What is the proper way to acknowledge that one believes in God?
- Thread starter greenberg
- Start date
In short, one acts in such a way that they see things in connection to god
BG 4.35: Having obtained real knowledge from a self-realized soul, you will never fall again into such illusion, for by this knowledge you will see that all living beings are but part of the Supreme, or, in other words, that they are Mine.
since there are different grades of practitioners, this said action can be expected to be different
there are three general grades of practitioners (and also sub-grades within these grades .. but just to keep things simple)
1 - SB 11.2.47 "A person who is very faithfully engaged in the worship of the Deity in the temple, but who does not know how to behave toward devotees or people in general is called a kaniṣṭha-adhikāri."
2 - SB 11.2.46 "The madhyama-adhikārī is a devotee who worships the Supreme Personality of Godhead as the highest object of love, makes friends with the Lord's devotees, is merciful to the ignorant and avoids those who are envious by nature."
3 - The final type is a little bit more difficult to appreciate - basically they are on a level where there is no distinction between this temporary life and eternal life
SB 11.2.45: Śrī Havir said: The most advanced devotee sees within everything the soul of all souls, the Supreme Personality of Godhead, Śrī Kṛṣṇa. Consequently he sees everything in relation to the Supreme Lord and understands that everything that exists is eternally situated within the Lord.
Simply by seeing a person of this callibre can be sufficient for one to become devoted to god - such an example would be someone like jesus.
negotiating all these differences can be difficult, but this is the general guideline
NoI 5: One should mentally honor the (Kannistha), one should offer humble obeisances to the (Madhyama), and one should associate with and faithfully serve that Pure devotee (Uttama) who is advanced in undeviated devotional service and whose heart is completely devoid of the propensity to criticize others.
It is strongly recommended that a practitioner comes at least comes to the platform of madhyama - as you can imagine, too many kannisthas causes problems
This seems obvious and fine and well.
But who is to decide whether one really sees things in connection to God?
How is that instruction you give above to be understood properly?
Because I can envision that I would think I see things in connection to God, but surely enough, some theist will come along and tell me "No, you've got that all wrong, you should do it the way I say" or "No, you've got that wrong, I can see that you are doing it wrong, you should believe me".
And since I am not sure whether I truly see things in connection to God, whether I truly "have it right", I am open to criticism and amendment. Which makes things very complicated as soon enough, I end up listening and trying to heed everyone who talks about God. Witnessing that mess, the versatility of input (from whether to put flowers on an altar or not to how to say the evening prayer or declare one's faith) eventually puts me off and I become apathetic to the whole issue.
Last edited:
greenberg,
Without any factual point of reference any answer merely needs to remain consistent with whatever imaginary paradigm is in effect. For example the Deist god requires no attention, but the Christian god concept is accompanied by extensive rules.
Alternatively - one could simply affirm they believe such a thing exists without qualification, understanding or comprehension of what it is or what it means.
There will be many answers and the number will match the almost unlimited capability of the human imagination to create definitions of such a God together with what is thought to be its role, purpose, and needs.
Without any factual point of reference any answer merely needs to remain consistent with whatever imaginary paradigm is in effect. For example the Deist god requires no attention, but the Christian god concept is accompanied by extensive rules.
Alternatively - one could simply affirm they believe such a thing exists without qualification, understanding or comprehension of what it is or what it means.
Last edited:
True. But my motivation for posting this was to see the justifications that posters would give why this or that way of acknowledging that one believes in God is the right one.
Why would one need to show or acknowledge belief in God?
One, I would imagine God wants that, or that such acknowledgement is necessary in order for a person's belief to be counted as valid. If one doesn't declare to beileve in God, can it be said that the person believes in God at all, or that their belief in God is valid?
Two, because a person's belief in God is after all not completely idiosyncratic to the person. It is common for practitioners of various religions that there is a sense of interpersonal verifiability and credibility within a particular group of people who hold the same beliefs. E.g. a Protestant will check with his fellow Protestants whether his belief in God is proper and in line with their creed, and his fellow Protestants will hold him to that creed, test his belief in accord with that creed.
If a person's belief in God is completely idiosyncratic to that person, then I am not sure how this is any different from, in effect, fantasy or even insanity.
sowhatifit'sdark
Valued Senior Member
What if there is behind all the confusions and variations a God who is quite flexible about the way a person relates to herm (a non gender specific pronoun). You could look at religions as various attempts to understand this God and the relationship with cultural, psychological and other contortions added on in all the form rules and rituals and confusions.
If there was a God, how would you want the relationship to be? How would you like to be acknowledged by God? What would happen between you that would be valuable for you?
If there was a God, how would you want the relationship to be? How would you like to be acknowledged by God? What would happen between you that would be valuable for you?
Most belief is idiosyncratic to the person. :shrug:
And??? A lot of people say that.
Do good deeds. Dont kill people (unless it is justifiable) and thats probably it.
basically there are certain acts that fall in line with certain relationships. For instance if someone kicked you in the teeth and replied afterwards that they did it because they love you, that would strike you as incongruent.
To see everything, particularly other living entities, in connection to god means that will affect how one deals with them.
I gave three basic grades.
The first, despite having a belief in god, can hardly see others in the proper perspective at all, since god for them is all about their place of worship.
The second can distinguish between those who are favourable and those who are unfavourable and can successfully act accordingly.
The third can properly distinguish how all living entities are connected to god, regardless whether they are favourable or unfavourable - as such, they cannot be moved from their vision that everything is perfectly fine, even if they were living under a dictatorship of a malevolent atheist
people have various ideas about how they are connected to god - basically it rests upon the strength of that vision. For instance if a persons notion of god is extremely vague, the acts in relation to god will also be quite broad and vice versa. Its quite common that the activities of an atheist and the activities of a so-called proclaimed theist are almost the same since they are operating out of such a vague comprehension of god.
At the crux of the issue is the degree one accepts god as master and oneself as a servant. Seeing how this service attitude manifests in one's life is the precise issue under inspection. Generally its quite easy to manifest the external trappings of a service attitude (give a donation to the church for eg) but the internal work is a bit more difficult going (be equipoised in material happiness and distress for eg).
I think the solution lies in being a bit aware on who one should take advice from.
BG 3.21 Whatever action a great man performs, common men follow. And whatever standards he sets by exemplary acts, all the world pursues.
basically if we are going to take anything on board (even in the name of atheism) we have to be inspired. To get back to my original response, as far as spirituality is concerned, one is more likely to be inspired by persons who are not not kannisthas
God knows what one believes.
Making an acknowledgement of that is for the benefit of other people. People should just reveal what they believe the best way they can.
All Praise The Ancient Of Days
This is difficult to prove; it is more theory based on a particular agenda.
Of course the counterpart -that people have large chunks of their belief systems in common- is also a theory based on a particular agenda.
But if we believe that most belief is idiosyncratic to the person, then scientific generalization is impossible, interpersonally finding solutions for problems is next to impossible, communication is extremely difficult or even impossible, to name a few consequences of great idiosyncrasy.