Ad-infinitum

[dattaswami]

God has no beginning and no end because God is unimaginable. The beginning and the end must be also unimaginable for an unimaginable item. The creator cannot be any item of the creation. If creator becomes creation, there must be some other creator for this creator to become the creation. Ad-infinitum (Anavastha) results. Science disproved some conclusions of the earlier logic and this should not be misunderstood as refusing God. God is in no way touched because the earlier logic also was dealing with only the analysis of created items. Tarka means the analysis of the items of creation, which are indicated and understood by their corresponding names or words (Tarkyante Padarthah Asminniti….). God is beyond all the words and cannot be the understood meaning of any word and therefore, logic cannot touch God.

Today science is the most advanced logic since the experimental verification was improved. Therefore if I am explaining the philosophy based on science, it means that the philosophy is more and more clear due to the advanced logic. I told you already that the logic (science) is only useful to refuse any item of creation as not God.

We should base the subject of philosophy related to God on good logic, which is scientific and systematic without defects like mutual contradiction, ad-infinitum etc.

The example for ad-infinitum is that an endless chain is created in statements like ‘which is the cause for God?’ In the analysis of creation, you may go on stating the cause for every cause.

You may say that the cause for earth is water. The cause for water is fire. The cause for fire is air. The cause for air is space. The cause for space is God (Atmana Aakashah… Veda). You should stop at a particular cause, which has no cause. If you go on giving cause to every cause, the chain will never end. Such a defect is called as ad-infinitum (Anavasthaa). To remove this defect, we have to stop at some cause, which is called as the ultimate cause i.e., the God. Hence, the subject of philosophy (Vedanta) should be always based on good logic (Sat tarka) only. Shankara told this point that bad crooked logic should be stopped and good logic should be followed in any discussion (Dustarkah suviramyataam shrutimatah tarkonu sandhiyataam…).

[wtf]

Great fleas have little fleas upon their backs to bite 'em,
And little fleas have lesser fleas, and so ad infinitum.
And the great fleas themselves, in turn, have greater fleas to go on;
While these again have greater still, and greater still, and so on

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siphonaptera_(poem)

That was written by the famous logician Augustus De Morgan, after whom De Morgan's laws are named.

[dattaswami]

That was written by the famous logician Augustus De Morgan, after whom De Morgan's laws are named.

God has no beginning and no end because God is unimaginable. The beginning and the end must be also unimaginable for an unimaginable item. The beginning and the end of the cosmic energy or space or the creation are also unimaginable. Therefore, the beginning and the end are unimaginable for the unimaginable item like God and also for the imaginable item like space. Therefore, the two points, which are the beginning-less and end-less characteristics cannot help you in understanding the real nature of God.

If you start recognizing the God by simply these two points (beginning-less and end-less), you may think that God is an imaginable item like the space or energy or the creation. In fact based on these two characteristics people have imagined God as an imaginable item like space or energy or creation. This concept has misled people to such a low level that people think that God is the very infinite space or infinite energy or infinite creation.

Therefore, one should filter the concept of God at this juncture itself. One should think that God has no beginning and no end because the beginning and the end of an unimaginable item are also unimaginable.

[wtf]

God has no beginning and no end because God is unimaginable. The beginning and the end must be also unimaginable for an unimaginable item. The beginning and the end of the cosmic energy or space or the creation are also unimaginable. Therefore, the beginning and the end are unimaginable for the unimaginable item like God and also for the imaginable item like space. Therefore, the two points, which are the beginning-less and end-less characteristics cannot help you in understanding the real nature of God.

Can you say anything to convince us you're not a bot?

You could start by responding to this question. You say

God has no beginning and no end because God is unimaginable.

If God is unimaginable, how can you be sure that God has no beginning and no end? Since you can't imagine God, how can you know anything about God's qualities or attributes? For all you know, you can't imagine God and God has a beginning and an end. If you can't imagine a thing, then you admit you know absolutely nothing about it.

To me, my point seems logical. How can you state certainties about the attributes of something that you admit you can't imagine?

[dattaswami]

If God is unimaginable, how can you be sure that God has no beginning and no end? Since you can't imagine God, how can you know anything about God's qualities or attributes? For all you know, you can't imagine God and God has a beginning and an end. If you can't imagine a thing, then you admit you know absolutely nothing about it.

To me, my point seems logical. How can you state certainties about the attributes of something that you admit you can't imagine?

This is the reason why God Himself comes to this world to preach about Himself. God alone knows about Himself. He comes here in human form and preaches about Himself! He is called Human incarnation of God, in absence of which people will become atheist...

[alan1000]

Whatever you're on, dattaswami, it must be good s**t. Where can I get some?

[Cerveny]

Perhaps we should understand God as a certain interactive (meta) medium strongly supporting and directing life. What does he/she want from us, what is he looking for? Love, infinity? It is beautiful and fundamental that everything cannot be calculated…

[commonsense]

If God is unimaginable, how can you be sure that God has no beginning and no end? Since you can't imagine God, how can you know anything about God's qualities or attributes? For all you know, you can't imagine God and God has a beginning and an end. If you can't imagine a thing, then you admit you know absolutely nothing about it.

