[Beriilosal]

I am agnostic. That is why I am asking those questions. I am not making up those stories that I wrote about. The goat sacrifice by Abraham (after putting his son on the cutting block first), piLLaik kaRi offer by ciruttoNDar to a sivanaDiyar (shiva came in the guise of the aDiyAr), and the ancient animal sacrifice by Hindu priests are all in the religious texts.

For an agnostic person where the existence of God itself is in doubt, would it not be a mere speculation as to whether God is vegetarian or non-vegetarian?

[Vomazoono]

Mahakavi ji,
You did not answer my question? You need to define God, before you can give God some attributes.

Generally the Hindu God os defined as The One (Brahman).
Most Hindus venerate one or more deities (see Is Hinduism Polytheistic?), but regard these as manifestations of Ultimate Reality. The Ultimate Reality that is behind the universe and all the gods is called by different names, but most commonly Brahman (not to be confused with the creator god Brahma or the priestly class of Brahmans).


In the Rig Veda, Ultimate Reality is referred to as "the One." In the Purushasukta, it is "Purusha," and in the Upanishads it is called "Brahman," "the One," and several other names. Most modern Hindus refer to the Ultimate Reality as Brahman.


The Upanishads describe Brahman as "the eternal, conscious, irreducible, infinite, omnipresent, spiritual source of the universe of finiteness and change." Brahman is the source of all things and is in all things; it is the Self (atman) of all living beings.


Brahman is impersonal Being in itself, but it can be known through the many gods and goddesses that are manifestations of Brahman. Each manifestation can have all the attributes of that specific manifestation.
So Ram can be Chatriya and may eat meat in Ramayan, and as Parasuram a Brahmin may be vegetarian.

Encyclopædia Britannica :
Brahman, in the Upanishads (Indian sacred writings), the supreme existence or absolute reality, the font of all things. The etymology of the word, which is derived from Sanskrit, is uncertain. Though a variety of views are expressed in the Upanishads, they concur in the definition of brahman as eternal, conscious, irreducible, infinite, omnipresent, spiritual source of the universe of finiteness and change. Marked differences in interpretation of brahman characterize the various subschools of Vedanta, the orthodox system of Hindu philosophy based on the writings of the Upanishads.


According to the Advaita (Nondualist) school of Vedanta, brahman is categorically different from anything phenomenal, and human perceptions of differentiation are illusively projected on this reality.

[spravka.ua]

The answer is simple. God accepts whatever is offered by a devout bhakta. Sabari - kannappa nayanar.

[NumDusthouh]

The answer is simple. God accepts whatever is offered by a devout bhakta. Sabari - kannappa nayanar.

True...becos for God anything offered is just the 5 elements.

[Franchise]

For an agnostic person where the existence of God itself is in doubt, would it not be a mere speculation as to whether God is vegetarian or non-vegetarian?

There is no speculation. Your comment indicates you did not read the article completely. I was pointing out what the religious texts were describing about what was being offered to God.

For your info: An agnostic is one who neither denies nor accepts God. So you can have either of those views, sometimes simultaneously, like I said before which is a characteristic of a passionate intellectual. QED!

[qzgCVHex]

Mahakavi ji,
You did not answer my question? You need to define God, before you can give God some attributes.


So Ram can be Chatriya and may eat meat in Ramayan, and as Parasuram a Brahmin may be vegetarian.

Encyclopædia Britannica :

God can be called anything according to individual taste. I believe in a universal force within which micro forces manifest. We can manipulate micro forces.

My question, "Is God non-vegetarian?" was motivated by the stories I mentioned in the article I wrote. You have to answer the question within the confines of those stories---Abraham, SiruttoNDar, animal sacrifice etc.

[DevaRextusidis]

God can be called anything according to individual taste. I believe in a universal force within which micro forces manifest. We can manipulate micro forces.

My question, "Is God non-vegetarian?" was motivated by the stories I mentioned in the article I wrote. You have to answer the question within the confines of those stories---Abraham, SiruttoNDar, animal sacrifice etc.

You answered your own question.
I believe in a universal force within which micro forces manifest. If God is the force, then there is nothing without God.

[eXC3Kvnn]

You answered your own question.

Of course, I did answer the question in the article. It was a rhetorical question, anyway. The article was presented for others, if I may say so. If you read the verse by Desiyavinayagam Pillai given at the beginning of the article, it sums it all up. The primary purpose of my article was taking a dig at the human interpretation of offering to God---if you offer anything God will accept ---that is the crux. But the broader question is: is violence in the process accepted if you call God as one with immense mercy (eeTTum KaruNai iRaivan)?


If God is the force, then there is nothing without God.

​I did not say that.

[Dfvgthyju]

You answered your own question.

It was a rhetorical question. I presented it for others to comment.


If God is the force, then there is nothing without God.

I do not say that.

[brraverishhh]

I do not say that.

You did say that "God is the universal force".
Does space discriminates between "good" or "bad"? Does Electricity care for the morality?
The morality, attachments, likes and dislikes are for the "body, mind, intellect" instruments. They are not for the soul. We believe Atma (Individual soul) and Paramatma (God) are same.

You can superimpose any Avatar on God, but you can not superimpose God on an avatar. Each manifestation of God can acquire any shape, form or special characteristics. But God has all as there is nothing other than God.

The four Upanishadic statements indicate the ultimate unity of the individual (Atman) with God (Brahman).
The Mahavakyas are:
prajñānam brahma - "Consciousness is Brahman" (Aitareya Upanishad 3.3 of the Rig Veda)
ayam ātmā brahma - "This Self (Atman) is Brahman" (Mandukya Upanishad 1.2 of the Atharva Veda)
tat tvam asi - "Thou art That" (Chandogya Upanishad 6.8.7 of the Sama Veda)
aham brahmāsmi - "I am Brahman" (Brhadaranyaka Upanishad 1.4.10 of the Yajur Veda)
The Kanchi Paramacharya, in referencing these four Mahavakyas, says in his book Hindu Dharma:
“ It is to attain this highest of states in which the individual self dissolves inseparably in Brahman that a man becomes a sannyasin after forsaking the very karma that gives him inward maturity.

