Could it be? :)

[veena]

On a forum today that I joined someone posed a question -- Is Hindu God patheistic -- i.e. Not a being as such but a force that resides within everything in the whole universe. I was actually very intrigued by this statement so which I responded and said, I think that is the fundamental idea and knowledge that encompasses much of Hindu thought. Was I right in saying this?

[jakethejake]

I feel like this may differ from person to person.

for me, the answer would be a resounding "yes"

I'm a physics and mathematics student. When people ask me how I can have a religion if I'm a physicist, I say, "I see g-d everyday in my work! he is gravity, he is the laws of the universe. he is that.. and more" I see evidence in the elegance and perfection of the cosmos. G-d is the one who holds it together, while containing it at the same time.

I use the universal "he", but only because it is easier to speak of G-d when personified.

I feel that distinction is one that Hinduism constantly hovers around.

One needs to personify G-d, to be able to learn unconditional love. Once a person achieves that, they expand their definition of G-d, and in turn, show unconditional love to everything.

We cannot name G-d, so we use names to describe aspects of G-d. So even in personifying G-d, we are simply personifying attributes of G-d.

[yajvan]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namasté

"I see g-d everyday in my work! he is gravity, he is the laws of the universe. he is that.. and more" I see evidence in the elegance and perfection of the cosmos. G-d is the one who holds it together, while containing it at the same time.

...it is easier to speak of G-d when personified.

...to personify G-d, to be able to learn unconditional love. Once a person achieves that, they expand their definition of G-d, and in turn, show unconditional love to everything.

We cannot name G-d, so we use names to describe aspects of G-d. So even in personifying G-d, we are simply personifying attributes of G-d.

It is quite fine and appropriate (and welcomed) to use the name God, Supreme, anuttara, etc. on this forum.

praṇām

[jakethejake]

^^ old habit

[veena]

One of things you said was ---- I use the universal "he", but only because it is easier to speak of G-d when personified.

This is actually true, the universal spirit is a "he." The spirit of brahman -- that which is beyond human mind can understand is a male.

I like to associated OM with it ----- am I wrong in thinking this based on personal experiences? are there people out there who think the same thing?

Does any of the literature connect OM to Brahman?

Veena

I feel like this may differ from person to person.

for me, the answer would be a resounding "yes"

I'm a physics and mathematics student. When people ask me how I can have a religion if I'm a physicist, I say, "I see g-d everyday in my work! he is gravity, he is the laws of the universe. he is that.. and more" I see evidence in the elegance and perfection of the cosmos. G-d is the one who holds it together, while containing it at the same time.

I use the universal "he", but only because it is easier to speak of G-d when personified.

I feel that distinction is one that Hinduism constantly hovers around.

One needs to personify G-d, to be able to learn unconditional love. Once a person achieves that, they expand their definition of G-d, and in turn, show unconditional love to everything.

We cannot name G-d, so we use names to describe aspects of G-d. So even in personifying G-d, we are simply personifying attributes of G-d.

[jakethejake]

I'm not sure about that. I certainly don't think of God as distinctly a He or She. As I stated, I simply use "he" for convenience's sake, no actual gender is implied.

[R Gitananda]

namaste veena,

Language has limitation. Of course you are free to associate OM with the Supreme,
whereas others (including me) prefer the more personable "he".

For Vaishnav's the two most prominent avatars of Sri Vishnu were Sri Ramji and
Sri Krushna who were male forms, so "he" is very appropriate. Bear in mind that Sri
Vishnu also had one female form also and for shaktas the supreme is considered a "she".

Hari Aum

One of things you said was ---- I use the universal "he", but only because it is easier to speak of G-d when personified.

This is actually true, the universal spirit is a "he." The spirit of brahman -- that which is beyond human mind can understand is a male.

I like to associated OM with it ----- am I wrong in thinking this based on personal experiences? are there people out there who think the same thing?

Does any of the literature connect OM to Brahman?

Veena

[devotee]

Namaste Veena,

Does any of the literature connect OM to Brahman?

There are many. Some important ones are Kathopanishad and MAndukya Upanishad.

Namsate jakethjake,

Are you a Jew ? Why do you avoid using the term "God" ?

OM

[jakethejake]

Nope, not jewish. Have quite a few jewish friends, but I personally identify as Hindu.

My other comment, I suppose wasn't approved yet, and I'm not sure if this one will be approved before or after the other... lol

but it's just an old habit, I always found the Jewish idea of not trying to name God, because God is such an abstraction, quite meaningful. These days, it's a nice reminder to me of that, that's all, keeping me aware of the absoluteness of God.


Really, what is ritual, but a way to keep you conscious and aware of god in your daily life. That's all the concept of typing G-d does for me

[Seeker123]

This is actually true, the universal spirit is a "he." The spirit of brahman -- that which is beyond human mind can understand is a male.


Does any of the literature connect OM to Brahman?

Veena

Brahman is limitless and all pervading. If you say he arent you limiting it?

Mandukaya Upanishad discusses OM at length and connects it to Brahman.