To me, my point seems logical. How can you state certainties about the attributes of something that you admit you can't imagine?

This is the reason why God Himself comes to this world to preach about Himself. God alone knows about Himself. He comes here in human form and preaches about Himself! He is called Human incarnation of God, in absence of which people will become atheist...

You cannot say these things. You cannot say anything about what an unimaginable Thing does. You cannot even suggest that an unimaginable God exists. Take it all back and start over.

[commonsense]

Perhaps we should understand God as a certain interactive (meta) medium strongly supporting and directing life. What does he/she want from us, what is he looking for? Love, infinity? It is beautiful and fundamental that everything cannot be calculated…

Once we can understand that God exists, we cannot understand God. However, God is unknowable and therefore we cannot know that God exists.

[Iwannaplato]

dattaswami wrote:
I have the courage to ......
I have the broad mind to...

Do you have the courage to consider that the way you are approaching people here is disrespectful?
To wonder if perhaps lecturing people and starting dozens of threads, often in subforums where they do not belong, might be rude and even counterproductive for your own goals?
Do you have a broad enough mind to consider that your own psychological needs might be determining how you approach people and even seem to not really care about their reactions and interests?
Do you have the courage to focus on discussing your ideas rather than vomiting them out, especially given that this is a discussion forum and not a blog?
How did you decide you had courage?
How did you decide you have a broad mind?
Have you decided that you have courage and a broad mind and will never reevaluate?
Can you take feedback and criticism into account and perhaps adjust or even more deeply change your approach to other people?
Is it possible that you think you are sharing good and lovely truths, but actually for you psychologically it is a way for you to feel special and even dominate others?
Could both be true?
What might be a better way to interact with people, one that would show them that you consider them at least potential equals not just receipients of your knowledge?

[Cerveny]

Perhaps we should understand God as a certain interactive (meta) medium strongly supporting and directing life. What does he/she want from us, what is he looking for? Love, infinity? It is beautiful and fundamental that everything cannot be calculated…

Once we can understand that God exists, we cannot understand God. However, God is unknowable and therefore we cannot know that God exists.

I have no doubts about that…

[Harbal]

God has no beginning and no end because God is unimaginable.

And yet people continue to imagine him.

[Walker]

Aye carrumba. Let me straighten this all out.

The data of Dattaswami already did the starting over.
The thing is, the wisdom of the Rishis was there first, so actually, y'all are starting over.

The data man just leaps ahead to conclusions without the phraseology of this particular … “Temple Of Philosophy,” and its foundations.

Strip it down and you get to this nitty gritty.
You get to the, precursor to the assumed "starting-over" point, which is:

I Am, Therefore I Think.

We are told, "God has no beginning and no end because God is unimaginable."
That's perfectly clear, and here's why.

- Imagination requires thought.
- Because I Am, I think. (My lungs also breathe, my heart beats, and so on, all because, I Am).
- A thought begins, and a thought ends.
- The self-identifying “I,” with its particular identified qualities defined as self, is the thought that requires, Am.
- The unimaginable does not require thought.
- The unimaginable does not require, Am.
- Therefore, the unimaginable does not begin, or end, for it is without imaginative thought.
- Neither does God require imaginative thought, to be.
- Neither do you.

- Of course the verification requires the empirical experience of no thought, and because there is no thought, there really is no empirical conscious experience that: “I Am, Therefore I Think,” actually requires.

- "I Think, Therefore I Am,"* is the only perview that requires thought-dependent existence for a self-concept of thought-identified, qualities.

- At this juncture those within the temple say, "Start over. Explaining according to my terms leads to contridiction in terms of my understanding, it creates a paradox, so start over, this cannot be true."

- So, the best that this foundation of Western Philosophy can hope to do with the likes of Dattaswammi, is try to cram him, whether he be Bot or Hooman Bean, into the framework of the foundation of this temple where of course, he can be picked at and swept away with an Imperial, doubt-free and thus nonchalant wave of assumptions **.


* Then we also have the realm of ... I sometimes think, and properly order concepts.

** This is the foundation that empowers the practice of sweeping past names of disinterest. Based on past performance of the current disinterest, current postings are assumed.

[Walker]

Regarding the figurative discontent with Dattaswami's data style, in other realms of Life be careful who you complain to, or you may soon be surprised to discover that he is now wearing your walking shoes.

[Iwannaplato]

- So, the best that this foundation of Western Philosophy can hope to do with the likes of Dattaswammi, is try to cram him, whether he be Bot or Hooman Bean, into the framework of the foundation of this temple where of course, he can be picked at and swept away with an Imperial, doubt-free and thus nonchalant wave of assumptions **.

There's always the Dattaswammi option of engaging in dialogue. There have been a couple of short, not quite on point bursts, so who knows?

There is always the option open to him to go into his experience, how he reached his conclusions. Some phenomenology. I see need for this person to present some proof of deity or the like. There's quite a bit a non-conclusive dialogue could produce of interest.

But I think most people here can use the search function in Amazon or in library catalogues if we want long texts about sort-of Hinduism.
.