PDA

View Full Version : Never Kneel before God



RamaRaksha
17 August 2008, 08:42 PM
A Hindu should never kneel or prostrate before God. God is our parent or teacher, we should show our respect and love to God. Kneeling or prostrating before someone is the position of a servant. subject or a slave. This is clearly seen in Abrahamic faiths, in my view, they view God as a King or Master. A king or Master issues commands or judgements, threatens his followers with dire consequences if they don't follow his orders. Such a King is to be feared. Hence words like Fear of God, sin, punishment, judgement & commandments, all words alien to Hinduism.

It is with this fear that muslims fall to their knees before their God. A Hindus should never be taught to fear God. We are his children, we belong in the lap of God, not at her feet.

devotee
17 August 2008, 09:23 PM
Namaste Ramraksha,

Where are you getting these weird ideas which are foreign to Hinduism ? Are you starting a new "Hindu" (?) religion ?

God is seen as father, mother, brother, lover, Guru & also the Master by a devotee depending upon his way of worshipping God. Who are we to dictate to the devotee how to show his respect to God ? Don't we bow to our father, mother & all elders ? Haven't you seen people prostarting before deity ?

You are well within your rights to adopt a way of greetings that you like. Why propagate it like the ONLY Correct way ? This is not correct. Anything is not wrong just because it is prevalent in other religion. Are we here to oppose the other religions just for the sake of opposing ? That is illogical & doesn't serve any purpose. It would be self-defeating.

OM

saidevo
18 August 2008, 09:18 AM
Namaste RamaRaksha.

Devotee has pointed out well the flaws in your thinking. In Sanatana Dharma, the feet of elders--specially parents, guru and God--are considered the holiest of their forms. Therefore a Hindu either does a full 'namaskar'-prostration or bend to touch the feet of elders, while he normally stretches out full to a deity in worship. A Hindu woman's pose of namaskar is more like kneeling. The only thing a Hindu doesn't do with elders is to shake hands. Here is a link that explains the correct ways of offering namaskar to different people and the deity:

http://www.hindujagruti.org/hinduism/knowledge/category/namaskar

Sudarshan
18 August 2008, 03:24 PM
A Hindu should never kneel or prostrate before God. God is our parent or teacher, we should show our respect and love to God. Kneeling or prostrating before someone is the position of a servant. subject or a slave. This is clearly seen in Abrahamic faiths, in my view, they view God as a King or Master. A king or Master issues commands or judgements, threatens his followers with dire consequences if they don't follow his orders. Such a King is to be feared. Hence words like Fear of God, sin, punishment, judgement & commandments, all words alien to Hinduism.

It is with this fear that muslims fall to their knees before their God. A Hindus should never be taught to fear God. We are his children, we belong in the lap of God, not at her feet.

Believe it or not, you are just a servant of God at this time...have'nt you seen even the great Arjuna fall prostrate at the feet of the Lord before the great war? He is one of the mightiest warriors and fears nobody. It is not out of fear we serve God but out of respect and love. It can take many outward forms.

Other relationships are more or less between equals. Such relationships are possible when God has revealed himself to you. Now we can only be servants.

Znanna
19 August 2008, 08:05 PM
Namaste,

There are times when there is nothing else to do, but to submit to Godz.

I begin each day in thankful prayers.



ZN/YMMV

RamaRaksha
24 August 2008, 06:14 PM
"Haven't you seen people prostarting before deity ? "
Please read my post again, I have addressed this.

"You are well within your rights to adopt a way of greetings that you like"
Exactly, and that is what I am doing. Faiths must change and keep up with the times. we should not become like Islam, they seem to be more comfortable going back to the 16th century, unable to move forward to the 21st. Take a look at the sharia laws, flogging, closing women's schools etc. And now christianity has joined them by insisting that man is only 5,000 years old. Before they insisted that the earth was the center of the universe. Backward faiths teaching backward ideas.

I would like people to put emotion aside and think logically. I understand you have our religious texts, believe me, I am a Hindu and hold Krishna and Arjuna in the highest regard. Hanuman is usually pictured on his knees at the feet of Rama, but see that Rama never treated Hanuman as his servant. God has no use for servants and slaves, he wants devotees.

In our daily life, elders tell us to stand up straight, shake hands firmly when meeting someone, dress well etc. All these things make a difference, how you carry yourself says a lot about you. You can be a great devotee of God without going down on our knees or prostrating ourselves. We belong in the lap of God, we need to act like a child of God, why lower ourselves?

Znanna
25 August 2008, 09:39 PM
We belong in the lap of God, we need to act like a child of God, why lower ourselves?

Namaste,


I don't know about lap of or child of, but I know of Godz as AWESOME, which would be why I find myself on my knees.


ZN

Sudarshan
30 August 2008, 03:44 PM
"Haven't you seen people prostarting before deity ? "
Please read my post again, I have addressed this.

"You are well within your rights to adopt a way of greetings that you like"
Exactly, and that is what I am doing. Faiths must change and keep up with the times. we should not become like Islam, they seem to be more comfortable going back to the 16th century, unable to move forward to the 21st. Take a look at the sharia laws, flogging, closing women's schools etc. And now christianity has joined them by insisting that man is only 5,000 years old. Before they insisted that the earth was the center of the universe. Backward faiths teaching backward ideas.


If the universe is infinite, then there is really no problem in admitting that the earth is the center!

Islam may be primitive (apparently) but that has nothing to do with kneeling before God.



I would like people to put emotion aside and think logically. I understand you have our religious texts, believe me, I am a Hindu and hold Krishna and Arjuna in the highest regard. Hanuman is usually pictured on his knees at the feet of Rama, but see that Rama never treated Hanuman as his servant. God has no use for servants and slaves, he wants devotees.


If the jnAni Hanuman has no problems to fall at the feet of Rama, then what prevents us? Are we even greater than Hanuman? God does not want slaves. He does not want devotees either because all these needs are there only for those lacking in something. GOD HAS NO NEEDS WHATSOEVER.

You missed the point why submission to God is taught. It is not because God demanded it but for your welfare. The very first thing you must acquire in spiritual development is humility and complete loss of ahaMkAra. We display our complete lack of ego by kneeling down before the most supreme. How many 'children of God' kneel down before the 'donkey's food'? So why cant these children instead kneel down to someone who really deserves it? We spend many lives in kneeling down to our passions and weakness and undeserving people and suddenly it is 'olf fashioned' to kneel down before the only being that deserves it?



In our daily life, elders tell us to stand up straight, shake hands firmly when meeting someone, dress well etc. All these things make a difference, how you carry yourself says a lot about you. You can be a great devotee of God without going down on our knees or prostrating ourselves. We belong in the lap of God, we need to act like a child of God, why lower ourselves?


To think that one belongs to the lap of God is nothing but ego at work. It is assuming something without knowing we deserve it or not. If you already deserved it then why are fighting it out in this samsAra instead of already sitting on his lap? No one can claim to be a devotee or child of God - that must be decided by God. Until such time, we cant take anything for granted.

izi
20 November 2008, 10:51 PM
once, I became so enraptured with lord ananta I fell on my knees and kissed the floor because i realized he was the very substance of reality and had createdeven my body to behold creation at all, and I was overwhelmed, I had to kneel because I was overcome with both joy, passion and pleasure...

there is more to loving god than just being a child

though some prefer that I don't know why I barely ever do its just so different for each of us.

I've never feared god - I don't even know what it means. there is something else that compels me - a feeling of smallness in the face of awesome majesty, but no, never fear. In fact when I do do get in such a mood or trance I am overwhelmed by the compassion and protection enveloping me. then I know everyone's karma is perfectly meted out and measured so that we each of us complete our duties without any nonsense. If I can see this factor - this so-called "god" it is nothing so ill-defined...I know I'm ok. But often there is a forgetting that takes place as I seep back into maya's embrace...the warm clutches of maya, yes, mother...that's what she is to us. and grateful for thaat. but there is more to this universe than just "mother" and "father" all too human, these concepts...

OmSriShivaShakti
29 July 2009, 08:31 AM
"Haven't you seen people prostarting before deity ? "
Please read my post again, I have addressed this.

"You are well within your rights to adopt a way of greetings that you like"
Exactly, and that is what I am doing. Faiths must change and keep up with the times. we should not become like Islam, they seem to be more comfortable going back to the 16th century, unable to move forward to the 21st. Take a look at the sharia laws, flogging, closing women's schools etc. And now christianity has joined them by insisting that man is only 5,000 years old. Before they insisted that the earth was the center of the universe. Backward faiths teaching backward ideas.

I would like people to put emotion aside and think logically. I understand you have our religious texts, believe me, I am a Hindu and hold Krishna and Arjuna in the highest regard. Hanuman is usually pictured on his knees at the feet of Rama, but see that Rama never treated Hanuman as his servant. God has no use for servants and slaves, he wants devotees.

In our daily life, elders tell us to stand up straight, shake hands firmly when meeting someone, dress well etc. All these things make a difference, how you carry yourself says a lot about you. You can be a great devotee of God without going down on our knees or prostrating ourselves. We belong in the lap of God, we need to act like a child of God, why lower ourselves?

I agree that most aspects of sharia law are barbaric and Islamic practices like burqa-wearing, etc. are backward and it is illogical to believe in a 5000 year-old universe like Evangelical Christians do. But you cannot simply opposse Islam and Christianity because they are different, you should try to take whatever is good from everywhere.

As for your "logic," I cannot follow it at all. As religious people we believe that God is our Master and superior to us. I mean, you could either believe that God is throughout the universe and thats it. Or you could believe in a limitless God who is both in His creation and also exists outside of it. And if you fail to realize that God also exists outside of creation, then you are as much tied down to the material universe in your thinking as anyone else.

And you say you are a "child" of God, but are you a little child??? A small child goes to his mother or father crying and finds comfort lying in their lap but an adult does not do such childish things like crying, etc. What I am saying is that we can still accept God as a parental figure without being children, I mean don't you still have great love and respect for your parents even though you are not a small child who fears his father's strength or cherishes his mother's compassion??

And as for the Hindu texts, I recall that Krishna talked quite a bit about WORSHIPING God, not just respecting, revering, following, etc. but actual WORSHIP.

As for the servitude issue, I personally think that people should not prostrate before their "masters," I think you have this mixed up because your boss or whatever other "master" you might have is someone to be served as in doing work or personal chores but God does not need anyone like that, so service to God would be learning about Him, gaining wisdom, studying scripture, using logic to dispel superstition, etc.

rkpande
29 July 2009, 09:50 AM
namaskar,

in any ritual in hindu culture there has always been a reason, some of them ofcourse have been trivalised over period of time.

if some one has indulged in serious yoga one would find that after prayanam one feels energy flowing out from fingers, they become warmish. the fingers and toes are energy transmitter and the crown of the head the reciever of pranic energy.

when one lies at the feet of a guru or any one considered spritually advanced, the person recieves energy from the toes and one inadvertantly gets pranic energy from his fingers when he gives blessings by puting his hand on th crown.
remember for the sme reason we dont shake hands but namaskar.

OmSriShivaShakti
29 July 2009, 10:25 AM
I do not understand how you can gain someone else energy by touching them or being at their feet. Please explain this in scientific logic.

Ganeshprasad
29 July 2009, 11:31 AM
Pranam


so service to God would be learning about Him, gaining wisdom, studying scripture, using logic to dispel superstition, etc.

you have made a lot of vague claims reading through lots of your posts,
what shastra (4 u scripture) do you study that you have utmost faith in so that we can discuss logically.

Jai Shree Krishna

OmSriShivaShakti
29 July 2009, 11:39 AM
I study the Bhagavad Gita and the Rg and Yajur Vedas primarily and also some of the Upanishads (mostly Svesvatara and Chandogya).

Ganeshprasad
29 July 2009, 12:18 PM
Pranam
Thanks
you have not answered my question fully, question was which shastra do you have utmost faith in?
studying some thing does not necessarily mean one has unflinching faith in it does it now?
lets forget the Vedas because that requires a strong understanding in the language and a guidance to discern proper meaning.
Bhagvat Gita would do fine, but we need to establish how much faith we have in it?
for me there is no doubt what Lord Krishna says is THE TRUTH, great personality like Shankracharya, Ramanujacharya has commented on it.

once you have answered we may proceed.

Jai Shree Krishna

OmSriShivaShakti
29 July 2009, 12:44 PM
Yes I agree, the Gita is what I have utmost faith in.

Ganeshprasad
29 July 2009, 01:07 PM
Pranam


Yes I agree, the Gita is what I have utmost faith in.



God does not beget nor was He begotten (also includes that God does not take incarnations because they take births)

Yes of course. I actually think that the Islamic view of God being formless, infinite, without incarnation, etc. is much more logical than the Hindu ideas of a God which has physical form and can take human or animal form.

I eat meat of many kinds including beef, but I do not think it is forbidden in Hinduism. I think that since people are by nature omnivorous, vegetarianism would simply be going against nature.


Do you think these quotes of yours are consistent with what Lord Krishna has said in Bhagvat Gita?

Ekanta
29 July 2009, 01:30 PM
Excuse me for intruding, but as I understand it: "God does not beget nor was He begotten". This is actually Advaita teaching (against christian formal interpreted trinity).
"not beget" means he does not really become two (its only maya).
"nor was He begotten" means there is no other source.
There is always the formal interpretation and the other subtle interpretation available.

OmSriShivaShakti
29 July 2009, 01:39 PM
Bhagavad Gita 7:6-7 states:
"Know that all creatures have evolved from this twofold energy, and Brahman is the origin as well as the dissolution of the entire universe. O Arjuna, there is nothing higher than Brahman. Everything in the universe is strung on Brahman like jewels on the thread of a necklace."
Krishna states that "all creatures evolved" - so since humans and animals are also creatures, they cannot be God Himself since God is unchanging and therefore cannot evolve. And if everything is "strung on Brahman like jewels on the thread of a necklace," then Brahman cannot have a form because if He did, then everything would have to revolve around that particular being whoever he might be.

Bhagavad Gita 7:23 states:
"Such (material) gains of these less intelligent human beings are temporary. The worshipers of Devas go to Devas, but My devotees come to Me."

And since Shiva, Durga, Ganesha, Vishnu (and by extension Krishna), etc. are all devas, worshiping them only leads to temporary benefits, and that only Brahman is to be worshiped.

As for eating meat, I do not see anything in the Gita that says that people should be vegetarians or even abstain from certain foods. And if you do abstain from certain foods in the name of religion, are you not being like the Muslims and Jews who avoid pork and other foods because their religion is more legalist than ours?

Ganeshprasad
29 July 2009, 04:07 PM
Pranam


Bhagavad Gita 7:6-7 states:
"Know that all creatures have evolved from this twofold energy, and Brahman is the origin as well as the dissolution of the entire universe. O Arjuna, there is nothing higher than Brahman. Everything in the universe is strung on Brahman like jewels on the thread of a necklace."

Where do you get off misquoting?

TEXT 6
etad-yonini bhutani
sarvanity upadharaya
aham krtsnasya jagatah
prabhavah pralayas tatha

SYNONYMS
etat--these two natures; yonini--source of birth; bhutani--everything created; sarvani--all; iti--thus; upadharaya--know; aham--I; krtsnasya--all-inclusive; jagatah--of the world; prabhavah--source of manifestation; pralayah--annihilation; tatha--as well as.

Your translation quoted is faulty, note the word aham means Krishna, there is no mention of Brahman here or the next verse.

TEXT 7
mattah parataram nanyat
kincid asti dhananjaya
mayi sarvam idam protam
sutre mani-gana iva
SYNONYMS
mattah--beyond Myself; para-taram--superior; na--not; anyat kincit--anything else; asti--there is; dhananjaya--O conqueror of wealth; mayi--in Me; sarvam--all that be; idam--which we see; protam--strung; sutre--on a thread; mani-ganah--pearls; iva--likened.

TRANSLATION
O conqueror of wealth [Arjuna], there is no Truth superior to Me. Everything rests upon Me, as pearls are strung on a thread.

Krishna says everything rest in me as pearls are strung on a thread. Therefore your statement below becomes completely bogus and unintelligent.



Krishna states that "all creatures evolved" - so since humans and animals are also creatures, they cannot be God Himself since God is unchanging and therefore cannot evolve. And if everything is "strung on Brahman like jewels on the thread of a necklace," then Brahman cannot have a form because if He did, then everything would have to revolve around that particular being whoever he might be.

Krishna says every thing rest on him like pearls are strung on a thread and since Krishna has form you have got no clue what you are talking about.
So you say you have faith in Krishna perhaps you take his word when he say thus, but I doubt it
Though I am eternal, imperishable, and the Lord of all beings; yet I (voluntarily) manifest by controlling My own material nature using My Yoga-Maya. (See also 10.14) (4.06)

Whenever there is a decline of Dharma and the rise of Adharma, O Arjuna, then I manifest (or incarnate) Myself. I incarnate from time to time for protecting the good, for transforming the wicked, and for establishing Dharma, the world order. (4.07-08)

The one who truly understands My transcendental birth and activities (of creation, maintenance, and dissolution), is not born again after leaving this body and attains My abode, O Arjuna. (4.09)

Do you understand what is said above I doubt it since

O Krishna, I believe all that You have told Me to be true. O Lord, neither the Devas nor the demons fully understand Your manifestations. (See also 4.06) (10.14)
 
Jai Shree Krishna

Ganeshprasad
29 July 2009, 04:14 PM
Pranam



Bhagavad Gita 7:23 states:
"Such (material) gains of these less intelligent human beings are temporary. The worshipers of Devas go to Devas, but My devotees come to Me."

Do you know the meaning of Me?
 


And since Shiva, Durga, Ganesha, Vishnu (and by extension Krishna), etc. are all devas, worshiping them only leads to temporary benefits, and that only Brahman is to be worshiped.

Your understanding of the language is so low that you can not grasp what Krishna had said.

Where does Krishna says Devas are not to be worshiped?

You are hiding behind Brahman but I doubt if you really know anything about it, except some vague idea that it is formless.



As for eating meat, I do not see anything in the Gita that says that people should be vegetarians or even abstain from certain foods. And if you do abstain from certain foods in the name of religion, are you not being like the Muslims and Jews who avoid pork and other foods because their religion is more legalist than ours?

Then you certainly have not read the Gita or understood its message

And that action performed in ignorance and delusion without consideration of future bondage or consequences, which inflicts injury and is impractical, is said to be action in the mode of ignorance. 18.25BG

I had asked you this before, since Gita would consider your action of eating meat and thus cause injury to other living creatures needlessly, as act of ignorance, are you or do you want to remain in ignorance for ever?

 
TEXT 44 chapter 18 specific reference of cow protection.

krsi-go-raksya-vanijyam

Go-raksya= protecting cows.

Do you know Krishna is known as Gopal or Govind?

do you understand its meaning?

I doubt it, you say you have faith in Krishna yet everything you say or write has been to contrary.

Jai Shree Krishna
 
 

OmSriShivaShakti
29 July 2009, 04:33 PM
It is human nature to be omnivorous, so I do not go against it.

And please give me some direct quotations about those bold things you speak of - and I also think that you are relating those things that he said about injury and ignorance to animals when they were meant for humans.

Ganeshprasad
29 July 2009, 04:54 PM
Pranam


It is human nature to be omnivorous, so I do not go against it.

Wow, so you would not mind, like a lion, kill a human and eat them?
what is stopping you?

you see animals are more intelligent, then humans who insist on flesh eating, at least the animal would only kill when hungry but the humans the so called, support big meat industries in most abominable treatment of gods creatures, it is not even worth discussing it. any sane person with an ounce of compassion would feel the pain those animals are subjected to.

off course you think they have no souls is it not?



And please give me some direct quotations about those bold things you speak of - and I also think that you are relating those things that he said about injury and ignorance to animals when they were meant for humans.

Not a problem if you tell me which one as i have highlighted quite a few, perhaps you can tell me what you don't understand.

how about you defending the statements you have made which i have countered.

Jai Shree Krishna