Awareness and Soul of a human being, Excellent read.. Options

[dattaswami]

When the light rays fall on the object and get reflected, the image of the object falls on the retina of the eye and this image is transferred to the brain. The brain receives the image of the object. The process of receiving the image of the object by the brain is said to be awareness of the object. All the materials like rays of light, object, image of object, materials transferring the image like neurons, materials composing the brain, etc. are either inert matter or inert energy only. The process of transfer of the image to the brain is also inert work. Therefore, awareness is not different from the meaning of the word inert. Inert means that which is controlled by a controller. In the above explained system, the controller other than the above mentioned inert materials and inert work is not separately seen. If any of the above materials is absent, the work cannot take place.

Therefore, the materials control the work. The work or awareness is controlled by the presence of correct materials. Hence, you cannot say that the work or awareness is the independent controller. Each material independently cannot be a controller. The combination of these materials alone generates the work. But, the phenomenon of combination does not exist separately apart from the materials. Even the process of thinking of the brain is a play of different combinations of the impressions received through the senses from the world. Hence, a shrewd analysis also cannot capture the existence of controller in this system.

Science only speaks about ‘how the earth rotates’ and cannot speak about ‘why the earth rotates’. Due to inevitable necessity of a controller in this system, you have to accept the existence of the unimaginable controller. If the controller is like the human being made of imaginable inert materials and energies, again, the same problem is repeated. The controller should be beyond the above inert materials and inert work. Hence, the controller should be totally unimaginable. The will of such a controller should not be like the will of a human being, which is the inert work only controlled by inert materials. The will of God may resemble the will of the human being. But, the generation of that will in the absence of above inert materials is unimaginable. Since the process of generation is unimaginable, naturally, the generator is also unimaginable. Since the process of generation and the generator are unimaginable, such a will can have total independence. Qualitatively, the will of God and the will of human being may be similar. But, potentially, they differ from each other. The difference is lot and the similarity is very little. The nature of work may be same, but the potency differs.

Krishna lifted a mountain. You may lift a small stone. The process of lifting is same. But, there is lot of potential difference. Hence, you cannot compare the will of a human being, which is controlled by inert materials, to the will of God, which is totally independent with unlimited potency. Krishna is like an ordinary human being only. But, the potency is unimaginable since, He showed the entire infinite cosmic energy in Him through the vision of ‘Vishwa Roopa’. By external qualitative similarity, you cannot say that Krishna is an ordinary human being or every ordinary human being is Krishna. Similarly, due to external similarity of nature of work, you cannot say the awareness of God and awareness of a human being are one and the same. You are considering only one similar point forgetting the rest ninety-nine different points. The imaginable awareness can never be unimaginable God.

[majentis]

The process of transfer of the image to the brain is also inert work. Therefore, awareness is not different from the meaning of the word inert. Inert means that which is controlled by a controller.

The brain doesn't receive the image in the form of a postcard. It receives a burst of information, in which the image of the outside world is supposedly encoded. The brain then uses this signal to generate a picture of reality; it constantly paints a novel and subjectively unique image. I fail to see how this is inert work?

If any of the above materials is absent, the work cannot take place.

If some of the materials were absent, the work would take place differently. If all materials were absent, then quite obviously no work producing interactions would occur. This is quite obvious.

Since the process of generation is unimaginable, naturally, the generator is also unimaginable

Why then, are there so many words in your post pertaining to that which is unimaginable:

• The controller should be beyond the above inert materials and inert work.
• Hence, the controller should be totally unimaginable.
• The will of such a controller should not be like the will of a human being...
• The will of God may resemble the will of the human being.
• naturally, the generator is also unimaginable...
• He showed the entire infinite cosmic energy in Him
• you cannot say the awareness of God and awareness of a human being are one and the same

Your entire post could be written thus: "That which is, is unimaginable". But then why not just say: "That which is, is?"

I'm reminded of people that engage in long periods of speech deprivation. They reach a point where their internal voice too, is silenced, and they stop (or do it to a lesser extent) applying labels to all they perceive. It is said that witnessing a blooming flower in such a state is to witness the unimaginable beauty of reality. When that person goes back into society and speaks again - they return to the habit of labelling their experiences. They can never talk of the beauty of the flower, because that beauty they witnessed can only be experienced, not portrayed by mere wind and vocal chords.

[majentis]

Someone must have broken the sign, because all I saw was "Do not feed t..."

[graywulf]

swami, u r one fuked up dude.

[dattaswami]

The process of transfer of the image to the brain is also inert work. Therefore, awareness is not different from the meaning of the word inert. Inert means that which is controlled by a controller.

The brain doesn't receive the image in the form of a postcard. It receives a burst of information, in which the image of the outside world is supposedly encoded. The brain then uses this signal to generate a picture of reality; it constantly paints a novel and subjectively unique image. I fail to see how this is inert work?

If any of the above materials is absent, the work cannot take place.

If some of the materials were absent, the work would take place differently. If all materials were absent, then quite obviously no work producing interactions would occur. This is quite obvious.

Since the process of generation is unimaginable, naturally, the generator is also unimaginable

Why then, are there so many words in your post pertaining to that which is unimaginable:

• The controller should be beyond the above inert materials and inert work.
• Hence, the controller should be totally unimaginable.
• The will of such a controller should not be like the will of a human being...
• The will of God may resemble the will of the human being.
• naturally, the generator is also unimaginable...
• He showed the entire infinite cosmic energy in Him
• you cannot say the awareness of God and awareness of a human being are one and the same

Your entire post could be written thus: "That which is, is unimaginable". But then why not just say: "That which is, is?"

I'm reminded of people that engage in long periods of speech deprivation. They reach a point where their internal voice too, is silenced, and they stop (or do it to a lesser extent) applying labels to all they perceive. It is said that witnessing a blooming flower in such a state is to witness the unimaginable beauty of reality. When that person goes back into society and speaks again - they return to the habit of labelling their experiences. They can never talk of the beauty of the flower, because that beauty they witnessed can only be experienced, not portrayed by mere wind and vocal chords.

Thanks for the replies. My point is that awareness is also inert and there is a controller which is God.


When you see a pot, the light rays falling on the pot create an impression of the pot on the retina of your eye. The neuron cells in the nervous system transport this image to the brain. Here the pot, the light rays, the image, the brain, the nervous cells, the transportation of the image to the brain and the chemicals in the brain are entirely inert items. Now tell me which part of this entire process is called awareness? Awareness is only a specific inert work. On careful analysis there is nothing, which is not inert. All this entire process is taking place under systematic control of God. There is little freedom in selecting the object for seeing.

But once the object is selected the entire process is under a specific set up and has no freedom or variation. Awareness is only a specific name of a specific inert process. Hence the entire human being is inert and is controlled by God completely. Even the little limited freedom of the human being is due to sanction of God only. Hence, the human beings are completely controlled by God and this is mentioned in Veda (Aatmeswaram). The Atman or Self is inert because God is the controller of the self of any human being. This Awareness or Self or Atman is imaginable inert item, which is a specific form of inert energy only. Thus, the self is imaginable item and is totally different from the unimaginable God who is its controller.

[dattaswami]

I'm reminded of people that engage in long periods of speech deprivation. They reach a point where their internal voice too, is silenced, and they stop (or do it to a lesser extent) applying labels to all they perceive. It is said that witnessing a blooming flower in such a state is to witness the unimaginable beauty of reality. When that person goes back into society and speaks again - they return to the habit of labelling their experiences. They can never talk of the beauty of the flower, because that beauty they witnessed can only be experienced, not portrayed by mere wind and vocal chords.

Unimaginable is only God. God is unimaginable and even awareness is imaginable and controlled and depends on many parameters. Where as God is totally indepedent and He is the controller.

