PDA

View Full Version : 330 million



indianx
14 September 2007, 06:28 PM
I was recently on a thread in a Christian forum where a member inquired as to how to convert a Hindu friend. One of the responses provided a link to a site, which among other things, talked about Hinduism having 330 million gods. Now, I've heard that many times before from Christian sites arguing against Hinduism , but not until I visited this forum today and found an article from the Baptist Press in the "Politics - Current Affairs" forum stating the same thing ("He noted that Hindus claim there are 330 million gods.") did I get an idea of how prevalent this misconception really is.

I know the number itself is a symbolic one to represent the various forms of Brahman, but I'm not aware of the verse that led to this misinterpretation. If someone could assist me in finding more about this, I would be much obliged.

vcindiana
14 September 2007, 06:49 PM
I was recently on a thread in a Christian forum where a member inquired as to how to convert a Hindu friend. One of the

I know the number itself is a symbolic one to represent the various forms of Brahman, but I'm not aware of the verse that led to this misinterpretation. If someone could assist me in finding more about this, I would be much obliged.

Do you believe when a fundamental christian tells you "Jesus is the only way' ? Otherwise rest of us go to hell?
You are not going to make them understand the concept of miillions of Gods and neither they can make you understand Jesus is the only way.
I guess there is truth in each that something each one has to find on our own and that is the truth that sets us free from these hangups.

Znanna
14 September 2007, 07:50 PM
Namaste,

I'm far from orthodox anything (as y'all might have figured out) ..

But it seems to me that there are as many forms/namas of Godz as there are preceptors of Godz ... sooo... for Hindu Godz, state the population of India, and there ya go, wrt numbers of Godz.

Godz is many in unity ... whatever number y'all choose to ascribe to infinite or a whole lot or whatever ... this is the number of Godz, which also is Zero.

No disrespect intended but to ascribe a number ti Godz is itself antipathy for recognition of Godz, IMO.



ZN

saidevo
14 September 2007, 09:20 PM
1. Bansi Pandit says that the number 33 crores or 330 million refers to the count of living beings believed to exist in ancient times. Since God is immanent in them all, the number of gods (note the small 'g') became 33 crores. (http://www.koausa.org/Gods/)

2. Sarabhanga says, "The Rigveda’s 33 categories of shining Aditya, as expressed in the Hindu population of the newly independent Republic of India, was swollen to 33 crore of liberated Jivas in 1947." (http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?t=105&page=3)

3. There is another view that the number 33 crores indicate the total population of the devas that include the group of Gandharvas, Apsaras, Kinnaras, Vasus and many others. (http://voi.org/books/tfst/chii43.htm) It should be noted that this number does not change as (I think) even spiritually advanced humans are not promoted t the status of devas though devas themselves took birth as human beings.

I am inclined to agree with the third view. These 33 crore gods are honoured in pujas and festivals but never worshipped in the mUrti (image) form, though they are forms of Brahman the one God. Hindus on new moon days offer water and sesame to our deceased ancestors of three generations calling them vasus, adityas and rudras but these names are only symbolic, I think, and the deceased don't become the members of the deva clans of these names.

yajvan
14 September 2007, 09:23 PM
Hari Om
~~~~~

I was recently on a thread in a Christian forum where a member inquired as to how to convert a Hindu friend. One of the responses provided a link to a site, which among other things, talked about Hinduism having 330 million gods.

Namaste Indianx,

I think we can assist you with some info.
There is only One - Tad Ekam, That One.
Yet this number of 330 million or 330 thousand or 330, etc.
The rishi Yajyavalkya discusses this:
Yajyavalkya Kanda - Sakalya Brahmana, in the Brihardarayanka Upanishad
If we look in the Sakalya Brahmana ( Part of the Yajyavalkya Kanda) there is a questioning ( more of an interrogation) of Yajnavalkya muni. This was in the court of king Janaka, wishing to find out the most learned brahman of Kuru and Panchala, that he had assembled.
The question is asked ' how many gods are there' ? He starts with "three and three hundred and three and three thousand."
These are expressions of Brahman. When he finishes his discourse, as the questioning continues to ask "how many are there really?" Yajyavalkya says there is just One. And the questioners (Sakalya) asks, "Which is the one God", Yajyavalkya answers - "The cosmic vital force. That is Brahman. They (the wise is inferred here) denote It by the term tyat , (THAT)."


I know you know this, but perhaps worth mentioning. The expressions of Brahman is His creation.... the sun, moon, flowers, all this has this intelligence in it. It is easy to see that one of Sanatana Dharm may appreciate His creation in multiple ways. So, in some cases we see Him as the remover of Obstacles ( Ganesh), or the greatest of yogi's ( Siva), or as Divine Inspriation , Saraswati, or as abundence ( Lakshmi) - like that. It is all Tad Ekam, One without a second.


I think of it like a painters work... I like Monet's work. His work shows all different 'feelings' and perspectives e.g. Sun Setting of the Sea, in pastel, Towing of a boat, The Beach, House of Parliament (sunset). Like that, differnt flavors of life.
This is the view from a Sanatana Dharm view - His work, all different types, yet the same Painter, the Universal Painter, Brahman.

Hope this assists you... ask more questions and we will be here to help.


some additional HDF posts: http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?t=815



pranams,

Agnideva
14 September 2007, 10:48 PM
Namaste InX,

Some excellent answers have been given already. There are actually many ways to analyze this number 330 million Gods. Here are two that I am most familiar with:

1. 330 million is not symbolic, but the actual number of Mahadevas in the causal plane, the highest plane of existence. Just as there are billions of humans and animals in the physical world, there are trillions of Devas in the inner worlds, and 330 million Mahadevas in the causal plane who function through their causal bodies. They exist for the sole purpose of guiding and helping lower beings toward realization. This does not negate oneness, as no being in any plane of existence is separate or separable from the Supreme Being. This is summarized from the teachings of Sivaya Subramuniyaswami.

2. 330 million is a play on the number 33, which is the number of Gods in the Veda (Brahmā + Indra + 12 Adityas + 11 Rudras + 8 Vasus). In the Indian numeral system, the number 330 million (330,000,000) is written as 33,00,00,000 and pronounced 33 crore in Indian English or 33 karod (karoD) in Hindi or 33 koti (koTi) in Sanskrit. The idea that there are 33 koti Gods comes from the Rigveda. The term koti, however, has two important meanings. In one sense it means ten million (crore), but in another sense it means angle or edge. If we understand the term koti in the second sense, then the Rigveda is telling us that there are 33 angular Gods. In other words, the wholeness is to be visualized as a polygon with 33 sides or 33 angles. Each God is one side, one angle, one part of that polygon of wholeness. This idea gives us also new insight into the Rigvedic statement: 'Truth is one, wise call it many', and gives us a new appreciation as to why the Vedic hymns are addressed to many Gods. This is summarized from what I learned from a knowledgeable scholar of Sanatana Dharma.

OM Shanti,
A.

atanu
15 September 2007, 03:39 AM
Namaste All,

Koti means number.

Yajvan Ji and Agni Deva have explained well. Brahmā + Indra + 12 Adityas + 11 Rudras + 8 Vasus.

Christians should be taught the the word EKO of Rig Veda. And Christians should also be taught that EKO is ANEK -- all. Similar is the misconception, aided by many Hindus, about Linga that Linga means Phallus and that Hindus are phallus worshippers. Linga means 'indicatory mark'.

Om Namah Shivaya

yajvan
15 September 2007, 11:14 PM
Hari Om
~~~~~

Namaste All,

Koti means number.

Yajvan Ji and Agni Deva have explained well. Brahmā + Indra + 12 Adityas + 11 Rudras + 8 Vasus.

Christians should be taught the the word EKO of Rig Veda. And Christians should also be taught that EKO is ANEK -- all. Similar is the misconception, aided by many Hindus, about Linga that Linga means Phallus and that Hindus are phallus worshippers. Linga means 'indicatory mark'. Om Namah Shivaya

Namaste atanu,
I concur with the 33 devata , yet I still find the only reliable number that Yajnavalkya refers to in the Brihardarayanka Upanishad. He states that there are as many gods (devatata) that are stated in the nivaid, a set of hymns that invoke the devata, some say veshe-devata.


So, I have heard of the 330 million number, but as of yet have not found this number in the shastra. If someone has this information and can point to it as a reference, it would be good to view.


Yet , at the end of the day, its still Tad Ekam say the 'authorities' i.e. Yajnavalkya, That One, Brahman that is Reality. Of this there is no doubt in my mind as one studies and practices Vedanta.


On the Christianity side, we can count the Father-Son-Holy Spirit - the 3 in One. We also know that there is a spiritual affinity to Mother Mary, St. Joseph, St. Christopher, and many more. As we have a symbol of the Divine albeit a lingam, a shaligrama-shila , etc. so do our Christian friends have the Cross, a metal of St. Christopher, breaking of bread-and-wine, candles in the church and the like.

