The concept of God or Gods?

[mradam83]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namast�


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 idandraṁ�. 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.

Namaste,

Looking at your explanation and write-up on the Vedas, it makes me wonder if when the Vedas are described as having no author if it means that the subject has no author but rather it was wrote down by someone who knows the universal truths? It strikes me as that only those with the right sort of mind can truly grasp the truths contained.

Pranams.

[philosoraptor]

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.

Pranams.

If it helps, the "gods" can be seen not as "gods" but as long-living mortals filled by pious jivas. Note that many Neo-Hindus will not like this position, but it is the position that is upheld by shAstra. We don't say that Christianity is polytheistic because it has angels, for example. However, unlike Christianity, worship of Brahman as the indwelling controller of the devas is allowed, as is worship of Brahman in conjunction with the devas as His associates.

Brahman is Vishnu. Brahman is Indra. Brahman is Shiva. Brahman is Rudra, etc. These are true statements because, being the creator of all other devas who have names according to their functions/qualities, He must also have those qualities in fuller measure and also can be indicated by the same names. Furthermore, He is the indwelling controller of other devas who have these names.

The name Naaraayana, however, refers only to Brahman according to rules of Sanskrit grammar. The blue-skinned deity with four arms carrying conch and chakra, known as Vishnu, and associated with Lakshmi should not be understood as merely one of the devas but as Brahman aka Naaraayana Himself. This point is clearly stated in shAstra. However, there are some references to another deity by the name Vishnu that may be a different entity.

Bhagavad-gita is sufficient to understand the essence of the Vedas.

regards,

[yajvan]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namast�

Namaste,
Looking at your explanation and write-up on the Vedas, it makes me wonder if when the Vedas are described as having no author if it means that the subject has no author but rather it was wrote down by someone who knows the universal truths? It strikes me as that only those with the right sort of mind can truly grasp the truths contained.
Pranams.

Let's see if I can add some ideas to what you have said. The veda-s are not of human origion... the word for this is apauruṣeya and defined as 'not coming from men'.
Let's give an example that may be easier to appreciate. Think of gravity. It has been here before humans and will be here after humans. It is apauruṣeya , yet Newton and others were able to understand it and write equations to define this phenomenon. All the laws of nature have been here before humans , the human was not the author of the laws, but have been able to observe and record the laws.


Like that, various ṛṣi-s were able to cognize the truth's of the Universe. Their instrument is consciousness, some call this ṛtambharā praj�ā �, a level of consciousness that only knows the truth.


So, your words ring true.

praṇām

words

• ṛtambharā praj�ā - we find this in the 48th sūtra of pata�jali�s yogadarśana:It is talked about as ṛtambharā praj�ā - luminous wisdom that is carried out , brought out, some may say sung out.
  It is knowledge with no hint of viparyaya ( the filters). The 48th sūtra reads this way: ṛtambharā tatra praj�ā ||

Supreme Truth (ṛtambharā) inner wisdom (praj�ā) rises, and prevails in that place (tatra) That is, a level of consciousness that only sees the truth. The wise also call this full of unalloyed Truth. One's awareness holds truth, sees truth, with no trace of misconception.
This ṛtambharā happens when one gains proficiency; This proficiency can be called pure consciousness, yet the technical term used by pata�jali-muni is nirvichāra.

[mradam83]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namast�


Let's see if I can add some ideas to what you have said. The veda-s are not of human origion... the word for this is apauruṣeya and defined as 'not coming from men'.
Let's give an example that may be easier to appreciate. Think of gravity. It has been here before humans and will be here after humans. It is apauruṣeya , yet Newton and others were able to understand it and write equations to define this phenomenon. All the laws of nature have been here before humans , the human was not the author of the laws, but have been able to observe and record the laws.


Like that, various ṛṣi-s were able to cognize the truth's of the Universe. Their instrument is consciousness, some call this ṛtambharā praj�ā �, a level of consciousness that only knows the truth.


So, your words ring true.

praṇām

words

• ṛtambharā praj�ā - we find this in the 48th sūtra of pata�jali�s yogadarśana:It is talked about as ṛtambharā praj�ā - luminous wisdom that is carried out , brought out, some may say sung out.
  It is knowledge with no hint of viparyaya ( the filters). The 48th sūtra reads this way: ṛtambharā tatra praj�ā ||

Supreme Truth (ṛtambharā) inner wisdom (praj�ā) rises, and prevails in that place (tatra) That is, a level of consciousness that only sees the truth. The wise also call this full of unalloyed Truth. One's awareness holds truth, sees truth, with no trace of misconception.
This ṛtambharā happens when one gains proficiency; This proficiency can be called pure consciousness, yet the technical term used by pata�jali-muni is nirvichāra.

Namaste,

Yes, that is a perfect analogy - like when Newton understood the concept of gravity before any other human did.

I think it would be different for a human to experience pure consciousness these days, particularly in the west, as we appear to be having an increasingly busier and mentally challenging life.

Pranams.

[yajvan]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namasté

Namaste,
I think it would be different for a human to experience pure consciousness these days, particularly in the west, as we appear to be having an increasingly busier and mentally challenging life.

Busier perhaps, but there are thousands that experience it every day. One needn't go anther further then their own Selves for this experience. The ~technique~ is to have this occur in an orderly manner, not haphazardly. When it occurs haphazardly then the person does not know what occured - as if if something came out of the blue. Hence the value of an approach and a teacher.

praṇām

[mradam83]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namast�



Busier perhaps, but there are thousands that experience it every day. One needn't go anther further then their own Selves for this experience. The ~technique~ is to have this occur in an orderly manner, not haphazardly. When it occurs haphazardly then the person does not know what occured - as if if something came out of the blue. Hence the value of an approach and a teacher.

praṇām

Namaste,

Yes, a teacher I suppose is invaluable - especially if it's someone who is very spiritual.

Pranams.

[yogibear]

Brahman is the only God and has no name or form. Everything is contained in Brahman. Brahman manages all that is created through many subtle divine forces. Highly evolved Yogis have glimpsed these subtle forces at work and have given personal forms to them so that ordinary people may worship them. Since it is not possible to imagine Brahman, these personal forms will make it simpler for ordinary people to concentrate on. By prolonged concentration (meditation) on the personal forms the devotee will slip into the pleasant, stillness, peaceful void of Brahman.

[philosoraptor]

Brahman is the only God and has no name or form. Everything is contained in Brahman. Brahman manages all that is created through many subtle divine forces. Highly evolved Yogis have glimpsed these subtle forces at work and have given personal forms to them so that ordinary people may worship them. Since it is not possible to imagine Brahman, these personal forms will make it simpler for ordinary people to concentrate on. By prolonged concentration (meditation) on the personal forms the devotee will slip into the pleasant, stillness, peaceful void of Brahman.

Brahman has no name, except of course for names like "Brahman" and "God."

Brahman has no form, yet it contains everything.

Highly evolved Yogis have "given" us personal forms to worship Brahman. So, according to this, Hindus worship fictional images.

And the best part of this is that, by worshipping an unreal image, one will supposedly realize the formless Brahman, (which we only call Brahman for convenience, it really having no name).

Let me just say this: The above beliefs, though inconsistent and rather unflattering towards Hindus, are quite popular in modern Hindu circles. But they don't represent what we find in the Upanishads and the Bhagavad-gita. Not even close.

[Sahasranama]

Brahman has no name, except of course for names like "Brahman" and "God."

Brahman has no form, yet it contains everything.

Highly evolved Yogis have "given" us personal forms to worship Brahman. So, according to this, Hindus worship fictional images.

And the best part of this is that, by worshipping an unreal image, one will supposedly realize the formless Brahman, (which we only call Brahman for convenience, it really having no name).

Let me just say this: The above beliefs, though inconsistent and rather unflattering towards Hindus, are quite popular in modern Hindu circles. But they don't represent what we find in the Upanishads and the Bhagavad-gita. Not even close.

+1

agree with this 100%

[kallol]

Brahman has no name, except of course for names like "Brahman" and "God."

Brahman has no form, yet it contains everything.

Highly evolved Yogis have "given" us personal forms to worship Brahman. So, according to this, Hindus worship fictional images.

And the best part of this is that, by worshipping an unreal image, one will supposedly realize the formless Brahman, (which we only call Brahman for convenience, it really having no name).

Let me just say this: The above beliefs, though inconsistent and rather unflattering towards Hindus, are quite popular in modern Hindu circles. But they don't represent what we find in the Upanishads and the Bhagavad-gita. Not even close.

These are the words of Wise people. Are all people wise ?

Just as in life - no one is a PhD from day 1. One has to start from school. There they will learn maths through pictures !!!! Are pictures maths ? No

But it is a method to train the mind for bigger and abstract knowledge.

Sometimes we forget to correlate our normal life with spiritual life. Look around - all are interpolation of the spiritual knowledge