PDA

View Full Version : How do you view the Gods?



Ao
29 June 2010, 07:59 PM
After studying the Upanishads, and after a long spiritual and philosophical journey, the Oneness of all and Brahman as the ultimate Self seems eminently reasonable to me. But I'm curious as to how others view the Gods? Is it beneficial to worship them? Where do they exist and do they interact with humanity? I recall that in the Upanishads it is mentioned a few times that the Gods do not like mortals to know about Brahman as it detracts from their worship.

Anyway, I know very little, and would like to hear about modern Hindu practices regarding the Gods.

Cheers!

Riverwolf
29 June 2010, 08:16 PM
Well, to me, the Gods are guides and teachers. I worship them, even if I don't believe they literally exist, because they help provide a focal point for worship.

I believe in the overall Oneness spoken of in the Upanishads, as well. But the Gods are still part of my beliefs.

Eastern Mind
29 June 2010, 08:35 PM
Vannakam Andrew: You will get many different answers for sure on this one.

Personally, I absolutely believe in the mystical reality of God and Gods. I separate Siva from Ganesha and Murugan. Siva is Boss God, and emanated Murugan and Ganesha as 'helpers' but each in their own right are Mahadevas, except their Godly dharmas are somewhat different than Siva's, Ganesha being in charge of worldly stuff, and Murugan being the God of yoga.

In a mystical sense, at a temple I believe God sees me 10 times more clearly than I see him, via the murthy. This is darshan. I have no doubts whatsoever. It is not myth or symbolic, it is interplane connection reality. I get in touch as do millions of Hindus on a daily basis in temples throughout India. There is no progress without bhakti towards Gods. As far as the other God like Krishna goes, I believe they are essentially same energy as Siva, but subtle differences make it so that others are more drawn to them. And yet I feel different energy in non-Saiva temples as well. The beauty of the vastness of all the sects.

This sense of 'feeling energy' within temples is clouded by intellect, and anava, so not all will feel it.

Aum Namasivaya

NayaSurya
29 June 2010, 09:17 PM
Each of us will have a different answer to this because we are each at a precise point in our relationship with the Divine that is never quite the same as any other we meet.


Siva is Isvara to me...He is my husband...He is everything I see...and do not see...everything comes from him created in the heart...the Aham and then returns to him ...Maha.

I can see why the Divine would not want lowly human as myself to see the inner workings of the universe...as I have seen things which have nearly halted my spiritual progress because of the confusion it brought to this ignorant fool. It happens a lot lately.

I spent half a life time trying to see God, only to finally understand I was looking at Him all along.

The first time I realize that Siva...sits upon a throne with starry eyes that meditate wholey upon the universe.

Manifesting in billions of ways in my life...

He is my Father which watches over me...Visnu..the sustainer...the Devas and MahaDevas watch over every single Beloved piece of God...helping us along our way.

At first, this confused me...Visnu...Siva?? Aren't these beings equal? So I fall to my knees for each of them...not fully understanding that They are They. Each is a manifestation of the Divine Beloved Isvara...sent to help us move forward.

Every step, every single heart beat, these Divine Beings are with us, because we are, in reality, a very tiny piece cut from Him...just as They.

We are They..too.

I see Isvara in every single thing I see...like drops in the ocean all flowing towards the Beloved Ocean..lulal..

Each drop rushing forward, picking up bits of debris, purifying and purging ourselves...so that one day, hopefully we reach the Beloved again.

How do I view Isvara? How can I not?

Thank you for allowing me to think about this tonight. Sometimes in meditation I focus so wholey upon nothing...that I loose sight of the Something.<3

Om Guru Brahma, Om Guru Visnu, Om Guru Devo Maheshwara<3

saidevo
29 June 2010, 09:36 PM
namaste Andrewoberg.

Although the oneness of all with Brahman is the ultimate message and main theme of the UpaniShads, you may notice that they also speak of manifest forms of that one God in a hierarchical set up. PurANas expand this hierarchy into a practical world of divine forces, with the TrimUrti at the head of the hierarchy and the devas, asuras and other celestial beings as the subjects under them.

• You would have noticed that in the UpaniShadic shAnti mantra, shAnti--peace, is invoked thrice. This is an indication of the three different forms the divine forces reside in.

It is believed that "trivaram satyam"--"that which is said thrice comes true". For emphasizing a point we repeat a thing thrice. In the court of law also, one who takes the witness stand says, "I shall speak the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth".

We chant shAnti thrice to emphasise our intense desire for peace. All obstacles, problems and sorrows originate from three sources.

‣ Adhidaivika: The unseen divine forces over which we have little or no control like earthquakes, floods, volcanic eruptions etc.

‣ Adhibhautika: The known factors around us like accidents, human contacts, pollution, crime etc.

‣ AdhyAtmika: We sincerely pray to the Lord that at least while we undertake special tasks or even in our daily lives, there are no problems or that, problems are minimised from the three sources written about above.

May peace alone prevail. Hence shAnti is chanted thrice.

It is chanted aloud the first time, addressing the unseen forces. It is chanted softer the second time, directed to our immediate surroundings and those around, and softest the last time as it is addressed to one's Self.

• Thus, the divine forces manifest in different forms by/from Brahman have three forms: Adhidaivika, Adhibhautika and AdhyAtmika. In one sense, even a jIvAtma--individual soul, has these three forms: the hidden forces of unmanifest karma, the known forces initiated by the mind, and the Self or Atman or Brahman as the ultimate reality inside.

Thus, in Hinduism, the Gods (Devas) and the Demons (asuras) don't reside in yonder celestial worlds but are ever present inside every being as positive and negative forms of forces/energy.

• When there is a divine system of hierarchy, the subjects who form the leaves of the tree should necessarily adhere to their sAmAnya--common, dharma in order that the Devas and Asuras who form the nodes can do their job of administering the HUGE community of jIvAtmas waiting to be born again, and also do the preparatory work for their rebirth, besides maintaining the samsAra--world process, of the earth. This is the reason it is said that the Devas do not like mortals to become more and more Self-Realized, because in that process, they would give up their yajnas and other Ashrama dharma.

• It follows then, that worship of Gods (Devas and other God forms), essentially amounts to an inward movement towards the Self. When the glory of the Gods is sung and yajnas--fire ceremonies, are performed, the hymns recited and the mantras chanted create positive vibrations and purify our mind. This effort of chitta-shuddhi is the first step that would lead us to the path of nivRtti--renunciation, wherein we seek to realize the Self through shravaNa, manana and nidhidhyAsanA.

Although the goal is Atma-anubhavam--experience of the Self, modern (and popular) worship practices in Hinduism are largely geared towards betterment of living conditions in the world life. Still, the very chanting of the name of a God, done with consistency, sincerity and devotion, does help the jIva to course-correct its path from the worldly to the spiritual and gradually lead it to a life of peacefulness.

devotee
29 June 2010, 11:27 PM
Namaste Andrew,


After studying the Upanishads, and after a long spiritual and philosophical journey, the Oneness of all and Brahman as the ultimate Self seems eminently reasonable to me. But I'm curious as to how others view the Gods? Is it beneficial to worship them? Where do they exist and do they interact with humanity? I recall that in the Upanishads it is mentioned a few times that the Gods do not like mortals to know about Brahman as it detracts from their worship.

Anyway, I know very little, and would like to hear about modern Hindu practices regarding the Gods.


Good inputs are already there. I will add a bit from my side.

You should understand the meaning of the word, "existence" more clearly. It is not as easy as it looks. We take it for granted but if we contemplate deeper we would find that "existence" has only a relative meaning. If I have an image of "God" in my mind that I talk to and I love & he answers my prayers sometimes and doesn't some other times .... can we say that "that God exists" or that "that God doesn't exist" ? What shall be the litmus test ... the undoubtable proof which could tell me whether it exists or not. Does existence being in flesh & blood like we humans or what does it mean ?

Lord Krishna says in Bhagwad Gita, "I fix the devotion of the devotees to that form of Devatas that they want to worship for fulfilment of their worldly desires and those Devatas in turn fulfil their desires according to the rules decided by Me. They who worship these different forms of God actually worship me alone but their such worshipping is not the correct method."

Tulsidas Ji said, " Jaaki Rahi Bhaavana Jaisi, Prabhu Moorat dekhi tin taisi" ===> "A devotee sees the form of God that is in his mind".

God is One alone but has many forms as per devotees' requirements. You choose the form that suits you. Have no doubts, you cannot choose anything but God to worship as long as your intentions are right and you lead a pious life ... in fact, even if your intentions are not right & you don't lead a pious life ... it cannot be anyone but God as He alone is available for worshipping but that is a long & confusing story. Results can vary ... as the results depends upon your own karmas.

OM

saidevo
29 June 2010, 11:54 PM
namaste everyone.

Andrewoberg asked in his OP:
"I'm curious as to how others view the Gods? Is it beneficial to worship them? ... would like to hear about modern Hindu practices regarding the Gods."

I happened to mention in post no.5 "modern (and popular) worship practices in Hinduism are largely geared towards betterment of living conditions in the world life."

As one thinks about it, it seems that the different forms of bhakti--devotion, with a possible order of superiority among them, are really there to commensurate the different spiritual levels and propensity of the jIvas. Let me try to explain it:

• When I pray for my own Ayur-Arogya-aishvarya--longevity-health-wealth, it would amount to the lowest form of bhakti centered around one's physical self. So long as I don't seek to ruin anyone, this is not an undesirable way of worship.

What I don't realize in this form of bhakti is that instead of invoking the spiritual powers of the Self by seeking an enhanced experience of its consciousness as my consciousness (or vice versa), I simply pray to its surface, invoking the divine forces for my own welfare in life. And I must know that depending on the sincerity of my prayers and subject to my own karma, my prayers will be answered.

• When I pray for the Ayur-Arogya-aishvarya of my kuTumba-bandhu-mitra--household-relatives-friends, my prayers are at a higher level, born out of my love and concern for my kith and kin. I know that I care for their welfare, the conditions of which are beyond my efforts, so I seek Ishvara-sahAyatvam--divine assistance.

Of course, I should also know that the betterment of their welfare is subject to their karma, and what I should really seek from Ishvara is to arm them with the courage and wisdom to face their life situations.

• When I get to a level of knowing that my personal welfare and that of the others around me can be prayed for, but are subject to our karma, my love expands to other humans and non-human living beings, so I seek to pray "loka samasta sukhino bhavantu"--"May all the world remain in happiness".

This universal prayer is at the heart of the Hindu yajnas and community worship. What I should know here is that this prayer is not just a courteous way to invoke God's blessings but a sincere wish: when the world around us is happy and harmonious, what scope is there for the problems of life?

• Now I reach a level where I need a permanent anchor for my priyam--love. I realize that the very purpose of my birth is to have an unchanging love towards someone who would never ever wrangle about or question my love; who would never ever leave me; and who could make me feel the reciprocal love. In other words, I realize that only Ishvara can fulfill these conditions for my love, so I start loving him/her in the form of my personal God. Once I do this, the plus and minus of this worldly life upset me less and less.

In this way of worship, I progress through different bhakti-bhavas--devotional frames of mind, defining my relationship with Ishvara as santa--neutral/passive, dAsya--servitude, sAkhya--friendship, vAtsalya--parental love, and mAdhurya--sweet, transcendental love. Such bhakti-rasas--devotional flavours, enable me to define and refine my bhakti and progress towards the nivRtti mArgam--path of renunciation.

Once shrI RAmA asked HanumAn, his eternal devotee, "How do you contemplate on Me?" "At the physical level, You are my Master and I am Your servant. At the mental level, I am a spark of thy Divine Self. At the Atmic level, You and I are one," said Hanuman.

• My inward journey by bhakti has a destination: the realization that the Self or Atman in me and Brahman are identical and that I must eventually return to, and merge with, my source. Once this desire sets in, I seek to pursue a path of nivRtti and accomplish my goal through shravaNa--reading and listening, manana--contemplation, and nidhidhyAsanA--profound and repeated meditation, and satsangha--company of wise men.

What would be the prayer of a jnAni who has reached this stage?

Adi Shankara prays thus in his stotra--hymn 'saundaryalaharI':

जपो जल्पः शिल्पं सकलमपि मुद्राविरचना
गतिः प्रादक्षिण्यक्रमणमशनाद्याहुतिविधिः ।

प्रणामस्संवेशस्सुखमखिलमात्मार्पणदृशा
सपर्यापर्यायस्तव भवतु यन्मे विलसितम् ॥ २७ ॥

japo jalpaH shilpaM sakalamapi mudrA-viracanA
gatiH prAdakShiNyakramaNamashanAdyAhutividhiH |
praNAmassaMveshassukhamakhilamAtmArpaNadR^ishA
saparyAparyAyastava bhavatu yanme vilasitam || 27 ||

"Let my every word be a prayer to Thee,
Every movement of my hands a ritual gesture to Thee,
Every step I take a circumambulation of Thy image,
Every morsel I eat a rite of sacrifice to Thee,
Every time I lay down a prostration at Thy feet;
Every act of personal pleasure and all else that I do,
Let it all be a form of worshiping Thee."

--Verse 27 of Shri Adi Shankara's 'saundaryalaharI'

NayaSurya
30 June 2010, 02:55 PM
Adi Shankara prays thus in his stotra--hymn 'saundaryalaharI':

जपो जल्पः शिल्पं सकलमपि मुद्राविरचना
गतिः प्रादक्षिण्यक्रमणमशनाद्याहुतिविधिः ।

प्रणामस्संवेशस्सुखमखिलमात्मार्पणदृशा
सपर्यापर्यायस्तव भवतु यन्मे विलसितम् ॥ २७ ॥

japo jalpaH shilpaM sakalamapi mudrA-viracanA
gatiH prAdakShiNyakramaNamashanAdyAhutividhiH |
praNAmassaMveshassukhamakhilamAtmArpaNadR^ishA
saparyAparyAyastava bhavatu yanme vilasitam || 27 ||

"Let my every word be a prayer to Thee,
Every movement of my hands a ritual gesture to Thee,
Every step I take a circumambulation of Thy image,
Every morsel I eat a rite of sacrifice to Thee,
Every time I lay down a prostration at Thy feet;
Every act of personal pleasure and all else that I do,
Let it all be a form of worshiping Thee."

--Verse 27 of Shri Adi Shankara's 'saundaryalaharI'


Absolutely magnificent.

To live in this manner is bliss.

Ganeshprasad
30 June 2010, 04:18 PM
Pranam

Strange this question and some off the answer even more somber.

I don’t think I can ever understand advaita.
God or gods are teachers there is a belief in them yet he can not exist literally or he is figment of our imagination and takes shape as per our desire wow!

Is it our naďve understanding of advaita that kill off gods?

Why would Shankracharya write those verses if in final analysis there was no such image?
"Let my every word be a prayer to Thee,
Every movement of my hands a ritual gesture to Thee,
Every step I take a circumambulation of Thy image,
Every morsel I eat a rite of sacrifice to Thee,
Every time I lay down a prostration at Thy feet;
Every act of personal pleasure and all else that I do,
Let it all be a form of worshiping Thee."

--Verse 27 of Shri Adi Shankara's 'saundaryalaharI'
Why bhaja Govinda?

What was the need for him to establish temples?

This is what lord Krishna says
The ignorant ones, not knowing My supreme natures as the great Lord of all beings, disregard Me when I assume human form. (9.11)
 
But great souls, O Arjuna, who possess divine qualities (See 16.01-03) know Me as the (material and efficient) cause of creation and imperishable, and worship Me single-mindedly. (9.13)

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. (4.06)

I can not but laugh or even cry when someone in his/ her final analysis reading advaita, without really actually having any realisation kill off the Gods.

Jai Shree Krishna

Riverwolf
30 June 2010, 06:54 PM
Pranam

Strange this question and some off the answer even more somber.

I don’t think I can ever understand advaita.
God or gods are teachers there is a belief in them yet he can not exist literally or he is figment of our imagination and takes shape as per our desire wow!

Is it our naďve understanding of advaita that kill off gods?

Why would Shankracharya write those verses if in final analysis there was no such image?
"Let my every word be a prayer to Thee,
Every movement of my hands a ritual gesture to Thee,
Every step I take a circumambulation of Thy image,
Every morsel I eat a rite of sacrifice to Thee,
Every time I lay down a prostration at Thy feet;
Every act of personal pleasure and all else that I do,
Let it all be a form of worshiping Thee."

--Verse 27 of Shri Adi Shankara's 'saundaryalaharI'
Why bhaja Govinda?

What was the need for him to establish temples?

This is what lord Krishna says
The ignorant ones, not knowing My supreme natures as the great Lord of all beings, disregard Me when I assume human form. (9.11)
 
But great souls, O Arjuna, who possess divine qualities (See 16.01-03) know Me as the (material and efficient) cause of creation and imperishable, and worship Me single-mindedly. (9.13)

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. (4.06)

I can not but laugh or even cry when someone in his/ her final analysis reading advaita, without really actually having any realisation kill off the Gods.

Jai Shree Krishna

Who's killing off that which cannot be killed? How can someone even do that? :confused:

Though I follow advaita, I do worship God and gods. Existence just isn't important to me; maybe they exist, maybe they don't. It's just not important.

From what little I know of him, Adi Sankara seemed to know this; though he made popular advaita vedanta, he was still very devoted to God and gods.

The Bhagavad-Gita Dhyana says that it "showers the nectar of advaita," and yet its highest teaching is bhakti, which is also found in that Dhyana. Therefore, I believe that advaita without bhakti is meaningless, ESPECIALLY for those who have not achieved realization.

So, yes, whether or not God and gods actually exist isn't important to me, but I think and act as if they do.

devotee
30 June 2010, 08:19 PM
Pranam

Strange this question and some off the answer even more somber.

I don’t think I can ever understand advaita.
God or gods are teachers there is a belief in them yet he can not exist literally or he is figment of our imagination and takes shape as per our desire wow!

Is it our naďve understanding of advaita that kill off gods?

Why would Shankracharya write those verses if in final analysis there was no such image?
"Let my every word be a prayer to Thee,
Every movement of my hands a ritual gesture to Thee,
Every step I take a circumambulation of Thy image,
Every morsel I eat a rite of sacrifice to Thee,
Every time I lay down a prostration at Thy feet;
Every act of personal pleasure and all else that I do,
Let it all be a form of worshiping Thee."

--Verse 27 of Shri Adi Shankara's 'saundaryalaharI'
Why bhaja Govinda?

What was the need for him to establish temples?

This is what lord Krishna says
The ignorant ones, not knowing My supreme natures as the great Lord of all beings, disregard Me when I assume human form. (9.11)
 
But great souls, O Arjuna, who possess divine qualities (See 16.01-03) know Me as the (material and efficient) cause of creation and imperishable, and worship Me single-mindedly. (9.13)

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. (4.06)

I can not but laugh or even cry when someone in his/ her final analysis reading advaita, without really actually having any realisation kill off the Gods.

Jai Shree Krishna

Namaste GP ji,

I think you got a wrong message from my post, if that has triggered the above post. I think you may like to have a re-look at the post.

I would say, "All forms of God are as real as we are", if that satisfies you.

OM

saidevo
30 June 2010, 10:51 PM
namaste everyone.

Devotee said in post no.11:
"I would say, "All forms of God are as real as we are", if that satisfies you."

This is correct for the humans, but PurANas mention that the worlds of Gods have existences beyond that of the universe. Therefore, the reality of Gods transcend the reality of the human world.

The divine worlds in subtle form are populated by devas, gandharvas, kiMnaras, kimpuruShas, etc., and their consorts, all of who represent positive forces and a whole lot of beings representing negative forces, such as, the asuras, rAkShasas, nAgas, etc. This population is ruled over and guided by the leaders among them who are under the domain of the TrimUrtis and their consorts.

The inhabitants of the divine worlds, whether they are devagaNa--of the deva race, or asuragaNa--of the asura race, are under the influence of the triguNa--sattva, rajas, tamas--in their life and work. Their chances of Self-Realization are far less than those for the humans, which is one reason that PurANas describe the devas and asuras as seeking to disrupt the tapas and yajnas of the Rishis. Perhaps the only clan among the devas who are always in contemplation of their Self are the DevaRishis like NArada.

Whereas the TrimUrtis, their Consorts and other Gods who are our IShTadevatas, are all auspicious in nature, although their lIlAs often demand a play of guNas.

• The normal order of reference to the TrimUrtis is brahmA-viShNu-shiva, for creation-preservation-dissoluation. All the TrimUrtis are described in the PurANas as constantly meditating on their Atman which is Brahman, which keeps them auspicious at all times.

• The normal order of reference to the Consorts of the TrimUrtis is durgA-lakShmI-sarasvatI. This order is perhaps an indication that in Creation, the world is driven by the play of passion and fury, followed by the craze for wealth and power, with knowledge and wisdom taking the back seat. The TridevIs themselves are described as always in meditation, and the order indicates that their essential nature is auspiciousness, wisdom and knowledge.

Thus, the ultimate reality is only Brahman, which is Absolute, Infinite and Eternal. All other realities--of human and divine worlds--are only relative, although completely real in their own domain of time and space.

Ganeshprasad
01 July 2010, 03:33 AM
Pranam devotee ji


Namaste GP ji,

I think you got a wrong message from my post, if that has triggered the above post. I think you may like to have a re-look at the post.

