Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 25 of 25

Thread: YOUR opinion on The Gods?

  1. #21
    Join Date
    July 2012
    Age
    53
    Posts
    639
    Rep Power
    0

    Re: YOUR opinion on The Gods?

    Quote Originally Posted by Spirit Seeker View Post
    Namaste all.

    What is your opinion/perspective on the God's and Deitys that are outside Hinduism and are a part of different cultural pantheons?

    Are they Non-Existant? Fictional? Or a Different Manifestation of a Particular Deity/Energy?

    To me personally, I believe most of the gods around the world from different cultural backgrounds are the same exact deities/energies interpreted differently. I take Carl Jungs stance as he was a Great Psychologist as well as Mystic.

    I believe many of the God's Fit in Psychological Archetypal patterns in the Collective Human Unconsciousness while those deities simultaneous carry an independent life on their own. ALL THE SAME ENERGY, It is US that Separate them.

    This is just to serve as an example for comparison, it doesn't have to be accurate. Lets say Thor And Odin of the Viking Religion are the Same energies as Visnu And Shiva. Or Kali Ma is the same energy as Lilith in Judaism, or Hecate. Rama is Hades etc. etc.

    Krishna being the same energy as Obatala in the Yoruba pantheon. So I'm not referring to Monism/Universalism. Still separate distinct energies, that fit particular archetypes, WE separate them based on our conditioned interpretations. But they carry a life on their own.

    For many this is a "New-Agey" thing to believe. I'm not Universalist by any means nor are my beliefs anywhere close to Neo-New Age Thinking.

    I consider myself A realist, and my views will be closest to Carl Jungs stance on the Deities, and the archetypes they fit in the collective unconscious, rather than One God many manifestations that monists stand by.

    Thoughts Anyone?
    Namaste.

    From my way of thinking and believing, God is God. There's no 'my God' or 'your God' there's just 'my beliefs' and 'your beliefs'.

    Beliefs are personal. God is impersonal.

    In an attempt to try and understand the form in which the Divine is represented to us, we create God 'in our own image' to try and make sense of it.

    What many forget, is that the image is a spiritual one..not a physical one.

    If I sound too 'new age' by saying that God is everything and can be called by any name with unwavering faith and devotion, then so be it.

    I choose to worship Lord Shiva because that is God's 'form' that most appeals to me. Shiva is Jehova...Buddha...Allah....Krishna...every single thing!

    Those who worship Jehova will say that Jehova = Shiva, Buddha, Allah, Krishna.

    Those who worship Krishna will say that Krishna = Shiva, Buddha, Allah...etc.

    There is no difference and we are all coming from the same place.

    My personal insight on this came as Ganesha entered my heart for the first time, I saw him all around me, within me, outside me, in 5 dimensions if that makes sense, he spoke to me without words, and then, i knew, in that moment i knew.
    It is very beautiful and amazing when that happens. I have felt the same with Lord Shiva, quite a few times now.

    Aum Namah Shivaya

  2. #22

    Re: YOUR opinion on The Gods?

    Quote Originally Posted by Spirit Seeker View Post
    Namaste.

    Realists accept that the material world is real and not an illusion/maya. It's exact opposite Mono-Idealism accepts that nothing is independant from the mind. There's sub philosophies as well from Subjective Idealism to Objective Idealism etc.
    Maya is often misunderstood. Maya does not mean this material world is an illusion (no real existence), but it is not the base of everything else. Rather than a base it is something that rises out of a deeper reality.

    Modern science is proving this. For instance M-theory and Snare-theory now see particles as musical notes, the universe as a symphony. Now they found the Higgs Boson, particles no longer have mass. So our matter is without substance, mass is only an illusion that rises from something deeper, the Highs field.

    The mind is the creator of illusion, that is true. Science has proven that many times. But we must not confuse mind with consciousness. The material world rises out of consciousness not the mind. The mind is only one aspect of consciousness. So the material word can exists outside the mind, though its appearance is to some extend an illusion created by the mind.

    The word "real" itself creates the illusion of illusion. Because it implies that some experiences are not real. It does this by stating that thoughts that do not pertain to the material world, are not real, an illusion (a plaything of the mind). So this thinking already takes the material world as the base.

