PDA

View Full Version : Who created God ?


dattaswami
03-09-2006, 12:35 PM
God has no beginning and no end because God is unimaginable. The beginning and the end must be also unimaginable for an unimaginable item. The beginning and the end of the cosmic energy or space or the creation are also unimaginable. Therefore, the beginning and the end are unimaginable for the unimaginable item like God and also for the imaginable item like space. Therefore, the two points, which are the beginning-less and end-less characteristics cannot help you in understanding the real nature of God. If you start recognizing the God by simply these two points (beginning-less and end-less), you may think that God is an imaginable item like the space or energy or the creation. In fact based on these two characteristics people have imagined God as an imaginable item like space or energy or creation. This concept has misled people to such a low level that people think that God is the very infinite space or infinite energy or infinite creation. Therefore, one should filter the concept of God at this juncture itself. One should think that God has no beginning and no end because the beginning and the end of an unimaginable item are also unimaginable.

Such God desired to create this Universe for entertainment. The very desire itself is the Creation. In view of God this present materialized universe in only an idea or imagination or the very desire itself. Therefore, the desire to create the world is itself the desire and also the created world itself is a desire. Thus the creation, maintenance and dissolution of the imaginary world are also imaginations or desires. A part of this infinite creation is the individual soul. The soul is like a drop of the infinite ocean of imagination or desire of God. Thus, quantitatively the entire ocean of imagination of God is very huge compared to the tiny soul. Remember that both the Universe and the tiny soul are made of the same substance called as imagination or desire. Thus the force of the Universe is far greater than the force of the soul. Due to such huge quantitative difference of the same phase, the Universe, which is far stronger than the soul appears as a materialized entity for the soul. But this infinite ocean of desire, which is the infinite Universe is a tiny drop compared to the infinite force of God. Therefore, again due to the same quantitative difference of force the entire universe is just the very weak imagination from the view of God. Thus imagination and materialization exist simultaneously true from the point of God and soul.

For the sake of entertainment, God desired to create the Universe. This statement is in Veda (Sa dviteeya Maicchat). In this statement there is a very subtle intermediate stage, which is the essence of the desire to create the Universe. The desire to create the world is like the golden ornament but the essence of such desire is like the raw gold in which the ornament is not yet expressed. Such raw essence of the desire is pure awareness. The pure awareness is a special subtle form of energy, which is not qualified by any form. Such pure awareness is called as the spirit, which is not qualified and does not have any attribute. This is called as “Nirguna Brahman”, which means the pure awareness, which has no reference to the creation of the universe. It is a very critical and subtle point to recognize the pure awareness. Veda says that only very very sharp intelligence can grasp that critical state (Drushyate Tvagraya bhuddhya). Sankara, the topmost genius among the spiritual preachers could grasp that state and proposed the concept of Nirguna Brahman or non-qualified pure awareness. Such pure awareness is the first creation of God (Parabrahman). This first creation is almost as critical and unimaginable as the very Parabrahman itself. The only difference is that Parabrahman is absolutely unimaginable for any sharp intelligence, but this pure awareness is imaginable only for a very sharp intelligence. This pure awareness is called as Mula Prakriti or Suddha Sattvam or Mula Avidya or Mula Maya or the Spirit in general. The Parabrahman maintains such spirit and it is only an associated item and is the first created item. The word Mula means the first. This spirit is in the form of knowledge. It is aware of itself, which means that it is knowledge. Knowledge requires both subjective and objective characteristics. It is subject as well as the object. Therefore, it is called as knowledge or Sattvam. This knowledge is the first form of energy. Energy is always active. Action is the characteristic of Rajas. Such Spirit is unaware of its own creator who is the God. Therefore, it is having ignorance or Tamas. Thus, the Knowledge itself is action and ignorance. According to Gita Knowledge is Sattvam (Sattvaat Sanjayate Jnanam), action is Rajas (Rajah Karmani) and Ignorance is Tamas (Tamastva Jnanajam). Thus these three qualities are always inseparable. The pure knowledge (Suddha Sattvam) itself is pure action (Suddha Rajas), which is the pure ignorance (Suddha Tamas). Thus in the very first instant itself the three qualities are created simultaneously in the purest state. Since all these three co-exist, it is called as equilibrium of the three qualities. When the equilibrium is disturbed various items of awareness result in which the three qualities exist in various proportions. Such disturbance of the equilibrium resulting in various distorted items of the three qualities is the very creation. The various mixtures of these three qualities constitute this diversified universe, which is meant for the play of the God and for His entertainment. When the entertainment is over all the three qualities go into the equilibrium state. Thus the Universe is converted into Mula Prakruti.

