God , in His Image [Archive] - Hindu Dharma Forums

yajvan

28 May 2007, 07:48 PM

Hari Om
~~~~~~
Namaste,

God created man in His own image.... Genisis 1:27

What is this statement saying? How can this be? Is it the 'look' ? the arms , legs , of Him?
If we consider it from this perspective ( and it would be great to hear yours) perhaps it may resonate with you.

We have His same nature ( this is called swarupa). Just like the spark of a fire, has the same nature of the fire itself. Each individual soul ( jiva) is a spark of Brahman, this Totality, this Infinite Universal Self

Its not saying ( to me) we look or walk like Him, our our bodies take His shape, yet His nature ( pure consciousness) is our existence. The rishi's say our bodies ( and this earth, rock, liqiuid, gas, space, leaf, Animal, vegetable or mineral) is condensed consciousness, same as they say in quantum physics. And most of everything is really space ( my favorite element, akasha) at the atomic level.

Science even wonders how all this ( matter) stays together , cause there is so much space between atoms. This is where they talk of the various forces in physics that I am not knowledgable of, that bind this matter together. ( glueons have been called out - great name eh?)

That said, we are miniature HIMs. "Him" is like that sound Hreem - all encompassing. Its like another word Hamsa. A name for a Swan - they give Him this name , as one of beauty; As the swan also floats on the water ( life, existence) without getting wet ( or pulled into this existence) or without the possibility of any blemish.

When Hamsa is repeated , it turns into So-ham, as the front sound gets connected ( spills, as they say) with the back sound, and low and behold Hamsa turns into So-ham, a favorite mantra that means "I am He".

Now, the rishi's say, we naturally say this with each breadth, when we breathe in, its 'so' and out is 'ham'. So with every breath we take, He is on or lips.

A modern sanyas (or yogi) named Nisargadatta Maharaj , living during our time ( 80's) became enlightened by just using one mantra ,aham,
I AM. He was just an every day householder, but with a guru that gave him this sound ( this is called Diksha). In 3 to 5 years he became an enlightened Being. NO Great Yogi or Maharaj initially, just a regular guy in india that listened to his teacher. So , its possible we too can become enlightened while living ( Called a jivanmukti).

One of his quotes : " To know the world you forget the SELF, to know the SELF you forget the world". found in his book, I Am That.

pranams

Jigar

28 May 2007, 10:13 PM

saidevo

29 May 2007, 06:35 AM

Namaste Yajvan,

"God created man in His own image.... Genisis 1:27"

I am rather confused at your interpretation of this simple statement in the Bible.

That the term image that is referred to in the Biblical statement is a pointer to the Cosmic Consciousness of the One God that is immanent in both Prakriti and Purushas seems to be rather far-retched to me. I would love to know if there are more such references in the Bible that seek to establish the advaitic unity of everything. If they are, then we can effectively quote them against the evangelism of the church!

I think this statement cannot be extrapolated beyond these inferences:

To get the full import, we needs must read the statement in context with the previous verse, so here are both the verses:

(OT: Genesis 1)
1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

1. The 'our' in the phrase 'Let us make man in our image' signifies that God speaks to some others near Him, who are like Him. Who are these other 'gods?' Does it mean that there was no 'one God' but many? And they all made man in their image? Even assuming that God was only one and He spoke these words to a group of angels who were his audience, this can only point to a personal God, a God in the image of the man, with all the limitations of emotions--and not a Nirguna Brahman.

2. Thus I think the term image refers only to the form that he made out of the dust, and then breathed life into that form, as this verse says:

(OT: Genesis)
2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

After making man, God made him sleep, and created woman from his rib bone (OT: Genesis 2:21, 2:22).

In Christianity animals and plants have no souls. They were created only for man and are eternally subservient to him.

The interesting point here is that in eary Christianity, the same logic applied to women, and women were thought to have no souls! In the first Nicean Council conducted in 325 BCE, "A vote was cast to decide whether women had souls. The women won by one vote." (http://www.teachingreligion.com/gnosticism/history.html)

Thank God, women escaped persecution by just one vote!

3. The modern man of Kali Yuga, who is increasingly being more and more aware of the Vedic and Upanishadic concepts of Hinduism, tries to extrapolate the Christian scriptures, applying these concepts. Would he have 'discovered' such meanings if Hinduism was not around?

As H.P. Blavatsky says, the Christian scriptures and theology are just a parody of rich pagan religious legacy that existed before its advent. Even King Constantine, the founder of the Catholic Church movement, "never converted. On his deathbed, when he was too delirious to protest, "Saint" Eusebius entered his chambers, sprinkled holy water on him, and declared him baptised." (http://www.teachingreligion.com/gnosticism/history.html)

saidevo

29 May 2007, 09:36 AM

Namaste MG.

Glad to have your participation and opinions in the forum. People like you, who know and love Hinduism as well as Christianity, can serve as a bridge between the two religions and act as a voice of dissent to the stifling authority of the tenets, specially in the area of evangelism.

Just to clarify, a lot of Christians do believe that animals have souls. The incident that you mention about voting on the souls of women, to be fair, had to be a very isolated incident, don't you think? ;)

1. I am glad that a large number of Christians are outgrowing the hard tenets of their religion, using independent inquiry, which is the only way to salvation.

However, the point is, unlike in Hinduism, you have no scriptures beyond the Bible in Christianity. Hindu Smriti (Puranas, bhakti scriptures etc.) are all distinct yet based on Vedas, and a Hindu can simply choose his own path as to the scriptures, without ever getting to know the wisdom revealed in the Vedas, as Ganesh Prasad has explained in another thread. This sort of variety in teachings from gurus is unkown to Christianity, so even a correct belief such as animals do have souls or humans do have karma and reincarnation or that there are no eternal hell and heaven or that there are many paths to God, etc. do not have support in the Bible, and hence are anathema to the Church. Do you think the situation will ever change?

2. Yes, the voting that women do have souls is 'a very isolated incident' as you put it, but is a formative one as it came from the earliest establishment of the church.

I don't know whether the Bible mentions that women have no souls, but the very consideration seemed alarming to me, that is why I mentioned it.

Thanks for your interaction and please do continue to post your views.

yajvan

29 May 2007, 10:18 AM

Hari Om
~~~~~

Namaste Yajvan,

"God created man in His own image.... Genisis 1:27"

I am rather confused at your interpretation of this simple statement in the Bible.

That the term image that is referred to in the Biblical statement is a pointer to the Cosmic Consciousness of the One God that is immanent in both Prakriti and Purushas seems to be rather far-retched to me.

Namste saidevo,
I respect your position here... in this case it is my reading and intuition as my reference point. I am not debating it's 'rightness or wrongness' of the statement but rejoicing that this statement resonates with the Truth I possess today.

The simplest statements, I have found are the most profound. When I think and 'feel' of His ( or Her) image I do not gravitate to a human condition of size or shape.

My point is we are condensed consciousness - so say the wise, so says Vasistha as my guide here. When I percieve Ishvara, I percieve Him as pure - and nothing is as pure, as unbounded and without blemish as consciousness.
If I am missing a point , please round out my undersanding so I may go deeper into this matter... Why do I care to do this? To Adore the ONE, the sadhu desires to know each and every conciveable part of the Adored (Ishvara), Brahman, Paramatma - please add to my adoration understanding.

It is pointed out in the Srimad Bhagavatam that the fullness of the SELF is unfolded ( blossoms) as the realization of Brahman, Paramatma and Bhagavan. So, as one goes along the way one see's every thing from this point of view... for me, when I read 'we are created in His Image' this is where my understanding rests.

At the end of the day, ultimately, all religions come from the same tree.
And at the core of that tree is pure consciousness, yet many like to adore the tree as the branch, the flower, the stem, the bark. I adore the tree and it's sap, pure consciousness, Brahman.

pranams, and thank you for taking the time to consider the post and responding.

satay

29 May 2007, 02:06 PM

Just to clarify, a lot of Christians do believe that animals have souls.

Namaste,
Which sects in particular? I am not questioning your statement as my wife is a catholic christian and she does believe in our dog having a soul, though I think that the source of her changed belief in that has been influenced by me and not by the bible.

Where does it say in the bible that animals have souls? If animals have souls then are they part of the same spirit that made adam and eve?

I am just curious on your views on this.

The incident that you mention about voting on the souls of women, to be fair, had to be a very isolated incident, don't you think? ;)

A lot interesting things happened at the Nicean council, jesus' divinity was voted also among other things. I also learnt from some christians on the internet that 'women' are inefrior according to the church because they are made from the 'rib' of man. So therefore, as they are a part of 'man' they can never be equal to the man.

satay

29 May 2007, 02:14 PM

Really, Christians are such a varied lot, I don't know how to even lump them together besides the very basic tenents. I would not say most Christians believe in evangelism.

With all due respect, I would have to disagree with the statement. It is a christian's duty to spread the religion and save souls. In fact, as soon as you accept jesus as your only saviour, you automatically and immediately get a license to 'evangelise' as you must save as many souls as possible.

In India, you are seeing sort of a skewed number because that is why they go there. Most American Christians believe in minding your own business. Americans hate people telling them what to do you know. :) I mean, I have no percentages, but don't most humans hate being evangelized to? Most Christians globally are not going door to door.

Because most americans believe in minding their own business and they don't want to be bothered, this is why the religion of christianity is being exported overseas and especially into India. It is believed by the southern baptist sect that India is ruled by the satan and all hindus must be saved and satan defeated.

Most christians are not only going door to door in India but also causing political problems and pressure the gov't to get special rights etc.

I encourage you to get the facts on India and the political nature of 'evangelism' by christians in India. They might not be spreading the message of jesus and nirotu has acknowledged this in the past as well but facts remain facts no matter what we think or say.

Peace be with you.

satay

29 May 2007, 02:18 PM

Hari Om
~~~~~

Namste saidevo,
I respect your position here... in this case it is my reading and intuition as my reference point. I am not debating it's 'rightness or wrongness' of the statement but rejoicing that this statement resonates with the Truth I possess today.

The simplest statements, I have found are the most profound. When I think and 'feel' of His ( or Her) image I do not gravitate to a human condition of size or shape.

My point is we are condensed consciousness - so say the wise, so says Vasistha as my guide here. When I percieve Ishvara, I percieve Him as pure - and nothing is as pure, as unbounded and without blemish as consciousness.
If I am missing a point , please round out my undersanding so I may go deeper into this matter... Why do I care to do this? To Adore the ONE, the sadhu desires to know each and every conciveable part of the Adored (Ishvara), Brahman, Paramatma - please add to my adoration understanding.

It is pointed out in the Srimad Bhagavatam that the fullness of the SELF is unfolded ( blossoms) as the realization of Brahman, Paramatma and Bhagavan. So, as one goes along the way one see's every thing from this point of view... for me, when I read 'we are created in His Image' this is where my undersanding rests.

At the end of the day, ultimately, all religions come from the same tree.
And at the core of that tree is pure consciousness, yet many like to adore the tree as the branch, the flower, the stem, the bark. I adore the tree and it's sap, pure consciousness, Brahman.

pranams, and thank you for taking the time to consider the post and responding.

Namaste Yajvan,

This is a beautiful Dharmic interpretation of a verse from the bible, however, we must acknowledge that the christian understanding of the verse is completely different. There is no 'unity' with GOD.

Separation of spirit and GOD (or duality) remains for eternity even in heaven.

Agnideva

29 May 2007, 04:31 PM

Namaste All,

Without so much as touching the other issues here, I thought I would add a little to the issue of animal souls according to Catholic doctrine. Per my understanding, Catholic doctrine says that animals do have souls, as God had breathed life into all creatures, humans and animals. However, animal souls are "different" than human souls. Whereas human souls are everlasting, the animal souls cease to exist upon their death. It was the previous Pope, John Paul II, who had declared that animals too have souls back in 1990. I am not certain about the issue of animal souls in any other branch of Christianity.

OM Shanti,
A.

willie

29 May 2007, 09:00 PM

I think that the vedas say that human souls are made of the same stuff as brahman, but I don't think is says that they are brahman. Only form the same material.

Agnideva

30 May 2007, 10:58 AM

I think that the vedas say that human souls are made of the same stuff as brahman, but I don't think is says that they are brahman. Only form the same material.Namaste Willie,

As far as Sanatana Dharma or Vedas go, I am not aware of any place where a differentiation is made between types of souls (human, animal, etc.). And in the Sanatana Dharma conception of soul or Atman, one tends not to speak of it as being made (created) or destroyed. The soul is not something that can come into being and go out of being. This leaves us with two positions: Atmans (plural) are eternally present as distinct entities from Brahman, or that Atman is Brahman. The latter position is espoused by monistic philosophies, whereas the former position is espoused by philosophies that are non-monistic. Naturally, both sides teach from and extend their own viewpoint. Whether Vedic texts speak of Brahman and Atman as one and same is a matter of which philosophical lens you are viewing them through, and the semantic arguments that result thereof.

OM Shanti,
A.

sm78

30 May 2007, 12:35 PM

I think that the vedas say that human souls are made of the same stuff as brahman, but I don't think is says that they are brahman. Only form the same material.

Souls ( and brahman for that matter) are made of materials ?? :-|

yajvan

30 May 2007, 03:31 PM

Hari Om
~~~~~

Souls ( and brahman for that matter) are made of materials ?? :-|

Namaste all that are posting to this string....
If I may add a point or two.
I think the word 'made' was used or applied more as a convenience. 'Made' assumes some assembly. I am sure there are better words but the 'spirit' and intent of the post clearly comes out from willie, AD and sm78's response. A well intented question-and-repsonses with great merit.

This postion , knowledge and understanding is very clear as the Upanishads sings the glory of this is Brahman. There is no separation. If we care to discuss jiva's ( sparks or individual souls), fine, or Para atma, fine. The truths still hold. All this is indeed Brahman. When there is duality, then there is ignorance. This is the maya disussion. That is, infinity is metered out, as if there are limitations, this is maya.

So, the condition of 'made up' or 'consisting of , are all ok too. But in the final analysis (Vedanta or Veda + anta , or the end of the veda) , the crescendo if you will, all this is Brahman. The Absolute Trancendent + the relative field of time, space and cause is also Brahman. If we were talking Sankaya, then Purusha+ Prakriti is Brahman.

Now does Brahman have a beginning or end? The wise say no, for only things that are relative have a beginning and end. Yet with our limited vision (my limited vision), it may seem so.

And tat tvam asi, you too are that.

... men may come and men may go but I go on for ever.

saidevo

30 May 2007, 06:20 PM

Namaste everyone.

Swamy Dayanand Sarasvati in his book Satyarth Prakash speaks of three entities that are eternal: the Brahman, the souls and the prakriti.

Since Brahman has no beginning, it is impossible to know when the souls separated from him as sparks from the same oven. The prakriti, though eternal, always resides in Brahman as the other side of a coin.

Three causes work to create the universe as a projection from Brahman: the efficient, material and common causes. Brahman is the primary efficient cause, the souls the secondary efficient cause and prakriti the material cause.

"All such means as knowledge, strength and hands, and instruments, time and space, that are required for the making of thing constitute its common cause.

"Now take for illustration a pot. The potter is its efficient cause clay its material cause, whilst the rod, the wheel and other instruments, time, space, light, eyes, hands (of the pttter), knowledge and the necessary labour, etc., constitute its common cause. Nothing can be made or unmade without these three causes."

At dissolution, the souls and the prakriti rest in Brahman, only to be recreated in the same identical way when the next cycle of creation starts.

yajvan

30 May 2007, 08:17 PM

Hari Om
~~~~~~

Namaste Yajvan,

... we must acknowledge that the christian understanding of the verse is completely different. There is no 'unity' with GOD.

Separation of spirit and GOD (or duality) remains for eternity even in heaven.

Namaste satay,
thank you for the post... It is interesting to consider that Genesis is 'old testament' and Christianity does not occur until Jesus, the Christ, comes to this earth, and that is New Testament scripture.
So, is "Old Testament' Judaism? and they may look at this statement differently?

When I think of duality and Jesus' statement "I and my father are one" points to the condition of unity.

Now, some Christian's suggest this means Jesus is stating he is God. I would debate this wisdom, yet by no means am I an expert here (at all).
For the parts of the bible I have read, I see Jesus as jivanmuki and quite wise. He also sees others as divinity - 'the kingdom of heaven is within you'

It's my humble opinion, just like today, that a jivanmuki (Jesus) trying to explain the Fullness of Being to those that only have time to find their next meal, is a difficult matter. AND, when these people hear him speak at times they miss the wisdom behind his words...no differently then today.
I would love to ask Jesus what his thoughts are on 'We are created in God's image... ' . Wise words are always multi-sided.

pranams,

satay

30 May 2007, 09:17 PM

Hari Om
~~~~~~
It's my humble opinion, just like today, that a jivanmuki (Jesus) trying to explain the Fullness of Being to those that only have time to find their next meal, is a difficult matter. AND, when these people hear him speak at times they miss the wisdom behind his words...no differently then today.
I would love to ask Jesus what his thoughts are on 'We are created in God's image... ' . Wise words are always multi-sided.

pranams,

namakar yajvan,

Your post is beautiful (as usual). There is a risk here of me taking the OP off on a tangent but I often wonder about what you have just said here.

Does talk about GOD matter to a hungry stomach or worse yet does GOD matter to the one who is struggling to get a handful of rice to feed his kids, perhaps their only meal of the day?

There is a saying in punjabi... 'ksun nete ki bhagwan' literally translated it is asking, 'is the fist closer than GOD?' and one uses this saying in trouble and when he or she has to bend the rules and go against dharma to take care of practical matters. So a man in trouble who is faced with a robber who is ready to shove his fist down this man's throat, should he follow what the robber is asking him to do i.e. give him all his possesions or should he continue chanting the name of bhagwan?

Especially in this yuga of kali, most dharmic messages of jivanmuktas are bound to be lost.

willie

30 May 2007, 09:31 PM

I think that the rig veda says that all creation was started with thought that lead to desire and then creation came into existence. But the suveyor on the highest heaven may know how thought brought about creation or he may know not.

Now I will have to look into the whole soul atman thing but don't think it says anything about them going back in brahman or that they are a part of brahman just that they are of the same material as brahman.

satay

30 May 2007, 11:34 PM

Agnideva

31 May 2007, 09:55 AM

Namaste Saidevo,

Namaste everyone.
Swamy Dayanand Sarasvati in his book Satyarth Prakash speaks of three entities that are eternal: the Brahman, the souls and the prakriti.
At dissolution, the souls and the prakriti rest in Brahman, only to be recreated in the same identical way when the next cycle of creation starts.Satyarth Prakash is an excellent book, and Maharshi Dayanand�s reasoning and logical arguments are unparalleled. His philosophy, which is the foundation of Arya Samaj, is actually a form of Dvaita, although he doesn�t call it as such. IMHO, he explained the �most perfect� form of Dvaita. He taught eternal difference between God, soul and the world, or Ishvara, Jiva and Jagat as he calls it in his book. According to him, Ishvara is Sat-Chit-Ananda, Jiva is Sat-Chit, and Jagat is Sat. As the cycles of creation and dissolution progress, Jagat goes from gross to subtle (atomic form); and Jivas go through cycles of embodiment and disembodiment. He argued that only Ishvara is infinite and unlimited, and Jivas are infinitesimal and limited in quantity and quality. So Jivas that attain moksha (in which they experience bliss or ananda of Ishvara) must return to worldly existence again at some future point. He states that moksha is to be enjoyed only for a period of 311,040,000,000,000 years! As far as I know, he is the only person in Sanatana Dharma to argue for a moksha that is limited by time.

Regards,
A.

yajvan

31 May 2007, 10:06 AM

Hari Om
~~~~~

namakar yajvan,

Your post is beautiful (as usual). There is a risk here of me taking the OP off on a tangent but I often wonder about what you have just said here.

Does talk about GOD matter to a hungry stomach or worse yet does GOD matter to the one who is struggling to get a handful of rice to feed his kids, perhaps their only meal of the day?

There is a saying in punjabi... 'ksun nete ki bhagwan' literally translated it is asking, 'is the fist closer than GOD?' and one uses this saying in trouble and when he or she has to bend the rules and go against dharma to take care of practical matters. So a man in trouble who is faced with a robber who is ready to shove his fist down this man's throat, should he follow what the robber is asking him to do i.e. give him all his possesions or should he continue chanting the name of bhagwan?

Especially in this yuga of kali, most dharmic messages of jivanmuktas are bound to be lost.
Namaste Satay,

yes, lets start a new sting on this... much can be discussed. There is also a proverb that says ' do not throw pearls to the swine (pigs)'.

Now what this means, giving pearls of wisdom to the unfit, not ready, or unprepard is not the best use of time.
JUst as giving a pearl, a thing of wealth, to an animal, can not discern it's value, and is treated as any other object.
It will be eaten, kicked or just discarded...
IT DOES NOT INFER ( and I cannot say this strongly enough) people of lesser knowledge are less human and are considered pigs. So we need to be mindful we are not finding fault with others.

Many prayers in the Upanishads start with the invocation (sankalpam) for health, clear thinking, and food so one is prepared to learn and the fundamental needs of the body is fit to learn.
Om. May my limbs , speech, prana, eyes,ears ad well as my strength (bala) asll all the sense organs vecome full- grown and well functioning...
chandogya upanishad invocation

It is said how is one's spiritual progress tended to if there is hunger, pain, distractions? This is pointed out in the Yoga Sutra's of Patanjali-ji muni.

pranams,

saidevo

01 June 2007, 10:48 PM

"God created man in His own image. -- Genisis 1:27"

"I and my father are one -- John 10:30"

"the kingdom of heaven is within you -- Luke 17:21"

Adi Shankara was born in 788 CE according to the Western Scientific History, seven centuries after the holy mission of Jesus.

Therefore, Christianity is the religion that first proposed the concept of Advaita and the unity of man and God. In the same way, we can perhaps trace the origin of other darshanas and upanishadic statements in the Bible.

This world is only 6000 years old (perhaps even Genesis has some metaphorical implications) and we are all Adam-and-Eve putras!