I would say, "All forms of God are as real as we are", if that satisfies you.

OM

No my friend your post did not trigger my response, if it was i would have addressed you directly.
Let Gods not be as real as we for my satisfaction, we offer respect and worship to them because they are real. Ok i have not seen them but then i did not see my Grandfather either.

Jai Shree Krishna

Sahasranama
01 July 2010, 06:21 AM
LoL @ people debating whether the gods are real on a hindu forum.

Riverwolf
01 July 2010, 01:12 PM
LoL @ people debating whether the gods are real on a hindu forum.

And that's why I love Hinduism. ^_^

Ganeshprasad
01 July 2010, 04:01 PM
Pranam Saidevo ji
nice post, i like to pick on your last sentence if i may


namaste everyone.

All other realities--of human and divine worlds--are only relative, although completely real in their own domain of time and space.

In other words beyond time and space those completely real has no reality, is that it.or am i reading it wrong?

I appreciate the material nature is for ever changing, even though it is part of the same Brahman, yes it is mentioned even the BrahmLok is also temporary but are Jivas temporary let alone Devas? this is what Lord Krishna says

There was never a time when I, you, or these kings did not exist; nor shall we ever cease to exist in the future. (2.12)

Jai Shree Krishna

Ao
01 July 2010, 08:30 PM
There was never a time when I, you, or these kings did not exist; nor shall we ever cease to exist in the future. (2.12)



I understand this verse to mean that as we, and everything else, including the gods, are all part of Brahman, there is never a time that 'we' don't exist as Brahman always has existed and always will--in one form or another or no form at all. This interpretation, I think, fits well with multiple universes that have their own cycles of birth, death, and rebirth.

Ao
01 July 2010, 08:31 PM
And that's why I love Hinduism. ^_^

Seconded!! :)

-Aashna_Namaste-
01 July 2010, 10:40 PM
I also agree, I love Hinduism! It gives you a lot of freedom, and there are no rules and doctrins to bind you. I am new to the faith so bear with me. Even though I just started practicing the faith, I highly respect the gods. I listen to Krishna Das everyday and chant along with him as I have pictures of Krishna and Ganesha in front of to worship. I connect the most with them. I take things seriously. I eventually hop to be very devout in my faith. One Rule I go by...my self rule..."Praise The Gods Always, for they gave u a life. They gave you a heart and they gave you a soul, so worship them and be thankful your alive."

saidevo
01 July 2010, 10:55 PM
namaste Ganeshprasad ji.

I think we are using different words to describe the same Reality which is ekam--only one.

When I said, "All other realities--of human and divine worlds--are only relative, although completely real in their own domain of time and space."

and you read it as "In other words beyond time and space those completely real has no reality, is that it.or am i reading it wrong?"

we both are right because I talk from the perspective of jIvas and you from the perspective of shrI KRShNa the Self in us.

I am not proficient in the GItA as you are, but shrI KRShNa's declaration in verse 2.12 raises some points:

na tvevAhaM jAtu nAsaM na tvaM neme janAdhipAH |
na chaiva na bhaviShyAmaH sarve vayamataH param || 2.12 }}

In fact, there was never a time when I or you or these kings, were non-existent. Nor is it right that we shall cease to be in future.
--Translation from the Gita Press publication.

• Notably, this verse occurs in chapter 2 which is titled 'SAMkhya Yoga'.

‣ So, does shrI KRShNa echo in this verse the SAMkhya philosophy of many PuruShas which are different as divine, human, animal and vegetable souls but conceived as eternal and not phenomenal only in their plurality?

‣ Or does he say that 'I, you and these kings' are different only in our bodies and have a common, identical reality which is beyond the time of past, present and future, thus echoing the philosophy of the VedAnta?

‣ Although shrI KRShNa seems to identify himself with Arjuna and the Kings in this verse, in another verse (4.5) he makes a clear distinction between divine and human souls: "You and I have taken many births. I know them all, while you don't know."

‣ When he talks of 'many births', he implies the perishable nature of the bodies; and when he talks of the eternalness of 'I, you and these kings', does he mean the-many-but-eternal PuruShas behind the bodies, or the one Self that unites them all?

• Another interesting point in verse 2.12 is that when shrI KRiShNa says, 'I, you and these kings', he implies the three persons 'I, you and they': "I AM eternal, so you ARE and they ARE; essentially, WE ARE eternal."

‣ The personal identification by 'AM' in 'I' indicates the perception of an individual ego, a jIvAtman. The same ego perceives another jIvAtma as 'you' and yet others as 'they', using the second/third person reference 'ARE' and perceiving them as different. What shrI KRShNa does in this verse is to unite everyone with the implication 'WE ARE eternal.'

‣ The distinctions of 'I, you and they' arise in the mind and intellect whose physical counterpart is the brain. The unification of 'we' arises in the wisdom of buddhi which is identified as love related to the heart. Arjuna is confused between the issues of the mind and heart and shrI KRShNa teaches him that in waging this war of dharma he would only be killing bodies as the souls behind them are identical and imperishable.

Essentially, IMHO, as shrI KRShNa talks of 'many births' even for the Gods, and at the same time says that the souls, whether divine or human or lesser, are all eternal and imperishable, his intention is to unite the bhAgavata--deity, and the bhakta--devotee in the Self that is Atman and Brahman, and only which is absolutely eternal.

Ganeshprasad
02 July 2010, 04:13 AM
Pranam saidevo ji, andrewoberg and all

Thanks for your considered reply, no I am no more proficient in Gita then you are, I do not make in depth analysis of each verse like you and many here might do, yes I had considered the verse on the line that you have put, that is one way of looking at it yet there are those who see that in different light, one thing is for sure the existence of all that be is not in doubt, the reason I entered this thread because in post no 2 Riverwolf doubted the literal existence of Gods or devas.

In that ekam reality there is multitude of variety and that is a conundrum we can all marvel.

This entire universe is pervaded by Me, the unmanifest Brahman. All beings depend on (or remain in) Me. I do not depend on them. (9.04)

And yet beings, in reality, do not remain in Me. Look at the power of My divine mystery. Though the sustainer and creator of all beings, I do not remain in them. (9.05)

Consider that all beings remain in Me as the mighty wind, moving everywhere, eternally remains in space. (9.06)

Jai Shree Krishna

rainycity
02 July 2010, 05:32 AM
since human bodies are the result of biological evolution on one planet it seems highly unlikely and unreasonable that beings with humanoid forms pre-existed us.

Riverwolf
02 July 2010, 12:01 PM
because in post no 2 Riverwolf doubted the literal existence of Gods or devas.


Still do. :D

Ganeshprasad
02 July 2010, 03:34 PM
Pranam


Still do. :D

Thats your prerogative and loss, i have made my point.
As a Hindu they deserve my utmost respect, to kill off vedic deities as none entity is a contempt for Vedas.
Good luck

jai Shree Krishna

Sahasranama
02 July 2010, 03:38 PM
It's okay if you doubt the existence of the gods. I do not doubt, but I see no point in a useless debate on this subject.

Riverwolf
02 July 2010, 03:54 PM
It's okay if you doubt the existence of the gods. I do not doubt, but I see no point in a useless debate on this subject.

I have to agree.

I doubt simply because I have not experienced them; therefore, I have no reason to just believe that they literally exist based solely on anecdotes.

Eastern Mind
02 July 2010, 04:35 PM
I have to agree.

I doubt simply because I have not experienced them; therefore, I have no reason to just believe that they literally exist based solely on anecdotes.


Vannakkam: This is an excellent point. I've always maintained that a person needs that one experience, maybe two that is so powerful it wreaks havoc on previous mindsets. Until you have this, the world is full of doubt. Why would you want to believe anecdotes? At least you're not denying someone else's experience, which some people do. Almost like telling an angry man, "You're not angry!"

If someone shares that they saw a murthi wink at them or they felt darshan radiating from a temple or Guru, all you can do is say, "I see." But once the murthi winks at you, well them you might change, depending on how open you are. Some people do have the ability to go to a doctor and ask what might have brought on such a hallucination. Scientists denied the Ganesha milk miracle a few years back with something called capillary action. Apparently the capillary action effect also stopped when Ganesha stopped. I found it quite laughable personally, and agree with Sahasranama. There is no point in useless debate.

Another view is the honest person view, for anecdotes. You're walking along the same road every day, and this old woman tells you what's over the hill. One day it is a pink cadillac, the next day it is a horse with foal, the next a deer, then a bearded woman on a motorcycle etc. Each day for 5 years she is right. Then she says "God exists, you know." You might want to believe her. Still you wouldn't have to.

Just curious... So when you go to temple, you feel nothing?

Aum Namasivaya

Riverwolf
02 July 2010, 05:18 PM
Vannakkam: This is an excellent point. I've always maintained that a person needs that one experience, maybe two that is so powerful it wreaks havoc on previous mindsets. Until you have this, the world is full of doubt. Why would you want to believe anecdotes? At least you're not denying someone else's experience, which some people do. Almost like telling an angry man, "You're not angry!"

If someone shares that they saw a murthi wink at them or they felt darshan radiating from a temple or Guru, all you can do is say, "I see." But once the murthi winks at you, well them you might change, depending on how open you are. Some people do have the ability to go to a doctor and ask what might have brought on such a hallucination. Scientists denied the Ganesha milk miracle a few years back with something called capillary action. Apparently the capillary action effect also stopped when Ganesha stopped. I found it quite laughable personally, and agree with Sahasranama. There is no point in useless debate.

Another view is the honest person view, for anecdotes. You're walking along the same road every day, and this old woman tells you what's over the hill. One day it is a pink cadillac, the next day it is a horse with foal, the next a deer, then a bearded woman on a motorcycle etc. Each day for 5 years she is right. Then she says "God exists, you know." You might want to believe her. Still you wouldn't have to.

Just curious... So when you go to temple, you feel nothing?

Aum Namasivaya

At the moment, I don't feel anything incredibly profound while I'm in the Temple, but when I leave, I feel refreshed and cleansed. For the next week or so, I am much more spiritually aware, much more calm, and much more disciplined. I haven't been to my local Temple in about three weeks (it's difficult to get there, as I don't drive), and I can tell that my spiritual life isn't as active as it would be if I had been there, say, a few days ago. At the same time, however, when I pray at my home shrine (which is very sporadic), I feel a minor version of what I get at the Temple, which does help me greatly. If I don't take the time out to pray at my Shrine, I will get steeped in sense-pleasures.

I certainly don't deny that other people have experienced God and Gods. Because of the vast number of people who have experienced these things, I certainly don't outright deny the existence of Gods. Anecdotes may not be the best source of information, but when a large group of people reports the same thing, I recognize that something is certainly happening. Therefore, while I doubt, I don't deny. I do believe that the extraordinary is possible.

You know, doing a quick look at what capillary action is, makes me really wonder how that could occur with spoons and statues without the use of tubes. :dunno: Then again, I'm no physicist, so what do I know.

Eastern Mind
02 July 2010, 05:28 PM
At the moment, I don't feel anything incredibly profound while I'm in the Temple, but when I leave, I feel refreshed and cleansed. For the next week or so, I am much more spiritually aware, much more calm, and much more disciplined.

Vannakkam; So from your point of view, what is it in that experience that makes you feel refreshed and cleansed? I will say it is the presence of God, but you obviously think it is something else. What?

Aum Namasivaya

Riverwolf
02 July 2010, 05:41 PM
Vannakkam; So from your point of view, what is it in that experience that makes you feel refreshed and cleansed? I will say it is the presence of God, but you obviously think it is something else. What?

Aum Namasivaya

I, too, would call it the presence of God.

When I say I don't believe literally in Gods, I mean I don't believe the Gods to be separate individuals like us. I do believe in God.

Well, technically, it's impossible to not be in the presence of God; however, I'm rarely aware of this. Being in the Temple, or being in front of my Shrine, or seeing the picture of Sri Rama as my computer desktop, reminds me of the fact. The Temple is the greatest place for this, because of the presence of the Priests and other devotees, so that the energies of love and divinity more readily flow than anywhere else I frequent.

Ramakrishna
02 July 2010, 11:49 PM
Namaste Riverwolf,

You are still relatively new to the faith. Keep practicing with sincere bhakti and eventually your doubtfulness will dissolute. It may not be something as explicit as a winking murti, but you will know.


I, too, would call it the presence of God.

When I say I don't believe literally in Gods, I mean I don't believe the Gods to be separate individuals like us. I do believe in God.

Well, technically, it's impossible to not be in the presence of God; however, I'm rarely aware of this. Being in the Temple, or being in front of my Shrine, or seeing the picture of Sri Rama as my computer desktop, reminds me of the fact. The Temple is the greatest place for this, because of the presence of the Priests and other devotees, so that the energies of love and divinity more readily flow than anywhere else I frequent.

Although I'm not really sure what you mean by this. Are you saying that you know that God exists and you are always in the presence of God, but you just need to be more aware of it?

I think what you are getting into here are the different Vedantic philosophies of Santana Dharma. When you say that you don't believe the Gods to be separate individuals like us, it sounds like Advaita philosophy which holds that ultimately the soul is identical with God. That is monism. This is opposed to Dvaita philosophy, which holds that the soul is distinct from God.

Of course, I could be entirely misunderstanding you. If so, I apologize.

Jai Sri Krishna

Riverwolf
03 July 2010, 12:05 AM
Namaste Riverwolf,

You are still relatively new to the faith. Keep practicing with sincere bhakti and eventually your doubtfulness will dissolute. It may not be something as explicit as a winking murti, but you will know.

I sure hope so.


Although I'm not really sure what you mean by this. Are you saying that you know that God exists and you are always in the presence of God, but you just need to be more aware of it?

I believe in God, but I do forget about Him a lot.


I think what you are getting into here are the different Vedantic philosophies of Santana Dharma. When you say that you don't believe the Gods to be separate individuals like us, it sounds like Advaita philosophy which holds that ultimately the soul is identical with God. That is monism. This is opposed to Dvaita philosophy, which holds that the soul is distinct from God.

Of course, I could be entirely misunderstanding you. If so, I apologize.

Jai Sri Krishna

No, you're not really misunderstanding me. I am advaitic to an extent. However, I need bhakti in order to keep myself in a spiritual life.

atanu
03 July 2010, 01:02 AM
Namaste Riverwolf,

I think what you are getting into here are the different Vedantic philosophies of Santana Dharma. When you say that you don't believe the Gods to be separate individuals like us, it sounds like Advaita philosophy which holds that ultimately the soul is identical with God. That is monism. This is opposed to Dvaita philosophy, which holds that the soul is distinct from God.

Jai Sri Krishna

Namaste Ramakrishna

I find your post to River worth applauding. I hope you will not mind if i take liberty and intervene a little.

Actually advaita holds: ultimately the soul is identical with God when both the soul (Jiva) and God (Ishwara) are divested of their respective attributes. The substratum is equally Brahman or the Atman. With attributes of servant and Lord, the soul and God respectively are eternally distinct. There is no conflict there -- unless imagined.

Om Namah Shivaya

atanu
03 July 2010, 06:37 AM
namaste everyone.

-----PurANas mention that the worlds of Gods have existences beyond that of the universe. Therefore, the reality of Gods transcend the reality of the human world.
----
Thus, the ultimate reality is only Brahman, which is Absolute, Infinite and Eternal. All other realities--of human and divine worlds--are only relative, although completely real in their own domain of time and space.

Namaste Friends

I think the above two sum up the thread.

IMO, the confusion arises when we perceive from our gross physical-discrete perspective, which we take as the primary reality. If we begin from the perspective of Turya, which is spiritual unbrokenness, both the above statements are valid. The spiritual domains of devas and asuras exist between the agnivaisvanaro waking world and the Hiranyagarbha -Ishwara loka.

The embodied ones who believe in spiritual truth cannot by-pass the fact that if a body-mind exists in this realm then there must be its spiritual equivalent and also a spiritual creator/controller etc. -- and so on. But what about those beings who have only the causal bodies made of ignorance? For them also, there will be spiritual entities acting as leaders/controllers/enemies/friends -- just as we have.

But scriptures do speak of a knower of Brahman becoming Brahman, who has no other controller. Such a one can be Jivan mukta (in body) or videha mukta (devoid of body).

Om Namah Shivaya

Ramakrishna
03 July 2010, 01:17 PM
Namaste Ramakrishna

I find your post to River worth applauding. I hope you will not mind if i take liberty and intervene a little.

Actually advaita holds: ultimately the soul is identical with God when both the soul (Jiva) and God (Ishwara) are divested of their respective attributes. The substratum is equally Brahman or the Atman. With attributes of servant and Lord, the soul and God respectively are eternally distinct. There is no conflict there -- unless imagined.

Om Namah Shivaya

Namaste atanuji,

Thank you for that clarification of Advaita philosophy. That makes sense.

Jai Sri Krishna

Ao
05 July 2010, 12:24 AM
Namaste Friends

The spiritual domains of devas and asuras exist between the agnivaisvanaro waking world and the Hiranyagarbha -Ishwara loka.

The embodied ones who believe in spiritual truth cannot by-pass the fact that if a body-mind exists in this realm then there must be its spiritual equivalent and also a spiritual creator/controller etc. -- and so on. But what about those beings who have only the causal bodies made of ignorance? For them also, there will be spiritual entities acting as leaders/controllers/enemies/friends -- just as we have.

But scriptures do speak of a knower of Brahman becoming Brahman, who has no other controller. Such a one can be Jivan mukta (in body) or videha mukta (devoid of body).

Om Namah Shivaya

Atanu, this is a very interesting, and potentially quite powerful, point, I think. Would you mind explaining a bit further, particularly this section, "agnivaisvanaro waking world and the Hiranyagarbha -Ishwara loka" (I don't understand the terms:().

atanu
05 July 2010, 01:13 PM
Atanu, this is a very interesting, and potentially quite powerful, point, I think. Would you mind explaining a bit further, particularly this section, "agnivaisvanaro waking world and the Hiranyagarbha -Ishwara loka" (I don't understand the terms:().

Dear andrew

I will come up with a short summary. Agnivaisvanaro is a single nara (person) who is our waking Universe. Taijjassa is a single woman made of light and shadow and who is our dream world. In macrocosmic term, Taijjssa is equivalent to Hiranyagarbha, the golden womb wherein all germinate. Pragnya (Unbroken pure consciousness)-who is Sarvesvara (Lord) is the person who is our deep sleep. Source of these three are the seeing process of Atman, who is called Shiva, who may remain as mere Self or who may roam in three worlds.


I suggest that you may wish to read an Upanishad called Mandukya, which is given below:

The Upanishads: Breath of the Eternal–translated by Swami Prabhavananda and Frederick Manchester
The Mandukya Upanishad


Om.
With our ears may we hear what is good.
With our eyes may we behold thy righteousness.
Tranquil in body, may we who worship thee find rest.
Om. Peace—peace—peace.The syllable OM, which is the imperishable Brahman, is the universe. Whatsoever has existed, whatsoever exists, whatsoever shall exist hereafter, is OM. And whatsoever transcends past, present, and future, that also is OM.

All this that we see without is Brahman. This Self that is within is Brahman.

This Self, which is one with OM, has three aspects, and beyond these three, different from them and indefinable–The Fourth.

The first aspect of the Self is the universal person, the collective symbol of created beings, in his physical nature—Vaiswanara. Vaiswanara is awake, and is conscious only of external objects. He has seven members. The heavens are his head, the sun his eyes, air his breath, fire his heart, water his belly, earth his feet, and space his body. He has nineteen instruments of knowledge: five organs of sense, five organs of action, five functions of the breath, together with mind, intellect, heart, and ego. He is the enjoyer of the pleasures of sense.

The second aspect of the Self is the universal person in his mental nature–Taijasa. Taijasa has seven members and nineteen instruments of knowledge. He is dreaming, and is conscious only of his dreams. In this state he is the enjoyer of the subtle impressions in his mind of the deeds he has done in the past.

The third aspect of the Self is the universal person in dreamless sleep–Prajna. Prajna dreams not. He is without desire. As the darkness of night covers the day, and the visible world seems to disappear, so in dreamless sleep the veil of unconsciousness envelops his thought and knowledge, and the subtle impressions of his mind apparently vanish. Since he experiences neither strife nor anxiety, he is said to be blissful, and the experiencer of bliss.

Prajna is the lord of all. He knows all things. He is the dweller in the hearts of all. He is the origin of all. He is the end of all.

Fourth, say the wise, is not subjective experience, nor objective experience, nor experience intermediate between these two, nor is it a negative condition which is neither consciousness nor unconsciousness. It is not the knowledge of the senses, nor is it relative knowledge, nor yet inferential knowledge. Beyond the senses, beyond the understanding, beyond all expression, is The Fourth. It is pure unitary consciousness, wherein awareness of the world and of multiplicity is completely obliterated. It is ineffable peace. It is the supreme good. It is One without a second. It is the Self. Know it alone!

This Self, beyond all words, is the syllable OM. This syllable, though indivisible, consists of three letters—A-U-M.

Vaiswanara, the Self as the universal person in his physical being, corresponds to the first letter–A. Whosoever knows Vaiswanara obtains what he desires, and becomes the first among men.

Taijasa, the Self as the universal person in his mental being, corresponds to the second letter—U. Taijasa and the letter U both stand in dream, between waking and sleeping. Whosoever knows Taijasa grows in wisdom, and is highly honored.

Prajna, the Self as the universal person in dreamless sleep, corresponds to the third letter—M. He is the origin and the end of all. Whosoever knows Prajna knows all things.

The Fourth, the Self, is OM, the indivisible syllable. This syllable is unutterable, and beyond mind. In it the manifold universe disappears. It is the supreme good–One without a second. Whosoever knows OM, the Self, becomes the Self.
----------------------------------

Links to further commentaries are given below;

http://www.swami-krishnananda.org/mand/The%20Mandukya%20Upanishad%20by%20Swami%20Krishnananda.pdf (http://www.swami-krishnananda.org/mand/The&#37;20Mandukya%20Upanishad%20by%20Swami%20Krishnananda.pdf)

http://www.advaita.org.uk/discourses/downloads/om.pdf

http://www.atmajyoti.org/up_mandukya_upanishad_1.asp

http://vedantabheri.com/upanishads/consciousness-and-sleep-mandukya-upanishad/

I think that these will take some time. Best wishes.

Om Namah Shivaya

yajvan
31 July 2010, 09:13 PM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namast&#233; atanu (et.al)


Taijjssa is equivalent to Hiranyagarbha, the golden womb wherein all germinate.

When I think of what you say I am drawn to the following from the chāndogya upainṣad (3.14.1):

sarvam khalvidam brahma
tajjalān iti śānta upāsīta |

everythng here is brahman
from It every thing is born, into It
every thing disolves;
adore it with tranquil mind |

Yet another view I am most fond of is the following as we take apart tajjalān as taj +ja +la+an (as it can stand on its own).

taj = t&#225;d or 'That' which is brahman
ja is rooted (√) in 'jan' and means born or descended from , produced or caused by
la - to take or receive
an - to breathetajjalān iti śānta upāsīta
Thus (iti) one should maintain śānta (tranquil , calm) in their upāsīta (worship , going near, serving) approaching brahman ( t&#225;d) from which all things are born (jan) who provides breath (an) and to which all returns ( la - takes back).


So, my observation is thus : Taijjssa is equivalent to Hiranyagarbha, the golden womb wherein all germinate must then be none other then a limb ( in whole ) of tajjalān .


What are your thoughts or views on this?

praṇām

atanu
01 August 2010, 12:40 AM
So, my observation is thus : Taijjssa is equivalent to Hiranyagarbha, the golden womb wherein all germinate must then be none other then a limb ( in whole ) of tajjalān .


What are your thoughts or views on this?
praṇām

Namaste Yajvanji

I have not directly studied the purports written on tajjalān by gurus. In Satapatha Brahmana, something like the below is written:

When fire and smoke co-exist it is Rudra. The same fire when clear of the smoke is Varuna. The blazing fire is Indra. The fire when benevolent is Mitra. And Brahman is when the fire is extuinguished but only the black coal with shine of fire remains.

I have always imagined this the last (and obviously the primeval) state as tajjalān.

Thank you for asking. Regards

Om Namah Shivaya

upsydownyupsy mv ss
01 August 2010, 01:50 AM
'Gods?'
I always thought there was only one god. I always thought the 330 crore names of god refers to a single person, AUM. I always thought that every single noun in the vedas indicated different qualities of the Sarvathman.

This has always confused me. I'm not talking advaithically, I'm talking from the perspective of what I think I know.

:( Can some1 quote anywhere from the scriptures about different devatas' existence? Right from the childhood, I've had this doubt, still have. Nobody has ever solved it. I've even asked a real scholar about this. He couldn't convince me, I just don't get this part.

Rasa1976
01 August 2010, 07:42 AM
'Gods?'
:( Can some1 quote anywhere from the scriptures about different devatas' existence? Right from the childhood, I've had this doubt, still have. Nobody has ever solved it. I've even asked a real scholar about this. He couldn't convince me, I just don't get this part.

Namaste upsydownyupsy,

Maybe these are some good verses for you today..

IV-12: May He, who created the gods and supports them; who witnessed the birth of the cosmic soul; who confers bliss and wisdom on the devoted, destroying their sins and sorrows, and punishing all breaches of law – may He, the great seer and the lord of all, endow us with good thoughts !

IV-13: Let us offer our worship with oblations to that blissful Divine Being who is the lord of the Devas, who governs the bipeds and the quadrupeds and in whom the worlds rest.

VI-7: May we realize Him – the transcendent and adorable master of the universe – who is the supreme lord over all the lords, the supreme God above all the gods, and the supreme ruler over all the rulers.

VI-8: His has nothing to achieve for Himself, nor has He any organ of action. No one is seen equal or superior to Him. His great power alone is described in the Vedas to be of various kinds, and His knowledge, strength and action are described as inherent in Him.

~from the Svetasvatara Upanishad
http://www.celextel.org/108upanishads/svetasvatara.html (http://www.celextel.org/108upanishads/svetasvatara.html)
Translated by Swami Tyagisananda
Published by Sri Ramakrishna Math, Chennai

atanu
01 August 2010, 09:01 AM
Namaste upsydownyupsy,

Maybe these are some good verses for you today..

IV-12: May He, who created the gods and supports them; who witnessed the birth of the cosmic soul; who confers bliss and wisdom on the devoted, destroying their sins and sorrows, and punishing all breaches of law – may He, the great seer and the lord of all, endow us with good thoughts !

IV-13: Let us offer our worship with oblations to that blissful Divine Being who is the lord of the Devas, who governs the bipeds and the quadrupeds and in whom the worlds rest.

VI-7: May we realize Him – the transcendent and adorable master of the universe – who is the supreme lord over all the lords, the supreme God above all the gods, and the supreme ruler over all the rulers.

VI-8: His has nothing to achieve for Himself, nor has He any organ of action. No one is seen equal or superior to Him. His great power alone is described in the Vedas to be of various kinds, and His knowledge, strength and action are described as inherent in Him.

~from the Svetasvatara Upanishad
http://www.celextel.org/108upanishads/svetasvatara.html (http://www.celextel.org/108upanishads/svetasvatara.html)
Translated by Swami Tyagisananda
Published by Sri Ramakrishna Math, Chennai


Namaste Rasa

Thanks for the excellent verses from my favourite Up.. What you cite is meaningful, yet, the very next verse says:

VI-11: God, who is one only, is hidden in all beings. He is all-pervading, and is the inner self of all creatures. He presides over all actions, and all beings reside in Him. He is the witness, and He is the Pure Consciousness free from the three Gunas of Nature.

Om Namah Shivaya

Rasa1976
01 August 2010, 09:48 AM
Namaste Rasa

Thanks for the excellent verses from my favourite Up.. What you cite is meaningful, yet, the very next verse says:

VI-11: God, who is one only, is hidden in all beings. He is all-pervading, and is the inner self of all creatures. He presides over all actions, and all beings reside in Him. He is the witness, and He is the Pure Consciousness free from the three Gunas of Nature.

Om Namah Shivaya

Alright, but then how (or why) does one distinguish worship of a god from that of a rat? God is also hidden in the rat.

yajvan
01 August 2010, 02:09 PM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namasté rasa,



Alright, but then how (or why) does one distinguish worship of a god from that of a rat? God is also hidden in the rat.

Perhaps what you say is so... maybe the way this worship happens in the rat is via ahiṁsā.

This ahiṁsā we know as non-injury. Some call this non-violence. This infers to all beings ( even ourselves). At the ultimate level this ahiṁsā when in full bloom brings no harm in thought, deed, word or action. This observance is substantial -to bring no harm to any being.

pranams

Rasa1976
01 August 2010, 04:01 PM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namasté rasa,




Perhaps what you say is so... maybe the way this worship happens in the rat is via ahiṁsā.

This ahiṁsā we know as non-injury. Some call this non-violence. This infers to all beings ( even ourselves). At the ultimate level this ahiṁsā when in full bloom brings no harm in thought, deed, word or action. This observance is substantial -to bring no harm to any being.

pranams

Thank you, yajvan, namaste.

So then, there is a distinction between "worship" of a rat and that of say, Krishna. We say that the Supreme Soul is dwelling within the rat and if we strictly follow ahimsa, we don't do anything to harm the rat. But no one would ever say, "I worship Govinda simply by not feeding Krishna poison or setting mouse traps for Him". Conversely, most would not say "I worship the rat with freshly made samosas, fruit offerings and sandalwood pulp each day". My point is simply that there are distinct levels of worship accorded different living entities, devis, devatas, and the Supreme Soul due (at least) to their different levels of consciousness.

I'm fairly certain that the Svetasvatara Upanishad verses I mentioned were from an Advaitic source (Ramakrishna Mission), but it seems that there is no escaping the eternal fact of an "I" and a "Thou" within everyone, even from reading that translation. If we back up a bit...

IV-6: Two birds of beautiful plumage, who are inseparable friends, reside on the self-same tree. Of these, one eats the fruits of the tree with relish while the other looks on without eating.
IV-7: Sitting on the same tree the individual soul gets entangled and feels miserable, being deluded on account of his forgetting his divine nature. When he sees the other, the Lord of all, whom all devotees worship, and realizes that all greatness is His, then he is relieved of his misery.

The two birds atma and Paramatma reside within the heart of all beings (even the rat). So for that reason ahimsa is followed. Atma is atomic consious (a minute spark) and Paramatma as the localized expansion of Bhagavan within the heart is completely conscious (the actual fire).

IV-8: Of what avail are the Vedas to him who does not know that indestructible, highest Ethereal Being, in whom the gods and the Vedas reside ? Only those who know That are satisfied.

This verse (in context with the previous two) seems to hint at a hierarchy of celestial beings, not simply undifferentiated in their various quantitative levels of consciousness. In many other texts one can find descriptions of different administrative functions of Siva, Durga, Kali, Laxmi, Vishnu, etc. in the mundane universe. So why would one say that all devas are the same and rat-worship is as good as any worship? Only if one is so developed in sama-darśinaḥ that they can witness the most-worshipable Antaryami alongside the jiva within all living beings could such a thing be possible.

NayaSurya
01 August 2010, 06:46 PM
This is just the fool's pov..

How I get through my day without worrying about the rat's divinity. But, perhaps it is worth something.

The reason I do not worship the rat is the same reason I do not worship a human. These beings were broken off from the perfect whole Being, Isvara. Being broken off, in a gross physical body...we have karma. But Siva is perfect, pure..untouched by these things.

My thoughts on this are....that your heart could be tuned to Beloved Visnu, or Beloved Siva...both names for that Beautiful Perfect Being...there are many names for the One.

These Beloved Beings are One. But rats are as we, imperfect...struggling...

So my answer to your question is that rat is not Beloved Isvara anymore than I am at this moment.

Though we are both the very broken off piece of the Beloved Siva, we are muddied by interactions upon this earth...unfit for worship.

