Gods

[Guest guest]

A provocative question occurred to me the other day. Members of the list

will know that my inclinations are very much towards jnaana yoga, not

particularly interested in karma and quite antipathetic towards bhakti. I

used always to turn off when gods were mentioned in the Advaita classes that

I attended. I could understand that an attitude of reverence to a 'higher

being' would help the mind and intellect to put the ego into perspective but

the concept itself just did not seem to fit into the philosophy.

 

My question simply is this: In reality, paaramaarthika, there is only one.

We can call it Self, Consciousness, Brahman, God or X; it really doesn't

matter - whatever we call it, there are no gods, just as there are no

people. In our practical experience, in this relative and illusory plane of

existence, vyaavahhaarika, we experience separateness and mistakenly believe

that there are other people and objects - but who experiences gods? Clearly,

there are no gods in either realm. Is there some third realm, that I have

yet to read about, where gods are experienced or am I missing something? Is

it simply that devas and asuras are used in the scriptures as metaphors for

the 'good' and 'bad' things that (seem to) happen in vyaavahaarika? Or is it

really proposed (by other than 'pure' advaita) that there is an actual

'heaven', to which those mind-intellects (?) who have accumulated 'good

karma' go after death of the body? (And presumably a corresponding 'hell'.)

 

The reason for the question, I guess, is that many members do post messages

whose content implies a genuine belief in gods. How is this justifiable in

the context of the philosophy?

 

(As usual, I apologise in advance - no offence is intended to those more

orthodox religious members of the group. My question arises from my

simple-minded view of (and belief in) the pure philosophy.)

 

Dennis

[Guest guest]

You acknowledge the experience of two realms, the

indivisible unitary state and the state of multiple

entities. Should you not then consider that in going

from the latter to the former, you will need to pass

through many refinements of consciousness ? All our

present (multifarious) concepts are thoughts or ideas.

These ideas manifest themselves according to our

predispositions. As we progress spiritually, the

manifestations also become purer and subtler. You can

say that is the realm of Gods and Goddesses.

 

As an example I quote from the life of Sri

Ramakrishna.

He recalls one incident in which His mind soared

beyond this world into the realm of Gods. He saw many

deities sitting on either side. However, He passed

this state. He then saw seven sages sitting in

meditation. He felt that these sages have even

surpassed the Gods and Godesses. The bodies of these

sages were made of light. Beyond this level, was the

indivisible. He goes on to relate who Swami

Vivekananda was and who He Himself was.

By this episode we see that the route from diversity

to unity is not a jump but a slow transformation.

During that transformation, deities do exist according

to our predispostions. They exist in the realm of

ideas, the Manomaya Kosha.

 

Regards,

Anand

 

 

--- Dennis Waite <dwaite wrote:

> A provocative question occurred to me the other day.

> Members of the list

> will know that my inclinations are very much towards

> jnaana yoga, not

> particularly interested in karma and quite

> antipathetic towards bhakti. I

> used always to turn off when gods were mentioned in

> the Advaita classes that

> I attended. I could understand that an attitude of

> reverence to a 'higher

> being' would help the mind and intellect to put the

> ego into perspective but

> the concept itself just did not seem to fit into the

> philosophy.

>

> My question simply is this: In reality,

> paaramaarthika, there is only one.

> We can call it Self, Consciousness, Brahman, God or

> X; it really doesn't

> matter - whatever we call it, there are no gods,

> just as there are no

> people. In our practical experience, in this

> relative and illusory plane of

> existence, vyaavahhaarika, we experience

> separateness and mistakenly believe

> that there are other people and objects - but who

> experiences gods? Clearly,

> there are no gods in either realm. Is there some

> third realm, that I have

> yet to read about, where gods are experienced or am

> I missing something? Is

> it simply that devas and asuras are used in the

> scriptures as metaphors for

> the 'good' and 'bad' things that (seem to) happen in

> vyaavahaarika? Or is it

> really proposed (by other than 'pure' advaita) that

> there is an actual

> 'heaven', to which those mind-intellects (?) who

> have accumulated 'good

> karma' go after death of the body? (And presumably a

> corresponding 'hell'.)

>

> The reason for the question, I guess, is that many

> members do post messages

> whose content implies a genuine belief in gods. How

> is this justifiable in

> the context of the philosophy?

 

 

 

 

Get email at your own domain with Mail.

http://personal.mail./

[Guest guest]

Namaste Dennisji,

 

Your question had been anticipated by Vidagdha Sakalya, and

his dialogue with Yajnavalkya is in Brihadaranyaka Upanishad

III:ix:1-28.

 

Brahma Sutra Shankara Bhashya has some relevant discussion

in I:iii:26-27, and III:iii:29 [whne Sadaji takes us there].

 

Regards,

 

s.

 

 

 

 

 

 

advaitin, "Dennis Waite" <dwaite@d...> wrote:

> A provocative question occurred to me the other day. Members of the

list

> will know that my inclinations are very much towards jnaana yoga,

not

> particularly interested in karma and quite antipathetic towards

bhakti. I

> used always to turn off when gods were mentioned in the Advaita

classes that

> I attended. I could understand that an attitude of reverence to

a 'higher

> being' would help the mind and intellect to put the ego into

perspective but

> the concept itself just did not seem to fit into the philosophy.

>

> My question simply is this: In reality, paaramaarthika, there is

only one.

> We can call it Self, Consciousness, Brahman, God or X; it really

doesn't

> matter - whatever we call it, there are no gods, just as there are

no

> people. In our practical experience, in this relative and illusory

plane of

> existence, vyaavahhaarika, we experience separateness and

mistakenly believe

> that there are other people and objects - but who experiences gods?

Clearly,

> there are no gods in either realm. Is there some third realm, that

I have

> yet to read about, where gods are experienced or am I missing

something? Is

> it simply that devas and asuras are used in the scriptures as

metaphors for

> the 'good' and 'bad' things that (seem to) happen in vyaavahaarika?

Or is it

> really proposed (by other than 'pure' advaita) that there is an

actual

> 'heaven', to which those mind-intellects (?) who have

accumulated 'good

> karma' go after death of the body? (And presumably a

corresponding 'hell'.)

>

> The reason for the question, I guess, is that many members do post

messages

> whose content implies a genuine belief in gods. How is this

justifiable in

> the context of the philosophy?

>

> (As usual, I apologise in advance - no offence is intended to those

more

> orthodox religious members of the group. My question arises from my

> simple-minded view of (and belief in) the pure philosophy.)

>

> Dennis

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "Dennis Waite" <dwaite@d...> wrote:

> My question simply is this: In reality, paaramaarthika, there is

only one.

> We can call it Self, Consciousness, Brahman, God or X; it really

doesn't

> matter - whatever we call it, there are no gods, just as there are

no

> people. In our practical experience, in this relative and illusory

plane of

> existence, vyaavahhaarika, we experience separateness and mistakenly

believe

> that there are other people and objects - but who experiences gods?

Clearly,

> there are no gods in either realm. Is there some third realm, that I

have

> yet to read about, where gods are experienced or am I missing

something? Is

> it simply that devas and asuras are used in the scriptures as

metaphors for

> the 'good' and 'bad' things that (seem to) happen in vyaavahaarika?

Or is it

> really proposed (by other than 'pure' advaita) that there is an

actual

> 'heaven', to which those mind-intellects (?) who have accumulated

'good

> karma' go after death of the body? (And presumably a corresponding

'hell'.)

>

 

It is held that Brahman is nirguNa or without any attributes,

but still for the sake of meditation/contemplation Brahman is

spoken of as having attributes in the upaniShads. This is the

opinion of Shankara in his brahma-sUtra bhAShya. Shankara

uses the word "upAsana" here in the sense of making similar ideas

or ideas conducive to each other flow continuously in the mind.

The upaniShads describe of the saguNa aspect of Brahman with

various attributes such as "having thousands of heads, thousands

of eyes, thousands of feet" and so on. All this is meant for

helping us contemplate on Brahman. Also, to explain the origin,

maintenance and destruction of the world, the upaniShads again

introduce the concept of God. So God is one who rules the world

and also one who can be meditated upon with a view of ultimately

realizing the attributeless (nirguNa) Brahman.

 

That said, the concept of God as is understood by most religious

people is, I must say, quite naive and mis-informed. Sometimes,

this mis-information is intentional to keep the "devotees" loyal

and supportive of the church or other institution. This commercial-

ization of religion is rather unfortunate because religion in

itself or worship/contemplation of God is not a bad thing, as

even Shankara admits its utility. After all, it is hard to

calm the mind, and contemplation on a Higher Being, even if it

is tentatively accepted, serves the purpose well.

 

Anand

[Guest guest]

09032001

Hello Dennis

 

I suppose you wanted to ask this question as who experiences gods? when

there are no gods. In other words why plurality in the name of God. And how

do people relate plurality of God with Philosophy when they are aware of the

concept that this plurality mearges with Singularity. It means to me that we

are searching for Unified Theory.

 

To do this we have to have a Language that will discribe the unification.

See, in the world of Object-Oriented Programming, the entire system is

consider as Collection of Ideas(Class) and their manifestations (Object). To

understand the concept fully the student is taught to see the world around

in terms of Classes and their manifestations. This is done with the help of

a Language that is called as UML Unified Modelling Language. It unifies the

Ideas present in Human mind/intellect and the Computer Program that gets

executed. There are several ways in which people Model their Ideas. Every

Organization makes its standard for it. But every Organization at the end

must reach to a stage of writting correct and desirable software out of

its

UML.

 

Exactly is the situation in the field of Vedic Sanskriti. God is consider

as Abstract Class and the manifestation of this Class is done in many ways

to a YogSadhak(YogStudent) reffered as 'gods'.You asked about anything

missing. I suppose the only missing aspect is the methodology in gaining

knowledge. Jnaana yoga is all about uniting with Jnana. This is done by

practicing Yog(Patanjali) in correct and disciplined fashion.

 

Actually,Vedic sciences classifies stages of YogSadhak(YogStudent) in

following manner

1)Aakash(Space)

2)Vayu( Similar to Air)

3)Tejas(Fire)

4)Aap(Water)

5)Pruthvi(Earth).

 

In each stage some significant changes happen with the student.To notify

those changes some Models(gods) are attached with every stage. These changes

are

noted in the form of Model to indicate the correct direction. Every YogSadhk

should experience it in the similar fashion. The stage is identified by the

model perceived by the student. These Models are reffered as gods. In each

stage there are one or more Models a student perceives. That is why

plurality.

 

Pruthvi in Sanskrut means to classify and identify .It is a stage when

student learns how to see things clearly which is a default stage of every

human being.Hence no need to tell him what is what. Human being by default

learns to see the things separated. That happens in the Prithavi stage of

the Sadhk.This is the begining stage of the Sadhak. Hence no significant

things are there in this stage.Hence no gods(model) other than Mother as

god, are attached. Mother is what is the first object Human being separates

without much problems. Hence here who so ever wants to be in this stage only

should consider ultimate source of Knowledge as Mother only.

 

Aap which is next to Prithvi stage means Water the color of which is

considered as White hence God of Aap that is Shankar is attached with White

color. This is the stage where Sadhak experiences the effect of activation

of his Serpent Power(Kundilini Shakti). When Kundalini Shakti gets activated

Sadhak sees lots of Snakes around him, he as well experiences the effect of

strong heat inside the body so much so that he always wants to be with Water

only. The Lord Shiva is to indicate that stage of the Sadhak. That is why He

is shown with White Ganga,Snow White Himalayas,Snakes around the neck to

soothe the effect of the Heat genarated. This is the stage where Sadhak as

well expereinces some eternal sound continously. This is the reason Damaru

is shown with Him. In this stage White Moon is also seen by the Sadhak, that

is why Moon is shown above the Lord Shiva. This is the stage where strict

disciplne is required so to indicate the alertness it is shown that Nandi is

constantly watching the Shiva Sadhak. Nandi is a derivative of the word

Aanand. This is to indicate the pleasure or aanand the Sadhak is likely to

have

if he overcomes the stage of Shiva. This is the stage where MuladharChakra

is

activated. The person is activated form his default stage. This experience

is really joyfull and Sadhak behaves in the blissfull state only. That is

why Shiva is depicted as most Joyfull and innocent god who likes white Bhang

a kind of the sedetive that makes to enjoy a state you are in. Since this

the first stage after default,some times Sadhak tends to loose his patience.

If it is not controlled and disciplined, Sadhak may destroy himself that is

why Shiva is shown as Destructor. It is respected belief that a person who

is dead has transformed to a stage of Aap and that way has mearged with Lord

Shiva. That is why in India in some part people still write KailashVasi

against the name of the dead person.This is the reason why Shiva Murti is

there in Hindu crematorium.Hence it is customary to accompany a dead person

in White color dress.

 

Tejas, next to Aap, is Fire or Light hence color of gods attached with this

stage is Fire color that is Shenduri color. Gods like Ganesh,Durga are

indicators of this stage.In this stage Student acquires knowledge in a speed

of Light!!! That is student becomes very Intelligent. Hence Ganesh is

considered as Lord of Vidya(Education). In order to reach to this stage

Sadhak has to crosss the Aap stage. So from the Aap stage only Tejas can

take birth. That is why Lord Ganesh is shown as the son of Lord Shiva. At

this stage now Sadhak has overcome the problems and anxiety of Aap stage so

he becoms more relaxed and tends to be acquiring the knowledge in the speed

of Light. His entire structure becomes enlighting but the Body in this stage

will be calm and quite. That is, it becomes more Sthula. Sadhak first time

experiences the sound of Omkar from within the body. All this is depicted in

the Lord Ganesh.Omkar sound is shown with the help of Elephent Trunk. To

have the sond listening capacity and level headed approch Elephent Head is

shown with Lord Ganesh. This is to simply indicate the attributes that have

been

gained by the Sadhak in this stage.

 

Now once Sadhak acheives the Tejas stage, more study(Sadhana) is required

for the next

stage. Vayu is the next stage. Vayu is next to Tejas with the color of Tejas

but it is a stage where student achieves knowledge in speed more than Light

hence they are shown with tail. Lord Hanuman,Narada,and Garuda are

indicators of that. Here the Yog Shakti goes beyond the speed of Light.

Modern physics and Science is yet to cross the limit of Light

successfully.But the YogSadhak in the stage goes anywhere in the Universe.He

attains the state where he can experience the lightness in the body.

Time dimension is no more relavent in the stage. He has to have the

attributes of previous two stages that is why Hanuman is shown with good

physical body and sharp intellect. The Sadhak at this stage will always be

good follower because by this time he has acquire and understood the

futility of maintaing identity. That is why Hanuman and Narad and Garuda are

consider as Bhakt rather than god themselvs.

 

Aakash is next to Vayu the ultimate stage where the student aquires

knowledge of every possible aspect of life that is Brahama. Basically it is

said the Brahama stage is beyond textual or any other description and to

show

the Nothingness or Void it is compared with Space or Sky. This makes the

stage to have a color of Sky which is more black than white in Black &

White. Lord Vishnu is indicator of this stage and Lord Ram and Krishna are

incarnations of Vishnu. Hence the color of Ram and Shyam is Sky Blue. Since

the Sadhak by this tries to be more with Brahma and hence the Yogabhyas ends

here. Sadhak by this stage activates his Kundalini power to the last that is

SahastrakarChakra. That is why it is belived that a Sadhak will control his

Sahatrakar chakra. This is indicated by Sudarshanchkra as wepeon in the

hands of Lord Vishnu. In this stage Sadhak has fully controlled his

Kundalini(Serpent/Snake) power hence Lord Vishnu is shown sleeping on the

beds of snake.

 

This is the Yogic Truth and answer for the plurility of gods. So this

clearly indicates that Vedic gods have been depicted as Modelling of the

stages a Sadhak will undergo in his Yogic persuasion.

Vedic gods are not mere metaphor for 'Good' and 'Bad' or 'Sur' and 'Asur'.

The

concept of Swarg and Narak (Heven and Hell) is again Yogic only.

 

So the essence is that Vedic Gods are experienced Gods by the YogSadhak.

There are many such people who will confirm such experinces. They are

scattered through out India. Since so much of Sadhana, makes them to enjoy

in secrecy. We dont find or recognize them. One can also get this, subject

to the strict aderence to the methodology of the YogSutras and YogSadhana.

 

This was describe in the typical Vedic fashion in the Vedic Books. Over the

period, people lost the correct aspects of the YogScience and the result was

that people started beliving them to be the Gods in the Vedic Dharma. To

fall in the Bhakti Marg is the most easiest and simple way for the general

masses in this part of the world. That way element of Shardha crept in.

Kundalini can be activated in the true devotional manner as well. Meera

/Radha are indicators for that. So people belived that this way we can reach

to the ultimate state in the Knowledge searching. Bhakti can activate

Kundalini only in the first stage. It makes a Prithvi Sadhak to go in to Aap

Sadhak only. To expeirence other stages one has to go in the regular and

correct way of YogScience. But Bhakti was natural for the masses in this

part of the world. These were ready Models available for them to attached

their Bhakti and Shardha. Hence some other cult with in that also started.

That is how PolyMorphic Vedic Sankriti evolved. But basically it all started

to indicate the models of the Ideas a Sadhak expeirences in his YogSadhana.

 

 

 

Thanks for Time and Space.

 

Prabodh

[Guest guest]

Namaste,

 

As one may have gathered from all the excellent responses to the

question, the answers vary with the path one chooses.

 

Each path, so to say, shows different scenes, as confirmed in

the experiences of Sri Ramakrishna. Sri Ramana chose the path of Self-

inquiry and never bothered to discuss the Raja Yoga experiences. In

fact he was quite categorical about the jnani's kundalini resting in

the heart.

 

In the Kashmir Shaivism agama [advaitic], Vijnanabhairava, 112

types of yoga are described! [An English translation by Jaidev Singh

is available].

 

Frankji's latest response on another thread sums up precisely

that to experience anything OTHER than as Brahman cannot be REAL,

whatever one calls it.

 

Regards,

 

s.

 

 

 

 

 

advaitin, "Dennis Waite" <dwaite@d...> wrote:

> A provocative question occurred to me the other day. Members of the

list

> will know that my inclinations are very much towards jnaana yoga,

not

> particularly interested in karma and quite antipathetic towards

bhakti. I

> used always to turn off when gods were mentioned in the Advaita

classes that

> I attended. I could understand that an attitude of reverence to

a 'higher

> being' would help the mind and intellect to put the ego into

perspective but

> the concept itself just did not seem to fit into the philosophy.

>

> My question simply is this: In reality, paaramaarthika, there is

only one.

> We can call it Self, Consciousness, Brahman, God or X; it really

doesn't

> matter - whatever we call it, there are no gods, just as there are

no

> people. In our practical experience, in this relative and illusory

plane of

> existence, vyaavahhaarika, we experience separateness and

mistakenly believe

> that there are other people and objects - but who experiences gods?

Clearly,

> there are no gods in either realm. Is there some third realm, that

I have

> yet to read about, where gods are experienced or am I missing

something? Is

> it simply that devas and asuras are used in the scriptures as

metaphors for

> the 'good' and 'bad' things that (seem to) happen in vyaavahaarika?

Or is it

> really proposed (by other than 'pure' advaita) that there is an

actual

> 'heaven', to which those mind-intellects (?) who have

accumulated 'good

> karma' go after death of the body? (And presumably a

corresponding 'hell'.)

>

> The reason for the question, I guess, is that many members do post

messages

> whose content implies a genuine belief in gods. How is this

justifiable in

> the context of the philosophy?

>

> (As usual, I apologise in advance - no offence is intended to those

more

> orthodox religious members of the group. My question arises from my

> simple-minded view of (and belief in) the pure philosophy.)

>

> Dennis