Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 69

Thread: Omniscience In Varying Degrees

  1. #21
    Join Date
    August 2006
    Age
    72
    Posts
    3,162
    Rep Power
    1915

    Re: Omnisence In Varying Degrees

    Namaste Yajvan and others.

    Quote Originally Posted by yajvan View Post
    One part of omniscience is being to see forward and backwards in time. For me, the person with omniscience has no time boundary at all for it is always 'Now' for this being, but lets not go there for this conversation.

    There never was a time when I was not, nor you, nor these rulers of men.
    Nor will there ever be a time when all of us shall cease to be... Krsna to Arjuna Chapter 2.12
    Even the nearest star is a few light-years away, and therefore what we on Earth see of the star is what happened there those many years back. This means that at successive points in the path of the light in space from the star, time has a graded existence from the now to the past. What is now here at one point in space is the past at a point afar. Then what about the future? I think future exists as a potential inside the star at all levels of its existence. Thus time in its triunity is the ever-present now at successive points in space. Perhaps hence Krishna's words to Arjun you have quoted.

    To a consciousness that can span such vast spans of space and time, there is no past or future, only eternal now. Seers must be capable of some of this consciousness and hence their ability to look at the whole picture of which only a part appears to an individual as present.

    The ability to see the shape of things to come exists as a divine gift among some people in all walks of life. Thus we call some statesmen visionaries. Some scientists can foresee future trends. Some sci-fi authors' predictions come to pass. Given the present appearance of a person, a talented artist can draw with great accuracy how the person would have looked in past during his/her childhood and later, and how the person will look in old age. Some people have premonition of things to come. All such abilities are essentially spiritual and can be cultivated, to a larger or smaller extent, depending on the level of the individual.

    The difference between a seer and such talented people may be that the seer's consciousness sees things and events in their continuum, whereas for other people the visions are only unsustained flashes.

  2. #22
    Join Date
    March 2006
    Location
    Sahasrarkadyutirmatha
    Posts
    1,802
    Rep Power
    191

    Exclamation Re: Omniscience In Varying Degrees

    Namaste Yajvan,

    vaidika philosophy has three concordant aspects: mImAMsA, nyAya and sAMkhya. And each of these has produced two schools of thought.

    The vaidika texts are examined with the mImAMsA of jaimini.
    The upaniSada are examined and the universal nature of brahman is considered with the brahma mImAMsA of bAdarAyaNa.

    Truth is determined by logical argument with the nyAya of gotama, or with the vaisheSika nyAya of kaNAda.

    The nature of reality is explained with the sAMkhya of kapila.
    And communion with brahman (Ishvara) is achieved with the sAMkhya yoga of patañjali.

    vaisheSika nyAya conflicts with other schools in assuming the eternally distinct nature of the nine substances (air, fire, water, earth, mind, ether, time, space, and soul).

    And sAMkhya conflicts with brahma mImAMsA (vedAnta) by assuming an eternal distinction of prakRti and puruSa, and especially with advaita vedAnta by also assuming an eternal infinite multiplicity of puruSa.

    Each discipline has wisdom to offer, but all six cannot be followed simultaneously without causing confusion!
    Last edited by sarabhanga; 07 December 2007 at 04:59 AM.

  3. #23
    Join Date
    March 2006
    Location
    India
    Posts
    4,193
    Rep Power
    369

    Re: Omniscience In Varying Degrees

    Namaste Yajvan Ji,

    I intuit as below:

    From an individual's point of view, Omniscience is simply impossible.

    Ishwara is omniscient and omnipotent simply because He is the moment and He only creates the past and future and simply knows what is being created. Every act is happening in His consciousness (or in His Prakriti only), since He is the full.

    RV Book 7 XLVI. Rudra.

    ---2 He through his lordship thinks on beings of the earth, on heavenly beings through his high imperial sway.

    (There are variants to this translation but I adhere to this as it accords well with Upanishads).

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

    The point is: the creator of the past and the future is omniscient since He is aware of what He is thinking and bringing forth. For the same reason He is omnipotent also.

    As discussed with Madhavan earlier, gaining Moksha cannot mean another omniscient one springing forth -- that way there should be only omniscients. After gaining Moksha, one and Eko are ONE. There are not two seers, but one seer alone, who is called Eko -- standing like a tree.

    Om
    That which is without letters (parts) is the Fourth, beyond apprehension through ordinary means, the cessation of the phenomenal world, the auspicious and the non-dual. Thus Om is certainly the Self. He who knows thus enters the Self by the Self.

  4. #24

    Re: Omnisence In Varying Degrees

    Yajvan I argued this in a simpler form to a colleague at work yesterday. He couldn't comprehend it. He just kept responding "yes" to my questions.

    I asked

    "So god is omnipresent but is separate from us?"

    he says "yes"

    and I asked is god in an atom - "No" he says

    "but he's omnipresent?" i said

    "yes" he says

    "then how is he not in an atom?" i say

    "well an atom is the smallest thing" he says o_O

    "no, quarks are much smaller" I say

    "oh" he says

    "if he's omniscient how can we have a free will?"

    "because god created us that way for his pleasure" he says

    "Why did he create the wicked?" i say

    "to test us" he says

    "So if god is omnipresent, omnipresent and omniscient, doesn't that mean he's also a little bit wicked for creating wicked things?"




    he couldn't answer....any of these. I thought then Christianity is a religion for dumbasses. But then as I looked at him I realized he was Siva and it was sort of funny. I think the world works fine as it is this way, for afterwards, he said that he liked talking to me because we wern't the same. Isn't that so true XD
    Om Hrim Kshraum Ugram Veeram Maha-Vishnum, Jwalantham Sarvatho Mukham Nrisimham Bheeshanam Bhadram Mrityu-Mrityum Namaamyaham

    Follower of Śeṣanaaga

  5. #25
    Join Date
    September 2006
    Age
    71
    Posts
    7,705
    Rep Power
    223

    Re: Omnisence In Varying Degrees

    hari o
    ~~~~~


    Quote Originally Posted by Naomi Ningishzidda View Post
    Yajvan I argued this in a simpler form to a colleague at work yesterday. He couldn't comprehend it. He just kept responding "yes" to my questions.
    Namaste Naomi ,
    Thank you for your post... yes an interesting subject for contemplation let alone a discussion, yes?

    You mention comprehension - yes, I see your point, that is key. As I have learned knowledge is a function of consciousness, hence comprehension is driven by how our 'container' expands to entertain different ideas and view points. I am sure your conversation with your friend has helped expand the 'container' in some way.

    Let us know if this person returns with questions or anther POV - it will be interesting to hear.

    praṇām
    Last edited by yajvan; 31 December 2008 at 12:10 PM.
    यतस्त्वं शिवसमोऽसि
    yatastvaṁ śivasamo'si
    because you are identical with śiva

    _

  6. #26

    Re: Omniscience In Varying Degrees

    Quote Originally Posted by yajvan View Post
    [...]If Brahman is the sum of Omnipresence + Omniscience + Omnipotence[...]
    What about omnibenevolent?

  7. #27

    Re: Omniscience In Varying Degrees

    What about omnibenevolent?
    The problem with describing the Divine in terms of omnibenevolence comes down to what humanity defines as benevolent. Would a benevolent God allow evil to happen? Would a benevolent God permit suffering and disease, warfare and oppression? Would a benevolent God create a world in which sin and evil, poisonous snakes and tsunamis disrupt it?

    And the logical conclusion would be the Abrahamic response: "No! A benevolent God would do no such things." The existence of evil on Earth would require a Satan to explain it. Sanatana Dharma would become another Abrahamic philosophy of a good God perpetually warring against His direct Zoroastrian Satanic counterfeit. And then we are back to rejection of "satanic religions" and "satanic gods" and justifying suppression of "false worship" and becoming another Islam.

    Self-serving definitions of God's Pure and infinite benevolence on human terms cannot account for a God of destructive capacity or the long-term justice of karma-dharma-reincarnation. If the blame of evil and sin is projected onto a counter deity like Satan, then the reward-punishment system of heaven and hell is sure to follow, since "why would human beings endure justice of karma if the devil made them do it?" And if they align with the evil devil, how can they be deserving of eternal life in a pleasure realm?

    Omnibenevolence is an Abrahamic philosophy utterly opposed to Sanatana Dharma where the Divine is shades of grey rather than black versus white. How could we explain Left hand tantra marg or wrathful forms of the Divine in an "omnibenevolent paradigm?" We would have to throw out half of our religion to accept it.

    Omnibenevolence is defined by the Oxford English Dictionary as "unlimited or infinite benevolence". It is sometimes held to be impossible for a deity to exhibit this property along with both omniscience and omnipotence, because of the problem of evil... The term is patterned on, and often accompanied by, the terms "omniscience" and "omnipotence", typically to refer to conceptions of an "all-good, all-knowing, all-powerful" deity. Philosophers and theologians more commonly use phrases like "perfectly good",[4] or simply the term "benevolence".

    The word "omnibenevolence" may be interpreted to mean perfectly just, all-loving, fully merciful, or any number of other qualities, depending on precisely how "good" is understood. As such, there is little agreement over how an "omnibenevolent" being would behave.
    The notion of an omnibenevolent, infinitely compassionate deity, has raised certain atheistic objections, such as the problem of evil and the problem of hell...

    The acknowledgement of God's omnibenevolence is an essential foundation in traditional Christianity, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnibenevolence
    sri-bhagavan uvaca:
    kalo 'smi loka-ksaya-krt pravrddho
    lokan samahartum iha pravrttah /
    rte 'pi tvam na bhavisyanti sarve
    ye 'vasthitah pratyanikesu yodhah //


    The Lord said: "Time [death] I am, the destroyer of the worlds,
    who has come to annihilate everyone. Even without your taking part
    all those arrayed in the [two] opposing ranks will be slain!"

    (Gita vs. 11.32 trans. after Swami Tripurari)

  8. #28

    Re: Omniscience In Varying Degrees

    Quote Originally Posted by Harjas Kaur View Post
    [...]Self-serving definitions of God's Pure and infinite benevolence on human terms cannot account for a God of destructive capacity or the long-term justice of karma-dharma-reincarnation.[...]
    I am not so sure about that: cyclic existence, including the 'painful' parts, has a reason, and getting through it, which is supposed to happen to every being, is a good thing on the whole.

    Omnibenevolence is an Abrahamic philosophy utterly opposed to Sanatana Dharma where the Divine is shades of grey rather than black versus white. How could we explain Left hand tantra marg or wrathful forms of the Divine in an "omnibenevolent paradigm?" We would have to throw out half of our religion to accept it.
    I see. I guess a certain amount of relativism and then wrathful forms is okay, but I think it is okay to throw a little out.

    In math there are different infinities, including 'infinite infinities.' Fortunately with some of the newest number systems I think they have been able to abbreviate '... infinite infinities,' as if there were infinite 'infinites' preceding, to two words. I do not recall the details and may be a little skeptical, but I think they generally had a clear idea. It is called 'aleph-aleph.' It contains all other numbers and combinations of numbers, so would it not best represent Parabrahm?

    Then if it does, is not Parabrahm everything of everything? Actually I think this is a harder idea. Some Orthodox mainly describe God by what God is not, but one definition of Parabrahm is 'beyond God,' because it is beyond any form such as any Trimurti/Tridevi. So one may have to say what it is not even when it is everything and when it allows the Trimurti to be almost everything or maybe so if it is considered impersonally.

    I do not think it is such a question about whether some form of religion is nice or not, but it is about how the universe works. If cyclic existence is good because it allows beings to evolve then the Divine is omnibenevolent. However there are different ideas on cyclic existence.

  9. #29
    Join Date
    March 2006
    Location
    India
    Posts
    4,193
    Rep Power
    369

    Re: Omniscience In Varying Degrees

    Quote Originally Posted by DavidC View Post
    What about omnibenevolent?
    Well Turiyam is indeed called Shivam, which means All Good -- not in relativistic term, since the common good is accompanied by common evil. Shivam is the Goodness itself. It knows nothing that is not it. No action arises herein out of sense of another. So, it is Shivam.

    Omniscience, Omnipresence, and Omnipotence pertain to the saguna.

    Om
    That which is without letters (parts) is the Fourth, beyond apprehension through ordinary means, the cessation of the phenomenal world, the auspicious and the non-dual. Thus Om is certainly the Self. He who knows thus enters the Self by the Self.

  10. #30

    Re: Omniscience In Varying Degrees

    Naomi Ningishzidda

    "So if god is omnipresent, omnipresent and omniscient, doesn't that mean he's also a little bit wicked for creating wicked things?"

    Perhaps God is ambivalent and we are the manifestations of his divine ambivalence.

    Do you feel that God could be trying to understand his situation as well. Much like we try to understand ours?

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •