PDA

View Full Version : How does devotion to multiple gods work?



Ao
14 July 2010, 01:23 AM
First off, thanks to everyone for their input on my question regarding how you view the gods. I found the answers instructive and illuminating.

In a follow-up question, I'm curious to understand how devotion to multiple gods works. I have noticed that many of the fine posters on these forums are either devoted to Lords Krishna, Vishnu, or Shiva. I personally feel a connection to/attraction for Lord Shiva, but also for Lord Ganesha. I feel that I would like to follow Smarta practices and worship the five primary forms of God, with Lord Shiva in the center, but am new to Hinduism and don't really know what I'm doing. Also, Advaita philosophy makes a lot of sense to me, and therefore I believe that Brahman, the Ultimate Self, is far beyond all the gods. Basically, my understanding is that we are on different levels of consciousness but Brahman is beyond all; not this, not this...

So in practical terms, how do others practice their devotion? If you meditate, do you do so only on one god or multiple gods? If you pray, do you pray only to one god or to multiple gods? Do you do these things simultaneously, or one god at a time?

As a footnote, I am of course referring to goddesses as well here, just using 'god' as blanket term for the sake of brevity. (Although I don't think this post could be called brief--apologies for the length.)

ScottMalaysia
14 July 2010, 04:37 AM
First off, thanks to everyone for their input on my question regarding how you view the gods. I found the answers instructive and illuminating.

In a follow-up question, I'm curious to understand how devotion to multiple gods works. I have noticed that many of the fine posters on these forums are either devoted to Lords Krishna, Vishnu, or Shiva. I personally feel a connection to/attraction for Lord Shiva, but also for Lord Ganesha. I feel that I would like to follow Smarta practices and worship the five primary forms of God, with Lord Shiva in the center, but am new to Hinduism and don't really know what I'm doing. Also, Advaita philosophy makes a lot of sense to me, and therefore I believe that Brahman, the Ultimate Self, is far beyond all the gods. Basically, my understanding is that we are on different levels of consciousness but Brahman is beyond all; not this, not this...

There is only one God. However, that one God appears in different forms, much like one beam of light shone through a prism appears to be different colours. There are some Hindus (most notably ISKCON) that say that only Lord Krishna is God and that all other Gods are His servants, like ministers under a Prime Minister, but most Hindus do not think like this.


So in practical terms, how do others practice their devotion? If you meditate, do you do so only on one god or multiple gods? If you pray, do you pray only to one god or to multiple gods? Do you do these things simultaneously, or one god at a time?

The majority of Hindus worship several Gods on their altar. Lord Ganesha is always worshipped before any other God. Most Hindus are not sectarian and may worship Krishna alongside Shiva (indeed, our temple has Deities of Krishna and Shiva). Many Hindus, though, have one God whom they worship the most and that is their particular form of God. For me, it is Durga Ma. Such a God is called one's ishta devata.

Onkara
14 July 2010, 07:21 AM
Hi Scott
Good reply! May I ask how do you (or others) worship Goddess Ma whilst seeing Her as the One God? I wonder if one keeps Her in mind only or if there is any technique or method if any at all? In other words how does one worship Her form as the One God?

Thanks

Eastern Mind
14 July 2010, 07:29 AM
Vannakkam:

Again, there will be great variety. Your style will be yours a yours alone. It would be rare, I think to pray to all Gods at the same time. That would be like looking at a choir of Gods, or a group picture. So even in temples, with the possible exception of the traditional Smarta design, there are separate shrines for each god.

So usually it is prayer to one God at a time. This can very well depend on the nature of the prayer, yet still up to the individual devotee. For example, for visas and moves, one might pray to Hanuman. There has been some recent strong anecdotal evidence that this works for clearance of red tape in immigration matters.

if you want to pray for success in school, you might pray to Lord Ganesha. For any 'obstacle removing' type of prayer, He would most likely be the one as well.

If you want to pray for deeper meditation, Murugan might be the choice.

if you want to clear the mind of unwanted memories or negative feelings, you might ask Siva to 'dissolve' this unwanted stuff.

So it is like that. But there are no codes or rules. it depends on your gut (intuition), and since you have already been able to make some choices it seems that you are doing just that.

Aum Namasivaya

saidevo
14 July 2010, 09:16 AM
namaste andrewoberg.

The first thing you have to understand that in his post no.4 EM does not mean to say that Gods like hanumAn, gaNesha, murugan and shiva are ear-marked for specific prayers only or that their powers and potency are restricted to only fulfilment of such prayers.

You would surely have understood as ScottMalaysia has mentioned that God is one and the many Gods are his forms--even as a human is known by different names and perceptions to different people--so it is easy to follow that any Godform can be prayed to, for anything sought in life.

Generally, our prayers are of two kinds:
kAmyArtha--for our personal desires, and AtmArtha--for the Self in us.
Any Godform may grant us both kinds of our prayers.

For example,
we may pray to God hanumAn with the following shloka for fulfilment of a personal desire:

asAdhya sAdhaka svAmin asAdhyam tava kim vada |
rAmadUta kRpA sindhO matkAryam sAdhaya praBhO ||

O Lord, who accomplishes the impossible, tell me what is impossible for you;
O RAmA's Envoy, ocean of mercy, Lord, make my task successful too.

And we may pray to the same God for Atma-sAdhana, thus:

buddhir-balaM yasho dhairyaM nirbhayatvam arogata |
ajAdyaM vAktaTutvaM cha hanUmat smaraNAt bhavet ||

When we remember and pray/meditate on God hanumAn, we will be blessed with:
intelect and strength--buddhir-balaM,
fame and courage--yasho dhairyam,
fearlessness--nirbhayatvam,
freedom from ailments--arogata,
wisdom--ajAdyaM,
and diplomacy in speech--vAktaTutvaM.

What more do we need to sustain our Atma-sAdhana for AtmAnubhava--Self-Realization?
In this same way, we can pray to many if not most of our Gods, that is, Godforms.

NayaSurya
14 July 2010, 02:51 PM
There was a time when I became very confused about this. I was praying and saw someone whom I realized as Father. This conflict stayed for many days until one day as I pray I heard the word our. When it was said, it was said as one with many voices. He is the One with many Voices...they speak to different colors...lifestyles...personalities.

Each a stream, until they reach the ocean where then those streams are simply the One...ocean.

I worship Three now, Three whom are One.

Om Guru Brahma, Om Guru Visnu, Om Guru Devo Maheswara.

The creator, sustainer, the returner.

The returner is Beloved to my heart. I find myself lost for hours simply saying His name.

As far as Beautiful Beloved Mother Goddess...

This is how I worship Her.

587

She is so Beautiful<3

Eastern Mind
14 July 2010, 03:48 PM
Vannakkam Nayasurya

Nice picture. I've never seen it before. I have seen Aardhinarivara statues. In fact we have one.

Aum Namasivaya

Ganeshprasad
14 July 2010, 04:05 PM
Pranam


Vannakkam:

if you want to pray for success in school, you might pray to Lord Ganesha. For any 'obstacle removing' type of prayer, He would most likely be the one as well.

Aum Namasivaya

As well as Maa Sarsvati, the goddess of learning and speech, off course as Saidevo says these are not specific prayers -------------

Generally in India Ganesh and Sarasvati are invoked for the success in studies, i hope you don't mind me adding this.

Jai Shree Krishna

Eastern Mind
14 July 2010, 04:26 PM
Vannakkam Ganeshprasad and Saidevo

Of course I wasn't insinuating each God is limited to only doing certain aspects. I was merely pointing out how individuals might pray, based on their own sectarian beliefs. It is clearly a 'gut' matter for each person. Within each tradition, there is faith in certain things. This varies throughout our religion. Taking Ganeshprasad's example further, it might depend on which temple is available as well. At my temple Goddess Saraswati isn't enshrined, although she does have a niche on the outside of the moolasthanam walls. People here do buy archanas for Ganesha on birthdays, before resuming studies, and the like. But if there was a handy temple for her, I'm sure some people would go there for that prayer. But as I said before, there is no standard code for all Hindus. Because of all the rich geographic, sectarian, and linguistic variety, that's just the way it is. Most North Indians haven't heard of Murugan, so you won't find too many praying to Him. But if you believe in the power of Gods, then any prayer for any God, but even then there are different personal takes on it. Look at Ganeshprasad's and my closings. One is Jai Shree Krishna, and the other is
Aum Namasivaya. Both are correct.

Aum Namasivaya

Ramakrishna
14 July 2010, 10:54 PM
First off, thanks to everyone for their input on my question regarding how you view the gods. I found the answers instructive and illuminating.

In a follow-up question, I'm curious to understand how devotion to multiple gods works. I have noticed that many of the fine posters on these forums are either devoted to Lords Krishna, Vishnu, or Shiva. I personally feel a connection to/attraction for Lord Shiva, but also for Lord Ganesha. I feel that I would like to follow Smarta practices and worship the five primary forms of God, with Lord Shiva in the center, but am new to Hinduism and don't really know what I'm doing. Also, Advaita philosophy makes a lot of sense to me, and therefore I believe that Brahman, the Ultimate Self, is far beyond all the gods. Basically, my understanding is that we are on different levels of consciousness but Brahman is beyond all; not this, not this...

So in practical terms, how do others practice their devotion? If you meditate, do you do so only on one god or multiple gods? If you pray, do you pray only to one god or to multiple gods? Do you do these things simultaneously, or one god at a time?

As a footnote, I am of course referring to goddesses as well here, just using 'god' as blanket term for the sake of brevity. (Although I don't think this post could be called brief--apologies for the length.)

Namaste andrewoberg,

I struggled for a while with this question as well. You might want to check out this thread, which is kind of relevant to this: http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?t=5828

Lord Krishna is my ishta-deva and the majority of my prayers go to Him. However, I also pray to Lord Rama, Lord Hanuman, Lord Shiva, and Lord Ganesha. I just view them as different aspects of Brahman, but Lord Krishna is the most supreme aspect, in my opinion. I've been called a Vaishnava, a Smarta, a Smarta leaning towards Vaishnavism, and nonsectarian all by different people. As you can see, there are different viewpoints, but ultimately such labels don't matter.

I also agree with what Eastern Mindji said about praying to different forms of God for different things. I rarely pray to the feminine aspect of God, but I always say a prayer to Goddess Saraswati before studying or taking an exam. Again, it is in no way limiting those aspects of God. I pray to my ishta-deva Lord Krishna for everything, and to Goddess Saraswati only for studying or taking exams. But I don't view Goddess Saraswati as incomplete or anything, and I still love and respect Her. There are others who may pray to Her as their ishta-deva and rarely if ever pray to Lord Krishna. That is the diversity and beauty of Sanatana Dharma.

Jai Sri Krishna

kallol
15 July 2010, 10:53 PM
Dear Andrewoberg,

By Hindu philosophy it is simple. We define God as the superset of all manifested creation, unmanifested ceation and the consciousness.

We all are part of that huge superset.

For example if we take earth as our God, then this mud, water, river, trees, plants, animals, etc are all part of the same God.

It is like a big room with many windows of different sizes. Looking at the window and focusing on window is not the objective. But looking through the window into the room, is the objective.

Generally we limit ourselves to the window size and shape only, which is not our objective

So in hinduism the different gods, nature, animals are only the windows through which we see and perceive god.

Demi Gods are only representatives of senses, actions, creations to create that devotion towards the nature, our capabilities and actions.

This devotions lead to a better appreciation and understanding of the knowledge behind these, which is the same principle.

The external senses bounds us to these inert objects like body of earth, body of human, body of animals, body of trees, actions, etc. These are temporary and created for low level of knowledge. Like in class KG we learn mathematics through graphics and similarly in many classes. As we move up we get more knowledgeable and leave the graphics behind.

Only by invoking the internal senses, we move beyond these inert and move to the next plane of knowledge which is the permanent consciousness or the paraprakriti or purusha or the brahman.

Love and best wishes

Rasa1976
16 July 2010, 03:09 PM
All of the gods and goddesses; Brahma, Indra, Chandra, Surya, Saraswati, Laksmi, Durga, Ganesha, etc., are all present in the Universal Form of Sri Vishnu. As the different angas (parts) of the body of the Supreme Lord they are all entirely worthy of our utmost respect. Yet there is no need to worship them regularly or seperately. Of course, if you actually met Lord Brahma and he were to arrive at your home you would naturally offer a reception that could only be described as "worship", no matter what your religion. After he left you would worship him for the rest of your life, also accepting him as guru. But worship of Vishnu includes worship of all the other gods without an independent effort to please each one of them.

Indeed, satisfying all of the gods is necessary..

iṣṭān bhogān hi vo devā
dāsyante yajña-bhāvitāḥ
tair dattān apradāyaibhyo
yo bhuńkte stena eva saḥ

In charge of the various necessities of life, the demigods, being satisfied by the performance of yajña [sacrifice], will supply all necessities to you. But he who enjoys such gifts without offering them to the demigods in return is certainly a thief. [Bhagavad-gita 3.12]

It may help to look at the motive by which a devotee chooses a particular ishta-dev, or favorite deity. How respectable is the worship? Normally gods and goddesses are chosen to deliver boons. Rather than trying to decide which deity to devote oneself, who are the selfless devotees and what do they aspire to? Rather than performing elaborate pujas for her personal development, Queen Kunti asked Sri Krishna to always place her in troublesome circumstances, because she was fully aware of the fact that as soon as we are given boons, we forget God.

Ao
16 July 2010, 09:15 PM
Thanks all for your interesting and helpful responses.

To me, it seems logical to think that just as we are many on the practical level, but actually are One on the transcendental level, so too the gods are many but ultimately One; they just are at a different level of consciousness than we are--I see them as beings that are more energy than matter.

Also, and this is just from my personal perspective, I enjoy doing things like meditation and pujas, and I think that if those things help me think about brahman more and focus more on Self-realization, then the true value of those practices lies there, whether or not the gods exist in this way or that.

That said, how does one go about finding their ishta deva? (And thanks to Scott for explaining that term!) Purely through intuition or are there other ways?

Ramakrishna
16 July 2010, 09:43 PM
That said, how does one go about finding their ishta devata? (And thanks to Scott for explaining that term!) Purely through intuition or are there other ways?

Namaste andrewoberg,

There are several ways you can find your ishta-deva. One way is purely through intuition and experience. After praying and meditating to the different forms of God for a while, you may feel connected to one specific form more than others. This is largely how I found mine. Another way is to read about the different forms of God and the scriptures associated with them and you can see which form you are attracted to the most. An interesting thing that happens to some people is that they have a dream where a specific form of God appears to them and then that becomes their ishta-deva. However, I think this is rare, so don't start waiting to have a dream or anything like that.

A good way of putting it is that you cannot really find your ishta-deva, but your ishta-deva will find you. Of course, you are never "lost" to your ishta-deva, but you get the point. Don't spend too much time stressing out and trying to find one. You will just naturally feel connected to a specific form of God over time, or something special may happen like a dream. Of course, some Hindus don't even have an ishta-deva. They just pray to many or a few different forms of God equally. That is perfectly alright as well.

Jai Sri Krishna

Eastern Mind
17 July 2010, 06:04 AM
Vannakkam Andrew:

The concept of Ishta devata is stronger in some sects than in others. For example, in Smarta, you have more choices. I would venture with a bit of a stretch, the choice would be all the various Gods and forms. In Saivism, there are less choices. Ganesha, Muruga, Siva as Lingam, Nataraja, Dakshinamurthi, and Ardinarisvara would be about it. In Vaishnavism, you have Rama, Krishna, or Venkateshwara (Vishnu).

I could be wrong, but I believe the entire concept is strongest on Smarta philosophy and worship. I know personally, as Ramakkrishna just alluded to, I spend little time thinking about it at all, and I'm not even sure which form of Siva 'm most attracted to. Depends on the day, or context.

Aum Namasivaya

saidevo
17 July 2010, 09:42 AM
namaste everyone.

In searching for info on choosing an iShTa-devata, I came across this pdf document: The Ishta Devata by Pawel Leszczak at
http://rohinaa.com/om/attachments/061_Ishtadevata.pdf

This article says that one can find his iShTa-devata horoscopically. Perhaps Yajvan can explain this connection described in the article.

atanu
17 July 2010, 11:56 AM
The following touches upon the general subject of bhakti, various forms of the Supreme and Ishta Devata.

http://kamakoti.org/hindudharma/part1/chap5.htm

Om Namah Shivaya

Ao
20 July 2010, 06:30 AM
The following touches upon the general subject of bhakti, various forms of the Supreme and Ishta Devata.

http://kamakoti.org/hindudharma/part1/chap5.htm

Om Namah Shivaya

Thanks for the link, Atanu. I found the following parts especially helpful:

Even in the initial stages when we feel that Isvara and his devotee are separate, we must try to cultivate the awareness, albeit to a small degree, that the Paramatman who appears as Isvara is the same as the Paramatman that has become "us". If such be our approach, our love for the Lord will become more intense.

But for the jnanin, the enlightened one, the ideal is the Godhead that has no attributes and it is in his Godhead that he is finally absorbed. Sagunopasana (worship of Isvara with attributes) is the first step towards this end.

Onkara
20 July 2010, 08:02 AM
But for the jnanin, the enlightened one, the ideal is the Godhead that has no attributes and it is in his Godhead that he is finally absorbed. Sagunopasana (worship of Isvara with attributes) is the first step towards this end.

Hi
I wonder why the "Godhead that has no attributes" is the ideal?

:)

atanu
20 July 2010, 08:34 AM
Hi
I wonder why the "Godhead that has no attributes" is the ideal?

:)

Namaste Snip

To me it is very simple. To attribute an attribute to Godhead means barring the opposing attribute from it.

Om Namah Shivaya

Rasa1976
20 July 2010, 08:55 AM
To me it is very simple. To attribute an attribute to Godhead means barring the opposing attribute from it.

Why is that? Even a small gemstone may contain opposing attributes (color, colorlessness, opposing colors, etc.). So why can't all such contradictions and attributes be present in the Godhead? Isn't it because our finite minds can't handle them (though they often "contain" them anyway :) )?

Ganeshprasad
20 July 2010, 10:01 AM
Pranam Atanu ji


Namaste Snip

To me it is very simple. To attribute an attribute to Godhead means barring the opposing attribute from it.

Om Namah Shivaya

What attribution can we assign to that Godhead? he has no limit thus attribute less.

sri-bhagavan uvaca
hanta te kathayisyami
divya hy atma-vibhutayah
pradhanyatah kuru-srestha
nasty anto vistarasya me

The Supreme Lord said: O Arjuna, now I shall explain to you My prominent divine manifestations, because My manifestations are endless. (10.19)

off course from Gyani's perspective he see Bhakti as a stepping stone, not so with a bhakta, would not entertain such a thought, not because he has not read the shastra but because he sees nothing beyond the love off his Ista deva.

Jai Shree Krishna

yajvan
20 July 2010, 08:59 PM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~~~
namast&#233; ganeshprasad,

Pranam Atanu ji
What attribution can we assign to that Godhead? he has no limit thus attribute less.
sri-bhagavan uvaca
hanta te kathayisyami
divya hy atma-vibhutayah
pradhanyatah kuru-srestha
nasty anto vistarasya me

The Supreme Lord said: O Arjuna, now I shall explain to you My prominent divine manifestations, because My manifestations are endless. (10.19)

off course from Gyani's perspective he see Bhakti as a stepping stone, not so with a bhakta, would not entertain such a thought, not because he has not read the shastra but because he sees nothing beyond the love off his Ista deva. Jai Shree Krishna

What you say makes sense, yet is not 'having no limits' an attribute, and being attribute-less well, also an attribute?

When we use the term bhagavān even His name gives us a hint of some of those attributes, no?
bhaga + vān : bhaga - ' dispenser', gracious lord; good fortune , happiness , welfare , prosperity + van is master
The Lord and Master, dispenser of happiness, welfare and prosperity.

He is said to possess 6 divine qualities that cannot be surpassed , no?

j&#241;āna - knowledge to its fullest - past, present, future in any direction or dimension
bala - ultimate strengh that can make creation come and go
aiśvarta - lordship over all of sovereignty & supremacy
śakti - unending energy
tejas - splendor and brilliance
vīrya - vigour , virilityPerhaps I am only looking at saguṇa brahman and miss your point on the collective view of Godhead.
praṇām

atanu
21 July 2010, 01:51 AM
Why is that? Even a small gemstone may contain opposing attributes (color, colorlessness, opposing colors, etc.). So why can't all such contradictions and attributes be present in the Godhead? Isn't it because our finite minds can't handle them (though they often "contain" them anyway :) )?

Namaste Rasa

I agree to your view to some extent that the attributes of the Turya is achintya - unthinkable, ungraspable, beyond mind, beyond words etc.

But scripture does describe the Brahman as nirgunam.

Now coming to the opposite view of assumption of saguna as the primary truth, we land into some difficulties. If the Godhead is taken as delineatable as different from us and having a form and we say that God is tall, then how that same delineated God is going to be short? If Vishnu is hot somewhere and cold somewhere, then the all pervading sameness is broken. Beneath these diverse attributes that is seen as the Universe, Vishnu is all pervading as Vishnu and not as Hot or Cold. I have cited only two problems but there are innumerable other.

Upanishads and Gita emphatically declare the Param Brahman as achintya but nirgunam. The problem arises because some devotees are taught that the Saguna Bhagwan is higher than Brahman. This is wrong. The Saguna Bhagwan is indeed stated to be higher than the Mahat BrahmA (creator) and not Param Brahman, which is beyond definition.

Om Namah Shivaya

Note: Anyway, I go by what Kanchi Seer teaches that I have found true to the Upanishads. The views may differ and each should only follow one's Guru.

Ao
21 July 2010, 01:54 AM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~~~
namasté ganeshprasad,


What you say makes sense, yet is not 'having no limits' an attribute, and being attribute-less well, also an attribute?

When we use the term bhagavān even His name gives us a hint of some of those attributes, no?
bhaga + vān : bhaga - ' dispenser', gracious lord; good fortune , happiness , welfare , prosperity + van is master
The Lord and Master, dispenser of happiness, welfare and prosperity.

He is said to possess 6 divine qualities that cannot be surpassed , no?
jñāna - knowledge to its fullest - past, present, future in any direction or dimension
bala - ultimate strengh that can make creation come and go
aiśvarta - lordship over all of sovereignty & supremacy
śakti - unending energy
tejas - splendor and brilliance
vīrya - vigour , virilityPerhaps I am only looking at saguṇa brahman and miss your point on the collective view of Godhead.
praṇām


I think we run into a few problems when we try to discuss this issue. For one, titles such as bhagavan, while of course fitting, tend to have an anthropomorphizing effect. Also, while 'attributeless' could technically be called an 'attribute', so could 'indescribable'--but of course the point of using such terms is not to provide an attribute or description but to say that the object of those terms is beyond anything we can say. Which really shows that the root problem is the language we are using. Our ability to discuss these concepts more fully is limited by the lack of subtlety and grace, and the more or less static tense forms, that are hallmarks of English.

As a student of language, I'm sure you appreciate this Yajvan, and I'd be interested to hear if Sanskrit allows for more communicative depths along these lines. I have read that some Native American/First Nation languages have complex verb forms that allow for an understanding of an environment in constant flux--does Sanskirt also have that feature? (And I'm not saying that that would allow for better discussions on brahman, merely that it is a trait of those languages.) Or does Sanskrit have other features that might give it advantages in discussing the Ultimate Beyond?

atanu
21 July 2010, 02:16 AM
Which really shows that the root problem is the language we are using. Our ability to discuss these concepts more fully is limited by the lack of subtlety and grace, and the more or less static tense forms, that are hallmarks of English.

As a student of language, I'm sure you appreciate this Yajvan, and I'd be interested to hear if Sanskrit allows for more communicative depths along these lines. I have read that some Native American/First Nation languages have complex verb forms that allow for an understanding of an environment in constant flux--does Sanskirt also have that feature? (And I'm not saying that that would allow for better discussions on brahman, merely that it is a trait of those languages.) Or does Sanskrit have other features that might give it advantages in discussing the Ultimate Beyond?

Namaste Andrew

Sorry I am intervening. I saw your post addressed to Yajvanji, and thought to throw in my view in advance. :)

No. Sanskrit verses teach that Mind returns from Him. Words return from Him.

These signify both that the mind and words have origin there and that the words and the mind do not penetrate That.

Om Namah Shivaya

Ao
21 July 2010, 02:22 AM
Namaste Andrew

Sorry I am intervening. I saw your post addressed to Yajvanji, and thought to throw in my view in advance. :)

No. Sanskrit verses teach that Mind returns from Him. Words return from Him.

These signify both that the mind and words have origin there and that the words and the mind do not penetrate That.

Om Namah Shivaya

No problem Atanu, butt in anytime!;)

You said that, "[W]ords and the mind do not penetrate That." I think you are supporting my point, no? That language, being merely the tool that it is, cannot adequately address that which is indescribable? Or are you saying that Sanskrit is a language of divine origin and therefore able to address the issue?

atanu
21 July 2010, 02:40 AM
No problem Atanu, butt in anytime!;)

You said that, "[W]ords and the mind do not penetrate That." I think you are supporting my point, no? That language, being merely the tool that it is, cannot adequately address that which is indescribable? Or are you saying that Sanskrit is a language of divine origin and therefore able to address the issue?

Namaste Andrew

Ya, come to think of it, I am saying both -- possibly. Brahman-Self-Turya is said to be indescribable but again it is said to be Om as one and AUM as the Seen three worlds. But there is no qualitative tag with OM.

Om Namah Shivaya

kallol
21 July 2010, 11:25 AM
Sorry for butting in.

It is the mind (part of aparaprakriti) that in conjunction with intellect and the body brings out the attribute definitions. Mind functions in the environment of Bramhan.

The indirect feeling of the bramhan is due to the reflection of the bramhan through the mind.

We never have dealt directly with Bramhan but only inferred that entity indirectly.

In case we take away the mind there is no way we can know bramhan even indirectly leave apart any attribute tagging to it.

That is why it is beyond comprehension, beyond knowledge, etc.

The source which enables us to know cannot be known or comprehended.



If the above is not true then is there any way, we can know or comprehend bramhan directly ?

Love and best wishes

Rasa1976
21 July 2010, 06:18 PM
Namaste Rasa

I agree to your view to some extent that the attributes of the Turya is achintya - unthinkable, ungraspable, beyond mind, beyond words etc.

But scripture does describe the Brahman as nirgunam.

Now coming to the opposite view of assumption of saguna as the primary truth, we land into some difficulties. If the Godhead is taken as delineatable as different from us and having a form and we say that God is tall, then how that same delineated God is going to be short? If Vishnu is hot somewhere and cold somewhere, then the all pervading sameness is broken. Beneath these diverse attributes that is seen as the Universe, Vishnu is all pervading as Vishnu and not as Hot or Cold. I have cited only two problems but there are innumerable other.

Upanishads and Gita emphatically declare the Param Brahman as achintya but nirgunam. The problem arises because some devotees are taught that the Saguna Bhagwan is higher than Brahman. This is wrong. The Saguna Bhagwan is indeed stated to be higher than the Mahat BrahmA (creator) and not Param Brahman, which is beyond definition.

Om Namah Shivaya

Note: Anyway, I go by what Kanchi Seer teaches that I have found true to the Upanishads. The views may differ and each should only follow one's Guru.

Namaste Atanu,

If God is ultimately "all-pervading sameness", then how can one hope to keep faith in their ishta-dev, for example Shiva, if Shiva's qualities are to vanish into formless, quality-less Brahman? Does Shiva exist at this present time within a physical form? If he has qualities that help one on the path of enlightenment will those qualities too be dissolved?

What happens to those who want to become self-realized once Shiva is dissolved into Brahman? Or is it only the "sameness" within such Gods one is to worship? If that is so, what makes any given deity distinguishable from any other being?

My apologies if six questions are too many, lol.

Ao
23 July 2010, 01:45 AM
Namaste Atanu,

If God is ultimately "all-pervading sameness", then how can one hope to keep faith in their ishta-dev, for example Shiva, if Shiva's qualities are to vanish into formless, quality-less Brahman? Does Shiva exist at this present time within a physical form? If he has qualities that help one on the path of enlightenment will those qualities too be dissolved?

What happens to those who want to become self-realized once Shiva is dissolved into Brahman? Or is it only the "sameness" within such Gods one is to worship? If that is so, what makes any given deity distinguishable from any other being?

My apologies if six questions are too many, lol.

Apologies for butting in (I'm only following the precedents set;)), but it is my understanding that Shiva, or any other god, is already one with the ultimate Brahman--just as you and I and my pen and the rock in my shoe and everything else are. All is Brahman, nothing is not Brahman, and nothing can ever be not Brahman. However, just as you and I seem to exist separately on a practical level, so too do the gods seem to exist separately on a practical level. Your love and devotion to Shiva are admirable, and they will help you grow spiritually I believe. However, the end goal (at least for an Advaitan, in my understanding) is to eventually move beyond your worship of Shiva as you come to understand that you and Shiva are one within Brahman. For the same Self that manifests as Shiva also manifests as you.

Please correct me if I'm wrong, dear Atanu. I have only my own understanding of the Upanishads and Gita to go on, and no wise guru to guide me yet.

Rasa1976
23 July 2010, 06:05 AM
Apologies for butting in (I'm only following the precedents set;)), but it is my understanding that Shiva, or any other god, is already one with the ultimate Brahman--just as you and I and my pen and the rock in my shoe and everything else are. All is Brahman, nothing is not Brahman, and nothing can ever be not Brahman. However, just as you and I seem to exist separately on a practical level, so too do the gods seem to exist separately on a practical level. Your love and devotion to Shiva are admirable, and they will help you grow spiritually I believe. However, the end goal (at least for an Advaitan, in my understanding) is to eventually move beyond your worship of Shiva as you come to understand that you and Shiva are one within Brahman. For the same Self that manifests as Shiva also manifests as you.

Thanks Andrew, I can understand your answers from a basic Advaitic viewpoint and note that I forgot to include the simple idea that Shiva is already one with Brahman.

But it doesn't make sense to me that gods - who are full of very distinct qualities and attributes - should be worshiped in the first place if it is the very opposite thing we are trying to attain. Even "self-realized devi or devata" has to be regarded as a type of designation taking on a form with attributes. If the goal is nirguna brahman - freedom from all separateness - then the entire world of multiplicity of gods (or at least the idea of it) would have to be thought of as an obstacle in the ultimate sense. What good is that when the quest for spiritual attainment is all about the ultimate reality?

Lord Ganesh for example is sometimes described as Vigneshwara, "Lord of all Obstacles". For that reason Ganesh is prayed to at the beginning of a spiritual activity for success in its performance. Should worship of someone who removes obstacles be thought of as "ultimately an obstacle"? If one wanted to have nearly enough respect in their worship it would seem they should forget all about the endless proclamations of nirguna brahman until they have arrived, or give up such utilitarian attempts at "worship" altogether.

atanu
23 July 2010, 07:20 AM
Thanks Andrew, I can understand your answers from a basic Advaitic viewpoint and note that I forgot to include the simple idea that Shiva is already one with Brahman.

But it doesn't make sense to me that gods - who are full of very distinct qualities and attributes - should be worshiped in the first place if it is the very opposite thing we are trying to attain. Even "self-realized devi or devata" has to be regarded as a type of designation taking on a form with attributes. If the goal is nirguna brahman - freedom from all separateness - then the entire world of multiplicity of gods (or at least the idea of it) would have to be thought of as an obstacle in the ultimate sense. What good is that when the quest for spiritual attainment is all about the ultimate reality?

Lord Ganesh for example is sometimes described as Vigneshwara, "Lord of all Obstacles". For that reason Ganesh is prayed to at the beginning of a spiritual activity for success in its performance. Should worship of someone who removes obstacles be thought of as "ultimately an obstacle"? If one wanted to have nearly enough respect in their worship it would seem they should forget all about the endless proclamations of nirguna brahman until they have arrived, or give up such utilitarian attempts at "worship" altogether.


Namaste Rasa

I have seen your earlier questions and this post. The answers are alreadty there in the original teaching on the subject by Kanchi Paramacharya that was cited. You may or may not give credence to that.

For me the matter is simple. The final message of Vedanta is that the Turya must be known. My understanding of the implications aligns with the teaching of Kanchi Paramacharya, who does not teach to initiate sadhaka to abandon the dvaita sadhana. Neither my Guru does so. But Neti-Neti teaching remains for the ultimate sadhaka.

Om Namah Shivaya

yajvan
23 July 2010, 12:21 PM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~~


namast&#233;


My question and answer I offered in post 23 was to stimulate some additional conversation on this matter and many have brilliantly engaged the idea.

Words are feeble, an attempt to define the infinite with finite words , they are not sufficient so we as humans do the best we can with the sound and voice ( śabda and vāc) we are gifted with.

This too is what the veda attempts to bring to us - this infinite brought into the finite. The upaniṣad-s try and do the same, define the Infinite with finite words. Yet their skills are very profound so much so we need interpreters ( muni-s , svāmī-s, guru-s ) to bring this high frequency of truth to our level of being ( and need). That is the pickle of this creation - to get close to the fullness ( bhūman) within the limits we reside in.

Two things we know of the Supreme, the highest, the unsurpassable (uttara & anuttara) are the following:

It is anirukta, unuttered , not articulated , unspeakable, and;
svatāsiddha - self-proven, self-exprienced i.e. svā + ta + siddha = one's own + crossing or virtue + accomplished i.e. self-accomplishedOur words are inspired by the muni-s and siddha-s, guru-s & pandit-s that may operate from this field of perfection. They give us the hints to the Greatness of this Being. Yet words still get in the way, but we do the best we can with verbs, nouns, sentences, vibrations, etc. as these too are infused with the purity of Being.

The one that vibrates with this Being is more easily understood when it comes to defining the Supreme. Others that are surrounded in and bathe in the fullness of Being say little and just radiate this by sitting and just being who they really are.

So it is my POV that I understand & appreciate anirukta + svatāsiddha, but no less try and to articulate this bhūman (fullness) the best we can with the understanding It is that which is beyond, yet at the same time it is that which gives us the voice/breath to try and describe Its fullness .

yat prānena na prāṇiti
yeba prāṇaḥ pranītate |
Not by breath It lives,
but by which breath makes everything live.

From the kenopaniṣad (1.8) describing brahman.

praṇām

atanu
23 July 2010, 03:06 PM
Namaste Atanu,

If God is ultimately "all-pervading sameness", then how can one hope to keep faith in their ishta-dev, for example Shiva, if Shiva's qualities are to vanish into formless, quality-less Brahman? Does Shiva exist at this present time within a physical form? If he has qualities that help one on the path of enlightenment will those qualities too be dissolved?

What happens to those who want to become self-realized once Shiva is dissolved into Brahman? Or is it only the "sameness" within such Gods one is to worship? If that is so, what makes any given deity distinguishable from any other being?

My apologies if six questions are too many, lol.

namaste rasa

Six questions are one only, and in my opinion the question is faulty. Andrew has mentioned it but you have not grasped that, IMO.

Shiva does not disappear into anything. Shiva remains as Atman, as pure unparted concsiousness. It is the gross, subtle and the causal bodies of the successful yogi that are dissolved due to diminishing of desires -- finally leaving only the pure concsiousness 'Om', which Shiva is. Brahma Sutra says (and also repeated in the Kanchi Paramacharya's explanation) that the forms are graceful acts of the divine being to help us to meditate, to concentrate.

Successful concentration is the ultimate devotion (attachment to a deity without any other distraction). This helps to dissolve all other boundary conditions. For example, if you brought back your mind continually and repeatedly to the sense of 'I am', you will likely fall asleep within a few minutes. This is tamasic dissolution and is akin to the deep sleep. Yogis, however, arrive at this concentration with the mind awake. And that does not lead to sleep -- it is the slumberless waking sleep called Turya state. Being stabilised in this is the TuryAtita.

The forms of Ganesha or of kAli or any deity are revelations to sages that are handed down to us as prasadam, as grace. Some find it convenient to hold onto sound 'om', some to silent feeling of 'om', some to 'linga', some to some other form, yet the substratum is consciousness only.

I will try to put the above understanding in another way. Say you have a vision of Shri Krishna. Now, the Upanishads teach that the Seer within is Lord only and not any second being. So, who is having the darshan? Same with people who see light or who hear sounds. The sound or the light is not the deity but the deity is the Seer or the Hearer of the sight and sound. If you are able to enquire "Who sees?" or "Who hears?", you will be following something like Neti-Neti or soham or atma-anatma vichara, prescribed in the upanishads. No doubt, this is not easy.

But, the deity worship going onto submission to subtler formless all pervading peace that is pure consciousness is being stithpragnya. How do you then say that this is regressive? How do you know that such is not the actual nature of Brahman? Neti-Neti or soham or atma-anatma vichara helps one to distinguish between the seen/heard from the Seer/Hearer. These practices gradually weans one away from less than subtle forms (which are delineated and have boundary) to subtle consciousness (which has no boundary).

You may follow the method taught by your teacher that may not be one of the above, but that does not make the above methods invalid or any lower.

Om Namah Shivaya

yajvan
23 July 2010, 04:46 PM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namast&#233;

Atanu has pointed the reader to the 4th, turīya. For some this is an esoteric idea, for others a daily experience of meditation. Atanu uses the term slumber-less waking sleep. Perhaps another term that may also help here , restfully alert.
The body is fully rested as in sleep, but the mind is calm, luminous, but not asleep. Some would think this would take years to develop - it does not. This occurs in one's meditations sooner then you would think. What takes a bit more time is to groom this restfully alert condition (which is body-mind-nervious system centric) so it remains in activity.

Here is another way of defining where this turīya resides , from svāmī Lakṣman-jū's Ślokāṣṭaka translation :

If you maintain your awareness at that point which is found between waking and sleeping, you will be focused on that supreme felicity which is the supreme bliss of God Consciousness.


Some HDF posts on turīya for those that have interest:

Finding turīya http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?t=2996 (http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?t=2996)
The import of turya http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?t=1822 (http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?t=1822)
Revisiting turīya http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?t=3312 (http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?t=3312)
The summary of the import of turya http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?t=2050 (http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?t=2050)
Consciousness http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?t=1773 (http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?t=1773)praṇām

Rasa1976
23 July 2010, 05:49 PM
namaste rasa

Six questions are one only, and in my opinion the question is faulty. Andrew has mentioned it but you have not grasped that, IMO.

Shiva does not disappear into anything. Shiva remains as Atman, as pure unparted concsiousness. It is the gross, subtle and the causal bodies of the successful yogi that are dissolved due to diminishing of desires -- finally leaving only the pure concsiousness 'Om', which Shiva is. Brahma Sutra says (and also repeated in the Kanchi Paramacharya's explanation) that the forms are graceful acts of the divine being to help us to meditate, to concentrate.


Namaste Atanu,

Yes, any tyro in the subject of Vedanta will grasp that "Shiva remains as pure unparted consciousness" according to the Advatic understanding, as does any Brahman-realized being. But first you say "Shiva does not disappear" then you say "only Om is left". You say Shiva has a body made of temporary gross and subtle elements and apparently the main purpose of Shiva's existence is to help us meditate on his gross form so we can attain "Om".

I'm sure you have heard the concept of sac-cid-ānanda-vigrahaḥ (eternal, spiritual form), whether or not you prefer to accept such existence. I am mainly focused on a question of respect, since to see Shiva's form as temporary does not elevate his worship from the worship of any other being, since everyone is ultimately Brahman.

The finite mind can only comprehend form as having limits. The very word "form" evokes an outline or silhouette - synonymous with "boundary". But the contention behind my line of questioning is that the fact of the Absolute as unlimited means that it includes limitless form and limitless, undying forms. It is not "ultimately" form or formlessness, but both.

In spite of this, I am still trying to understand the subject of deity worship from an Advaitin POV. Thank you for your thoughts. I can appreciate your point that "successful concentration is the ultimate devotion".



So, the deity worship going onto submission to subtler formless all pervading peace that is pure consciousness is being stithpragnya. How do you then say that this is regressive? How do you know that such is not the actual nature of Brahman?


Apparantely you are defining the attainment of subtler, "boundary-less" consciousness as occuring when we are able to witness the form of the deity dissolve. I would not tend to think of this as regressive, but more like an interim state where the material elements that comprise the representation of one's ishta-dev (on earth) are washed away as part of a dream, with only the underlying immortal Brahman remaining. But without being redirected to the Supreme Person that is represented and His self-luminous abode, I would tend to think of Brahman-realization as more of a waiting room.

saidevo
23 July 2010, 11:33 PM
This thread is progressing towards becoming one of the best in HDF!

The relationship between deities and Brahman, between us and them and IT, and the synergism of the entire hierarchical setup in manifest creation have been well brought out and analysed by members. My two cents on some of the points discussed:

• Kallol said in post no.11:
Only by invoking the internal senses, we move beyond these inert and move to the next plane of knowledge which is the permanent consciousness or the paraprakriti or purusha or the brahman.

The external senses--bahir-karaNa--five karmendriyas and five jnAnendriyas, assembled into our physical body, are the Input-Output interface to the external world. The mind acts on the input and expresses its interactive output through the physical brain, in electro-chemico-neuro reactions, which cascade down into physical expressions of speech, muscular movements and so on.

The four internal senses/organs--antaH karaNa--manas, chitta, buddhi, ahaMkAra, are mostly bahir-mukha--directed outwards, except during when there is a saMkalpa--will, towards antar-mukha--inward direction.

At such inward direction, initially we find it all a mess: our thoughts always cascade haywire into streams and rivulets, our buddhi is obsessed with the rationality of scientific and worldly knowledge, our chitta is full of vAsanas--impressions, like the contents of a computer hard disk--we don't know what is hidden where, and our ahaMkAra--I-sense, is focussed on the ego--jIvAtma.

SaguNa upAsana--worshipping a manifest deity, as iShTa-devata and other deities, keeps our saMkalpa and manas focussed on a divine principle, which does this chitta-shuddhi of clearing up the mess. Unless we have the chitta-shuddhi, as KAnchi ParamAchArya teaches, we can't be successful in the nivRtti-mArga of jnAna, through which we seek the Self.

*****

• Kallol has another good point in post no.29 (numbering mine):
01. It is the mind (part of aparaprakriti) that in conjunction with intellect and the body brings out the attribute definitions. Mind functions in the environment of Bramhan.

The indirect feeling of the bramhan is due to the reflection of the bramhan through the mind.

02. We never have dealt directly with Bramhan but only inferred that entity indirectly.

In case we take away the mind there is no way we can know bramhan even indirectly leave apart any attribute tagging to it.

03. That is why it is beyond comprehension, beyond knowledge, etc.

The source which enables us to know cannot be known or comprehended.

The very name manuShya--man, is derived from manas--mind. We would be like animals without mind. It is mind that makes, makes up and mars our spiritual advancement. It is the mind that brought down the tapas of a sage like VishvAmitra maharShi and made him fall for the charms of MenakA. Finally, it is the mind that is the instrument for jnAnis for Self-Realization. The mind of the jnAnis is called shuddha-manas--pure mind, wherein the entire antaH-karaNa resides in the Atman--Self.

Therefore, we cannot take away the mind for the purpose of knowing Brahman. We know IT through the mind and once that experience of sat-chit-Ananda sets in, in the state of turIya, our jnAnis say that we would find the knower, knowing and knowledge all merge into one Absolute Reality.

The irony of the experience is that even after having it, the jnAni cannot express it in thoughts and words so the others can understand. This is where they insist on SaguNa upAsana as a catalyst for the sAdhaka--seeker, of the Self.

*****

Atanu has beautifully answered Rasa's questions on the uniformity of Brahman through the diversity of deities and devotees. At length, the seeker of the Self finds that the multitude of gross and subtle forms dissolve into expanding consciousness, which is felt as the experience of bliss with perhaps the visual component of pure sattvic--white light that distinguishes it from the darkness of suShupti--deep sleep.

kallol
25 July 2010, 10:08 AM
This thread is progressing towards becoming one of the best in HDF!


The very name manuShya--man, is derived from manas--mind. We would be like animals without mind. It is mind that makes, makes up and mars our spiritual advancement. It is the mind that brought down the tapas of a sage like VishvAmitra maharShi and made him fall for the charms of MenakA. Finally, it is the mind that is the instrument for jnAnis for Self-Realization. The mind of the jnAnis is called shuddha-manas--pure mind, wherein the entire antaH-karaNa resides in the Atman--Self.

Therefore, we cannot take away the mind for the purpose of knowing Brahman. We know IT through the mind and once that experience of sat-chit-Ananda sets in, in the state of turIya, our jnAnis say that we would find the knower, knowing and knowledge all merge into one Absolute Reality.



Dear Saidevo,

As we are on a journey for finite to infinte, from aparaprakriti to paraprakriti, the chitto suddhi is a part of the learning one has to go through in this. This is as you have also mentioned.

The other part can be seen form another angle. Body is the chariot, mind the untrained horse and intellect the reins.

Again mind is one entity through which the actions take place whether external senses to intellect or intellect to external action points.

The next point is all living beings (it includes all creation) have mind (without mind the life is not enabled in the body). It is like filament of the bulb. When not there the bulb will not glow though the electricity is there. In death the mind goes out.

The mind is empowered for different tasks at different levels.

The five tasks are sense, react /act, learn, plan, know. I have deliberately not put it in order.

The so called inert /non living systems which are initial place holders after space have only reactive capability as per certain rules. Like and electron charged more - moves to next orbit. Planets move around stars. Star systems in galaxies. If there is a change due to some anomaly, the systems react. This is one level. It includes the earth, air and water - the other 3 place holders (for plants) which was gradulally built up (like building pyramid layer by layer). Life, as we define, starts with sense. So we call these entities non living.

Second level is the plant kingdom - here we have sense and react. THis is the place holder for herbivorous animals and indirectly carnivorous animals.

Third level is the animals - we have learn, sense and react. Little bit of plan here and there (mostly in more evolved animals). Planning needs intellect which is the reins. So the evolution of intellect starts.

Fourth level is human - here it is learn, sense, plan, act/react. Plan part is very strong. With stronger plan - the mental faculty is getting stronger and stronger. We have acquired little bit of "know" but a long way to go. Because we do not have the know part - so we need to plan so much (plan - is to anticipate the future - i.e. to know)

Fifth and final level - all the five with more stress on the know part. This is a level near to God.

Earlier Rishis and great wise spiritual scientists (as I call the saints) had / have this quality in varying extent. They knew more as their veiw plane of observation is much higher. An ant may not see a water stream coming but at higher level human can see. A man may not see what is coming on the other side of the building or mountain but a bird or satellite can see. Through more developement of the mental plane, this faculty will evolve more and we will start knowing more and more of the what will happen.

This is the path of evolution.

Love and best wishes

yajvan
25 July 2010, 10:36 AM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namast&#233;




Words are feeble, an attempt to define the infinite with finite words , they are not sufficient so we as humans do the best we can with the sound and voice ( śabda and vāc) we are gifted with.

Two things we know of the Supreme, the highest, the unsurpassable (uttara & anuttara) are the following:

It is anirukta, unuttered , not articulated , unspeakable, and;
svatāsiddha - self-proven, self-exprienced i.e. svā + ta + siddha = one's own + crossing or virtue + accomplished i.e. self-accomplishedThere is another word that captures this idea of unspeakable.

anahataśabda = ana+ hata + śabda


ana = breath
hata = destroyed
śabda - sound , speech , language , verbal communication or testimony , nameHence, that which cannot be sounded or spoken by breath, the Unpeakable.


A slightly different view on this word is the following - anahatasāvda .
The connection is with the sound 'b' and 'v' in saṁskṛt at times make them switchable. We see this with the word bṛhaspati and is often writen as vṛhaspati.
So taking heedful liberties I remove the 'b' and replace it with 'v' and see what becomes of the word etymologically.

anahatasāvda = ana+hata+sa+av+da

ana = breath
hata = destroyed
sa - air; yet also this 'sa' or 'sā' is a noun/name for viṣṇu or śiva
av - to offer, lead or bring
da - has multiple meanings - a gift, giving , granting , offering , effecting , producing ; yet it also means cutting off.This can have multiple meanings as I see it.

That which destroys the breath and leads one to viṣṇu or śiva.
Destroying the breath can mean destroying the cycle of birth and death.
It also can mean samādhi were all is still , including the physical breath and one goes to prāṇic breath.
With breath destroyed (cut off) one is lead to the gift of śiva
praṇām

atanu
25 July 2010, 11:39 PM
hariḥ oṁ
A slightly different view on this word is the following - anahatasāvda .

The connection is with the sound 'b' and 'v' in saṁskṛt at times make them switchable. We see this with the word bṛhaspati and is often writen as vṛhaspati.
So taking heedful liberties I remove the 'b' and replace it with 'v' and see what becomes of the word etymologically.

anahatasāvda = ana+hata+sa+av+da

ana = breath
hata = destroyed
sa - air; yet also this 'sa' or 'sā' is a noun/name for viṣṇu or śiva
av - to offer, lead or bring
da - has multiple meanings - a gift, giving , granting , offering , effecting , producing ; yet it also means cutting off.This can have multiple meanings as I see it.

That which destroys the breath and leads one to viṣṇu or śiva.
Destroying the breath can mean destroying the cycle of birth and death.
It also can mean samādhi were all is still , including the physical breath and one goes to prāṇic breath.
With breath destroyed (cut off) one is lead to the gift of śivapraṇām

Namaste yajvanji

This is interesting to Indians and bengalis, especially.

My father-in-law is punjabi yet he swears when people say Pardip, when actually the word is Pradip or Pradeep (a lighted lamp-diya). But if you object to being called Pardip, you may risk getting beaten up, since people who say 'Pardip' are usually heftier than people who say the original 'Pradip'.:)

Actually it is bRh and never 'Vri'. Similarly, the word for sound is 'shabda', which in the transliteration scheme becomes 'zabda', and which sounds like a weapon to me. savda or sAvda (especially the latter) is never equivalent of 'shabda'

Om Namah Shivaya

Yogkriya
26 July 2010, 01:27 AM
I love this thread!!
Interesting posts dear Atanu, Yajvan, Kallol, saidevo.
Namah Shivaya!
Y.k.

yajvan
26 July 2010, 10:47 AM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namast&#233; atanu,


Namaste yajvanji
Actually it is bRh and never 'Vri'. Similarly, the word for sound is 'shabda', which in the transliteration scheme becomes 'zabda', and which sounds like a weapon to me. savda or sAvda (especially the latter) is never equivalent of 'shabda' Om Namah Shivaya

I am in hopes I do not get beaten up! :)

You mention 'sounds like a weapon to me' - you can come to this conclusion with the sound 'da'. It's 3rd derivitive is defined as 'the act of cutting off' ; 'da' in this form has its origin in the root √do to cut , divide , reap , mow.

This is why I walked softly when defining anahatasāvda and said
So taking heedful liberties and broke the word down to each akṣara.

Yet I too agree 'shabda' as you write śabda is not = to savda.

Thank you again for your insights... always valuable.

praṇām

atanu
26 July 2010, 12:33 PM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~
namasté atanu,

I am in hopes I do not get beaten up! :)

praṇām

Pranam yajvanji

Na. Never. Unless you are in India without your bow and the sheaf of sharp arrows slung around your shoulder (like your avatara Shri Rama) and then because you are Pradeep, you persistently object to being called Pardip. :) (It was just a light hearted banter to make a point).

But there was a real solution to such problem in my college. Two fellows argued whether Neither should be pronounced as Neether or as Naaither? The professor, who was a sikh gentleman, solved the problem. He said "You can say it aaither way". He meant that either way would be correct (and a third also).

Om Namah Shivaya

upsydownyupsy mv ss
27 July 2010, 09:35 AM
Though many may disagree with what I say now, I feel that this is the truth.
It is a very strong possibility that none of these so called gods exist as many gods at all. It is a very very strong possibility that the many names of Brahman in the vedas may have been utterly confused to be many 'gods'. There is one and only one god who is both the father and the mother and the best friend (:)). These many names of a single god may have been confused to be the names of several (300crore or more) gods, instead of one. Please refer the Mantra Pushpam to verify what I say.
Coming to the possibility that the many gods are different organs of one supreme god, gives rise to a basic question, how can God (who is like 0/0, infinity, root(-1) , etc.) be divisible to many parts/organs. He should not be considered to be like a human, or animal, or plant, or any other object. He is the one behind all natural, supernatural and artificial phenomena, he is not like these worldly objects to be divided to many parts. He is an indeterminate to this realm of Maya.
The many Gods or seeing God as many Gods concept appears flawful to my logic, imagination, brain and this state of consciousness. Its another misconception through the cold hearted passage of time, I'd guess.
Why only use Kashmiri Saivism, Advaitha and Smartism to support these above facts? There are innumerable other philosophies too. You can arrive to this conclusion even considering Atman and Sarvathman as different entities(which I disagree, but yet its possible).
Dear Isavasya, you thought I misunderstood the the author of the thread 'Early Vedic Gods', I didn't. I simply failed to express the above and still am failing to do it here. You know Shiva-Parvathi is the only one, yet you misunderstood what I said in that thread.

My opinion: Devotion to multiple gods creates confusion. This is how it works.

The Vedas refer to only one God as Rudra, Vishnu, Narayana, Indra, Ganesha, Brahma, Prajapathi, Saraswathi, etc.

kallol
28 July 2010, 08:03 AM
Though many may disagree with what I say now, I feel that this is the truth.
It is a very strong possibility that none of these so called gods exist as many gods at all. It is a very very strong possibility that the many names of Brahman in the vedas may have been utterly confused to be many 'gods'. There is one and only one god who is both the father and the mother and the best friend (:)). These many names of a single god may have been confused to be the names of several (300crore or more) gods, instead of one. Please refer the Mantra Pushpam to verify what I say.
Coming to the possibility that the many gods are different organs of one supreme god, gives rise to a basic question, how can God (who is like 0/0, infinity, root(-1) , etc.) be divisible to many parts/organs. He should not be considered to be like a human, or animal, or plant, or any other object. He is the one behind all natural, supernatural and artificial phenomena, he is not like these worldly objects to be divided to many parts. He is an indeterminate to this realm of Maya.
The many Gods or seeing God as many Gods concept appears flawful to my logic, imagination, brain and this state of consciousness. Its another misconception through the cold hearted passage of time, I'd guess.
Why only use Kashmiri Saivism, Advaitha and Smartism to support these above facts? There are innumerable other philosophies too. You can arrive to this conclusion even considering Atman and Sarvathman as different entities(which I disagree, but yet its possible).
Dear Isavasya, you thought I misunderstood the the author of the thread 'Early Vedic Gods', I didn't. I simply failed to express the above and still am failing to do it here. You know Shiva-Parvathi is the only one, yet you misunderstood what I said in that thread.

My opinion: Devotion to multiple gods creates confusion. This is how it works.

The Vedas refer to only one God as Rudra, Vishnu, Narayana, Indra, Ganesha, Brahma, Prajapathi, Saraswathi, etc.

You are right from your perspective.

The movement is from eka-rupam to bahu-rupam to A-rupam.

Every person is unique and may fit anywhere.

Love and best wishes

yajvan
28 July 2010, 11:07 AM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namast&#233;

ādityṁ brahma iti upāsita - says the chāndogya upaniṣad (9.3).
the sun (adita) is served , honoured , worshipped , adored ( upāsīta ) as brahman

This is considered pratīka upāsana. That is:

pratīka = outward form or shape , look , appearance , face + upāsana +homage , adoration , worshipSo the sun due to its brilliance, luminance, all inclusive beneficence to this earth bringing, light, warmth, heat, all life-growth is the symbol to consider.

Now there are the devatā that serve many functions and we see them as the forces of nature outside ourselves and as the lords of the senses wthin ourselves ... We know many as agni, vāyu, sūrya, indra, soma , etc. they are branches (aṅga) of the whole ( Supreme). This wholeness ( bhūman) of the Supreme is so vast, so encompassing, that It , with its greatest intelligence has It's agencies on every level of creation.
It (brahman) then has its management on every level also, Hence we find the various devatā on each level of creation. Yet they are extensions of the whole not independent agencies or independent operators.

So when we talk of the various devatā - is the conversation from the vedic point of view ( the saṁhita)? The upaniṣad-s point of view? The purāṇa-s&#185; point of view? Each consider the devatā in a different view ( not opposing) . They are offered for our comprehension to assist us in our understanding.

If I look at a tree in the forest what do I see ? A tree or a component of the forest? I see the whole forest from the top of the mountain and see only 'forest' . But what is there? Many trees, no? Both exist. The forest and the trees.

I look at creation and see many individual things managed by all the devatā-s. But from the mountain-top of knowledge I see only one thing, brahman. Both exist.

praṇām

words

purāṇa- s - a class of sacred works treating 5 topics. pa&#241;ca-lakṣaṇa ; We can count 18 main purāṇa-s in a group of 3: rājasa exalting brahmā , sāttvika exalting viṣṇu, tāmasa exalting śiva

Ganeshprasad
28 July 2010, 04:32 PM
Pranam yajvan ji and all
Much had been discussed since I last posted here. Just as Saidevo observed it has been analysed by members very nicely.

taking up Yajvanji’s post no 23

He asks 'having no limits' an attribute, and being attribute-less well, also an attribute?


For the formal question the answer is in the verse quoted

nasty anto vistarasya me

Lord Krishna says there is no limit to my My manifestations

But the later would defy logic if I were to say attribute-less is also an attribute but it’s a paradox just as we are faced with Nirguna, Nirakar

sarvendriya-gunabhasam
sarvendriya-vivarjitam
asaktam sarva-bhrc caiva
nirgunam guna-bhoktr ca

He is the perceiver of all sense objects without the senses; unattached, yet the sustainer of all; devoid of the Gunas, yet the enjoyer of the Gunas. (13.15)

He is inside as well as outside all beings, animate and inanimate. He is incomprehensible because of His subtlety. He is very near as well as far away. (13.16)

This eko Brahman defies logic not because it is illogical but because of our limitation.

I like Yajvan’s analogy of trees but here is a conundrum the same forest when viewed from outer space would appear as a small dot or not at all.

Jai Shree Krishna

yajvan
28 July 2010, 06:09 PM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namast&#233; ganeshprasad,


I like Yajvan’s analogy of trees but here is a conundrum the same forest when viewed from outer space would appear as a small dot or not at all. Jai Shree Krishna

...such is the pickle with metaphors, no? They can give one a sense of truth then they can be seen from another vantage point ( outer space).
Yet if we were talking planets I think then another ~perfect fit~ may be in order. We see our planet from space, then go a little further out and only see the solar system, One whole. But go even further and we see the galaxy . Now what to do? We go further out and see a cluster of galaxies ( a forest of them :) ) - and we now can see the similarities of all , yet the difference in one.

The question now becomes is the earth a member of the solar system, or of the galaxy, or of the family of galaxies or of this universe? The answer as I see it is just plain 'yes' to all.

The differences fade as one takes a universal look.

praṇām

yajvan
30 July 2010, 09:29 PM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namast&#233;



ādityṁ brahma iti upāsita - says the chāndogya upaniṣad (9.3).
the sun (adita) is served , honoured , worshipped , adored ( upāsīta ) as brahman

This is considered pratīka upāsana. That is:

pratīka = outward form or shape , look , appearance , face + upāsana +homage , adoration , worshipSo the sun due to its brilliance, luminance, all inclusive beneficence to this earth bringing, light, warmth, heat, all life-growth is the symbol to consider.

Now one can ask , yajvan, what does this have to do with the price of rice? Let's see if I can offer this in a way that makes sense.

Recall upāsana meaning homage , adoration , worship is a way to approach the Supreme. So with pratīka , it is a support , a way to be reminded of the Supreme around us.
What other pratīka upāsana's are offered in the upaniṣad-s? Some call these upāsana-s brahma vidyā-s or the science, learning, method to gain knowledge of brahman.

It is said there's about 32 main brahma vidyā-s in the upaniṣad-s. I find many in the chāndogya upaniṣad and they center around 3 pratīka-s , that of ākāśa, prāṇa and ātman. These qualities are also supported in the brahma sūtra-s as authentic and alignment with brahman overall. We can go in depth for each idea, yet will await interest from the reader.

Yet the beauty of these 3 i.e. ākāśa, prāṇa and ātman can take us from general ideas of space, jiva ( or individual soul) and life breath
to the Supreme view of these items.

Since this overall string is about 'devotion to multiple devatā-s' it infers that that the devatā all-in-all are ambassadors of parabrahma, as I see it.
So then what is direct upāsana ? if we can just for a moment call pratīka indirect or the highest conception of the Supreme by the ideals of symbols around us i.e. the Sun
( its physical appearance) is the brilliance of the Divine what then is the direct upāsana ?

Direct upāsana can be deemed mukhya upāsana . Mukhya as we generally know means face - yet it also means first , principal , chief , eminent. So this mukhya upāsana can be considered the principal way to 'face' the Supreme. The upaniṣad-s have the insight and wisdom to re-value many of the 'elements' space, sky, vital breath, etc. to its highest levels of brahman. An example would be with ākāśa.

Looking at the chāndogya upaniṣad (1.9.1) A question is posed to the teacher, To what original source doe this world go back to ? The teacher, pravāṇa-ji says, to ākāśa , for everything that has come into being originates verily from ākāśa and all go back into it. Ākāśa indeed is the final refuge all adhere to (or parāyaṇam - meaning final end or aim , last resort or refuge , essence ).

We think of ākāśa as space, yet too it is defined as 'that which allows or provides room for every-thing to exist'. So here is the ideal that is offered that takes pratīka to a higher level . In this vidyā brahman is not only ~compared~ to ākāśa as a symbol but rather it is understood to be ākāśa. We may see ākāśa yet we must also consider cid-ākāśa , that pure space of consciousness.
We can think , indirectly space, directly brahman to help us even for a moment grasp the infinite in an idea.

Yet this mukhya upāsana comes to its fullness from the ability to experience cid-ākāśa within ourselves - there we find 'facing the Supreme'. For this there are various upāya-s (techniques) offered by the wise i.e. meditations, contemplations, etc.

As the chāndogya upaniṣad (5.2.6) says, Let me be this, or let me realize/gain/ this (brahman) - aham evedaṁ sarvan asānīti&#185;.
This hymn is for one to become prāṇa, and is re-valued as brahman.

praṇām

words
this asānīti is a curious word for me... As I see it, it is made of a+sāni+iti ; 'a' = in this application means 'oh' + sāni = grant, fulfill + iti = thus, in this manner
This says then Oh, grant me this

sar78
26 September 2010, 01:33 PM
My point of view is - for a person leading normal human life he needs to come across various kinds of pinnacles of problems... depending upon the situation we are obsessed to pray and offer worshipping with proper devotion to the form of suitable God, apart from one having the personal ishta deva God.., Hence devotion to multiple Gods in Hinduism is essential part of way of life (Many means different forms of the same One Ultimate God manifested Himself for different purposes like creating sustaining & dissolving the universe etc)

example - in astrology - period of troubles you need to pray to shani god..
while you need to start new tasks/business - you pray to lord Ganesh....
If you need good education - Pray to Godess Saraswati
If you need good wealth (not just money) - Pray to Godesss Lakshmi Puja
If you need free from karma to attain moksha - Pray to Gods Shiva & Vishnu
If you need power of knowing - Pray to God Kumara ShaNmukhar
If you need for good disciplined life - pray to God Ayyapar
like that - I am not an expert but I am trying to show a glimpse why a person need to have devotion to many Gods....

Lord Rama lead a example life to human beings and He indeed showed devotion to multiple Gods... He prayed to Lord Shiva at Rameshwara before He started to Lanka to kill the enemy demon king Ravana.... He prayed to Sun God before the last day battle... (He was particularly instructed by Sage Rishi to pray to Sun God to win the battle otherwise it would not be possible... and He did So...) This I how beleive about what I said earlier...

But for Meditative praying - you need to concentrate with devotion to one particular form of God - I think so because you can easily focus your mind on Ishta deva for you achieve better results in mind controlling... you can do that by chanting God's name by japa or repeating God's mantra like wise.

TatTvamAsi
05 October 2010, 02:37 AM
Namaste,

Devotion, that is, complete trust and faith (shraddha), even in one person is difficult, let alone GOD. Thus, it is akin to asking, why don't we take all majors in college? It is simply a matter of our ability to receive the knowledge and grace.

Sri Ramana Maharishi gives a good analogy, as always. He said those who bring a cup will get a cupful of grace from Iswara. Those with a bucket, will get a bucketful. It is completely dependent on your ability to receive the grace of GOD that determines how much you can "devote" yourself to.

Thus, with our limited abilities as humans, we must focus our energies on one deity, hence iSta-devatA, so that we may receive whatever is given.

This is also a good time to point out that the notion of Krishna's love for the Gopis. He is the Supreme and thus he had no limits as to how much love he could pour forth on his devotees. Morons and half-wits, aka abrahamics, point to this example to denigrate Sri Krishna.

The Supreme is infinite, our ego-self is not. Thus, real devotion to multiple deities is not only difficult, but not common either.

Namaskar.

sunyata07
25 October 2010, 05:33 PM
Namaste,

I've discovered this thread a bit late, I see. It's a shame I did not find it sooner, because this was a topic that had been bothering me for some time as I developed my bhakti yoga more intensely just before I gave it a break. Before this, I had never prayed exclusively to Ganesha, although it was a tendency of mine to go to Him for help with secular problems. I did pray to Shiva, Krishna, Rama, Lakshmi and Durga from time to time, but as I knew only a handful of these Deva's epithets and special mantras, I mostly devoted myself to actual worship of Ganesha. Formal worship is not as important as sincere longing in your heart, but I had a fussy way of disciplining myself into learning the proper ways of addressing God.

While my bhakti was no less sincere than it is now, its stance on what it meant to worship a particular form was severely skewed in many ways. Threads on this board entitled "Who is the Supreme: Shiva or Vishnu?" did not help very much on this either! It's a warning to those who spend too much time thinking about this. In arguing about the Lord's various ornaments, names (and indeed S/He has many!) and appearances, we are forgetting that the most important thing is just to surrender at His/Her feet with love and pure child-like devotion to one's parent. I had this silly notion that if on some particular day I called to mind Sri Krishna and spontaneously praised Him in my heart before invoking Ganesha I was wronging my ishta-devata by not paying His aspect dues first. How juvenile, right? :o But I could not help but feel this, and I realise now that it was a very bad habit to nurse. I've been trying to train myself to be less discriminating in this respect, but it is something we all have to overcome ourselves.

While I was mostly leaning towards Saivism at the time, for me Lord Shiva is more abstract (and in a way, a better focus for deeper meditation) form of Saguna Brahman and so it has worked out marvellously for a time. It is the reason I use His mantra for work, passing the time in queues, and in proper japa meditation. While I've always considered Ganesha my ishta-devata, I will admit that for me He seems more and more to be there as the "psychic operator" to my real ishta-devata, Divine Mother. How have I come to this conclusion? It is as others have pointed out on this topic - intuition, being drawn back to the darshan of a particular Deva almost without your knowing time and again. Ganesha has been nudging me into the arms of His beloved mother where He knows my tears of devotion flow the fastest.

But it's what I love about the devotional part of worship in Sanatana Dharma. There is no fixed number of Devas you must worship, no rules about what sect you must decide to adhere to. Separating the aspects on the basis of worship for achievement, money matters and moksha is not a problem in my eyes, but it should not distract one from the devotion felt, from developing real bhakti for God. Be sincere in your heart, and love the Lord in His many forms, as Father or Mother. Even in His humblest manifestation, He ever listens and cares for us.

Om namah Shivaya

Eastern Mind
26 October 2010, 06:56 AM
Vannakkam Sunyata:

I'm always amazed at how things get clearer for individual seekers as time passes, through the grace of God. By this I mean the mystical feelable God, the presence, and I know you know what I mean. This openness just builds clarity, brings insight, new and better analogies etc., because its out there somewhere beyond the intellect. It's Ganapati's way.

And then there is the other path of downward spiral into more and more confusion because of excessive reading coupled with the inability to discriminate what makes sense and what doesn't. Here we find a circular mind, Buddhist one day, Vaishnava the next, agnostic the next, and finally back to some confused version of Christianity/universalism. Hopping along from Guru to Guru, and stopping each time more discipline is recommended.

It's like the old elevator guy's first question, "Going up, or going down?" Or going nowhere, fast?

All the Majestic Dance!

Aum Namasivaya

upsydownyupsy mv ss
26 October 2010, 07:13 AM
My point of view is - for a person leading normal human life he needs to come across various kinds of pinnacles of problems... depending upon the situation we are obsessed to pray and offer worshipping with proper devotion to the form of suitable God, apart from one having the personal ishta deva God.., Hence devotion to multiple Gods in Hinduism is essential part of way of life (Many means different forms of the same One Ultimate God manifested Himself for different purposes like creating sustaining & dissolving the universe etc)

example - in astrology - period of troubles you need to pray to shani god..
while you need to start new tasks/business - you pray to lord Ganesh....
If you need good education - Pray to Godess Saraswati
If you need good wealth (not just money) - Pray to Godesss Lakshmi Puja
If you need free from karma to attain moksha - Pray to Gods Shiva & Vishnu
If you need power of knowing - Pray to God Kumara ShaNmukhar
If you need for good disciplined life - pray to God Ayyapar
like that - I am not an expert but I am trying to show a glimpse why a person need to have devotion to many Gods....

Lord Rama lead a example life to human beings and He indeed showed devotion to multiple Gods... He prayed to Lord Shiva at Rameshwara before He started to Lanka to kill the enemy demon king Ravana.... He prayed to Sun God before the last day battle... (He was particularly instructed by Sage Rishi to pray to Sun God to win the battle otherwise it would not be possible... and He did So...) This I how beleive about what I said earlier...

But for Meditative praying - you need to concentrate with devotion to one particular form of God - I think so because you can easily focus your mind on Ishta deva for you achieve better results in mind controlling... you can do that by chanting God's name by japa or repeating God's mantra like wise.

hmm.. interesting.... Would you say that I'm right if I say, they are all the names of a single person. A person is someones son, someone else's husband, someone else's father, someone's uncle, nephew, teacher, student, etc, but the person remains the same. Just as we all take up different roles on circumstances, he too assumes forms, but we must not forget he is one, gunateeta, formless, Brahman, God, Ishwara, Keshava, Ambika, etc.
It is said, that just like every river (in india) joins the (indian) ocean, so also, all prayers of all forms, reach god.
Even if one sees it to be many gods, (which is never true) he should know, devotion to one god will reach the others, just like the moon, receiving sun's light, gives light to multiple entities on earth. :D

kd gupta
26 October 2010, 07:48 AM
Namaste
The Hindu Dharma Forums - Sanatana Dharma Discussion (http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/index.php)
Contains this that and much more , similarly the Brahman is one . Therefore knowing it, is gyan ,following it , is duty and perceiving it , is bhakti the great .