Haridas
Humble servant of Ká¹á¹£á¹a
Ok Surya Deva no more discussion on that. You will never agree with me nor will I so it's pointless. Let there be peace.
Om shanti shanti shanti
Last edited:
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
why hindus worship rama,krishna...?
- Thread starter Yuva
- Start date
Ok Surya Deva no more discussion on that. You will never agree with me nor will I so it's pointless. Let there be peace.
Om shanti shanti shanti
Well I really don't like to annoy you because I hope you're Bhakti for Krishna is true. But what do you think about the Adhithya Hrudyam.
Adityahridayam - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Eshhah brahmaa cha vishhnushcha shivah skandah prajaapati. Mahendro dhanadah kaalo yamah somo hyapaam pati.
He is Brahma, Vishnu, Shiva, Skanda, Prajapati. He is also Mahendra, kubera, kala, yama, soma and varuna.
To kill a Mahabrahmana like Ravana the only way to do it was with the help of Adithya and Rama actually worshipped Adithya. Even Lava and Kusha worshipped Adithya and was revealed to them.
Gaura Priya
IRL
I worship Krishna, Rama, and Sriman Narayana cuz I like them.
I worship Krishna, Rama, and Sriman Narayana cuz I like them.
Speaking as a former powerlifter, any toddler that can pull down trees is all right in my book. :biglaugh:
Haridas
Humble servant of Ká¹á¹£á¹a
Dear Pleroma,
What I think is not important but what scriptures and acaryas have said is of real value. Anyways, Adityahridayam is from Ramayana Yuddha Kanda Chapter 105(someone put the wrong reference in Wikipedia). Chandogya Upanishad explains:
atha ya so ntar adityo hiranmayah purusho drishyate hiranya-shmashrur hiranya-kesha apranakhat sarva eva suvarnas tasya yatha kapyasam pundarikam evam ak\shini tasyodeti nama sa esha sarvebhyah papmabhyah udita udeti ha vai sarvebhyah papmabhyo ya evam veda tasya rik sama ca gesnau tasmad udigithas tasmat tv evodgataitasya hi gatha sa esha ye camushmat paranco lokas tesham ceshte deva kamanam cety adhidaivatam athadhyatmam atha ya esho ntar-ak shini purusho drishyate saiva rik tat sama tad uktham tad yajus tad brahma tasyaitasya tad eva rupam yad amushya rupam. yav amushya gesnau tau gesnau yan nama tan nama
"Within the sun-globe is a golden person, with golden hair, a golden beard, and a body golden from His fingernails to all His limbs. His eyes are like lotus flowers. He is above all sin. One who understands Him also becomes situated above all sin. The Rig and Sama Vedas sing His glories. From Him the highest spiritual planets, where the demigods desire to go, have become manifested. This is the golden person present among the demigods. . . Now I shall describe the person within the human mind and heart. Within the eyes a wonderful person may be seen. The Rig, Sama, and Yajur Vedas glorify Him. He is identical with the golden person who resides in the sun."
Veda Vyasa's commentary on this(from Vedanta Sutra 1.1.20):
antas tad-dharmopadeshat
antah—within; tat—of Him; dharma—nature; upadeshat' because of the instruction.
The person within (the sun and the eye is the Supreme Brahman), because the Vedic literatures explain that His nature fits the description of the Lord.
Now I don't know if you know who Srila Baladeva Vidyabhushana is but he is the wrote the famous commentary on Vedanta Sutras known as "Sri Govinda Bhashya" and the following is his commentary on that Sutra:
But the thing I am proving by all this is that in the sun globe it is not sun-god Vivasvan who is there but the Supreme Brahman. If you still have difficultly believe it then here:
Brihad-aranyaka Upanishad:
ya aditye tishthann adityad antaro yam adityo
na veda yasyadityah shariram ya adityam antaro
yamayaty esha ta atmantaryamy amritah
"That person situated within the sun, who is not the sun-god, whom the sun-god does not know, who manifests the sun-planet as His own body, who controls the sun-planet from within, that person is the immortal Supreme Brahman, who is present within the heart of every living entity as the Supersoul(Paramatma)."
Wikipedia asserts that the hymn is sung to Vivasvan the sun god but that can't be true from the above evidence. The hymn is address to none other than the Supreme Brahman, Narayan. So Lord Rama pretty much worships Himself as He is the incarnation of Narayan. Also to note that Wikipedia makes an wrong interpretation at least according to major Vedic scriptures of the verse you show.
Wikipedia says: He is Brahma, Vishnu, Shiva......
No it should be: He is the creator, the sustainer, the destroyer....
The verse makes identification of qualities not of a deity.
As Maha Upanishad I-1-4 says:
"Then we shall expound the Mahopanishad. They say Narayana was alone. There were not Brahma, Shiva, Waters, Fire and Soma, Heaven and Earth, Stars, Sun and Moon. He could not be happy"
Haridas
Humble servant of Ká¹á¹£á¹a
I worship Krishna, Rama, and Sriman Narayana cuz I like them.
Indeed it is true...
Krishna attracted the Vrajavasis simply by the playing of His flute! and what to speak of His transcendental beauty!
Surya Deva
Well-Known Member
Haridas, I suspected you have taken those statements from the Upanishads out of context.
Katha Upanishad:
1.2.8 The knowing (Self) is not born, it dies not; it sprang from nothing, nothing sprang from it. The Ancient is unborn, eternal, everlasting; he is not killed, though the body is killed.
1.2.12. The wise who, by means of meditation on his Self, recognises the Ancient, who is difficult to be seen, who has entered into the dark, who is hidden in the cave, who dwells in the abyss, as God, he indeed leaves joy and sorrow far behind.
1.2.17 The Person not larger than a thumb, the inner Self, is always settled in the heart of men. Let a man draw that Self forth from his body with steadiness, as one draws the pith from a reed . Let him know that Self as the Bright, as the Immortal; yes, as the Bright, as the Immortal.
1.3.12 That Self is hidden in all beings and does not shine forth, but it is seen by subtle seers through their sharp and subtle intellect.
2.4.4 The wise, when he knows that that by which he perceives all objects in sleep or in waking is the great omnipresent Self, grieves no more.
2.4.5 He who knows this living soul which eats honey (perceives objects) as being the Self, always near, the Lord of the past and the future, henceforward fears no more. This is that.'
2.5.8 He, the highest Person, who is awake in us while we are asleep, shaping one lovely sight after another, that indeed is the Bright, that is Brahman, that alone is called the Immortal. All worlds are contained in it, and no one goes beyond. This is that.
2.5.9 As the one fire, after it has entered the world, though one, becomes different according to whatever it burns, thus the one Self within all things becomes different, according to whatever it enters, and exists also without.'
2.5.10. As the one air, after it has entered the world, though one, becomes different according to whatever it enters, thus the one Self within all things becomes different, according to whatever it enters, and exists also without.
2.5.11 As the sun, the eye of the whole world, is not contaminated by the external impurities seen by the eyes, thus the one Self within all things is never contaminated by the misery of the world, being himself without.'
2.5.12 There is one ruler, the Self within all things, who makes the one form manifold. The wise who perceive him within their Self, to them belongs eternal happiness, not to others
2.5.13. There is one eternal thinker, thinking non-eternal thoughts, who, though one, fulfils the desires of many. The wise who perceive him within their Self, to them belongs eternal peace, not to others .'
There is Advaita written all over this Upanishad:
1) It talks of the self which is hidden in all beings
2) It talks of only one self, which appears to be different because it enters into different things(in Advaita these are called upadhis)
3) It says the self can never be tainted or contaminated, it remains only a pure witness
4) It talks about realizing that self within and attaining supreme happiness, fearlessness
5) It teaches meditation to know the self, by steadying ones mind
6) It equates the self directly to Brahman
It does not say anything about worshiping some separate god. There is no Bheda here.
Katha Upanishad:
1.2.8 The knowing (Self) is not born, it dies not; it sprang from nothing, nothing sprang from it. The Ancient is unborn, eternal, everlasting; he is not killed, though the body is killed.
1.2.12. The wise who, by means of meditation on his Self, recognises the Ancient, who is difficult to be seen, who has entered into the dark, who is hidden in the cave, who dwells in the abyss, as God, he indeed leaves joy and sorrow far behind.
1.2.17 The Person not larger than a thumb, the inner Self, is always settled in the heart of men. Let a man draw that Self forth from his body with steadiness, as one draws the pith from a reed . Let him know that Self as the Bright, as the Immortal; yes, as the Bright, as the Immortal.
1.3.12 That Self is hidden in all beings and does not shine forth, but it is seen by subtle seers through their sharp and subtle intellect.
2.4.4 The wise, when he knows that that by which he perceives all objects in sleep or in waking is the great omnipresent Self, grieves no more.
2.4.5 He who knows this living soul which eats honey (perceives objects) as being the Self, always near, the Lord of the past and the future, henceforward fears no more. This is that.'
2.5.8 He, the highest Person, who is awake in us while we are asleep, shaping one lovely sight after another, that indeed is the Bright, that is Brahman, that alone is called the Immortal. All worlds are contained in it, and no one goes beyond. This is that.
2.5.9 As the one fire, after it has entered the world, though one, becomes different according to whatever it burns, thus the one Self within all things becomes different, according to whatever it enters, and exists also without.'
2.5.10. As the one air, after it has entered the world, though one, becomes different according to whatever it enters, thus the one Self within all things becomes different, according to whatever it enters, and exists also without.
2.5.11 As the sun, the eye of the whole world, is not contaminated by the external impurities seen by the eyes, thus the one Self within all things is never contaminated by the misery of the world, being himself without.'
2.5.12 There is one ruler, the Self within all things, who makes the one form manifold. The wise who perceive him within their Self, to them belongs eternal happiness, not to others
2.5.13. There is one eternal thinker, thinking non-eternal thoughts, who, though one, fulfils the desires of many. The wise who perceive him within their Self, to them belongs eternal peace, not to others .'
There is Advaita written all over this Upanishad:
1) It talks of the self which is hidden in all beings
2) It talks of only one self, which appears to be different because it enters into different things(in Advaita these are called upadhis)
3) It says the self can never be tainted or contaminated, it remains only a pure witness
4) It talks about realizing that self within and attaining supreme happiness, fearlessness
5) It teaches meditation to know the self, by steadying ones mind
6) It equates the self directly to Brahman
It does not say anything about worshiping some separate god. There is no Bheda here.
Last edited:
"Atha ravi ravadanam nirikshyam raama Muditamanaah paramam prahrishhyamaanah. Nishicharapatisa nkshayam viditvaa Suragan amadhyagato vachastvaret. 31
Then knowing that the destruction of the lord of prowlers at night (Ravana) was near, Aditya, who was at the center of the assembly of the Gods, looked at Rama and exclaimed 'Hurry up' with great delight. Purifying Himself by sipping water thrice, He took up His bow with His mighty arms. Seeing Ravana coming to fight, He put forth all his effort with a determination to destroy Ravana."
That person within the sun-globe is Adithya himself and none beside him because he is the master of the assembly of the Gods. He is goldish from his hairs to his fingernails. That's why he is called as Hiranyagarbha, Hiranya - golden. It says very explicitly.
I doesn't want to argue what's beyond the sun, Yes what's beyond the sun-god is Brahman but it would be inappropriate to argue that the supreme Brahman has a form like the Vishista-advaita people say or I am that(Brahman) like the nondual advaita people say. You can hold on to your position but don't argue or be dogmatic that only your view of the Supreme Brahman is the right one when no one actually doesn't know what Brahman is.
Wikipedia has interpreted it correctly, it should be taken literally and I have a translation of Adithya Hrudyam by J.P RajaRatnam and it explicitly says He is Brahma, Vishnu, Shiva. Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva worship Adithya, that's Sampradaya.
"Om shri Surya Narayanaya"
Sun-god is Narayana. Narayana is Sun-god.
Haridas
Humble servant of Ká¹á¹£á¹a
You seem to say that “Aditya” refers to sun-god only but interestingly Aditya is a name of Vishnu in Vishnu Sahasranama. Aditya literally means “one who is the son of Aditi”. Now in this hymn it talks about the Supreme son of Aditi. We can know the principal Aditya from the Bhagavad Gita chapter 10 where Krishna describes His opulence and says
srotasam asmi jahnavi (Of flowing rivers I am the Ganges)
gayatri chandasam aham (Of poetry I am the*Gayatri)
So he is describing the greatest in each category and He later says: adityanam aham visnur(Of the Adityas I am Vishnu)
So from this we know that Vishnu is the Supreme Aditya.
Also when you say that this hymn is addressed to sun-god it goes out of context with Vedic literature. The hymn seems to say “He is the creator, the sustainer, the Lord of the universe and gods....” but there is not reference in Vedas where it says Suyra is Supreme, the sustainer or creator or lord of the universe and gods but there is many many places in shruti and smriti where Vishnu/Narayan is regarded as Supreme, sustainer, creator, lord. So the person or Aditya within sun globe is not sun-god but Vishnu and I have already shown that verse from Brihad-aranyaka Upanishad which agrees with what I just said:
ya aditye tishthann adityad antaro yam adityo
na veda yasyadityah shariram ya adityam antaro
yamayaty esha ta atmantaryamy amritah
"That person situated within the sun, who is not the sun-god, whom the sun-god does not know, who manifests the sun-planet as His own body, who controls the sun-planet from within, that person is the immortal Supreme Brahman, who is present within the heart of every living entity as the Supersoul(Paramatma)."
So the hymn must also be addressed to Narayan and none other. As Krishna says in Bhagavad Gita 9.23:
ye 'py anya-devata-bhakta yajante sraddhayanvitah te 'pi mam eva
Krishna clearly says “Those who worship other gods with faith actually worship Me alone”.
I did not even say anything like “my view of Supreme Brahman is right one”. Whatever was in quotation was not my word but of Baladeva Vidyabhushana and it was his commentary on that sutra. So do not know why you accuse me of saying “my view of Supreme Brahman is right one”.
It can be interpreted in many ways. But if you are trying to prove a concept with that verse I can not accept it because my interpretation is different.
If you are saying that Narayan and sun-god Vivasvan are equal then that can not be right. Purusha Sukta explains Narayan is eternally full in knowledge. But according to Bhagavad Gita Krishna says:
imaṁ vivasvate yogaṁ proktavān aham avyayam
So Krishna is saying that He taught sun-god Vivasvan about the imperishable science of yoga. Thats means sun-god lacked that knowledge and therefore he can not be equal to Narayan.
Last edited:
Haridas
Humble servant of Ká¹á¹£á¹a
Dear Surya Deva,
I find your reasoning quite faulty...
Verse 2.5.9 of this Upanishad says that the Supreme enters the mundane world as many jivas. It clearly says:
ekas tatha sarva bhutantaratma
rupam rupam prati rupo bahish ca
nityo’nityanam cetanash cetananam
eko bahunam yo vidadhati kaman
First line clearly says there are many eternals but among those eternals One is superior because it can fulfil the desires of all the other eternals. So it confirms existence of jivatmas and calls them eternal but Paramatma is stated as Supreme.
So without shouting in every post “Advaita is only true everything else is mythology”, I recommend that you study the Upanishads deeply and try to understand their direct meanings.
Have a Good Day.
I find your reasoning quite faulty...
It is due to advaita interpretation self=Supreme and that is why the word self appears so many times on the translation. This Upanishad describes the Supreme and says that He is the oldest, the Purusha, the ancient, the indweller within the heart.
It talks of only One Supreme Being but that does not mean it denies existence of other subordinate beings.
Verse 2.5.9 of this Upanishad says that the Supreme enters the mundane world as many jivas. It clearly says:
ekas tatha sarva bhutantaratma
rupam rupam prati rupo bahish ca
When the word attain or realizing is applied then it is duality because there is “one who wants to attain or realize” and “there is one who is to be attained or realized”. So the jivatma is trying to realize the paramatma. So it clearly difernciates jivatma from paramatma as one of them being Superior.
All advaitins says that meditation is the process by which duality is removed and one becomes situated in complete oneness with Brahman. But thing is that meditation itself is a practise of duality because there is the “mediator” and a “superior being who is meditated upon”. So how by practising duality can one remove duality and be in oneness?This is simply nonsense. It even defines even common sense let alone other things.
Go back to what I said to your very 1st point.
You just said in your above points that this Upanishad tells to realize, attain, or meditate. And these 3 can only be done on a superior being. So this is also bheda. Also you did not pay much attention to 2.5.13 which says:
nityo’nityanam cetanash cetananam
eko bahunam yo vidadhati kaman
First line clearly says there are many eternals but among those eternals One is superior because it can fulfil the desires of all the other eternals. So it confirms existence of jivatmas and calls them eternal but Paramatma is stated as Supreme.
