The Suffering of the gods

[rahulg]

In Hinduism, although various gods incarnate, they don't suffer on behalf of humanity. Or, do they? I am not clear on this point. Did Ram, Krishna, Shiva and others suffer at all? If not, what was the purpose of incarnating?

If it's to teach morals, they're already there in the holy books. There are other saints to teach by example. So why incarnate if the end can be achieved even without incarnating?

I hope I am making myself clear. Suppose I can do a job over the phone, my physical presence at the office (for instance) won't be necessary. If I am at the office, on the other hand, then it's taken for granted that my physical presence is necessary.

So, if the gods incarnate on earth, their physical presence must have been needed, or they wouldn't incarnate at all. But in the Hindu concept of incarnation, this wouldn't apply. Then why incarnate at all when the same job can be done without incarnating?

[saidevo]

namaste RAhul.

It's a good question that you have asked. Here is what I happen to know for an answer:

• bhagavat avatAras are generally of three kinds: pUrNAvatAram--where God incarnates with his full might and power, shakti-avatAram--where God uses his divine power to eliminate adharma, and aMSha-avatAram--where God incarnates with only some of his features.

• The avatar of shrI KRShNa was a pUrNAvatAram; of shrI RAmA was shakti-avatAram, but the shakti was used only towards the end; until then shrI RAmA lived the life of a dharma-conscious man and suffered a lot in much of his life, with the sole intention of teaching us about the various kinds of dharma we should stick to in life.

• Shiva never took an avatara, living human life from birth to death, with perhaps the exception of shrI Adi Shankara BhagavadpAda. Shiva's avatars are mostly sudden appearances where a man/woman appears suddenly on the scene, does some lIlA--sport, makes a point and then disappears. Shiva, however, is perceived to have his aMshAvatAras in many sages such as BhagavAn RamaNa Maharshi, KAnchi ParamAchArya and most other AchAryas of Shankara MaThams, BhagavAn Sathya Sai Baba and others.

• In the times of the Satya yuga and TretA yuga, the earth was filled with asuras and rAkShasas, so God took shakti-avatAra to annihilate them. The very fact that God took most of his avatars in human form is proof enough that this form is the highest of his creations, and is fully equipped with the karaNas--senses, and shakti--power, to lead a life of dharma and become spiritually advanced.

During the DvApara yuga when shrI KRShNa took avatar, the demons were born as humans--KaMsa, JarAsaMdha and the Kauravas are examples--although there were some demons such as the NarakAsura, BahAsura, and BANAsura. shrImad BhAgavatam mentions that at that time, since bhUmi was full of men and demons who were bent on destroying dharma, BhUmA devi went and supplicated to BrahmA who took her to MahAViShNu and who in turn came out with a saMkalpam--determination, to take a pUrNAvatara and have a full set of lIlas, both as man and God, and the result was the KRShNAvatAram.

• With the exception of shrI KRShNa, none of the other nine avatars of MahAViShNu, gave us a complete set of code of dharma and yoga, although their teachings were by examples in their lives.

• Why should an avatar take sufferings on himself? In the earlier yugas, the Vedic and other Rishis lived a life of utmost purity (many of them were householders) and the people led a life of dharma in all the four stages of their life, so the Rishis, who were God's aMshavAtara in varying degrees, did not have to suffer on behalf of the people.

In the Kali yuga, however, we have seen sages like shrI RAmakRShNa, RamaNA and Sathya Sai undertake sufferings of their devotees upon their physical bodies in order to burn out their related karma far more quickly. These are usually cases where the devotee is a highly devout person and his/her present physical body could not withstand the suffering. By remaining unaffected by the pain and suffering, these sages teach their devotees to emulate them in life's advantages and adversities.

• God has devolved his powers and authority in an elaborate hierarchy of devas, rishis and humans in the creation and administration of the universe, just as in the various systems of hierarchy in the administration of affairs of human life. Therefore, it is not that God is physically present exclusively in their avatars of all kinds. God being immanent as the substratum of every atom of this universe, he is present everywhere in physical and subtle forms (in the advaitic sense), so all his avatars are only by communication and devolution of his powers to make them manifest to varying degrees in pure human souls.

Air, in the form of atmosphere, is present everywhere, but still by we need its perceptible presence in the form of focussed flow by the devices of an electic fan and an air conditioner for our own comfort.

[bhaktajan]

Hiranyakashipu, Hiranaksha, Ravana and other such meglomaniacs did not care for any Deva. Such personalities sought to dominate the Devas to such a degree that such events necessitated an emergency call to Vishnu.

The OP may be directed to the lifetimes of various Devatas that preformed acts that proved to be embarrassing to themselves.

There are many many records of such embarrassments in the Vedas.

