Perplexed

[TheOne]

Right now I have my feet semi-stable in Sanatana Dharma I certainly don't know everything THAT would take lifetimes. But I have a few questions regarding the Gods and want to know if I'm on the right track. From a symbolic perspective I see that a lot of things can be objects of prayer even figures from other religions and famous Hindu saints. And from the mystical perspective the Gods have form and take up space in a higher plane of reality.

Right now, I subscribe to a bit of both of these beliefs yes, I believe that the symbolism is important as it tries to convey the point that ultimately(from advaita perspective) all these gods are already in you you just have to realize it. But I also believe(like many other forum users) that dvaita comes first and then Advaita and I believe there are the gods in other realms of existence and that they are not bound by time and space.

Now, the questions(only two) : )

1. What is the Shaivite view of the Bhagavad Gita
2. This question has been bothering me for a real long time. Why isn't there a sect devoted to Brahma O.o? He *is* the creator after all and part of the trimurti? I haven't been able to get a clear answer anywhere else. Thanks in advance.

Namaste

[yajvan]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namasté TheOne,

From a kaśmir śaivism point of view regarding the bhāgavad gītā, Abhinavagupta-ji's commentary on the bhāgavad gītā is called gitārtha¹ saṁgraha.
Not many have read this. The beauty of this offering is saṁgraha. What does this mean ?

Saṁgraha is collecting , gathering , conglomeration , accumulation yet it also is defined as drawing together , making narrower , narrowing , tightening. This is the great point of his offer. At the end of each chapter he offers this saṁgraha, a summary verse of the chapter that has just concluded.

Perhaps ( via your initiative) you may wish to read this work - then you can compare and contrast it to other translations and key main points.

Regarding brahma - others on HDF will offer the story. One may need to be mindful of the following:
brahma is used for nirguṇa brahman (the Absolute, some say impersonal Spirit) and brahmā for saguṇa brahman, that with qualities.

praṇām

1. gitārtha = gīta - sung , chanted , praised in songs + artha- substance, aim, purpose

[Sahasranama]

Right now I have my feet semi-stable in Sanatana Dharma I certainly don't know everything THAT would take lifetimes. But I have a few questions regarding the Gods and want to know if I'm on the right track. From a symbolic perspective I see that a lot of things can be objects of prayer even figures from other religions and famous Hindu saints. And from the mystical perspective the Gods have form and take up space in a higher plane of reality.

Right now, I subscribe to a bit of both of these beliefs yes, I believe that the symbolism is important as it tries to convey the point that ultimately(from advaita perspective) all these gods are already in you you just have to realize it. But I also believe(like many other forum users) that dvaita comes first and then Advaita and I believe there are the gods in other realms of existence and that they are not bound by time and space.

I like to quote some of Aurobindo's words here.

The Krishna consciousness is a reality, but if there were no Krishna, there could be no Krishna consciousness; except in arbitrary metaphysical abstractions there can be no consciousness without a Being who is conscious. It is the person who gives value and reality to the personality , he expresses himself in it and is not constituted by it. Krishna is a being, a person and it is as the Divine Person that we meet him, hear his voice, speak with him and feel his presence. To speak of the consciousness of Krishna as something separate from Krishna is an error of the mind, which is always separating the inseparable and which also tends to regard the impersonal, because it is abstract, as greater, more real and more enduring than the person. Such divisions may be useful to the mind for its own purposes, but it is not the real truth; in the real truth the being or person and its impersonality or state of being are one reality. ~Aurobindo

Now, the questions(only two) : )

1. What is the Shaivite view of the Bhagavad Gita

As Yajvan has said, Abhinavagupta has written a commentary on the Bhagavad Gita from a Kashmir Shaivism perspective. I did not have the time to study this work yet, but if you are interested you can find the Sanskrit and English commentary on the Gita Supersite.

1. This question has been bothering me for a real long time. Why isn't there a sect devoted to Brahma O.o? He *is* the creator after all and part of the trimurti? I haven't been able to get a clear answer anywhere else. Thanks in advance.

Namaste

There is a story in the Brahmavaivarta Purana about this, maybe I can find it later if you are interested in an explanation from a puranic perspective.

[saidevo]

namaste TheOne.

A symbol, especially in the form of an image, represents the physical form of a god, while the power that descends gradually on it after the image is sanctified duly, and as its sAnnidhyam--sanctity, increases by the pujas and rituals conducted to the image, is the mystic form of the image, a formful manifestation of The One in other words.

Just as you can tune in to a radio station with the exact frequency, with the right devotional vibration, a devotee can perceive the mystic form through the physical image. All the Hindu puja and temple rituals are geared towards enhancing this vibration.

All this is dvaita, of course, because the devotee, not sufficiently aware of the Self in him, feels himself to be different from the deity and performs the puja or ritual to make a connection.

It takes time and persistent efforts, even to know intellectually, the Oneness of the Self, whereas devotion in duality soon becomes second nature, because it is a common feature in all religions. Unless and until there is experiential knowledge of the Self, and the sAdhana--accomplishment, to sustain it, the duality between the devotee and the deity will be hard to overcome.

When Self-Realization is established, the devotee would find himself, the deity and his devotion all merge into an Absolute Unity. But then, our Advaita sages say, that a person who wants to become an Advaitin, should gradually establish the bhAvana--mental frame, of this unity in his pujas and rituals. In other words, when doing a puja, the devotee should think that he is doing it to his own Atman--Self, rather than an external deity.

As to your question on why the Creator deity BrahmA is not worshipped or has no sect of followers, apart from the purANic story, this analogy might help:

Our house is planned by an architect, who is practically its creator. Once the house is ready, we make it our home by pervading it with our personality, but do we ever consider the architect to be part of the family? Or even call him to our household functions beyond the house warming ceremony? Yet, we are always aware of his planning and design practically every brick, iron and peace of wood, while we live in the house. In other words, the architect becomes part of the family by the knowledge he has manifested in the making and form of the house. In the same way, God BrahmA is worshipped through his consort Goddess SarasvatI, the goddess of knowledge.

In the whole of India, there are only two temples dedicated to BrahmA: one in Rajasthan, another in Orissa:
http://www.thegreenhouseresort.com/Pushkar_Temples.htm

Of course, God BrahmA is worshipped in the Vedic rituals in the name of PrajApati.

[TheOne]

Thank you for your help both of you. The thing is that I'm leaning more towards Shaivite philosophy and I identify more with the form of Shiva as God but I also read the Bhagavad Gita and try to live my life according to the principles set forward in there. If anyone has any life experiences to share that are similar to mine that would help very much

[Sahasranama]

Just as you can tune in to a radio station with the exact frequency, with the right devotional vibration, a devotee can perceive the mystic form through the physical image. All the Hindu puja and temple rituals are geared towards enhancing this vibration.

All this is dvaita, of course, because the devotee, not sufficiently aware of the Self in him, feels himself to be different from the deity and performs the puja or ritual to make a connection.

Namaste Saidevo,

I have heard Swami Satyananda (the white one) say in a lecture that bhakti is dvaita by definition. I don't necessarily agree with that, ananya bhakti can also be advaita.

[TheOne]

I don't know if this is wrong but I feel a strong affinity for Brahma. I know it's rare for people to worship Brahma and that there are only 2 temples in all of India devoted to him. But whenever I think of Brahma I think of the person who made the props and directed the lighting for the play/ divine lila. I am aslo particualry drawn to the Jnana Yoga or Path of knowledge which many associate with Brahma.

This is where I got a lot of my info on Brahma
http://www.hinduwebsite.com/hinduism/hindutrinity.asp

[sunyata07]

Namaste TheOne,

It's nice to see how well you are coming along with getting the answers that might have been floating around your head sometime around Sanatana Dharma. Believe me, it will indeed take a lifetime to learn all there is know. Since I began to study Vedic philosophy and Hindu religion in general I used to feel very troubled at not knowing everything at once as I was used to in my old faiths. Since then, I have learned the value of patience and have begun to appreciate that it's ok to take one's time in learning more about the eternal faith. As with your education, a slow accumulation of knowledge can have its advantages over cramming the night before an exam. Remember that that which grows slowly, grows well.

Symbolism is important, yes, because it serves as reminders for how we should conduct ourselves and live rightfully according to Dharma. Through various manifestations and gestures, the Supreme Being leaves us little reminders about what We are and the way in which we can reach union in Him. And yet, you must be aware that it cannot be written off simply as "symbolism". Please don't explain it like this to non-Hindus who are curious about the different Devas; at least, don't simplify it and make them think it is all down to symbolism and nothing more than that. Such thinking might lead some to believe that these celestial beings are merely figments of our imaginations.

1. Why isn't there a sect devoted to Brahma O.o? He *is* the creator after all and part of the trimurti? I haven't been able to get a clear answer anywhere else. Thanks in advance.

Good question. I wondered this from the start of my bhakti yoga practices. Coming from a Catholic background, it was hard to understand why Hindus did not revere Brahma as much as He would be, construed on the part of Christians and followers of Abrahamic religions, where God is seen as the Creator. Saidevo has already answered the question very well. It's considered amongst Hindu tradition that the age of creation (in which Lord Brahma would have been the dominant force fashioning the universe) is over and, with it, the need to pray to Him formally. From this, you might understand why Lords Vishnu and Shiva (maintenance and destruction/renewal) are more widely worshipped as the world is now being perpetuated, decaying and then being recreated by these latter aspects of Trimurti.

I don't know if this is wrong but I feel a strong affinity for Brahma. I know it's rare for people to worship Brahma and that there are only 2 temples in all of India devoted to him. But whenever I think of Brahma I think of the person who made the props and directed the lighting for the play/ divine lila. I am aslo particualry drawn to the Jnana Yoga or Path of knowledge which many associate with Brahma.

There is nothing wrong about your feeling an affinity to Brahma. Just because His type of worship is not as popular as it once was, does not mean that no Hindus pray to Him anymore! After all, each birth is a testament to His aspect. Each time you set out to create something, with the help of Maa Saraswati (knowledge), you work through Lord Brahma. It is true, we are all being pulled by the many different faces of God, but don't be fooled by the illusion of duality that makes you think Brahma is any different from Vishnu or Shiva. They are the same. Imagine a ray of light refracting through a diamond, casting a spectrum of beautiful colours. To our eye, these colours appear different. Divided. In fact, this is actually an optical illusion. You cannot separate them. This is the same with Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva. They are just One.

Om namah Shivaya

[TheOne]

They are the same. Imagine a ray of light refracting through a diamond, casting a spectrum of beautiful colours. To our eye, these colours appear different. Divided. In fact, this is actually an optical illusion. You cannot separate them. This is the same with Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva. They are just One.

I know that ultimately everything is Advaita. But because that is so what is the difference between the different sects? I know Vashnavism is more monotheistic and bhakti oriented and Shavaism is more monistic and meditation oriented.

[yajvan]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namasté

kaśmir śaivism point of view regarding the bhāgavad gītā, Abhinavagupta-ji's commentary on the bhāgavad gītā
is called gitārtha saṁgraha

One would find that abhinavagupta-ji's view is that of paramādvaita ( the highest-supreme view of non-duality). One would also find 15 additional śloka-s in the kaśmiri version.

praṇām