Worshiping People

[OmSriShivaShakti]

I have always been strongly against the worship of human beings but there are many people who worship people regularly. I wanted to know what you all thought about this issue.

By "people," I am referring to figures such as Satya Sai Baba, Shirdi Sai Baba, Swami Narayan, Caitanya, etc. - this thread is NOT for conversation on established avatars of Vishnu such as Rama, Krishna, etc.

[Eastern Mind]

Nobody in their right mind would worship a person, as they wouldn't worship a stone. They are worshipping the divine within the person, which is more clear in a Guru than in an ordinary person. When you exchange 'Namaste, or Namaskaram, or Vannakkam, it is to the other person's divinity.

Aum Namasivaya

[OmSriShivaShakti]

Yes, that is how you rationalize it, but that is exactly what I mean by worshiping people.

[devotee]

I have always been strongly against the worship of human beings but there are many people who worship people regularly. I wanted to know what you all thought about this issue.

By "people," I am referring to figures such as Satya Sai Baba, Shirdi Sai Baba, Swami Narayan, Caitanya, etc. - this thread is NOT for conversation on established avatars of Vishnu such as Rama, Krishna, etc.

Namaste OSS,

What is the relation between "what should be worshipped", "what is being worshipped" & "whosoever is worshipping" ? Are they different ?

OK. You don't mind worshipping a piece of stone, a book or some vague idea in your brain ... but do object to worshipping a man ? Why ? Why do you think that a man has a status even below the objects of worship mentioned above ?

What is your idea of God, which should only be worshipped ?

OM

[Eastern Mind]

Namaste:

"Rationalising it" are your words, not mine. Divinity is not rational. So if you don't feel that there is any divinity within anyone, that the famed Gurus are just ordinary people, then of course don't worship them. Unless you have a sense of divinity within all things, you will never come to an understanding of these things. But myself, and many others do feel this divinity.

I feel these types discussions are rather pointless, BTW. Mystics and logical philosophers rarely agree. But best of luck with whatever sect within Hinduism you are practising.

Aum Namasivaya

[OmSriShivaShakti]

Well I think of God as Nirguna Brahman. And I think it is OK for people who do not realize that Nirguna Brahman is true and Saguna Brahman has been more or less imagined by people throughout the ages. However, what is worrying to me is that since worship of the Divine usually involves surrending your will to the object of your worship, when people are worshiped they might be surrendering their will to other people.

[OmSriShivaShakti]

Namaste:

"Rationalising it" are your words, not mine. Divinity is not rational. So if you don't feel that there is any divinity within anyone, that the famed Gurus are just ordinary people, then of course don't worship them. Unless you have a sense of divinity within all things, you will never come to an understanding of these things. But myself, and many others do feel this divinity.

Aum Namasivaya

I do believe that there is divinity within all but not because of someone's moral actions, good deeds, religious understanding, spirituality, etc. but because God is all-pervasive and is therefore existent in all things.

[Eastern Mind]

I do believe that there is divinity within all but not because of someone's moral actions, good deeds, religious understanding, spirituality, etc. but because God is all-pervasive and is therefore existent in all things.

Even the Muslims?

Aum Namasivaya

[OmSriShivaShakti]

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.

[Eastern Mind]

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.

Good to know. If you read the first three beliefs of the Saivite Creed that was recently posted here, it explains my take pretty much. The first one, especially, agrees with this viewpoint. I just think that also God can be more than that.

But like I said before, logic, western philosophical concept that it is, doesn't necessarily apply.

Aum Namasivaya

[OmSriShivaShakti]

You think that logic itself does not make sense??????

[Eastern Mind]

You think that logic itself does not make sense??????

I have absolutely no idea where you are drawing such inferences from. It is the mysticism, the intuition, the jyotish, the divinity within beings, self-realisation, miracles, visions, that are not logical in the true definition.

Aum Namasivaya

[OmSriShivaShakti]

How can you believe such things in the heart if they do not make sense to the mind. (I'm talking about jyotish, purported miracles, mysticism, etc.).

[devotee]

OSS, I am still waiting for your answers. Let me understand your idea of God. :)

You sound like a Muslim. Are you really a Hindu ? :?

[Eastern Mind]

How can you believe such things in the heart if they do not make sense to the mind. (I'm talking about jyotish, purported miracles, mysticism, etc.).

So if I say that I had a vision, (and I have) you would deny that I had a vision. Well, now you do claim to have clairvoyance than, reading my mind in such a way. Now that is a mystical concept, isn't it? (Beginning to think you are indeed a trolling Muslim)

Aum Namasivaya

[OmSriShivaShakti]

I'm not a Muslim since I do not believe that the Qur'an is God's word, I do not abstain from pork, I am not circumcised, I do not demand that women be covered by veils, etc. However, I do think that the Islamic tawheed conception of God is more logical than a God that takes incarnations and comes to people in visions.

As for your vision, I would say that you did not have one on the basis that it does not make sense scientifically and I would say that you had a dream and coincidentally that one or more of the characters in your dream were devas or holy personages. So I am not claiming to be clairvoyant or anything like that, I am just trying to appeal to logic here because I think that our belief in God and faith need to be rooted in logic and reason otherwise it is mere superstition.

And if it is not too personal, could you please explain what occurred in your purported vision?

[devotee]

I'm not a Muslim since I do not believe that the Qur'an is God's word, I do not abstain from pork, I am not circumcised, I do not demand that women be covered by veils, etc. However, I do think that the Islamic tawheed conception of God is more logical than a God that takes incarnations and comes to people in visions.


I asked you, "What is your idea of God ?". Why are you evading this question ? You think that Islamic tawheed conception of God is more logical ? OK. Tell us, what this concept is ?

Does this concept say that :

i) God is omnipresent ?
ii) God is omnipotent ?
iii) God is formless only & has no form ?
iv) God is omniscient ?

Please answer the above so that I can understand your concept of God.

BTW, when you are not a Hindu why do you keep a Hindu name ? Just curious.

OM

[OmSriShivaShakti]

I am a Hindu, that is why I keep a Hindu name (my real name is Arjun).

Tawheed:
God is one and the only
God is eternal (and also unchanging) and absolute
God does not beget nor was He begotten (also includes that God does not take incarnations because they take births)
There is nothing like God

Just because I believe in an Islamic concept, that does not make me a Muslim.

[devotee]

I am a Hindu, that is why I keep a Hindu name (my real name is Arjun).

Tawheed:
God is one and the only
God is eternal (and also unchanging) and absolute
God does not beget nor was He begotten (also includes that God does not take incarnations because they take births)
There is nothing like God

Just because I believe in an Islamic concept, that does not make me a Muslim.

OK. let me believe that you are a Hindu.

You have not really answered my questions. The attributes that you have stated don't make God, a God. Being One only, eternal, unchanging are God's attribute but that doesn't make Him God. These are not the qualities for which He is worshipped.

Please answer my questions.

OM

[OmSriShivaShakti]

Well, I also believe that God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, all-seeing, and formless. Is that what you were looking for?

[devotee]

Well, I also believe that God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, all-seeing, and formless. Is that what you were looking for?

That is better. :)

So, the God is omnipresent and also formless. Now, logically, can there be anything which is only formless & still omnipresent, as quite a large volume of this universe is filled with form ? This is an impossibility. Do you understand why ?

Or do you want to say that God is formless but is present in the form too ? But unless the whole of the form is God, there may still be a large volume where this "omnipresent" God can't be present ! Do you understand this logic ?

Moreover, if God is not as both form & formless it must have a fixed volume, because as per your understanding, wherever "form" is there God can't be there & so God must have some flexible form of a fixed volume & also It can't be omnipresent !

I can go still further but just to ensure that you are still with me, please tell me whether you agree with the above ? If not, please contradict it logically.

OM

[Eastern Mind]

I'm not a Muslim since I do not believe that the Qur'an is God's word, I do not abstain from pork, I am not circumcised, I do not demand that women be covered by veils, etc. However, I do think that the Islamic tawheed conception of God is more logical than a God that takes incarnations and comes to people in visions.

As for your vision, I would say that you did not have one on the basis that it does not make sense scientifically and I would say that you had a dream and coincidentally that one or more of the characters in your dream were devas or holy personages. So I am not claiming to be clairvoyant or anything like that, I am just trying to appeal to logic here because I think that our belief in God and faith need to be rooted in logic and reason otherwise it is mere superstition.

And if it is not too personal, could you please explain what occurred in your purported vision?

Why would I want to share a mystical vision I had with someone who already tells me he won't believe it? People from all religions have been having visions for centuries. But I can discuss a miracle. It was called the Ganesha drinking milk miracle. It happened a few years back in Hindu temples all around the world. The scientists all said (as they once thought the earth was flat) that it was all explainable by 'capillary action' whatever that is. Yet just as quickly as Ganesha started drinking milk, he also stopped drinking milk. Apparently the law of 'capillary action' also stopped. The problem with logic as (we know it today) is that there are things out there, other forms of energy that science has yet to discover. Perhaps some day they will. Religion itself is totally illogical. God is not logical.

By the way, I didn't make any fuss at all over the milk miracle. I didn't even go to the temple to witness the drinking for myself. It was a huge fuss over something that is just matter of fact.

Aum Namasivaya

[OmSriShivaShakti]

I have heard of the milk miracle and I accept the capillary action theory because it makes sense logically.

Also, I wonder why when people reported the milk miracle at one idol at one temple in September of 1995 then it was reported for other idols in the same temple and then it spread to other temples in the region and then eventually beyond India all over the world. And then after the pandemonium had subsided we never heard anything else like this until people reported such "miracles" in August of 2006.

So why was there nothing caught on tape like this before 1995 and why was nothing caught on tape from 1995 to 2006?

[satay]

idols? Are you really calling murthis idols and claiming to be a hindu?

you are giving yourself away.

[OmSriShivaShakti]

idols? Are you realling calling murthis idols and claiming to be a hindu?

you are giving yourself away.

what do you mean by "giving yourself away"?

[devotee]

Dear OSSS,

It is really a pity that you know so little about your own religion. I don't blame you, may be, your parents didn't do their job properly.

Another problem with you is that though you claim to go by logic, you are not ready to discuss logically.

Now, as you are not willing, I won't press you. However, let me assure you that idea of God as given in Vedanta is Only logical.

Your little knowledge is really dangerous because with that very limited knowledge you are trying to challenge faith of others. Please become knowledgeable yourself & then you would be in a better position to discuss.

OM

[Sherab]

idols? Are you realling calling murthis idols and claiming to be a hindu?

you are giving yourself away.

I think it is Abrahamic impressions.

In any case, if god is formless, he must also have form - there can be no :formless" if the concept of god in "form" did not exist - ie. lingam.

[TatTvamAsi]

be rooted in logic and reason otherwise it is mere superstition.

The fact that "logic" and "reason" are constructs of the mind, which is ultimately bound, cannot encompass what the ultimate reality is about or even describe it. This is why Hindus call the nature of Brahman TRANSCENDANT yet IMMANENT.

The fact that the senses and the mind has to be overcome proves the point that all things that we 'learn' have to be 'unlearned' in order to realize the Supreme. The mind is still a limiting instrument with which we cognize this universe; that is why there are so many events and features even of the manifested universe that cannot be easily explained by logic/reason.

[OmSriShivaShakti]

Dear OSSS,

However, let me assure you that idea of God as given in Vedanta is Only logical.

OM

Please explain the logical side.

[OmSriShivaShakti]

The fact that "logic" and "reason" are constructs of the mind, which is ultimately bound, cannot encompass what the ultimate reality is about or even describe it. This is why Hindus call the nature of Brahman TRANSCENDANT yet IMMANENT.


OK, I guess we are going to have to agree to disagree on this one.

[Sagefrakrobatik]

OK, I guess we are going to have to agree to disagree on this one.

NO YOU CANT STOP NOW!!!!!

[Sagefrakrobatik]

The discussion is get tangenital. we are not talking about Ganesh Murthis we are talking about the worship of human beings. The fact is that there have been many cult leaders who have promoted themselves to God-status and as a result "devotees" have followed their lead blindly and with outquestion.

"If it is from God why should question it" the reasoning goes.


allow me to put the concern in someone else's words;



The real struggle lies in this: that the ultimate sin for the Christian, is the ultimate realization of good for the Hindu. Christians have always acknowledged pride as the basic sin — the fountainhead of all sin. And Lucifer is the archetype when he says. "I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God. I will ascend above the clouds; I will be like the Most High." On a lower level, it is pride that turns even man's virtues into sins. But for the Hindu in general, and the Advaitin or Vedantan in particular, the only "sin" is not to believe in yourself and in Humanity as God Himself. In the words of Swami Vivekananda (who was the foremost modern advocate of Vedanta): "You do not yet understand India! We Indians are Man-worshippers after all. Our God is Man!" The doctrine of mukti or salvation consists in this: that "Man is to become Divine by realizing the Divine."

From this one can see the dogmas of Hinduism and Christianity standing face to face, each defying the other on the nature of God, the nature of man and the purpose of human existence.