YOUR opinion on The Gods?

[Spirit Seeker]

Namaste all.

What is your opinion/perspective on the God's and Deitys that are outside Hinduism and are a part of different cultural pantheons?

Are they Non-Existant? Fictional? Or a Different Manifestation of a Particular Deity/Energy?

To me personally, I believe most of the gods around the world from different cultural backgrounds are the same exact deities/energies interpreted differently. I take Carl Jungs stance as he was a Great Psychologist as well as Mystic.

I believe many of the God's Fit in Psychological Archetypal patterns in the Collective Human Unconsciousness while those deities simultaneous carry an independent life on their own. ALL THE SAME ENERGY, It is US that Separate them.

This is just to serve as an example for comparison, it doesn't have to be accurate. Lets say Thor And Odin of the Viking Religion are the Same energies as Visnu And Shiva. Or Kali Ma is the same energy as Lilith in Judaism, or Hecate. Rama is Hades etc. etc.

Krishna being the same energy as Obatala in the Yoruba pantheon. So I'm not referring to Monism/Universalism. Still separate distinct energies, that fit particular archetypes, WE separate them based on our conditioned interpretations. But they carry a life on their own.

For many this is a "New-Agey" thing to believe. I'm not Universalist by any means nor are my beliefs anywhere close to Neo-New Age Thinking.

I consider myself A realist, and my views will be closest to Carl Jungs stance on the Deities, and the archetypes they fit in the collective unconscious, rather than One God many manifestations that monists stand by.

Thoughts Anyone?

[Eastern Mind]

Vannakkam: My opinion shouldn't matter to anyone, but it is that the Hindu Gods, in particular the Saivite ones, are all I need. There is no need (or desire on my part) to look anywhere else.

However, interdisciplinary or comparative scholars are welcome to go for it.

Aum Namasivaya

[Spirit Seeker]

Vannakkam: My opinion shouldn't matter to anyone, but it is that the Hindu Gods, in particular the Saivite ones, are all I need. There is no need (or desire on my part) to look anywhere else.

However, interdisciplinary or comparative scholars are welcome to go for it.

Aum Namasivaya

Namaste Eastern Mind. I understand that. But do YOU think the Hindu Gods that you worship and devote yourself to, carry different facets revealing themselves in different traditional cultures/religions in other regions, or are those "other" manifestations/interpretations are non-existent/fictional. Or are they all One god with many Forms as a Monist would say?

Or Maybe they do exist, but they are separate beings/energies that are unimportant?

I think the Latter is what I got from your response.

[philosoraptor]

Does it really matter what we think? No amount of belief is going to change fact. The truth remains whatever it is, regardless of our beliefs.

[Spirit Seeker]

Does it really matter what we think? No amount of belief is going to change fact. The truth remains whatever it is, regardless of our beliefs.

Namaste. Yes Objective truth is truth, but would still make for an interesting discussion. Hinduism is very diverse and complex in comparison to simplistic belief systems we are all familiar with.

So I wouldn't equate this to me going on some Christian Forum, and asking this same question, as I would obviously get all the same answers.

[Believer]

Namaste,

Krishna being the same energy as Obatala......
For a second I read Obatala as Obama; Krishna and Obama - same energy? ;)

I consider myself A realist,
What exactly is a realist?

It appears that you are comparing and shopping around, as I do when I am ready to buy a car. Please get real, spirituality is devotion to deities, not a material thing that lends itself to a comparative intellectual exercise. And don't ever think that you are breaking new ground; new people have been coming up with the same old tired intellectual exercises and thinking as if they have found something new. I have been through this a million times before. But thanks for posting this in the right section of the forum.

Why bring non Hindu things to a Hindu forum? What is the intent? What exactly do you expect to hear? Perhaps an atta-boy is expected for stating what you might think to be something unique that will lift the mankind to new heights of peace, prosperity and spiritual bliss?

Pranam.

[Spirit Seeker]

Namaste,

For a second I read Obatala as Obama; Krishna and Obama - same energy? ;)

What exactly is a realist?