Just as a drop of ocean is simply a drop of water. Until it is placed back into the beloved arms of the ocean...and we call it ocean once more.

We are tiny drops of that Beautiful Divine Being...only drops of energy until we become whole in His Wonderous Arms once again.

Then, in that most holy of holy locations...you may worship both the rat and I...but you would no longer recognize either of us.:P

yajvan
01 August 2010, 08:22 PM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namasté

On rats and humans...

narasurya offers the following


The reason I do not worship the rat is the same reason I do not worship a human. These beings were broken off from the perfect whole Being, Isvara. Being broken off...
What to do then with the guru or muni? What of the Śaṅkarācārya-s we find at the 4 maṭh-s ( some write maṭha) ? What then of the upaniṣads as they declare ' those who know brahman become brahman'.

On rats ...
mūṣikavāhanaya is gaṇeśa-ji, the One that rides (or has a vehicle) a mouse or mūṣika; vāhana means 'carrying'. This we know.

mūṣaka - a mouse, rat; also a thief, a plunderer. This is what the mouse/rat does , it steals and plunders. It is from the root word mūṣ 'stealer, thief'. And mū is binding , tying , fixing.

At times this mūṣaka is also another name/symbol for the SELF. How so? It is the notion of mū, as if it ( the SELF) is bound to this world of diversity. It is (as if) its freedom is stolen (mūṣ) by diversity, by the multiplicity of creation, yet at all times it is free , but forgets.

Now add rati - mūṣaka+rati ; rati is defined as pleasure , enjoyment , delight in , fondness . This rati can be looked at as ra+ti ; ra is rooted in rā , acquiring, possessing; as a noun it is splendor, brightness.
Hence, another symbol of gaṇeśa-ji, the Divine, riding on the vehicle ( vāhana ) of the Self (mūṣaka), and the Realized Being ( the muni) taking gaṇeśa-ji everywhere s/he goes ( possessed of the SELF).

On muni-s ...
The muni is rooted in 'man' - what is 'man' ? to perceive,observe , learn , know , understand , comprehend. What does the muni know? The Self - mūṣaka. And what does s/he delight (rati) in? The Self (mūṣaka).
Hence another name for a muni is mūṣakarati (mūṣaka+rati) - one that delights, finds fondness, and is possessed (rā) of the Self.
We have the notion of that which delights (rati) in the Self (mūṣaka); we also have that which possesses (rā) the Self (mūṣaka). Who is that? the muni - a saint , sage , seer, but more importantly , the realized person. The exponent of Reality.

Do we bow to these realized beings? Many of us do.

praṇām

NayaSurya
01 August 2010, 08:36 PM
Yes, I bow to them..at the feet. Because these beings are beyond human to me. I do not even put them in the same sentence as the rat and I.

When I speak of the ones as rats, I speak of myself and others who still struggle and are still muddied deep in karma. Not of higher beings.

NayaSurya
01 August 2010, 08:37 PM
lol of Mice and men...a good novel.:P

yajvan
01 August 2010, 09:35 PM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namasté narasurya,

Perhaps another word you may wish to consider or apply is paśu - a teathered animal. We as humans are called this, nara-paśu as we are teathered to the body, the senses, desires, etc.

Some write páśu meaning the human that is uninitiated.

praṇām

NayaSurya
01 August 2010, 09:55 PM
That's a perfect word for it Beloved Yajvan<3

Tethered is a very accurated description of me.

I am the balloon tied to the wrist of a child.

Ramakrishna
01 August 2010, 11:58 PM
On muni-s ...
The muni is rooted in 'man' - what is 'man' ? to perceive,observe , learn , know , understand , comprehend. What does the muni know? The Self - mūṣaka. And what does s/he delight (rati) in? The Self (mūṣaka).
Hence another name for a muni is mūṣakarati (mūṣaka+rati) - one that delights, finds fondness, and is possessed (rā) of the Self.
We have the notion of that which delights (rati) in the Self (mūṣaka); we also have that which possesses (rā) the Self (mūṣaka). Who is that? the muni - a saint , sage , seer, but more importantly , the realized person. The exponent of Reality.

Do we bow to these realized beings? Many of us do.


Namaste yajvanji,

What do you think of worshipping and praying to munis? Being self-realized, do you see certain saints and sages as being fit for worship, or just reverence and utmost respect? What exactly do you mean by bowing to munis?

Jai Sri Krishna

Eastern Mind
02 August 2010, 06:27 AM
Vannakkam all:

Worshipping the Guru is different than worshipping the Deity for me. It's difficult to describe the sense of it, but definitely there is a difference. You can physically talk to the Guru after a prostration. It is reverence and respect, yes, and more as well.

In my tradition, we only prostrate to Guru, but also are allowed to touch the feet of any swami, in Guru's order, or otherwise. It's reverence, but also greater reverence for Guru.

Unfortunately in my opinion, in some cases lately, it is Guru and Guru alone who is worshipped. So then when Guru departs, what is there? Remnants of talks?

From a higher level, you are worshipping the divine within via the mirror of the Guru or deity. It is fascinating to contrast it from an insider and an outsiders POV. For some, prostrating to another human would seem just strange, I suppose.

Aum Namasivaya

Rasa1976
02 August 2010, 07:57 AM
mūṣikavāhanaya is gaṇeśa-ji, the One that rides (or has a vehicle) a mouse or mūṣika; vāhana means 'carrying'. This we know.

Namaste Yajvan,
I enjoy your posts and am trying to understand your line of reasoning, but there are a few problems. First you say...



mūṣaka - a mouse, rat; also a thief, a plunderer. This is what the mouse/rat does , it steals and plunders. It is from the root word mūṣ 'stealer, thief'. And mū is binding , tying , fixing.

Then you say..



Now add rati - mūṣaka+rati ; rati is defined as pleasure , enjoyment , delight in , fondness . This rati can be looked at as ra+ti ; ra is rooted in rā , acquiring, possessing; as a noun it is splendor, brightness...

...another name for a muni is mūṣakarati (mūṣaka+rati) - one that delights, finds fondness, and is possessed (rā) of the Self.

From this one could just as easily deduce musakarati - "one who takes pleasure, enjoyment and delight in stealing from others". "Did you see Robert De Niro's character in the movie Goodfellas? The guy is a total musakarati."

Why symbolize the infinitesimal atomic jivatma as a mouse or thief? "Whoever looks upon him as the slayer, and whoever looks upon him as the slain, both know these not aright. He slays not, nor is he slain". Gita 2.19. Or just as easily, "He steals not, nor is he stolen (by diversity)." He is seated on a vehicle of the body, but all facilities are given him to turn to the witnessing bird (Paramatma) or to become bound up plundering the resources of the diverse material energy by his own free will. The jiva is pure, conscious tattva, but because his tendency is marginal, he may acquire a usefulness for prakriti, and in many cases - stealing.


Hence, another symbol of gaṇeśa-ji, the Divine, riding on the vehicle ( vāhana ) of the Self (mūṣaka), and the Realized Being ( the muni) taking gaṇeśa-ji everywhere s/he goes ( possessed of the SELF).

Another interpretation is that the mouse is likened to the wandering, wayward mind that is lured into filthy, undesirable places. When the mind bows and offers service to Lord Ganesh, only then it is exalted by being in the service of Ganesh.

upsydownyupsy mv ss
02 August 2010, 09:18 AM
I'm still not convinced about the devatas existing, because of the continuous debate between various beliefs. A Shaiva would say Shiva is God. A Vaishnava would say Vishnu is God. A Shakta would say Mother Durgamba is. All appear same to me. I'm not confused and never was, I'm just confused whether the Devatas even exist. Thanks Rasa for quoting those verses for me, but I'm not convinced yet. It is still possible that it could have been a misconception through translation, for example, Dharma has two meanings, one being Justice and Righteousness, other being religion. Nope, I'm still not convinced that Devatas exist. Its not possible for me to accept anything blindly, but if it is true that Devatas do exist, I'm ready to accept that truth if it seems correct to my heart.

Hey NayaSurya.....
I know you didn't mean you not 'worshipping any rat or human or any other bhoota' in the sense that you cannot worship imperfections. I get it, I do the same, but this was the view in my trance state that I experienced once. I know that you must have experienced it too, I have a feeling that you have... Anyway... This is just a reminder for me, you and everyone.:)

Hmm.... Not worship anything inside maya? Not worship rats? nor ordinary humans(Prano Brah_ma)? I have a different perspective. Worship everything that exists, as everything together constitutes Vishwalinga(Kam Brah_ma), the linga of everything that exists, which is a part of Sarvalinga(Kham Brah_ma), which is beyond existence. So, worshiping anything and everything, while being able to see God in all is very good. Everything is perfect in my view. The only thing imperfect is my view, that I'm not able to see everything is beyond perfection.

Hope I'm clear.... I'm always soo unclear, I've seen that in recent posts of mine. :(:o

Prano Brah_ma, Kam Brah_ma, Kham Brah_ma,
also everything(inclusive of its beyond) is God and God is everything(inclusive of its beyond).....

yajvan
02 August 2010, 11:02 AM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namast&#233; rasa




From this one could just as easily deduce musakarati - "one who takes pleasure, enjoyment and delight in stealing from others".

Yes, you can come to this conclusion for the mouse. One must be mindful on how flexible saṃskṛt is - hence the reason I offer several definitions of the words. The intent is to show the relative position of the Self to the mouse to vāhana , to mūṣikavāhanaya or gaṇeśa-ji, there is the connection.
With the śāstra-s they talk to multiple levels of awareness with one stroke. This is their brilliance . To talk via saṃketa - hints, inferences, symbols.

you mention,


Another interpretation is that the mouse is likened to the wandering, wayward mind that is lured into filthy, undesirable places. When the mind bows and offers service to Lord Ganesh, only then it is exalted by being in the service of Ganesh.

Yes, I see your point on how this could be. Yet when associated with gaṇeśa-ji the point is this : it finds its way everywhere, in all places. The tenacity of the mouse is the symbol to the all-encompassing locations of mūṣikavāhanaya.

praṇām

Rasa1976
02 August 2010, 11:51 AM
..when associated with gaṇeśa-ji the point is this : it finds its way everywhere, in all places. The tenacity of the mouse is the symbol to the all-encompassing locations of mūṣikavāhanaya.

praṇām

Very nice - "when associated with Ganesh"! Otherwise I think the mouse is just a rat, very unclean and certainly not fit for worship of any kind.

Or perhaps we could work together to deify Mickey Mouse, since he is not only all-pervading but squeaky-clean too.

Thank you, I learned something today.

yajvan
02 August 2010, 08:18 PM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namasté ramakrishna,


Namaste yajvanji,

What do you think of worshipping and praying to munis? Being self-realized, do you see certain saints and sages as being fit for worship, or just reverence and utmost respect? What exactly do you mean by bowing to munis? Jai Sri Krishna

The fullest answer to your question is in the guru gīta . It is part of the skanda purāṇa . Yet you will find it on the web as a seperate work i.e. guru gīta.

praṇām

Ramakrishna
03 August 2010, 10:29 PM
Vannakkam all:

Worshipping the Guru is different than worshipping the Deity for me. It's difficult to describe the sense of it, but definitely there is a difference. You can physically talk to the Guru after a prostration. It is reverence and respect, yes, and more as well.

In my tradition, we only prostrate to Guru, but also are allowed to touch the feet of any swami, in Guru's order, or otherwise. It's reverence, but also greater reverence for Guru.

Unfortunately in my opinion, in some cases lately, it is Guru and Guru alone who is worshipped. So then when Guru departs, what is there? Remnants of talks?

From a higher level, you are worshipping the divine within via the mirror of the Guru or deity. It is fascinating to contrast it from an insider and an outsiders POV. For some, prostrating to another human would seem just strange, I suppose.

Aum Namasivaya

Namaste Eastern Mindji,

Thank you for the insight. I understand what you're saying. I also don't agree with worshipping the guru alone.


hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namasté ramakrishna,



The fullest answer to your question is in the guru gīta . It is part of the skanda purāṇa . Yet you will find it on the web as a seperate work i.e. guru gīta.

praṇām

Namaste yajvanji,

Thank you for that. I will take a look at the guru gita. I personally don't have a guru, but I was just wondering about this out of curiousity.

Jai Sri Krishna

atanu
04 August 2010, 07:55 AM
Alright, but then how (or why) does one distinguish worship of a god from that of a rat? God is also hidden in the rat.

Namaste rasa

Why does one write with a pen on a paper? Does anyone attempt to write with paper on a pen? I know where from you are coming and that position is surely valid. But why do you ignore the Svet. U., when it teaches:

VI-11: God, who is one only, is hidden in all beings. He is all-pervading, and is the inner self of all creatures. He presides over all actions, and all beings reside in Him. He is the witness, and He is the Pure Consciousness free from the three Gunas of Nature.


Or why should we also not respect Shri Krishna when He teaches:

Gita

The humble sages, by virtue of true knowledge, see with equal vision a learned and gentle brahmana, a cow, an elephant, a dog and a dog-eater [outcaste].(5.18)

Those whose minds are established in sameness and equanimity have already conquered the conditions of birth and death. They are flawless like Brahman, and thus they are already situated in Brahman.(5.19)

and

Supreme bliss comes to a Self-realized yogi whose mind is tranquil, whose desires are under control, and who is free from faults. (6.27)

Such a sinless yogi, who constantly engages his or her mind and intellect with the Spirit, easily enjoys the infinite bliss of contact with The Spirit. (6.28)

A yogi, who is in union with the Supreme Being, sees every being with an equal eye because of perceiving the omnipresent Spirit abiding in all beings, and all beings abiding in the Supreme Being. (6.29)

Those who perceive Me in everything, and behold everything in Me, are not separated from Me, and I am not separated from them. (6.30)

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

Even if you consider that Bhagawan is hierarchically above this sameness, then it becomes even more imperative to attain this yoga. When the Supreme being is said to be existing equally in a Dog and a Dog eater, it must equally be in you? How to know the Seer within? Can it be known by knowing the Seen?





Om Namah Shivaya

yajvan
04 August 2010, 12:15 PM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namast&#233; ramakrishna,


I was just wondering about this out of curiousity.

Curiosity begins the journey, the arousal of interest...this is the blessing. Doubt is also a blessing. It stirs inquiry and the impluse to find not only
an answer but one who has the depth of knowledge to answer the hidden questions that sprout once the inital question has been satisfied.


praṇām

Rasa1976
04 August 2010, 04:38 PM
Namaste rasa

Why does one write with a pen on a paper? Does anyone attempt to write with paper on a pen? I know where from you are coming and that position is surely valid. But why do you ignore the Svet. U., when it teaches:

VI-11: God, who is one only, is hidden in all beings. He is all-pervading, and is the inner self of all creatures. He presides over all actions, and all beings reside in Him. He is the witness, and He is the Pure Consciousness free from the three Gunas of Nature.

Namaste Atanu,

I would say what is meant is that God is in everything but not as the entire quantity - either of Brahman or Bhagavan. Also Krishna explains; "I the unmanifested, pervade the whole universe. All creatures are in Me, but I am not in them." `Gita 9.4. It sounds like a contradiction at first. How is it that God pervades everything yet is not inside of them? But the meaning is that God is not contained by any living being. The rat is to God as the rays are to the Sun - inseparable yet distinct. On the other hand, the various divine worshipful deities are meant to represent the totality, either of Brahman or Bhagavan. Hence the distinction.

atanu
05 August 2010, 09:26 AM
Namaste Atanu,

I would say what is meant is that God is in everything but not as the entire quantity - either of Brahman or Bhagavan. Also Krishna explains; "I the unmanifested, pervade the whole universe. All creatures are in Me, but I am not in them." `Gita 9.4. It sounds like a contradiction at first. How is it that God pervades everything yet is not inside of them? But the meaning is that God is not contained by any living being. The rat is to God as the rays are to the Sun - inseparable yet distinct. On the other hand, the various divine worshipful deities are meant to represent the totality, either of Brahman or Bhagavan. Hence the distinction.

Namaste Rasa

No one denies or has denied the point you are making. I will use a passage written by a senior member here:



Just as the core of the ocean is unaffected by the foam and froth of its waves on the surface, the Self that is Shiva DakShiNAmUrti is unaffected by the varNa--colors, of the I-ness of the jIvas, or their kleshas--colored thoughts, and carried over vAsanas--impressions. It is only the ego--the triad of jIvAtma-buddhi-manas that reincarnates, the Self is always everywhere.

The very fact that Bhagwan or Brahman is entirely untouched and full, means that knowing Brahman is not possible by being partial. Upanishads ask: "How will the knower be known?" and "How will the Seer be seen?" This is a dimension which cannot be internalised by arguments so I will stop here.

Best wishes

Om Namah Shivaya

yajvan
05 August 2010, 06:37 PM
 
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namast&#233;



Also Krishna explains; "I the unmanifested, pervade the whole universe. All creatures are in Me, but I am not in them." `Gita 9.4. It sounds like a contradiction at first. How is it that God pervades everything yet is not inside of them?

We have had this conversation some years back. If there is interest in this idea, please consider the following HDF post:
http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?t=1125 (http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?t=1125)

praṇām

Parivrajaka
05 August 2010, 07:00 PM
Vannakam Andrew: You will get many different answers for sure on this one.

Personally, I absolutely believe in the mystical reality of God and Gods. I separate Siva from Ganesha and Murugan. Siva is Boss God, and emanated Murugan and Ganesha as 'helpers' but each in their own right are Mahadevas, except their Godly dharmas are somewhat different than Siva's, Ganesha being in charge of worldly stuff, and Murugan being the God of yoga.

In a mystical sense, at a temple I believe God sees me 10 times more clearly than I see him, via the murthy. This is darshan. I have no doubts whatsoever. It is not myth or symbolic, it is interplane connection reality. I get in touch as do millions of Hindus on a daily basis in temples throughout India. There is no progress without bhakti towards Gods. As far as the other God like Krishna goes, I believe they are essentially same energy as Siva, but subtle differences make it so that others are more drawn to them. And yet I feel different energy in non-Saiva temples as well. The beauty of the vastness of all the sects.

This sense of 'feeling energy' within temples is clouded by intellect, and anava, so not all will feel it.

Aum Namasivaya
Namastey EM.

I slightly disagree with your concept about Gods.

Vedas and Upanishads are written by ancient seers. A real seer is one who realized through his 'experience' that the entire universe and himself are one not two.

When we discuss something which has been written or presented by them, at least we should consider their level of knowledge and ours. Unfortunately we are living among a bunch of Ignorant people who pretends themselves as scholars and bend the meaning of all scriptures according to them and thus mislead our society.

All these Gods like Shiva, Krishna, Muruga and Ganesha are symbolization of great knowledge. They knew that all the written materials only has a short lifespan and will get destroyed in the long journey of time. So they thought of something solid where they can present all those hidden treasures of knowledge they gained through years and years of great Sadhana and Meditation and made temples and different forms of gods, look at how they presented goddess "Kali" and "Ganesha" can you ever imagine a person or living creature like Ganesha or Kali?.

So all the forms of different gods have some meaning hidden behind it. There is no 'Boss' god and no 'Helper' god, once when we understands the real meaning behind it, we surely will realise what exactly are we doing by the name of gods and in the name of Hinduism.

Namastey.

Rasa1976
05 August 2010, 08:45 PM
 
We have had this conversation some years back. If there is interest in this idea, plese consider the following HDF post:
http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?t=1125 (http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?t=1125)

Thank you, Yajvan. I'm not surprised that you have discussed this before. However since there are some, in fact many, who believe that the totality of Brahman or Bhagavan is present not only in living beings like rats - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ACzWdSfZXmw&feature=player_embedded
- but also in inert objects, I find the subject bears repeating.

yajvan
05 August 2010, 09:10 PM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namasté rasa




I find the subject bears repeating.
Yes, I too think it is worthy of a re-visit. I was in hopes that the past post would may perhaps offer another view that has yet to be considered.

praṇām

Rasa1976
05 August 2010, 09:27 PM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namasté rasa


Yes, I too think it is worthy of a re-visit. I was in hopes that the past post would may perhaps offer another view that has yet to be considered.

praṇām

Really it's my favorite subject. Hopefully after many lifetimes of rehashing it again and again I will be able to bring up something new.

Onkara
06 August 2010, 05:41 AM
Thank you, Yajvan. I'm not surprised that you have discussed this before. However since there are some, in fact many, who believe that the totality of Brahman or Bhagavan is present not only in living beings like rats - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ACzWdSfZXmw&feature=player_embedded
- but also in inert objects, I find the subject bears repeating.

Namast&#233; Rasa
I would agree :) Inert objects are Brahman, they are His Prakriti. They appear separate to us due to time and space (perceived by the senses), but all qualities are Brahman and are in Brahman. The mistake I once made was to see inert object as existing separately from me as I thought my limits were external i.e. my body. So I thought that "I and the diamond are two distinct object with no connection." This duality can lead to misery, as I never feel complete, desire arises for the object and misery when I cannot get it.

Rather, the scriptures confirm that our Atman is our real Self and the Atman is Brahman (connected without limit). So if all objects are In Brahman and I am Brahman (Atman) then I am One with all. We can look on at all as ultimately divine, I can worship a rock, a rat or my Guru, knowing I am worshiping the divine Self. It seems to be a shift in mental perception.


It is an interesting topic. The answer to the OP is that multiple Gods are just forms of the divine. To take them as seperate objects is not logically wrong but to remove the desire and misery to be close to God, one must know thyself, and this begins with the scriptures, I say.
:)

atanu
06 August 2010, 06:05 AM
Namast&#233; Rasa
I would agree :) Inert objects are Brahman, they are His Prakriti. They appear separate to us due to time and space (perceived by the senses), but all qualities are Brahman and are in Brahman. The mistake I once made was to see inert object as existing separately from me as I thought my limits were external i.e. my body. So I thought that "I and the diamond are two distinct object with no connection." This duality can lead to misery, as I never feel complete, desire arises for the object and misery when I cannot get it.

Rather, the scriptures confirm that our Atman is our real Self and the Atman is Brahman (connected without limit). So if all objects are In Brahman and I am Brahman (Atman) then I am One with all. We can look on at all as ultimately divine, I can worship a rock, a rat or my Guru, knowing I am worshiping the divine Self. It seems to be a shift in mental perception.


It is an interesting topic. The answer to the OP is that multiple Gods are just forms of the divine. To take them as seperate objects is not logically wrong but to remove the desire and misery to be close to God, one must know thyself, and this begins with the scriptures, I say.
:)

Namaste Snip

A nice post. If my perceptions are limited by sense organs that does not prove that the reality is partitioned as perceived. On the other hand, scriptures support what you say.

Gita
Of the liberated person who has got rid of attachment, whose mind is fixed on Knowledge, actions undertaken for a sacrifice get totally destroyed. (4.23)

For him, the ladle is Brahman: the oblation is Brahman, the offering is poured by Brahman in the fire of Brahman. Brahman alone is to be reached by him who has concentration on Brahman as the objective. (4.24).

Om Namah Shivaya

Rasa1976
07 August 2010, 05:40 PM
Namast&#233; Rasa
I would agree :) Inert objects are Brahman, they are His Prakriti. They appear separate to us due to time and space (perceived by the senses), but all qualities are Brahman and are in Brahman. The mistake I once made was to see inert object as existing separately from me as I thought my limits were external i.e. my body. So I thought that "I and the diamond are two distinct object with no connection." This duality can lead to misery, as I never feel complete, desire arises for the object and misery when I cannot get it.

Rather, the scriptures confirm that our Atman is our real Self and the Atman is Brahman (connected without limit). So if all objects are In Brahman and I am Brahman (Atman) then I am One with all. We can look on at all as ultimately divine, I can worship a rock, a rat or my Guru, knowing I am worshiping the divine Self. It seems to be a shift in mental perception.


It is an interesting topic. The answer to the OP is that multiple Gods are just forms of the divine. To take them as seperate objects is not logically wrong but to remove the desire and misery to be close to God, one must know thyself, and this begins with the scriptures, I say.
:)

Namaste Snip,

Thank you for your comment.

You say that misery comes from the perceived duality between you and a desirable object, i.e. a diamond. Yet would anyone say that "I am miserable because I see myself as different from a dark swamp or a condemned house?" Thinking in terms of duality or connectedness between you and the object still seems like being caught up in the world of objects.

I like to see connectedness in terms of the effect (prakriti) and the cause (purusha). The soul is of a similar nature of purusha, in that it is "never cut into pieces by any weapon, nor moistened by water, nor burned by fire, nor withered by the wind". Just as God employs the agency of maya to create yet is not touched by creation, the soul in contact with prakriti is never really affected by it. The perception of being affected comes about because prakriti is so dazzling.

Sankara explains that water affects things that are made up of parts by breaking them down. But the soul is not made up of parts, rather it is a part. This is how I would define a worshipable object/god - s/he or it is above being broken down or the sense of being broken down. Even if you say that you are one with the totality that includes prakriti, purusha and brahman, then you have to accept distinction from prakriti, as purusha may be called "connected" only as the cause.

Onkara
08 August 2010, 03:30 AM
Namast&#233; Rasa
Thank you for your interesting reply. I hope you allow me to add some thoughts to it also :)


Yet would anyone say that "I am miserable because I see myself as different from a dark swamp or a condemned house?" Thinking in terms of duality or connectedness between you and the object still seems like being caught up in the world of objects.

The thought "I am miserable" is the cause of the separation from objects on the mental plane (contrasted to physical plane). When I take my emotions as me or mine then I am identified with the gunas. I take the movement of the gunas to be me. Self-realisation does not imply that emotions and gunas will stop. As Lord Krishna says in the Bhagavad Gita (http://www.atmajyoti.org/gi_bhagavad_gita_intro.asp):

No one for even a moment
Exists without doing action;
Each is forced to perform action–
E’en against his will–by gunas.1 (3.5)

Even the wise acts according
To his own nature: prakriti.
All follow their own prakriti;
So what will restraint accomplish? (3.33)

All actions, in all instances,
Are done by Prakriti’s gunas;
Those with ego-deluded mind
Imagine: “I am the doer.” (3.27)

So the gunas do not stop acting after Self-realisation, prakriti (and its constituents) cause even the wise to act. Why?

Because even the wise have form, they have a body. However they have reaslied their Self is beyond the duality of attraction and disgust. Be it a dark swamp or a King's palace, they know that truth and bliss reside only in their Self (atman). :)

new_earth
11 August 2010, 09:04 PM
This is coming from someone a little new to Hinduism, so I most likely won't be quoting any scriptures. BUT - I will still share my answer to the original question.

To me, there is only One Supreme God. Actually, there is ONLY God. We are in God, and a spark of God is within all of us and everything. Everything comes from God, everything belongs to God. I do believe there is only one soul, only one body, only one mind. Our individual souls are microcosms of God's supreme soul, so together there is only one. The physical/material world is God's physical body, as we are parts of that one body. Since all material existence is temporary and eventually dies or is destroyed, so does God's physical body. But God's soul is eternal....as are our souls.

I am pretty sure most of you have heard of panentheism - which is what I'm trying to sum up here. God is in everything, everything is in God, yet God also has its distinct existence, not 'absorbed' by it's creation. Therefore it is possible to worship or love a personal, distinct Supreme God.

As for the 'images' of God in Hinduism, I see it this way - when I see a deity, avatar or demigod, etc., and see their name, such as "Lord Shiva" or "Lord Vishnu" or "Lord Ganesha", I think of them as "God AS Shiva", "God AS Vishnu", or "God AS Ganesha". Each image carries its own energies of God and can be concentrated upon or worshipped to connect with a certain feeling or aspect of the One God. I do think each image/aspect of God can take on its own personality to us as being real. But I would know behind it all, I am really just connecting with the One God.

I think each person may be attracted to a different image/energy/aspect of God, so that is why some feel more inclined to Shiva, Vishnu, Krishna, etc. I think in my case, I was originally 'attracted' to Vishnu and then discovered Krishna and things began to change in my life. For me, Krishna seemed to be the unifying element among all the others. Same for other religions as well - some feel inclined toward Jesus as their image of God, etc. But there is only ONE God....many names, many pictures, many energies.

Eastern Mind
12 August 2010, 06:14 AM
Vannakkam new_earth: This is pretty much identical to how I view it, except I can replace the term 'God' with Siva, and get along fine. You have gained some wisdom along the path.

Where you are, there are lots of temples within a few hours. Do you frequent any, many, or none?

Aum Namasivaya

kallol
12 August 2010, 08:37 AM
For me the Gods are like the different windows to a room. The windows are of different size, shape, colour, etc. And we all are looking from outside towards the room.

There are a few cases :

1. We get struck by the physical beauty of the window and get attached to it. So we do not get to understand what is beyond the window or what is in the room. This is mostly the lower strata and the bigger mass. This is the begining of devotion.

2. The next strata looks into the room from one window and develops certain impression / idea of the room. As similar are cases with other people who are using other windows, there are clashes on the nature and characteristics of the room. These are the people who have just started on the path of spirituality. This strata believes in monotheism.

3. The next strata looks into the room from all windows and try to form the idea of the nature of the room. This strata do not fight amongst themselves but still differ in the finer points. This strata believes in polytheism at the lowest and biswarupa at the highest.

4. The final strata had spent sufficient time on researching the nature of the room through the various windows and analysing the same. Thereafter he has found the complete nature of the room. Here there is only TRUTH and so there is no ambiguity and fight. This strata starts from biswarupa and ends in moksha.

Love and best wishes

Jogesh
12 August 2010, 09:02 AM
Nice post new earth, my own views are much the same...

The Gods and Goddessess are manifestations of Brahman and aren't we lucky that we have the mantras and images that we can meditate upon and offer devotion to.

namaskar

new_earth
12 August 2010, 11:02 AM
Thank you Eastern Mind and Jogesh.


Vannakkam new_earth: This is pretty much identical to how I view it, except I can replace the term 'God' with Siva, and get along fine. You have gained some wisdom along the path.

Where you are, there are lots of temples within a few hours. Do you frequent any, many, or none?

Aum Namasivaya

I have actually been trying to find one to go to, to at least to have the experience. I was actually going to post about this in the Mandir forum to see if anyone could tell me which one would be best, look for it in there soon once the post gets approved :)

charlebs
30 August 2010, 11:30 AM
After studying the Upanishads, and after a long spiritual and philosophical journey, the Oneness of all and Brahman as the ultimate Self seems eminently reasonable to me. But I'm curious as to how others view the Gods? Is it beneficial to worship them? Where do they exist and do they interact with humanity? I recall that in the Upanishads it is mentioned a few times that the Gods do not like mortals to know about Brahman as it detracts from their worship.

Anyway, I know very little, and would like to hear about modern Hindu practices regarding the Gods.

Cheers!
I see the Gods as half Gods, humans who attained Godhood by realising themselves as for what they truly are. (a part of God)
as for the trinity, I believe they are the creative thought of God himself, the goodness he is and the destructive aspect of his conscience.

I also believe God is our collective conscience and that every bit of inspiration is presented to us by the endless mind of God.

Vaishnava
04 September 2010, 11:40 PM
Through the grace of God have I understood the Upanishads to not support advaita.

"He who dwells in ALL beings, who is within them, whom all these beings do not know, for whom all these beings are bodies, who controls all beings form within, He is Your(atman's) atman, the inner ruler, the immortal" is God.

I cannot agree to ultimate one entity or unreality of the world either by perception, by experience or by making sense of the scriptures. World is temporary and hence is not real, and not because it is an illusion.

So, Vedas throw a lot of deities at you not excluding Vayu, Indra etc. But then why worship Shiva, Krishna etc., if specific deities or temples are not important. Why not worship our own created gods? So, I believe we have to turn to the same scriptures for finding out the truth. Vedas are complicated, Bhagavad Gita is not. He identifies Himself as the supreme and different from the souls. That is my view and goal also.