but still, for such purposes of god manifesting an expansion of himself, there is no qualitative expansion between god and his subsequent plenary expansions (its not like the first candle lit amongst several is brighter)
What if God calls it quits?
- Thread starter Quantum Quack
- Start date
but still, for such purposes of god manifesting an expansion of himself, there is no qualitative expansion between god and his subsequent plenary expansions (its not like the first candle lit amongst several is brighter)
But it's not a plenary expansion. It's a creation of something new and the imbuing it with just one quality of God, that of being the string upon which the pearls are laid (literally speaking, we're talking about the current physical laws of the universe). This creation would not gain all aspects of God. Just the one. And the fact that it's a creation is still a huge issue in it being different than God.
But I've realized that this won't apply at all if you're in the camp that says "well goodness is a quality of God and as long as there is goodness in the world, God is in it" or any variation of it. Are you in that camp lightgigantic?
for something to be manifest that can be the basis of all existence (ie pearls on a thread), it would certainly be a plenary expansion
the "goodness" thing is a bit vague, but I think its more a case of it walks like chicken, sounds like a chicken and looks like a chicken it is a chicken
Plenary in relation to existence, yes, but not in relation to God. For example, it would be like leaving the courts intact but removing the judges.
And I'm not sure how to interpret your second response. Maybe I should be more frank with my question: if one, and no other, aspect of God were left, would you use that as evidence to say that God is still here? ie. the string still remains, but no afterlife.
a court house without a judge would be like a string of pearls without a thread
yes there would still be a god - just like there may be a variety of reasons why a plane could be in the air - it could have a pilot, it could be remote controlled, it could be run by a computer, etc - but in all cases it requires human intelligence - in the same way to have the universal show on the road (ie strung like pearls on a thread) requires god (for maintenance, even if you want to put creation and/or annihilation in limbo)
So then you are in the group that says if just one aspect of God is around, then God is around? See, what I'm proposing is that God leaves that one aspect that lets existence stay the way it is imbued in a creation
But when he leaves, every other aspect of his leaves with him. Judgment, afterlife, heaven, hell, etc. Every aspect that God has that doesn't relate maintaining existence, God would take with him (where would he go? who knows).
Are we getting closer to being on the same wavelength?
I see
kind of like discussing water that doesn't have recourse to wetness or fire that doesn't have recourse to heat or a court house without a judge or a string of pearls without a thread
As silly as it sounds, exactly.
I'm basing this on the concept that God can do anything. If he wanted to, he can create water that doesn't make you wet. Surely he can create what I'm proposing.
actually there are scriptural quotes (comes up repeatedly in the Mahabharata) that go to the effect that fire may lose its sense of heat, space may lose its sense of vastness, etc etc, but the supreme lord can not lose his capacity to create, maintain and annihilate the cosmic manifestation - in others words many impossible things may be possible for god, but it is not possible for the cosmic manifestation to be present in any of its three phases without the support of godAs silly as it sounds, exactly.
I'm basing this on the concept that God can do anything. If he wanted to, he can create water that doesn't make you wet. Surely he can create what I'm proposing.
"the supreme lord can not lose his capacity to create, maintain and annihilate the cosmic manifestation" does not equal "it is not possible for the cosmic manifestation to be present in any of its three phases without the support of god".
It just means that it's impossible for God to lose the ability to do such things.
it was just a recall on quotes that present a complex topic simply.
God(isvara), the living entity (jiva) and nature (prakrti) are described as possessing constitutional characteristics - in other words it is not possible for the jiva or prakrti to display the characteristics of god (such as being the thread upon which pearls rest), nor is it possible for isvara to possess the characteristics of jiva (one such characteristic of the jiva is the ability to fall into ignorance) or prakrti (one such characteristic of prakrti is to be dependent on a superior cause)
for god to deposit his qualities upon something else requires a plenary expansion of himself, since prakrti or jiva can not do so (and remain classified as prakrti or jiva)
btw I am only going on with these terms because I am guessing with a name like "asura" you are somewhat familiar with them
Last edited: