Jump to content
Universal Psychic Guild Forum
dattaswami

Only one God created this world

Recommended Posts

I don't see god as a preacher but more like Tarryn says -- an essence or an energy. B)

God is not essence or energy. God cannot be defined by worldly means. He is not this or that as defined by worldly means. He is unimaginable. But such God comes to us in human form to preach us. God is essentially a teacher. The world is His class room and the people of the world are His students.

 

Lord Datta is essentially a teacher. His very nature is the nature of a teacher. If you study the nature of teacher, you have understood the very nature of Datta. The aim of mother, father and teacher is only the welfare of the child. But, mother and father may become lenient due to their blind intensive love on the child. But, the love of a teacher (Guru) is never blind and is always aimed at the welfare of student. The love of father and mother may sometimes spoil the welfare of the child. Therefore, Datta treats all the living beings in the creation as His students and not as His issues. Therefore, the teacher is more than father and mother.

 

The Lord created fruits for both good and bad actions. Why should He create a fruit for an action? Let there be acts without fruits. The child does mischief, but the mother or father does not punish. In that case, there is no fruit for that action. Similarly, let the Lord not punish our sins. If you expect like this, the answer is that the Lord does not behave like father or mother but behaves only as a teacher. The child gets spoiled if the mischief is tolerated. We are seeing this in the world. The teacher will never tolerate the spoiling of the child and therefore, He will not tolerate the mischief.

 

God uses the fruits of your sins as punishments and the only aim is your welfare. This is the reason why Datta is always called as Guru Datta. Therefore, guru or teacher is greatest. The results of bad deeds are used as punishments to transform and uplift the student. Therefore, the result of a bad deed is very very useful for the transformation of the soul. The results of your good deeds are given to you just as a relaxation between two punishments. When He punishes systematically, He is called as Yama. In the interval when you receive happiness, He is Indra. Sometimes He gives severe punishments with roaring sound. He is called as Kala Bhairava at that time. The hell is the special equipment for punishment. The aim of the punishment is only the real welfare.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest charless

The child abuse and any ohter crime is condemnable.

 

God will take care of tushc acts, seversluy escpecially when the suffere is a devotee.

 

Well, at least we have a moral baseline now.

 

But dattaswami how do you square the above with your statement I quoted earlier:

 

Recently several saints are involved in controversies regarding collection of funds and sexual abuse. Based on this, these saints are being rejected and condemned totally by the devotees. This is not correct on the part of devotees in the light of their own spiritual interest ...

 

... you should not examine the personal life of a saint and you should follow his preaching only.

 

You are saying that those subjected to abuse by saints(??) shouldn't condemn the holy one and should continue to follow the abuser. As you know there is a particular saint(sic) whose repeated decades-long abuses are well publicised and documented. I won't name him here because of possible litigation issues. Why don't you speak out against this person and others? Why can't you just say, if your guru abuses you walk away and warn others about your experiences? Or, if someone behaves abusively they are not a saint. They are a criminal. It's a really very simple issue. Right now I can't take you, or anything you say, seriously.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The aim of the punishment is only the real welfare.

 

I respect your right to believe what feels best for you but I find the idea that god punishes us for our welfare ludicrous.

 

I don't think god does anything except be... :mellow:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest charless
I respect your right to believe what feels best for you but I find the idea that god punishes us for our welfare ludicrous.

 

Victoria - I of course respect the right of people to believe what seems to them to be true, however I think there's a line to be drawn when people want to impose their beliefs, or where these beliefs support practises that can be seen to be damaging other people. There is a basic line of right and wrong that for whatever reason we know to be true. It's wrong to abuse others physically, emotionally or sexually. Dattaswami is representative of a culture that has to be arm-twisted into making a statement aginst child abuse because he believes he belongs to a superior species when in fact he's just a rather poor excuse for a primate. Spirituality, as just a distance from a physical incarnation in no sense indicates a higher moral level, as Dattaswami and others of his type teach us. True spirituality is about being more moral, better people, kinder people, and not about "advancing" along some bogus track laid out by self-serving gurus.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

God has no gender, God is not separate from us, God does not punish. God is beyond all that. When you describe God like that you are are actually describing ego not God. As Victoria said all God does is just be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Victoria - I of course respect the right of people to believe what seems to them to be true, however I think there's a line to be drawn when people want to impose their beliefs, or where these beliefs support practises that can be seen to be damaging other people. There is a basic line of right and wrong that for whatever reason we know to be true. It's wrong to abuse others physically, emotionally or sexually.

 

I totally agree, charless.

 

Forgiveness is something I understand but to ignore a 'saint's' abuse seems to me to be condone something sinister. :mellow:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If there's one source it seems superfluous to have multiple names. I think we humans have debates based on the concept of word variations. We're all showered by an energy of love and vitality when all's said and done :-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×