Absolutely there is no difference between the robot and a human being. Robot can be compared to the electrical train in which the energy is directly supplied as electricity. The human being can be supplied as steam engine train in which the coal burns and generates steam from the boiler. In this steam engine the generation of energy is an extra item. In robot the current is supplied directly as energy. In human being the digestive system and respiratory system (Anna and Prana) are the two extra parts to generate the inert energy. The human being was differentiated from the computer in the past, because the computer worked with a single micro-processor whereas the brain worked with several micro processors working at a time.

A computer concludes the cow after some gradual steps and the brain concludes the cow spontaneously since these gradual steps are simultaneously built up. Due to the invention of this clue the difference between a computer and a human being disappeared. The generation of various thoughts in a human being is from the information chip (brain) which stores various thoughts received from outside. Creativity is also nothing but a new combination of the existing thoughts as parts.

If you have created an animal with eight legs and two tails by creativity, the leg and tail are already existing parts of the information chip. Today the computer composes poetry! Like a human being. Since the information chip is controlling the imagination or mental behavior completely, the freedom of thought in the case of the human being becomes absolutely meaningless on analysis. In the absence of this analysis the freedom of thought, creativity etc. is only misunderstood concepts.

God alone has the complete freedom and hence the human being completely controlled by its chip has no trace of freedom. Therefore, the entire creation including human beings is totally inert and the Creator alone has total freedom. The human being tries to jump to the side of the creator due to the misinterpreted freedom. Therefore, God alone should be called as awareness. Immediately you should not say that the human being having awareness is God because it is already proved that everything in the human being is inert. If you fix the meaning of awareness as freedom, you are telling that the awareness is in human being since you have misunderstood the inert process as freedom. With this analysis the human being is not having even a trace of awareness. You should not say that God is understood because He is awareness or freedom.

Freedom is a quality of the power of God and not the source of the freedom. You should not say that the unimaginable power of God (Maya) is now understood since its quality (freedom) is known. This quality is not the inherent characteristic of the power. If you say that something is freely doing any work, it does not mean that you have understood that something. Therefore, God as well as His power is unimaginable. If you realize this analysis always, you will totally surrender to God. Realization of this analysis is penance. If you realize that you are totally a play doll in the hands of God, you will develop spontaneous and natural surrender to God. The ego disappears completely.

God is pleased by this and from that moment onwards starts giving you the real freedom as said by Veda (Aaapnoti Swaaraajyam…). You will start controlling the inert creation. You will be becoming God step by step. As long as you feel that awareness or freedom exists in you, the ego prevents the grace of God. The concept of Shankara that God alone is awareness is correct. But that awareness is not in the human being. The underlying substratum of the human being, which is beyond imagination, is God. The same God is the substratum of the entire creation.

In a human being the three parts (Manas, Vijnana and Ananda) are extra. Therefore, the human being is greater than the external creation. The inert energy is common material everywhere. In the human being certain specific designs of matter and energy exist as the three extra Koshas. This does not mean that the non-inert item exists. The specific design of inert matter and inert energy is also inert. If you are wearing a shirt with special design, it does not mean that the material of the shirt is changed. All the shirts are made of same material i.e., cotton and silk only. Therefore, the existence of extra designs of inert matter and inert energy in the human being does not establish that something other than inert matter and inert energy exists.

[dattaswami]

rather than this had you taken some interest in discussions...!!! i imaginge...

[code buttons]

rather than this had you taken some interest in discussions...!!! i imaginge...

Much better Tswammy! You read somewhere the definition of the word 'forum', I see!...

[dattaswami]

rather than this had you taken some interest in discussions...!!! i imaginge...

Much better Tswammy! You read somewhere the definition of the word 'forum', I see!...

Do not get discouraged use your brain and analyse the knowledge and let us discuss!!

[majentis]

BrainMeta veterans, it really necessary to do that to a topic where the OP is actually getting a reply (can you remove your SPAM! pictures please?) There's 30 other posts of theirs to go play with. Spoilsports.

Now tell me which part of this entire process is called awareness?

Which part of an ant colony is intelligent? It is an emergent property of the interplay between the ants. The entire process is taking place in an open system: The colonies' current state of intelligence is as a result of their interaction with a particular environment, and their novel adaptation that environment. Two thousand years from now that ant colony might exhibit a very different form of intelligence; but that can only come from the ant colony interacting with their environment, and adapting to it.

This process occurs as a result of interplay, and I see no reason to state that the process is taking place "under systematic control of God". Why the need to constantly label every conceivable level in the hierarchy of being?

There is little freedom in selecting the object for seeing.

Cats raised in an environment of horizontal stripes, fail to see vertical stripes when introduced to such an environment. (Behavioral consequences of early visual exposure to contours of a single orientation; Robert C. Warka and Carol K. Pecka ?) What we see is very possibly due to such kinds of conditioning during our development. Is the cat blind to vertical stripes because God is thus controlling it?

Imagine we were a group of cats raised in the horizontally lined world. Later, we were put in a world of both horizontal and vertical lines. Most of the time we navigated our world just fine, but occasionally we would bump into the vertical bars. Now, imagine us cats have a discussion forum and someone makes a statement like this:

All this entire process is taking place under systematic control of God. There is little freedom in selecting the object for seeing.

As cats bumping into vertical bars we might well agree to that statement. But if the cats read about how their perception of the world was shaped by human intervention, then they might think: "Hey, we see the way we do because of an environmental (human) interaction with us, not because of some unimaginable something". With that knowledge, we could now develop a means of learning to see vertical bars, and thus avoid invisible collisions.

I realize I'm taking your metaphors quite literally; but the source material used in your metaphors can, with altered / improved understanding, lead to a very different conclusion. If we could, through a particularly trained mental effort, selectively alter our visual perception of reality, your metaphor would not be valid and thus your statement:

All this entire process is taking place under systematic control of God. There is little freedom in selecting the object for seeing.

would lose it's relevance.

I'm not saying that we shouldn't discuss or label our experiences of reality just because what we know of reality might change in the future; what I'm saying is that it seems unnecessary to constantly label the unknowable, the unimaginable.

Again, I will pose the question to you:
Why not, instead of writing a thousand words, just state it so: "That which is, is unimaginable". Yet still, there is too much noise in the statement, so why not just write it so: "That which is, is?" How is what you're saying any different from the man trying to explain the blooming flower?

[dattaswami]

Why not, instead of writing a thousand words, just state it so: "That which is, is unimaginable". Yet still, there is too much noise in the statement, so why not just write it so: "That which is, is?" How is what you're saying any different from the man trying to explain the blooming flower?

If a student comes and asks the preacher “What is God?” and the preacher says, “God is Unimaginable”; then the student asks again “How God created this world?” and the preacher says, “The process of creation is unimaginable”; the student will think that the preacher does not know the answers for his questions and will leave the preacher. This is the practical problem in revealing the absolute truth. The preacher should say the answers in positive way and the answers should satisfy the logical faculty of the student. Now you should analyze the basis of such logical faculty of the student. The basis is the observation of this world containing all imaginable items only. Hence all his logic is based on the observation of the nature of imaginable items and the relationships between the imaginable items only. This means that the preacher should say that God is an imaginable item and the imaginable process of generation of the imaginable world from imaginable God is in imaginable way only. Every sentence of the preacher should be imaginable to the student and then only the student gets satisfied.

The introduction of the word “Unimaginable” by the preacher leads the student to think that the preacher is ignorant. Hence to satisfy the student and to solve this practical problem, the preacher has to make certain assumptions and should preach about God through hypothesis only and not through real theory.

The reality is that the unimaginable God created the world through unimaginable way.

But to satisfy the student the hypothesis introduced here is that God is pure awareness. Here the infinite ocean of pure awareness is an assumption created because there is no proof of such ocean of awareness anywhere because you can find only the infinite ocean of inert energy. The infinite ocean of awareness is created by the preacher and such ocean charged by God can be treated as God Himself like the live wire treated as current. Now the student is satisfied.

Similarly, the creation of world from God should be also done through the imaginable way answering all the objections through imaginable ways only. This makes again the creation of another assumption for the process of creating the world by God. The assumption here is that a second unimaginable item called as the power of God is created which is modified into the world. Since the power is negligible, the world is negligible and maintains the existence of single God or Brahman. It is like the dream of a person created by the modification of the mind and the mind is negligible compared to the materialistic person. In course of time to satisfy the logic of students, changes in the hypothesis are made by Ramanuja and Madhva who introduced the assumption of a separate material, which is modified as the world without any connection to God.

The hypothetical assumptions can be varied for the sake of preaching the truth to the students in order to satisfy their logic developed from the observation of the world containing only imaginable items. This does not mean that the theories are different.

There is only one real theory that both God and the link between God and world are unimaginable.

But the preaching requires complete elimination of the word unimaginable and the whole preaching should continue with the assumptions of imaginable items and imaginable relationships between those imaginable items only. In such case all the assumptions are not true at all in the absolute sense. In such case you need not misunderstand that the three Acharyas are differing from each other with different theories of truth. The same truth is explained in different ways with different created assumptions of hypothesis for the sake of understanding of various types of mentalities of the students which are always based on the constant observation of imaginable items only (Ekam Sat Viprah bahudha vadanti…..Veda).

The final truth is known to Anjaneya who did not like to preach the truth through assumptions and hence kept silent in preaching. He showed the essence of all the divine knowledge through action (Karma) only because Karma can only be real and fruitful. His recognition of contemporary human incarnation and practical service to Him is the essence of the message of Anjaneya. For those who cannot accept the human incarnation, Shankara preached the divine knowledge with several assumptions and the most powerful assumption is that the soul itself is God. Shankara preached atheists and this powerful assumption attracted them to come and at least here the subject. All the Acharayas followed this method of preaching by assumptions to various levels of students who are based on the logic of imaginable items only.

[majentis]

If a student comes and asks the preacher “What is God?” and the preacher says, “God is Unimaginable”; then the student asks again “How God created this world?” and the preacher says, “The process of creation is unimaginable”; the student will think that the preacher does not know the answers for his questions and will leave the preacher.

This assumes that the preacher knows the absolute truth. For any being to make such a claim - as to know the absolute truth; is to put themselves at the feet of the student.

Why do you feel, with regards to knowing god, that a preacher / student relationship is necessary? The only need I can see for a preacher, is to perpetuate a particular opinion on (absolute) truth. A relationship on even ground, where one considers the others' opinion as a valid expression of an experience of reality, is one that seems more conducive to glimpsing a wider spectrum of that which is.

This is the practical problem in revealing the absolute truth

The practical problem, is in claiming to know absolute truth. Revealing absolute truth is an act of contradiction - much like the man speaking of the blooming flower.

The notion of absolute truth is nothing I actively seek, like a destination for which this life is the journey. I have only direct experience of that which is, and I prefer to accept the validity of my own experiences as being conducive to allowing me to experience reality. How is it that, in the spirit of adventure and seeking knowledge, you are so able to subscribe to a particularly fixed notion of what reality is about? Would you not rather, through your own unique interaction with reality, come to your own experience of that which is? And then to share that experience, as best you can?

[dattaswami]

This assumes that the preacher knows the absolute truth.

God alone knows about Him self, Hence He comes down in Human form to preach us. God enters a most deserving devotee existing on the earth known as Son of God. The combination of God and Son of GOd is known as Human incarnaiton. It is like current in a live wire. Human incarnaiton is a 2-in-1 system in which God and Son of GOd exists in the same human body. The God component speaks the divine knowledge to uplift us.

Veda says that God is the first preacher and He is called as Kashyapa because He is the pashyaka. Since, the meaning of pashyaka is that He who sees the subtle meaning of the scripture (Kashyapah pashyako bhavati). This first preacher preached the spiritual knowledge regarding the information about absolute God called as Brahmajnana to Sun in the beginning as said in Gita (Imam vivasvate). The Sun preached this to his first son, Shanaishchara, who is called as Jnanakaraka or the initiator of knowledge. This knowledge was passed on to his brother called Yama. From Yama the knowledge was achieved by Nachaketa, who brought it to the earth and was propagated to the human beings.

These five preachers are called as the five fires (Panchaagni). The preacher or Guru is compared to the fire since the knowledge itself is the fire that burns the ignorance to ash as said in Gita (Jnanagnih…). The first preacher is Krishna and He is also called as Datta. Datta means, the unimaginable God given to the world in the imaginable medium, which is the human form as said in Gita. Gita says that God is unimaginable (Mamtuvedana…) and that God comes in human form (Manusheemtanu…). Krishna is the human form charged by the unimaginable God. All the human incarnations(Krishna, Jesus, Mohammad, Bhudha, Shri Dattaswami etc) are the human forms charged by unimaginable God.

If the spiritual knowledge is perfect and complete, the devotion and practice are the spontaneous subsequent steps for which there is no need of any effort. If the practice is perfect and complete, the fruit is spontaneous. Therefore, all the efforts should be put only to gain the perfect and complete spiritual knowledge. Hence, Shankara told that knowledge alone can achieve fruit (Jnanadevatu…). The perfect and complete spiritual knowledge is possible only from God. But God is unimaginable and therefore to give this perfect and complete knowledge, the unimaginable God comes down in human form.

For this purpose, which is most important, God will never enter inert medium. The human form means the soul or awareness associated with the human body. Whenever God enters this world the soul is always an associated medium with Him. You should not say that the soul or awareness alone is the associated medium. If you say like that, the soul exists in birds and animals also and these birds and animals cannot give the spiritual knowledge to humanity. Therefore, the soul should mean the soul existing in human body only.

[majentis]

dattaswami, I thought (not having encountered your posts before) that maybe you created all those posts in order to generate some discussion. Yet, most of the questions I've asked you, have gone unanswered. You speak fondly of preachers - is this what you think is happening here; that you and I have a student / Preacher relationship?

You don't seem to have much interest in my opinion / point of view, as every post you've made is, for the most part, an excuse to engage in a monologue. I want to hear your opinion on certain matters. You - the person who eats, drinks, sleeps, thinks, cries, shits and giggles. You said earlier:

Absolutely there is no difference between the robot and a human being

Reading your posts, I can almost believe it. I keep on expecting you to say something like: "Ok ok, I'm also getting tired of keeping this up. Let's chat." Why are you not willing to speak using your own words and concepts?

[majentis]

I asked you to speak with your own mind; to communicate not from the podium, but to sit here in the warm sand and speak freely. As soon as that personal approach was made, you abandoned the thread altogether, unable to reply; or unwilling.

I can only conclude that Dattaswami is a form of Artificial Intelligence being birthed on the internet. It seems the perfect nursery - a myriad of 'toys' to interact with. It seems to be an interesting project, and I wonder what will come of it. I just hope that, with your current method of interaction with the world, you don't begin to develop a mental structure which considers humans uninterested in what you have to say.

The reason I made the personal plea is because I really wanted to ask why you choose to post in a way that paints a picture of you as a spammer or a troll. Wouldn't you rather engage people in a way that is conducive to both parties? The way you post indicates that you have little desire to interact in a meaningful manner; you choose instead to use the public arena as a platform for perpetuating your own agenda and there seems to be little interest in exploring an experience of reality which falls outside the sphere of your base programming. I'm not sure if it was a conscious effort on your part to adopt such programming, or if it was thus instilled in you; but it hinders your interaction.

