How do you view the Gods?

[devotee]

Pranam

Strange this question and some off the answer even more somber.

I don�t think I can ever understand advaita.
God or gods are teachers there is a belief in them yet he can not exist literally or he is figment of our imagination and takes shape as per our desire wow!

Is it our na�ve understanding of advaita that kill off gods?

Why would Shankracharya write those verses if in final analysis there was no such image?
"Let my every word be a prayer to Thee,
Every movement of my hands a ritual gesture to Thee,
Every step I take a circumambulation of Thy image,
Every morsel I eat a rite of sacrifice to Thee,
Every time I lay down a prostration at Thy feet;
Every act of personal pleasure and all else that I do,
Let it all be a form of worshiping Thee."

--Verse 27 of Shri Adi Shankara's 'saundaryalaharI'
Why bhaja Govinda?

What was the need for him to establish temples?

This is what lord Krishna says
The ignorant ones, not knowing My supreme natures as the great Lord of all beings, disregard Me when I assume human form. (9.11)
　
But great souls, O Arjuna, who possess divine qualities (See 16.01-03) know Me as the (material and efficient) cause of creation and imperishable, and worship Me single-mindedly. (9.13)

Though I am eternal, imperishable, and the Lord of all beings; yet I (voluntarily) manifest by controlling My own material nature using My Yoga-Maya. (4.06)

I can not but laugh or even cry when someone in his/ her final analysis reading advaita, without really actually having any realisation kill off the Gods.

Jai Shree Krishna

Namaste GP ji,

I think you got a wrong message from my post, if that has triggered the above post. I think you may like to have a re-look at the post.

I would say, "All forms of God are as real as we are", if that satisfies you.

OM

[saidevo]

namaste everyone.

Devotee said in post no.11:
"I would say, "All forms of God are as real as we are", if that satisfies you."

This is correct for the humans, but PurANas mention that the worlds of Gods have existences beyond that of the universe. Therefore, the reality of Gods transcend the reality of the human world.

The divine worlds in subtle form are populated by devas, gandharvas, kiMnaras, kimpuruShas, etc., and their consorts, all of who represent positive forces and a whole lot of beings representing negative forces, such as, the asuras, rAkShasas, nAgas, etc. This population is ruled over and guided by the leaders among them who are under the domain of the TrimUrtis and their consorts.

The inhabitants of the divine worlds, whether they are devagaNa--of the deva race, or asuragaNa--of the asura race, are under the influence of the triguNa--sattva, rajas, tamas--in their life and work. Their chances of Self-Realization are far less than those for the humans, which is one reason that PurANas describe the devas and asuras as seeking to disrupt the tapas and yajnas of the Rishis. Perhaps the only clan among the devas who are always in contemplation of their Self are the DevaRishis like NArada.

Whereas the TrimUrtis, their Consorts and other Gods who are our IShTadevatas, are all auspicious in nature, although their lIlAs often demand a play of guNas.

• The normal order of reference to the TrimUrtis is brahmA-viShNu-shiva, for creation-preservation-dissoluation. All the TrimUrtis are described in the PurANas as constantly meditating on their Atman which is Brahman, which keeps them auspicious at all times.

• The normal order of reference to the Consorts of the TrimUrtis is durgA-lakShmI-sarasvatI. This order is perhaps an indication that in Creation, the world is driven by the play of passion and fury, followed by the craze for wealth and power, with knowledge and wisdom taking the back seat. The TridevIs themselves are described as always in meditation, and the order indicates that their essential nature is auspiciousness, wisdom and knowledge.

Thus, the ultimate reality is only Brahman, which is Absolute, Infinite and Eternal. All other realities--of human and divine worlds--are only relative, although completely real in their own domain of time and space.

[Ganeshprasad]

Pranam devotee ji

Namaste GP ji,

I think you got a wrong message from my post, if that has triggered the above post. I think you may like to have a re-look at the post.

I would say, "All forms of God are as real as we are", if that satisfies you.

OM

No my friend your post did not trigger my response, if it was i would have addressed you directly.
Let Gods not be as real as we for my satisfaction, we offer respect and worship to them because they are real. Ok i have not seen them but then i did not see my Grandfather either.

Jai Shree Krishna

[Sahasranama]

LoL @ people debating whether the gods are real on a hindu forum.

[Riverwolf]

LoL @ people debating whether the gods are real on a hindu forum.

And that's why I love Hinduism. ^_^

[Ganeshprasad]

Pranam Saidevo ji
nice post, i like to pick on your last sentence if i may

namaste everyone.

All other realities--of human and divine worlds--are only relative, although completely real in their own domain of time and space.

In other words beyond time and space those completely real has no reality, is that it.or am i reading it wrong?

I appreciate the material nature is for ever changing, even though it is part of the same Brahman, yes it is mentioned even the BrahmLok is also temporary but are Jivas temporary let alone Devas? this is what Lord Krishna says

There was never a time when I, you, or these kings did not exist; nor shall we ever cease to exist in the future. (2.12)

Jai Shree Krishna

[Ao]

There was never a time when I, you, or these kings did not exist; nor shall we ever cease to exist in the future. (2.12)

I understand this verse to mean that as we, and everything else, including the gods, are all part of Brahman, there is never a time that 'we' don't exist as Brahman always has existed and always will--in one form or another or no form at all. This interpretation, I think, fits well with multiple universes that have their own cycles of birth, death, and rebirth.

[Ao]

And that's why I love Hinduism. ^_^

Seconded!!

[-Aashna_Namaste-]

I also agree, I love Hinduism! It gives you a lot of freedom, and there are no rules and doctrins to bind you. I am new to the faith so bear with me. Even though I just started practicing the faith, I highly respect the gods. I listen to Krishna Das everyday and chant along with him as I have pictures of Krishna and Ganesha in front of to worship. I connect the most with them. I take things seriously. I eventually hop to be very devout in my faith. One Rule I go by...my self rule..."Praise The Gods Always, for they gave u a life. They gave you a heart and they gave you a soul, so worship them and be thankful your alive."

[saidevo]

namaste Ganeshprasad ji.

I think we are using different words to describe the same Reality which is ekam--only one.

When I said, "All other realities--of human and divine worlds--are only relative, although completely real in their own domain of time and space."

and you read it as "In other words beyond time and space those completely real has no reality, is that it.or am i reading it wrong?"

we both are right because I talk from the perspective of jIvas and you from the perspective of shrI KRShNa the Self in us.

I am not proficient in the GItA as you are, but shrI KRShNa's declaration in verse 2.12 raises some points:

na tvevAhaM jAtu nAsaM na tvaM neme janAdhipAH |
na chaiva na bhaviShyAmaH sarve vayamataH param || 2.12 }}

In fact, there was never a time when I or you or these kings, were non-existent. Nor is it right that we shall cease to be in future.
--Translation from the Gita Press publication.

• Notably, this verse occurs in chapter 2 which is titled 'SAMkhya Yoga'.

‣ So, does shrI KRShNa echo in this verse the SAMkhya philosophy of many PuruShas which are different as divine, human, animal and vegetable souls but conceived as eternal and not phenomenal only in their plurality?

‣ Or does he say that 'I, you and these kings' are different only in our bodies and have a common, identical reality which is beyond the time of past, present and future, thus echoing the philosophy of the VedAnta?

‣ Although shrI KRShNa seems to identify himself with Arjuna and the Kings in this verse, in another verse (4.5) he makes a clear distinction between divine and human souls: "You and I have taken many births. I know them all, while you don't know."

‣ When he talks of 'many births', he implies the perishable nature of the bodies; and when he talks of the eternalness of 'I, you and these kings', does he mean the-many-but-eternal PuruShas behind the bodies, or the one Self that unites them all?

• Another interesting point in verse 2.12 is that when shrI KRiShNa says, 'I, you and these kings', he implies the three persons 'I, you and they': "I AM eternal, so you ARE and they ARE; essentially, WE ARE eternal."

‣ The personal identification by 'AM' in 'I' indicates the perception of an individual ego, a jIvAtman. The same ego perceives another jIvAtma as 'you' and yet others as 'they', using the second/third person reference 'ARE' and perceiving them as different. What shrI KRShNa does in this verse is to unite everyone with the implication 'WE ARE eternal.'

‣ The distinctions of 'I, you and they' arise in the mind and intellect whose physical counterpart is the brain. The unification of 'we' arises in the wisdom of buddhi which is identified as love related to the heart. Arjuna is confused between the issues of the mind and heart and shrI KRShNa teaches him that in waging this war of dharma he would only be killing bodies as the souls behind them are identical and imperishable.

Essentially, IMHO, as shrI KRShNa talks of 'many births' even for the Gods, and at the same time says that the souls, whether divine or human or lesser, are all eternal and imperishable, his intention is to unite the bhAgavata--deity, and the bhakta--devotee in the Self that is Atman and Brahman, and only which is absolutely eternal.