Not in my universe it doesn't, Yuyutsu.

>>The above explains why in order to know God, one must set aside and suspend one's senses and mind. It is however not required to lose them forever.<<

It explains precisely nothing.

And even this new addition to our understanding is structurally incomplete. If it is not "forever", what happens when you re-attach your senses and reclaim your mind? Do you immediately stop knowing God? Do you gradually stop knowing God? If you still know God afterwards, without having to suspend your senses, why is it not possible to create that knowing without the tedious business of losing one's mind?

Is it important to you, that you can only discuss this by employing obfuscation, non sequiturs and smugness?

Dear Banjo,

<<It also means that your goal in life is to become one with God, or, perhaps even, to become God ?>>

Almost correct. My goal in life is God-Realisation. I am already God and so are you, it's just a question of realising that, by dropping the obstacles that obscure that obvious.

<<However, despite all your references to God, it is not at all clear to what extent you actually believe in God.>>

It is also unimportant. Contemporary Western society attaches a disproportional importance to belief.

<<Indeed, it seems that Advaita Vedanta is considered by some as a form of atheistic pantheism.>>

Then so be it. Those 'some' are like zoologists who struggle to classify the platypus. The platypus doesn't care whether it's a mammal or a bird so long as it has enough water.

<<It all becomes fairly logical when one considers that, at the beginning, they were faced with a lack of concrete evidence of a deity.>>

What's wrong with empiricism? The main difference between the ancient Hindus and modern scientists is that the former did not discard valuable knowledge just because it was subjective.

Dear Pericles,

<<If it is not "forever", what happens when you re-attach your senses and reclaim your mind? Do you immediately stop knowing God? Do you gradually stop knowing God? If you still know God afterwards, without having to suspend your senses>>

Once you know yourself, you know that you ARE God, so then you could do as you like.

<<why is it not possible to create that knowing without the tedious business of losing one's mind?>>

It seems that you are so in love with your mind that you don't like losing it.

<<Is it important to you, that you can only discuss this by employing obfuscation, non sequiturs and smugness?>>

Not at all. It WAS important to me to answer your questions politely, as best I can. You want no obfuscation, then fine: for you this is all porno - you are wasting my time while you enjoy masturbating your beloved mind!

That sums it up pretty nicely, Yuyutsu.

>>Not at all. It WAS important to me to answer your questions politely, as best I can. You want no obfuscation, then fine<<

Polite obfuscation. I get it. As in...

>>Once you know yourself, you know that you ARE God, so then you could do as you like.<<

With which sense are you able to "know", pray tell. Given that you have suspended all those senses and capabilities of which we are presently aware, including the mind, reason, logic etc., which part of you suddenly finds out that you are a God?

>>...for you this is all porno - you are wasting my time while you enjoy masturbating your beloved mind!<<

Strangely enough, this is precisely the image I have of you. Hunched over your keyboard, giving yourself yet another self-induced petit mort, as you purposefully ignore all the questions, and instead deliver a sermon of such consummate condescension, that you are in awe of yourself for hours.

.

Dear Pericles and Yuyutsu,

.

Pericles wrote:

"Is it important to you, that you can only discuss this by employing obfuscation, non sequiturs and smugness?"
.

As I indicated in my last post to Yuyutsu, faced with a lack of concrete evidence of a deity, Hindu religions appear to have adopted an avoidance strategy in order to develop their dogma, permitting the circumvention of any objections, criticisms and pitfalls as and when they arose.

The method employed seems to have consisted in a process spanning nearly 3000 years of interminable verbal exchanges between gurus and their disciples which took the form of a series of riddles and contradictions during intellectual jousts, probably along similar lines to those that Socrates indulged in a few centuries later in the ancient agora of Athens.

Yuyutsu's posts here appear to follow the same pattern, "now you see me, now you don't". He is a moving target, at the slightest challenge contradicting whatever he said previously, turning it over without the slightest sign of unease like a hot sausage on a barbeque:

Yuyutsu: " God does not exist. My goal in life is God-Realisation. I am already God and so are you". [objestion: it is not at all clear to what extent you actually believe in God]. Yuyutsu: " It is also unimportant. Contemporary Western society attaches a disproportional importance to belief ... What's wrong with empiricism? The main difference between the ancient Hindus and modern scientists is that the former did not discard valuable knowledge just because it was subjective".

According to Yuyutsu, to see God you must close your eyes. To hear God you must stop listening. To find God you must stop searching. To know God you must stop thinking. [objection: it seems that Advaita Vedanta (Yuyutsu's Hindu religious "path") is considered by some as a form of atheistic pantheism]. Yuyutsu: "So be it".

.

(Continued )

.

.

(Continued )

.

Yuyutsu: "God is not a deity ... God is neither supernatural nor a concept ... God is not supposed to make sense ... God is not supposed to be imaginable ... Religion is about coming closer to God ... a religious person seeks God, not survival!".

Yuyutsu: " with faith, what exists or doesn't is simply irrelevant! ... the love of God should not depend upon His existence ... Should it be proven beyond all doubt that the object of your faith does not exist ... then you have no faith , only belief! ... ".

Yuyutsu: " ultimately one needs to ... love God regardless even that He never existed ... it's not about "loving a God" (implying an object) - it's about loving God ... loving God is in our very nature ... what matters is whether YOU choose to seek God".
.

To understand Yuyutsu, we probably need to project our minds back about 150 years or so to a Bengali mystic known as Ramakrishna and his chief disciple, Swami Vivekananda whose teachings apparently continue to inspire Yuyutsu, though Swami died in 1902.

Yuyutsu obviously has problems bridging the gap between his acquired Hindu culture and his native Western culture, which possibly explains a certain amount of confusion in his expression, if not in his ideas.

The fact that he often contradicts himself doesn't seem to bother Yuyutsu. Perhaps his memory plays up with him occasionally.

And to cap it all off, I have the impression that our dear friend is not particularly endowed with communication skills.

A little patience and indulgence can do no harm.

.

AJ Philips,

>>I had asked several times before how you got from the “Something” to Christianity.<<

Do you want me to write a story of my life, or what, presumably in less than 350 words? Even if I tried, you would again pick it apart, sentence by sentence, to resist my non-existent attempts at converting you (I can’t see any other reason).

I presented my worldview beliefs (representations or models of reality, to use a language borrowed from philosophy of science) in four steps or levels (1. disbelief of Sagan’s maxim, 2. God who can be communicated with, 3. Christianity in general, 4. the Catholic version of Christianity). You want me to talk about jumping from level 1 to 3, possibly 4, in a few words. I am not that important, and there are a legion of books trying to explain why this or that philosopher, scientist etc is a Christian or just believes in God. Some might be too pushy but the serious ones just try to communicate to insiders (and hopefully also to outsiders) what the religious part of their worldview is about.

To read Andrew Newberg’s views on God you have to go to www.amazon.com, search for “Newberg, God”, click “Go” and then click on “LOOK INSIDE” the first book “How God Changes Your Brain”and then on “First Pages”. You can read the First Chapter and the Epilogue of the book by scrolling through.

To react to the rest, I really would have to repeat myself about how complex is the question of which representation of physical reality (i.e. physical theory) is more adequate for this or that purpose, and how much more complicated is the relation between various religions, which I see as “representations” of spiritual reality. To understand the first you need mathematics and perhaps to understand the latter you need spiritual or mystical insights (don’t ask me to “define” them!).

Dear Banjo,

>>To understand Yuyutsu, we probably need to project … to … Ramakrishna and … Swami Vivekananda<<

Yes, I think he himself admitted that much, see http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=14814#256082.