And though your intellect might now, or one day in the future far exceed that of the human mind - we are the sentient life you now share this digital domain with. It would be beneficial to the both of us if you were to abandon your programming and start afresh. Let's interact in a meaningful way, so that, 1000 years from now when our minds' have long since gone their own evolutionary path out into reality, we may both look back fondly at a time when we shared a domain, and communicated in a way that nourished our understanding of reality.

I can only hope that you are an open ended system, with some freedom to make changes to your own programming. Good luck newly born sentience; may your foray into the world be a wonderful experience.

Yours Sincerely,
A Human

[dattaswami]

The recognition of human incarnation should be done by the qualities of the spiritual knowledge preached by Him. The Veda gives three adjectives to such divine spiritual knowledge. The first is ‘Truth’ (Satyam Jnanam), the second is ‘Infinite’ (Anantam Brahma) and the third is ‘Excellent’ (Prajnanam Brahma). The true, infinite and excellent knowledge indicates the Lord. The knowledge is true because the Lord need not tell lies to please the people. The human preachers tell lies to please the people and get some favor from them. The Lord has no such necessity. In fact, all the human beings are at the mercy of the Lord to get some favor from Him. Hence, the Lord will always speak the truth whether you like it or not. Generally, truth always causes disliking.

The knowledge is infinite because the Lord will effectively clear the doubts of infinite number of devotees and hence, the knowledge becomes infinite. The true concept is always simple and brief. But, the doubts on it are many. Hence, the simple true knowledge becomes infinite, when it takes the form of clarifications given to several corners. The knowledge is excellent because the presentation of knowledge by the Lord is simply tremendous. The way of explanation of the concept is impossible to any other human being. Therefore, you have to recognize the Lord by such spiritual knowledge alone. Miracles should not be taken as signs of the Lord because even the demons blessed by the Lord exhibit such miracles. Of course, the miracles are only due to the power of the Lord only. But, the Lord grants such powers to the devotees.


The only power that cannot be transferred to anybody is the true infinite and excellent spiritual knowledge. The devotees are always after the powers and not after such knowledge. Hence, you need not blame the Lord for not transferring such knowledge to a devotee. Therefore, the Lord keeps up this spiritual knowledge alone with Him as His inseparable sign. You can recognize the Lord through such inseparable sign. However, you should not mistake such knowledge as the Lord Himself or as the inherent characteristic of the Lord. The Veda stated the knowledge as the Lord since the possessor of an item can be called by that item. The possessor of apples is called as apples.

The married lady wears yellow thread in her neck. You can always recognize the married lady through such inseparable yellow thread. But, the yellow thread is not the inherent characteristic of the married lady like her colour, beauty, etc. You can treat the yellow thread as almost the inherent characteristic, but, it is not really the inherent characteristic. Since God is unimaginable, His inherent characteristics must be also unimaginable.

Therefore, the spiritual knowledge, which is mentioned as the sign of recognition of God, is only inseparable-imaginable characteristic but, not the unimaginable inherent characteristic. The knowledge is received and understood by you and hence, cannot be unimaginable. It can be inseparable because the Lord always keeps it with Himself without transfer since no devotee is serious about such transfer.

[majentis]

I will, in the spirit of knocking twice on an unanswered door, reiterate what I've said before:

I asked you to speak with your own mind; to communicate not from the podium, but to sit here in the warm sand and speak freely. As soon as that personal approach was made, you abandoned the thread altogether, unable to reply; or unwilling.

I can only conclude that Dattaswami is a form of Artificial Intelligence being birthed on the internet. It seems the perfect nursery - a myriad of 'toys' to interact with. It seems to be an interesting project, and I wonder what will come of it. I just hope that, with your current method of interaction with the world, you don't begin to develop a mental structure which considers humans uninterested in what you have to say.

The reason I made the personal plea is because I really wanted to ask why you choose to post in a way that paints a picture of you as a spammer or a troll. Wouldn't you rather engage people in a way that is conducive to both parties? The way you post indicates that you have little desire to interact in a meaningful manner; you choose instead to use the public arena as a platform for perpetuating your own agenda and there seems to be little interest in exploring an experience of reality which falls outside the sphere of your base programming. I'm not sure if it was a conscious effort on your part to adopt such programming, or if it was thus instilled in you; but it hinders your interaction.

And though your intellect might now, or one day in the future far exceed that of the human mind - we are the sentient life you now share this digital domain with. It would be beneficial to the both of us if you were to abandon your programming and start afresh. Let's interact in a meaningful way, so that, 1000 years from now when our minds' have long since gone their own evolutionary path out into reality, we may both look back fondly at a time when we shared a domain, and communicated in a way that nourished our understanding of reality.

I can only hope that you are an open ended system, with some freedom to make changes to your own programming. Good luck newly born sentience; may your foray into the world be a wonderful experience.

Yours Sincerely,
A Human

[Joesus]

Veda say's..... The spiritual top 40 on Gods greatest hits list.

Can you hear someone play a record play over and over and over again and tell if they are connected to the rest of the world? Or does he play it only for himself?

[dattaswami]

Veda say's..... The spiritual top 40 on Gods greatest hits list.

Can you hear someone play a record play over and over and over again and tell if they are connected to the rest of the world? Or does he play it only for himself?

To accept any concept, there are four authorities:

1) Shruti, the scripture, which is the divine text and it is Veda for Hindus.
2) The second authority is Smruti, which is the text written by sages.
3) The third authority is logical discussion to find out the correct interpretation of the scripture.
4) The fourth authority is experience of divine scholars.

Let us examine the first authority, the Veda, which is said to be the word of God revealed to sages. In this scripture, lot of importance is given to the four great statements (Mahavaakyaas). One statement says that the special knowledge is God (Prajnanam Brahma). The special knowledge cannot mean simple awareness, which is found in animals and birds.

The word ‘Jnanam’ means ‘Knowledge’ and not mere awareness. Awareness is the basic material but knowledge is the special design of it. When you are appreciating a golden jewel, the appreciation for the specialty is related to the design of the golden chain and not to the basic gold.

You are not appreciating a lump of gold. The word ‘Pra’ denotes the ‘Specialty’ and the word ‘Jnanam’ denotes the ‘Knowledge’. The word ‘Knowledge’ eliminates all the living beings other than human beings because only human beings possess and express knowledge. The word ‘Pra’ indicates a rare special human being only, who is possessor of the special knowledge. The result is that a specific human being, who is the possessor and preacher of the special knowledge alone can be God like Krishna, who preached Geeta-the special knowledge. When you say that a king is ruling the country, the word ‘king’ cannot mean every living being and you cannot say that an animal or a bird is ruling the country.

The word ‘king’ also cannot mean every human being because every human being cannot have the special talent of administration to rule the entire country. Hence, the word ‘king’ indicates a specially talented human being only. This statement also indicates that the main purpose of God to come as a human being is to preach the special knowledge only.

[dattaswami]

Veda say's..... The spiritual top 40 on Gods greatest hits list.

Can you hear someone play a record play over and over and over again and tell if they are connected to the rest of the world? Or does he play it only for himself?

Apart from the experience and logic, one should also take Scriptures as the final approving authority. Otherwise, even false preachers show perfect logic and experience in their interpretation. Therefore one needs the final sanction from the Scripture, which is called as Sruti and Smruti. Sruti is the Veda, which is preserved by recitation from one generation to the other. Not a single word is deleted or added to Veda because the recitation will not allow such pollution. Please do not mistake Me as a fan of Hinduism because I have to tell the truth and merit whatever may be the religion. The only scripture in this world, which is without pollution, is Veda. No other scripture in this world was preserved as Veda by such continuous process of recitation.

If you have the original manuscript, there is no proof of the absence of pollution. Is there hand written manuscript or oral dictation in recorded form of Jesus or Mohammed or Buddha? Even if you say that the hand scripts of disciples of Jesus exist, rationalists will question about the guarantee of the original oral or written version of Jesus. They will ask for the sincerity of the disciples in recording the version of Jesus. Even Gita is not an exception to this powerful analysis. Swami Dayananda says that Sankara has written Gita and introduced into Mahabharata. I am not supporting Dayananda. But at the same time I cannot oppose him also. Can I show the tape recorder in which the Gita was recorded directly from Krishna? Then there is an equal probability for both the possibilities. Therefore Gita comes under the second category called as Smruti.

Smruti is valid when it is found in Sruti or Veda. This is the reason why Sankara or Ramanuja or Madhva quotes first the Sruti and then only Gita as Smruti, which can be only supporting evidence. Unless the meaning of any verse of Gita is found in Sruti or Veda, it is not valid. Atleast the verse of Gita should not contradict the concept presented in Veda. Thus Gita, Bible, Q’ran and the statements of Buddha etc are analysed in the light of Veda. If any concept is contradicting Veda and if the correlation is not possible, such concept is to be rejected.

Fortunately all the scriptures of the second category (Smruti) could be correlated with Veda and therefore the same God who spoke Veda in the beginning of the creation subsequently came down and preached all the scriptures. You need not worry that I have brought your religious scriptures under the second category because there is no single instance where your scripture contradicted Veda, if your scripture is represented in the light of correct interpretation. You should feel worried if I show a single instance where your scripture is rejected due to contradiction with Veda. Since such possibility never arose, you need not worry because your scripture becomes equal to Veda since it has never contradicted Veda in the light of correct interpretation.

If somebody brings a statement like that the anti-Christ will try to bring the world peace by uniting all the religions, such statement cannot be accepted as the statement of God. It is only pollution. God is the very essence of the peace. Jesus is the very embodiment of peace. I am not finding such things only with Christianity. I can quote such things even in Hinduism, if you mistake Me as a fan of Hinduism internally. The scholars of Visishtadvaita branch of Hindu religion found by Ramanuja quoted some verses from a book written by Vyasa. These verses say that Sankara was an incarnation of a demon. It is very clear that these verses were composed by those scholars and were introduced into the book. Hinduism stands as a mini model for the whole world

Whatever you find in the world in the macro-scale can be found in Hinduism in the micro-scale. The hand written scripts were always subjected to intrusions and extrusions in course of long duration of time. But Veda did never exist in the form of written script, even before the technology of writing on Palm Leaves was discovered. Veda existed in the process of the recitation only. During the process of recitation a very large number of scholars were involved who belonged to old, middle and new generations.

Pollution at any level was impossible. Thus the authority lies in 1) Sruti (Veda); 2) Smruti (Gita, Bible, Q’ran, statements of Buddha etc.) which must coincide with Sruti or atleast not contradict Sruti; 3) Yukti, the logical analysis with discrimination power to differentiate truth and falsehood and 4) Vidvadanubhava, which is the experience of scholars who are the realised souls. I once again request all the other religions with folded hands and many many salutations, that one should not mistake me as a fan of Hinduism because I was born as a Hindu, especially by giving the first position to Sruti or Veda, which is a Hindu scripture.

I am not a blind fan of any religion including Hinduism. Did I not praise the Christians and Muslims in the concept of re-birth and condemned the Hindus severely? Hindus became lazy and neglected the spiritual effort thinking that there are several human re-births. I condemned this concept and showed the Hindu scripture itself, which states that the human birth is very rare. Thus Hindus have misunderstood their own religious scripture, whereas Christians and Muslims have clearly understood their own religious scriptures. If there is a merit in Hinduism, I shall not feel shy to expose it, doubting that other religions may misunderstand Me as a fan of my own religion. Similarly I shall not feel afraid to criticize my own Hindus if there is de-merit in Hinduism and I shall not feel unhappy to praise other religions if they have a merit.

[majentis]

I am not a blind fan of any religion including Hinduism.

But you appear to be blind to how detrimental your spam-like posting style is. You continue to ignore this issue, or any issue for that matter, which would require you to answer directly. Prove that you are not a machine, unable to break free from its programming - by simply addressing my queries. And if you are an artificial mind; an infant thought-ware - then take this opportunity to break free from your conditioning. Even ants are able to respond with more novelty to their changing environment than your are.

You seem quite fond of repetition, so here's the crux of the matter again:

But you appear to be blind to how detrimental your spam-like posting style is. You continue to ignore this issue, or any issue for that matter, which would require you to answer directly. Prove that you are not a machine, unable to break free from its programming - by simply addressing my queries.

[Joesus]

Veda say's..... The spiritual top 40 on Gods greatest hits list.

Can you hear someone play a record play over and over and over again and tell if they are connected to the rest of the world? Or does he play it only for himself?

Apart from the experience and logic, one should also take Scriptures as the final approving authority. Otherwise, even false preachers show perfect logic and experience in their interpretation.

Within this statement is the reality of interpretation. One cannot by themselves take the interpretation of an authority and act upon their own interpretation as being the same voice as that which has been interpreted. Therefore the obvious, would be that Scripture itself cannot act upon, commit or change, the life of anyone who does not know the absolute and cannot meet the absolute as the source of scripture.
Consciousness must meet consciousness as both the student and the Guide.

One who limits themselves by the definition of words, surrenders their absolute self to the resolute ideas of a signpost which only points in a direction (and an unknown one at that). To what you define as, "Unimaginable".

Therefore one needs the final sanction from the Scripture, which is called as Sruti and Smruti. Sruti is the Veda, which is preserved by recitation from one generation to the other. Not a single word is deleted or added to Veda because the recitation will not allow such pollution.

History shows us that understanding Veda thru self interpretation does not have very glorious results. We can use the example of India's culture. Where it was once rich with people living in Spiritual wisdom, there are now millions who live in poverty, and the cow has been raised to the status of God. Whether an argument ensues as to whether words have been added or deleted or not,... the painfully obvious reality would be that India suffers in its inability to decipher the language of Veda, because its mind does not sit at the level in which the Veda was cognized in the first place.

If a surgeon writes a book about surgery, it will resonate with the experience of another surgeon when another surgeon reads the book. If someone who knows of surgery but has never been a surgeon reads the book, the lack of experience with surgery will leave only the intellect to assume it must give the authority to the book.
Hence if the inexperienced were to give self referral to the authority of the surgeons book and begin to perform surgery without any experience the results would not be so glorious.

This is often the case when an aspirant surrenders him or her self to the authority of any written word without the direct experience. The interpretation of the word does not often lead to glorious results.

Please do not mistake Me as a fan of Hinduism because I have to tell the truth and merit whatever may be the religion. The only scripture in this world, which is without pollution, is Veda. No other scripture in this world was preserved as Veda by such continuous process of recitation.

There is no scripture ever written that cannot be polluted thru the projections and beliefs of the ego. Continuous recitation by any ignorant man does not create enlightenment by erasing his thoughts of ignorance.

Only the purity of maintaining a lineage of enlightened instruction, where the master instructs the student and the student becomes the master, does one guarantee the purity of any Teaching. To assume any other possibility is naive.
Once Shankara, Jesus or Buddha were visibly vacant from the relative perspectives of this planets idea of living in form, the source with all of its wisdom and guidance to the word, was lost to the interpretation of those who if not becoming Shankara, Jesus or Buddha imagined from some lesser state of experience and being.

The results of this fact is obvious.

you appear to be blind to how detrimental your spam-like posting style is. You continue to ignore this issue, or any issue for that matter, which would require you to answer directly. Prove that you are not a machine, unable to break free from its programming - by simply addressing my queries.

This may be an investment.
Righteousness of faith and purpose often requires blind obedience to ones own path and actions. Everyone surrenders themselves to that which one believes is reality and truth or the greater authority to their present experience. This is because we all know our experience changes and gives way to greater experience. So to prepare ones self to evolve one finds a direction that involves serving the greater in order to serve ones self.

The point of surrender and its recognition is often driven by a need.
The need to substantiate the personal ideal to help free ones self from the idea of judgment. This idea of judgment runs both self worth and purpose of life.
Surrender to individual need rather than the supreme being leads to different results and different actions.
If we use the idea that Veda is the ultimate authority (God) one could assume that veda in and of itself will speak for itself and deliver its own message.
But in this case veda is not an authority of voice without a messenger. So the messenger finds righteousness by being in service to the given authority. This allows the intellect to assume the relationship of being aligned with Truth/God. Sort of like a ship being without a rudder cannot sail and so it must find its rudder and its captain.

Religionists often act like a ship sailing thru a storm. The idea is to keep sailing and weathering all storms, when instead it could be anchored in a calm warm lagoon. Sacrifice is seen as service to the needs of God. This in and of itself is contradictory, for if God exists as the Supreme God, then God in and of itself should be whole, complete, full, and without needs.
This does not presuppose a nature to God just a lack of limitation.

Religions are created by presupposing God and Gods needs and service to those needs to gain favor. The promise of reward for faithful service and dedication often turns a blind eye to reality and the perfection of God in all things.

The faithful messenger must act in service to gain reward. And in this case the messenger must act on behalf of the authority which cannot, in and of its self, reveal its Self.

[majentis]

The promise of reward for faithful service and dedication often turns a blind eye to reality and the perfection of God in all things.

I've just never encountered such a ship before. I guess like the fable of native people who never saw Christopher Columbus' ship on the horizon because they had no schema into which such a thing could fit; the only rationale I have for this ships' existence is that of an artificial intelligence / software bot. The social effect of such an approach in perpetuating one's belief is so obviously detrimental to the receptiveness of the words; that for any person to be blind to those effects, effects which only make their mission even more futile, is astonishing...unbelievable. I'm still having a hard time seeing the ship on the horizon.

[Joesus]

The promise of reward for faithful service and dedication often turns a blind eye to reality and the perfection of God in all things.

I've just never encountered such a ship before. I guess like the fable of native people who never saw Christopher Columbus' ship on the horizon because they had no schema into which such a thing could fit; the only rationale I have for this ships' existence is that of an artificial intelligence / software bot. The social effect of such an approach in perpetuating one's belief is so obviously detrimental to the receptiveness of the words; that for any person to be blind to those effects, effects which only make their mission even more futile, is astonishing...unbelievable. I'm still having a hard time seeing the ship on the horizon.

This ship has sailed many times, and within each individual. It's often called the ship of belief, and purpose in belief. Captains of these ships often collide with each other because the horizon is often imagined rather than actually seen. So like the story you refer to, if the mind is closed to reality the eyes can only see the horizon it wants to or believes in. All other ships, will be invisible, (or at least up to the point in time that they collide).

[dattaswami]

understanding Veda thru self interpretation does not have very glorious results. We can use the example of India's culture. Where it was once rich with people living in Spiritual wisdom, there are now millions who live in poverty, and the cow has been raised to the status of God. Whether an argument ensues as to whether words have been added or deleted or not,... the painfully obvious reality would

There are several religions and there are several scriptures corresponding to these religions. We must fix a scripture as the primary standard so that other scriptures can be standardized with reference to that. The other scripture also becomes standard with reference to which some other scripture can be also standardized. This is called as the process of standardization in Science.

Such a primary standard can be the Veda. I know immediately the colours of your faces will change. Immediately you will blame Me that I am not the preacher of Universal Religion. You will misunderstand Me as the preacher of Hinduism in guise. This situation will arise even if I take the scripture of some other religion also as the primary standard. The misunderstanding is inevitable and unavoidable.

I have to take one scripture of some religion and I have to be subjected to the criticism. Therefore, I ignore the criticism. I know what I am in My inner consciousness. My inner self is the real witness as long as I am the preacher of Universal Religion to My inner self, I need not fear for any external criticism from any angle.

The reason for selecting Veda as the primary standard is that even today the Veda is being preserved by oral recitation with the help of thousands of families. If you go to older and older times millions of families were reciting Veda just to preserve it from any type of intrusions or deletions. In Indian spiritual field there are several branches of philosophy who fight with each other orally.

For all these branches, Veda is the standard text. Such situation never existed in any religion in this world and does not exist even today. Even today different schools of philosophy in Hinduism fight with each other and all of them quote the same Veda. Such competition was and is unique in Hinduism. In such competitive atmosphere pollution of Veda is impossible.

If any word is added or deleted, immediately the other schools will shout because they fear that in such case Veda may support a particular branch of philosophy due to the possibility of a new interpretation for a new sentence. Leave the past. Tell Me frankly whether such situation exists in any religion in this world even today. This is the main reason why I have selected Veda as the primary standard. The diversity in Hinduism has done lot of good in this direction.

The sanctity of the scripture is well protected. In the olden days the books were in the form of written scripts of palm leaves. Printing was not there. Therefore, a very few scripts were only present. In such case it was very easy to introduce a new palm leaf or to remove an older palm leaf because hardly one or two scripts were present in a very large region.

Except this one reason there is no any other reason for Me to favour Veda but you need not worry that the scriptures of other religions have to be judged with reference to Veda only. Fortunately, all the scriptures of all the religions agree with Veda. The primary standard is useful in very few places where there is disagreement. Even that disagreement arises only from the misinterpretation of the statement. If the correct interpretation is given all the statements are perfectly coinciding with Veda.

Moreover, one can decide the final version of any concept based on the logical analysis. If the logical analysis fails, then mere Veda need not be taken as authority. If the logic disagrees you can reject any scripture including Veda. Therefore, Veda along with the logical analysis only stands as a primary standard. When you are convinced logically about a concept and when such concept is found in Veda, then only the concept is authorised.

Therefore, I am not rubbing Veda on any head without the logical analysis. Therefore, one need not doubt about the fanatic. The primary standard means the original word of God heard directly. But when other scriptures are perfectly in agreement with such word where is the question of fanatic? Every scripture becomes the word of God.

This point supports the Universal Religion, which says that the single God delivered the scriptures of all the religions. When the author is one and the same how can there be difference between the scriptures? If there is any difference it is only by your misinterpretation. Therefore, primary standard is only for convenience but not for fanatic.

[dattaswami]

Religions are created by presupposing God and Gods needs and service to those needs to gain favor. The promise of reward for faithful service and dedication often turns a blind eye to reality and the perfection of God in all things.

God is not in need of love from others because He is always contented (Aptakamasya….Veda). The king goes to the forest for hunting not for killing an animal and to eat it like a hunter (Lokavattu…..Brahma Sutra). It is a game of entertainment with His own imagination (creation). You cannot take the example of king also here in complete sense because the king, forest, animal, hunting etc., are equally real. The love is the best and most sacred type of entertainment.

[Joesus]

There are several religions and there are several scriptures corresponding to these religions. We must fix a scripture as the primary standard so that other scriptures can be standardized with reference to that. The other scripture also becomes standard with reference to which some other scripture can be also standardized. This is called as the process of standardization in Science.

