PDA

View Full Version : the Devas (Figurative vs. Literal)



Eric11235
30 September 2011, 02:51 PM
Vannakam,

I am curious, who on here believes in the devas as literal beings and who believes they are aspects of a single divine source?

NayaSurya
30 September 2011, 03:20 PM
Yes...and yes.

Devas are precious wonderful Beings of Light...and yes they are none other than Beloved.

Just as the Sun has rays of Light which shine down upon us, these Beloved Beings dwell...very near to the Beautiful Heart of Beloved.

Ganeshprasad
30 September 2011, 06:21 PM
Pranam

why such a question?

Jai Shree Krishna

Eric11235
30 September 2011, 06:32 PM
Vannakam Ganesh,

My interest is simple curiosity, I just would like to know different perspectives on the devas, my own personal interpretation is that they are representative aspects personified of the supreme divine being (taking the Trimurti a step further so to speak).

I know that not every body shares this view and if so what the other peoples views are. My question is not meant to arouse ire but simply discussion on the nature of the devas, I sincerely hope that it does not arouse anyone's ire or appear as insolent.

namaste

Ananda
01 October 2011, 02:30 AM
Hello Eric,




I am curious, who on here believes in the devas as literal beings and who believes they are aspects of a single divine source?


Personally speaking, I would be neutral or naturally skeptical towards the idea that the devas, depicted as personal beings, actually exist 'out there' in the objective world. The reason for this is simply because their existence in such personal 'forms' are not available to the senses, so I could not conclusively say whether they do or do not exist, but instead would incline towards a polite skepticism.

Another interpretation of the devas is that each simply represents a different aspect of nature (Agni is fire etc.) and that they are spoken of figuratively as intelligent beings because the Self, which is intelligent, pervades all of nature and causes it to be active. The devas are also seen in the microcosm as being the personification of the various subtle organs in each body, such as the senses (which act as 'lights' revealing their respective sense objects). I am more attracted to this view.



:)

Ganeshprasad
01 October 2011, 12:30 PM
Pranam Eric and all

I guess people have different perception reading the same Shastras, we pray to them we grow up reading their stories, we erect temples and place their murti, I for one find it strange to assign them in some abstract non being. All our literature speaks of them including Vedas. Lord Krishna says those who worship Devas go to Devlok that is good enough for me.

Jai Shree Krishna

Jainarayan
01 October 2011, 01:37 PM
In my view and beliefs, the devas are all manifestations of the Supreme Lord. When Lord Krishna showed Arjuna His universal form, He showed all beings and devas within Himself.

"Arjuna said: My dear Lord Krishna, I see assembled in Your body all the demigods and various other living entities. I see Brahma sitting on the lotus flower, as well as Lord Shiva and all the sages and divine serpents." - Bhagavad Gita 11.15

Lord Krishna also says in chapter 10 verse 24 "Among generals, I am Skanda, the lord of war."

Eastern Mind
01 October 2011, 05:53 PM
Yes...and yes.

Devas are precious wonderful Beings of Light...and yes they are none other than Beloved.

Just as the Sun has rays of Light which shine down upon us, these Beloved Beings dwell...very near to the Beautiful Heart of Beloved.

Vannakkam: What she said.

Aum Namasivaya

shian
02 October 2011, 08:25 PM
Do the sadhana, meditate on Baghavan (with your heart totally, like a white paper, free from any aspect believe or not believe), first reason is to control your mind and put it in happiness way, and you will know it.

why ?

because the mind conflict about what is Deva will never end until our mind become pure.

Friend from the West
02 October 2011, 09:30 PM
Namaste,
Greetings Eric, as I understand your question my answer would be both. As literal beings and as aspects of a single divine source.
Peace and blessings to you.
FFTW.

devotee
02 October 2011, 09:44 PM
Namaste Eric,



I am curious, who on here believes in the devas as literal beings and who believes they are aspects of a single divine source?

You won't believe but truly speaking :

a) Your understanding of a "literal being" is only relative. There is nothing like "literal being" ... not even "you" who is asking this question.

b) You too are an aspect of the same single divine source as the devas are.

This question arises in ignorance ... the Reality of the Devas, you and the world around you is inconceivable within mental realm. The mind creates this world as we perceive ... in reality, the world appearing as in your literal sense doesn't exist.

OM

yajvan
06 October 2011, 02:55 PM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namasté


Vannakam,

I am curious, who on here believes in the devas as literal beings and who believes they are aspects of a single divine source?

We are taught we all aspects of a single divine source.

The bṛhadaraṇyaka upaniṣad calls out 3,306 devatā suggesting they are different aspects of a core of 33 devatā. These 33 are defined.

Yet even with the 33, they are boiled down to one, brahman termed as tyad त्यद् , ' that' . All of the devatā are reduced to brahman. We too are in this 'food chain'.


If you care to read about how we fit in, then the aitareya upaniṣad will be a good source for this knowledge.


praṇām

Kumar_Das
06 October 2011, 04:17 PM
Pranam

why such a question?

Jai Shree Krishna

Because I'm a Muslim and having been so used to practicing my religion. Its extremely alien and unusual for me to accept anything about the silly Hindu religion which has "gods" that are polytheistic and are worshipped with images. These "gods" that are human and animal looking is something I cannot dare even to dream as accepting.

But there are aspects of the Hindu religion which is very monotheistic and I can say "well, that doesnt go against my religion and at times seems in agreement to what we preach".

So its hard for me to stomach all these (stuff which the British dubbed as) mythology. But I have developed an interest somehow and seem to be affected by it. So I gotta find a way to reason this because I fear punishment from Allah. *sarcasm*

Kumar_Das
06 October 2011, 04:54 PM
A true Monotheist will know that God, Him being as Who He is, is beyond all, and in His Exalted state. Him and us will never be able to be equally relate. For that would require us to be on the same state of Exaltedness as Him. God dominates us in everyway, if He dominates us even spiritually what are we to do? The individual soul has the ability to connect with the Supreme soul. But the vessel is still human. The humanness must be able to condition with God also otherwise its so difficult because of inherent human weaknesses.

He created us and in our limited capacity which He endowed us with only through that can we even try to reach Him and comprehend Him. So He reaches to us through our own level which we can withstand.

God can cast an understanding in us only through the level by which we can come to terms with. Anything else is beyond us. Of the created there are many of different magnitude of being predisposed towards their Lord. Some better than the others. Hinduism recognizes a spiritual heirarchy. Species exist with variegatedness. Lifetimes are limited. Is God to be blamed for denying some for being unable to reach closer to Him over the others?

Yes all the Devas are true.

Ganeshprasad
07 October 2011, 06:26 AM
Pranam Devotee ji


Namaste Eric,



You won't believe but truly speaking :

a) Your understanding of a "literal being" is only relative. There is nothing like "literal being" ... not even "you" who is asking this question.

b) You too are an aspect of the same single divine source as the devas are.

This question arises in ignorance ... the Reality of the Devas, you and the world around you is inconceivable within mental realm. The mind creates this world as we perceive ... in reality, the world appearing as in your literal sense doesn't exist.

OM

first you say there is no literal being and that it is all relative. then you go on to say that we are an aspect of the same single divine source. is this not contradiction? i ask relative to what?

where does the ignorance arise? whose mind creates this world that we perceive? if the world do not exist what is there to perceive?

if this is a dream of the supreme being would this not be shattered even if one person got enlightened but then does the supreme need to be enlightened in the first place?

I am trying to understand this in light of what Lord Krishna teaches in Bhagvat Gita

Never was a time when you me all did not exist, having once been never cease to exist. he further goes on to say to Arjun i remember all my past but you do not, he clearly makes a distinction.

Jai Shree Krishna

Jogesh
08 October 2011, 04:52 PM
The Devas are manifestations of Brahman....

as real as anything and then some!

:cool1:

devotee
09 October 2011, 02:09 AM
Namaste GaneshPrasad ji,



first you say there is no literal being and that it is all relative. then you go on to say that we are an aspect of the same single divine source. is this not contradiction? i ask relative to what?

There is no contradiction at all. All the beings including the Devatas are nothing but arising out of Great Dream of the Self as the materialsed thought-waves of the Self. Within that realm (which is the mental realm) everything is apparently as as real as you and I are there. However, in true sense, neither "you" nor "I" exist as perceived within mental realm. It is, in reality, non-different from non-dual Self and that can be said neither real nor unreal.


where does the ignorance arise? whose mind creates this world that we perceive? if the world do not exist what is there to perceive?

The Self in its real nature (the Fourth) is not understandable by mind ... it is unthinkable, ungraspable with any of our mental perceptions. The "ignorance" is within the nature of the Self within first and second state of Self i.e. the Waking and the dreaming states. It is like the carbon in its state is amorphous as carbon black and doesn't possess the lusture of a diamond. The Consciousness in its vibratory modes "creates" the illusion of this gross and the subtle universe just as we create illusionary world within our dreams every night.


if this is a dream of the supreme being would this not be shattered even if one person got enlightened but then does the supreme need to be enlightened in the first place?

This Supreme being is not really being or even non-being. It is unthinkable. It can be compared only with Itself. I can only give you a very rough example : The reality can be thought of like an Ocean of Consciousness which by its real nature is fully peaceful, blissful, non-dual and auspicious. However, in its vibratory modes (with thought waves on the Ocean of consciousness), it creates an illusion of this world of duality. One person getting enlightened is akin to dissolving of one very small wave into the peaceful nature of the Ocean ... it doesn't affect the infinite thought-waves pulsating on the bosom of the great infinite Ocean of consciousness. So, the World in its relative reality continues but it loses its existence for the thought-wave which died out (which got enlightened by realising its true nature).


I am trying to understand this in light of what Lord Krishna teaches in Bhagvat Gita.

Never was a time when you me all did not exist, having once been never cease to exist. he further goes on to say to Arjun i remember all my past but you do not, he clearly makes a distinction.
[/QUOTE]

I will quote some of the verses from BG which indicate Self being the substratum of all beings & its all-pervading nature :

Bahir antashcha bhutAnAm acharamcharmeva cha |
sUkshmatvattadvigyeyam doorastham chAntike cha tat || 13.15

==> It is both inside and outside of all beings ... it is both far and near ... it is non-moving but appears to be moving.

Just try to figure out something with the above characteristics.

Avibhaktam cha bhOOteshu vibhaktiva cha sthitam |
Bhootbhartri cha tajgyeyam grasishnu orabhavishnu cha || BG 13:16

==> This is avibhaktam i.e. non-dual which is seen as vibhaktam i.e. in duality.

AnAditvAnnirguNatvAt paramAtmAyamavyayah |
Sharirasthopi kaunteyah na karoti na lipyate || BG 13.31

===> The Infinite is lodged within the body. How can this be ?

YathA sarva-gatam sauksmyAd AkAsam nopalipyate |
sarvatrAvasthito dehe tathAtmA nopalipyate || (BG 13.32)

===> Please mark how the Atma (the Self) is compared with AkAsa which is all pervading. So, Lord Krishna certainly doesn't mean that Atman has some limited form which is understood in duality. Moreover, if anything is all-pervading (i.e. sarva-gatah) then it cannot be two (logically).

You may very well argue that Lord is here talking about ParamAtma which is different from Atman. In essence there is no difference between the ParamAtman and the individual Atman. One is within Maya & when the darkness of Maya is gone ... the same ParamAtman shines alone.

Now finally, try to understand this verse in the light of the above. This verse is specifically used to describe the Atman of individual being as Lord Krishna tells Arjuna the true nature of the Self and for which he advises not to grieve as it never was born & would never die. Is he talking about the individual self or only One Self or he thinks that the two are actually non-dual. Let's see this verse :

"Nityah sarvagatah sthANurachaloayam sanAtanah" (BG 2.24)

===> It is nityah i.e. eternal (i.e. it was never born). It is sarvagatah i.e. all-pervading (this characteristic makes it Non-dual by logical inference). It is SthAnuh i.e. staying in one place (if the Self is really all-pervading and non-moving can it be two or can this world full of actions exist at all ?). The pronoun used is "ayam" (singlar number) which means that this all-pervading, unborn and non-moving Atman is actually one. It is achalam i.e. motionless.

If Lord Krishna is really talking of infinite number of individual "self"s, the above verse cannot be true logically. You try to think & you would find that it is impossible to have infinite individual souls with the above characteristics.

Yes, He remembers all beings because He is Omniscient of the past, present and future which is the third state of Self. "Remembers" doesn't mean that they always maintain their existence as some gross or separate subtle things ... it doesn't say that. It just says, "I know". Don't we know things as memories whether they keep their same form or change their form ? So, these all beings reside in the Ishvara's consciousness as memories and that is capable of regenerating them again when appropriate time comes. They exist and yet they don't exist. Such is the nature of our existence on the scale of eternity.

I hope it satisfies you ... if you try to see it all keeping yourself unbiased. :)

OM

Sudarshan
09 October 2011, 07:20 AM
Gods are literal as well as metaphorical.

That Gods intrinsically look like human beings or animals, is course only an imagination of the human intellect, that is used to seeing humans and animals. The forms of Gods have symbolic meanings and their real forms can be comprehended only in samAdhi.

Gods represent the sAttvik buddhi and its various functions in man. They can be understood by etymologically analyzing the names and from the allegorical stories about them.

For example, the seven tongued agni is "agraM nayati iti", or one who leads to the summit, representing the jnAnAgni, that removes all sins. The names of all Gods can be analyzed in the same manner, and it would be understood that they are various functions of the supreme residing within man, constantly guiding him from within , against the onslaught of the demons or various shades of materialism.

Kumar_Das
09 October 2011, 02:20 PM
Welcome back Sudarshan-ji. I love reading your posts because they are always informative. Glad to have you posting again.



subham

Ganeshprasad
09 October 2011, 02:34 PM
Pranam Devotee ji and all




-----I hope it satisfies you ... if you try to see it all keeping yourself unbiased. :)

OM



A lot of assumption is being made here, to think that the four stage talked about in manduka Upanisad apply to the supreme, is tantamount to admitting that Brahman comes under the influence of Avidhya ignorance. We know Braman is Sat Chit Anand . Both these position can not be true.

Lord Krishna has already stated that and I repeat;
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)
He again says he knows past present and future where as Arjun does not, proving a distinction. Sorry I am repeating my self.

One can not get any clear answer then this, no where in the Gita Lord Krishna suggest that all this is his dream, I would be happy to consider that, if you can provide me of any evidence.

You have made a point about his all pervading future which I take note , and avibhakta position.

You may want to consider these;

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)

It so very clear for me from Sloka 2.12 that you me and what to speak of Devas are eternal being always existing. The four stage spoken in Manduka are ours because we come under the sway of ignorance not God. You may also want to consider Gita chapter 15 16-19 clear distinction again being made there of jive and the supreme person

Jai Shree Krishna

devotee
09 October 2011, 09:14 PM
Namaste GaneshPrasad ji,

I am not here to change your views. You asked me some questions & I answered it from Adviata's point of view. The answer given by me is complete and doesn't need further explanation, imho.

BG 2.12 cannot be seen separate from other verses. If BG 2.12's meaning is same you are suggesting then the Atman that God is explaining cannot have the attributes as indicated in BG 2.24.

OM

Ganeshprasad
10 October 2011, 07:22 AM
Pranam Devotee ji


Namaste GaneshPrasad ji,

I am not here to change your views.

that is ok, we are all here to exchange views. I see Devas for what they are, the subject matter of the vedas, sometimes people kill of the very person who they worship, i am not one of them.



BG 2.12 cannot be seen separate from other verses. If BG 2.12's meaning is same you are suggesting then the Atman that God is explaining cannot have the attributes as indicated in BG 2.24. OMthis perhaps to be expected because when we start with a certain base we try to fit everything in that light. verse 2.12 can not be any more clear, what Slokas 2.18 -26 speaks about is the unperishable soul that makes the body alive, which is further explained in chapter 15.07
mamaivamso jiva-loke
jiva-bhutah sanatanah
manah-sasthanindriyani
prakrti-sthani karsati

It is this Jiva which is eternal that goes through the cycle of birth and death karma and all.

what to speak of Devas who are direct representation of Brahman, since when did they become figurative, what shastra says so?

Jai Shree Krishna

devotee
10 October 2011, 07:46 AM
Namaste GaneshPrasad ji,


I see Devas for what they are, the subject matter of the vedas, sometimes people kill of the very person who they worship, i am not one of them.

Do you think I am killing the Devas ? Come on, I see from a different perspective doesn't mean Devas are not sacred to me !


verse 2.12 can not be any more clear, what Slokas 2.18 -26 speaks about is the unperishable soul that makes the body alive, which is further explained in chapter 15.07
mamaivamso jiva-loke
jiva-bhutah sanatanah
manah-sasthanindriyani
prakrti-sthani karsati

It is this Jiva which is eternal that goes through the cycle of birth and death karma and all.

Now, if you really look at the above verse critically, you will understand that this verse cannot be taken literally. Why ? If we do that, God will have to be broken into infinite pieces ( as many pieces as the number of beings in this world which have come till date and which are going to come in future). That would be ridiculous to think.

Here the Ansha cannot mean that the parts have got separated from God and new eternal entities have taken births ... then it would also violate "Ajo nityo shaswato ayam" used for the JivAtmA. This "ansha" is similar to 1 cent is there in the 1 US$ currency. The 1 cent is there in 1 US$ currency but it is not separated. It is eternal and unborn because God is like that & the Jiva is always within God & not because it got separated from God at some point of time. Then it cannot be said to be Sanatan i.e. eternal. It would have some definite age & a definite time when it was born. But God says that JivAtmA is unborn.


what to speak of Devas who are direct representation of Brahman, since when did they become figurative, what shastra says so?

I never said that they are figurative. They are as real as our existence is. In fact, various Devas are considered as God's manifestation in the form of forces of Nature e.g. Air, Fire etc.

OM

Ganeshprasad
10 October 2011, 10:29 AM
Pranam Devotee ji


Namaste GaneshPrasad ji,



Do you think I am killing the Devas ? Come on, I see from a different perspective doesn't mean Devas are not sacred to me !

i never said they are not sacred to you, only that i find strange people do think them as metaphor.




Now, if you really look at the above verse critically, you will understand that this verse cannot be taken literally. Why ? If we do that, God will have to be broken into infinite pieces ( as many pieces as the number of beings in this world which have come till date and which are going to come in future). That would be ridiculous to think. i do take what Lord Krishna say literally, it only that we make assumptions.



Here the Ansha cannot mean that the parts have got separated from God and new eternal entities have taken births ... then it would also violate "Ajo nityo shaswato ayam" used for the JivAtmA. This "ansha" is similar to 1 cent is there in the 1 US$ currency. The 1 cent is there in 1 US$ currency but it is not separated. It is eternal and unborn because God is like that & the Jiva is always within God & not because it got separated from God at some point of time. Then it cannot be said to be Sanatan i.e. eternal. It would have some definite age & a definite time when it was born. But God says that JivAtmA is unborn. what ever it is, it is Acintya, chapter nine 9.04-08 throws light on it.
I like your example of the $ all the cents are in dollar but the cent is not the dollar. Lord Krishna says similar but slightly different, thanks.


Jai Shree Krishna

internationalhindu
10 October 2011, 05:10 PM
Eric

In my view, the divine source is the infinite and ultimate Brahman...a source of divinity which is omnipresent but not recognizable to the common man (people devoid of saadhana and self-realization)....

The various forms and incarnations could maybe be looked at as a mother's finger which is pointed to the sky to show her child the brilliance of the moon...the child will not be able to know of the moon unless guided by the mother's finger (though there may be few kids who see and realize on their own)...similarly, the moon may be seen as Brahman, the finger as the various forms and the mother as 'saadhana' or 'upasana'...

I believe that god definitely takes the form of people to help us while in distress...we may not recognize or realize it at that time due to the lack of the traditional weapons or form...but, god will help us by showing us a solution, opening up opportunities and bringing others to help us...

There is an article titled 'Modern Vedas and Lagging Science (http://www.hindu-blog.com/2011/10/modern-vedas-and-lagging-science-vedic.html)' which is another interesting perspective of the different forms present of god. As the author says there, each symbol/form may be viewed and explained in several ways.

Om

NayaSurya
11 October 2011, 07:57 AM
This whole conversation remind me of my son. He say Mother where is the matches and I say.. "In the meditation table."

He say, "It's in the drawer."

I say "Yes, I already tell you this"...and he say...

"You say it is in the table"...and I say

"Yes."

and he say..."well it's actually in the drawer."

and finally I sigh and say..."Okay Shayshine.... same/same."

Both right!<3

Ganeshprasad
11 October 2011, 09:21 AM
Pranam

Thanks Naya, i like to remain the child, i can't appreciate or perceive the love of God but i sure can or had the love of mother

Jai Shree Krishna

NayaSurya
11 October 2011, 09:45 AM
Beloved, Ganeshprasadji, I am the same way, I think we all are the child.

I am the silly girl always.:p

Your Beloved Mother is a good window into seeing how much Beloved Loves you<3 I know the way your speak of her, She was and is very very much in Beloved's Heart.

I can only hope someday, my own children carry me into their hearts as you do her, you are a great credit to this realm and to your Beloved Mother<3