Do sinful souls, who are born as plants and animals, ever get another human birth?

[Iwannaplato]

All these bonds that devotees have with God are only with the imaginable mediated God. When God is mediated, i.e., when He enters into a medium, the medium may be male or female. But generally, it is male.

How could you possibly know that if God is unimaginable. Perhaps that is only your fallible human guess, given that God could come in any form he or she wishes.

The soul is also mediated by a body, which too, could be either male or female with equal probability.

In the Hindu tradition, a woman who is bonded to a man as his married wife is considered to be very precious and holy.

But a man can be precious and holy without doing this in the same tradition.

This is similar to a devoted soul bonded to God due to devotion. Hence, the media of God are always masculine, whereas, the media of the soul could be either masculine or feminine, in the external sense of the body. Actually, the unimaginable God present in the male medium is beyond gender and the soul present in either a male or a female body is also beyond gender. This distinction of gender is purely limited to the external medium or the body alone.

So, there would be no reason to choose male bodies.

The man is slightly stronger than the woman. God is vastly more powerful than the soul since God is omnipotent. To indicate this difference in power and capabilities between God and the soul, God generally enters into a male medium.

And again, you are reading the mind of God, you know God's motives for doing things. In other words, you claim to, while at the same time saying God is unimaginable, yet you imagine God again and again.

Even though souls could be either male or female from the point of view of their external body, essentially, all souls have a female nature with respect to God. It means that they depend on God for their protection. Hence, all souls are only included under the prakṛti category (creation) and not under the Puruṣa category (Creator) (Prakṛtiṃ Puruṣaṃ caiva...—Gītā). In this two-level classification of Puruṣa and prakṛti, Puruṣa exclusively means God. Prakṛti (creation) is further classified into awareness and inert creation, which is soul (parā prakṛti) and the body (aparā prakṛti), respectively. But it is important to note that awareness or soul is part of prakṛti alone.

Until the female is regarded as an equal to the male, there will be toxicity in belief system, whether secular or religious.

[Iwannaplato]

God in human form like Jesus is identified from the excellent divine knowledge that He preaches.

So, God could not possibly have informed Jesus of this knowledge but not been in him, somehow you know this? Further, are you and these scholars claiming to be God`? Because you are trusting your fallible assessment to judge when someone is God. YOu know, somehow, that your view is not tainted by, for example, the fact that you agree with that person's view of life. No, for some reason you know that God would never give someone such knowledge and so it must be God. Further you know that your assessment is not tainted by your own needs and desires and denials.

[dattaswami]

God in human form like Jesus is identified from the excellent divine knowledge that He preaches.

So, God could not possibly have informed Jesus of this knowledge but not been in him, somehow you know this? Further, are you and these scholars claiming to be God`? Because you are trusting your fallible assessment to judge when someone is God. YOu know, somehow, that your view is not tainted by, for example, the fact that you agree with that person's view of life. No, for some reason you know that God would never give someone such knowledge and so it must be God. Further you know that your assessment is not tainted by your own needs and desires and denials.

If you want to eat an apple, you have to search for the seller of apples in order to purchase an apple from him. Then, how to identify the seller of apples? The identity mark for recognizing the seller of apples is the apple itself. Therefore, your requirement itself is the identity mark to recognize the possessor of your requirement. If you want to learn Physics, you to have select the best teacher of the physics. What is the identity mark of the best teacher of physics? The identity mark is the best teaching of the physics itself.

Similarly the requirement of an aspirant of spiritual path is the correct direction in his spiritual journey. The correct direction in the spiritual journey can be given by the true spiritual knowledge. Apart from the true spiritual knowledge, there should be best way of explanation of such true spiritual knowledge. Therefore, your requirement is the true spiritual knowledge and its best explanation, so that you can get the correct direction in your spiritual effort.

Now, the identity mark to recognize the possessor of true spiritual knowledge and the best preacher of such true spiritual knowledge is the true spiritual knowledge and its best explanation only. Veda says that the true spiritual knowledge (Satyam, Jnanam…) along with its best explanation (Prajnanam Brahma) is required for the correct spiritual direction. Veda says that the true spiritual knowledge itself is God.

It means that the possessor of true spiritual knowledge is God. It should not be confused that the knowledge itself is God. The possessor of your required important item is addressed as the item itself. You are calling the possessor of apple as apples. You call him “Oh Apples! Come here”. Here, the word ‘apples’ means the possessor of apples.Gita clarified this confusion by saying that the possessor of knowledge is God (Jnanitvatmaiva…).

Veda says that God is the infinite right knowledge and that God is the excellent knowledge (Satyam Jnanam…, Prajnanam….). This does not mean that God is the knowledge itself. It only means that the possessor of right and excellent knowledge is God and such knowledge is His correct identification mark since it is His inseparable characteristic.

If some body wears a red shirt always, the red shirt becomes his identity mark and you can call him as the red shirt like calling “Oh! Red shirt! Come here”. Gita gives clarification on this point, which says that the possessor of knowledge is God (Jnaanitvaatmaiava……). Since God enters the human being only, such identification is mentioned. The human being is always characterized by the knowledge. Knowledge is one sided characteristic of awareness. It means knowledge is always associated with awareness and awareness need not be associated always with knowledge.

An animal or bird has awareness but no knowledge. Therefore, you should not take awareness as the meaning of the words indicating knowledge in Veda like Jnanam and Prajnanam. This clarification is given in Gita, which says that God enters human body (Manusheem….). Hence, Gita always gives clarifications on Veda. Such correct clarification can be correctly clarified by the human incarnation only since the same God, who said Gita, can alone give the original sense of the text. The Author himself can alone give the correct sense of his own statement. Since, God is one and the same in all the human incarnations, any human incarnation can clarify the text said by any other human incarnation.

[dattaswami]

How could you possibly know that if God is unimaginable. Perhaps that is only your fallible human guess, given that God could come in any form he or she wishes.

Veda says that the knower of God is God Himself (Brahmavit Brahmaiva…). Hence, though God is unknown to human beings, He is known to Himself. If you say that the existence of anything must satisfy the prior condition of its knowledge, the rule is not violated since God is having His knowledge. Then, you may say that God exists for God only since the prior condition is limited to God only. This is not correct because you are agreeing the existence of an unimaginable miracle also in the world. When the miracle is demonstrated, it is unimaginable but its existence in the world is accepted. Hence, the existence of unimaginable item like miracle exists in the case of human beings.

To recognize day, night should relatively exist. Similarly, to recognize the existence of unimaginable nature, relatively the imaginable nature must exist. If everything is unimaginable there is no significance of the very concept of unimaginable nature. Therefore, the world with imaginable items exists, so that the unimaginable nature of God can be recognized significantly through relativity.


Veda says that angels and sages came to know only one point about the God after long hectic discussions. That single point is that God is unknown (Yasyaamatam Tasyamatam…). Even Gita says that no body knows anything about God (Mamtu veda Nakaschana.). Therefore, the unimaginable nature of God is clearly established by the sacred scriptures.

Veda clearly elaborates the unimaginable nature of God through the following statements: Words cannot give knowledge of God (Yatovaachah, Na tatra vaak…). Even mind cannot touch God (Apraapya Manasaa Saha). Intelligence cannot reach God (Namedhayaa, Yo Buddheh Paratah..). You cannot understand God through logic (Naishaa Tarkena…, Atarkyah..). Senses cannot grasp God (Nachakshushaa…, Aprameyah…, Atindriyam….). All these statements have elaborated the concept of unimaginable nature of God by any means.

[dattaswami]

But a man can be precious and holy without doing this in the same tradition.

I totally agree....

[dattaswami]

So, there would be no reason to choose male bodies.

God can come either in male or female body. God has no gender. Human beings has gender. When God comes here in human form, that human body is only a 'medium' for Him, just like current in a live wire. Wire is the medium, current is God. Like this the medium can be aluminium or copper etc. God is not affected by the medium in which He enters. The point here is that God enters a human being only because the main aim of His coming to this world is to preach divine knowledge to uplift the human beings. If He enters an animal and animal speaks then tension and anxiety will be created in the minds of people and they will not hear Him properly.

[Iwannaplato]

Veda says that God is the infinite right knowledge and that God is the excellent knowledge (Satyam Jnanam…, Prajnanam….). This does not mean that God is the knowledge itself. It only means that the possessor of right and excellent knowledge is God and such knowledge is His correct identification mark since it is His inseparable characteristic.

Veda says...but the Vedas were written by humans and you are a human. So, you are claiming that you recognize what you call the unimaginable God is behind the writing of the Vedas. So, you quote the Vedas as an authority. But if God is unimaginable, then you should not be able to tell how God would write or what God would choose to say.

Since, God is one and the same in all the human incarnations, any human incarnation can clarify the text said by any other human incarnation.

but God is not the same in all incarnations. The incarnations say different things and this can, in addition to their words, be seen in the practices they promote and the religions created by them.

[Iwannaplato]

Veda says that the knower of God is God Himself (Brahmavit Brahmaiva…). Hence, though God is unknown to human beings, He is known to Himself. If you say that the existence of anything must satisfy the prior condition of its knowledge, the rule is not violated since God is having His knowledge. Then, you may say that God exists for God only since the prior condition is limited to God only. This is not correct because you are agreeing the existence of an unimaginable miracle also in the world. When the miracle is demonstrated, it is unimaginable but its existence in the world is accepted. Hence, the existence of unimaginable item like miracle exists in the case of human beings.

Veda is written by fallible humans. I am not saying there are no miracles. What I am saying is that you claim to be able to recognize the unimaginable. We recognize things via their qualities. Something that is unimaginable does not have recognizable qualities by definition.

To recognize day, night should relatively exist. Similarly, to recognize the existence of unimaginable nature, relatively the imaginable nature must exist. If everything is unimaginable there is no significance of the very concept of unimaginable nature. Therefore, the world with imaginable items exists, so that the unimaginable nature of God can be recognized significantly through relativity.

Day and night have specific qualities.

Futher, you have never seen Jesus, for example. You have seen what human writers claim were his words.

Veda says that angels and sages came to know only one point about the God after long hectic discussions. That single point is that God is unknown (Yasyaamatam Tasyamatam…). Even Gita says that no body knows anything about God (Mamtu veda Nakaschana.). Therefore, the unimaginable nature of God is clearly established by the sacred scriptures.

Texts written by fallible humans, though again they reinforce in this case the problem of you recognizing the unimaginable.

Veda clearly elaborates the unimaginable nature of God through the following statements: Words cannot give knowledge of God (Yatovaachah, Na tatra vaak…).

But you have done precisely this again and again.

One example - God made the universe for his entertainment. You said that. That is ascribing a specific, imaginable intention to God. You know God's intention, somehow, despite what he says. And by the way, Jesus said nothing like that.

Even mind cannot touch God (Apraapya Manasaa Saha). Intelligence cannot reach God (Namedhayaa, Yo Buddheh Paratah..). You cannot understand God through logic (Naishaa Tarkena…, Atarkyah..). Senses cannot grasp God (Nachakshushaa…, Aprameyah…, Atindriyam….). All these statements have elaborated the concept of unimaginable nature of God by any means.

Yes, fine. I am not ponting out that God is imaginable. I am pointing out that if you are correct that God is unimaginable then you cannot know his motivation for creating the universe.

[Iwannaplato]

So, there would be no reason to choose male bodies.

God can come either in male or female body. God has no gender. Human beings has gender. When God comes here in human form, that human body is only a 'medium' for Him, just like current in a live wire. Wire is the medium, current is God. Like this the medium can be aluminium or copper etc. God is not affected by the medium in which He enters. The point here is that God enters a human being only because the main aim of His coming to this world is to preach divine knowledge to uplift the human beings. If He enters an animal and animal speaks then tension and anxiety will be created in the minds of people and they will not hear Him properly.

So, I say there would be no reason to choose male bodies over female bodies and you bring up the issue of if God went into an animal it would cause anxiety.

[dattaswami]

One example - God made the universe for his entertainment. You said that. That is ascribing a specific, imaginable intention to God. You know God's intention, somehow, despite what he says. And by the way, Jesus said nothing like that.


Even mind cannot touch God (Apraapya Manasaa Saha). Intelligence cannot reach God (Namedhayaa, Yo Buddheh Paratah..). You cannot understand God through logic (Naishaa Tarkena…, Atarkyah..). Senses cannot grasp God (Nachakshushaa…, Aprameyah…, Atindriyam….). All these statements have elaborated the concept of unimaginable nature of God by any means.

Yes, fine. I am not ponting out that God is imaginable. I am pointing out that if you are correct that God is unimaginable then you cannot know his motivation for creating the universe.
[/quote]

God alone knows about Himself and He spoke the divine knowledge to the sages and sages written it down in the form of Vedas...God also comes to this world in every human generation to preach the divine knowledge to uplift us. One shall meet the present human form of God to get the correct direction. Divine knowledge is the identity mark of God in human form.

[Iwannaplato]

Yes, fine. I am not ponting out that God is imaginable. I am pointing out that if you are correct that God is unimaginable then you cannot know his motivation for creating the universe.

God alone knows about Himself and He spoke the divine knowledge to the sages and sages written it down in the form of Vedas...God also comes to this world in every human generation to preach the divine knowledge to uplift us. One shall meet the present human form of God to get the correct direction. Divine knowledge is the identity mark of God in human form.
[/quote]YOu didn't respond to what I wrote. It inspired you to say other things you believe. There may be an implicit answer to what I brought up in your response, but it would be very odd not to state it directly.