    But experience is the only reality. Every experience is real. It is the mind that makes the distinction between real and not real. My experience of the Deva's is as real as your experience of hitting a wall. But if the mind creates an idea-world in which everything metaphysical is unreal, than in that idea-world Deva's are not allowed to be exist as entities and are thrown in a container object called "unreal" (or something vague like "energy").

    This itself is contradiction. How can you create a concept for things unreal? It is like imaginary numbers. When mathematicians found them they said they did not exist in reality (hence "imaginary"). But every time they found such "impossible" things, they later found an actual application in physics!

    So Deva's are real. Why? Because we can experience them. Now you may say, what you are experiencing is something else, but I can say that about everything in the world. Because whenever we look deeper in things they become something else. Than tasting salt is a chemical reaction between NaCL and other substances. But NaCl is not really NaCL but a composite of smaller particles, that are not real particles but waveforms etc. Looking one step deeper and the illusion changes again.

    But to us meaning has only what plays on our level of experience in reality. That is what shapes our overall experience. Does the internet exist, or is it an illusion that rises from trillion of electronic switches interacting? Yes it exists and it is something more than switches interacting. The sum is clearly more than its parts. Yes you and me exist, even if we can define ourselves as particles too. Even then we both have a unique character that can not be explained out the character of particles.

    Experience is reality, but experience exists in layers of reality. Who knows what the experience of an atom may be like. It has its own level of consciousness we have no idea of. To all beings their world consists of their experiences and they are unaware of the different experience of other beings.

    Consciousness is so much more than thinking, so much more than the mind. The mind creates idea-worlds, new layers of experience. Why is the western idea-world today so much different than it used to be? Because the mind changed its perception of the world. In the West the outside world and inside world were never integrated. So conflicts arise.

    In Hindu philosophy consciousness gives rise to inside and outside world. Science is no threat to Hinduism as Hindu Sages always studied both worlds simultaneously to understand the working of consciousness. What modern science now brings, proves them right. The material word has no substance of its own. Particles are no more than information. Information is something that rises from consciousness. Also they found that if you look deeper into matter the separation between observer and the observed can no longer be maintained.

    There have even be studies that prove that things do not exist outside of observation. So do the Deva's exist? If you can experience them they do. It you don't it is perfectly okay to say they don't, at least not for you.
    Last edited by Avyaydya; 20 February 2014 at 05:59 PM.

  3. #23

    Re: YOUR opinion on The Gods?

    Quote Originally Posted by Avyaydya View Post
    Maya is often misunderstood. Maya does not mean this material world is an illusion (no real existence), but it is not the base of everything else. Rather than a base it is something that rises out of a deeper reality.

    Modern science is proving this. For instance M-theory and Snare-theory now see particles as musical notes, the universe as a symphony. Now they found the Highs Boson, particles no longer have mass. So our matter is without substance, mass is only an illusion that rises from something deeper, the Highs field.

    The mind is the creator of illusion, that is true. Science has proven that many times. But we must not confuse mind with consciousness. The material world rises out of consciousness not the mind. The mind is only one aspect of consciousness. So the material word can exists outside the mind, though its appearance is to some extend an illusion created by the mind.

    The word "real" itself creates the illusion of illusion. Because it implies that some experiences are not real. It does this by stating that thoughts that do not pertain to the material world, are not real, an illusion (a plaything of the mind). So this thinking already takes the material world as the base.

    But experience is the only reality. Every experience is real. It is the mind that makes the distinction between real and not real. My experience of the Deva's is as real as your experience of hitting a wall. But if the mind creates an idea-world in which everything metaphysical is unreal, than in that idea-world Deva's are not allowed to be exist as entities and are thrown in a container object called "unreal" (or something vague like "energy").

    This itself is contradiction. How can you create a concept for things unreal? It is like imaginary numbers. When mathematicians found them they said they did not exist in reality (hence "imaginary"). But every time they found such "impossible" things, they later found an actual application in physics!

    So Deva's are real. Why? Because we can experience them. Now you may say, what you are experiencing is something else, but I can say that about everything in the world. Because whenever we look deeper in things they become something else. Than tasting salt is a chemical reaction between NaCL and other substances. But NaCl is not really NaCL but a composite of smaller particles, that are not real particles but waveforms etc. Looking one step deeper and the illusion changes again.

    But to us meaning has only what plays on our level of experience in reality. That is what shapes our overall experience. Does the internet exist, or is it an illusion that rises from trillion of electronic switches interacting? Yes it exists and it is something more than switches interacting. The sum is clearly more than its parts. Yes you and me exist, even if we can define ourselves as particles too. Even then we both have a unique character that can not be explained out the character of particles.

    Experience is reality, but experience exists in layers of reality. Who knows what the experience of an atom may be like. It has its own level of consciousness we have no idea of. To all beings their world consists of their experiences and they are unaware of the different experience of other beings.

    Consciousness is so much more than thinking, so much more than the mind. The mind creates idea-worlds, new layers of experience. Why is the western idea-world today so much different than it used to be? Because the mind changed its perception of the world. In the West the outside world and inside world were never integrated. So conflicts arise.

    In Hindu philosophy consciousness gives rise to inside and outside world. Science is no threat to Hinduism as Hindu Sages always studied both worlds simultaneously to understand the working of consciousness. What modern science now brings, proves them right. The material word has no substance of its own. Particles are no more than information. Information is something that rises from consciousness. Also they found that if you look deeper into matter the separation between observer and the observed can no longer be maintained.

    There have even be studies that prove that things do not exist outside of observation. So do the Deva's exist? If you can experience them they do. It you don't it is perfectly okay to say they don't, at least not for you.
    Namaste, Excellent post, and thank you everyone else for your contribution to this thread.

    You did a great way of explaining it to give me a clearer undestanding of What "Maya" is. Thank you. If am am not mistakened there are however some schools of thought, within buddhism that do believe the physical environment is literally an illusion?

    If I may ask you where do you personally draw the line between "Objective" and "subjective" when it comes to metaphysical experience?

    I know in the Western world there are rising philosophies that conflict with its eastern counterparts which attempts to give a more 'scientific' rational approach and explanation to Eastern Mysticism..

    For instance, concerning the nature of Mind And Conciousness, Awareness. Do The "Devas" people experience Have an Objective Absolute existence on their own, outside our belief and awareness of them, or do they exist subjectively only because we experience them and exactly as we interpret these 'energies'?

    Partial reason why i made this thread. I have an Aristotle Mindset, I Suspect The Gods, Devas, Or whatever a person chooses to call them or in however way they perceive them , have an objective existence/life of their own, whether we pay mind to them or not. But there are other theories/philosophies(Mainly Metaphysical Idealism) that states we "created" them.

    So it depends on the context of what is "real" and "Unreal" depending how a particular philosophy approaches it..

    I am aware Hinduism has a sophisticated advanced explanation for mostly everything concerning consciousness, depending on the school will depend on the approach. I see it all as 'filter' as you brought up.

    Thank you.
    Last edited by Spirit Seeker; 29 July 2013 at 08:38 PM.
    For those who believe, no explanation is necessary. For those who do not, none will suffice. ~Joseph Dunninger

  4. #24

    Re: YOUR opinion on The Gods?

    Quote Originally Posted by Spirit Seeker View Post
    Namaste, Excellent post, and thank you everyone else for your contribution to this thread.

    You did a great way of explaining it to give me a clearer undestanding of What "Maya" is. Thank you. If am am not mistakened there are however some schools of thought, within buddhism that do believe the physical environment is literally an illusion?
    ...
    I know in the Western world there are rising philosophies that conflict with its eastern counterparts which attempts to give a more 'scientific' rational approach and explanation to Eastern Mysticism..
    ...
    Partial reason why i made this thread. I have an Aristotle Mindset, I Suspect The Gods, Devas, Or whatever a person chooses to call them or in however way they perceive them , have an objective existence/life of their own, whether we pay mind to them or not. But there are other theories/philosophies(Mainly Metaphysical Idealism) that states we "created" them.

    So it depends on the context of what is "real" and "Unreal" depending how a particular philosophy approaches it..

    I am aware Hinduism has a sophisticated advanced explanation for mostly everything concerning consciousness, depending on the school will depend on the approach. I see it all as 'filter' as you brought up.
    Let me grossly generalize and exaggerate to make the distinctions between eastern and western thinking clearer. That is what the mind does best, simplifying by seeing patterns in chaos, seeing divisions between entities that are neither homogeneous nor have sharp boundaries.

    I do not know much of Buddhism, but Hinduism as totality does not see contrasting viewpoints as problem, but rather as a useful addition to do justice to reality. The mind is the creator of illusions. One of the illusions it creates is that there is only one good way of understanding things, called "the truth". A truth we can "share".

