Brahman is all the above?

[cuddledkitty]

Ok as a true Hindu one will know that it is truly a monotheistic set of theological and philosophical set of teachings. The supreme deity or "Brahman" as one may say is in reality the only true god and all deva and devi are just representations of this. Coming form a strict monotheistic background i find it best to focus on the one supreme being. But my question is that would one consider Yahweh, Allah, Izanagi, Zeus, Odin, Chronos, Baha, Krishna, Huwa, and any god you can think under the sun (if not the sun itself) just cultural representation of Brahman? So as a Hindu would it be wrong to call Brahman, Yahweh or Allah or simply God?

[wundermonk]

Coming form a strict monotheistic background...

Hello cuddledkitty:

My 2 paises.

It is actually wrong to consider Islam a "strict monotheistic" religion. When analyzed further, the amount of shirk in Islam is fairly high. For, to be a Muslim, you need to recite the Shahadah - "La Ilaha Il Allah...". As you will notice, the Shahadah is incomplete without mentioning "Mohammed Rasool Allah". That is Shirk. [Muslims will not admit this, but one cannot say "La Ilaha Il Allah" alone without mentioning Mohammed in the same breath as Allah and that is shirk]

Next, let us come to idol worship. In my experience, Muslims like to accuse Hindus of "idol worship". When pointed out that bowing down to the Kaaba 5 times a day is also a form of "idol worship", Muslims become angry! Then when asked to define idol and then define idol worship in a fashion that would exclude bowing down to Kaaba 5 times a day, they cannot!

Third, the very fact that Allah's words are limited to the Quran is another form of idol worship. In fact, you will notice that Muslims are the most violent when someone burns the Quran or makes fun of Mohammed. In my experience, Muslims are ok with atheists [those who deny the existence of God] - they think this is a common burden facing all theists. But whenever someone like Ali Sina or Robert Spencer or Dawid Wood questions the character of Mohammed, they become extremely angry! They seem to have more concern for Mohammed than Allah. Shirk!

Fourthly, to be a Muslim, it is not enough you have a vague belief that some God exists. But more specifically, the entire Quran/hadiths have to be taken literally. That is, you HAVE to believe in the existence of arch-angels, like Jebriel, etc. You HAVE to believe in talking ants. You HAVE to believe in Buraq, the flying donkey on which Mohammed supposedly ascended to heaven. You HAVE to believe that Mohammed split the moon. You HAVE to believe that some insects attacked some invaders of the Kaaba, etc.

So, it is not just purely the existence of Allah that makes one a Muslim. It is so much more and all of this is just another form of idolatry/shirk.

:)

Hope that clears your misconception that Islam is "monotheistic". Not by a long shot. :)

[cuddledkitty]

Hello cuddledkitty:

My 2 paises.

It is actually wrong to consider Islam a "strict monotheistic" religion. When analyzed further, the amount of shirk in Islam is fairly high. For, to be a Muslim, you need to recite the Shahadah - "La Ilaha Il Allah...". As you will notice, the Shahadah is incomplete without mentioning "Mohammed Rasool Allah". That is Shirk. [Muslims will not admit this, but one cannot say "La Ilaha Il Allah" alone without mentioning Mohammed in the same breath as Allah and that is shirk]

Next, let us come to idol worship. In my experience, Muslims like to accuse Hindus of "idol worship". When pointed out that bowing down to the Kaaba 5 times a day is also a form of "idol worship", Muslims become angry! Then when asked to define idol and then define idol worship in a fashion that would exclude bowing down to Kaaba 5 times a day, they cannot!

Third, the very fact that Allah's words are limited to the Quran is another form of idol worship. In fact, you will notice that Muslims are the most violent when someone burns the Quran or makes fun of Mohammed. In my experience, Muslims are ok with atheists [those who deny the existence of God] - they think this is a common burden facing all theists. But whenever someone like Ali Sina or Robert Spencer or Dawid Wood questions the character of Mohammed, they become extremely angry! They seem to have more concern for Mohammed than Allah. Shirk!