We are not so different... I look for the same-ness, the similarities, the blessings.


pranams,

atanu
16 September 2007, 09:49 AM
Hari Om
~~~~~
We are not so different... I look for the same-ness, the similarities, the blessings.
pranams,

Namaste Yajvan Ji,

That is so much the truth. Those who see the difference alone as the basis of denigrating the other, harm themselves. In such cases, the commonalities may be gently pointed to. Or the true meaning of scripture can be discussed.

Om

Madhavan
18 September 2007, 03:51 AM
I was recently on a thread in a Christian forum where a member inquired as to how to convert a Hindu friend. One of the responses provided a link to a site, which among other things, talked about Hinduism having 330 million gods. Now, I've heard that many times before from Christian sites arguing against Hinduism , but not until I visited this forum today and found an article from the Baptist Press in the "Politics - Current Affairs" forum stating the same thing ("He noted that Hindus claim there are 330 million gods.") did I get an idea of how prevalent this misconception really is.

I know the number itself is a symbolic one to represent the various forms of Brahman, but I'm not aware of the verse that led to this misinterpretation. If someone could assist me in finding more about this, I would be much obliged.

There are 33 gods as seen in the discussion between Yagnyavalkya and sakalya in the Bridhararanyaka Upanishad. The 330 million is a figure we arrive when we also consider the various manifestation of these gods. Infact, the number is infinite, so to speak...

Now, let us differentiate between God (cap 'G') and god.(small 'g'). The supreme God is Ishvara, who is the first cause of all creation and other gods. The gods are creations of the supreme God for the purpose of looking after the universe, as lokapAlas. The gods know the God to some extent, but they are not as wise or omniscient as the supreme Lord.

For eg, the eight vasus are the abhimAni devata (gaurdian diety) for the elements. The ten rudrAs are the gaurdian dieties for the ten indriyas( karmendriya andjnAnendriya) and the principal rudra( who is a manifestation of the supreme being) is the diety for the mind. The twelve Adityas are 'sun' gods who reveal the pratyagAtma(buddhi) in its various stages.

All these gods cannot be considered to be direct manifestation of the parabrahma(avatara) because they are assigned different levels of bliss and position in the cosmic scale. For eg, The Ananda valli section of Taittiriya Up grades it this way: Gandharva < Deva Gandharva < pitr < Karma devata < devata < indra < brihaspati< prajApati < brahma

There is no scriptual evidence to hold that all gods mentioned in the vedas are just different direct infinite manifestations of Brahman. All gods except the parabramha are finite iconic representations of the infinite self - just like other beings on earth.

atanu
18 September 2007, 05:30 AM
-----
For eg, the eight vasus are the abhimAni devata (gaurdian diety) for the elements. The ten rudrAs are the gaurdian dieties for the ten indriyas( karmendriya andjnAnendriya) and the principal rudra( who is a manifestation of the supreme being) is the diety for the mind. -----.


Namaste Madhavan,

Rig Veda

&#224; b/&#230;ve? v&;/-ay? i&#241;tI/ce m/hae m/hI su?&#242;u/itm! $?ryaim ,
n/m/Sya k?LmlI/ikn</ nmae?i-rœ g&[I/mis? Tve/;< &#233;/&#212;Sy/ nam? . 2-033-08

iSw/rei-/rœ A&#188;E>? pu&#233;/&#234;p? &#37;/&#162;ae b/&#230;u> zu/&#179;ei->? ipipze/ ihr?{yE> ,
$za?nadœ A/Sy -uv?nSy/ -Ure/rœ n va %? yae;dœ &#233;/&#212;adœ A?su/yRm! . 2-033-09

AhR?n! ib-i;R/ say?kain/ xNvahR?n! in/:k< y?j/t< iv/&#241;&#234;?pm! ,
AhR?&#218;! #/d< d?yse/ iv&#241;/m! A_v</ n va AaejI?yae &#233;&#212;/ Tvdœ A?iSt . 2-033-10

Stu/ih &#239;u/t< g?tR/sd</ yuva?nm! m&/g< n -I/mm! %?ph/&#198;um! %/&#162;m! ,
m&/&#166;a j?ir/&#199;e &#233;?&#212;/ Stva?nae =/Ny< te? A/Smn! in v?pNtu/ sena>? . 2-033-11


2.033.08 I address infinite and earnest praise to the showerer (of benefits), the cherisher (of all), the white-complexioned; adore the consumer (of sin), with prostrations; we glorify the illustrious name of Rudra

2.033.09 (Firm) with strong limbs, assuming many forms fierce, and tawny-coloured, he shines with brilliant golden ornaments; vigour is inseparable from Rudra, the supreme ruler and lord of this Universe (Isha).

2.033.10 Worthy (of reverence), you bear arrows and a bow; worthy (of praise), you wear an adorable and omniform necklace; worthy (of adoration), you preseve all this vast universe; there is no one more powerful than you.

2.033.11 Glorify the renowned Rudra, riding in his car (the body), ever youthful, destructive, fierce like a formidable wild beast; Rudra, propitiated by praise, grant happiness to him who praises (you), and let your hosts destroy him who is our adversary.

--------------------------

The white One has assumed many forms (Visvarupa), is Isha, and presides in the body like a Lion.

Om Namah Shivaya

Madhavan
18 September 2007, 06:27 AM
Brihadaranyaka Up.

3.9.3:
katame vasava iti. agnis ca prthivi ca vayus cantariksam cadityas ca dyaus ca candramas ca naksatrani ca, ete vasavah, etesu hidam sarvam hitam iti, tasmad vasava iti.

"What are these Vasus which are eight in number?" "Fire is one deity; earth is one deity; air is another; the atmosphere is one deity; the sun is one deity; the heaven is one deity; moon is one deity; the stars are one deity. These constitute eight groups" - agnis ca prthivi ca vayus cantariksam cadityas ca dyaus ca candramas ca naksatrani ca. Ete vasavah: "Why do you call them Vasus?" Vasu is that in which something resides. Now, these things mentioned here, eight in number, are really the substances, in a subtle form, out of which everything is made, including our own selves.

3.9.4:
katame rudra iti. daseme puruse pranah atmaikadasah; te yadasmat sariran martyad utkramanti, atha rodayanti, tad yad rodayanti, tasmad rudra iti.

"Who are the Rudras?" They are inside us, operating in a particular manner. The powers which constitute the Rudras are the ten senses and the mind. They are eleven in number. "The ten senses and the mind make eleven. These are the Rudras."

3.9.5
katama aditya iti. dvadasa vai masah samvatsarasya, eta adityah, ete hidam sarvam adadana yanti; te yad idam sarvam adadana yanti, tasmad aditya iti.

"What are the twelve Adityas, the suns?" They are twelve forces of the sun," twelve functions of the sun, twelve ways in which the sun's energy works.

3.9.6:
katama indrah, katamah prajapatir iti, stanayitnur evendrah, yajnah prajapatir iti. katamah stanayitnur iti. asanir iti. katamo yajna iti, pasava iti.
....

rudra is ONE. rudrA are many.

The word rudra may have different meanings in different contexts - it can denote either the paramAtma or the jIva. Taken in singular, rudra is usually the paramAtma, taken in plural, it refers to the jIvas.

atanu
19 September 2007, 08:35 AM
The following should be pertinent in this post

The One... Tad Ekam

Prof. Pannikar translates Vedic verses on the One Supreme Being
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

All beings they unite and separate. They support the mighty Gods, but do not tremble. The One is lord over all things, fixed or moving, walking or flying--this whole multiform creation. From afar I perceive the Ancient One, the Father of mighty power, the Generator, our connection, singing the praise of whom the Gods, stationed on their own broad pathway, go about their business.

Rig Veda 3.54.8-9


The One, without moving, supports six burdens. The cows have gone to him, the highest Instance.

Rig Veda 3.56.2ab


Only One is the Fire, enkindled in numerous ways; only One is the Sun, pervading this whole universe; only One is the Dawn, illuminating all things. In very truth, the One has become the whole world!

Rig Veda 8.58.2


Assemble all, with prayer to the Lord of heaven, He is the One, the all-pervading, the guest of men. He, the ancient of days, abides in the present. Him, the One, the many follow on their path.

Atharva Veda 7.21


By their words the inspired sages impart manifold forms to that Bird which is the One.

Rig Veda 10.114.5ab


As fire which is one, on entering creation, conforms its own form to the form of each being, so also the One, the atman within all beings, assumes all forms, yet exists outside. As the wind, which is one, on entering creation, conforms its own form to the form of each being, so also the One, the atman within all beings, assumes all forms, yet exists outside. As the sun, the eye of the whole world, is not touched by external blemishes seen by the eye, so the One, the atman within all beings, is not touched by the sufferings of the world. He remains apart. The One, the Controller, the atman within all beings, the One who makes his own form manifold--the wise who perceive him established in themselves attain--and no others--everlasting joy.

Krishna Yajur Veda, Katha Upanishad 5.1-14


Power entered within him. He is the One, the Onefold, the only One. In him all the Gods become unified. Fame and glory, fruitfulness and fertility, Brahman splendor, food and nourishment, belong to him who knows this God as One only. Not second or third or fourth is he called--he who knows this God as One only. Not fifth or sixth or seventh is he called--he who knows this God as One only. Not eighth or ninth or tenth is he called--he who knows this God as One only. He watches over all existent beings, those that breathe and those that breathe not. Power entered within him. He is the One, the Onefold, the only One. In him all the Gods become unified.

Atharva Veda 13.4.12-21


That, verily, is Agni. The Sun is that, the Wind is that, the Moon is that. That is the Light, that is Brahman, that is the Waters, Prajapati is He. All moments originated from the Person like lightning. No one has comprehended Him, above, across, or in the center. There is no image of Him whose name is Great Glory.

Yajur Veda 32.1-3


Eye cannot see Him, nor words reveal Him; by the senses, austerity, or worksHe is not known. When the mind is cleansed by the grace of wisdom, He is seen by contemplation--the One without parts.

Atharva Veda, Mundaka Upanishad 3.1.8


He who lives in us as our guide, who is one, and yet appears in many forms, in whom the hundred lights of heaven are one, in whom the Vedas are one, in whom the priests are one--He is the spiritual atman within the person.

Krishna Yajur Veda, Taittiriya Upanishad 3.2.1

Om

yajvan
19 September 2007, 12:32 PM
Hari Om
~~~~~


Namaste atanu and Madhavan,
I have read your posts, thank you. Can you help? I am asking this question for others that may not be familur with some of the veda's and the words used, connotations, etc. and I am also asking one question for me.

Can you advise what the original question was and how the posts apply ( solve or answer the question)... and can you help the reader understand the meaning of the posts, the symbols and conclusions one can draw from the readings.

I think ( and this is just me ) this will assist others and give them a higher level of appreciation of the posts you folks have been kind enough to submit.

pranams,

atanu
20 September 2007, 12:05 AM
Hari Om
~~~~~

Namaste atanu and Madhavan,
I have read your posts, thank you. Can you help? -

Can you advise what the original question was and how the posts apply ( solve or answer the question)... ----
pranams,

Namaste Yajvan,

The original question related to the origin of the mumber 33 Koti. Agni says 33 angles. I say that Koti means number. You and Madhavan showed the reference of Brihad Arayanaka and said 'Nivaid, and visvedeva. (And this is how there are 330 million or more gods as many mouths.)

Only some more emphasis on THE ONE LORD with citations from the Vedas was required.

But I do not know what nivaid is?

Om

atanu
20 September 2007, 12:33 AM
In fact the Brihad Aranyanaka says "God is one who breathes (pavate is the actual word)". To enquire into and meditate on one who breathes is a bit unsettling. One finds nothing material that can breathe.

Om Namah Shivaya

Madhavan
20 September 2007, 01:28 AM
Hari Om
~~~~~


Namaste atanu and Madhavan,
I have read your posts, thank you. Can you help? I am asking this question for others that may not be familur with some of the veda's and the words used, connotations, etc. and I am also asking one question for me.

Can you advise what the original question was and how the posts apply ( solve or answer the question)... and can you help the reader understand the meaning of the posts, the symbols and conclusions one can draw from the readings.

I think ( and this is just me ) this will assist others and give them a higher level of appreciation of the posts you folks have been kind enough to submit.

pranams,

Namaste,

The original question was "how many gods are there in the vedic literature?".

A simple answer would be ONE, if by God is meant the highest being, denoted by paramam padam. So, why does not the veda simply state that there is one God instead of confusing others with many names and forms? Why does it have to enumerate 33, then 6 then 3 then 2 then 1.5 and then 1?

At the highest level of truth, there is exactly one God, infact only God exists, all alone without a second. In the phenomenal reality, this is inadmissible because we cognize many. The universe of dualty is conceived of in many ways, as constituting of many principles. Each principle is associated with a 'godly power' because the components of dualty are insentient and cannot function on their own.

For eg:

The Lord of the elements are the vasus. They abide in these elements.
The Lord of the mind is rudra.
The Lord of the karmedriyas are five rudrAs. ( equivalent to one of the ashvini devata)
The Lord of the jnAnendriyas are five rudrAs.( the other ashvini devata)
The Lord of Buddhi are the Adiytas.
The overlord of all these gods is Indra
Brahma is the Lord of Indra, and thus Lord of all dualty(creation).

There are many more Gods if we subdivide these principles, for eg, mind itself can be partitioned into functions like religeous thoughts, evil thoughts, good thoughts etc, each of which have a presiding diety. Theoretically, the possibilities are endless. But it can be narrowed down to thirty three main principles.

These gods are manifestations of Brahma, but represent only a certain aspect of Brahma, and consequently do not represent the full divinity.

Special forms of meditation and worship(puja) may be done to these individual dieties for achieveing specific material and spiritual goals. For eg, those who pray to Ashvini devatas will acheive robust physical and astral health and conseuqently good spiritual health, because they are the gaurdians of the senses. Those who pray to rudra will become mentally pure because rudra is the controller of the mind.

All these worship ultimately go to Lord Brahma, and through him to Para Brahman, who cannot be directly worshipped as he is beyond speech and thought. On the other hand, one may directly worship the Brahman in his fullness if one is truly capable. Most of us are not.

Those most people would like to argue about the superiority of certain Gods, one should note that it is impossible for the common man to go beyond the god of elements. All idol/picture worship is that of the vasus. All meditation(mental worship) is that of rudra. Hatha yoga and similar pratices concentrate on the indriyas. and hence the dieties of the senses.

True worship of Vishnu or Shiva is possible only in samAdhi when you really know the true nature. Worshipping an icon of Vishnu is effectively reaching only upto the Lord of the elements, and only indirectly reaching Vishnu. All these physical forms of god are thus quite equivalent as far as the common man is concerned. The higher divinities are quite different from each other at the empirical level( functionally), though the difference can be comprehended only a yogi.

In Gita 6.47, Krishna says this:


And of all yogis, the one with great faith who always abides in Me, thinks of Me within
himself, and renders worship to Me −− he is the most intimately united
with Me in yoga and is the highest of all. That is My opinion.

Now, this verse must not be misinterpretd to show that 'Krishna' worship is superior to others, and hence Hinduism supports many gods. It is supposed to mean that worshipping God with the highest knowledge of God is superior to the worship with a lower knowledge of God. Some one should not come to a conclusion ( like the ISKCON) that worshipping a picture of Krishna is superior to say worshiping a picture of Shiva or Devi. All picture and idol worship are equiavlent, and Krishna's words are meant for the highest Yogi who is close to approaching self realization, and understands Krishna for what his real nature is.

atanu
20 September 2007, 08:15 AM
Namaste All,

Though I do not have the scripture at hand, but that God created 33 Koti devas is indicated in Shiva Purana.

Now Koti is Class/Group/Number primarily.
Or Koti is a Crore also.

Both are true. Since 33 classes of Devas assist God (as shown above from Brihad. Up.). And God, the ONE truth, animates all and is immanent in all beings.

Note: I suggest that one should never argue with a christian, whose minds are made of flesh (material brain) and whose Holy Spirit is also fleshy.


Om

yajvan
20 September 2007, 08:25 AM
Hari Om
~~~~~

Namaste,

Now, this verse must not be misinterpreted to show that 'Krishna' worship is superior to others, and hence Hinduism supports many gods. It is supposed to mean that worshipping God with the highest knowledge of God is superior to the worship with a lower knowledge of God. Some one should not come to a conclusion ( like the ISKCON) that worshipping a picture of Krishna is superior to say worshiping a picture of Shiva or Devi. All picture and idol worship are equivalent, and Krishna's words are meant for the highest Yogi who is close to approaching self realization, and understands Krishna for what his real nature is.

Namaste Madhavan,
A very good and insightlful post. I agree that ~perfect~ is found in samadhi or pure consciousness to give it a different word ( only for perspective). This is a state of non-duality and our perfect alignment to Tad Ekam.

Now what you say about Krsna is true - and a very touchy subject. He is the Universal Self, One without a second, He is Rudra, Siva, Visnu, Devi.

Yet this is a sensitive subject as some take issue with this notion. I am comfortable with this and with Krnsa's Universal Absoluteness, and that of Brahman, of Fullness. This allows me to adore Him as Siva, or Rudra, Devi, Visnu, and considser His status as Maha-Visnu.

One must ponder the notion: Vishnuh -Veveshti Vyaapnoti iti Vishnuh - That which pervades everywhere is Vishnu; How is this differnt then Brahman? then Rudra? or Mother Divine?

Sanatna Dharma is so rich with the development of His grace (prasadha) that one must ask: are we talking of Purusottama of the Vedic period ( Agni, Indra, Varuna, Maruts, Vayu, etc) or that of the Puranas? In the Puranas there is a different apporach of offering Purusa to the asperiant/native and sadhu.

Yet we must be mature as this Sanatana Dharma addresses Brahman, that IT expands and covers all shastras. If one is oriented to Krsna/Kevasa this is grand. Let him/her have the enlightened vision that his/her fellow sadhu chooses to see this Brahman as Siva, or Tripurasundhari, or Durga, Skanda, Ganesh.

It is the enlightened that can walk into any Mandir and bow to all, for His Love is in every atom, crevice and creek. As the Brihaharanaka Upanishad says, the Self has entered here in all bodies up to their nail-ends ( or our fingertips and their nails) even as a razor into the razor case or fire in wood. [Purushavidha Brahmana]

This is the wisdom, as I see it, that you have offered in your post...thank you.

Ekam sad; vipra bahudha vadanti Rig Veda I.164.46 rsi dirghatamas

pranams,

atanu
20 September 2007, 09:01 AM
Hari Om

-----
Sanatna Dharma is so rich with the development of His grace (prasadha) that one must ask: are we talking of Purusottama of the Vedic period ( Agni, Indra, Varuna, Maruts, Vayu, etc) or that of the Puranas? In the Puranas there is a different apporach of offering Purusa to the asperiant/native and sadhu.

Yet we must be mature as this Sanatana Dharma addresses Brahman, that IT expands and covers all shastras. ----
pranams,


Namaste Yajvan Ji,

I have seen two kinds of religious people. One class of people force down on others that "Jesus Christ is the only way", forgetting Yahweh. And second class know Jesus as a time constrined appearance of Yahweh, of the eternal "I Am".

The same happens here.

It is true, as you say that IT expands and covers all shastras. Yet, it is true by the force of Shruti, that the demonic minded were happy with half truths whereas only Indra came back again and again to Prajapati to get the knowledge of the Self.

It is also a shruti, that Prajapati did not teach the Auras the truth for certain reasons and that anything other than Vedas do not reveal the truth.


Now regarding many gods being form of One alone, I cite my favourite verses herein.

“Yajur Veda iv. 4. 8.

(Thou “I” art) all overcoming through Agni; self-ruling through the sun; lord of strength through might; creator with the bull; bountiful through the sacrifice; heavenly through the sacrificial fee; slayer of enemies through rage; supporter of the body through kindliness; wealth through food; through the earth he hath won; (thou art) eater of food with verses; increased by the Vasat cry; protector of the body through the Saman; full of light with the Viraj; drinker of Soma through the holy power; with cows he supporteth the sacrifice; with lordly power men; with horse and car bearer of the bolt; lord with the seasons; enclosing with the year; unassailable through penance; the sun with bodies.”

YV iv. 4. 9.
(Thou art) Prajapati in with Soma in the mind; the creator in the consecration; Savitr in the bearing; Pusan in the cow for the purchase of the Soma; Varuna when bound (in the cloth); Asura in the being bought; Mitra when purchased; &#199;ipivista when put in place; delighter of men when being drawn forward; the overlord on arrival; Prajapati being led on; Agni at the Agnidh’s altar; Brhaspati on being led from the Agnidh’s altar; Indra at the oblation-holder; Aditi when put in place; Visnu when being taken down; Atharvan when made wet; Yama when pressed out; drinker of unpurified (Soma) when being cleansed; Vayu when purifying; Mitra as mixed with milk; the Manthin when mixed with groats; that of the All-gods when taken out; Rudra when offered; Vayu when covered up; the gazer on men when revealed; the food when it comes; the famed of the fathers; life when taken; the river when going to the final bath; the ocean when gone; the water when dipped; the heaven when arrived at completion.
-----------------------------

The beauty is that He (the "I") is the ruler through Agni, Sun, Soma (Bull) etc. And IT is also --Visnu when being taken down, or Rudra when offered worship etc. etc. He is all these Vedic gods, the manifestation and all beings.

Some hold on to shadows (puranic fleshy lores as the final truth), some try to see beyond the shadow (beyond the flesh and beyond the dark to the light).


Mahanarayana Upanishad
ekavi.nsho.anuvaakaH


iishaanaH sarvavidyaanaamiishvaraH sarvabhuutaanaaMbrahmaadhipatirbrahmaNo.adhipatirbrahmaa shivo me astu sadaashivom.h

XXI-1: May the Supreme Lord who is the ruler of all knowledge, controller of all created beings, the preserver of the Vedas and the one overlord of Hiranyagarbha, be auspicious to me. I am the Sadasiva described thus and denoted by Pranava.

Om Namah Shivaya

Madhavan
20 September 2007, 10:03 AM
Namaste,


Yet this is a sensitive subject as some take issue with this notion. I am comfortable with this and with Krnsa's Universal Absoluteness, and that of Brahman, of Fullness. This allows me to adore Him as Siva, or Rudra, Devi, Visnu, and considser His status as Maha-Visnu.


All these ard one, but also different too. Otherwise, scripture will not confuse its readers with many unwanted ideas. We must know how they are different in the vyavahArika and how they are ONE in the paramArtika.

Sensitve? Yes. Gita, read in first person(Krishna as "I") and third person (Krishna as Brahman) have slightly different interpretations, though neither challenges the Absoluteness of Krishna.



One must ponder the notion: Vishnuh -Veveshti Vyaapnoti iti Vishnuh - That which pervades everywhere is Vishnu; How is this differnt then Brahman? then Rudra? or Mother Divine?


The word Brahman comes from BRhad, meaning complete(perfect). The word Vishnu is etymologically equivalent with Brahman, and if one compares it with the antaryAmi brAmaNa, we can easily see that Vishnu is equivalent with Atma which pervades all and is the innermost self of all beings. The same thing is true with the word nArAyaNa( which has 42 meanings as far as I know!). Thus the word 'Vishnu' brings out the Brahman in its fullest sense. Other names of Brahman do not bring out the fullest implication of Brahman, though they refer to Brahman alone. Words like Indra(shining), vAyu(striking{ at evil influences}), rudra(one who makes the wicked cry, or the the one who cries), agni( one who initiates the spiritual journey) etc bring out only a partial meaning of Brahman.

We should note that all these names are only for Saguna Brahman, ie Brahman viewed from the POV of mAyA. Nirguna Brahman cannot be assigned any name theoretically.




It is the enlightened that can walk into any Mandir and bow to all, for His Love is in every atom, crevice and creek. As the Brihaharanaka Upanishad says, the Self has entered here in all bodies up to their nail-ends ( or our fingertips and their nails) even as a razor into the razor case or fire in wood. [Purushavidha Brahmana]

This is the wisdom, as I see it, that you have offered in your post...thank you.



Yes, those who see differences between the different forms of God will go from death to death - this much is certain.

atanu
20 September 2007, 11:42 AM
Namaskar Madhavan,


Namaste,
All these ard one, but also different too. --


??????????



The word Brahman comes from BRhad, meaning complete(perfect). The word Vishnu is etymologically equivalent with Brahman, and if one compares it with the antaryAmi brAmaNa, we can easily see that Vishnu is equivalent with Atma which pervades all and is the innermost self of all beings. The same thing is true with the word nArAyaNa( which has 42 meanings as far as I know!). Thus the word 'Vishnu' brings out the Brahman in its fullest sense. Other names of Brahman do not bring out the fullest implication of Brahman, though they refer to Brahman alone. Words like Indra(shining), vAyu(striking{ at evil influences}), rudra(one who makes the wicked cry, or the the one who cries), agni( one who initiates the spiritual journey) etc bring out only a partial meaning of Brahman.

We should note that all these names are only for Saguna Brahman, ie Brahman viewed from the POV of mAyA. Nirguna Brahman cannot be assigned any name theoretically.


Madhavan, you are talking in terms of understood meaning of names. Understanding is very imaginative. What of these then, where it is said: Thou “I” art and Thou art Visnu when being taken down, etc. etc.?

Yajur Veda iv. 4. 8.

(Thou “I” art) all overcoming through Agni; self-ruling through the sun; lord of strength through might; creator with the bull; bountiful through the sacrifice; heavenly through the sacrificial fee; slayer of enemies through rage; supporter of the body through kindliness; wealth through food; through the earth he hath won; (thou art) eater of food with verses; increased by the Vasat cry; protector of the body through the Saman; full of light with the Viraj; drinker of Soma through the holy power; with cows he supporteth the sacrifice; with lordly power men; with horse and car bearer of the bolt; lord with the seasons; enclosing with the year; unassailable through penance; the sun with bodies.”

YV iv. 4. 9.
(Thou art) Prajapati in with Soma in the mind; the creator in the consecration; Savitr in the bearing; Pusan in the cow for the purchase of the Soma; Varuna when bound (in the cloth); Asura in the being bought; Mitra when purchased; Çipivista when put in place; delighter of men when being drawn forward; the overlord on arrival; Prajapati being led on; Agni at the Agnidh’s altar; Brhaspati on being led from the Agnidh’s altar; Indra at the oblation-holder; Aditi when put in place; Visnu when being taken down; Atharvan when made wet; Yama when pressed out; drinker of unpurified (Soma) when being cleansed; Vayu when purifying; Mitra as mixed with milk; the Manthin when mixed with groats; that of the All-gods when taken out; Rudra when offered; Vayu when covered up; the gazer on men when revealed; the food when it comes; the famed of the fathers; life when taken; the river when going to the final bath; the ocean when gone; the water when dipped; the heaven when arrived at completion.
--------

Mahanarayana Upanishad

ekavi.nsho.anuvaakaH

iishaanaH sarvavidyaanaamiishvaraH sarvabhuutaanaaMbrahmaadhipatirbrahmaNo.adhipatirbrahmaa shivo me astu sadaashivom.h

XXI-1: May the Supreme Lord who is the ruler of all knowledge, controller of all created beings, the preserver of the Vedas and the one overlord of Hiranyagarbha, be auspicious to me. I am the Sadasiva described thus and denoted by Pranava.
--------------------------

You are correct that all these are at Saguna level. But, the Advaita being should have no need to pervade anything.

Yet at transcendental level, the only ephitet used for Turya Brahman is Good. See, you can't say that Vishnu is not auspicious. A muslim cannot say that Alah is inauspicious. No one can say that they consider their Lord to be inauspicious.

Goodness is. It is the common, whether as Advaita or as the Sutratman .



Yes, those who see differences between the different forms of God will go from death to death - this much is certain.

When there are different forms how can there be no 'death to death'? How can different forms or boundaries dividing the forms be seen, yet no difference will be seen?

First every form has to be understood as form of consciousness (third state of Self). The world is resoved in Pragnya (Mandukya). And then the owner of that Pragnya has to be sought.


Regards

Om Namah Shivaya

Madhavan
20 September 2007, 12:56 PM
Namaste Atanu,





Madhavan, you are talking in terms of understood meaning of names. Understanding is very imaginative. What of these then, where it is said: Thou “I” art and Thou art Visnu when being taken down, etc. etc.?

Yajur Veda iv. 4. 8.


You did not understand what I said:

All the names like agni, vAyu, indra carry some meanings which are applicable to every soul in this world to some degree.

Take indra - shining. Infact this is applicable to many entities in the world. Even gold 'shines'.

vAyu - strikes( the evil). This term can be applied to a number of personalities ranging from a police, a judge, a king, Lord Yama

rudra - one who causes the wicked to cry(suffer). This is a generic term and can be applied to a number of contexts.

Vishnu - the all pervasive, in terms of space, time, qualities etc and inner controller of all beings. Note that this word can refer only to the supreme being and no person or being other than the supreme being can be called Vishnu, since only the Atma pervades all.

Brahman - the complete, or the perfect. Again only the supreme Lord, since nobody else is complete or perfect.

Rama - one who pleases( the mind). A generic name.

Krishna - dark or attractive. Generic name.

Shiva - auspicious, again generic name.

Hari - bearing, carrying etc. Generic.

Hara - bearing, destroyer. Generic.

Only certain words can refer unambiguosly to Atma, with Brahman and Vishnu being amongst them. Of course, I am referring only the subtleties of the name itself. You are free to provide other names that can represent only the supreme being - an example would be jagat kartA.

Madhavan
20 September 2007, 01:04 PM
When there are different forms how can there be no 'death to death'? How can different forms or boundaries dividing the forms be seen, yet no difference will be seen?

First every form has to be understood as form of consciousness (third state of Self). The world is resoved in Pragnya (Mandukya). And then the owner of that Pragnya has to be sought.


Regards

Om Namah Shivaya

Obviously, this statement was valid only from the POV a bhakta who worships God. Not referring to a self realized soul. If you see differences between forms of God as a bhakta, you are still under the grip of mAyA that creates differences.

yajvan
20 September 2007, 04:14 PM
Hari Om
~~~~~