    There are many of such shared truths people believe in. Looking deeper we find that each person still has different interpretations of these shared truths. And the more individualistic the character of a person is, the more he starts creating his own separate truths, and live in his own idea world.

    The wonderful thing of Hinduism is that it forces the least viewpoints upon people. That is why it comprises of many philosophical schools and traditions and that is why it is so diverse. It respects diversity of the individual minds as much as diversity in outer nature.

    Hindu's do not have to "falsify" the truths of others so much. In the west the idea of “one truth” is very strong. It is strong both in religion and science. Western culture can not coop well with contradicting ideas even among different groups. In western culture one will strive to win over the other. The more adherents the more victorious. Victory itself becomes the proof of being right. That is why western culture tries to spread itself: To proof itself right.

    But western culture changed her ideas and traditions much faster than any other. In her pursuit of truth, it keeps on changing its ideas. It is only in recent history that we see the western mind opening up to the idea of more than one truth, as science starts to reveal the ambiguity of Nature.

    There is no one truth, there never was. The mind is the creator of such truths. The mind is a simplifier. Thus it translates the order it perceives into simplified notions. But it can do that in endless ways. the picture the mind creates is like a photo of a person. The mind says: this photo is him! But is it? It is only related to the person. We can make endless different pictures of the same person, and even then it only is one aspect of his being. But for the mind, it is him! That is him!

    Scientists now believe physical Nature is made in 11 dimensions. M-theory is based on that. A triumph for theoretical science, but now they created a theory that is nearly as difficult to understand as Nature itself. Now it has become something that has be discovered like Nature. It does not bring understanding to the mind any more. It can help us predict things, control things, but no longer to understand things.

    Our mind wants something simple it can relate to everyday experiences, something meaningful, something that does not contradict these. But such a theory can not be made. The one truth is beyond the grasp of man's mind.

    Our theories are "viewpoints". If you want to know someone you are better off with more than one photo. But in stead of choosing what photo best portrays him, you want to accept them all as valid viewpoints without choosing one. This way your mind stays free. And even though at first one viewpoint may seem strikingly appropriate, in another situation another viewpoint may gain significance, because reality shows us ever changing faces.

    So in stead of saying this is right and this wrong, it is good to say, this is one viewpoint and this is another. Even if an evil man tell lies about a good person, from the viewpoint of the evil man they may seem very fitting. Reality is never limited to the object we are studying but as much about the subject that does the observation.

    Western thinking however is heavily based on the idea we can completely separate the two. That there is an objective reality outside of the observer. And thus all people could observe the same thing. but if that were so, why do we need to school people in the same thinking first?

    From a base of mutual thinking we started creating “objective” theories. There is also a disadvantage to this. It limits the freedom of thinking. It is based on unprovable ideas of Greek philosophers like Plato and Aristotle. Plato thought material nature was a bad copy of perfect forms found in mathematics and geometry. Western thinking still is largely based on this thinking, trying to superimpose these perfect structures on reality, and dismissing everything what does not fit them. Christian religion has a similar base, it translated in a perfect God and his imperfect creation.

    This kind of “ideal” thinking itself structures our reality to the ideals. That is why we no longer live in a natural habitat but in a very structured environment. The more we structure our own environment to these "ideals", the more they seem true to the mind. But this kind of thinking also denies important parts of reality because they do not fit well in the structured idea world.

    Western thinking gives power over nature. It enforces a man-made order on nature. Eastern thinking lays more emphasis on harmony with nature. It too uses Nature, but not to the extend of destroying it. Western thinking turns people in to dependent servants. To live in these ideal structures of the mind people have to support and maintain them both mentally and physically, otherwise our ever more complicated society crumbles. That is why religion became a compulsory belief. That is why now science has become a compulsory education too.

    You are not an Aristotle-minded person because of your independent studies of reality, but because this is the thinking you grew up with. These are ideas that pervade western thinking. In this overly structured thinking, people become slaves to the structure. The individuality is suppressed as individuals tend to question such "objective" ideas as they develop their own personal, subjective ideas.