It appears that you are comparing and shopping around, as I do when I am ready to buy a car. Please get real, spirituality is devotion to deities, not a material thing that lends itself to a comparative intellectual exercise. And don't ever think that you are breaking new ground; new people have been coming up with the same old tired intellectual exercises and thinking as if they have found something new. I have been through this a million times before. But thanks for posting this in the right forum.

Pranam.

Namaste.

Realists accept that the material world is real and not an illusion/maya. It's exact opposite Mono-Idealism accepts that nothing is independant from the mind. There's sub philosophies as well from Subjective Idealism to Objective Idealism etc.

I was only asking for opinions, but it appears I'm being received wrongly. No one here is answering my questions directly as to what they personally think of different gods outside Hinduism.

Sorry for asking then or if I offended anyone for just being curious....


Why bring non Hindu things to a Hindu forum? What is the intent? What exactly do you expect to hear? Perhaps an atta-boy is expected for stating what you might think to be something unique that will lift the mankind to new heights of peace, prosperity and spiritual bliss?

Hmmm Perhaps a DIRECT answer to a question from a Follower of Hindu/Sanatana Dharma, being that it is in the appropriate discussion forum, without being projected with pre-conceived labels and words/intent assumed upon me.

[Believer]

Namaste,

No one here is answering my questions directly as to what they personally think of different gods outside Hinduism.

When Hindus have the original, why would they waste time on thinking about, analyzing and commenting on imperfect copies? Is that direct enough?

Do you really believe in the following appendage to your posts, or is it just cute, fancy words to you?

"For those who believe, no explanation is necessary. For those who do not, none will suffice." - Joseph Dunninger

That is your real answer.

Pranam.

[Spirit Seeker]

Namaste,


When Hindus have the original, why would they waste time on thinking about, analyzing and commenting on imperfect copies? Is that direct enough?

Pranam.


Then that was all that needed to be stated. It is a good answer I think.

Why do I appear "shady" for asking without having presumptions thrown at me, just because I'm Non-Hindu?

[Eastern Mind]

Namaste Eastern Mind. I understand that. But do YOU think the Hindu Gods that you worship and devote yourself to, carry different facets revealing themselves in different traditional cultures/religions in other regions, or are those "other" manifestations/interpretations are non-existent/fictional.

Vannakkam: The key here is the word 'think'. I simply do not think anything at all about it because its irrelevant ... totally. Maybe, maybe not, and I don't care at all. You, on the other hand, have thought about it, obviously. As a Hindu, I have better things to do than to think about such stuff ... like actually worshiping my Gods, improving my character, doing seva, pilgrimaging, performing my dharma.

So it's like asking you what you 'think' of the citizenry of Mauritius.

Aum Namasivaya

[ShivaFan]

Namaste Spirit Seeker

I think I understand your question, and while within the realm of possibilities there are other Devatas (Gods if you will) that are not familiar to me that are "foreign" (is that even the right word?), perhaps the only way I can explain my experience is with emphasis on the word experience itself. For me, I didn't go about one day saying, "Hey! I think I'm going to go out and dig up some God". I didn't "invite" the Family of Devas and Devi, in particular the Saiva tradition thereof, rather I suddenly experienced this Family. The First One was Ganesha, I was 8 years old at that time. So it was more like I was invited, not me inviting Them. Very soon, it became obvious that the Family was larger, and there was the stunning experience of Shiva and Parvati, Whom I call Mahadeva or The Great God, and by such I quickly started to use the term The Great Goddess for Parvati. The Family quickly expanded, Muruga, then Hinduism really came into full view, naturally you suddenly start finding other Hindus all around you. Why this happened is both a mystery, but also so obvious. Devotees suddenly came from every direction, I had a rich life and experience with their associations. I am not going to speak of everything, because some of it is private to non-Hindus, but it was incredible. Not every journey is the same from one to the next. But mine was so simple, everything was just, literally, handed to me. When I would wake up in the morning, well let me just put it this way - it was like waking up in paradise. Each day was both long and short, full of color, full of adventure, moving all around. While each one has their own way, I sort of had no way, it was just so easily given, and frankly fun. And for some reason, there was an openess - all sorts and every type of experiencing Hindu be it Saiva, Vaishnav or Shakta, not only stepped right in front of me, but those who did for whatever reason wanted to be my friend and I wanted to be theirs, too. You cannot avoid some things, when it pervasively is all around you, as was for example the Ramayana. The experience of Hanuman came. He is now my Ishta Lord. The Family grew larger.

I will leave it at that. Some things are only between devotees, not for a forum.

You will find all sorts of what is called Hindus on this forum. But association, direct association, with devotees who have real names and faces is more important then nameless avatars on a forum. Your answer to your question is, you must experience it. No amount of quotes by nameless members of sacred texts, can give you All the answer, far from it even though you find wonders still under a book or next to "there". Doors open everywhere, for some a forum may be the first door, they may have just walked into that door for reasons they don't understand. But you will meet with those who want to meet with you first, this is very common for many. The answer to your question is, I don't have to check into other Gods if you will. And from this point forward, in this life, Whatever "Gods" that I met on the way, they will all be part of this Family.

Today I think of Mother Annapurna. She lives in Kashi. Kashi is the Eternal City, Never Forsaken by Lord Shiva.

Om Namah Sivaya

[Omkara]

I've never thought about it. I would'nt have any serious objection to anyone identifying hindu deities with pagan european deities. If we do really beleive in the devas, it is logical that they be active in other countries too.

[Jodhaa]

Hello Seeker,

To answer your question, I have always thought that most people regardless of where they come from, (assuming they believe in a God/universal consciousness), are all looking for the same thing, they just happen to attach themselves to whatever their culture makes available to them. So yes, I think that the European pagan deities (or Egyptian, Mesopotamian, Native American deities etc) are a manifestation of the one truth. Now, depending on what a culture considers truth varies considerably, but the images and ideas about God serve the same purpose for the hearts, minds and souls of their believers.

I believe God makes his/her/itself known to each individual in a form that they will most ready recognize and connect to. The Truth wants to be found recognized and experienced - to be whole.

But experience shows that culture isn't the only thing that dictates one's idea of God. After all, if it were, I would still be devoted to Christ, being born in a culture that is predominantly Christian.

To expand on that, why does Devi speak to me, and not Thor? Why not Zeus, or Ra, or Brigid? I certainly take no issue with those deities, but they also don't "speak" to me. I think one's relationship with the divine is a highly personal matter. Everyone relates to God differently. That isn't to say every one has a healthy relationship, be it's something that evolves over a long period of time, and that we hope one day leads to enlightenment for all who are truly seeking it.

[Crane-Foot King]

The gods are mortal beings who have attained their celestial abodes and powers through good karma and spiritual insight. As such, they can rise and fall depending on their current actions.

[Believer]

Namaste,

The gods are mortal beings who have attained their celestial abodes and powers through good karma and spiritual insight. As such, they can rise and fall depending on their current actions.
Is that the Hindu POV? If so then references to the scriptures and the appropriate verses thereof might be helpful. If however it is a personal opinion, it should be stated as such.

Pranam.

[Sahasranama]

The gods are mortal beings who have attained their celestial abodes and powers through good karma and spiritual insight. As such, they can rise and fall depending on their current actions.
That depend on which gods we are talking about. There is a class of devas that has obtained their status through good karma, but most certainly not all gods fall in this category.

[Sudas Paijavana]

delete

[Sudas Paijavana]

delete

[Ashcooper]

My personal insight on this came as Ganesha entered my heart for the first time, I saw him all around me, within me, outside me, in 5 dimensions if that makes sense, he spoke to me without words, and then, i knew, in that moment i knew.

That there is not but one god, but that we all are part of one god, from me to Ganesha himself, from an ant to a star, from Allah even to jah.

I knew, in that moment, my death meant nothing, but my purpose of life became more distorted, as in why am i here if my purpose is elsewhere? in ascension.