God is in association with this Mula Prakruti in the beginning. At this stage the Mula Prakruti is only a creation or created item and cannot do anything further. Its equilibrium continues. In fact the Mula Prakruti is only inert and the continuation of such equilibrium is the inertia. God enters the Mula Prakruti and pervades it. Now this Mula Prakruti is electrified wire. It is the ignited stick and is called as fire. Now this Mula Prakruti becomes divine and is called as Brahman or the Holy Spirit. The Spirit, which is just the inert created item became Holy due to the existence of God in it. Now Brahman multiplies its little part of the Mula Prakruti in which, Parabrahman does not exist. This means that God enters ninety nine percent of Mula Prakruti and not one percent. This little part of un-divine Mula Prakruti is multiplied by the disturbed equilibrium and the Universe appears. Thus, the pure awareness in which God pervaded becomes Brahman. Now Brahman becomes the spectator of the Universe. The little pure awareness into which God did not enter is modified into the Universe in which God does not exist. Here the modification does not mean materialization. The modification means the undisturbed equilibrium being converted into disturbed equilibrium. In both the states the substance is only awareness. You can compare this to a day-dreamer’s mind. The mind of the day-dreamer is Mula Prakruti. A little part of the mind is converted into dream. The mind, which is not converted, is a spectator of the dream. The dreamer is identified with the spectator part of the mind. Thus the dreamer is witnessing the dream through his unmodified mind. The dreamer has not entered the dream and therefore is not multiplied. When the dream city is burning neither the spectator part of the mind is burnt nor the dreamer. The spectator part of the mind itself can be treated as the dreamer because the dreamer entered that spectator part of the mind and exists in it. Thus, Brahman, the spectator of the Universe can be treated as Parabrahman. Such Parabrahman who is the spectator of the Universe is called as Eeshwara. Thus, Parabrahman is the original unimaginable creator. Mula Prakrithi is the first created item, which is the pure awareness. Brahman is the major part of pure awareness in which Parabrahman entered and occupied it. The same Brahman enjoying the Universe by vision is called as Eeshwara. Neither Parabrahman nor Brahman nor the Eeswara has entered the Universe, which is the disturbed equilibrium of the three qualities. Thus, there is no disturbance in either Parabrahman or Brahman or Eeshwara. In Christianity God is Parabrahman. Brahman and Eeshwara are called as the Holy Spirit. The Spirit is the substance with which the Universe is made of. The spirit is not Holy because God did not occupy it. Thus the Universe is not Holy in Toto. It is Holy with reference to the good devotees and the divine incarnations. It is unholy with reference to bad living beings and Saturn. Parabrahman who is a spectator for sometime develops a desire to enter this Universe in the form of a living being especially as a human being because the main aim is to preach the divine knowledge. Veda says the same (Tadevaanu Praavishat). This divine human being in which, Parabrahman or Brahman or Eeshwara exists is called as human incarnation or God in Flesh. The human incarnation consists of four items. The first item is God. The second item is the Mula Prakruti, which is the pure awareness or Brahman or Aatman or Karana Sareeram (Casual Body). The third item is the disturbed equilibrium of the three qualities called as Jeeva or Sukshma Sareera (Subtle Body). The fourth item is the Gross body made of five elements (Sthula Sareera) which is again imaginary only in view of God but a materialized form in view of other human beings. If you analyse any ordinary living being it contains all the three bodies except God. If we analyse any inert item of the world it contains only the Gross Body made of the five elements.

God should be understood as the unimaginable creator. Next God can be understood as the unimaginable spectator of the world. Lastly, God should be understood as the unimaginable actor who has entered the Universal Drama in the form of Human Incarnation.

At Thy Lotus Feet

Anil Antony

www.universal-spirituality.org
Universal Spirituality for World Peace
antonyanil@universal-spirituality.org

Shevchenko
04-13-2006, 05:20 AM
As to "Who created God" - see this Forum / "Physics General"/ "Information and the matter"

Epsilon=One
04-13-2006, 11:19 PM
God has no beginning and no end because God is unimaginable.Yes, I agree, in general, with your thoughts concerning the "beginning" and "end." However, there is nothing that cannot be “closely” imagined. The imagination can approach any limit; and therefore, something can be known of god. I detest the word god as it has so many loaded connotations. For that which created everything, I prefer the word Oneness. Infinity and several other words also convey the concept rather well; however, Oneness is well recognized in most every religion; yet, is without anthropic concepts or divisiveness.

The beginning and the end must be also unimaginable for an unimaginable item. The beginning and the end of the cosmic energy or space or the creation are also unimaginable. Therefore, the beginning and the end are unimaginable for the unimaginable item like God and also for the imaginable item like space. Therefore, the two points, which are the beginning-less and end-less characteristics cannot help you in understanding the real nature of God. If you start recognizing the God by simply these two points (beginning-less and end-less), you may think that God is an imaginable item like the space or energy or the creation. In fact based on these two characteristics people have imagined God as an imaginable item like space or energy or creation. This concept has misled people to such a low level that people think that God is the very infinite space or infinite energy or infinite creation. Therefore, one should filter the concept of God at this juncture itself. One should think that God has no beginning and no end because the beginning and the end of an unimaginable item are also unimaginable.With the above caveats, these thoughts contain a certain wisdom.

Such God desired to create this Universe for entertainment. The very desire itself is the Creation.Now, your wisdom goes into the tank. Concepts such as “desired,” “create,” “entertainment” are anthropic. There can be no anthropic qualities given to god if there is logic to your statements in the above quotes. You cannot have it both ways.

In view of God this present materialized universe in only an idea or imagination or the very desire itself. Therefore, the desire to create the world is itself the desire and also the created world itself is a desire. Thus the creation, maintenance and dissolution of the imaginary world are also imaginations or desires.The Universe exists; a god with “an idea,” “imagination,” or “desire” does not. The thought is blasphemous to all logic and any group that is concerned with mankind’s general welfare.

A part of this infinite creation is the individual soul. The soul is like a drop of the infinite ocean of imagination or desire of God.

Thus, quantitatively the entire ocean of imagination of God is very huge compared to the tiny soul. Remember that both the Universe and the tiny soul are made of the same substance called as imagination or desire. Thus the force of the Universe is far greater than the force of the soul. Due to such huge quantitative difference of the same phase, the Universe, which is far stronger than the soul appears as a materialized entity for the soul. But this infinite ocean of desire, which is the infinite Universe is a tiny drop compared to the infinite force of God. Therefore, again due to the same quantitative difference of force the entire universe is just the very weak imagination from the view of God. Thus imagination and materialization exist simultaneously true from the point of God and soul.To equate god and soul is ludicrous. They are at opposite ends of evolution. A soul can be no more than a personal quality; something that is anthropic. To equate a person with god is blaspheme.

For the sake of entertainment, God desired to create the Universe. This statement is in Veda (Sa dviteeya Maicchat).Yes, the statement may be in Veda; but, no man can write anything that can be believed concerning god and a “desire” that is anthropic; and, therefore, has no association with god/Oneness.

Such thoughts as continue throughout your post can bring some peace, goodwill, and relaxation to many. But, for others such superstition, requiring a faith such that there is manipulation of the many by the few, is the direct cause of most all the agony that mankind perpetrates upon itself.