So without shouting in every post “Advaita is only true everything else is mythology”, I recommend that you study the Upanishads deeply and try to understand their direct meanings.
Have a Good Day.
Last edited:
Surya Deva
Well-Known Member
The translation is from not an Advatist, but a Western Sanskritist who does not have a belief in Advaita, but actually comes from a Christian background. The word Self appears so many times because that is exactly what the Upanishad says.
It very directly equates the one supreme being to the Self and then says it dwells in all. It does not say the one supreme being is a separate god.
There is no contradiction. There is no duality between the Self and Brahman, the Upanishads say this. That when one attains realization the distinction that they previously made about themselves and Brahman disappears and they realize that Atman was always Brahman. Hence it is said, knowers of Brahman become Brahman. Hence any duality is only apparent and ultimately disappears on self-realization.
There is no contradiction, because we exist in an apparent dual world we have to accept apparent dual realities temporarily insofar as they are practical for our goal of self-realization. Hence the duality of meditator and meditated, subject and object has to be temporarily accepted. This is why some Advaitsts provisionally accept worship of ishvara as Shankara did himself he composed hymns and worshiped statues of god, but what he really believed was that ultimately ishvara and jiva distinctions do not exist, the actual reality is only Atman/Brahman. I do not grant this provision I am pure Advatist and only accept the absolute reality. This empirical reality is unreal.
No to realize, attain or meditate does not actually require a supreme being to be meditated on. There is both object meditation and non-object meditation. Object meditation only use objects as practical devices, this can include visualizations of ishvara, but it can just simply be the tip of your nose or your navel. Non-objective meditation, which is what all objective meditations eventually become anyway, do not have any objects, they are simply based on remaining completely in pure awareness.
Like I said some Advaitists, like Ramakrishna and even Shankara grant the provisional reality of worship of ishvara, because ishvara is Mahat with the reflected consciousness of Atman, but I do not grant this reality, because it is highly unnecessary and certainly not universal or scientific. I do practice Ishvara pranidhana, but I do not treat Ishvara as a separate god, but as my higher self that I remember through affirmations like the Upanishadic Risis do , "I am that "I am that Brahman" "I am the universal being" I surrender to the higher power of the self. What I do not do is make images of this higher self and then worship them.
In any case you actually believe in a completely separate and supreme god that is distinct from other souls. There is absolutely no basis for this in the Upanishads. All the mukhya Upanishads teach the essential identity of self and Brahman, that they use the terms interchangeably. There is no Bheda, except in the Dvaita forgeries.
Last edited:
Vrindavana Das
Active Member
Śvetāśvatara Upaniṣad is one of the mukhya upniṣads. It tells us about the dimension of soul.
bālāgra-śata-bhāgasya
śatadhā kalpitasya ca
bhāgo jīvaḥ vijñeyaḥ
sa cānantyāya kalpate
śatadhā kalpitasya ca
bhāgo jīvaḥ vijñeyaḥ
sa cānantyāya kalpate
"When the upper point of a hair is divided into one hundred parts and again each of such parts is further divided into one hundred parts, each such part is the measurement of the dimension of the spirit soul." [Śvetāśvatara Upaniṣad 5.9]
If this is not 'Bheda' from infinite 'Brahman' or Supreme Lord.
I wonder what is...
Surya Deva
Well-Known Member
Shuddasatva has already directly mentioned how 5/9 of the SV is miappropriated by dvaitists/bhaktas. You have taken it out of context. The SV clearly says the lord is the self and prescribes worship of the lord - the self.
I am done with this discussion.
I am done with this discussion.
Vrindavana Das
Active Member
LOL!
So Shuddasatva and you are the enlightened authorities of Advaita, who will decide which portion of the Upniṣads is correct and which is unacceptable?!!
Provide proof that they are misappropriated and also provide the correct verse.
...and 'Dvaita' is forgery?!!
***Mod Post***
This thread has been moved to the Same-Faith Debates forum.
This thread has been moved to the Same-Faith Debates forum.
I am not sure what is written in Vedas regarding Rama and Krishna. But for me respecting them is one thing and praying on their name is another.