For all those reasons, i crave to experience a simaler thing in the future, and gain further insight to myself and the universe.
The one thing i know for definite now, is i am part of one, as are we all.

only my opinion i know, but thought i'd share.

and just for the record, until i had that moment of insight, i hated, detested any form o religion, or worship. (reasons are deeper for that and needless in this conversation)

[Sudas Paijavana]

delete

[Necromancer]

Namaste all.

What is your opinion/perspective on the God's and Deitys that are outside Hinduism and are a part of different cultural pantheons?

Are they Non-Existant? Fictional? Or a Different Manifestation of a Particular Deity/Energy?

To me personally, I believe most of the gods around the world from different cultural backgrounds are the same exact deities/energies interpreted differently. I take Carl Jungs stance as he was a Great Psychologist as well as Mystic.

I believe many of the God's Fit in Psychological Archetypal patterns in the Collective Human Unconsciousness while those deities simultaneous carry an independent life on their own. ALL THE SAME ENERGY, It is US that Separate them.

This is just to serve as an example for comparison, it doesn't have to be accurate. Lets say Thor And Odin of the Viking Religion are the Same energies as Visnu And Shiva. Or Kali Ma is the same energy as Lilith in Judaism, or Hecate. Rama is Hades etc. etc.

Krishna being the same energy as Obatala in the Yoruba pantheon. So I'm not referring to Monism/Universalism. Still separate distinct energies, that fit particular archetypes, WE separate them based on our conditioned interpretations. But they carry a life on their own.

For many this is a "New-Agey" thing to believe. I'm not Universalist by any means nor are my beliefs anywhere close to Neo-New Age Thinking.

I consider myself A realist, and my views will be closest to Carl Jungs stance on the Deities, and the archetypes they fit in the collective unconscious, rather than One God many manifestations that monists stand by.

Thoughts Anyone?
Namaste.

From my way of thinking and believing, God is God. There's no 'my God' or 'your God' there's just 'my beliefs' and 'your beliefs'.

Beliefs are personal. God is impersonal.

In an attempt to try and understand the form in which the Divine is represented to us, we create God 'in our own image' to try and make sense of it.

What many forget, is that the image is a spiritual one..not a physical one.

If I sound too 'new age' by saying that God is everything and can be called by any name with unwavering faith and devotion, then so be it.

I choose to worship Lord Shiva because that is God's 'form' that most appeals to me. Shiva is Jehova...Buddha...Allah....Krishna...every single thing!

Those who worship Jehova will say that Jehova = Shiva, Buddha, Allah, Krishna.

Those who worship Krishna will say that Krishna = Shiva, Buddha, Allah...etc.

There is no difference and we are all coming from the same place.


My personal insight on this came as Ganesha entered my heart for the first time, I saw him all around me, within me, outside me, in 5 dimensions if that makes sense, he spoke to me without words, and then, i knew, in that moment i knew.

It is very beautiful and amazing when that happens. I have felt the same with Lord Shiva, quite a few times now.

Aum Namah Shivaya

[Avyaydya]

Namaste.

Realists accept that the material world is real and not an illusion/maya. It's exact opposite Mono-Idealism accepts that nothing is independant from the mind. There's sub philosophies as well from Subjective Idealism to Objective Idealism etc.

Maya is often misunderstood. Maya does not mean this material world is an illusion (no real existence), but it is not the base of everything else. Rather than a base it is something that rises out of a deeper reality.

Modern science is proving this. For instance M-theory and Snare-theory now see particles as musical notes, the universe as a symphony. Now they found the Higgs Boson, particles no longer have mass. So our matter is without substance, mass is only an illusion that rises from something deeper, the Highs field.

The mind is the creator of illusion, that is true. Science has proven that many times. But we must not confuse mind with consciousness. The material world rises out of consciousness not the mind. The mind is only one aspect of consciousness. So the material word can exists outside the mind, though its appearance is to some extend an illusion created by the mind.