Such universal spirituality is the antithesis of world peace.

GaryCGibson
05-10-2006, 05:13 PM
It is interesting how the concept that people have about God have certain similarities in various philosophical paradigms occassionally.Some Indian philosophical ideas are somewhat like the cosmological theories of the neo-Platonist Plotinus. Plotinus wrote 54 tractates in six books of nine each.

God is 'The One' that emminates 'The Intellect' that is the realm of forms and that permits 'The Spirit' to actualize material things, universes and so forth.It is all rather unintentional yet not illusory.

God of course is absolutely perfect and has foreknowledge of everything, and that which does eventually reduce into created time paradigms is imperfect and must return to an awreness of The One presumably or be left in a brokenness without God.

Jesus Christ is one with the Father, and through his attoning sacrifice believers may become perfected enough or 'forgiven' from original 'sin' or missing the mark by being created, and then though faith in Jesus become One or renormalized unto the eternal.

There are many good works on Plotinus, who wasn't perfect or perfectly accurate either, yet did strive to create a cosmology that is useful to inquiring minds.

Regarding logic; one of the branches of symbollic logic is modal logic, one of which is the logic of necessity. it is possible to structure formal modals of 'universes' or sets that may have just necessary values. I suppose one can form a 'non'-euclidian' sort of logic that would be the equivelent of a non-euclidian geometry, in which all values would in that 'universe' embody values consistent with whatever it was one had postulated.

It is interesting that time is a function or attribute of mass-energy and relational orders, as if in a small-worlds graph with formal and informal relational protocols time was the formal and local phenomenon and universal time didn't exist except as the concatenated mass-energy of the entire clump of everything. The informal relational paths in the graph that would predominate each would have their own local time values as the structure/world lines of each mass-energy coordinate or place would vary from others at least subtly.

Time from a metaphysical perspective could be most valuable as an assigned purpose or teleology of the entire mass.

I am not at all certain that everything that can exist can be imagined or imaged...one must give it some bound meaning I suppose. The imaginaed would not be the things for-themselves for one thing, and anything that can be seen from one point of view as it must be cannot simultaneously be seen from another point of view, unless one considers a compound complex of points of view such as a mosaic to be differerent though one perceives it at once. Because others can hhave a simultaneously different point of view, the accurate representation in cogito of what is perceived would invariably be incomplete or representational at best, and deceptive at worst. Kant wrote about the impossibility of perceiving the noumenal, yet one need only consider the difficulty of perceiving the universe from the point of view of a string harmonic or whatever, to realize that some things aren't readily imageable.

The essential problem with 'imaging' God in the Plotinian paradigm or in reference to 'The One', is that as human beings part of the material world of creation reduced as selections from that infinite and transtemporal realm of forms or 'The Intellect' there just isn't anything in the Universe's context that would serve to imagine 'The One'. Dimensions, matter etc are created things.

black eyes
07-26-2006, 07:39 PM
To assume to know a God is as presumptuous as a scientist assuming he or she can understand the life around him or her.

To understand how to adjust life processes and improve survival is quite enough.

Epsilon=One
07-26-2006, 10:06 PM
To assume to know a God is as presumptuous as a scientist assuming he or she can understand the life around him or her.You are wrong. To know god depends entirely upon your definition of god.

To understand how to adjust life processes and improve survival is quite enough.Here again, you are badly mistaken.

Much of what screws up "...life processes and...survival..." is the image a person has of a god and the actions a person takes on behalf of that image.

Philosophers and theologians are poorly armed for defining god. Today, the physicist has a better chance.

When Science, Theology, and Philosophy are reunited, the discipline will look more like Science than any other discipline. However, there is, also, considerable importance with disciplines other than Science.

All three, currently, have abdicated much of their responsibilities to society and humanity on the important issue of defining god . . . that which has created.

black eyes
07-27-2006, 06:14 PM
I think that the organizational efforts to know a God, which ever God is fundamentally the problem.

A God concept is as individual a perception as is possible. People who organize such individual perceptions are doing so for status, prestige or political power and not for the basic effort of making some sense of your realization of existence.

You cannot "Know" a God. It's very definition is unknowable. Just as Science cannot know what life and what all of what we can percieve means either.

I say it is a presumption because we as a nation and a society waste ennormous resources on secondary pursuits. Where the universe began or where it is going is not primarily important to mammals with a life span of less than a hundred years.

You said: "Philosophers and theologians are poorly armed for defining god. Today, the physicist has a better chance."
I do not think that Physicits are promoting the solution to terrestrial problems. There is an arrogance in Science that you have some secret knowledgr and if people would just defre to your superior intellect life would be better.
Earth is not helped by another elitist "Priesthood" whoknows secrets. Science could and should be one of the most important aspects of life, but it is caught up in Grantsmanship, publishing for reputation and insular educational tracks that removes it from general life and makes it place great emphasis on exotic fields of study instead of ones that are abbolutely essential today.

I do have respect for and think that research, even for it's own sake, is many times important, but not when so many applications of scientific breakthroughs are so badly realized.

Building a Space Station is not so important when thousands of people die of thirst and hunger every month on this planet.

And "knowing God" as large Church organizations claim is a horrible waste of money, time and attention when basic primitive and life threatening conditions exist less than a few miles from virtually every Church building in this country and many others.

God is not important, nor is Science if it cannot focus it's efforts on improving this planet and inproving our understanding of how the life processes that we deal with every day can be improved.

Space science, more tha others, is a luxery we cannot afford.

And i thought that this was a Forum for discussing questions and exchanging ideas. The writer "dattaswami" is making long missionary speeches, not presenting or talking about ideas but presenting his beliefs as a presentation.
I can go to the Subway and get a rambling speech.

black eyes

Mr. Robin Parsons
07-28-2006, 07:18 PM
© Mr. Robin Parsons :cool: Kingston Ontario Canada MMVI

I can go to the Subway and get a rambling speech.
black eyesFunny as that's exactly where (I) had thought you got yours (the rabble/ramble) from...A subway wall....

And you can 'know' God, you just cannot prove it nor can you 'Imagine it' in your mind, as that way is a Partiallity of that "Truth" as all concepts are....

You can feel it, (God) in/with your heart.

And you can make a Subjective attestament to it, too.....that is where the "Written down Moral Codes" came/come from, recognized as Inspired works.

HallsofIvy
10-27-2006, 09:28 AM
"Who created God?"


I did. It probably wasn't a good idea. Sorry.

Epsilon=One
10-27-2006, 03:26 PM
"Who created God?"

I did. It probably wasn't a good idea. Sorry.Apology accepted.

socratus
03-18-2007, 02:41 PM
"Who created God?"
====================
The man.
The philosophizing man.
=========
Can we concretely know anything about the God ?
It is possible to explain religion with the help of the
physical and mathematical theorems?
Yes. It is possible.
Because creating all MATERIAL WORLD the God
could only working in any absolute reference system
and only under any physical and mathematical laws.
=====================
1.
What is the first law of Universe ?
=========
The Physics is first of all Vacuum.
Vacuum is :T=0K.
Once upon a time, 20 billions of years ago, all matter
(all elementary particles and all quarks and
their girlfriends- antiparticles and antiquarks,
all kinds of waves: electromagnetic, gravitational,
muons… gluons field ….. etc.) – was assembled in a “single point”.
It is interesting to think about what had surrounded the “single point”.
The answer is :
EMPTINESS- NOTHING….!!!
Ok!
But why does everyone speak about EMPTINESS- NOTHING in
common phrases rather than in specific, concrete terms?
I wonder why nobody has written down this EMPTINESS- NOTHING in
the form of a physical formula ? You see, every schoolboy knows that
is possible to express the EMPTINESS- NOTHING condition
by the formula T=0K.
* * *
Once there was a “Big Bang”.
But in what space had the Big Bang taken place
and in what space was the matter of the Big Bang distributed?
Not in T=0K?
It is clear, that there is only EMPTINESS, NOTHING, in T=0K.
Now consider that the Universe, as an absolute frame of reference is
in a condition of T = 2,7K (rests relic radiation of the Big Bang ).
But, the relic radiation is extended and in the future will change and decrease.
What temperature can this radiation reach?
Not T=0K?
Hence, if we go into the past or into the present or into the future,
we can not escape from EMPTINESS- NOTHING T=0K.
Therefore it is necessary to begin to think from T=0K.
===================
2.
What is the second law of Universe ?
To answer of this question we must ask:
" What geometrical and physical parameters
have the particles in Vacuum T=0K? "
The Quantum physics approves, that in the beginning
Vacuum created a " virtual particle ", Quantum of Light.
3.
What is the “virtual particle ", Quantum of Light?
A quantum of light is a privileged particle.
Only a light quantum has the absolute speed: c=1.
No other particle can travel with the speed: c = 1.
Other particle can travel only with the speed: s=d/t.
But if quantum of light flies always only rectilinearly
with speed c=1, it is a mad one.
No.
Quantum of light have two kinds of spins ,
as a result of which the particle attains motion.
1)
Under the action of Planck,s spin (impuls),
which is equal to the unit ( h =1)
a quantum of light flies rectilinearly with speed (c = 1).
The geometrical form of a circle: (C/D = 3,14).
A quantum of light behaves as a particle.
2)
Under the action of Goudsmit-Uhlenbeck's spin ,
( h = h / 2pi) a quantum of light rotates around of its diameter
with the speed more of light quanta : c>1
and is known as electron.
The geometrical form of a circle is transformed into a sphere.
This kind of movement is described by Lorentz's transformations .
In this action the wave properties of light quantum are shown.
The dualism of a particle becomes clear.
The paradox of dualism disappears completely.
When the form of a circle is change into the form of a sphere,
the transcendental magnitude (pi = 3,14) is change
on another transcendental magnitude (e = 2,71).
These changes are described by the Lorentz transformations.
===================
The secret of words 'God', 'soul ', 'religion',
Existence’, 'dualism of consciousness', 'human being'
hide in the “Theory of Light quanta”.
Because, from all particles, only and only
the quantum of light is a privileged particle.
========================

Cerveny
04-16-2007, 06:58 PM
God = life

Epsilon=One
04-16-2007, 08:12 PM
God = lifeNo. Just the opposite is true.

Life is near the end of evolution; god is at the beginning.

See: Proof of God (www.CQthus.com/PT/PoG).

Cerveny
04-29-2007, 06:36 PM
Maybe I should correct myself:
God => live
Maybe all live is artificial, God-made,
maybe the first autonomic organism has been some kind of God's robot :)

Epsilon=One
04-30-2007, 05:40 AM
Maybe I should correct myself:
God => live
Maybe all live is artificial, God-made,
maybe the first autonomic organism has been some kind of God's robot :)God is that which does not exist . . . Oneness.

That which exists has motion. Thus, god does not have motion; god is not equal to live; therefore, it could be said that: god is less than and more than "live."

Cerveny
04-30-2007, 07:03 PM
That which exists has motion. Thus, god does not have motion; god is not equal to live; therefore, it could be said that: god is less than and more than "live."
You can not deny there are a world of ideas, platonic world, a unlimited, cold structure of mathematics independent of any motion, even independent of a matter. The mathematics, time independent structure had paid before anyone put some expression on a paper...

Epsilon=One
05-01-2007, 02:55 AM
You can not deny there are a world of ideas, platonic world, a unlimited, cold structure of mathematics independent of any motion, even independent of a matter. The mathematics, time independent structure had paid before anyone put some expression on a paper...Yes. And, it is known as Infinity (www.CQthus.com/PT/I), Oneness (www.CQthus.com/PT/O); and, to some . . . god.