Fourthly, to be a Muslim, it is not enough you have a vague belief that some God exists. But more specifically, the entire Quran/hadiths have to be taken literally. That is, you HAVE to believe in the existence of arch-angels, like Jebriel, etc. You HAVE to believe in talking ants. You HAVE to believe in Buraq, the flying donkey on which Mohammed supposedly ascended to heaven. You HAVE to believe that Mohammed split the moon. You HAVE to believe that some insects attacked some invaders of the Kaaba, etc.

So, it is not just purely the existence of Allah that makes one a Muslim. It is so much more and all of this is just another form of idolatry/shirk.

:)

Hope that clears your misconception that Islam is "monotheistic". Not by a long shot. :)

Its suppose to be monotheistic but its no different then many other religions, its very misguided. And most outsiders think Muhammad is their god hence the anger. Islam is a monotheistic religion although not pure in concept no doubt but its the concept of God i am referring to based off teachings.

[yajvan]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namasté

Words are feeble, an attempt to define the infinite with finite words , they are not sufficient...

Two things we know of the Supreme, the Highest, the unsurpassible (uttara & anuttara):

It is anirukta, unuttered , not articulated , unspeakable, and;
svatāsiddha, self proven ,self experienced i.e. svā + ta + siddha = one's own + crossing or virtue + accomplished i.e. self-accomplishedpraṇām

[kallol]

Dear CK,

The movement is from "I and God" - followed by Abrahamic religions. To "God in All" - seeing God in all as the same consciousness which connects us. To "All in God" - we all are part of the whole system called God. Just like the cells and organs are part of this body.

Now if you look deeply, in all the cases the concept of God is One only.

1. I and God - God is different than me and is residing somewhere. This is followed as Ista Devata or Krishna or God or Allah, etc. Here there is ONE god.

2. God in All - The common thread that binds us is consciousness. It is the same electricity which flows through the bulbs, fans, ACs, refrigerator, washing machines, dishwasher, etc. Bodies might be different but electricity is ONE

3. All in God - Everything is out of conscousness and is consciousness. Just like energy manifests as different matters which have different properties and distinguish from each other, similarly as consciousness manifests through lower forms of consciousness like subtle maters and gross matters, their property varies. It can be also compared with the artic sea, where you have lots of different forms of ice and icebergs floating in sea. All are different manifestaions of the same water. Again the whole together is Consciousness or Brahman and is ONE.

However if 3rd is True for someone then 1st and 2nd is also true. If 2nd is true for someone the 1st is also true.

That is the journey of the spiritual path.

[sankar]

Ok as a true Hindu one will know that it is truly a monotheistic set of theological and philosophical set of teachings.

dear cuddledkitty, Generally according to hinduism creator itself is the creation, or in other words it can be said that there is no creator, so hinduism is also non-theistic.




The supreme deity or "Brahman" as one may say is in reality the only true god and all deva and devi are just representations of this
though brahman is the ultimate reality i dont think it would be right to call it god or deity, because it does nothing, no qualities, it just simply exists. Neither there is any temple for brahman nor people offer prayer to it.

Just my 2 cents, corrections are welcome ...

[SriGauranga]

Hare Krishna. Please accept my humble obeisances.
Lord Krishna in Bhagavad Gita clearly refutes the idea that he came from something impersonal. He clearly says that He is the ABSOLUTE TRUTH. Not the impersonal Brahman. The impersonal Brahman is merely his spiritual effulgence and He is the source of it.
Bhagavad Gita 7.24:
avyaktaḿ vyaktim āpannaḿ
manyante mām abuddhayaḥ
paraḿ bhāvam ajānanto
mamāvyayam anuttamam
Unintelligent men, who do not know Me perfectly, think that I, the Supreme Personality of Godhead, Kṛṣṇa, was impersonal before and have now assumed this personality. Due to their small knowledge, they do not know My higher nature, which is imperishable and supreme.

Bhagavad Gita 7.7:
mattah parataram nanyat
kincid asti dhananjaya
mayi sarvam idam protam
sutre mani-gana iva
O conqueror of wealth [Arjuna], there is no Truth superior to Me. Everything rests upon Me, as pearls are strung on a thread.

Taittirīya Upaniṣad [2.5] states:
ātmānandamayaḥ ānanda ātmā brahma pucchaṁ pratiṣṭhā
“The Supreme Lord is full of ecstasy. The impersonal Brahman is His bodily effulgence. He is the source of Brahman.”

Bhagavad Gita 14.27:
brahmaṇo hi pratiṣṭhāham
amṛtasyāvyayasya ca
śāśvatasya ca dharmasya
sukhasyaikāntikasya ca
"And I am the basis of the impersonal Brahman, which is the constitutional position of ultimate happiness, and which is immortal, imperishable and eternal."

"Persons who are falsely under the impression of being liberated, without devotional service to the Lord, may reach the goal of the brahmajyoti, but because of their impure consciousness and for want of shelter in the Vaikuṇṭhalokas, such so-called liberated persons again fall down into material existence." [Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam 10.2.32]

Bṛhad-āraṇyaka Upaniṣad [2.1] states:
yathāgneḥ kṣudrā visphuliṅgā vyuccaranty evam evāsmād ātmanaḥ sarve prāṇāḥ sarve lokāḥ sarve devāḥ sarvāṇi bhūtāni vyuccaranti. tasyopaniṣat satyasya satyam iti
“Just as small sparks emanate from a big fire, similarly all living entities, all planets, all the demigods, and all material elements such as the earth emanate from the supreme soul, Śrī Govinda. His instructions are the supreme truth.”

In the Katha Upanishad (2.2.13) there is the important verse; nityo nityanam chetanas chetananam eko bahunam yo vidadhati kaman: “He is the supreme eternally conscious person who maintains all other living entities(spirit soul).”

Also another important verse from Katha Upanishad (2.3.8-9) says: “Beyond the Brahmajyoti (nirguna or formless Brahman of the monist) there is the Great Purusha viz., Purushottama God who is all-pervading (as the Brahmajyoti) and without any empirical attributes, but having sat-chit-ananda--transcendental embodiment. He who realizes this Purushottama-tattva is finally liberated. Attaining a spiritual body he renders eternal service to the Purushottama [Supreme Being]. The Transcendental Personality of Godhead is beyond the purview of occult vision. But He can be apprehended through a pure transparent mind imbibed with intuitive wisdom born out of unalloyed devotional practices in the very core of one’s own unstinted heart--those who have really got such a vision have gained final beatitude.”

Brahma-samhita (5.40)“I worship Govinda, the primeval Lord who is endowed with great power. The glowing effulgence of His transcendental form is the impersonal Brahman, which is absolute, complete and unlimited, and which displays the varieties of countless planets with their different opulences in millions and millions of universes.”

Katha Upanishad (2.2.9):“As with fire--the one original flame expands itself throughout the world by producing many more separate flames; similarly, the one Supreme Soul, who resides in every jiva, enters this cosmos and expands Himself in replica images known as pratibimba, or the jivas.”

[cuddledkitty]

Just my 2 cents.


Hmmmm why 2 cents? why not 3, 4, 5, or more? :D

To me it seems in Abrahamic faiths it exist as this. Notice the use of angel's, Holy Spirit, and jesus? Notice how God isnever spoken of as a being inthe Bible? Honestly a reality or truth fits this perfectly regarding Hindu to Abrahamic text. Allah in the Quran is almost a ghost with no true self and although the Bible mentions more it is still vague and in writing it seems as God is a presence. God is called Alpha and Omega which means beginning and end bascially meaning that God's form is time in which we all know is a "reality". God is referred to as an existence or time, not a person but merely a existence of eternal wisdom or "truth". The Abrahamic teachings fit well into the Sanatana Dharmic ones if you are like me and actually read the Bible and Quran :D

[sankar]

cuddledkitty,

i just meant that brahman is not worth for worship like allah or jehovah, bible and quran says to worship their god. People(hindus) just understand brahman to be the reality, but dont worship it, thus there is no temples or praising mantras for that.

Again, just my 2 cents :D ..

[cuddledkitty]

cuddledkitty,

i just meant that brahman is not worth for worship like allah or jehovah, bible and quran says to worship their god. People(hindus) just understand brahman to be the reality, but dont worship it, thus there is no temples or praising mantras for that.

Again, just my 2 cents :D ..

You speak words of wisdom i think its worth 35 cents :D

[Mana]

हरिः ओम्


Namaste cuddledkitty,


What on earth makes you think that wisdom is based in the decimation of a whole; I mean why a 100th of a part, cent's?

:)

praNAma

mana


ॐ नमः शिवाय
Aum Namaḥ Śivāya

[cuddledkitty]

हरिः ओम्


Namaste cuddledkitty,


What on earth makes you think that wisdom is based in the decimation of a whole; I mean why a 100th of a part, cent's?

:)

praNAma

mana


ॐ नमः शिवाय
Aum Namaḥ Śivāya


your right perhaps his wisdom is a dollar and 99 cent :D

[Mana]

हरिः ओम्


Namaste cuddledkitty,


I find weight to be a much better measure of wisdom, the notion of money seems to mislead the senses, as to what is of value.

As enlightened beings, the intellect greatly out weighs physical strength, thus ones wisdom might better be correlated with a physical force such as weight.
Now if we so desire we could describe this measure, in story form, so that others might understand it and promote it. What if that story then tries to denigrate its own origin; by folding back upon its self, effectively biting its own tail?



Quite a conundrum ...



praNAma

mana


ॐ नमः शिवाय
Aum Namaḥ Śivāya

[reshmita]

It's true some people still think that brahmins are all the above. But, I think in another way as who made this statement that brahmins are all the above and why? Being a Brahmin myself, I believe that it's brahmins made this comment to enjoy a status of a higher class in the society. The divisions of this society in Hinduism have been created by the so called upper level communities. And when Hindu religion was showing its existence for the first time in this world, many had changed their religion from Hinduism due to this classifications. I accept most of the religions have these kinds of divisions, but at the beginning it was creating a lot of problems for the Hindus. Today also I have seen many decide their work and treatment to other depending on their traditional religious values and status of the society. It's not right. But, we are changing rapidly, that's true. Hope, we can make a better world in near future together.

[ahab]

It's true some people still think that brahmins are all the above. But, I think in another way as who made this statement that brahmins are all the above and why? Being a Brahmin myself, I believe that it's brahmins made this comment to enjoy a status of a higher class in the society. The divisions of this society in Hinduism have been created by the so called upper level communities. And when Hindu religion was showing its existence for the first time in this world, many had changed their religion from Hinduism due to this classifications. I accept most of the religions have these kinds of divisions, but at the beginning it was creating a lot of problems for the Hindus. Today also I have seen many decide their work and treatment to other depending on their traditional religious values and status of the society. It's not right. But, we are changing rapidly, that's true. Hope, we can make a better world in near future together.
No one is talking about brahmins here...

[cuddledkitty]

It's true some people still think that brahmins are all the above. But, I think in another way as who made this statement that brahmins are all the above and why? Being a Brahmin myself, I believe that it's brahmins made this comment to enjoy a status of a higher class in the society. The divisions of this society in Hinduism have been created by the so called upper level communities. And when Hindu religion was showing its existence for the first time in this world, many had changed their religion from Hinduism due to this classifications. I accept most of the religions have these kinds of divisions, but at the beginning it was creating a lot of problems for the Hindus. Today also I have seen many decide their work and treatment to other depending on their traditional religious values and status of the society. It's not right. But, we are changing rapidly, that's true. Hope, we can make a better world in near future together.

I am talking about Brahman not Brahmana. Brahman as in the all supreme being or consciousness. :D

[Seeker]

CuddleKiity,

The names doesn’t mean a thing . Our language and expressions are very limited when we try to define the Supreme One.

However some of the names you have invoked here have traditionally been used to characterize/promote certain behaviors. Allah & Yahweh (Jehovah) are narrated with similar characteristics- as jealous (Exodus 20:4-5) , promote genocide (Samuel 14:48 – this includes women & children,(Qur'an Chapter 47) , Sexual slavery (many verses in Qur'an wrt right hand possession), trickery (Samuel 27:11) – there is a long list.