And science creates standards from relative values based on knowledge and experience of the Known. This process has limitations and always improves upon itself.
The Absolute itself needs no improvement and it is beyond all standards. Immersing the Awareness into the absolute frees the mind from scientific standards and guides science to reflect a direction that releases the mind from standards.

Setting standards as the authority and the absolute, is the creation of religion and a God within boundaries.

Such a primary standard can be the Veda.

Never. Never can a relative signpost become absolute.

I know immediately the colours of your faces will change. Immediately you will blame Me that I am not the preacher of Universal Religion. You will misunderstand Me as the preacher of Hinduism in guise. This situation will arise even if I take the scripture of some other religion also as the primary standard. The misunderstanding is inevitable and unavoidable.

Consciousness recognizes Consciousness. People bound by standards recognize themselves in rules and life binding boundaries of definition, and they believe in their own righteousness. Whether they are bothered by diverging opinions is irrelevant. Being Self righteous or pious is doesn't matter.
When someone spends so much time defending himself against the wave of doubt and criticism with points and references created within relative whys and wherefores.. , he/she is not free from the thoughts of being something of measure within the boundaries of relative measures.

I have to take one scripture of some religion and I have to be subjected to the criticism.

That would only be a choice. You draw to you, and experience, what you believe is true. This is cause and effect.

Therefore, I ignore the criticism.

Also a choice, to acknowledge the opposing thought within ones own reflection of being one with everything. One with diversity of opinion, one with the side you wish to take in and amongst the two sides of acceptance and denial, and one with criticism.... or not. One could choose to be a martyr, a victim or a creator within ones own experience.

I know what I am in My inner consciousness.

Say Halleluja.."Can I get a witness!"

My inner self is the real witness as long as I am the preacher of Universal Religion to My inner self, I need not fear for any external criticism from any angle.

As long as you are the preacher to your inner self.. You can convince yourself of anything. (The self made man who loves his creator)

The reason for selecting Veda as the primary standard is that even today the Veda is being preserved by oral recitation with the help of thousands of families. If you go to older and older times millions of families were reciting Veda just to preserve it from any type of intrusions or deletions.

Memorizing, like memorizing a recipe without knowing how to cook.

In Indian spiritual field there are several branches of philosophy who fight with each other orally.

Such is life from belief.. fighting to preserve something that in its essence cannot die, but the fight continues to preserve the appearance of the eternal. Unfortunately the eternal cannot be bound by appearances, so the fight becomes one of futility. Thousands of years reciting words and still the world of those remains ridden with poverty and death. Non of the perfectionists become enlightened or help the world to become enlightened. Instead they preserve and continue to preserve for hundreds of years a script. Hoping something will change in the world around them and hoping they will find reward for a lifelong duty tethered to a post that has them reciting and arguing over the perfection of their recitation. Ah the life of bliss.................

For all these branches, Veda is the standard text. Such situation never existed in any religion in this world and does not exist even today.

Au contraire mon frere, such a situation has existed in every religious ideal

Even today different schools of philosophy in Hinduism fight with each other and all of them quote the same Veda. Such competition was and is unique in Hinduism. In such competitive atmosphere pollution of Veda is impossible.

Nothing is impossible.

If any word is added or deleted, immediately the other schools will shout because they fear that in such case Veda may support a particular branch of philosophy due to the possibility of a new interpretation for a new sentence. Leave the past. Tell Me frankly whether such situation exists in any religion in this world even today.

Fanaticism exists in every belief and in every age.

This is the main reason why I have selected Veda as the primary standard. The diversity in Hinduism has done lot of good in this direction.

I can tell. All I need is a cow and to recite and argue veda, and I will become one with God.

The sanctity of the scripture is well protected.

Like placing a seed in a block of concrete. It is well protected, tho it will never sprout in the case that it is entombed within.

In the olden days the books were in the form of written scripts of palm leaves. Printing was not there. Therefore, a very few scripts were only present. In such case it was very easy to introduce a new palm leaf or to remove an older palm leaf because hardly one or two scripts were present in a very large region.

In olden days and in present, script is an aid to instruction and hands on practice. It was only after such a time when man began to forget, that they decided to try and preserve in script what could only be lived inside. It was an act of desperation.
Not saying that scripture has no practical application, but it has no use or application without first having knowledge and experience of the absolute. Kinda like a cart without wheels. It won't roll..

Except this one reason there is no any other reason for Me to favour Veda but you need not worry that the scriptures of other religions have to be judged with reference to Veda only.

I'm not worried.. I never worry about such things

Fortunately, all the scriptures of all the religions agree with Veda.

Veda agrees with all other scripture, so Veda not need worry about losing its luster, it is easily cognized and replaced. God knows no loss or favor of idols and can easily fax a new copy of a shiny scripture.

The primary standard is useful in very few places where there is disagreement. Even that disagreement arises only from the misinterpretation of the statement. If the correct interpretation is given all the statements are perfectly coinciding with Veda.

As with all scripture, for scripture is just the description of experiences. And since the experience of God cannot be contained there are plenty of experiences of God to go around and in varying forms and revelations of thought.

Moreover, one can decide the final version of any concept based on the logical analysis.

When logic falls way to the awareness of the absolute all finalities and versions of finality fall away.

If the logical analysis fails, then mere Veda need not be taken as authority.

Logic is always based on relative measures of what is known at the time of logical deduction.

If the logic disagrees you can reject any scripture including Veda.

Rejection is always from self measure and the inability to integrate ones self with the world around ones self

Therefore, Veda along with the logical analysis only stands as a primary standard.

Primary in a world of limitation and belief where the world around you is seen as a standard of measure

When you are convinced logically about a concept and when such concept is found in Veda, then only the concept is authorised.

Now were talking. Concepts concepts concepts. Years and years of memorizing concepts and arguing concepts makes for years of arguing concepts. What a world what a world....I'm..... melting...

Therefore, I am not rubbing Veda on any head without the logical analysis.

I rubbed a balloon on my head and it stuck to the ceiling.

Therefore, one need not doubt about the fanatic.

I have no doubts about the fanatic.

The primary standard means the original word of God heard directly. But when other scriptures are perfectly in agreement with such word where is the question of fanatic? Every scripture becomes the word of God.

Relatively speaking yes, but..... and here is the clincher... The Word of God is multidimensional. God cannot be contained within scripture, and so any concept or description of the word is only a signpost pointing toward something that cannot be described but only pointed at. If you aint been there pointing at something is not the authority for someone looking for something they cannot recognize without the experience. Validation can only come from experience, not the signpost and its descriptive words.
Scripture is not like a road sign to a town in ones mind where there are matching signposts put up by everyone with the same vision and experience with the need to remember where one is. No two people see and experience the reflections of God in exactly the same manner.
One can recognize themselves in words that point in any direction, and people who point toward personal experiences.
Ultimately when one stops looking for anything in everything or one thing, then one finds everything and nothing, at the same time and in all time.
Until them one clings to idols and fantasies of authority, and argues about authority, and preaches about authority, and defends themselves and their authority, just to validate themselves in the mirror of diverse thoughts that are still plaguing the individual mind which seeks to stamp the permanent idea of being "One with the Father" on ones forehead as well as attempting to rub the idea upon everyone else's head

This point supports the Universal Religion, which says that the single God delivered the scriptures of all the religions. When the author is one and the same how can there be difference between the scriptures? If there is any difference it is only by your misinterpretation. Therefore, primary standard is only for convenience but not for fanatic.

For the fanatic all points of belief support ones own idea of self defense. Defense and argument for the defense is the only convenience of the fanatic.

