Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 17 of 17

Thread: Conception of God

  1. #11
    Join Date
    September 2006
    Age
    71
    Posts
    7,705
    Rep Power
    223

    Re: Conception of God

    hariḥ oṁ
    ~~~~~~
    namaste

    Quote Originally Posted by ale84 View Post
    What I don't wanna think is that all the japa I'm gonna do is just a placebo.
    I wanna know that my worship will reach the grace of a higher Intelligence, altough I'm not different from that Intelligence, but this body-mind mechanism really needs from the grace of God.
    The ultimate worship is giving up 'me-ness' - , individuality. If one's worship still involves '2' then the final destination has not been arrived at. This takes some study and reflection to absorb. Pending one's fitness¹ this can be fast, medium or slow in arriving.

    And if one thinks it is accomplished via an action, this too will be one more thing that will limit one's understanding.
    See post 12 for insight if there is interest: http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/sho...837#post119837

    post 12 here also:
    http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/sho...t=12088&page=2


    iti śivaṁ

    1. fitness see post 9 . http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/sho...802#post119802
    Last edited by yajvan; 21 September 2014 at 02:48 PM.
    यतस्त्वं शिवसमोऽसि
    yatastvaṁ śivasamo'si
    because you are identical with śiva

    _

  2. #12
    Join Date
    August 2013
    Location
    Entre Rios, Argentina
    Age
    39
    Posts
    109
    Rep Power
    163

    Re: Conception of God

    Hello, yajvan

    Quote Originally Posted by yajvan View Post
    hariḥ oṁ
    ~~~~~~
    namaste



    The ultimate worship is giving up 'me-ness' - , individuality. If one's worship still involves '2' then the final destination has not been arrived at. This takes some study and reflection to absorb. Pending one's fitness¹ this can be fast, medium or slow in arriving.

    And if one thinks it is accomplished via an action, this too will be one more thing that will limit one's understanding.
    See post 12 for insight if there is interest: http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/sho...837#post119837

    post 12 here also:
    http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/sho...t=12088&page=2


    iti śivaṁ

    1. fitness see post 9 . http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/sho...802#post119802
    I mean the little "me", the body-mind mechanism. Altough I know I'm the Self, this body-mind is still causing distress.
    So I (Self associated with this body-mind) need the help from Ishvara (Self associated with Sattva guna), because I can't get the help from pure Awareness (Self without attributes/nirguna).
    So, Ishvara (Self+sattva guna) is in a higher position than me (Self+body&mind), and He can help me.
    From the dvaita point of view I get help from Ishvara, but from the advaita point of view I get help from myself, because I'm not different from the all-pervasive Self.

    Is my reasoning right? Or is it confusing?

  3. #13

    Re: Conception of God

    Quote Originally Posted by ale84 View Post
    Hello,
    So I (Self associated with this body-mind) need the help from Ishvara (Self associated with Sattva guna), because I can't get the help from pure Awareness (Self without attributes/nirguna).
    So, Ishvara (Self+sattva guna) is in a higher position than me (Self+body&mind), and He can help me.
    From the dvaita point of view I get help from Ishvara, but from the advaita point of view I get help from myself, because I'm not different from the all-pervasive Self.
    Namaste

    From the point of view of the Absolute you aren't even using this computer. It's the Self using the Self (the computer) to talk to the Self ("us").

    Yet, your message gets here and I can answer. The same way, you can talk to someone, ask for something and that someone will or will not give it to you. And it doesn't change the fact that they are all the same Self.

    The same way with Ishvara. It's not just Ishvara and you that are the same Self, but EVERYTHING else is too.

    You don't have problems talking to people and getting help from them because they are the same Self as you, why should you have problems doing the same to Ishvara?

    Pranams

  4. #14
    Join Date
    September 2006
    Age
    71
    Posts
    7,705
    Rep Power
    223

    Re: Conception of God

    hariḥ oṁ
    ~~~~~~
    namaste

    Quote Originally Posted by ale84 View Post
    Hello, yajvan

    I mean the little "me", the body-mind mechanism. Altough I know I'm the Self, this body-mind is still causing distress.
    So I (Self associated with this body-mind) need the help from Ishvara (Self associated with Sattva guna), because I can't get the help from pure Awareness (Self without attributes/nirguna).
    So, Ishvara (Self+sattva guna) is in a higher position than me (Self+body&mind), and He can help me.
    From the dvaita point of view I get help from Ishvara, but from the advaita point of view I get help from myself, because I'm not different from the all-pervasive Self.

    Is my reasoning right? Or is it confusing?

    Yes I see what you say... gain support from that which you see fit.
    It is key to understand ( and I think you do if I read the words correctly) that even the 'me' you talk of is part of Self. There are no two Selves and this is where it takes some time to remove that part that does not let Self shine all by it-Self.
    So, here is the fun part... in the beginning there is this separation of Self and not-Self. Then one revels in the Self alone ( the silence of the Self, some call Restfully Alert). Once there is comfort there then Self and non-Self are brought together and one comes to the realization that even the non-Self was all along the Self to begin with. But in the beginning the Self had to be experienced in its pristine condition, stainless.

    At the end of the day one comes to the realization that the logic of saying ' I am not the body-mind ' but I am not only the body-mind I am whole and full and this includes this body-mind' - then after that I am not only this wholeness of Self-body-mind that is an expression of Self to begin with, every thing I see is none other then an extension of this Self. It is everywhere.

    The pickle is many wish to go from where they are (now) to this final conclusion that the Self is everywhere and everything, but it is an intellectual understanding and not a direct experience. This is not a bad thing, but many wish to jump from A to Z and finish up, call it a day. In some cases this may happen, but this may be rare indeed. The grace of the supreme brings one along at the proper pace. For some they can absorb it all at once , for others it may need to be sipped a bit at a time.

    That is why there are several schools of thought. It is not the argument that one is right way, but to pick up the person from where they are at and bring them along. No different then a group of people going from one place to their final destination. Some are close and only need a trolley car. Others can walk, still others may need an air plane. It all depends. That is why the schools in sanātana dharma are so profound; they consider the person, their qualities and fitness, and then suggest a way.

    But one asks, how do I know which school ? I found that as you look , read and digest the knowledge you will find comfort with one more then another. But as you grow, it is always wise to keep an open mind and read other points of view. Accept ideas and notions that advance your unfoldment. I found this to work the best. Don't get stuck in the mud (mundane life).

    In any case, just asking these questions suggests that grace is occurring. It is that simple.

    iti śivaṁ
    यतस्त्वं शिवसमोऽसि
    yatastvaṁ śivasamo'si
    because you are identical with śiva

    _

  5. #15
    Join Date
    August 2013
    Location
    Entre Rios, Argentina
    Age
    39
    Posts
    109
    Rep Power
    163

    Re: Conception of God

    Hello, yajvan

    Quote Originally Posted by yajvan View Post
    hariḥ oṁ
    ~~~~~~
    namaste




    Yes I see what you say... gain support from that which you see fit.
    It is key to understand ( and I think you do if I read the words correctly) that even the 'me' you talk of is part of Self. There are no two Selves and this is where it takes some time to remove that part that does not let Self shine all by it-Self.
    So, here is the fun part... in the beginning there is this separation of Self and not-Self. Then one revels in the Self alone ( the silence of the Self, some call Restfully Alert). Once there is comfort there then Self and non-Self are brought together and one comes to the realization that even the non-Self was all along the Self to begin with. But in the beginning the Self had to be experienced in its pristine condition, stainless.

    At the end of the day one comes to the realization that the logic of saying ' I am not the body-mind ' but I am not only the body-mind I am whole and full and this includes this body-mind' - then after that I am not only this wholeness of Self-body-mind that is an expression of Self to begin with, every thing I see is none other then an extension of this Self. It is everywhere.

    The pickle is many wish to go from where they are (now) to this final conclusion that the Self is everywhere and everything, but it is an intellectual understanding and not a direct experience. This is not a bad thing, but many wish to jump from A to Z and finish up, call it a day. In some cases this may happen, but this may be rare indeed. The grace of the supreme brings one along at the proper pace. For some they can absorb it all at once , for others it may need to be sipped a bit at a time.

    That is why there are several schools of thought. It is not the argument that one is right way, but to pick up the person from where they are at and bring them along. No different then a group of people going from one place to their final destination. Some are close and only need a trolley car. Others can walk, still others may need an air plane. It all depends. That is why the schools in sanātana dharma are so profound; they consider the person, their qualities and fitness, and then suggest a way.

    But one asks, how do I know which school ? I found that as you look , read and digest the knowledge you will find comfort with one more then another. But as you grow, it is always wise to keep an open mind and read other points of view. Accept ideas and notions that advance your unfoldment. I found this to work the best. Don't get stuck in the mud (mundane life).

    In any case, just asking these questions suggests that grace is occurring. It is that simple.

    iti śivaṁ
    So Shankaracharya's Advaita and Kashmir Shaivism have slightly different approaches regarding Prakriti.
    Shankaracharya's Advaita considers Prakriti an apparent transformation of Brahman lacking from real substance (no transformation takes place in Brahman).
    Kashmir Shaivism considers Prakriti as Brahman (Braman undergoes transformation).
    Is it right?