The Supreme Personality of Godhead, aka 'God' almighty [vs, Devatas within the material Cosmos] never suffers.

It can be said that 'God' causes sufferring in the form of 'feelings of seperation' ---but that is an elevated spiritual situation relegated to long yearning devotees.

The sufferring of the Gods can be ascribed to the Gods' witnessing the use of free-will by conditioned embodied souls in the lower planetary systems who are pursueing enjoyment on the terrestial plane.

[satay]

namaskar,

In Hinduism, although various gods incarnate, they don't suffer on behalf of humanity.

'Suffering' of Gods is an alien concept.

God has no reason to suffer nor should he send his son to suffer for humanity.

[yajvan]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namast�

namaskar,
'Suffering' of Gods is an alien concept.

If one is talking of pain, hardships, and that of suffering we need to sort out what is what. Pain and hardships are of the body - suffering is that of one's mental state.

The Dali Lama makes it simple for me to comprehend; Pain is inevitable, suffering is optional ; this is for human beings.

I have read of śṛi rāmaḥ's tribulations - yet to consider 'suffering' of the Divine is not a possible option for me. Why so? Pain/suffering belong to the field of the 3 guna-s. The Divine is above and beyond this.

praṇām

[rahulg]

I am sorry I didn't make myself clear the first time around, so let me rephrase...

If God's incarnation is to save people, then how can He do that without taking the suffering of humanity on Himself? If He doesn't, people will have to suffer, and if they do, his incarnation would be pointless.

So it seems as if the only purpose of incarnation is to eliminate human suffering, which isn't possible if God doesn't take on suffering upon Himself. Then why does He incarnate at all, if the purpose is only to impart knowledge, teach morals etc., things which can done even without his incarnation?

Physical presence requires a physical reason, if I may put it that way. But in Hinduism, the second half is missing and hence the concept of avatarhood makes little sense.

This is the suffering I am talking about, not the suffering of Ram losing Sita and all that. I mean suffering in the spirit of sacrifice, a noble suffering. This is entirely missing in avatars...either they're happy in their incarnations, or their sadness is only personal (as in Ram's case).

[saidevo]

namaste.

If God's incarnation is to save people, then how can He do that without taking the suffering of humanity on Himself? If He doesn't, people will have to suffer, and if they do, his incarnation would be pointless.

So it seems as if the only purpose of incarnation is to eliminate human suffering, which isn't possible if God doesn't take on suffering upon Himself. Then why does He incarnate at all, if the purpose is only to impart knowledge, teach morals etc., things which can done even without his incarnation?

Alright, let us say that the divine personality you have in mind took all the suffering and sin of his mankind upon himself at his death. Are the people of his mankind free of sins and suffering after his death? Far from it. So, as per your logic his incarnation has been pointless.

Inasmuch as Yajvan has clearly explained (post $5) that any divine incarnation is beyond the three guNas, so there would be no suffering for them, I think the alien concept of God incarnating as man to take the suffering of mankind upon himself and save them to an eternal life in the heaven looks terribly silly to me.

In the Hindu Dharma, God does NOT take avatar to mitigate the pain and suffering of the people, and 'save' them to an eternal life in the heavens. His avatar is only to destory adharma when it upsets the balance of life in the universe, and let the people lead a life of dharma. God as such or in his avatar never interferes with the general karmic process, and lets the law of karma take its own course, which is why He is considered as a just God too, besides being a God of love.

Physical presence requires a physical reason, if I may put it that way. But in Hinduism, the second half is missing and hence the concept of avatarhood makes little sense.

This is the suffering I am talking about, not the suffering of Ram losing Sita and all that. I mean suffering in the spirit of sacrifice, a noble suffering. This is entirely missing in avatars...either they're happy in their incarnations, or their sadness is only personal (as in Ram's case).

When God took avatar physically in the earlier yugas, the physical reason was to destroy the people who by their adharmic activities and domination caused immense harship to the people who led a life of dharma. When the avatar destroyed such adharmic people, it resulted in the elimination of their external sufferings. Their personal/internal sufferings still persisted due to their karma. And the incarnate God did not make a bogus statement when the time of his avatar came to an end that he took upon himself all the sufferings and sin of all the people.

God is inherently happy. Happiness in the form of bliss combined with knowledge and existence is his inner nature. When such God takes avatar, any amount of personal tribulations he undergoes in life are only his lIlA--play, that he had scripted for his role. Thus the avatar's apparent personal sufferings are only the sufferings of a character in a play.

The alien religious concept that God sent his only Son in human form to the world, who preached his message, failed in his mission, got killed by his own people and died saying that upon his death he took upon himself all the sins and suffering of his mankind, so they all would go straight to heaven, and those who do not believe in this tamAsha--joke, would go to hell is the height of ignorance and arrogance, and no discerning Hindu would subscribe to it.

