Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 12

Thread: Could it be? :)

  1. #1

    Could it be? :)

    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?

  2. #2

    Re: Could it be? :)

    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.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    September 2006
    Age
    67
    Posts
    7,705
    Rep Power
    216

    Re: Could it be? :)

    hari o
    ~~~~~~

    namasté

    Quote Originally Posted by jakethejake View Post
    "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
    यतस्त्वं शिवसमोऽसि
    yatastvaṁ śivasamo'si
    because you are identical with śiva

    _

  4. #4

    Re: Could it be? :)

    ^^ old habit

  5. #5

    Re: Could it be? :)

    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






    Quote Originally Posted by jakethejake View Post
    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.

  6. #6

    Re: Could it be? :)

    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.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    August 2011
    Location
    Arizona, USA
    Posts
    183
    Rep Power
    229

    Re: Could it be? :)

    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


    Quote Originally Posted by veena View Post
    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
    Last edited by R Gitananda; 08 March 2012 at 10:11 AM.
    With our ears may we hear what is good.
    With our eyes may we behold thy righteousness.
    Tranquil in body, may we who worship thee find rest.

    AUM Peace Peace Peace

  8. #8
    Join Date
    December 2007
    Age
    59
    Posts
    3,218
    Rep Power
    4720

    Re: Could it be? :)

    Namaste Veena,

    Quote Originally Posted by 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
    "Om Namo Bhagvate Vaasudevaye"

  9. #9

    Re: Could it be? :)

    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

  10. #10

    Re: Could it be? :)

    Quote Originally Posted by veena View Post
    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.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

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

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
  •