  6. #16
    Join Date
    September 2006
    Age
    71
    Posts
    7,705
    Rep Power
    223

    Re: Conception of God

    hariḥ oṁ
    ~~~~~~
    namaste

    Quote Originally Posted by ale84 View Post
    Hello, yajvan

    So Shankaracharya's Advaita and Kashmir Shaivism have slightly different approaches regarding Prakriti.
    Shankaracharya's Advaita considers Prakriti an apparent transformation of Brahman lacking from real substance (no transformation takes place in Brahman).
    Kashmir Shaivism considers Prakriti as Brahman (Braman undergoes transformation). Is it right?
    This is looked at differently within kaśmir śaivism as there are 36 tattva-s that are addressed. The notion ( too ) of prakṛti and puruṣa has ~classically~ been the tattva-s addressed within the śāṁkhya school; you cannot talk of one without the other.
    They (the śāṁkhya school) call out 25 tattva-s ( some argue 24). These 24 or 25 are within kaśmir śaivism's view but not with the same definitions especially that of puruṣa. To take this further will derail the overall string. If you wish to go deeper and wider, it is best to start a new string and subject category on this.


    Now that said, one thing I did wish to offer that remains on-point with this string is something I said above:
    in the beginning there is this separation of Self and not-Self.

    One must ask, yajvan under whose authority does this come from , this separation ?
    It is from a minimum of two places – we find this in the bhāgavad gītā and we also find this within ādi śaṅkara-ji's vivekacūḍāmaṇi , the 155th śloka; he points to ātmānātma-vivekaḥ - the discrimination between Self and not-Self. So too many may argue that the idea of neti-neti ( some write na-iti na-iti) is at the core of Self and not Self.

    This I think is worthy of one's effort and contemplation.


    iti śivaṁ
    Last edited by yajvan; 22 September 2014 at 03:31 PM.
    यतस्त्वं शिवसमोऽसि
    yatastvaṁ śivasamo'si
    because you are identical with śiva

    _

  7. #17
    Join Date
    September 2014
    Posts
    21
    Rep Power
    0

    Re: Conception of God

    Namaste
    Please understand that it is we that attribute form to the formless one because it is we who cant perceive anything beyond this two dimensional view of time and space, so it is we who need Him to have a form. How do you think the mobius strip has only one side? There are many wonders even on earth which are beyond our understanding..We use less than 5 percent of our brain so it is obvious we impose human restrictions centred on our upbringing/culture even to god. And we think god is limited and god needs to have a form to reciprocate and god needs a mouth to talk. But without any legs and without a space ship God managed to spread all over the universe including the deep recesses of our hearts!! Because for God there is no demarcation between illusion and reality. God is pure consciousness,intellect and love. Whatever He wills will happen.
    How do you think the form that you imagine God in is the truth?Just because you see some guys who fall in love with a shiva or a Vishnu and they keep revelling in ecstasy or hate for each other? Forms are always representations of our own limited ego and unless we are free from conditioning there is no question of pure love. If form is what you are attached to then you love the statue and not the actual God. Do you think Shiva holds a trident and wears tiger skin and lives in your heart:P:P I mean do you feel any heartpain because of the trident piercing you:P
    Are you trying to say you love a person based on looks? So tomorrow hypothetically if God choses to have an ugly form of say Bhairava will you dump HIM? Or if shiva accepts a more beautiful form as Krishna will you love him even more? If your perception of God is so shallow what is the difference between you and the louts who fall for an actress based on how she looks and then dump her once she becomes old? Are looks important at all? Or is it the bond that matters?
    Even Krishna showed his the original formless position to arjuna and arjuna quivered and shivered in pure fear and begged him to withdraw it. What does that mean? Sri Krishna isn’t originally the blue eyed one that we all think he is? He is factually the mahakala, the destroyer of the universe. Does that mean i should love him any less? No. Because of my limitation he accepts a beautiful form but that doesn’t negate his original real form any less.
    I recently read Stephen Hawkings view on Higgs boson Gods particle. I, like everyone else, was in awe of it, when he suddenly revealed that it is so powerful that a small bit of instability could cause it to burst out and everything in the universe becomes finished and time and space get destroyed. So whatever he said perfectly rhymed with the description of goddess Mahakali. But instead of reading the essence of what Mahakali is if i foolishly stick to her four arms and her swords and skulls i will be the worlds greatest fool. Forms were given to us by sages as hints to something very high and profound. But unfortunately we see many sections stick to the superficial content of spirituality and engage in whatever is not actually God.
    And even if i worship Krishna or shiva impressed by my self conceived perceptions of what beauty is i will still have to take millions of births till i conclude that God is formless. And the same Krishna or Vishnu or shiva in forms are first steps to the impersonal eternal loving formless Brahman,. The Brahman is the ultimate destination. He is the all protecting all loving satchidananda who doesn’t need ears to hear you or eyes to see you. So try doing your mantra with faith and without questioning and come back and post your results. Doubts are hinderances and do anothing but question the inconceivable aspect of God.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

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

Similar Threads

  1. The incomparability of Hinduism
    By Kumar_Das in forum Dvaita
    Replies: 25
    Last Post: 15 June 2011, 04:31 AM
  2. VOID Void void
    By bhaktajan in forum Canteen
    Replies: 140
    Last Post: 14 November 2009, 11:31 PM
  3. CONCEPT OF GOD IN ISLAM
    By Skillganon in forum Islam
    Replies: 112
    Last Post: 08 October 2006, 10:01 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
  •