The word "real" itself creates the illusion of illusion. Because it implies that some experiences are not real. It does this by stating that thoughts that do not pertain to the material world, are not real, an illusion (a plaything of the mind). So this thinking already takes the material world as the base.

But experience is the only reality. Every experience is real. It is the mind that makes the distinction between real and not real. My experience of the Deva's is as real as your experience of hitting a wall. But if the mind creates an idea-world in which everything metaphysical is unreal, than in that idea-world Deva's are not allowed to be exist as entities and are thrown in a container object called "unreal" (or something vague like "energy").

This itself is contradiction. How can you create a concept for things unreal? It is like imaginary numbers. When mathematicians found them they said they did not exist in reality (hence "imaginary"). But every time they found such "impossible" things, they later found an actual application in physics!

So Deva's are real. Why? Because we can experience them. Now you may say, what you are experiencing is something else, but I can say that about everything in the world. Because whenever we look deeper in things they become something else. Than tasting salt is a chemical reaction between NaCL and other substances. But NaCl is not really NaCL but a composite of smaller particles, that are not real particles but waveforms etc. Looking one step deeper and the illusion changes again.

But to us meaning has only what plays on our level of experience in reality. That is what shapes our overall experience. Does the internet exist, or is it an illusion that rises from trillion of electronic switches interacting? Yes it exists and it is something more than switches interacting. The sum is clearly more than its parts. Yes you and me exist, even if we can define ourselves as particles too. Even then we both have a unique character that can not be explained out the character of particles.

Experience is reality, but experience exists in layers of reality. Who knows what the experience of an atom may be like. It has its own level of consciousness we have no idea of. To all beings their world consists of their experiences and they are unaware of the different experience of other beings.

Consciousness is so much more than thinking, so much more than the mind. The mind creates idea-worlds, new layers of experience. Why is the western idea-world today so much different than it used to be? Because the mind changed its perception of the world. In the West the outside world and inside world were never integrated. So conflicts arise.

In Hindu philosophy consciousness gives rise to inside and outside world. Science is no threat to Hinduism as Hindu Sages always studied both worlds simultaneously to understand the working of consciousness. What modern science now brings, proves them right. The material word has no substance of its own. Particles are no more than information. Information is something that rises from consciousness. Also they found that if you look deeper into matter the separation between observer and the observed can no longer be maintained.

There have even be studies that prove that things do not exist outside of observation. So do the Deva's exist? If you can experience them they do. It you don't it is perfectly okay to say they don't, at least not for you.

[Spirit Seeker]

Maya is often misunderstood. Maya does not mean this material world is an illusion (no real existence), but it is not the base of everything else. Rather than a base it is something that rises out of a deeper reality.

Modern science is proving this. For instance M-theory and Snare-theory now see particles as musical notes, the universe as a symphony. Now they found the Highs Boson, particles no longer have mass. So our matter is without substance, mass is only an illusion that rises from something deeper, the Highs field.

The mind is the creator of illusion, that is true. Science has proven that many times. But we must not confuse mind with consciousness. The material world rises out of consciousness not the mind. The mind is only one aspect of consciousness. So the material word can exists outside the mind, though its appearance is to some extend an illusion created by the mind.

The word "real" itself creates the illusion of illusion. Because it implies that some experiences are not real. It does this by stating that thoughts that do not pertain to the material world, are not real, an illusion (a plaything of the mind). So this thinking already takes the material world as the base.

But experience is the only reality. Every experience is real. It is the mind that makes the distinction between real and not real. My experience of the Deva's is as real as your experience of hitting a wall. But if the mind creates an idea-world in which everything metaphysical is unreal, than in that idea-world Deva's are not allowed to be exist as entities and are thrown in a container object called "unreal" (or something vague like "energy").

This itself is contradiction. How can you create a concept for things unreal? It is like imaginary numbers. When mathematicians found them they said they did not exist in reality (hence "imaginary"). But every time they found such "impossible" things, they later found an actual application in physics!

So Deva's are real. Why? Because we can experience them. Now you may say, what you are experiencing is something else, but I can say that about everything in the world. Because whenever we look deeper in things they become something else. Than tasting salt is a chemical reaction between NaCL and other substances. But NaCl is not really NaCL but a composite of smaller particles, that are not real particles but waveforms etc. Looking one step deeper and the illusion changes again.

But to us meaning has only what plays on our level of experience in reality. That is what shapes our overall experience. Does the internet exist, or is it an illusion that rises from trillion of electronic switches interacting? Yes it exists and it is something more than switches interacting. The sum is clearly more than its parts. Yes you and me exist, even if we can define ourselves as particles too. Even then we both have a unique character that can not be explained out the character of particles.

Experience is reality, but experience exists in layers of reality. Who knows what the experience of an atom may be like. It has its own level of consciousness we have no idea of. To all beings their world consists of their experiences and they are unaware of the different experience of other beings.

Consciousness is so much more than thinking, so much more than the mind. The mind creates idea-worlds, new layers of experience. Why is the western idea-world today so much different than it used to be? Because the mind changed its perception of the world. In the West the outside world and inside world were never integrated. So conflicts arise.

In Hindu philosophy consciousness gives rise to inside and outside world. Science is no threat to Hinduism as Hindu Sages always studied both worlds simultaneously to understand the working of consciousness. What modern science now brings, proves them right. The material word has no substance of its own. Particles are no more than information. Information is something that rises from consciousness. Also they found that if you look deeper into matter the separation between observer and the observed can no longer be maintained.

There have even be studies that prove that things do not exist outside of observation. So do the Deva's exist? If you can experience them they do. It you don't it is perfectly okay to say they don't, at least not for you.

Namaste, Excellent post, and thank you everyone else for your contribution to this thread.

You did a great way of explaining it to give me a clearer undestanding of What "Maya" is. Thank you. If am am not mistakened there are however some schools of thought, within buddhism that do believe the physical environment is literally an illusion?

If I may ask you where do you personally draw the line between "Objective" and "subjective" when it comes to metaphysical experience?

I know in the Western world there are rising philosophies that conflict with its eastern counterparts which attempts to give a more 'scientific' rational approach and explanation to Eastern Mysticism..

For instance, concerning the nature of Mind And Conciousness, Awareness. Do The "Devas" people experience Have an Objective Absolute existence on their own, outside our belief and awareness of them, or do they exist subjectively only because we experience them and exactly as we interpret these 'energies'?

Partial reason why i made this thread. I have an Aristotle Mindset, I Suspect The Gods, Devas, Or whatever a person chooses to call them or in however way they perceive them , have an objective existence/life of their own, whether we pay mind to them or not. But there are other theories/philosophies(Mainly Metaphysical Idealism) that states we "created" them.

So it depends on the context of what is "real" and "Unreal" depending how a particular philosophy approaches it..

I am aware Hinduism has a sophisticated advanced explanation for mostly everything concerning consciousness, depending on the school will depend on the approach. I see it all as 'filter' as you brought up.

Thank you.

[Avyaydya]

Namaste, Excellent post, and thank you everyone else for your contribution to this thread.

You did a great way of explaining it to give me a clearer undestanding of What "Maya" is. Thank you. If am am not mistakened there are however some schools of thought, within buddhism that do believe the physical environment is literally an illusion?
...
I know in the Western world there are rising philosophies that conflict with its eastern counterparts which attempts to give a more 'scientific' rational approach and explanation to Eastern Mysticism..
...
Partial reason why i made this thread. I have an Aristotle Mindset, I Suspect The Gods, Devas, Or whatever a person chooses to call them or in however way they perceive them , have an objective existence/life of their own, whether we pay mind to them or not. But there are other theories/philosophies(Mainly Metaphysical Idealism) that states we "created" them.

So it depends on the context of what is "real" and "Unreal" depending how a particular philosophy approaches it..

I am aware Hinduism has a sophisticated advanced explanation for mostly everything concerning consciousness, depending on the school will depend on the approach. I see it all as 'filter' as you brought up.



Let me grossly generalize and exaggerate to make the distinctions between eastern and western thinking clearer. That is what the mind does best, simplifying by seeing patterns in chaos, seeing divisions between entities that are neither homogeneous nor have sharp boundaries.

I do not know much of Buddhism, but Hinduism as totality does not see contrasting viewpoints as problem, but rather as a useful addition to do justice to reality. The mind is the creator of illusions. One of the illusions it creates is that there is only one good way of understanding things, called "the truth". A truth we can "share".

There are many of such shared truths people believe in. Looking deeper we find that each person still has different interpretations of these shared truths. And the more individualistic the character of a person is, the more he starts creating his own separate truths, and live in his own idea world.

The wonderful thing of Hinduism is that it forces the least viewpoints upon people. That is why it comprises of many philosophical schools and traditions and that is why it is so diverse. It respects diversity of the individual minds as much as diversity in outer nature.

Hindu's do not have to "falsify" the truths of others so much. In the west the idea of “one truth” is very strong. It is strong both in religion and science. Western culture can not coop well with contradicting ideas even among different groups. In western culture one will strive to win over the other. The more adherents the more victorious. Victory itself becomes the proof of being right. That is why western culture tries to spread itself: To proof itself right.

But western culture changed her ideas and traditions much faster than any other. In her pursuit of truth, it keeps on changing its ideas. It is only in recent history that we see the western mind opening up to the idea of more than one truth, as science starts to reveal the ambiguity of Nature.

There is no one truth, there never was. The mind is the creator of such truths. The mind is a simplifier. Thus it translates the order it perceives into simplified notions. But it can do that in endless ways. the picture the mind creates is like a photo of a person. The mind says: this photo is him! But is it? It is only related to the person. We can make endless different pictures of the same person, and even then it only is one aspect of his being. But for the mind, it is him! That is him!

Scientists now believe physical Nature is made in 11 dimensions. M-theory is based on that. A triumph for theoretical science, but now they created a theory that is nearly as difficult to understand as Nature itself. Now it has become something that has be discovered like Nature. It does not bring understanding to the mind any more. It can help us predict things, control things, but no longer to understand things.

Our mind wants something simple it can relate to everyday experiences, something meaningful, something that does not contradict these. But such a theory can not be made. The one truth is beyond the grasp of man's mind.

Our theories are "viewpoints". If you want to know someone you are better off with more than one photo. But in stead of choosing what photo best portrays him, you want to accept them all as valid viewpoints without choosing one. This way your mind stays free. And even though at first one viewpoint may seem strikingly appropriate, in another situation another viewpoint may gain significance, because reality shows us ever changing faces.

So in stead of saying this is right and this wrong, it is good to say, this is one viewpoint and this is another. Even if an evil man tell lies about a good person, from the viewpoint of the evil man they may seem very fitting. Reality is never limited to the object we are studying but as much about the subject that does the observation.

Western thinking however is heavily based on the idea we can completely separate the two. That there is an objective reality outside of the observer. And thus all people could observe the same thing. but if that were so, why do we need to school people in the same thinking first?

From a base of mutual thinking we started creating “objective” theories. There is also a disadvantage to this. It limits the freedom of thinking. It is based on unprovable ideas of Greek philosophers like Plato and Aristotle. Plato thought material nature was a bad copy of perfect forms found in mathematics and geometry. Western thinking still is largely based on this thinking, trying to superimpose these perfect structures on reality, and dismissing everything what does not fit them. Christian religion has a similar base, it translated in a perfect God and his imperfect creation.

This kind of “ideal” thinking itself structures our reality to the ideals. That is why we no longer live in a natural habitat but in a very structured environment. The more we structure our own environment to these "ideals", the more they seem true to the mind. But this kind of thinking also denies important parts of reality because they do not fit well in the structured idea world.

Western thinking gives power over nature. It enforces a man-made order on nature. Eastern thinking lays more emphasis on harmony with nature. It too uses Nature, but not to the extend of destroying it. Western thinking turns people in to dependent servants. To live in these ideal structures of the mind people have to support and maintain them both mentally and physically, otherwise our ever more complicated society crumbles. That is why religion became a compulsory belief. That is why now science has become a compulsory education too.

You are not an Aristotle-minded person because of your independent studies of reality, but because this is the thinking you grew up with. These are ideas that pervade western thinking. In this overly structured thinking, people become slaves to the structure. The individuality is suppressed as individuals tend to question such "objective" ideas as they develop their own personal, subjective ideas.

That is why the West created mass armies and put people in "uniforms", to suppress their individuality. They created mass organisations in which "individuality" is replaced by "functionality". In the large structure the worker is a functional part and can be replaced by similar parts. In religion people are divided in pastors and flock. The flock believe and pastors tell them what to believe. Their highest purpose to be a servant in God's "plan". In the West people are not encouraged to think for themselves, they have excellent education systems in which everything is spelled out for them from young age. They are rewarded for conforming to these ideas, not for rejecting them. Westerners rather choose ideas to follow than create them. It created a consumption society.

In western culture following ideals and ideology has become a virtue. Their truths are defended as the holy grail. But these truths are ever changing creations of the mind. To stop it from changing western religion tried to make it unchangeable by putting it in a book and declaring its Gods unchangeable truth. Trying to create a stable structured society this way turned out to be bad idea. It was especially horror for the people with individualistic free-thinking character. They were often persecuted as enemies of ordered society.

Still ordered society continues taking over many aspects of life. We may even come to a point that many human beings will become superfluous to the system. Rational will force us to admit: Robots serve better. We see the first signs of this. But who can stop the system? The order must prevail.

Marxism, fascism were also scientific inspired attempts to build ideal societies and in both the value of individuality was further reduced. Now we lean to an even more scientifically structured society, that could become even more rigid. We also see the madness of such systems. Simply look at the financial systems that spin out of control, but are based on very scientific economical theories that state egoism is the logical drive for economic behaviour. If that is what you take as a base, that is what logic extends and generates.

Why do we do it? Because the western mind is facinated with the virtues of truth, power and order (control). The western idea of a god is a being all-powerful, all-knowing, and controlling. Everything fits his plan. That is how the supreme God is described. And as Gods are the inspiration of man, westerners strive to be like their God. Western Gods are adharmic in nature. They are power hungry Gods.

They fit societies that are seeking domination over others, militarily, culturally, economically, religiously. Is it a coincidence that Aristotle also was the teacher of Alexander the Great, that forcefully spread Greek civilization over the then known world?

Life becomes a struggle. competition, strife. In western thinking this is good, it brings the best out in you. Playful things like sport games become fierce competition. Even man's evolution is seen as result of struggle. Struggle to establish dominance and order dominates western thinking.

Which brings us to your original question: Are Hindu gods the same as Gods in Western cultures? No the Deva's differ fundamentally from the Asura's. The Asura's are power seeking Gods, that want to impose their own order, where Deva's are serving Natural order or Dharm. They are not the same. The worship of Deva's or Asura's go together with different societies with people of different mindsets. It makes the world an interesting place.

[lalit1000]

Namaste all.

What is your opinion/perspective on the God's and Deitys that are outside Hinduism and are a part of different cultural pantheons?

Are they Non-Existant? Fictional? Or a Different Manifestation of a Particular Deity/Energy?


Matter is not possible without Anti matter,same for particles and anti particles.So Devas (Gods) are non existant without their direct counterparts Asuras(demons).
Now,Do you think every culture/sect is bound worship Gods only?Just asgods takes incarnations so do the Asuras to propogate Adharma or Sin on earth.So There must some worshippers of them in this world,otherwise the very purpose of their reincarnations goes vain .So its not necessary tht the differnt deities associated with diffrnt sects are Gods in the first place.Worship of asuras is common in India too.For eg,Khatu Shyaam who is worshipped in most parts of North India is actually a demon called Barbarik.
For those acquainted with Bhavisya Purana must very well know about how the demon Tripurasura's incarnation created a so called sect on this planet.