    That is why the West created mass armies and put people in "uniforms", to suppress their individuality. They created mass organisations in which "individuality" is replaced by "functionality". In the large structure the worker is a functional part and can be replaced by similar parts. In religion people are divided in pastors and flock. The flock believe and pastors tell them what to believe. Their highest purpose to be a servant in God's "plan". In the West people are not encouraged to think for themselves, they have excellent education systems in which everything is spelled out for them from young age. They are rewarded for conforming to these ideas, not for rejecting them. Westerners rather choose ideas to follow than create them. It created a consumption society.

    In western culture following ideals and ideology has become a virtue. Their truths are defended as the holy grail. But these truths are ever changing creations of the mind. To stop it from changing western religion tried to make it unchangeable by putting it in a book and declaring its Gods unchangeable truth. Trying to create a stable structured society this way turned out to be bad idea. It was especially horror for the people with individualistic free-thinking character. They were often persecuted as enemies of ordered society.

    Still ordered society continues taking over many aspects of life. We may even come to a point that many human beings will become superfluous to the system. Rational will force us to admit: Robots serve better. We see the first signs of this. But who can stop the system? The order must prevail.

    Marxism, fascism were also scientific inspired attempts to build ideal societies and in both the value of individuality was further reduced. Now we lean to an even more scientifically structured society, that could become even more rigid. We also see the madness of such systems. Simply look at the financial systems that spin out of control, but are based on very scientific economical theories that state egoism is the logical drive for economic behaviour. If that is what you take as a base, that is what logic extends and generates.

    Why do we do it? Because the western mind is facinated with the virtues of truth, power and order (control). The western idea of a god is a being all-powerful, all-knowing, and controlling. Everything fits his plan. That is how the supreme God is described. And as Gods are the inspiration of man, westerners strive to be like their God. Western Gods are adharmic in nature. They are power hungry Gods.

    They fit societies that are seeking domination over others, militarily, culturally, economically, religiously. Is it a coincidence that Aristotle also was the teacher of Alexander the Great, that forcefully spread Greek civilization over the then known world?

    Life becomes a struggle. competition, strife. In western thinking this is good, it brings the best out in you. Playful things like sport games become fierce competition. Even man's evolution is seen as result of struggle. Struggle to establish dominance and order dominates western thinking.

    Which brings us to your original question: Are Hindu gods the same as Gods in Western cultures? No the Deva's differ fundamentally from the Asura's. The Asura's are power seeking Gods, that want to impose their own order, where Deva's are serving Natural order or Dharm. They are not the same. The worship of Deva's or Asura's go together with different societies with people of different mindsets. It makes the world an interesting place.

  5. #25

    Re: YOUR opinion on The Gods?

    Quote Originally Posted by Spirit Seeker View Post
    Namaste all.

    What is your opinion/perspective on the God's and Deitys that are outside Hinduism and are a part of different cultural pantheons?

    Are they Non-Existant? Fictional? Or a Different Manifestation of a Particular Deity/Energy?
    Matter is not possible without Anti matter,same for particles and anti particles.So Devas (Gods) are non existant without their direct counterparts Asuras(demons).
    Now,Do you think every culture/sect is bound worship Gods only?Just asgods takes incarnations so do the Asuras to propogate Adharma or Sin on earth.So There must some worshippers of them in this world,otherwise the very purpose of their reincarnations goes vain .So its not necessary tht the differnt deities associated with diffrnt sects are Gods in the first place.Worship of asuras is common in India too.For eg,Khatu Shyaam who is worshipped in most parts of North India is actually a demon called Barbarik.
    For those acquainted with Bhavisya Purana must very well know about how the demon Tripurasura's incarnation created a so called sect on this planet.
    Last edited by lalit1000; 06 July 2014 at 03:19 AM. Reason: Added info

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. nArAyaNa in the veda-s
    By philosoraptor in forum Vaishnava
    Replies: 79
    Last Post: 29 September 2013, 09:19 PM
  2. How does devotion to multiple gods work?
    By Ao in forum God in Hindu Dharma
    Replies: 55
    Last Post: 26 October 2010, 08:48 AM
  3. Why ?
    By devotee in forum Hare Krishna (ISKCON)
    Replies: 70
    Last Post: 11 January 2010, 02:06 AM
  4. 'Yahweh' Hymns (from the Rgveda)
    By sarabhanga in forum Christianity
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 06 August 2009, 02:13 AM
  5. Gods position:
    By Zardozi in forum God in Hindu Dharma
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 17 March 2007, 01:29 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •