Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 67

Thread: The concept of God or Gods?

  1. #21

    Re: The concept of God or Gods?

    Quote Originally Posted by yajvan View Post
    I look at and comprehend this slightly differently... I take no issue with what you offer, but would use your same words ( less the term 'a' ) slightly differently and say brahman is conscious being.

    I would use my own words and say brahman is Being. By default Being is consciousness itself ( some like to use the word awareness); and Being by default is anuttara ( unsurpassable).
    Why would I eliminate the term 'a' ? Because it would limit brahman, it would localize brahman, bring boundries to the infinite.

    There are some that say brahman is catuṣpād¹ ( 4 quarters) ; some say He is represented by the symbol of 10. This 10 also is the number of syllables in the meter (chandas) of virāṭ - the one the shines (rāṭ) in every form (vi).

    This chāndogyopaniṣad informs us daśa santaḥ tat kṛtam - what is created of that One becomes 10 . Hence this 10 suggests all the 10 directions¹ which infers every-thing. There is no-thing it is not. It is also nothing (ākāśa) and everything (avakāśa is to make room for all and anything).
    Pranams,

    After reading the above and thinking about it for a bit, I came to the conclusion that I cannot entirely agree with the above. Although we can accept that "being" and "consciousness" are interrelated (i.e. one presupposes the other), still there are problems with this answer.

    The original question was, "But Brahman has consciousness?" This was asked to resolve the doubt as to whether or not Brahman is an impersonal/inert thing or an entity with the property of consciousness.

    Let me show why the answer "Brahman is consciousness" or "Brahman is being" is less than helpful. Take for example, the sun. The sun has heat/warmth as one of its properties. We can thus say from a metaphorical standpoint that "sun is warmth." However, it does not follow that "warmth is sun" or that anything warm is by the very fact, the sun.

    Similarly, saying "Brahman is being" would imply that simply having the property of being/consciousness makes one Brahman. While that may reflect the views of some thinkers, it is not an obviously true statement based on our experience, nor is it obviously true based on an objective reading of shAstra. I am conscious certainly, yet I am not conscious of what you are thinking or feeling. By default, I have to assume we are two different conscious beings. Since Brahman is "one without a second," I cannot assume that all beings are Brahman by virtue of being conscious.

    Even if it is argued that saying "Brahman is a conscious being" because it "limits" Him, still I would disagree there. Such a conclusion is based on the false application of logic - we falsely conclude that because we have bodies and therefore limited existence, anything with a body must necessarily have limited existence. But such laws do not apply to Brahman, who can never come under limitation regardless of the form He takes. In this regard, I can point to Sri Krishna avatAra who repeatedly demonstrated His ability to be personally present in multiple places simultaneously, without losing any of His omnipotence. The first instance occurred after Brahmaa abducted His cowherd friends, then returned to see Krishna playing with those same cowherd friends, each of whom was seen by Brahmaa to be a form of Naaraayana:

    SB 10.13.46 — Then, while Lord Brahmā looked on, all the calves and the boys tending them immediately appeared to have complexions the color of bluish rainclouds and to be dressed in yellow silken garments.
    SB 10.13.47-48 — All those personalities had four arms, holding conchshell, disc, mace and lotus flower in Their hands. They wore helmets on Their heads, earrings on Their ears and garlands of forest flowers around Their necks. On the upper portion of the right side of Their chests was the emblem of the goddess of fortune. Furthermore, They wore armlets on Their arms, the Kaustubha gem around Their necks, which were marked with three lines like a conchshell, and bracelets on Their wrists. With bangles on Their ankles, ornaments on Their feet, and sacred belts around Their waists, They all appeared very beautiful.
    SB 10.13.49 — Every part of Their bodies, from Their feet to the top of Their heads, was fully decorated with fresh, tender garlands of tulasī leaves offered by devotees engaged in worshiping the Lord by the greatest pious activities, namely hearing and chanting.
    SB 10.13.50 — Those Viṣṇu forms, by Their pure smiling, which resembled the increasing light of the moon, and by the sidelong glances of Their reddish eyes, created and protected the desires of Their own devotees, as if by the modes of passion and goodness.
    SB 10.13.51 — All beings, both moving and nonmoving, from the four-headed Lord Brahmā down to the most insignificant living entity, had taken forms and were differently worshiping those viṣṇu-mūrtis, according to their respective capacities, with various means of worship, such as dancing and singing.
    SB 10.13.52 — All the viṣṇu-mūrtis were surrounded by the opulences, headed by aṇimā-siddhi; by the mystic potencies, headed by Ajā; and by the twenty-four elements for the creation of the material world, headed by the mahat-tattva.
    SB 10.13.53 — Then Lord Brahmā saw that kāla (the time factor), svabhāva (one’s own nature by association), saṁskāra (reformation), kāma (desire), karma (fruitive activity) and the guṇas (the three modes of material nature), their own independence being completely subordinate to the potency of the Lord, had all taken forms and were also worshiping those viṣṇu-mūrtis.
    SB 10.13.54 — The viṣṇu-mūrtis all had eternal, unlimited forms, full of knowledge and bliss and existing beyond the influence of time. Their great glory was not even to be touched by the jñānīs engaged in studying the Upaniṣads.
    A second episode occurred after Akruura came on behalf of Kamsa to take Krishna and Balaraama to Mathura. On the way, Akruura sees Naaraayana and Ananta-Shesha submerged in the water even though Krishna and Balaraama were standing on the riverbank behind him.

    SB 10.39.41 — While immersing himself in the water and reciting eternal mantras from the Vedas, Akrūra suddenly saw Balarāma and Kṛṣṇa before him.
    SB 10.39.42-43 — Akrūra thought, “How can the two sons of Ānakadundubhi, who are sitting in the chariot, be standing here in the water? They must have left the chariot.” But when he came out of the river, there They were on the chariot, just as before. Asking himself “Was the vision I had of Them in the water an illusion?” Akrūra reentered the pool.
    SB 10.39.44-45 — There Akrūra now saw Ananta Śeṣa, the Lord of the serpents, receiving praise from Siddhas, Cāraṇas, Gandharvas and demons, who all had their heads bowed. The Personality of Godhead whom Akrūra saw had thousands of heads, thousands of hoods and thousands of helmets. His blue garment and His fair complexion, as white as the filaments of a lotus stem, made Him appear like white Kailāsa Mountain with its many peaks.
    SB 10.39.46-48 — Akrūra then saw the Supreme Personality of Godhead lying peacefully on the lap of Lord Ananta Śeṣa. The complexion of that Supreme Person was like a dark-blue cloud. He wore yellow garments and had four arms and reddish lotus-petal eyes. His face looked attractive and cheerful with its smiling, endearing glance and lovely eyebrows, its raised nose and finely formed ears, and its beautiful cheeks and reddish lips. The Lord’s broad shoulders and expansive chest were beautiful, and His arms long and stout. His neck resembled a conchshell, His navel was deep, and His abdomen bore lines like those on a banyan leaf.
    A third episode occurred when Devarshi Naarada visited Sri Krishna in Dwaaraka. There, being already married to 16,108 queens, Sri Krishna was seen to be personally present with each of them simultaneously:

    SB 10.69.19 — Nārada then entered the palace of another of Lord Kṛṣṇa’s wives, my dear King. He was eager to witness the spiritual potency possessed by the master of all masters of mystic power.
    SB 10.69.20-22 — There he saw the Lord playing at dice with His beloved consort and His friend Uddhava. Lord Kṛṣṇa worshiped Nārada by standing up, offering him a seat, and so on, and then, as if He did not know, asked him, “When did you arrive? What can needy persons like Us do for those who are full in themselves? In any case, My dear brāhmaṇa, please make My life auspicious.” Thus addressed, Nārada was astonished. He simply stood up silently and went to another palace.
    SB 10.69.23 — This time Nāradajī saw that Lord Kṛṣṇa was engaged as an affectionate father petting His small children. From there he entered another palace and saw Lord Kṛṣṇa preparing to take His bath.
    SB 10.69.24 — In one place the Lord was offering oblations into the sacrificial fires; in another, worshiping through the five mahā-yajñas; in another, feeding brāhmaṇas; and in yet another, eating the remnants of food left by brāhmaṇas.
    SB 10.69.25 — Somewhere Lord Kṛṣṇa was observing the rituals for worship at sunset by refraining from speech and quietly chanting the Gāyatrī mantra, and elsewhere He was moving about with sword and shield in the areas set aside for sword practice.
    SB 10.69.26 — In one place Lord Gadāgraja was riding on horses, elephants and chariots, and in another place He was resting on His bed while bards recited His glories.
    SB 10.69.27 — Somewhere He was consulting with royal ministers like Uddhava, and somewhere else He was enjoying in the water, surrounded by many society girls and other young women.
    SB 10.69.28 — Somewhere He was giving well-decorated cows to exalted brāhmaṇas, and elsewhere he was listening to the auspicious narration of epic histories and Purāṇas.
    SB 10.69.29 — Somewhere Lord Kṛṣṇa was found enjoying the company of a particular wife by exchanging joking words with her. Somewhere else He was found engaged, along with His wife, in religious ritualistic functions. Somewhere Kṛṣṇa was found engaged in matters of economic development, and somewhere else He was found enjoying family life according to the regulative principles of the śāstras.
    A fourth episode occurred when Sri Krishna drove the chariot carrying Arjuna straight to the domain of Naaraayana Himself to retrieve the prematurely deceased sons of the Dwaaraka brahmin. There, Sri Krishna played the part of a mere charioteer, who along with Arjuna were conversing with Himself in the form Mahaa-Vishnu!


    SB 10.89.57 — Lord Kṛṣṇa offered homage to Himself in this boundless form, and Arjuna, astonished at the sight of Lord Mahā-Viṣṇu, bowed down as well. Then, as the two of them stood before Him with joined palms, the almighty Mahā-Viṣṇu, supreme master of all rulers of the universe, smiled and spoke to them in a voice full of solemn authority.
    SB 10.89.58 — [Lord Mahā-Viṣṇu said:] I brought the brāhmaṇa’s sons here because I wanted to see the two of you, My expansions, who have descended to the earth to save the principles of religion. As soon as you finish killing the demons who burden the earth, quickly come back here to Me.
    The conclusion is that nothing limits the Parama Purusha, Param Brahman Naaraayana. He can be personally present everywhere if He so chooses, and He does not lose anything by doing so. We cannot conceive of how He can do this, but the fact remains that He can. It is very difficult to conceive of what an omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient entity can do since we our own experiences are conditioned by our miniscule potency, limited presence, and limited knowledge. Fortunately, we have these chronicles of His descents to instruct us!

    regards,
    Philosoraptor

    "Wise men speak because they have something to say. Fools speak because they have to say something." - Plato

  2. #22

    Re: The concept of God or Gods?

    Quote Originally Posted by philosoraptor View Post
    Pranams,

    After reading the above and thinking about it for a bit, I came to the conclusion that I cannot entirely agree with the above. Although we can accept that "being" and "consciousness" are interrelated (i.e. one presupposes the other), still there are problems with this answer.

    The original question was, "But Brahman has consciousness?" This was asked to resolve the doubt as to whether or not Brahman is an impersonal/inert thing or an entity with the property of consciousness.

    Let me show why the answer "Brahman is consciousness" or "Brahman is being" is less than helpful. Take for example, the sun. The sun has heat/warmth as one of its properties. We can thus say from a metaphorical standpoint that "sun is warmth." However, it does not follow that "warmth is sun" or that anything warm is by the very fact, the sun.

    Similarly, saying "Brahman is being" would imply that simply having the property of being/consciousness makes one Brahman. While that may reflect the views of some thinkers, it is not an obviously true statement based on our experience, nor is it obviously true based on an objective reading of shAstra. I am conscious certainly, yet I am not conscious of what you are thinking or feeling. By default, I have to assume we are two different conscious beings. Since Brahman is "one without a second," I cannot assume that all beings are Brahman by virtue of being conscious.

    Even if it is argued that saying "Brahman is a conscious being" because it "limits" Him, still I would disagree there. Such a conclusion is based on the false application of logic - we falsely conclude that because we have bodies and therefore limited existence, anything with a body must necessarily have limited existence. But such laws do not apply to Brahman, who can never come under limitation regardless of the form He takes. In this regard, I can point to Sri Krishna avatAra who repeatedly demonstrated His ability to be personally present in multiple places simultaneously, without losing any of His omnipotence. The first instance occurred after Brahmaa abducted His cowherd friends, then returned to see Krishna playing with those same cowherd friends, each of whom was seen by Brahmaa to be a form of Naaraayana:



    A second episode occurred after Akruura came on behalf of Kamsa to take Krishna and Balaraama to Mathura. On the way, Akruura sees Naaraayana and Ananta-Shesha submerged in the water even though Krishna and Balaraama were standing on the riverbank behind him.



    A third episode occurred when Devarshi Naarada visited Sri Krishna in Dwaaraka. There, being already married to 16,108 queens, Sri Krishna was seen to be personally present with each of them simultaneously:



    A fourth episode occurred when Sri Krishna drove the chariot carrying Arjuna straight to the domain of Naaraayana Himself to retrieve the prematurely deceased sons of the Dwaaraka brahmin. There, Sri Krishna played the part of a mere charioteer, who along with Arjuna were conversing with Himself in the form Mahaa-Vishnu!



    The conclusion is that nothing limits the Parama Purusha, Param Brahman Naaraayana. He can be personally present everywhere if He so chooses, and He does not lose anything by doing so. We cannot conceive of how He can do this, but the fact remains that He can. It is very difficult to conceive of what an omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient entity can do since we our own experiences are conditioned by our miniscule potency, limited presence, and limited knowledge. Fortunately, we have these chronicles of His descents to instruct us!

    regards,
    Namaste,

    Could it be also that Brahman has consciousness but also is being, matter and everything else? It strikes me that Brahman is very advanced, far greater a concept that what is understood anywhere in the west.

    I don't personally take it that you, me or anyone else is Brahman specifically but rather we are parts of a greater whole as in the planet, galaxy, universe etc - like a strand of fabric on a garment, which on its own exists but in reality is a part of a much bigger structure.

    I won't say too much more as I am a novice still, but I think sometimes spelling things out goes some way to understanding.

    Pranams.

  3. #23
    Join Date
    September 2006
    Age
    71
    Posts
    7,705
    Rep Power
    223

    Re: The concept of God or Gods?

    hari o
    ~~~~~~

    namasté

    Quote Originally Posted by mradam83 View Post
    Could it be also that Brahman has consciousness but also is being, matter and everything else? It strikes me that Brahman is very advanced, far greater a concept that what is understood anywhere in the west.
    What you may wish to consider is the following, which is a bit advanced in thinking, but just may help. It is the notion of sarva sarvātmakaṃ.
    • sarva सर्व - everything, all; whole, completely
    • ātmakaṃ or ātmaka आत्मक- belonging to or forming the nature of
    Hence sarva + sarva + ātmaka = everything + everything all + belonging to or forming the nature of; Or in prose , everything pervades everything else.

    This brahman is so essentially fundamental to everything it is sāra. This word sāra means the essence or ~heart~ or essential part of anything. This is the notion of the term Being. It is even more subtle then space, pure, empty space (ākāśa). So by default it is the fundamental foundation of all and every and any thing. Of any thought, idea, object, non-object, creation, absence of creation, it is that fundamental to manifestion itself.

    That is why it is said it pervades everything. It is non-seperate from every and any thing. Because it is so integraded, full, whole, without seems or parts, we miss it.
    So is it consciousness ? It is considered a mass of consciousness and fundamentally the foundation of consciousness , Being.

    I rest this idea for a time as we have gone quite far past entry level ideas.

    praām
    Last edited by yajvan; 24 June 2012 at 10:40 PM.
    यतसà¥à¤¤à¥à¤µà¤‚ शिवसमोऽसि
    yatastvaṠśivasamo'si
    because you are identical with śiva

    _

  4. #24
    Join Date
    December 2007
    Age
    63
    Posts
    3,218
    Rep Power
    4728

    Re: The concept of God or Gods?

    Quote Originally Posted by mradam83 View Post
    Could it be also that Brahman has consciousness but also is being, matter and everything else?
    Namaste Adam,

    It is incorrect to say, "Consciousness has Brahman" as its Sanskrit version is : "PrjNANam Brahman". As per the grammar of Sanskrit, it cannot mean, "Brahman has consciousness". If that were so, then saptam vibhakti must have been used with Brahman i.e. it should have been written as "Brahmne" (in Brahman) in this sentence but in fact, there is first vibhakti alone which makes it KartA (the subject ... Noun).

    Therefore, it certainly means, "Consciousness is Brahman". If you study the Upanishads deep then you will find that "Everything is Brahman alone" (Sarvakhalva idam Brahman). Therefore, beings, matter and everything that we can think of or cannot think of is actually Brahman alone.

    OM
    "Om Namo Bhagvate Vaasudevaye"

  5. #25
    Join Date
    June 2010
    Location
    Kolkata
    Posts
    834
    Rep Power
    491

    Re: The concept of God or Gods?

    Dear mradam,

    Do not get overwhelmed by philosoraptor. The knowledge he might be deriving out of the scriptures is inducing many thought process, which might lead to haziness, lack of clarity or confusion of the already complex theory.

    Limit your self to Bramhan in which all are within. This is because Brahman is the infinite and nothing is beyond.

    The consciousness is the purest form from which others come into being.

    There is no begining and no end as it is a cycle of manifestation and unmanifestation.

    Being aethist, limit yourself to advaita - your alignment will be better.

    My understanding of this theory - it is the science of today + science of future.

    As because the greatness of the vast science was overwhelming even for the best minds, leave apart the normal people, thus it was packaged in terms of Gods, rituals, temples, etc. This was only to prepare the extremely extrovert minds to look inward and make ready for the knowledge inflow. Only the analytical minds (inward looking minds) can decipher the true knowledge of the scriptures.

    Thus the tradition and the religion.


    Quote Originally Posted by mradam83 View Post
    Namaste,

    Could it be also that Brahman has consciousness but also is being, matter and everything else? It strikes me that Brahman is very advanced, far greater a concept that what is understood anywhere in the west.

    I don't personally take it that you, me or anyone else is Brahman specifically but rather we are parts of a greater whole as in the planet, galaxy, universe etc - like a strand of fabric on a garment, which on its own exists but in reality is a part of a much bigger structure.

    I won't say too much more as I am a novice still, but I think sometimes spelling things out goes some way to understanding.

    Pranams.
    Love and best wishes:hug:

  6. #26

    Re: The concept of God or Gods?

    Quote Originally Posted by mradam83 View Post
    Namaste,

    Could it be also that Brahman has consciousness but also is being, matter and everything else? It strikes me that Brahman is very advanced, far greater a concept that what is understood anywhere in the west.

    I don't personally take it that you, me or anyone else is Brahman specifically but rather we are parts of a greater whole as in the planet, galaxy, universe etc - like a strand of fabric on a garment, which on its own exists but in reality is a part of a much bigger structure.
    Namaste,

    Indeed, I think you are closer to the mark than you realize. We are all part and parcel of Brahman. We are individual, eternally existing beings, and so is Brahman. We, the jIvAtmas are related to Brahman as body is related to soul. Note that this viewpoint will not be acceptable to strict Advaitins or Dvaitins (aka Tattvavaadins). If Advaita and Dvaita occupy opposite ends of the philosophical spectrum, then I am discussing a paradigm that is somewhere in the middle and which seems more in the flavor of what the shrutis actually say.

    Let us deliberate on this point (body and soul) for a moment. The soul, or jIvAtman (sometimes called just jIva or Atma*), is the seat of consciousness in the body. When the body engages in the activities of living, we can understand that the soul is present. When there is no sign of life from the body, we can understand that the soul has departed. Thus, we Hindus do not speak of "losing our soul." Rather, we say that we are souls, and we happen to have bodies.

    The body is energized by, and serves the soul. When we interact with others, we tend to refer to them by their bodily identity. We may address your body as "Adam," but it is implict that we are actually referring to you, the jIvAtma, by the name of the body in which it is dwelling. This is known in grammar as the principle of coordinate predication, the principle by which a group of things are together referred to by the name of one the things within the group. We do this all the time when we address each other by our bodily names. It is not because we are our bodies - it is because this is a grammatical convenience. Similarly, we say that the box and the wrapping enclosing a toy is a "birthday present," although really the toy within is indicated by the term "present." This does not mean that the box is the toy, - both are real-but-distinct entities clustered together and indicated by one term.

    Now, the Vedic understanding of Brahman is that He is the Paramaatma who dwells within each of us Jiivas and within every element of matter. This follows from very straightforward reading of shruti:

    bRhadAraNyaka upaniShad:

    II-v-13: This human species is (like) honey to all beings, and all beings are (like) honey to this human species. (The same with) the shining immortal being who is in this human species, and the shining, immortal being identified with the human species in the body. (These four) are but this Self. This (Self-knowledge) is (the means of) immortality; this (underlying unity) is Brahman; this (knowledge of Brahman) is (the means of becoming) all.

    II-v-14: This (cosmic) body is (like) honey to all beings, and all beings are (like) honey to this (cosmic) body. (The same with) the shining immortal being who is in this (cosmic) body, and the shining, immortal being who is this (individual) self. (These four) are but this Self. This (Self-knowledge) is (the means of) immortality; this (underlying unity) is Brahman; this (knowledge of Brahman) is (the means of becoming) all.

    II-v-15: This Self, already mentioned, is the ruler of all beings, and the king of all beings. Just as all the spokes are fixed in the nave and the felloe of a chariot-wheel, so are all beings, all gods, all worlds, all organs and all these (individual) selves fixed in this Self.

    III-vii-15: He who inhabits all beings, but is within it, whom no being knows, whose body is all beings, and who controls all beings from within, is the Internal Ruler, your own immortal self. This much with reference to the beings.
    So, if He dwells within us, then it follows that He can also be referred to by the names of the bodies in which He dwells and functions He performs in those bodies. This is just according to the principle of coordinate predication discussed earlier. In fact, this point is also alluded to in bRhadAraNyaka upaniShad:

    I-iv-7: This (universe) was then undifferentiated. It differentiated only into name and form - it was called such and such, and was of such and such form. So to this day it is differentiated only into name and form - it is called such and such, and is of such and such form. This Self has entered into these bodies up to the tip of the nails - as a razor may be put in its case, or as fire, which sustains the world, may be in its source. People do not see It, for (viewed in Its aspects) It is incomplete. When It does the function of living. It is called the vital force; when It speaks, the organ of speech; when It sees, the eye; when It hears, the ear; and when It thinks, the mind. These are merely Its names according to functions. He who meditates upon each of this totality of aspects does not know, for It is incomplete, (being divided) from this totality by possessing a single characteristic. The Self alone is to be meditated upon, for all these are unified in It. Of all these, this Self should be realised, for one knows all these through It, just as one may get (an animal) through its foot-prints. He who knows It as such obtains fame and association (with his relatives).
    Here, you can undertand that "Self" is referring to paramAtma aka Brahman. Note that, just as we can call Him prAna (vital air), vAk (speech), and so on when He performs these functions, similarly we can call Him indra, agni, vAyu, rudra, etc as He dwells within the bodies of the devas who have the same names and is their inner controller.

    Note that, by this understanding, we can easily understand how the Vedas are consistent in spite of seemingly contradictory statements. On one hand, their are statements to the effect that Brahman transcends everything, creates everything, and supports everything. These emphasize Brahman's majesty and transcendence from everything else, and thus they acknowledge the reality of entities other than Brahman which are dependent on Brahman.

    On the other hand, we also have statements like "all this is Brahman" or "Brahman only exists" or "I am Brahman." These statements should be understood as including all conscious and non-conscious entities (chetanas and achetanas) within the scope of the term "Brahman" as they constitute the body of Brahman.

    So, with this in mind, what does "self-realization" mean? It means, first and foremost, that one understands that one is the soul, and thus one is distinct from matter. But it also means that one must understand that one's self is the body of the Supreme Self that dwells within. If the body serves the soul, and we are the body of the Supreme Soul, then it follows that we have no independent existence - we are real, and we belong to Brahman. Knowing that we belong to Brahman, our every thought and action should be devoted to serving Him only.

    regards,

    philosoraptor

    * Note that "Atma" can also mean "paramAtma" (aka Brahman aka God) in some contexts, as it can also sometimes mean "mind" and "body."
    Philosoraptor

    "Wise men speak because they have something to say. Fools speak because they have to say something." - Plato

  7. #27

    Re: The concept of God or Gods?

    Quote Originally Posted by philosoraptor View Post
    Namaste,

    Indeed, I think you are closer to the mark than you realize. We are all part and parcel of Brahman. We are individual, eternally existing beings, and so is Brahman. We, the jIvAtmas are related to Brahman as body is related to soul. Note that this viewpoint will not be acceptable to strict Advaitins or Dvaitins (aka Tattvavaadins). If Advaita and Dvaita occupy opposite ends of the philosophical spectrum, then I am discussing a paradigm that is somewhere in the middle and which seems more in the flavor of what the shrutis actually say.

    Let us deliberate on this point (body and soul) for a moment. The soul, or jIvAtman (sometimes called just jIva or Atma*), is the seat of consciousness in the body. When the body engages in the activities of living, we can understand that the soul is present. When there is no sign of life from the body, we can understand that the soul has departed. Thus, we Hindus do not speak of "losing our soul." Rather, we say that we are souls, and we happen to have bodies.

    The body is energized by, and serves the soul. When we interact with others, we tend to refer to them by their bodily identity. We may address your body as "Adam," but it is implict that we are actually referring to you, the jIvAtma, by the name of the body in which it is dwelling. This is known in grammar as the principle of coordinate predication, the principle by which a group of things are together referred to by the name of one the things within the group. We do this all the time when we address each other by our bodily names. It is not because we are our bodies - it is because this is a grammatical convenience. Similarly, we say that the box and the wrapping enclosing a toy is a "birthday present," although really the toy within is indicated by the term "present." This does not mean that the box is the toy, - both are real-but-distinct entities clustered together and indicated by one term.

    Now, the Vedic understanding of Brahman is that He is the Paramaatma who dwells within each of us Jiivas and within every element of matter. This follows from very straightforward reading of shruti:

    bRhadAraNyaka upaniShad:



    So, if He dwells within us, then it follows that He can also be referred to by the names of the bodies in which He dwells and functions He performs in those bodies. This is just according to the principle of coordinate predication discussed earlier. In fact, this point is also alluded to in bRhadAraNyaka upaniShad:



    Here, you can undertand that "Self" is referring to paramAtma aka Brahman. Note that, just as we can call Him prAna (vital air), vAk (speech), and so on when He performs these functions, similarly we can call Him indra, agni, vAyu, rudra, etc as He dwells within the bodies of the devas who have the same names and is their inner controller.

    Note that, by this understanding, we can easily understand how the Vedas are consistent in spite of seemingly contradictory statements. On one hand, their are statements to the effect that Brahman transcends everything, creates everything, and supports everything. These emphasize Brahman's majesty and transcendence from everything else, and thus they acknowledge the reality of entities other than Brahman which are dependent on Brahman.

    On the other hand, we also have statements like "all this is Brahman" or "Brahman only exists" or "I am Brahman." These statements should be understood as including all conscious and non-conscious entities (chetanas and achetanas) within the scope of the term "Brahman" as they constitute the body of Brahman.

    So, with this in mind, what does "self-realization" mean? It means, first and foremost, that one understands that one is the soul, and thus one is distinct from matter. But it also means that one must understand that one's self is the body of the Supreme Self that dwells within. If the body serves the soul, and we are the body of the Supreme Soul, then it follows that we have no independent existence - we are real, and we belong to Brahman. Knowing that we belong to Brahman, our every thought and action should be devoted to serving Him only.

    regards,

    philosoraptor

    * Note that "Atma" can also mean "paramAtma" (aka Brahman aka God) in some contexts, as it can also sometimes mean "mind" and "body."
    Namaste,

    Wow, that is interesting.

    When you think of the description or notion of body parts/organs having a form of spirit then it just shows how the energies of Brahman pervades all.

    When you say that Brahman deserves worship Only, do you consider the other gods as an extension/part of Brahman?

    Pranams.

  8. #28

    Re: The concept of God or Gods?

    Quote Originally Posted by mradam83 View Post
    Namaste,

    Wow, that is interesting.

    When you think of the description or notion of body parts/organs having a form of spirit then it just shows how the energies of Brahman pervades all.

    When you say that Brahman deserves worship Only, do you consider the other gods as an extension/part of Brahman?

    Pranams.
    Yes - other devas should be seen as empowered servants of Brahman. In the shruti, we are advised to worship Brahman in different manifestations, the most notable being the sun. The twice-born perform sandhya vandanam which is often considered worship of the sun. However, in reality, it is worship of Brahman as the inner controller of the presiding deity of the sun. Why then, do brahmins worship Him in this form? Most likely, it has to do with the principle of understanding the inconceivable through one of His localized manifestations which we can understand. Just as the sun is warm, dispels darkness, is powerful, we can begin to understand that Brahman is like this, but so much, much more.

    In the same way, Vaishnavas who do sandhya vandanam invoke goddess Sarasvati also. It is not because they consider Sarasvati on par with Vishnu - it is because they are worshipping Him through Sarasvati who gives power to the faculty of speech, understanding etc. Similarly, Brahman Himself has that power in greater measure, just as He has luminosity in much greater measure than the sun. But the devas, who are less powerful and more accessible to the people, can be appreciated more easily than Brahman directly.

    It's important to understand that in the Vedic age, human interactions with devas appear to have been relatively common compared to now. So, like the sun as a focus of meditation, understanding the power and magnificence of the devas helps one to begin to understand Brahman, who is so much more.

    There is a stereotype held by Neo-Hindus that considering one deity superior to the others is belittling to them. This stereotype has no basis in any classical system of Vaishnava vedaanta. For traditional Vaishnavas, devas are correctly understood to be servants and aides of Lord Vishnu, and such positions are deemed as highly respectable by the knowledgeable bhaktas.

    regards,
    Philosoraptor

    "Wise men speak because they have something to say. Fools speak because they have to say something." - Plato

  9. #29

    Re: The concept of God or Gods?

    Quote Originally Posted by philosoraptor View Post
    Yes - other devas should be seen as empowered servants of Brahman. In the shruti, we are advised to worship Brahman in different manifestations, the most notable being the sun. The twice-born perform sandhya vandanam which is often considered worship of the sun. However, in reality, it is worship of Brahman as the inner controller of the presiding deity of the sun. Why then, do brahmins worship Him in this form? Most likely, it has to do with the principle of understanding the inconceivable through one of His localized manifestations which we can understand. Just as the sun is warm, dispels darkness, is powerful, we can begin to understand that Brahman is like this, but so much, much more.

