Who is our True God? (Hinduism)

[Riverwolf]

Honestly, I think what's happening here is miscommunication.
For clarification:

When you use terms like "one True God", you're implying indirectly that all other Gods are, therefore, false. That is not a good term to use if you don't mean that, as you've frequently said. Not all Hindus are Sun Worshipers, therefore it might be more accurate for you to argue that Hinduism began as Sun Worship. But you must also understand that Sun Worship is literally worshiping the star that Earth revolves around. That star is relatively young compared to the age of the universe. That is why I do not use the names and images of Surya in my worship of the Supreme.

When you accuse us of misunderstanding the Scriptures simply for disagreeing with you, what happens is that you're demonstrating a lack of adherence to them. I'm not a scholar; I'm a wanderer. I approach the Vedas differently than you do, Pleroma. That does not mean I misunderstand them. But disagreeing with you does not mean I'm trying to be difficult. It simply means I'm looking at things differently. The heart of what you're saying is absolutely true: that all Gods are part of the One. Its your choice of words to convey that heart that's a problem.

Ramakrishna taught that we don't count each mango in a mango tree; we just take a few mangoes, eat them, and be on our way. Rather than barely skim each hymn and parrot someone else's knowledge, why not simply study a single hymn or group of hymns, and get to the bottom of that? If you focus on Hiranyagarbha, yours would therefore be the Hiranyagarbha Sutkam. As a Shaiva, mine is the Sri Rudram. Learn each hymn: how to recite it from memory, what each word means in relation to one another, what they mean to you, and what they're ultimately saying. Each hymn in the Vedic Samhitas is complete in itself.

Likewise, each Upanishad is complete in itself, not requiring knowledge of any other to be comprehended.

You assume we don't care. What you were unaware of is that, during my first year as a Hindu, I read EVERYTHING I could get my hands on regarding it. Scriptures, different translations and commentaries on those Scriptures, books about Hinduism from outside scholars and other Hindus, teachings of various Sages. I read much. I learned much. On each reading of Scriptures, I gain new insights.

You said discussion of Hinduism is not complete without that one guy. I've never heard of him, but I do know of other, very influential contemporary Sages: Ramakrishna, Swami Vivekananda, Paramahamsa Yogananda, Satguru Sivaya Subramuniyaswami, Swami Prabhupada. At the very least, if you have not read Swami Vivekananda, you must. All his writings are here: Complete Works of Swami Vivekananda Read his Paper on Hinduism, and his book on Karma Yoga, at the very least. Both are in Volume One.

There's another something you should read. Go here:

Dancing with Siva, Table of Contents

Scroll down to "Upanishad Eight: Sacred Worship." Read the three chapters within. Then you should understand why we worship Gods through images in the Temples.

 

[Pleroma]

Honestly, I think what's happening here is miscommunication.
For clarification:

When you use terms like "one True God", you're implying indirectly that all other Gods are, therefore, false. That is not a good term to use if you don't mean that, as you've frequently said. Not all Hindus are Sun Worshipers, therefore it might be more accurate for you to argue that Hinduism began as Sun Worship. But you must also understand that Sun Worship is literally worshiping the star that Earth revolves around. That star is relatively young compared to the age of the universe. That is why I do not use the names and images of Surya in my worship of the Supreme.


When you accuse us of misunderstanding the Scriptures simply for disagreeing with you, what happens is that you're demonstrating a lack of adherence to them. I'm not a scholar; I'm a wanderer. I approach the Vedas differently than you do, Pleroma. That does not mean I misunderstand them. But disagreeing with you does not mean I'm trying to be difficult. It simply means I'm looking at things differently. The heart of what you're saying is absolutely true: that all Gods are part of the One. Its your choice of words to convey that heart that's a problem.

Ramakrishna taught that we don't count each mango in a mango tree; we just take a few mangoes, eat them, and be on our way. Rather than barely skim each hymn and parrot someone else's knowledge, why not simply study a single hymn or group of hymns, and get to the bottom of that? If you focus on Hiranyagarbha, yours would therefore be the Hiranyagarbha Sutkam. As a Shaiva, mine is the Sri Rudram. Learn each hymn: how to recite it from memory, what each word means in relation to one another, what they mean to you, and what they're ultimately saying. Each hymn in the Vedic Samhitas is complete in itself.

Likewise, each Upanishad is complete in itself, not requiring knowledge of any other to be comprehended.

You assume we don't care. What you were unaware of is that, during my first year as a Hindu, I read EVERYTHING I could get my hands on regarding it. Scriptures, different translations and commentaries on those Scriptures, books about Hinduism from outside scholars and other Hindus, teachings of various Sages. I read much. I learned much. On each reading of Scriptures, I gain new insights.

You said discussion of Hinduism is not complete without that one guy. I've never heard of him, but I do know of other, very influential contemporary Sages: Ramakrishna, Swami Vivekananda, Paramahamsa Yogananda, Satguru Sivaya Subramuniyaswami, Swami Prabhupada. At the very least, if you have not read Swami Vivekananda, you must. All his writings are here: Complete Works of Swami Vivekananda Read his Paper on Hinduism, and his book on Karma Yoga, at the very least. Both are in Volume One.

There's another something you should read. Go here:

Dancing with Siva, Table of Contents

Scroll down to "Upanishad Eight: Sacred Worship." Read the three chapters within. Then you should understand why we worship Gods through images in the Temples.

Yajnavalkya Smriti and other agama texts clearly outlines how the rituals should be performed and how the temples should be performed, also about prana prathisthapan etc etc. I have no problems with it.

Sun Worshipping doesn't mean literally worshipping the star Sun of the milky way galaxy. Sun worshipping means worshipping the Sun God residing in everyone and who is stimulating our intellect in the right direction.

Hinduism began as Sun Worshipping religion and might not appear to everyone from outside that it exists as a Sun Worshipping religion because of all the separate exoteric religions but we all are very much still indirectly or directly worshipping the gods of the Sun pantheon and will continue to exist as a Sun Worshipping religion.

What I mean when I say Sun God is our "One true God" is that while other traditions might achieve the same goal by worshipping the same reality from a different aspect. By worshipping the Sun God you get access to the noumenon something which no tradition actually sees it. In other words in order to have a complete knowledge of all the aspects of our reality the Sun God is truly invincible.

 

[Pleroma]

Yes. Vyakta and avyakta must both be known. This is so much present in the vedanta and agamas as well; all agamic traditions have some variation of the vedantic 'saguna brahman,' 'nirguna brahman' & 'parabrahman' distinction. Both nirguna and saguna must be realized for parabrahman to dawn; one leads to the other.

That parabrahman is a manifestation of the Savithru Deva(The Sun God) and that manifestation is real, its the noumenon and that physical Sun exists to guide us to know that parabrahman. My point was all the Hindus don't know that they can access the noumenon like that and don't really take this path.

 

[Pleroma]

Ahamkar is not doing everything; such is vishvakarman (another name of Prajapati; Hiranyagarbha, Narayana, etc.) Epithets all.

Ahamkar is the individuated ego, it experiences the core of awareness "Aham" (I am) + kara, volition, "to do." It is the sense of obligatory actions, thoughts, and speech that attends I-ness.

Ahamkar is indeed an aspect of Paradeva in its proper context; it is both bestowed and removed thereby.

Bhagvad Gita, chapter 13 verse 30

What ever it is, it is the Lord which is doing everything, we don't have free will. The one who knows this sees God.

 

[Riverwolf]

Yajnavalkya Smriti and other agama texts clearly outlines how the rituals should be performed and how the temples should be performed, also about prana prathisthapan etc etc. I have no problems with it.

Sun Worshipping doesn't mean literally worshipping the star Sun of the milky way galaxy. Sun worshipping means worshipping the Sun God residing in everyone and who is stimulating our intellect in the right direction.

Hinduism began as Sun Worshipping religion and might not appear to everyone from outside that it exists as a Sun Worshipping religion because of all the separate exoteric religions but we all are very much still indirectly or directly worshipping the gods of the Sun pantheon and will continue to exist as a Sun Worshipping religion.

What I mean when I say Sun God is our "One true God" is that while other traditions might achieve the same goal by worshipping the same reality from a different aspect. By worshipping the Sun God you get access to the noumenon something which no tradition actually sees it. In other words in order to have a complete knowledge of all the aspects of our reality the Sun God is truly invincible.

So, if I'm understanding you correctly, the path you're describing is one which uses the Sun as a metaphorical image for Saguna Brahman? In addition, the idea that the Supreme Path is this one you're describing, because it allows access to knowledge other paths don't, alongside all knowledge of other paths?

I have another question that I've been hesitant to ask, so I want you to understand that I mean no disrespect with it. Is English not your first language?

 

[Shuddhasattva]

I've never read Vivekenanda I couldn't get past the meat-eating. My own bias, I know.

 

[Riverwolf]

I've never read Vivekenanda I couldn't get past the meat-eating. My own bias, I know.

I'm not even aware of that. But I've never had a problem with meat eating.

 

[Shuddhasattva]

I don't have a problem with it in 'normal people' - I don't aggressively proselytize vegetarianism. Someone can eat a steak in front of me and it's fine. But when it comes to spiritual teachers, for me meat eating is a dealbreaker.

 

[Riverwolf]

I don't have a problem with it in 'normal people' - I don't aggressively proselytize vegetarianism. Someone can eat a steak in front of me and it's fine. But when it comes to spiritual teachers, for me meat eating is a dealbreaker.

Not really for me. What someone eats, Sage or otherwise, is none of my concern, as long as the person does not actively teach against eating something he himself eats.

To each their own.

But there is a youtube channel with a teacher who's teachings and style of teaching very much remind me of Vivekananda, if you want to check that out:

http://www.youtube.com/user/HinduAcademy

I'm pretty sure it's still the Ramakrishna Order.

 

[Pleroma]

So, if I'm understanding you correctly, the path you're describing is one which uses the Sun as a metaphorical image for Saguna Brahman? In addition, the idea that the Supreme Path is this one you're describing, because it allows access to knowledge other paths don't, alongside all knowledge of other paths?

I have another question that I've been hesitant to ask, so I want you to understand that I mean no disrespect with it. Is English not your first language?

Shankaracharya says that Hiranyagrabha is not Saguna Brahman so I really cannot talk with much authoritative to say that Hiranyagarbha is the Saguna Brahman. Everyone cannot talk about Brahman. That's not the way I see it.

There is That(Brahman) and there is this Idam(jagat - world). Hiranyagarbha - The Sun God is the paramathma, the lord who is residing in all creatures.

Isa vasyamidam sarvam yat kinca jagatham jagat
All this is for habitation by the Lord

This is the jagat which Krishna is talking in Bhagvad Gita made of five Panchbhootas, mind, intellect, Jiva and Pramathma. This is the noumenon.

Whatever beyond this jagat is Brahman and we cannot speak about it.

Jiva is the one who is caught up in this world and once it sees the paramathma, jiva and paramathma becomes One. This is advaita siddhi.

I and Hiranyagarbha are One. (Implicitly expressed by Yajnavalkya)

The Father and I are One (Jesus)

Each one has a Christ with in him, whether a human, an angel or mystery (Gospel of Philip)

Isa vashyamidam sarvam - The lord is in everyone.

This is the highest form of philosophical thought expressed in all religions.

Wikipedia says Hiranyagarbha - the collection of deities in the Hindu pantheon of Gods. This is what I mean that all gods of the Hindus are One. This is not a metaphor, this is the physical Sun which exists and the foundational base for Hinduism.

This is monism in polytheism.

Well, yes, I don't know higher english but that doesn't change my expression that all hindus are directly or indirectly Sun worshippers.

 

[Riverwolf]

Shankaracharya says that Hiranyagrabha is not Saguna Brahman so I really cannot talk with much authoritative to say that Hiranyagarbha is the Saguna Brahman. Everyone cannot talk about Brahman. That's not the way I see it.

There is That(Brahman) and there is this Idam(jagat - world). Hiranyagarbha - The Sun God is the paramathma, the lord who is residing in all creatures.

Isa vasyamidam sarvam yat kinca jagatham jagat
All this is for habitation by the Lord

This is the jagat which Krishna is talking in Bhagvad Gita made of five Panchbhootas, mind, intellect, Jiva and Pramathma. This is the noumenon.

Whatever beyond this jagat is Brahman and we cannot speak about it.

Jiva is the one who is caught up in this world and once it sees the paramathma, jiva and paramathma becomes One. This is advaita siddhi.

I and Hiranyagarbha are One. (Implicitly expressed by Yajnavalkya)

The Father and I are One (Jesus)

Each one has a Christ with in him, whether a human, an angel or mystery (Gospel of Philip)

Isa vashyamidam sarvam - The lord is in everyone.

This is the highest form of philosophical thought expressed in all religions.

Wikipedia says Hiranyagarbha - the collection of deities in the Hindu pantheon of Gods. This is what I mean that all gods of the Hindus are One. This is not a metaphor, this is the physical Sun which exists and the foundational base for Hinduism.

This is monism in polytheism.

FINALLY, I think we're getting somewhere. I'm sorry if I've come off as harsh, but this whole conversation has been very frustrating for me, and I imagine for you, as well.

The English word "sun" only refers to our star, or in reference to other stars, unless you're speaking metaphorically. Therefore, this physical Sun must be either our own Sun, or another star in the universe.

If it is neither of these, then don't use the English word "sun". Perhaps use the Sanskrit word that's being translated as Sun, or just use Hiranyagarbha.

However, conceptually, we are not in disagreement at all. I am a panentheistic polytheist. All the Gods are as much a part of manifested Brahman as everything else. I just don't use the name or form of Hiranyagarbha that often.

Well, yes, I don't know higher english but that doesn't change my expression that all hindus are directly or indirectly Sun worshippers.

Except, as I said above, if we're not worshiping either our own Sun, or another star, we're not Sun worshipers, because of how the English word "sun" works. Any other use for it must either be metaphorical, or it's being used incorrectly.

If you haven't figured it out already, English is a TERRIBLE language for conveying spiritual matters, at least in its current manifestation, primarily because it's such a big mess. You've been inadvertently using words and terms incorrectly, and thus have been confusing us all. You're not alone in this: even native speakers of English get it wrong all the time. Heck, even I do that: "In addition, the idea that the Supreme Path is this one you're describing, because it allows access to knowledge other paths don't, alongside all knowledge of other paths?" That's not a sentence at all.

Anywho...Aham Brahman is the mantra of Unity with Brahman. It's in the Vedas, and I fully accept that. I cannot say it right now with full knowing, but one day I will.

Another thing: Nirguna Brahman is the Formless, Unmanifest, and Eternal. It's Saguna Brahman that is named, formed, conceptualized, etc. Nirguna Brahman cannot be referred to as a Sun, because that's a word that conjures a specific image: that of our physical sun.

 

[Pleroma]

FINALLY, I think we're getting somewhere. I'm sorry if I've come off as harsh, but this whole conversation has been very frustrating for me, and I imagine for you, as well.

The English word "sun" only refers to our star, or in reference to other stars, unless you're speaking metaphorically. Therefore, this physical Sun must be either our own Sun, or another star in the universe.

If it is neither of these, then don't use the English word "sun". Perhaps use the Sanskrit word that's being translated as Sun, or just use Hiranyagarbha.

Well, that's not my problem, that's a display of a lack of abstract thinking. Sun worshippers means the ones who worship the Sun God residing in everyone not the star, Sun revolving around the milky way galaxy.

However, conceptually, we are not in disagreement at all. I am a panentheistic polytheist. All the Gods are as much a part of manifested Brahman as everything else. I just don't use the name or form of Hiranyagarbha that often.


Except, as I said above, if we're not worshiping either our own Sun, or another star, we're not Sun worshipers, because of how the English word "sun" works. Any other use for it must either be metaphorical, or it's being used incorrectly.

If you haven't figured it out already, English is a TERRIBLE language for conveying spiritual matters, at least in its current manifestation, primarily because it's such a big mess. You've been inadvertently using words and terms incorrectly, and thus have been confusing us all. You're not alone in this: even native speakers of English get it wrong all the time. Heck, even I do that: "In addition, the idea that the Supreme Path is this one you're describing, because it allows access to knowledge other paths don't, alongside all knowledge of other paths?" That's not a sentence at all.

That's actually true there are no words in English to describe these things. Take for example - Antharmukh and Bahirmukh, I find no simple words to describe that in English which the Sanskrit language conveys it so well with such single words.

Another thing: Nirguna Brahman is the Formless, Unmanifest, and Eternal. It's Saguna Brahman that is named, formed, conceptualized, etc. Nirguna Brahman cannot be referred to as a Sun, because that's a word that conjures a specific image: that of our physical sun.

Nirguna Brahman can be referred to the physical Sun God who is anthropomorphic.

 

[Riverwolf]

Well, that's not my problem, that's a display of a lack of abstract thinking. Sun worshippers means the ones who worship the Sun God residing in everyone not the star, Sun revolving around the milky way galaxy.

Dude, I have asperger's syndrome. If you don't know what that means, one of the side-effects of not having (or wanting) a very active social life is that I'm actually more capable of abstract thinking than most other people.

If it's not the Sun, which is the only thing the word can refer to except metaphorically, why is Hiranyagarbha called a "Sun God"?

That's actually true there are no words in English to describe these things. Take for example - Antharmukh and Bahirmukh, I find no simple words to describe that in English which the Sanskrit language conveys it so well with such single words.

The big ones are Dharma and Rta. While the latter is virtually unknown, the former seems to be making its way into English as a loan word, which can only be good. :yes:

Nirguna Brahman can be referred to the physical Sun God who is anthropomorphic.

...no, the word "Nirguna" means without or beyond the gunas. The physical world (as in, this world that operates under the laws of physics) is the manifested gunas, and so anything beyond them cannot be physical.

 

[Jainarayan]

The big ones are Dharma and Rta. While the latter is virtually unknown, the former seems to be making its way into English as a loan word, which can only be good. :yes:

I hope 'dharma' doesn't go the way 'karma' has. Creditkarma.com? Fortunately I think most people have forgotten the abomination of a tv show called Dharma & Greg. No, not about Greg's duty... Dharma was his wife's name.

 

[Riverwolf]

I hope 'dharma' doesn't go the way 'karma' has. Creditkarma.com? Fortunately I think most people have forgotten the abomination of a tv show called Dharma & Greg. No, not about Greg's duty... Dharma was his wife's name.

 

[ratikala]

dear nameless ,

I am reffering to the sence in many chapters , to a bhakti yogi surrender of the self in to the loving devotion of the lord is the ultimate aim

to my mind the purpose of the gita is to discuss the virtues of surrender , time and time again krsna deliniates the qualities that he says "are very dear " to him , those are the qualities of surrender , selfless devotion and self control .krsna also explains that the path of jnana can be difficult but that the path of bhakti leads to swift liberation .

which verse?

best to read all of chapter 12 , particularly 1 to 14


my problem with jnana yoga is the acidental tendancy to become overly caught up in the aquisition of knowledge , where as the true bhakti yogi cares little for the aquisition of philosopical knowledge wanting only first hand knowledge (experience)of god .

I am not interested in arguing the point that any one school or tradition has a monopoly on bhakti yoga , I belive true bhaktas are to be found in all devotional traditions . I shouldnt say superior It is likely to lead to missinterpretation .


one favorite is 13-14
one who is not envious but is a kind friend to all living beings , who does not think himself the proprietor , and who is without false ego (ahamkara), who is equal in happiness and distress , who is allways tolerant and satisfied , self controled and engaged with determination his mind and inteligence fixed on me , ....such a devotee is very dear to me !

 

[Vinayaka]

my problem with jnana yoga is the acidental tendancy to become overly caught up in the aquisition of knowledge , where as the true bhakti yogi cares little for the aquisition of philosopical knowledge wanting only first hand knowledge (experience)of god .

Nice.

 

[ratikala]

dear pleroma ,

I am not making baseless assertions here. I have given you sources to support my claims. Why don't you address it. Its in the Upanishads and its in the Vedas and only thing is it is difficult to swallow it for your guys.

it is not difficult, personaly I feel no need to address hiranyagharbha other than how I have been taught it .

Well you and others might have more formal knowledge and know Sanskrit and have more linguistic skills but what you and others are lacking is WISDOM and arguing that Hinduism is a covering term for separate religions which originated in India.

you are becoming a master of sweeping statements...?
many of us use the term hindu loosly as an umbrella term as it is readily understood by many not because we are lacking in wisdom but simply to desolve sectarian barriers , if we wish to be more specific we then use the liniage or sampradaya to which we belong .

We all are One, we don't have separate religions and this is what I am saying from the beginning of this thread and you guys have failed to recognize it because you are holding on to your exoteric religion way too much.

each is holding on to his own understanding in different ways due to the simple fact that we are all at different levels of understanding .

I fear you are making assumptions again !

You have misunderstood that.

Lord is ahankara. He is the one who does everything.

Didn't Krishna say in Bhagvad Gita that there is uchith(free) karma for everyone?

So why we have to take Moha and Shoka when it is the Lord who is doing everything. This is the esoteric meaning of that statement by Krishna.

shuddhasattva has fortunately corrected you here , ahamkara , the false sence of ego or strong identification with the self is what I was refering to ......

Because I am not arguing the way like you are doing. Stop this division of people into Vaishnavism, Shaivism and other sects like Devi Puruna ect etc. We all are one. Its holistic they all belong to the one same pantheon of the Sun. You can call by any name you wish but don't ever say that one God is superior than the other. All these gods exist in the Agnishoma Mandala and nothing exists apart from it.

there is one supreme which we call or understand in different ways due to our sampradayas , we are not arguing we are showing a natural sence of love and gratitude for our different traditions without which we would have not had the benifit to learn what we have been fortunate enough to learn so far .

If I doesn't want to learn I wouldn't have come here to test my knowledge and sharing my little knowledge with everyone. If you want to convince me otherwise don't make an appeal to authority, convince me by refuting my arguments and its the content of your posts that counts not who you are as an individual.

 

[ratikala]

good evening prabhu ji

Nice.

a favorite subject , ... the difference between aquired knowledge and experiencial knowledge

 

[Skeptisch]

The one true God is the set of natural laws that governs the multiverses. There is no scientific evidence of any other.

Some of the eastern religion’s gods are much closer to it/him/her then the Abrahamic version who has to be the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.