God cannot have Form?

[atanu]

Would Vedic understanding go as far as to suggest 'we are God(s)?'

There are some different understandings. One is that both the Jiva (living soul) and the Ishwara (Lord) are identical Brahman when stripped of respective attributes. Another is that jiva-s are parts of Ishwara-Brahman. A third is that Jiva-s and Ishwara-Brahman are eternally distinct.

Which one you want?

As per my understanding, Indra in Veda is living Soul and He surpasses all.

 

[zenzero]

Friend Acim,

Would Vedic understanding go as far as to suggest 'we are God(s)?'

When everything [inclusive of all forms and no-forms] is what God is then we are also part of that phenomenon labelled God.

BUT, we can never be observed/perceived as anything separated from IT which is only TRUE i.e. ONENESS.

Love & rgds

 

[I-Ching]

If you have a form and you restrict God to not having a form that means that you are placing yourself above God.

God's form is not made out matter like our forms. His form is composed of spirit (sat chit ananda vigraha). It is eternal and only appears to appear and disappear just like the sun. Every morning the sun appears to be born and every evening the sun appears to die but in fact the sun has remained unchanged.

If we take the example of Krishna; for the pleasure of his devotees he assumed the form of child and then of youth, but he never aged beyond 16. It only for the pleasure of His devotees that his form changes in order to reciprocate with their different moods of Love.

If God is a sentient being then he must be able to act. In order to act he must have a form.

 

[I-Ching]

[*]Guru is God.

I disagree Guru is not God. Guru is a representative of God.

"Just try to learn the truth by approaching a spiritual master. Inquire from him submissively and render service unto him. The self-realized souls can impart knowledge unto you because they have seen the truth." Bg 4.34

It does not say that the spiritual master is the Truth, it says that he has seen the Truth. The form of spiritual master certainly does not possess the same qualities as one the incarnations since it gets old, gets diseases and dies. The form of the Guru is composed of matter but God's form is made of spirit.

 

[I-Ching]

Would Vedic understanding go as far as to suggest 'we are God(s)?'

No the correct Vedic understanding is that we are eternal part and parcels of God. Just like sunshine is part and parcel of the sun. The sunshine can never become the sun.

The terms Gods is illogical since God is by definition the supreme being. There can't be more than one supreme being.

 

[I-Ching]

As per my understanding, Indra in Veda is living Soul and He surpasses all.

What is the basis of this understanding?
The Brahma Samhita clearly states "isvara parama krishna sat cit ananda vigraha"
That Krishna is supreme.
He specifically demonstrates his supremacy over Indra in the Govardhana lila.

 

[Acim]

we can never be observed/perceived as anything separated from IT which is only TRUE i.e. ONENESS.

Love & rgds

Funny that you emphasize "IT"

Because for me that translates to Internal Teacher (IT)

Peace be with you

 

[Willamena]

No the correct Vedic understanding is that we are eternal part and parcels of God. Just like sunshine is part and parcel of the sun. The sunshine can never become the sun.

The terms Gods is illogical since God is by definition the supreme being. There can't be more than one supreme being.

Have you heard of "monism"?

 

[Onkara]

What is the basis of this understanding?
The Brahma Samhita clearly states "isvara parama krishna sat cit ananda vigraha"
That Krishna is supreme.
He specifically demonstrates his supremacy over Indra in the Govardhana lila.

Aren't Krishna and Indra equal? The difference being only the name and form?

 

[nameless]

I disagree Guru is not God. Guru is a representative of God.

Everyone is krishna, Gurus are those who have realized this fact ....
Krishna is to be seen as a title, similar to 'buddha'. One definition for Krishna is vaccum of ego, anyone without ego is krishna.
Why krishna is called krishna?

 

[zenzero]

Friend Acim,

Funny that you emphasize "IT"
Because for me that translates to Internal Teacher (IT)

IT or TRUTH is neither internal nor external.
IT simply IS!
Truth has no qualities perceivable by the mind.

Love & rgds

 

[Acim]

Inner Teacher simply Invites Spirit

Right here with ya.

 

[zenzero]

Friend Acim,

hmmmmmmmmmmm!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Love & rgds

 

[Willamena]

"I love it when a plan comes together." ~Hannibal Smith

 

[atanu]

What is the basis of this understanding?
The Brahma Samhita clearly states "isvara parama krishna sat cit ananda vigraha"
That Krishna is supreme.
He specifically demonstrates his supremacy over Indra in the Govardhana lila.

Dear I ching

Brahma Samhita is not Veda and is not Sruti. Further, do you understand the meaning of vigraha?

 

[atanu]

God's form, as held in seeker's mind, is as per the form of seeker him/herself. When seeker knows one's own form, god's form is also known.

There is no immortality in limited form and there is no joy in limited form as per teaching of Skanda to Narada muni in Brihadaraynaka Up.

 

[The Wizard]

I think all the endless forms and shapes of what one may refer to as God or the prime Creator is to improve the relationship or better understand certain aspects to connect.. like a metaphore... with him/her/it.... The word has become a verb or state of being for me. I also call it the mysterious patterns of goodness and creation. The goodness I can't understand or control through science... imo.

 

[I-Ching]

Have you heard of "monism"?

Yes I think that monism is a misinterpretation of the Vedas. Monism is an atheistic philosophy, given by Sankaracharya who was in fact an incarnation of Lord Siva. His mission was to give a philosophy similar to Buddhism but based on the Veda, so that Buddhism could be kicked out of India. His mission was quite successful.

 

[I-Ching]

Aren't Krishna and Indra equal? The difference being only the name and form?

What is your scriptural basis for this? Indra is clearly a demi-god and I have never seen any reference to contrary. If you think that Krishna and Indra are equal you may as well say that you and Krishna are equal the only difference being name and form.

 

[I-Ching]

Everyone is krishna, Gurus are those who have realized this fact ....
Krishna is to be seen as a title, similar to 'buddha'. One definition for Krishna is vaccum of ego, anyone without ego is krishna.

Yes everyone is Krishna but Krishna is not everyone. The Vaishnava philosophy is oneness and difference. We are all one with Krishna in the sense that a sunshine is one with the sun but at the same time we are different the sunshine can never become the sun.

Guru has realized that he is part and parcel of Krishna. He has realized pure Love for Krishna and has therefore become one with Krishna's Will. The Guru does not merge with Krishna homogeneously.

I disagree with your definition. Krishna is the Supreme Personality of Godhead.
isvarah paramah krsnah sac-cid-ananda-vigrahah
anadir adir govindah sarva-karana-karanam
"There are many personalities possessing the qualities of Bhagavan, but Krsna is the supreme because none can excel Him. He is the Supreme Person, and His body is eternal, full of knowledge and bliss. He is the primeval Lord Govinda and the cause of all causes." (Brahma-samhita 5.1)

I read your link but I think you misinterpreted it.
" The one who has vacuum in himself/herself i.e. the one without ego becomes immensely attractive like Krishna."