If your objective is to understand your relation to God , then you may be looking at a confusing compass when you identify all the names as ‘one and the same’. It doesn’t impact God – but impacts your journey

[yajvan]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namasté

One forth (1/4th) of all that is, considered conceivable or inconceivable ( the full field of everything some like to call kṣetra) is none other then brahman. Now what of the other 3/4th's of brahman? This is beyond our abilities. For one to try and 'package' brahman into a idea that the human can digest does little for undersanding the full-ness (pūrṇatā¹) of brahman.

Who am I to say what is correct here? I am not that bold. I look to the chāndgoya upaniṣad for guidence , or to the puruṣa sūktam.

To try and ~bundle~ brahman into human comprehension of 'this or that' is like trying to contain space, ākāśa.


praṇām

1. pūrṇatā - fullness; based upon pūrṇa which means whole, fulfilled , finished , accomplished .
From a jyotish POV it is the 15th kalā of the month

[saidevo]

namaste CK and everyone else.

Although Brahman is beyond comprehension by human abilities (except that it should be realized as the Self in us), Hindu sages have mentioned the nature of Brahman as sat-chit-Ananda. This could give us an idea as to the extent of universality of the one God as conceptualized in Abrahamic religions.

• Firstly, Brahman is sat--absolute reality and existence. As the only reality it is omnipresent. How far do the Abrahamic religions posit such single and absolute reality and existence for their one God? In other words, does that one God exist in all beings--sentient and insentient--of the universe, or only as sitting on a golden throne in the heaven?

• Brahman is chit--absolute consciousness and knowledge, which gives rise to its power of omniscience. As Kallol has mentioned in post #5, this consciousness is the link to our essential nature as God. Although we as unenlightened souls might wrongly focus our consciousness on our body, mind and individual soul, all of us irrespective of our religious affiliations have the potential to expand our consciousness to get past the three states of our normal existence (waking, dreaming and deep sleep) and anchor it in the fourth state of turIya. Do the Abrahamic religions conceptualize their one God with such absolute consciousness and equate it with the consciousness of mortal beings, which they can expand in their states of existence?

• Finally, Brahman is Ananda--bliss, which is absolute happiness born out of its powers of omnipresence and omniscience. Although Brahman in manifestation as different gods might be described as having human emotions and limitations (even in Hinduism), they are also described to know their essential nature as bliss and that their humanly actions are only lIlA--sport, performed for the ultimate benefit of the world. We as embodiments of divine consciousness, have the potential to realize this bliss--brahmAnandam, with proper sAdhana--spiritual efforts. Do the Abrahmaic religions have a similar concept for their one God?

Seeker's words in post #16 contain the appropriate caution:
If your objective is to understand your relation to God , then you may be looking at a confusing compass when you identify all the names as ‘one and the same’. It doesn’t impact God – but impacts your journey.

[sdevante]

Along the lines of the previous post -

Do Hindus view the gods and goddesses as having literal physical bodies in some plane of existence or are they metaphorical for different aspects of Brahman?

And if most Hindus view the gods and goddesses as literally existing, then is there any common belief about how the gods and goddesses came to exist? I guess what I'm saying is, in the Christian tradition, God decides to create the heavens, earth, etc. etc. Would it be accurate to say that Brahman stirred into manifestation the gods and goddesses that literally created the worlds?

Sorry if I am not explaining my questions well, I am still learning. Thanks!

[yajvan]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namasté



Although Brahman is beyond comprehension by human abilities (except that it should be realized as the Self in us), Hindu sages have mentioned the nature of Brahman as sat-chit-Ananda.

To just extend the conversation a bit further let me offer another view of the same matter. It is not offered to change one's opinion or to imbibe a brain-cramp, but an extention of how robust sanātana dharma is.

In kaśmiri śaivism there is the notion of the '3rd brahma' or tṛtīyam brahman. What can this be ?

It is a standard point of reference that brahman is considered as oṁ-tat-sat in vedānta. In trika ( or kaśmir śaivism ) it is called the 3rd brahma. That is , in oṁ-tat-sat it is the 3rd defining idea or sat that is considered.
This brahman is considered vast ( bṛhat) , all pervading (vyāpaka) and is completely in union with śakti. In vedānta one may call out brahman as oṁ-tat-sat or as sat-cit-ānanda. In kaśmir śaivism this whole concept can be related with one word sauḥ ( sa +au + ḥ) and is considered amṛtbīja, the very heart (hṛdaya) of bhairava ( paramaśiva).


So we find this brahman in kaśmiri śaivism yet more tightly coupled with śakti. It is called the 3rd brahman as there is more alignment with śiva (or bhairava).

praṇām

[kallol]

Along the lines of the previous post -

Do Hindus view the gods and goddesses as having literal physical bodies in some plane of existence or are they metaphorical for different aspects of Brahman?


Partly true but it is more than that. It is to also make them part of the family to create the bonding. To feel them as part of their own. It not only is in human form but in form of trees, animals and inert objects also. It is the ecology and creation of which we are subset, of which we have evolved, which is the part to of the continuity from unmanifested Brahman to manifested brahman.

[ZarryT]

The distinction between brahman and the abrahamic god is that the abrahamic god is characterized as if it lives time linearly like us - that at the start, it decided to make a world, and has been playing with it since.
Instead, Brahman makes no distinction between the creator and the created; there is no past and future for brahman, all things are brahman, and brahman just changes. The clock's ticking requires brahman to change such that it is ticking, has ticked, and will tick again, and that the hand moves accordingly.

[philosoraptor]

Ok as a true Hindu one will know that it is truly a monotheistic set of theological and philosophical set of teachings. The supreme deity or "Brahman" as one may say is in reality the only true god and all deva and devi are just representations of this.

Hi Kitty! Can I call you Kitty? You can call me Phil. As in, Dr. Phil. :)

In reference to your statements above, I don't think these are correct according to Vedaanta. As far as Vedaantic Hinduism is concerned, Brahman and the devas are in two different categories. The Kena Upanishad (http://www.celextel.org/upanishads/sama_veda/kena.html (http://www.celextel.org/upanishads/sama_veda/kena.html)) makes this very clear:

III-1. It is well-known that Brahman indeed achieved victory for the gods. But in that victory which was Brahman’s the gods revelled in joy.
III-2. They thought, “Ours alone is this victory, ours alone is this glory”. Brahman knew this their pride and appeared before them, but they knew not who this Yaksha (worshipful Being) was.
III-3. They said to Agni: “O Jataveda, know thou this as to who this Yaksha is”. (He said “So be it.”
III-4. Agni approached It. It asked him, “Who art thou?” He replied, “I am Agni or I am Jataveda”.
III-5. (It said “What is the power in thee, such as thou art?” (Agni said “I can burn all this that is upon the earth.”
III-6. For him (It) placed there a blade of grass and said: “Burn this”. (Agni) went near it in all haste, but he could not burn it. He returned from there (and said “I am unable to understand who that Yaksha is”.
III-7. Then (the gods) said to Vayu: “O Vayu, know thou this as to who this Yaksha is”. (He said “So be it”.
III-8. Vayu approached It. It said to him, “Who art thou?” He replied, “I am Vayu or I am Matarsiva”.
III-9. (It said “What is the power in thee, such as thou art?” (Vayu said “I can take hold of all this that is upon the earth”.
III-10. For him (It) placed there a blade of grass and said: “Take this up”. (Vayu) went near it in all haste, but he could not take it up. He returned from there (and said “I am unable to understand who that Yaksha is”.
III-11. Then (the gods) said to Indra: “O Maghava, know thou this as to who this Yaksha is”. (He said “So be it”. He approached It, but It disappeared from him.
III-12. In that space itself (where the Yaksha had disappeared) Indra approached an exceedingly charming woman. To that Uma decked in gold (or to the daughter of the Himalayas), he said: “Who is this Yaksha?”