[bhaktajan]

I am sorry I didn't make myself clear the first time around, so let me rephrase...

If God's incarnation is to save people, then how can He do that without taking the suffering of humanity on Himself? If He doesn't, people will have to suffer, and if they do, his incarnation would be pointless.

So it seems as if the only purpose of incarnation is to eliminate human suffering, which isn't possible if God doesn't take on suffering upon Himself. Then why does He incarnate at all, if the purpose is only to impart knowledge, teach morals etc., things which can done even without his incarnation?

Physical presence requires a physical reason, if I may put it that way. But in Hinduism, the second half is missing and hence the concept of avatarhood makes little sense.

This is the suffering I am talking about, not the suffering of Ram losing Sita and all that. I mean suffering in the spirit of sacrifice, a noble suffering. This is entirely missing in avatars...either they're happy in their incarnations, or their sadness is only personal (as in Ram's case).

Below the word "God" is replaced with the word, 'Sun Planet and its Light and heat'
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .


If Sun Planet emits its Light and heat is to save people, then how can Sun Planetdo that without taking the suffering of humanity on itself? If Sun Planet doesn't, people will have to suffer, and if they do, its Light and heat would be pointless.

So it seems as if the only purpose of the Sun's Light and heat is to eliminate human suffering, which isn't possible if Sun Planet and its Light and heat doesn't take on suffering upon itself. Then why does the Sun's Light incarnate at all, if the purpose is only to impart knowledge, teach morals etc., things which can done even without the Sun's Light?

Physical presence requires a physical reason, if I may put it that way. But in Hinduism, the second half is missing and hence the concept of avatarhood of the Sun's Light makes little sense.

. . . mean suffering in the spirit of sacrifice, a noble suffering. This is entirely missing in avatars...either they're happy in their incarnations, or their sadness is only personal (as in Ram's case).

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Is it obvious that my attempt at an analogy is to point out that grand entities perform their own dharma for the benefit of all, without prejudice?

The Sun's light shines tirelessly regardless of the pastimes of rogues and saints —at least so far.

God incarnates to please his devotees. God's pastimes are above and beyond the pastimes of humanity.

God incarnates to perform His own pastimes. God is his own person —God is not a baby-sitter. Such pastimes are so sublime that its performance accomplishes multiple goals —the significance of which benefits all souls who are blessed enough to encounter it during a lifetime, and then, later those souls can exercise their free-will to rise above their native bonds to seek out comradeship with God's entourage.

We are spirits souls in material bodies of 8,400,000 species —all doing the same thing: Eat, sleep, mate, defend. If we are seeking only these four goals, then all comforts are there —it's just that, one being is food for another. Stop volunteering to be food for another's satiation and satisfaction.

[rahulg]

In the Hindu Dharma, God does NOT take avatar to mitigate the pain and suffering of the people, and 'save' them to an eternal life in the heavens. His avatar is only to destory adharma when it upsets the balance of life in the universe, and let the people lead a life of dharma.

Again, this could be accomplished without having to incarnate...so the question remains: why incarnate, live in the human flesh for so many years, go through troubles like other humans, only to do a job (protecting dharma) that could've been done without incarnating?

God as such or in his avatar never interferes with the general karmic process, and lets the law of karma take its own course, which is why He is considered as a just God too, besides being a God of love.

So, if a person is going to die of leprosy -- suffering pain and humiliation, shunned by this world -- owing to his karma, then God won't do anything and let karma work through this. God of love, indeed! Besides, it raises another question as to whether we need a god at all when it's karma which is going to dictate and direct our lives (to such a degree that even god won't interfere in the process).

When God took avatar physically in the earlier yugas, the physical reason was to destroy the people who by their adharmic activities and domination caused immense harship to the people who led a life of dharma.

Again, this could've been done without physical manifestation...unless, of course, you believe that god is powerless.

God is inherently happy. Happiness in the form of bliss combined with knowledge and existence is his inner nature. When such God takes avatar, any amount of personal tribulations he undergoes in life are only his lIlA--play, that he had scripted for his role. Thus the avatar's apparent personal sufferings are only the sufferings of a character in a play.

Does that mean god is only pretending that he's suffering and isn't actually suffering? Why would he do that? What purpose would it serve?

[saidevo]

namaste.

You have made it clear in this and other threads that you don't consider the Hindu gods as the equivalent of Jesus of the Nazareth who claimed himself to be Christ and whose very histority is in question. Before I can discuss your points in the last post, first tell us why did Jesus (assuming that he existed) have to incarnate in human flesh, how many people he freed from sin and disease, why did his own people kill such a man of miracles, why he did he die in such ignominy, the bogus claim he made while dying that he had taken upon himself all the sins and sufferings of his mankind, and the efforts to perpetuate this silly claim.