Can We be Reasonably Certain That God Wants Us to Follow a Specific Morality?

[DawudTalut]

God didn't actually say that. It was Rabbinical commentary on the Talmud.

Peace be on you.
Holy Quran:
[5:33] On account of this, We prescribed for the children of Israel that whosoever killed a person — unless it be for killing a person or for creating disorder in the land — it shall be as if he had killed all mankind; and whoso gave life to one, it shall be as if he had given life to all mankind. And Our Messengers came to them with clear Signs, yet even after that, many of them commit excesses in the land.

 

[Terese]

OK, so for example Swaminarayans aren't Vaishnavas because their founder said that some people might approach God as Shiva, that Vishnu and Shiva were one?

Last week I spent some time quite a bit with a lovely guy from ISKCON who very enthusiastically agreed that others might call God Shiva or Mother rather than Krishna. Would this be beyond the pale?

Correct, they aren't Vaisnavas. That ISKCON man, while happily proclaiming Smartha ideas, is doing just that, and is committing Vaisnava apradha by equalling Lord Siva and/or Parvati/Shakti/Durga to Lord Krsna.

 

[Kirran]

Correct, they aren't Vaisnavas. That ISKCON man, while happily proclaiming Smartha ideas, is doing just that, and is committing Vaisnava apradha by equalling Lord Siva and/or Parvati/Shakti/Durga to Lord Krsna.

OK, I see. Interestingly, I think most people who would be referred to as Smartas have actually never heard the term Smarta - it is to a substantial degree exonymous. Like 'mayavadin'.

To my view, people like to find a way to put God in a box, this is the natural tendency of the mind.

 

[Terese]

OK, I see. Interestingly, I think most people who would be referred to as Smartas have actually never heard the term Smarta - it is to a substantial degree exonymous. Like 'mayavadin'.

To my view, people like to find a way to put God in a box, this is the natural tendency of the mind.

What do Smartas call themselves then? That is the only term i have heard that denotes that group

Yes, God is infinite

 

[Kirran]

What do Smartas call themselves then? That is the only term i have heard that denotes that group

Yes, God is infinite

Well it's not really a group, it's not self-defined. It's just people who are in that Hindu sphere and who believe God can appear in many ways but is ultimately beyond our perception. Tends to be spread out and to be brought up in different places through direct experience.

I am a little confused - if God is infinite (haha, if ), what's with a single ultimate form that looks like a human?

 

[YmirGF]

Even if we assume that god exists and even if we assume that it wants us to follow a specific morality, can we be reasonably certain that god wants us to follow that specific morality?

If so, then by what means or method do we know that god wants us to follow a specific morality?

I think this thread bears witness as to what the real answer is, Sunstone.

The morality to follow just happens to coincide with the bias of ones religious persuasion. Odd coincidence, eh?

Given that our sense of morality grows out of our life experience, no two people will have an identical grasp of what is moral and what is not. That said, morality, however expressed is an inherent feature of the human experience. In many ways the thought that we would need a book to tell us that killing another, cheating another, hurting another etc is troubling at best as life should teach even the dullest person that these things are wrong under normal circumstances. If a person decides the things listed above are wrong BECAUSE they read it in a book they are likely suffering from a severe psychological disconnect and could likely benefit greatly from professional counseling.

 

[Terese]

Well it's not really a group, it's not self-defined. It's just people who are in that Hindu sphere and who believe God can appear in many ways but is ultimately beyond our perception. Tends to be spread out and to be brought up in different places through direct experience.

I am a little confused - if God is infinite (haha, if ), what's with a single ultimate form that looks like a human?

Well, dear Kirran, this human-like form he assumes is for us, for our benefit. If He did not have a form, it would be hard for us to produce bhakti towards Him, it would be quite hard to endlessly talk about his infinite qualities and infinite lilas if He had no form or personality. Just because we believe God's original form is the four-armed Vasudeva does not mean we are limiting Him. His cerulean 4-armed form, as well as His other forms are simply pure nectarean sattva, and He is the antaryamin of all entities, deva or human. In Sri Vaisnavism, the Lord's personal form, Vasudeva, and His impersonal formlessness, Brahman, are equal in potency. Lord Visnu is both formless and has a form. Besides, form or not, what happens in His abode is beyond conception

 

[Kirran]

Well, dear Kirran, this human-like form he assumes is for us, for our benefit. If He did not have a form, it would be hard for us to produce bhakti towards Him, it would be quite hard to endlessly talk about his infinite qualities and infinite lilas if He had no form or personality. Just because we believe God's original form is the four-armed Vasudeva does not mean we are limiting Him. His cerulean 4-armed form, as well as His other forms are simply pure nectarean sattva, and He is the antaryamin of all entities, deva or human. In Sri Vaisnavism, the Lord's personal form, Vasudeva, and His impersonal formlessness, Brahman, are equal in potency. Lord Visnu is both formless and has a form. Besides, form or not, what happens in His abode is beyond conception

So why would He be limited to taking only this form for His devotees? What is it that somehow prevents Him from taking endless forms with which His devotees might identify? Presumably, also, all forms are His forms? i.e. computers and oceans and stars and forests?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Even if we assume that god exists and even if we assume that it wants us to follow a specific morality, can we be reasonably certain that god wants us to follow that specific morality?

If so, then by what means or method do we know that god wants us to follow a specific morality?

Most of the god(s) express their morals through written oral texts, traditions, and so forth. If there were no stories/text, no sacred books, and so forth, the only way I can see god giving the believer morals is observation, inner connection with self, and respect for self and environment. Whether they call this "holistic feeling" from god or not, depends on the individual.

You can know that killing is wrong by how it affects yourself and others. Wrong as in it's unhealthy and unproductive to help ourselves and our environment. The affects for many people who hurt others even to the small extent doesn't bring joy as in wholeness. A lot of times if someone is getting back at someone, it could just be pride and be temporary.

I'd probably ask what morals we cannot learn from our own rather than from a sacred book or oral teaching? That, and why would we consider their morals sacred and the ones we find today that are not part of the Dharma, Scripture, Quran, and oral stories of cultural faiths, etc not of "the same level"?

In other words, if moral X isn't in the Bible, what makes it wrong? If moral Y is expressed differently in the Dharma, what makes it wrong? If moral Z is communicated differently, what makes it wrong in the Quran?

How are the morals of these sacred scriptures and oral stories more sacred than the morals that develop today that didn't exist back when?

 

[Terese]

So why would He be limited to taking only this form for His devotees? What is it that somehow prevents Him from taking endless forms with which His devotees might identify? Presumably, also, all forms are His forms? i.e. computers and oceans and stars and forests?

Why do you think He is limited? He does take endless forms, He produces innumerable incarnations. But all these point to the Original Being, Lord Visnu, not any deva, who reside inside the material world and are ruled by the gunas. All forms are His forms? Not in the Advaitic way; reality is a manifestation of Him, but a toaster is still achit, insentient, although the atoms comprising a toaster is held together by Lord Visnu. Haha, I'm reminiscing my early days on this forum, when the terms chit and achit were new to me

 

[viole]

God says murder of an innocent is like taking life of all people.

If I were mean, I would say that is probably the reason why terrorists would like to take the lives of as many people as possible. Bigger impact for the living and same evil for God.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Kirran]

Why do you think He is limited? He does take endless forms, He produces innumerable incarnations. But all these point to the Original Being, Lord Visnu, not any deva, who reside inside the material world and are ruled by the gunas. All forms are His forms? Not in the Advaitic way; reality is a manifestation of Him, but a toaster is still achit, insentient, although the atoms comprising a toaster is held together by Lord Visnu. Haha, I'm reminiscing my early days on this forum, when the terms chit and achit were new to me

Man, dem times haha.

OK, so I'm basically unsure what is the specialness of the form of Vishnu - what is it about this form which he is taking for the sake of his devotees that is in some way different to all other forms (inc. said toaster) he takes for the benefit of his devotees?

Also, as an aside, I don't see how anything can be chit - by dint of being a thing it exists within consciousness

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

Peace be on you.
Holy Quran:
[5:33] On account of this, We prescribed for the children of Israel that whosoever killed a person — unless it be for killing a person or for creating disorder in the land — it shall be as if he had killed all mankind; and whoso gave life to one, it shall be as if he had given life to all mankind. And Our Messengers came to them with clear Signs, yet even after that, many of them commit excesses in the land.

Right, and that's a Quranic verse which was lifted from a Rabbinical commentary on the Talmud which you can find on the link I provided in my previous post.

 

[DawudTalut]

Right, and that's a Quranic verse which was lifted from a Rabbinical commentary on the Talmud which you can find on the link I provided in my previous post.

lifted?
Quran did not lift anything. It confirmed or corrected things, as here, what seem a Rabbinical commentary to some, Quran says it was part of God's words.

 

[idav]

If so, then by what means or method do we know that god wants us to follow a specific morality?

Cause we can predict consequences to our actions. Animals that can do this are closer to god.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Even if we assume that god exists and even if we assume that it wants us to follow a specific morality, can we be reasonably certain that god wants us to follow that specific morality?

If so, then by what means or method do we know that god wants us to follow a specific morality?

There is a fairly well known book that he has made widely available for a millennia or two, great place to start!

 

[Terese]

Man, dem times haha.

OK, so I'm basically unsure what is the specialness of the form of Vishnu - what is it about this form which he is taking for the sake of his devotees that is in some way different to all other forms (inc. said toaster) he takes for the benefit of his devotees?

Also, as an aside, I don't see how anything can be chit - by dint of being a thing it exists within consciousness

Maha-Visnu's form is transcendental, the purest sattva, beyond the material world, infinite in every way, and this form of His resides in the highest loka, Sri Vaikuntham, without beginning or end, along with the Goddess of Fortune and Ananta Shesha, accompanied by the Muktas who reside there. What sets jivas apart from Maha-Visnu is His 6 opulences: He is The Most Powerful, The Most Famous, The Most Wealthy, The Most Knowledgable, The Most Beautiful, and The Most Renounced. To drive this point further, the specialness of this form of Visnu is that he is beyond the material world, beyond reality, beyond space and time, beyond the gunas. A toaster does not have these attributes.

Chit are conscious entities, those who possess an atma, jivas are chit. Yes, everything is the consciousness of Maha-Visnu, but a river is insentient, it is not self aware, therefore it is achit.

 

[Kirran]

Maha-Visnu's form is transcendental, the purest sattva, beyond the material world, infinite in every way, and this form of His resides in the highest loka, Sri Vaikuntham, without beginning or end, along with the Goddess of Fortune and Ananta Shesha, accompanied by the Muktas who reside there. What sets jivas apart from Maha-Visnu is His 6 opulences: He is The Most Powerful, The Most Famous, The Most Wealthy, The Most Knowledgable, The Most Beautiful, and The Most Renounced. To drive this point further, the specialness of this form of Visnu is that he is beyond the material world, beyond reality, beyond space and time, beyond the gunas. A toaster does not have these attributes.

Chit are conscious entities, those who possess an atma, jivas are chit. Yes, everything is the consciousness of Maha-Visnu, but a river is insentient, it is not self aware, therefore it is achit.

So this form which is experienced as such is one taken by God, still? And can those 6 opulences not be held by God through other forms? What is it that stops God from appearing as Shiva or Kali? In what way is his form beyond space when a form by definition exists in space, it has relative dimensions?

So the body is achit, the mind is achit, what part is it that is chit?

And finally, where does this info r.e. the defined nature of God come from - direct experience, your guru, reason? I'm trying to get a handle on Vaishnavism

 

[Terese]

So this form which is experienced as such is one taken by God, still? And can those 6 opulences not be held by God through other forms? What is it that stops God from appearing as Shiva or Kali? In what way is his form beyond space when a form by definition exists in space, it has relative dimensions?

So the body is achit, the mind is achit, what part is it that is chit?

And finally, where does this info r.e. the defined nature of God come from - direct experience, your guru, reason? I'm trying to get a handle on Vaishnavism

Yes, it is experienced by Him. Lord Siva, was born from Lord Brahma, both are devas, both are not the Lord. Why would Lord Visnu appear as Lord Siva? The worship of devas is barren compared to the worship of Maha-Visnu. Why are you limiting God by saying "He cannot" when in fact He simply chooses not to? Maha-Visnu has many forms, refer to the purnavataras of Lord Visnu. Lord Ramachandra and Lord Krsna are forms of Himself.

Lord Visnu has a transcendental form, Vasudeva is beyond space in the sense that He permeates all of reality, not just the places where time and space rule. He is not bound by time and space, He can, and is everywhere at the same time. What ever is in space, is Him. Whatever is beyond space, is Him.

A jiva is chit, it can think, it has a substantive consciousness. the body is achit, it is material and insentient and cannot function without the atma. I'm pretty sure chit generally refers to the living and breathing, like plants, animals and humans.

 

[Kirran]

Yes, it is experienced by Him. Lord Siva, was born from Lord Brahma, both are devas, both are not the Lord. Why would Lord Visnu appear as Lord Siva? The worship of devas is barren compared to the worship of Maha-Visnu. Why are you limiting God by saying "He cannot" when in fact He simply chooses not to? Maha-Visnu has many forms, refer to the purnavataras of Lord Visnu. Lord Ramachandra and Lord Krsna are forms of Himself.

Lord Visnu has a transcendental form, Vasudeva is beyond space in the sense that He permeates all of reality, not just the places where time and space rule. He is not bound by time and space, He can, and is everywhere at the same time. What ever is in space, is Him. Whatever is beyond space, is Him.

I suppose I am unsure at this juncture whether you're saying that the form of Lord Vishnu (blue, human form etc) is actually what Vishnu is, or if that's a form the Lord is taking as he takes all forms?

The statement 'Why would Lord Vishnu appear as Lord Shiva?' makes sense if it's the former, but not if it's the second.

A jiva is chit, it can think, it has a substantive consciousness. the body is achit, it is material and insentient and cannot function without the atma. I'm pretty sure chit generally refers to the living and breathing, like plants, animals and humans.

So is consciousness defined by the ability to think? Or is that an attribute of a conditioned entity? i.e. is a thought something you experience, or is its presence somehow indicative of consciousness? When you say that a plant, animal etc is chit, do you mean it is a seat for cittam, or that prior to the material body of said entity there is in some a plant-jiva, a rabbit-jiva etc?

I have hopes to at some point reduce the number of question marks in these posts, but it will not be today