    In the same way, Vaishnavas who do sandhya vandanam invoke goddess Sarasvati also. It is not because they consider Sarasvati on par with Vishnu - it is because they are worshipping Him through Sarasvati who gives power to the faculty of speech, understanding etc. Similarly, Brahman Himself has that power in greater measure, just as He has luminosity in much greater measure than the sun. But the devas, who are less powerful and more accessible to the people, can be appreciated more easily than Brahman directly.

    It's important to understand that in the Vedic age, human interactions with devas appear to have been relatively common compared to now. So, like the sun as a focus of meditation, understanding the power and magnificence of the devas helps one to begin to understand Brahman, who is so much more.

    There is a stereotype held by Neo-Hindus that considering one deity superior to the others is belittling to them. This stereotype has no basis in any classical system of Vaishnava vedaanta. For traditional Vaishnavas, devas are correctly understood to be servants and aides of Lord Vishnu, and such positions are deemed as highly respectable by the knowledgeable bhaktas.

    regards,
    Namaste,

    Cheers for that reply.

    I struggle to see a pantheon of separate gods, but rather like an orange - all are segments surrounded by a protective peel. I'm not sure whether the skin is Vishnu or Brahman, or whether Brahman is the tree that the orange is on.

    As I've said previously though I don't have access to earlier texts like the Vedas, I am mainly studying the Gita at present.

    Pranams.

  10. #30
    Join Date
    September 2006
    Age
    71
    Posts
    7,705
    Rep Power
    223

    Re: The concept of God or Gods?

    hari o
    ~~~~~~

    namasté

    Quote Originally Posted by mradam83 View Post
    As I've said previously though I don't have access to earlier texts like the Vedas, ....
    Working, reading and studying the bhāgavad gītā is very good and grooms one's intellect. It is called the cream of the veda-s.

    Regarding the veda-s
    Many times people read the ved and look to its literal meaning. This ( many times to most often) causes confusion between the word, intent, and the subtle meaning of what is being offered.


    The ved works within parokṣa, saṃketa and śailī to give us a deeper sense of the truth. What are these words ?
    • parokṣa- beyond the range of sight ; in an invisible or imperceptible manner; secretly , mysteriously
      • We can consider this word to mean subtle, beyond the initial meaning.
    • The other approach is saṃketa - a hint , sign or signal or gesture . It is rooted (√ ) in kṛ ' to give a signal '.
    • śailī (2nd derivation) is a special or particular interpretation
    Why does this occur ? Some think it is to keep hidden some of the deeper truths and only meter them out to the worthy. Those that pursue the knowledge to go deeper and wider into the knowlege. Others think it is written for those that are realized beings, who will know what the śloka-s mean and will preserve the accuracy and meaning of the wisdom. Then there are others that use the aitareya upaniṣad - 1st adhyāya, 3rd kanda (or chapter 1 part 3)
    as a guide.

    This upaniṣad informs us parokṣa priya iva hi devaḥ - that is, the devatā are fond or like (priya) to be addressed in a certain manner
    (iva) , parokṣa or secretly, indirect, accordingly (hi). What would be an example of this ? The very same upaniṣad informs us that indra's name is idandraṁ¹. Because the devatā's like the indirect method he is known as indra.

    One does not need to look far into the ṛg (rig) ved to find additional examples .

    praṇām

    words
    • idandraṁ is a very unique word form. Some tell us it comes from idam adarśam iti.
      • idam = this or that; it also means known
      • adarśam = can be viewed as ā-darśa and means a mirror.
      • iti = thus
    Hence this says to me idandraṁ is a reflection (adarśam) of that (idam). Others say idandraṁ means 'It seeing' (It darśa). In both cases what is being seen or reflected ? That or brahman.
    यतसà¥à¤¤à¥à¤µà¤‚ शिवसमोऽसि
    yatastvaṠśivasamo'si
    because you are identical with śiva

    _

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

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

Similar Threads

  1. The incomparability of Hinduism
    By Kumar_Das in forum Dvaita
    Replies: 25
    Last Post: 15 June 2011, 04:31 AM
  2. VOID Void void
    By bhaktajan in forum Canteen
    Replies: 140
    Last Post: 14 November 2009, 11:31 PM

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
  •