I am a Sikh so for me concept of god is clear, I don't bow to anyone but the formless, even Guru Nanak. I respect him and his teachings but will never ask anything from him or pray to him. Even he ( Guru Nanak with all due respects) is not even equal to the dust of vaheguru feet. (This is coming from a Sikh for whom Guru Nanak is the most important human figure)..
So when I see people worshiping stones, human's etc, I kind of feel bad for them. Again I have not read vedas but I read some part of Ramayn last week..and came across countless verses that clearly shows illustrates that Sita and others worship other gods..Rama no doubt was a perfect example on how to live a life in a right way...
Same goes for Krishna. Its also funny that there is so much difference within Hinduism ( Not talking about what is written in Vedas but what people actually think). I talked to hindus from different states as to who they consider as god. I got different answers, some said Krishna, some said Rama, some said Shiva...but when I asked a person who worship shiva about Ram, his answer was that he is not important for him.
It goes to show they people are actually doing what they feel is right and not what is written in Vedas itself. I asked a person why you do idol worship ( He had a ganesh, krishna, etc) in this temple. He said cause they are all gods. Then I asked is it important to hve them while he prays. His answer was yes. I then asked what if he was left on an island with no idols, will he not pray. His answer was he will get a stone then,
Well it kinda sound weired to me, but then again I don't really care as I will not be answerable in the court of god, he will be...)
I am a Sikh so for me concept of god is clear, I don't bow to anyone but the formless, even Guru Nanak. I respect him and his teachings but will never ask anything from him or pray to him. Even he ( Guru Nanak with all due respects) is not even equal to the dust of vaheguru feet. (This is coming from a Sikh for whom Guru Nanak is the most important human figure)..
So when I see people worshiping stones, human's etc, I kind of feel bad for them. Again I have not read vedas but I read some part of Ramayn last week..and came across countless verses that clearly shows illustrates that Sita and others worship other gods..Rama no doubt was a perfect example on how to live a life in a right way...
Same goes for Krishna. Its also funny that there is so much difference within Hinduism ( Not talking about what is written in Vedas but what people actually think). I talked to hindus from different states as to who they consider as god. I got different answers, some said Krishna, some said Rama, some said Shiva...but when I asked a person who worship shiva about Ram, his answer was that he is not important for him.
It goes to show they people are actually doing what they feel is right and not what is written in Vedas itself. I asked a person why you do idol worship ( He had a ganesh, krishna, etc) in this temple. He said cause they are all gods. Then I asked is it important to hve them while he prays. His answer was yes. I then asked what if he was left on an island with no idols, will he not pray. His answer was he will get a stone then,
Well it kinda sound weired to me, but then again I don't really care as I will not be answerable in the court of god, he will be...
)
ratikala
Istha gosthi
dear gurtej ji ,
this understanding is perfectly understandable from an external veiw , may I add to the explanations given to you by hindus as to how they veiw lord rama , lord krsna lord siva ... and why they worship them .
please correct me if I am wrong , as I understand it the sikh reveres the guru granth sahib as being of divine revelation , thus they rightly respect it as the embodiment of wisdom in much the same way as we hindu treat the embodiment of wisdom in the human form as rama , krsna , siva ..(and equaly in their deity form) by placing it in the most revered position and treating it with the respect one might say was equal to the respect for the vaheguru (this I would welcome your comments upon) . in the same way the hindu veiws the name of god to be synonomous with god and the form assumed by god to be equaly synonomous with god thus being also the embodiment of gods wisdom equaly we revere the word of god and a true hindu allso should treat the writen word in its book form as does the sikh keeping it allways wraped and in an elevated position worthy of its divine nature .
it is simply that the hindu in general has placed his focus on the form , he needs to bow down to the feet of the lord he needs to have that embodiment of wisdom to revere .
I found it interesting that allthough you say you worship the formless , in the next sentance you refer to the dust of vahegurus feet , I am not trying to catch you out but simply to illustrate the need for us to have an idea of form even if only as a metaphor . personaly I found that statement most beautifull
yes when I first came across the shalagram I was A little confused as how to take it , untill I realised that I did not have to take it in any way , I simply had to observe the devotion whith which the shalagram was revered . in this way I need no explanation of the shalagram it self just as I need no explanation that you may refer to the dust of vahegurus feet . :namaste such devotion is beautifull
this is fine , each to their own understanding ultimately each is bowing to the dust of vahegurus feet :namaste
simply holding on to an embodiment of divine wisdom , thus if you take away a hindus mirti he will simply worship a stone , he needs a focus for his devotions , he needs feet to bow down to :namaste
it may sound weird , many thinngs sound or appear weird from outside , but in the court of god it is the devotion which is weighed
this understanding is perfectly understandable from an external veiw , may I add to the explanations given to you by hindus as to how they veiw lord rama , lord krsna lord siva ... and why they worship them .
please correct me if I am wrong , as I understand it the sikh reveres the guru granth sahib as being of divine revelation , thus they rightly respect it as the embodiment of wisdom in much the same way as we hindu treat the embodiment of wisdom in the human form as rama , krsna , siva ..(and equaly in their deity form) by placing it in the most revered position and treating it with the respect one might say was equal to the respect for the vaheguru (this I would welcome your comments upon) . in the same way the hindu veiws the name of god to be synonomous with god and the form assumed by god to be equaly synonomous with god thus being also the embodiment of gods wisdom equaly we revere the word of god and a true hindu allso should treat the writen word in its book form as does the sikh keeping it allways wraped and in an elevated position worthy of its divine nature .
it is simply that the hindu in general has placed his focus on the form , he needs to bow down to the feet of the lord he needs to have that embodiment of wisdom to revere .
I found it interesting that allthough you say you worship the formless , in the next sentance you refer to the dust of vahegurus feet , I am not trying to catch you out but simply to illustrate the need for us to have an idea of form even if only as a metaphor . personaly I found that statement most beautifull
yes when I first came across the shalagram I was A little confused as how to take it , untill I realised that I did not have to take it in any way , I simply had to observe the devotion whith which the shalagram was revered . in this way I need no explanation of the shalagram it self just as I need no explanation that you may refer to the dust of vahegurus feet . :namaste such devotion is beautifull
this is fine , each to their own understanding ultimately each is bowing to the dust of vahegurus feet :namaste
simply holding on to an embodiment of divine wisdom , thus if you take away a hindus mirti he will simply worship a stone , he needs a focus for his devotions , he needs feet to bow down to :namaste
Well it kinda sound weired to me, but then again I don't really care as I will not be answerable in the court of god, he will be...
it may sound weird , many thinngs sound or appear weird from outside , but in the court of god it is the devotion which is weighed
Sikhs respect the Granth Sahib as an order from the Lord, and from the Granth we get metaphysical and worldly truths. It is not as in idol worship.
Sikhs pay there regards to Gurubani that teach us the right way of living and how to attain oneness with the true lord. One thing to note is that many of my friends ( Hindu) went to temple, I was one of them in my childhood days. We bow down to the idols and priest gave us some thing to eat. This continued for a long time even in my teens.
Then by chance I started going to gurudrawa ( During my young age most of my great friends were hindus)..and noticing the purity and strength of the word. They use to have this projectors translating Gurubani in english
and each word made sense. Then I realize that I was not getting anything by bowing my head to an idol as idol don't teach me anything. They (With all due respect) were just stones who didn't breath, didn't say a word and people were actually worshiping the stones. Bowing to Gurubani is paying respect to it and thanks for showing me the right path to live my life. On a more bias notes, Gurubani also teach us not to do Idol worship, so being a Sikh, I won't, but please remember the words in gurbani actually made sense to me when I put it in practical life.
On my comparison of Guru Nanak to the lord's feet, Guru Nanak said this to explain that no mortal human being ( Including itself) can come near to vaheguru. He said he is not even an iota to the true guru's feet. The form of god was clearly explained in Japji Sahib ( Yes its the same one in Rang de basanti
as below:ik-oNkaar sat naam kartaa purakh nirbha-o nirvair akaal moorat ajoonee saibhaN gur parsaad.
One Universal Creator God. The Name Is Truth. Creative Being Personified. No Fear. No Hatred. Image Of The Undying, Beyond Birth, Self-Existent. By Gurus Grace ~
Konjim
Member
Dear Yuva ,
Rama, Krishna , Vishnu is God of Hindus Dharma . i advice you to please read Vedas and puran to Know More Details about Rama, Krishna , Vishnu . And Koran, Bible belongs to other Dharma .
http://krishna333.com