IV-1. She said: “It was Brahman. In the victory that was Brahman’s you were revelling in joy”. Then alone did Indra know for certain that It was Brahman.
IV-2. Therefore, these gods viz. Agni, Vayu and Indra excelled other gods, for they touched Brahman who stood very close and indeed knew first that It was Brahman.
IV-3. Therefore is Indra more excellent than the other gods, for he touched Brahman who stood very close and indeed knew first that It was Brahman.

Note that these passages clearly speak of *difference* between the devas (like Indra, Agni, etc) and Brahman, and dependence of the former on the latter. Even Indra's higher position with respect to the other devas is only with respect to his proximity to Brahman.

Therefore, Brahman is real, and is an omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient entity. The devas are also real, but are subordinate entities.

Now the question may be asked as to why Brahman is sometimes referred to by names like Indra, Agni, Vayu, etc as mentioned in Rig Veda 1.164.46. Is it not contradictory that Brahman is in one place referred as Indra or Agni and yet in another place Indra and Agni are see as powerless entities next to the might of Brahman? The answer is no.

Remember, that the devas are named according to their specific qualities, powers, and functions. However, it is Brahman that gives them their names (Rig Veda 10.82.3):

3 Father who made us, he who, as Disposer, knoweth all races and all things existing,
Even he alone, the Deities' name-giver,him other beings seek for information.

If you accept the orthodox Vedaantic point of view that Brahman is the origin and support of all, then it follows that He is the origin of the devas also, and should have all qualities, powers, etc which the devas have in fuller measure. Thus, the names of the devas which indicate their respective qualities can also be taken as being names of Brahman.

I have also seen this explained another way. Brahman is the indwelling Paramatman within every Jivatman. Just as we point to our bodies and say, "My name is Phil" or "My name is John" - yet we are really referring to the Jivatman within, similarly the Paramatma being the indwelling soul of all souls and matter, can also be taken as the referent of any term used to designate a subordinate entity such as souls or matter. This is known as the principle of co-ordinate predication. Thus, referring to Brahman as "Indra" or "Agni" can be understood as referring to the Paramatma who dwells within Indra and within Agni.

Thus, you can refer to Brahman by anya-devata names, so long as you understand who is actually being referred to, the difference between the Brahman and the deva, and the relationship of indwelling controller to controlled entity.

regards,

Philosoraptor

[kallol]

Along the lines of the previous post -

Do Hindus view the gods and goddesses as having literal physical bodies in some plane of existence or are they metaphorical for different aspects of Brahman?

And if most Hindus view the gods and goddesses as literally existing, then is there any common belief about how the gods and goddesses came to exist? I guess what I'm saying is, in the Christian tradition, God decides to create the heavens, earth, etc. etc. Would it be accurate to say that Brahman stirred into manifestation the gods and goddesses that literally created the worlds?

Sorry if I am not explaining my questions well, I am still learning. Thanks!

Thought there is another thread on this

[Maya3]

Do Hindus view the gods and goddesses as having literal physical bodies in some plane of existence or are they metaphorical for different aspects of Brahman?

There are different opinions on this. Everyone thinks that they are different forms of Brahman, but some think that yes Brahman can take a physical form, kind of like water becoming ice sculptures and exist in a form on its own. Still it's water.

I personally don't think this. I think they are metaphorical for different aspects of Brahman as you said.
I think of it as this: We are all One, everything on earth is matter, gas, liquid of solid, but we are still all matter. It is extremely diverse, we have trees, birds, lions, people, seas, rain, clouds...
This is what the many Gods represent to me, it represent the diversity of creation. This is why we can pick one Ishta Devata if we want, so that we have something to connect to that we like when in reality we are connecting to the formless.




Partly true but it is more than that. It is to also make them part of the family to create the bonding. To feel them as part of their own. It not only is in human form but in form of trees, animals and inert objects also. It is the ecology and creation of which we are subset, of which we have evolved, which is the part to of the continuity from unmanifested Brahman to manifested brahman.

That is very well said! Much better then how I said it. :)

Maya