[DOWNLOADnowADOBEphotoSHOP]

You did say that "God is the universal force".
.

No. Read my statement again. You asked me to define God's attributes. So I said quote:

God can be called anything according to individual taste. I believe in a universal force within which micro forces manifest. We can manipulate micro forces.

The first sentence was general to say anybody can define God according to their own taste. The second one is detached from the first. I did not equate god with universal force. I said I believe in a universal force (not necessarily God) since I declare myself to be an agnostic. I am like a cat on the wall not willing to jump on either side.

[mas-dkt-sive]

For your info: An agnostic is one who neither denies nor accepts God. So you can have either of those views, sometimes simultaneously, like I said before which is a characteristic of a passionate intellectual. QED!

To deny something you must first acknowledge its presence or existence.
By acknowledging something that means at one particular point the intellect has accepted it in the form of a thought wave.
Then the next moment the intellect might go into Neti Neti mode and who knows it might then go again into acceptance mode and oscillate into Neti Neti mode again.

So technically the word Agnostic denotes a state in mind where a decision is not yet made.
That is the delicate area where there is neither acceptance nor denial.
Its like a Yo Yo syndrome for the mind and Agnostics are ruled mainly by Manas portion of the intellect.

I wonder how passionate can that state be?
No idea yaar..Mahakavi dear.

[EntectCelpelm]

I am like a cat on the wall not willing to jump on either side.

But the cat does acknowledge the wall it is on.
So what is that wall?

[eCw56dzY]

To deny something you must first acknowledge its presence or existence.

Not necessary! If something is proposed by somebodyyou can either deny or accept it based on the premises submitted.

By acknowledging something that means at one particular point the intellect has accepted it in the form of a thought wave.
Then the next moment the intellect might go into Neti Neti mode and who knows it might then go again into acceptance mode and oscillate into Neti Neti mode again.

See the comment above

So technically the word Agnostic denotes a state in mind where a decision is not yet made.
That is the delicate area where there is neither acceptance nor denial.
Its like a Yo Yo syndrome for the mind and Agnostics are ruled mainly by Manas portion of the intellect.

It is not as simple as that. According to Webster, an agnostic is "one who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as a god or God, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable". You don't have evidence to prove either way. Not a yo yo syndrome but not even bothering to go this way or that way.

I wonder how passionate can that state be?
No idea yaar..Mahakavi dear.

There can be a lot of passion there since it is not a yo yo state. One can argue with people on either side passionately. OK?

[Foucceedo]

But the cat does acknowledge the wall it is on.
So what is that wall?

The wall is as yet undefined, but it does not have to be god. If it jumps down to one side or the other then it can be defined. You are confusing the "wall state" as indecisive. No, it represents a state waiting for a proof. There is a difference between indecision and waiting for decision. That wait can be forever. Indecision can be tilted easily one way or the other such as whether you want to take the train or a flight to go to a different city. That is indecision. That cannot last forever if you know you have to reach your destination. Waiting for a decision is like examining, analyzing, and evaluating various possibilities. Destination is not the object.

[goldcigarettes]

Not necessary! If something is proposed by somebodyyou can either deny or accept it based on the premises submitted.

Just another question...is there a time frame for denial or acceptance?
In the sense that may be initially the person might accept something may be due to society and social protocol but later deny it when he/she feels that he/she has a valid reason for denial.

Is this sort of behavior acceptable..that is you first accept..then deny or
initially deny then accept or remain agnostic.

Kindly advise please.

[oneliRafmeene]

I have a rather personal question to ask you.You may choose to not answer it if you wish so but it will help me understand better.

Just one line..were you agnostic since young or after adulthood you became agnostic?

I promise this is the only 1 question on personal tones I will be asking you and nothing more.
I won't ask you why you turned agnostic cos I am just doing a small survey the most common age for agnosticism to set it.

So far I have noted that many turn agnostic in late 20's when they are stable in career.

[CatLuvkaLover]

Just another question...is there a time frame for denial or acceptance?
In the sense that may be initially the person might accept something may be due to society and social protocol but later deny it when he/she feels that he/she has a valid reason for denial.

Is this sort of behavior acceptable..that is you first accept..then deny or
initially deny then accept or remain agnostic.

Kindly advise please.

Simple answer to your first question: No.

If at all you accept or deny when you have not developed into a mature adult that does not count. A change in that position cannot be considered as a change since your own mind did not have analytic capability then. If you go to the temple as a normal routine when your were living with your parents and then later on when you are on your own you decide not to go to temples you may have superficially changed but it is not a change because only as an adult you are taking a stance. So long as you are truthful to yourself (not an AshAdabudhi) it does not reflect a flip-flop.

[StincPriene]

I have a rather personal question to ask you.You may choose to not answer it if you wish so but it will help me understand better.

Just one line..were you agnostic since young or after adulthood you became agnostic?

I promise this is the only 1 question on personal tones I will be asking you and nothing more.
I won't ask you why you turned agnostic cos I am just doing a small survey the most common age for agnosticism to set it.

So far I have noted that many turn agnostic in late 20's when they are stable in career.

Sorry, I don't respond to surveys. Here in the US they have all kinds of surveys. I turn them all down.

[Gromiaaborn]

Just to add:

You said No..there is no time frame for denial or acceptance.
That means we have a right to decide for ourselves at any time in our life isn't it?