God is really non-existent because God really exists as per Veda (Astityeva….) and hence God exists (Sat). God is known to God and hence the prerequisite condition is fulfilled. For human beings, the unimaginable God can exist like the unimaginable miracle. Veda says that the knower of God is God Himself (Brahmavit Brahmaiva…). Hence, though God is unknown to human beings, He is known to Himself. If you say that the existence of anything must satisfy the prior condition of its knowledge, the rule is not violated since God is having His knowledge. Then, you may say that God exists for God only since the prior condition is limited to God only. This is not correct because you are agreeing the existence of an unimaginable miracle also in the world. When the miracle is demonstrated, it is unimaginable but its existence in the world is accepted. Hence, the existence of unimaginable item like miracle exists in the case of human beings. The concept of unimaginable nature requires the relative existence of the concept of imaginable nature. To recognize day, night should relatively exist. Similarly, to recognize the existence of unimaginable nature, relatively the imaginable nature must exist. If everything is unimaginable there is no significance of the very concept of unimaginable nature. Therefore, the world with imaginable items exists, so that the unimaginable nature of God can be recognized significantly through relativity.
dattaswami it would seem to me you are getting mixed up with paradox with regard to 'God' for a being whom you claim is supposidley unimaginable and unknowable you present yourself as though you grasp 'Him' quite well and to me mental grasping basically is knowledge also how would you know 'God' is known to 'God' if you claim to be ignorant of or be without knowledge of 'God' and "When you say that a pot exists, it means that you are stating the existence since you know the pot already. Hence, the existence of any worldly item requires the knowledge of that item already." when you say 'a pot exists' you are referring to your experience of 'pot' the existence you have experienced - with reference 'pot' put toward such experience - does other than require your grasping of it as 'pot' to exist
I stopped imagining god 15 years ago. It's all good now! Google a few large chunks of the rambling text. Where is dataswami copy pasting this from. Could be lots of places... Just saying. Oh, my bad... He spews this drivel all over the place himself in multiple forums!!! It isn't a conversation, it's spiritual... [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=anwy2MPT5RE&feature=related]YouTube - Monty Python - Spam[/ame]