Suffering..

[dattaswami]

Why do innocent people suffer?

[Shri Krishnaraj asked: "You have mentioned that suicide equivalent to murdering somebody, and the reason being process of killing and torture is a sin. Then what is the case of motor accidents and calamities like earthquake, tsunami etc. Is the soul happy leaving the world living the shortened life? In such cases also soul is being tortured. Reasons may be the karma of previous birth etc, but everything is the wish of the god, and why does god does not shower his blessings, so that he can save such souls from accidents or calamities so that such souls live a complete life. This is one part.

The other part is the agony of losing near ones in such accidents and calamities. The trauma and torture suffered by the survivors cannot be described. Is god a sadist then to torture the living soul (for whatsoever reasons like karma of previous birth etc). The agony is more when evil people live a good life and seemingly innocent people live a shortened life. The reply will be appreciated, as more than personal reasons query is generic in nature." End of comment.

Dear sir, I hope you understand my feelings. Because of above thinking , I have a feeling of insecurity and not able to act to the full potential in any path. Though I agree that there is a supernatural power or concept of god , there is hesitation on my part to take to spiritual path or heed to scriptures. I am not able to respond sensibly to my responsibilities for the simple reason that ultimately if it is the wish of the god or supernatural power that prevails ( as in above nature disasters), let god take control of my life and I need not act anymore and remain inert. Though I am not an escapist and such attitude creates problems in practical life. How to overcome such feeling of insecurity and become more responsible is the essence of my query. I think many people have faced similar situations like that.

I don't have grudge against anyone and my anguish is directed against god, for everything is wish of god. I have read Datta Shri swami's articles in kpsystems facebook group and they were enlightening. I posted the above comments in kpsystem FB group in reply to your article and since i have not received response in FB page sofar (till 06.30 AM 6th Jan 2014), I am contacting through your website. The above thinking were one of the reasons I wanted to meet you in person and expressed my interest for personal interaction with you in my earlier mail and received response from your disciple that i should go through the knowledge and like to point out that I am seeking knowledge that whatever is required and wherever I am lacking through various sources.

Since Datta Shri is an enlightened person, and I think he can clear my doubts and enlighten me regarding the above mentioned points. I don't know whether I am making a mistake in nurturing above thoughts. If so I would like to know in what way I am making a mistake. I am open to change my notion if proper reasoning is given regarding above points. I request Datta Shri swami to spare time to clear my above doubts and guide me to live a peaceful life. - By Krishnaraj]

Swami Replied: When a criminal is hanged and if you see the process of hanging, you will sympathise the criminals, who look like sages with their grown hair and beards. You will criticise the judge and the jailor, who are implementing this execution. You are not aware of the crime. If you see the crime committed by the criminal, you will kill the criminal on the spot. At least, the constitution allowed him to be alive for a long time before execution in the name of trials. Another part of ignorance is that you think that death is the end of human being. Only the body perishes and the soul is still alive. The soul is subjected to the threat through death given to body since the soul is very much attached to its body. These souls will take re-birth and due to the threat given, some control in their behaviour exists. You may say that let all these punishments be done in the upper hell so that nobody sees and sympathises the souls.

But, some punishments must be seen by the public and the corresponding sins done by these souls are inferred by the wise public. When the punishment is given by the judge in the court, the crime done by the criminal is not demonstrated in the court so that the public should know the details of the crime by visual means. The scripture gives the details of various punishments given to various sins. You can refer the scripture to know the sin committed by the criminal here by seeing the punishment. Even in the court, you know the crime informed through the judgement or can know directly from the constitution and infer the crime committed. You can refer the constitution to know the crime through the details of punishment. Mostly, the severe sins done on this earth are given punishments here only.

The punishment given to a just born baby indicates only the sin done in the previous birth. Some religions do not believe in re-birth. In such case, it is the responsibility of those religions also to give the reason for the punishment given to the just born baby. Either you should say that God is cruel or the new born baby committed some sin in the previous birth. No religion blames God. In such case, you have to accept the reason given by Me. It is not reasonable that you neither give the reason nor accept My reason at least tentatively till you give the reason. The incident of punishment of new born baby is before all our eyes and every religion has responsibility to give the reason in this incident.

The main point is that you are seeing only the latter part of the punishment and not the earlier part of the sin done either here or in the previous birth. Stop the attitude of criticizing the administration of God, which is always perfect. You say that some sinners live with happiness and some innocents are punished. This misunderstanding is also due to lack of perfect analysis. The sinner is given sometime for reformation. The punished innocent person was already given lot of time and is punished now. You think that he is innocent since you do not know his background. Hence, all your analysis and conclusions are based on superficial and partial knowledge only. If you have the deep and complete knowledge of the entire humanity, you will appreciate that the administration of God is more justified and more kind enough than the human administration. You will know all this through spiritual knowledge only. Suicide is also a punishment given to a human being, which forced the other human being to commit suicide in this or previous birth. You cannot stop such suicide since it is divine justice. But, in the absence of such punishment, some people commit suicide due to emotion and ignorance based on the freedom of the soul given by God on this earth. The emotion and ignorance is wrong knowledge, which can be removed by right knowledge. Such suicides can be stopped through the spiritual knowledge. Develop devotion to God and replace your criticism by appreciation for God. You will be happy and succeed in life.

[iambiguous]

Why do innocent people suffer?

Here, in discussing human pain and suffering down through the ages with those who are religious, I invariably come around to this...

God [or the Gods] and...

"...an endless procession of earthquakes and volcanic eruptions and tornadoes and hurricanes and great floods and great droughts and great fires and deadly viral and bacterial plagues and miscarriages and hundreds and hundreds of medical and mental afflictions and extinction events...making life on Earth a living hell for countless millions of men, women and children down through the ages...

How about your God here?

How is the "...latter part of the punishment and not the earlier part of the sin..." applicable for mere mortals when it is God Himself who created the planet, the viruses, the medical afflictions, the extinction events? When it is God Himself that is responsible for the ghastly human pain and suffering endured by men, women and children as a result of these catastrophes: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_n ... death_toll

[Harbal]

.
[Shri Krishnaraj asked: What do you think is the best track on Led Zeppelin II, Blessed Lotus Foot.




Swami Replied: In my opinion, Shri Krishnaraj, it is probably this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LzGBQerkvWs

[Walker]

.
[Shri Krishnaraj asked: What do you think is the best track on Led Zeppelin II, Blessed Lotus Foot.




Swami Replied: In my opinion, Shri Krishnaraj, it is probably this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LzGBQerkvWs

Harbal, Dattaswami is your guest.

The guest is God. You should know that. *

*

Shivoham
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MHQdG_-enAc

For the witness … Beautiful entertainment to flavour the mental machinations.
For the doer … Voice energy for tuning the neural network.

The refrain of the japa, adapted to musical entertainment, is Shivoham.

“Shivoham” – I Am Shiva.

“Om Namah Shivay”
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/rel ... 203903.cms

*

Dear Pundit Dattaswami:

If you would be further generous with your knowledge, what do some of the other beautiful sounds and harmonies, mean?

Surely, they can be related to philosophy, for those whose cups are not already filled to the brim.

Thank you in advance.


* The one to whom you give attention, one at a time, is your guest.

[Walker]

[Iwannaplato]

Harbal, Dattaswami is your guest.

The guest is God. You should know that. *

The host is God also, in that model. How is the guest treating the hosts? Some guy comes to a gathering at my home and starts lecturing, going from group to group and lecturing and not showing much interest in what people have to say. Some guy presents images, metaphors, 'arguments', opinions that are sloppy and contradictory and condescending and unsupported....

and for some odd reason you're down on your knees. Why? Cause the guy's a guru? Gurus are a dime a dozen and while many of them can meditate their socks off and even produce oranges from the air, those same people can sexually abuse their followers despite their great meditative accomplishments.

I am truly stunned to see you, of all people, bowing down to a teenagerish philosopher. Is it the sanskit name?

Shri Harbal, then.

Dear Pundit Dattaswami:

If you would be further generous with your knowledge, what do some of the other beautiful sounds and harmonies, mean?

Surely, they can be related to philosophy, for those whose cups are not already filled to the brim.

The elephant in the room: obviously our visitor is more filled to the brim than anyone here. And that includes P. Kropotkin, so it's a miraculous being-filled-to-the-brim our little guru manages to be.

I do like you tossing a Zen metaphor at the Hindu guru.

Some use the keisaku to hit people with. Others drown them in words.

[Walker]

Shri Harbal, then.

Exactly.

Otherwise, is to take on that karma, which is a choiceless doing.

Choiceless does not mean, done in ignorance.

[Walker]

The elephant in the room: obviously our visitor is more filled to the brim than anyone here. And that includes P. Kropotkin, so it's a miraculous being-filled-to-the-brim our little guru manages to be.

I do like you tossing a Zen metaphor at the Hindu guru.

Some use the keisaku to hit people with. Others drown them in words.

I suspend judgment about the form of the pundit, and therefore, the motive.

I suspect there's a strong possibility that Ego is not the motive force that changes stillness to motion, for dattaswami.

*

We exist in this bardo to burn off himsic karma, our own and others. That we are human gives us the advantage to do that. If one sees what is going on, particularly in this realm where our form is words, it’s about ROLES and not personalities. Although we exist here as words, we are not the words.

Extensive knowledge, whether it be stored in carbon or silicon, is required for punditry, and such knowledge requires a program of understanding, i.e., degree of consciousness, to interpret the data, for the carbon form perceives simultaneous multiple dimensions of meaning.

The more cosmic the consciousness, the better chance for the understanding to take root when transmitted. However, it must be kept in mind that cosmic is like leaping off a cliff. You spend all your days and nights inching up to the edge, then you leap.

[Iwannaplato]

I suspend judgment about the form of the pundit, and therefore, the motive.

I suspect there's a strong possibility that Ego is not the motive force that changes stillness to motion, for dattaswami.

The road to hell is paved...well, you know the rest.

*

We exist in this bardo to burn off himsic karma, our own and others. That we are human gives us the advantage to do that. If one sees what is going on, particularly in this realm where our form is words, it’s about ROLES and not personalities. Although we exist here as words, we are not the words.

I don't really agree except for us not being the words. That I agree with.

Extensive knowledge, whether it be stored in carbon or silicon, is required for punditry, and such knowledge requires a program of understanding, i.e., degree of consciousness, to interpret the data, for the carbon form perceives simultaneous multiple dimensions of meaning.

Well, the carbon form starting these threads is just rehashing the same stuff that never really made a dent in real problems.

The more cosmic the consciousness, the better chance for the understanding to take root when transmitted. However, it must be kept in mind that cosmic is like leaping off a cliff. You spend all your days and nights inching up to the edge, then you leap.

Good luck getting a leap of dattaswami.

[Walker]

I am truly stunned to see you, of all people, bowing down to a teenagerish philosopher. Is it the sanskit name?

If that's what he is, and he is not a pundit, then by the truth of the data he has posted, he can no longer continue to conscionably perform in the role of pundit, which is what he is doing. By his actions he is a pundit, but by your description he is not.

He is offering the raw material to be discussed. I must say, it beats gossip.

The avalanche of words is not a bad thing because it is unequivocal, such as the stern dietary data. It's a free-form forum with minimal moderation. You learn to filter and make it your own, or else allow any old thing into your noggin.

I find the hard edges and sharp corners of Dattaswami's punditry and certainty to be a rather refreshing form.

[Iwannaplato]

If that's what he is, and he is not a pundit,

Oh, he's a pundit and a guru. But his thinking is like a teenager's version of philosophy. And not an insightful one. Check out his version of statistics...

Again and again, I am warning that I am not developing the concept of existence of God for achieving just this good result of controlling sin in the society. I have developed this concept of existence of God just from your theory of probability only, which cannot rule out one probability of existence of God as the ultimate cause among several other probabilities. Since all probabilities have equal strength, the probability of existence of God has the strength of any other probability as its right as per the norms of the theory of probability.

I have selected this probability of existence of God by giving more strength based on the wise selection with lesser risk. To explain this wise selection of lesser risk, you can think that there is no loss to you if you lead a sinless life even if really God is non-existent. But, if God exists based on equal strength (50-50) of such probability among other probabilities, you will achieve the greatest benefit of avoiding the hell in future.
Not only this, you will also achieve the greatest benefit here itself by the sinless life since sins leading to more and more luxuries result in several diseases spoiling your happiness here. Not only this, if the sins are avoided, you will not have the tension of the probability of punishments given by the Government. A life without tensions blessed by peace and happiness is the highest wealth. In view of all these advantages, such wise selection of this probability finally results in no risk at all.

He move from saying you cannot rule out the existence of God, to saying that it is necessarily 50%, despite there being all sorts of possibilities, then upon arriving on the percentage 50% says that it is probable that God exists and later in the same post....
viewtopic.php?p=613855#p613855
claims that he has proven God's existence using my theory of probability.
There are so many flaws in his argument and his Pascal's Wager argument, that I cannot see how anyone can take this person seriously.
And note his version of Pascal's Wager is much worse that Pascals' because Pascal was aiming his argument at theists, encouraging them to continue believing.
Dattaswami's argument is aimed at atheists, which contains the weak understanding of humans that they like gamblers can choose to start believing something because it has no risk and some gain.

This shows a fundamental confusion about human nature.

This person is not an expert in what he talks about. He may be a great meditator. One may have all sorts of interesting experiences in darshan with him.

But whatever social world he has does not include the possibility of him listening to people who could point out how ridiculous he is being, how little he understands about how statistics are used in science (or anywhere), how off his use of important words are and his lack of understanding of key aspects of human nature. IOW his authority is founded on yes man environments which is a breeding ground for naricissism.

And the way he posts is typical for narcissists. Here 'the spiritual narcissist' a category Age fits fairly well also.

then by the truth of the data he has posted, he can no longer continue to conscionably perform in the role of pundit, which is what he is doing. By his actions he is a pundit, but by your description he is not.

Well, he's not an expert on many things he writes about. Of course many pundits aren't experts, which is why the term is often used negatively or ironically.

He is offering the raw material to be discussed. I must say, it beats gossip.

Come on, you've heard this shit dozens of times before and there are much better versions of it out there.

Tell me some big insight you got from reading him.

The avalanche of words is not a bad thing because it is unequivocal, such as the stern dietary data. It's a free-form forum with minimal moderation. You learn to filter and make it your own, or else allow any old thing into your noggin.

Oh, sure, I have a number of people on ignore. Though he is so prolific it actually creates some loss of signal to noise when looking at new posts, for example. But I'm here mainly to interact with memes and the characters that carry them around. He falls into a type and one that has a certain kind of power out there. But, sure, I'll drop reading him if it is simply a bother.

I find the hard edges and sharp corners of Dattaswami's punditry and certainty to be a rather refreshing form.

Well, then I understand your choice while being surprised he carries any interest for you.

Why not just read some Ken Wilber, you know, someone who probably suggests similar practices but who actually knows what he's talking about. I am not a fan of KW's o DS's spirituality, but DS is a messy, confused, uninformed, overconfident version compared to many writers and speakers who follow at core Eastern paths.

You do know who he is right, DS? Like who he is out there in the world. It's findable pretty easily.

[Walker]

You do know who he is right, DS? Like who he is out there in the world. It's findable pretty easily.

No, I don't. Didn't look for anything about DS (dattaswami?). Didn't check his links. I just speed read some of the postings.

[Walker]

Tell me some big insight you got from reading him.

An insight from reading him.

- Dattaswami is what you make of him, as are we all. Due to the limitations of the situation, how you make something of him is to use his offerings, wherever they come from and for whatever reasons, as portals into the mind-sense, for contemplation. Contemplation is thought and the practice is, use it or lose it … which might be the cause of at least some parsimony in some postings.

- In that spirit:

- I read this offering not long ago, and thought about it a bit while my fingers did the walking, but not through the yellow pages. The keyboard stroll is more pleasant than some of the other portals into mind available on the forum.

”… the concept of God is the result of deep scientific analysis of practical observation of nature only.”

- I like this conclusion. I agree with it, which is not an endorsement of how he discovered it, because I forget what he said about that. The details of the concept, or the fact that there are many concepts and some of them conflict with one another, is superfluous to his discovered, and not created, conclusion.

- The point of his statement, the principle of his statement, is simply that the capacity to form a concept of God is intrinsic to human existence. This is called a primary cause. A secondary cause is an element of a particular condition that activates the primary cause, which exists within infinite potentiality until activated and manifesting, and it may never be activated.

- (The dynamic is a bona fide teaching within a tradition, verified by observation.)

- Scientific attention to causation is how we tick. We observe, we deduce causation. Take for example the question: did you observe the beauty of? Once we observe the beauty of, we may enter that portal to mind that allows for the mind cognition of causation. What causes beauty? When clear, the probability of accuracy in ascertaining the beginning and end of any particular causation serves to change probability into inevitability, even if the territory be new and untested because by then, one is tuned into reality and thus concludes, God.

- How does one know that one is tuned in, and the conclusion is accurate? Indeed. Such knowing is not simply intellectual, since it is a whole-sensory and consciousness experience not bound to concepts and intellect. The intellect serves to report the news of contemplation, and of knowing, and to put pattern recognition to survival advantage in a changing environment.

- The principle dattaswami is stating is, God is a conclusion drawn by serious-thinking folks, scientific-thinking folks rather than delusional nincompoops as they are characterized, and there’s no more faith involved in this conclusion of God than there is in any other scientific analysis of phenomena.

[Harbal]

Tell me some big insight you got from reading him.

An insight from reading him.


- The principle dattaswami is stating is, God is a conclusion drawn by serious-thinking folks, scientific-thinking folks rather than delusional nincompoops as they are characterized, and there’s no more faith involved in this conclusion of God than there is in any other scientific analysis of phenomena.

And is that insight completely new to you? Had it never occurred to you before?

[Iwannaplato]

- Dattaswami is what you make of him, as are we all. Due to the limitations of the situation, how you make something of him is to use his offerings, wherever they come from and for whatever reasons, as portals into the mind-sense, for contemplation. Contemplation is thought and the practice is, use it or lose it … which might be the cause of at least some parsimony in some postings.

Sure, one can take that approach, but it seems to me there are more intelligent sources.

- In that spirit:

- I read this offering not long ago, and thought about it a bit while my fingers did the walking, but not through the yellow pages. The keyboard stroll is more pleasant than some of the other portals into mind available on the forum.

”… the concept of God is the result of deep scientific analysis of practical observation of nature only.”

- I like this conclusion. I agree with it, which is not an endorsement of how he discovered it, because I forget what he said about that. The details of the concept, or the fact that there are many concepts and some of them conflict with one another, is superfluous to his discovered, and not created, conclusion.

- The point of his statement, the principle of his statement, is simply that the capacity to form a concept of God is intrinsic to human existence. This is called a primary cause. A secondary cause is an element of a particular condition that activates the primary cause, which exists within infinite potentiality until activated and manifesting, and it may never be activated.

- (The dynamic is a bona fide teaching within a tradition, verified by observation.)

- Scientific attention to causation is how we tick. We observe, we deduce causation. Take for example the question: did you observe the beauty of? Once we observe the beauty of, we may enter that portal to mind that allows for the mind cognition of causation. What causes beauty? When clear, the probability of accuracy in ascertaining the beginning and end of any particular causation serves to change probability into inevitability, even if the territory be new and untested because by then, one is tuned into reality and thus concludes, God.

- How does one know that one is tuned in, and the conclusion is accurate? Indeed. Such knowing is not simply intellectual, since it is a whole-sensory and consciousness experience not bound to concepts and intellect. The intellect serves to report the news of contemplation, and of knowing, and to put pattern recognition to survival advantage in a changing environment.

- The principle dattaswami is stating is, God is a conclusion drawn by serious-thinking folks, scientific-thinking folks rather than delusional nincompoops as they are characterized, and there’s no more faith involved in this conclusion of God than there is in any other scientific analysis of phenomena.

How does scientitific attention differ from attention? And how did this different show itself when looking at nature? And what is 'practical observation'?