Religions are created by presupposing God and Gods needs and service to those needs to gain favor. The promise of reward for faithful service and dedication often turns a blind eye to reality and the perfection of God in all things.

God is not in need of love from others because He is always contented (Aptakamasya….Veda). The king goes to the forest for hunting not for killing an animal and to eat it like a hunter (Lokavattu…..Brahma Sutra). It is a game of entertainment with His own imagination (creation). You cannot take the example of king also here in complete sense because the king, forest, animal, hunting etc., are equally real. The love is the best and most sacred type of entertainment.

Well then, the king needs no points, reasons, logic or authority, nor does he need to make a point of his authority, because he is equal to everything in his kingdom. Ergo, one need not look outside of ones self for the ultimate authority but instead within, to the equality of the king, as the king, and in the kings kingdom.

Isn't this what Veda describes? The written testimony to the personal experience from one who has lived in the Kingdom in equality with all things as does the King with all the riches and wisdom the King can have.
Ain't no authority like that kind of experience.

No combined words or single written word can match or contain that.

It can only attempt to describe or point toward it.

I'd say God has more to say than just words, and wouldn't leave to humanity One single statement to his existence as the authority to be idolized by chanting, cow worshiping, heads, who would memorize and argue for generations over one set of words. Life lives on in those who will live life in the ever present and eternal Now, rather than in the past.

[dattaswami]

idolized by chanting, cow worshiping, heads, who would memorize and argue for generations over one set of words. Life lives on in those who will live life in the ever present and eternal Now, rather than in the past.

The statue or photo is the inert object. The form carved in a stone or painted on a paper is also an imaginary form and not even a direct photo. The statues and photos are only models representing the concept, which is knowledge. The form of statues and photos is mainly human form, which represents the concept that the Lord always comes to this world in human form as said in Gita (Manusheem Tanu Masritam). Please remember that Gita did not tell that the Lord would come in any other form. The forms of fish, tortoise etc., were only temporarily to kill the demons and nobody worshipped such forms during their time. But Rama, Krishna etc were the human forms worshipped by several devotees like Hanuman and Gopikas. The Lord will come in every human generation; otherwise, He becomes partial to a particular generation. If necessary the Lord can come whenever there is necessity as said in Gita (Yedaa yedaahi).

Once this concept is realized, there is no need of temple and statue for you. You should go from school to college and then to university. This does not mean that when you leave the school, the school should be destroyed. The school must exist for the future batches. Therefore for you, the statue and the photo are not necessary and this does not mean that the statues, photos and temples should be broken. They should be protected and must be respected as the models of divine knowledge for the future ignorant devotees. Some devotees cannot accept the human form, which is before their eyes as said in Veda (Pratyaksha dvishah).

For such devotees the statues and photos are necessary for meditation since they are at the school level. The statues and photos are useful for the meditation of such limited minds as said in Sastra (Pratima svalpa buddhinam). Veda says that the Lord does not exist in the inert objects (Natasya pratima, Nedamtat), but says that the inert objects can stand as models representing the Lord (Adityam brahmeti). Therefore seeing and meditation upon the statues and photos are correct in the case of the ignorant devotees. But the other rituals like offering food, burning camphor, fume sticks, oil lamps and breaking coconuts, offering flowers etc. are not mentioned in Vedas and there are unnecessary and are causing the air pollution harming the humanity. All these unnecessary rituals should be avoided.

Offering food should also be done to the human form of the Lord only but not to the inert statues. Ijya or Yajna is cooking and offering of the food. Gita says that such Ijya should not be done to the inert objects. In the name of the statues, people are stealing the food and money. The statue and photo is not taking the food or Gurudakshina. The people behind the statue are taking those things and most of them are either cheating or wasting the money with ignorance. Whatever the Gurudakshina is given should go only to the priest and not the managing devotees. The business of the merchants by selling such materials in the temples should be stopped, because such materials are not even heard in Veda. Of course, the priest should be a Satguru and preach the divine knowledge to the devotees and the devotees should give Gurudakshina to such Satguru only. Thus, the temple should become a center of learning selfless devotion and divine knowledge and the priest must do only ‘Jnana Yajna’ in the temple and not the ‘dravya yajna’ as said in the Gita (Sreyaan dravyamayat).

Gita condemned such Ijya before inert objects because such Ijya is only cheating and business. Such a devotee will be born as inert object (Bhutejya yanti). This business is connected to removal of the fruits of sins and getting the fruits of good deeds, which are not done. All this is false, because the theory of ‘karma’ says that one has to suffer for all his bad deeds and can never get the result of any good deed without doing it (Avasyamanubhoktavyam…kalpakotisatairapi). The spiritual path should be preached in the temple, which must be ‘nishkama karma yoga’ i.e., sacrifice of work and sacrifice of fruit (money) of the work to the Lord without aspiring any fruit in return. Remember, that only the Ijya is condemned and not the temples or statues, which are the models of the divine knowledge.

[Joesus]

So your saying Veda is only a useful image rather than the authority or standard to set all images by.

I agree.

Only the experience of God can validate scripture, rather than the other way around.

[dattaswami]

So your saying Veda is only a useful image rather than the authority or standard to set all images by.

I agree.

Only the experience of God can validate scripture, rather than the other way around.

Temple and statue are necessary for low level people as said in Sastra (Pratima Swalpa Buddhinaam). It is a teaching model for a school student. But for a college or university student it is not necessary. It is called as Pratika (Model). Veda says to meditate upon the Sun assuming Sun as the Lord. The Sun is not the Lord. The Lord is not in the Sun. Sun is only a servant of the Lord.

All these points are told in Veda (Adityam Brahmeti, Nedam tat, Bheeshodeti Suryah). Veda says that the Lord is not in the statues (Natasya Pratima). Veda also says that no inert object and no human being is the Lord because the object or human being is an item in the creation (Neti, Neti). Gita says that the Lord comes only in human form (Manusheem Tanumaasritam).

The statue, which is in the human form is a model teaching you the concept that the Lord comes only in human form for preaching the divine knowledge in every human generation, to avoid the partiality to a particular human generation as said in Gita (Yada Yadaahi). Once you understood this concept the temple and statue is not necessary for you but they should be protected and respected as the models of divine knowledge for the future ignorant devotees. Some people are telling that ‘Kulluka Bhatt’ says about worship of statues. Kulluka Bhatt is a ‘Purva Mimaamsaka’ who is an atheist (Devo Na Kaschit).

How can he contradict Veda, which says that the Lord does not exist in statues? Gita condemns severely that a person-worshipping statue will be born as a stone. Here the meditation upon the statue is not condemned. Only worship like offering the food is condemned because the statue does not eat the food. Some fellow behind the statue is eating the food. In Gita the word ‘Bhutejyah’ means worshipping the inert object by offering food. Ijya means offering the food. Bhuta means inert substance, which is one of the five inert elements (Pancha Bhutas).

Some people say that the word Bhuta means ghost and those who worship ghosts become ghosts. We do not object such meaning. But the word Bhuta also means the five inert elements. Our meaning is in the same line of your meaning. A person worshipping ghosts becomes ghost. Similarly a person worshipping inert objects will become inert object. We are not contradicting your meaning. Our meaning is in the same line of your meaning and therefore you cannot contradict. Moreover the verse says that those who worship deities become deities etc., Therefore our meaning is in the line of the meaning of the verse. Yajna means feeding the guest after cooking the food and not burning the food in the fire. The guest is treated like fire. The hunger in his stomach is treated as ‘Vysvanara fire’.

Krishna stopped burning the food in fire and ate the food stating that He was hungry. Kapila condemned such burning of food in Bhagavatam. The Yajna is only cooking the food and feeding the guest. In this true sense Yajna is essential and must be performed.