Namaste Atanu,
You did not understand what I said:

Vishnu, since only the Atma pervades all.

Brahman - the complete, or the perfect. Again only the supreme Lord, since nobody else is complete or perfect.

Rama - one who pleases( the mind). A generic name.

Krishna - dark or attractive. Generic name.

Shiva - auspicious, again generic name.

Hari - bearing, carrying etc. Generic.

Hara - bearing, destroyer. Generic.

Only certain words can refer unambiguosly to Atma, with Brahman and Vishnu being amongst them. Of course, I am referring only the subtleties of the name itself. You are free to provide other names that can represent only the supreme being - an example would be jagat kartA.

Namste Madhavan and atanu (et.al)

I thought I would add a few ideas on name-form and word value with some dhatu (root) information; This is in addition to the definitions offered by Madhavan.

Brahman - at its root is bhr - to expand; yet to what ? greater then the greatest. Also note that in the ved, the mantras are also identified as Brahman, that of this 'perfectness' you call out.

Visnu - That which pervades everywhere is Vishnu. What a beautiful word and the paradigm of Brahman.

Rama - yes delight!
Ra represents the root letter for Agni. "Aa" represents the letter for the moon. "Ma" represents the root letter for the sun. What does Agni signify? It destroys everything and reduces it to ashes. The letter "R" has the power to destroy all the sins committed by man. The letter "Aa" (symbolizing the moon) has the powers of cooling the fevers man suffers from and conferring peace on him. "Ma" represents the sun who dispels the darkness of ignorance and confers illumination of wisdom. Hence, the word Rama has the right triple power of destroying sins, conferring peace and dispelling ignorance. how could this not bring delight?

Hari -
ha + ra + i. Hakara pingala varna or "the syllable ha means that there is no sense of the body." Further it is said that sarva varna varottamam "It (ha) is the supreme letter." Rakara teja varna sat: "The syllable ra is the power of God in the body." Ikara shakti dayaka: "The letter i is the life of God given in you".

So ha + ra + iis Hari, who is inhaling your breath. Hari comes from harati avidyam iti hari&#224;, "he who dispels darkness of ignorance". According to Lahiri Mahasaya, Hari means "one who steals". When the jiva stage is stolen from you, the resulting stillness is Hari.

Krsna
we know this word as dark ( some say like the rain cloud). krs =black or dark ; krs is also considered truth/existence or sat + na = bliss ( as we find in NArayaNa)
When we look at this word we also can see the derivation of Aa-karsha-na or the one that is the enchanter of all His devotees. There are other derivations - I thought these were promising.


Siva शिव - Auspicious;
Is it not interesting how close Siva is to śāva शाव ? and to Hara हर ( to take away); that is, destruction, most think of the universe... ok. But of ignorance and re-birth is key. This 'hr' sound in Hara and Hari is 'to take'.

Hence it is easy to see Rudra to Siva. As the root of Rudra is 'rud' to weep or cry. The Rudrah ( the 11 of them) when they leave the body, then one is deceased, and family/friends are left to cry.


And with Madha-van - one that is madhya , or 'central' of middle;
मध्यम madhyama or neutral, impartial. What is that , that is central, and middle? One that is in balance. Sama or same-ness, calmness, pure 'I' Consciousness. This is the saksin or the witnessing SELF.

With atanu अतनु - important, significant; And what does atanu do that is important? His inquiry, posts to HDF and brilliance or tejasvin. Yet more important...
the pursuit of the SELF, of Uttama Purusha [ ud = up and tama is best or highest ] Purusa is pur-son or person. In this case it is the cosmic Person; Hence the important pursuit of Uttama Purusha, the Supreme Self/Spirit.

pranams,

atanu
21 September 2007, 12:02 AM
Namaste Atanu,
You did not understand what I said:
-----
Vishnu - the all pervasive, in terms of space, time, qualities etc and inner controller of all beings. Note that this word can refer only to the supreme being and no person or being other than the supreme being can be called Vishnu, since only the Atma pervades all.
-----
Shiva - auspicious, again generic name.
----

Namaste Madhavan,

Your understanding is without flaw in the vyavarika. But, you ignore the verses cited from Vedas. The root of the words are thoughts in the mind. There are no manifest words in Param Vyom; only the infinite goodness exists.

Names are after the thought. Atma being Advaita, the 'all pervasive' can only be from Vyavarika, a step towards understanding --- the ONE BEING, wherein 'all pervasive' will lose meaning.

Else the following would not be true.

IV-18: When ignorance is dispelled, there is neither day nor night, neither being nor non-being. There is only that Auspicious One who is imperishable, and who is worthy of being adored by the creator. From Him has proceeded the ancient wisdom.

And this also would not be true.

YV iv. 4. 9.
(Thou art) Prajapati in with Soma in the mind; --- Aditi when put in place; Visnu when being taken down; ---Rudra when offered; --- the heaven when arrived at completion.

----------------------------------
Soma is Hari.

Regards,

Om Namah Shivaya

atanu
21 September 2007, 12:22 AM
Namaste Midhvan, this is for you

(A knowing mistake, to instill enquiry).


3.9.4:
katame rudra iti. daseme puruse pranah atmaikadasah; te yadasmat sariran martyad utkramanti, atha rodayanti, tad yad rodayanti, tasmad rudra iti.

Then you have written:
The Lord of the elements are the vasus. They abide in these elements.
The Lord of the mind is rudra.
The Lord of the karmedriyas are five rudrAs. ( equivalent to one of the ashvini devata)
The Lord of the jnAnendriyas are five rudrAs.( the other ashvini devata)
--
The overlord of all these gods is Indra
Brahma is the Lord of Indra, and thus Lord of all dualty(creation).


-------------------
Please check "daseme puruse pranah atmaikadasah".

And ponder. Whether Indra has one "daseme puruse pranah atmaikadasah" or not?

Ponder whether Prajapati has one "daseme puruse pranah atmaikadasah" or not?
-------------------

Ponder whether Atma is cuttable/divisible or not? Ponder whether Atma is shivoAdvaita or not?
------------------
Ponder whether existence will remain without daseme puruse pranah atmaikadasah or not?

Ponder why there is only ONE GOD (as taught by Yajnavalka)?

Ponder why Svet. Up. says: Eko Hi Rudro. Dvittiya nasthu.
-----------------------
This Atma is Brahman.

Madhavan, What you passed off as Lord of the Mind has great implication. And mind you I do not see any difference since "Eko Hi Rudro. Dvittiya nasthu"

Madhavan please do ponder with open mind before replying.

Om Namah Shivaya

atanu
21 September 2007, 03:50 AM
Namaste Atanu,
---
Only certain words can refer unambiguosly to Atma, with Brahman and Vishnu being amongst them. Of course, I am referring only the subtleties of the name itself. You are free to provide other names that can represent only the supreme being - an example would be jagat kartA.

Namaste Madhavan,

Why should a reference be required for Atman at all? Atma is Atma (the very Self), very direct, Pratyaksha. More Pratyaksha than a fruit on one's palm and certainly more pratyaksha than various meanings of a word.

Sanatana dharma, however, is richest because of one word "Atma".

Yajur Veda iv. 4. 8.

(Thou “I” art) all overcoming through Agni; self-ruling through the sun; lord of strength through might; creator with the bull; bountiful through the sacrifice; heavenly through the sacrificial fee; slayer of enemies through rage; supporter of the body through kindliness; wealth through food; ------

YV iv. 4. 9.
(Thou art) Prajapati in with Soma in the mind; --- Aditi when put in place; Visnu when being taken down; ---Rudra when offered; --- the heaven when arrived at completion.


Om

atanu
21 September 2007, 04:35 AM
Namaste Atanu,
-----
Vishnu - the all pervasive, in terms of space, time, qualities etc and inner controller of all beings. Note that this word can refer only to the supreme being and no person or being other than the supreme being can be called Vishnu, since only the Atma pervades all.
---

Namaste Madhavan,

Just a last post, before I withdraw permanently from this discussion.

Regarding All Pervasiveness: Ether is all pervasive, Vayu is so, agni is so, etc etc. Moreover, the verse below shows that Vishnu is begat.

Book 9 RV Book 9 HYMN XCVI. Soma Pavamana

5 Father of holy hymns, Soma flows onward the Father of the earth, Father of heaven: Father of Agni, Surya's generator, the Father who begat Indra and Visnu.
-------------------------------------

So, the Supreme Being has a birth?

Analysis of names and vichara as to which name is greater than than which other is a job of grammarians, not of mystics. Rig Veda has left us no other way but to accept only the Atma as the One and All. Comprehension of Atma requires no other aid but Atma itself, which has been called shivo in shruti.

Regards

Om

Madhavan
26 September 2007, 02:37 AM
Namaste Atanu,


Namaste Madhavan,
Your understanding is without flaw in the vyavarika. But, you ignore the verses cited from Vedas. The root of the words are thoughts in the mind. There are no manifest words in Param Vyom; only the infinite goodness exists.
Names are after the thought. Atma being Advaita, the 'all pervasive' can only be from Vyavarika, a step towards understanding --- the ONE BEING, wherein 'all pervasive' will lose meaning.
Else the following would not be true.
IV-18: When ignorance is dispelled, there is neither day nor night, neither being nor non-being. There is only that Auspicious One who is imperishable, and who is worthy of being adored by the creator. From Him has proceeded the ancient wisdom.
And this also would not be true.
YV iv. 4. 9.
(Thou art) Prajapati in with Soma in the mind; --- Aditi when put in place; Visnu when being taken down; ---Rudra when offered; --- the heaven when arrived at completion.


Why are you getting the impression that I am trying to compare various Gods? I have not done that at all. I have only compared the various names of Brahman. Nirguna Brahman has no name. As you have yourself said, all gods exist in vyavarika, and are as real as you and me. So why should we not talk about them?

The answer to the question of 330 millions gods has any relevance only in the vyavahara because the many god concept is not mere fiction, it is always explained with respect to the role of the god as a tattvAbhimAni devata...answering that question from the paramArta is almost useless.




Regarding All Pervasiveness: Ether is all pervasive, Vayu is so, agni is so, etc etc. Moreover, the verse below shows that Vishnu is begat.


Where are you getting this info from?
Ether pervades gross elements only. Does ether pervade the mind? Does vayu or agni pervade the avyakta? The answer is no.

Regarding vayu, agni etc - these are gods who come under the pale of ignorance.( see Kena, third chap) and could not be associated with the paramAtma as such. These are jnAnins who have not completely overcome karma that they frequently experience jnAna tirodAna, how can you call them all pervasive?



So, the Supreme Being has a birth?
Analysis of names and vichara as to which name is greater than than which other is a job of grammarians, not of mystics. Rig Veda has left us no other way but to accept only the Atma as the One and All. Comprehension of Atma requires no other aid but Atma itself, which has been called shivo in shruti.


Yes, the supreme being can take many births( it is like a candle lighted out of a candle without loosing anything), and remember all of them. Others dont remember their births.(BG 4.4) When dieties like Indra take birth ( as Arjuna), they do not remember everything about themselves. However, when paramAtma takes birth, he is born omniscient and supremely equivalent with the mUla rUpa(Ishvara), and always existing in a state of absorption in Nirguna Brahman.

The same Rig veda, and other upanshads says that some gods are ignorant, not all knowing, subject to misery and so on, ruling out any possibility of all devatas being equated to the paramAtma, in direct sense of the word. The Anandavalli section of Tait Up explicitly grades the AnandAnubhava of various dieties, which rules out any possibility of the various gods being the same. paramArta must not be mixed with vyavahAra.

You are incorrect regarding the idea that it is not essential to know the implications of names( and associated principles) and that Atma must be known by itself directly. If this were truly so, there would be no need of vedas. It is impossible to know Atman and infact Atman is not known but the very essence of existance. Shruti exhorts sAdhakas to fully understand anAtman( non self). All perishable entities must be known in order that the imperishable Atman be comprehended. All perishable entities are denoted by various principles(tattvas) with their abhimAni devatas. All these have to be known a) theoretically through scripture b) factually by worship and meditation on those dieties. Only when all perishable entities (tattvas and devatas) are understood, will the Atman shine forth.

atanu
26 September 2007, 06:43 AM
Namaste Atanu,

Why are you getting the impression that I am trying to compare various Gods? I have not done that at all. I have only compared the various names of Brahman. Nirguna Brahman has no name. ---
You are incorrect regarding the idea that it is not essential to know the implications of names( and associated principles) and that Atma must be known by itself directly. ----

Namaste,

Yes, regarding comparing various names and attributing meaning to them, I maintain that it is culture specific and mental level specific. In relative level, it is good to know that God is all-pervasive. Finally, however, God is ONE, never divided and that is GOOD. I am not disregarding implications of names.

Regarding names, Br. Upanishad says: It said ‘I’, hence everyone says "I". Ramana Maharshi teaches that God’s highest name is “I", wherein Shiva and Shakti are united. It is higher than "I AM". And thgis "I" name is pratyaksha.

Regards.

Om

Madhavan
30 September 2007, 03:00 AM
Namaste,

Yes, regarding comparing various names and attributing meaning to them, I maintain that it is culture specific and mental level specific. In relative level, it is good to know that God is all-pervasive. Finally, however, God is ONE, never divided and that is GOOD. I am not disregarding implications of names.

Regarding names, Br. Upanishad says: It said ‘I’, hence everyone says "I". Ramana Maharshi teaches that God’s highest name is “I", wherein Shiva and Shakti are united. It is higher than "I AM". And thgis "I" name is pratyaksha.

Regards.

Om

Yes you are right!

But you should also note that even the word "I", "I am" etc are also mental constructs only.

The ultimate Godhead is the Atman(unsublatable), the "I", perfectly non dual and one without a second. This is Shivam. This God is beyond all notions of worship.

The God who wishes to become many is "I am", and is the cause of dualty. This is nArAyaNa. From "I am", Saguna Brahman is born. This "I am" is the highest form of worshippable God. All avatars spring from this level of God.

The God who has become many is Brahma. Brahma becomes many limited and iconic representations of his infinite being in association with rajo and tamo guNas, and these become devas, asuras, manushyas and all other life forms.

In conjunction with pure sattva guNa, ones individual existance is pure like Brahma, with discriminating knowledge of the self and non self. Devas have a predominance of sattva guNa and asuras have predominence of tamo guNa. The 33 million gods that are discussed have varying levels of sattva guNa in them, that is how they are different.

atanu
30 September 2007, 08:00 AM
Yes you are right!

But you should also note that even the word "I", "I am" etc are also mental constructs only.

The ultimate Godhead is the Atman(unsublatable), the "I", perfectly non dual and one without a second. This is Shivam. This God is beyond all notions of worship.

The God who wishes to become many is "I am", and is the cause of dualty. This is nArAyaNa. From "I am", Saguna Brahman is born. This "I am" is the highest form of worshippable God. All avatars spring from this level of God.

-.

Namaskar Madhavan,

Very nicely stated. I agree to all that you have stated except one statement " --But you should also note that even the word "I", "I am" etc are also mental constructs only. ---"

"I" appears to be a mental construct but it is not. The true "I" is not a mental construct but it is the Sat (truth). It is the experience. It is the Seed of mind and the world. And Sat of Sat is Atma.

I, in association with its own Shakti (Pragnya) becomes aware and experiences "I am". This is Shiva-Shakti. Now, from the "I am" experience, thoughts sprout "I am this body" or "I am unlimited". Bundle of thoughts constitute what is called the mind.

At least, this is what Ramana teaches and intuitively I can feel that the "I" awareness is beneath the mind and mind is not its creator.

Hope you will agree.

Regards

Om

yajvan
30 September 2007, 01:35 PM
Hari Om
~~~~~


,

Very nicely stated. I agree to all that you have stated except one statement " --But you should also note that even the word "I", "I am" etc are also mental constructs only. ---"

"I" appears to be a mental construct but it is not. The true "I" is not mental a construct but the Sat. It is the experience. It is the Seed of mind and the world. Sat of Sat is Atma.

I, in association with its own Shakti (Pragnya) becomes aware and experiences "I am". This is Shiva-Shakti. Now, from the "I am" experience, thoughts sprout "I am this body" or "I am unlimited". Bundle of thoughts constitute what is called the mind.

At least, this is what Ramana teaches and intuitively I can feel that the "I" awareness is beneath the mind and mind is not its creator.Om


Namste atanu and Madhavan,
Can you assist. I was just thinking this Aham and "I" this morning.
To the casual observer, one could quickly come to think and discern that this "I" at its root is the ego. This is not the case, as we know. Can you folks offer an alternative to help those that may come to this conclusion?

How can one think about this to insure, that in the final analysis, it is not the ego. This would be a healthy discussion.
That is, we know we can find the answer in the Upanishads, 'the I of the eye" , etc.. Yet can you folks perhaps offer a systematic way to think about this, within , going backwards logically, so that a person can end up with the
Ahhhh ha! this I = Purusha or Brahman?

pranams,

Madhavan
30 September 2007, 02:03 PM
Hari Om
~~~~~




Namste atanu and Madhavan,
Can you assist. I was just thinking this Aham and "I" this morning.
To the casual observer, one could quickly come to think and discern that this "I" at its root is the ego. This is not the case, as we know. Can you folks offer an alternative to help those that may come to this conclusion?

How can one think about this to insure, that in the final analysis, it is not the ego. This would be a healthy discussion.
That is, we know we can find the answer in the Upanishads, 'the I of the eye" , etc.. Yet can you folks perhaps offer a systematic way to think about this, within , going backwards logically, so that a person can end up with the
Ahhhh ha! this I = Purusha or Brahman?

pranams,

From the "I" at the root, there is no second( no real second) to oneself. That is how it is known to be the ultimate egoless I. Whenever someone percieves "I am He", or "I am Brahma", you can still see the subtle dualty. When the feeling "I am brahman" also subsides and mere awareness remains, that is the root "I".

yajvan
01 October 2007, 01:30 PM
From the "I" at the root, there is no second( no real second) to oneself. That is how it is known to be the ultimate egoless I. Whenever someone percieves "I am He", or "I am Brahma", you can still see the subtle dualty. When the feeling "I am brahman" also subsides and mere awareness remains, that is the root "I".

Namste Madhavan,
thank you for your post... appreciated.
Let me ask a different way, and perhaps you or atanu has an opinion on this matter. How does one discern "I" from ego? Yes I see your writing suggesting "From the "I" at the root, there is no second" , a beautiful definition and grounded in the Upanishads.

Yet, from an emperical [derived from or guided by experience ] stand point, how does one discriminate between "I" and ego. What is the questioning, experience one can apply? Even using niti-niti!, what is the process/questionining in logic or feeling that one person can apply and have a sense that this identification is progressing or has been made?

Amit, our elected sadhu for this conversation, may say the following:
"I Have gone no further , and I end up as I. And this I still feels like the same I or ego for inspection perposes. I am still using my intellect (dhi) and my discrimination (viveka) to the best of my ability. Yet it still feels like nothing special, nothing universal" - How would one address this?

pranams,

atanu
02 October 2007, 05:52 AM
Namste Madhavan,
----Amit, our elected sadhu for this conversation, may say the following:
"I Have gone no further , and I end up as I. And this I still feels like the same I or ego for inspection perposes. I am still using my intellect (dhi) and my discrimination (viveka) to the best of my ability. Yet it still feels like nothing special, nothing universal" - How would one address this?

pranams,

Namaste,

Obviously this Amit (whoever) is not holding on to the I, but allowing it to sprout out into Dhi and Viveka etc (that is Amit is thinking full force).

Holding onto I successfully even for a second will reveal the nature of I. Enquiry is a higher step of meditation and the attention has to stay on the I awareness alone. The moment a thought comes up, the attention is gone. One has to gently bring it back.

It will be tedious, boring and nearly impossible, for those who have not mastered concentration.

Om

yajvan
02 October 2007, 12:11 PM
Hari Om
~~~~~

Namaste,
Obviously this Amit (whoever) is not holding on to the I, but allowing it to sprout out into Dhi and Viveka etc (that is Amit is thinking full force).

Holding onto I successfully even for a second will reveal the nature of I. Enquiry is a higher step of meditation and the attention has to stay on the I awareness alone. The moment a thought comes up, the attention is gone.One has to gently bring it back.

It will be tedious, boring and nearly impossible, for those who have not mastered concentration. Om

Namaste atanu,
I think your assessment is pregnant with wisdom... Amit , our hypothetical sadhu, is assessing this state. He is trying to discern if he logically can deduce "I" by thinking though it.

You offering is 'The moment a thought comes up, the attention is gone. ' That is, for me, the purity of I as Consciousness/awareness is now applied awareness for the assessment of 'was that the I , i am suppose to know?'. And with this , one is pulled away from pure awareness , that steady state, simplicity of silence.


Let me see if I can take it one more step. You mention another term, that of concentration. Let me compare and contrast this notion.

The notion for me is ones mind gets concentrated, one-pointed, when practicing a technique to come in contact with this pure awareness. I have found that trying to concentrate causes effort and strain and pushes me, in fact, further away from settling down the mind. [ this has also been my instruction from several of my teachers over the years].
So the action of trying to concentrate does not bring ones minded to a concentrated state in an easy manner. Patanali may call this state without fluxuations, one pointed,withourt modifications. Another way of say, just simple awareness by itself. Some facy word for this can be Visika Jyotismati.

So , the reason I am picking up on this is two fold - of where we find agrreement in what you say and in my understanding and practice:

You mention 'The moment a thought comes up, the attention is gone. one has to gently bring it back.'
Yes, this is the formula. That of bringing the mind back, gently and not whipping it into place. This has been done for centuries, one of forcing the mind to become concentrated a.k.a Samadhi, by concentrating... that is not the method that yields the highest good i.e. forcing and pushing the mind. It revolts and says I will have non of that!.

The second item is what does one gently bring the attention back to? That of pratiprasava. That is the reverse of the birth process, or opposed to prasava, the production of. OF what ? the continued production of klesa's that bubbling-up as thoughts, impulses and intent.

This notion of pratiprasava is the meditative principle of gravity, the principle of withdrawing, One practicing this will find one ends up in silence, at samadhi. This is not not news...as this is offered in the Yoga Sutras of Patanjali Chapt 2.

So, the "I" in question, is found in that simple state of silence. And by trying to takes ones awareness and look it "IT" then one just pulled themselves away from pratiprasava; Why so? It is the stillness of awareness, the silence of Being, that one experiences. If one starts to inspect, the SAME awareness that one is looking to experience it is now on active duty looking to inspect itself!

This is such a key point. One cannot take the awareness-consciousness that one whats to experience in its pure state and apply it (activate it if you will) to perform discrimination on itself. That is the fluctuation of the mind that Patanjali calls out in his works.

Thanks for your post, let me know your thought and perhaps other ideas you may have.


pranams,

atanu
02 October 2007, 01:55 PM
Hari Om
~~~~~
----This notion of pratiprasava is the meditative principle of gravity, the principle of withdrawing, One practicing this will find one ends up in silence, at samadhi. This is not not news...as this is offered in the Yoga Sutras of Patanjali Chapt 2.

----
This is such a key point. One cannot take the awareness-consciousness that one whats to experience in its pure state and apply it (activate it if you will) to perform discrimination on itself. That is the fluctuation of the mind that Patanjali calls out in his works.

Thanks for your post, let me know your thought and perhaps other ideas you may have.

pranams,

Namaskar,

Hari Om

I have only what Guru Ramana teaches about this and a bit of experience.

The goal is to make the mind supportless. But the mind will cling to something or other. And it is not in human power to get it involuted. It is the grace that pulls the mind in.

It is almost impossible for an initiate sadhaka to be of silent of mind (I know it). It needs to do something -- sing bhajan, read scripture, do japa (or it will THINK AND WATCH PORNO). Or it will act like a pedantic school teacher and preach religion or philosophy to others.

Upanishads and Shankara teach DISCRIMINATION: To enquire within "what is Self and what is not? What is this I? Whence is this I? etc. etc." It is to give a job to the mind and also to keep it close to the source, not allowing it to fly away. Needless to say that without love of Bhagawan this simple exercise cannot become routine. Desires will not allow one to enquire. And it is thus said that enquiry is not for everyone. Withdrawing (as you say) is impossible without going through other Yoga steps.

Rest is left for the God. It is said that there will not be any answer but the enquiry ends in the silence. Any answer will be a thought only. For me, it ends mostly in sleep though (sleep is a thought).

Om

yajvan
02 October 2007, 05:15 PM
Hari Om
~~~~~


Namaskar,

Hari Om

I have only what Guru Ramana teaches about this and a bit of experience.

The goal is to make the mind supportless. But the mind will cling to something or other. And it is not in human power to get it involuted. It is the grace that pulls the mind in.

It is almost impossible for an initiate sadhaka to be of silent of mind (I know it). It needs to do something -- sing bhajan, read scripture, do japa (or it will THINK AND WATCH PORNO). Or it will act like a pedantic school teacher and preach religion or philosophy to others.

Upanishads and Shankara teach DISCRIMINATION: To enquire within "what is Self and what is not? What is this I? Whence is this I? etc. etc." It is to give a job to the mind and also to keep it close to the source, not allowing it to fly away. Needless to say that without love of Bhagawan this simple exercise cannot become routine. Desires will not allow one to enquire. And it is thus said that enquiry is not for everyone. Withdrawing (as you say) is impossible without going through other Yoga steps.

Rest is left for the God. It is said that there will not be any answer but the enquiry ends in the silence. Any answer will be a thought only. For me, it ends mostly in sleep though (sleep is a thought).
Om

Namaste atanu,
regarding "impossible for an initiate sadhaka to be of silent of mind ".
Yes, the background noise is there, incessently. I see this, and the method I have good forrune to utilize is the mantra... that is the 'grace' and the gravity.

Also for those that are thinking , I would want to startmeditating this second, and without bija, then the breath and watching it, in and out, very simple yet it works just fine. I Have had very good results with such a sime method offered to me by Ananda Ma. If one would like to hear this approach in detail I will outline it if there is a question on it.

This clinging you mention , the mind always wants to engage. Doesn't matter what. And the more you try not to engage the more it does... Hence the mantra is a fine method. I Have been blessed and the mind settles w/o issue. That mantra takes the mind to finer levels , and the body follows along, all while the prana calms, which calms the mind.

So this notion of concentration - perhaps for some , but that is just what the mind would like - Oh yes, let me try concentrating, and along the way, lets make a grocery list, and how about that guy that beeped his horn at me, the nerve...oh, back to concentrating, oh yes, this is it... and ,hey did you pay the rent? I forgot to write the draft for the rent, ooops back to concentration.

Like that, this mind chooses to go... The mantra is without all this baggage.


thank you for your insights and the post.

pranams,

Jetavan
30 October 2013, 01:44 PM
If we look in the Sakalya Brahmana ( Part of the Yajyavalkya Kanda) there is a questioning ( more of an interrogation) of Yajnavalkya muni. This was in the court of king Janaka, wishing to find out the most learned brahman of Kuru and Panchala, that he had assembled.
The question is asked ' how many gods are there' ? He starts with "three and three hundred and three and three thousand."
These are expressions of Brahman. When he finishes his discourse, as the questioning continues to ask "how many are there really?" Yajyavalkya says there is just One. And the questioners (Sakalya) asks, "Which is the one God", Yajyavalkya answers - "The cosmic vital force. That is Brahman. They (the wise is inferred here) denote It by the term tyat , (THAT)."



Greetings,

Where the English has "gods", what Sanskrit word does Yajnavalka use there?

yajvan
30 October 2013, 02:35 PM
hariḥ oá¹
~~~~~~
namasté


Greetings,

Where the English has "gods", what Sanskrit word does Yajnavalka use there?
Here is one application/passage:
आदितà¥à¤¯à¤¾ विशà¥à¤µà¤µà¤¸à¤µà¤¸à¥à¤¤à¥à¤·à¤¿à¤¤à¤¾ भासà¥à¤µà¤°à¤¾à¤¨à¤¿à¤²à¤¾à¤ƒà¥¤
महाराजिकसाधà¥à¤¯à¤¾à¤¶à¥à¤š रà¥à¤¦à¥à¤°à¤¾à¤¶à¥à¤š गणदेवताः॥

this indicates the 'groups' aforementioned, and says:

ÄdityÄ viÅ›vavasavastuá¹£itÄ bhÄsvarÄnilÄḥ|
mahÄrÄjikasÄdhyÄÅ›ca rudrÄÅ›ca gaṇadevatÄḥ||

The English word offered is 'god' yet in saṃská¹›tam it is offered as devatÄḥ. This we find defined as follows:

devatÄḥ - divinity;but there is more to this... let's look at some of the core words in it:
devatÄḥ or deva = heavenly , divine . It is also used for the number '33' which implies the víśve devÄÌ-s¹.
Yet too this deva (2nd derivative) is 'to shine, be bright' from its root 'div'. This 'div' can also be sky or heaven we are informed as the association me thinks is obvious , no ?Now, too this word deva can also mean 'an organ of the sense' - suggesting (rightly so) that the devatÄ can in fact reside within various beings, human or otherwise.

iti Å›ivaá¹

1. víśve devÄÌ-s of 33 = 8 vasu-s , 11 rudra-s , and 12 Äditya-s + 2 aÅ›vin-s yet one can say the 2 are indra + prajÄpati.

yajvan
30 October 2013, 05:51 PM
hariḥ oá¹
~~~~~~
namasté


the teachings of Sivaya Subramuniyaswami.
330 million is a play on the number 33, which is the number of Gods in the Veda (BrahmÄ + Indra + 12 Adityas + 11 Rudras + 8 Vasus). In the Indian numeral system, the number 330 million (330,000,000) is written as 33,00,00,000 and pronounced 33 crore in Indian English or 33 karod (karoD) in Hindi or 33 koti (koTi) in Sanskrit. The idea that there are 33 koti Gods comes from the Rigveda. The term koti, however, has two important meanings. In one sense it means ten million (crore), but in another sense it means angle or edge. If we understand the term koti in the second sense, then the Rigveda is telling us that there are 33 angular Gods.

Another view that aligns with this thinking is from the definition of koá¹­i . This term means the highest number in the older system of numbers or a krore or ten millions. Yet too the term koá¹­i is also defined as 'the highest point , eminence , excellence'. So, from this point of view it then becomes the 33 koá¹­i - the 33 that are most high or the víśve devÄÌ-s.

One needs to note that even with the 33 most high, it is the One's (tad ekam , That One) attributes that they reflect. They are the 'ambassadors ' or the creative impulses of the Supreme that the wise offer us, to get our minds around the wholeness and the abilities of this Being.

iti Å›ivaá¹