Nov 29, 2016 06:21 PM
(Nov 29, 2016 05:08 PM)Zinjanthropos Wrote:(Nov 25, 2016 09:41 AM)sali0 Wrote: is Fact that Supreme Lord Krishna exists but we posses no such intelligence to understand him.
5th thing is whatever you eat `1st offer it to Supreme Lord Krishna. ( if you know it what is Guru parama-para then offer them food not direct Supreme Lord Krishna )
Without the intelligence required to understand the Supreme Lord you somehow seem to comprehend that Krishna is a male. Are you knowledgeably aware of the nature (character) of the Supreme Lord or are you just interpreting, forming a concept? How could you possibly know anything about the Lord's gender when you possess no intelligence to understand Krishna? What makes you think Krishna is a male?
Also you seem to understand that Krishna loves to be offered food but with the knowledge that there are times you wouldn't offer. Without the intelligence to understand, how then do you perceive the significance of these acts or how they relate to Krishna? If the response is that there is no way you can answer then why even concern yourself with it? However if you do answer, you will have to do so in a way where it is obvious you don't have the intelligence to understand the Lord. Good luck.
The fact is you and your religious cohorts, along with all other believers in divine entities, know as much about your god(s) as any atheist.
Probably the best reason for not possessing any intelligence to understand a supreme being is because if you go beyond the belief in just god(s) then more beliefs are required. It is NOT wrong to possess no understanding of a belief, in fact it is quite logical.
Smile, in the West we offer God money so that the religious organizations can honor God and do works of charity. Before the invention of money, of course, food was the required gift to God and perhaps the reasoning for this could be a point of focus, rather than the whole Hindu book and all the subjects it addresses.
Sacrificing to a god has been an essential part of all civilizations and I am not sure any civilization is possible without this. In the West, our best memory is of Caine and Able and the sad conflict that came up because the God of Abraham preferred animal sacrifices to the sacrifice of vegetables from the garden. I think we can understand this as a culture conflict between herders and farmers, and possibly between patriarchy and matriarchy. It is just like what Sali0 is doing, justifying one is superior to all others, because of knowing the true God and what this God wants. But practically speaking, if humans do not invent gods and rituals, it is hard to unite large numbers of people and keep them cooperating. Control of food is an essential part of this. Control of sexual impulses is also essential to group harmony.
Before there was money priest collected wheat. It was their job to be sure everyone contributed a fair share and that in times of need, everyone got a fair share of wheat. In the far West (Americas), people did not have wheat, nor domesticated animals and the Aztec god wanted human sacrifices. Other cultures such as the Celts in Europe, had human sacrifices. Volcanos and earthquakes seem to have inspired human sacrificing in many places, and that seems reasonable to me. It makes sense that an angry god might be appeased by the sacrifice human life, but where a god is not angry, group harmony and sharing of food makes sense. You keep the gods happy by giving them gifts and they will reciprocate.
There are many good reasons for giving a god an offering of food before eating, and perhaps saying grace before a meal is as good? I believe we do need to be mindful that we are not the center of the universe. That means life does not spin around our personal needs and wants, and neither should our consciousness spin around our personal needs and wants. The better we are in harmony with the greater reality, the better our lives will be.
Obviously sharing a belief in god and values and rules of behavior is important to sharing this planet, but intolance of others, justifying notions of superiority, and trying to shame people into accepting your own limited understanding of such things, is not wise and will not get good results when one is conscious of the greater reality that includes everyone.
Well, I did my best to establish a civil rapport with sali0 and he was intentionally offensive. Perhaps he is an angry teenager? I feel sorry for him, but I see no good coming out of continued communication, with someone who is intentionally offensive.