Shall we discuss Gods?

[Guest guest]

Namaste,

 

In order to keep this list from becoming stale and always revolving

around the same topics ('Do objects exist?', 'Are Advaita and

Buddhism the same?', 'Are jnana and bhakti compatible?'...), I

propose discussing the meaning of Gods and Goddesses in Hinduism.

 

I realize that this may not quite be appropriate for Advaita, which

presumably transcends even Ishwara. So I will not initiate any such

discussion.

 

Please rest assured that as a Westerner I am in no way hostile to or

opposed to the concept of Gods. And I find the Hindu Gods to be

rather reassuring and inspiring, unlike some others. I have read

enough of Ramana to appreciate his subtle view that Ishwara exists as

long as the ego and world seem to exist. He also said similar things

about specifically Hindu Gods, such as Krishna, Shiva, etc.

 

Speaking for myself, I presently regard Krisha or Shiva as being

'archetypes' of the divine when it takes human form. In other words,

there is not just one specific corporeal manifestation called Krisha

or Shiva living at a certain address in some universe or another.

Rather, as conscious beings become enlightened, they retain enough

trace of 'personality' that they resemble Krishna, Shiva, Buddha,...

For example, a more introspective and meditative jnana might resemble

Shiva, and a more extroverted and charming jnana might resemble

Krishna. Just my opinion. Also, I have no major problem with

Brahman manifesting in a vision from time to time, wearing the

'clothes' or bodily forms (i.e. Krishna, Shiva, etc.) appropriate to

the cultural background of that religion.

 

Is anyone interested in tackling this? Is it appropriate for this

list? I would not be willing to moderate this discussion, due to a

lack of background in this area.

 

Hari Om!

Benjamin

[Guest guest]

Hello Benjaminji,

 

Thanks for starting a fresh topic. Let me observe th following:

 

The purpose of Gods in Hindu mythology is the following:

 

1. Gods are ideals to be followed. The purpose of Ramayana is not as

a biography of Rama the prince, but was a description meant for

motivating people to imbibe his qualities. A part of the life of

Rama, was written later by Sage Vasishtha about his sorrow and his

realization, in a work called Yogavasishtha Maharamayana. Again the

same goes for other Gods.

 

2. Purpose of upasana or serving the Lord, is to develop selflessness

through service to the Lord. This must culminate in seeing Him in all

beings and doing service unto them. (This is not in disagreement with

Sarvam Brahmamayam)

>From these two points it becomes clear that the concept of Gods is

not incorrect or harmful for practcal purposes. However, I am not

aware of much truth to comment more on this.

 

Satyameva Jayate Naanrtam

[Guest guest]

Namaste Benjaminji,

 

Apart from being concepts, archetypes, ideals to be followed, may not

Gods and Goddesses be actual beings?

> Rather, as conscious beings become enlightened, they retain

> enough trace of 'personality' that they resemble Krishna,

> Shiva, Buddha,...

 

I think there is a great truth in this statement. One finds

these "states" described in the literature of the Tantras.

 

Regards,

Chittaranjan

 

 

advaitin, Benjamin <orion777ben> wrote:

>

> Namaste,

>

> In order to keep this list from becoming stale and always revolving

> around the same topics ('Do objects exist?', 'Are Advaita and

> Buddhism the same?', 'Are jnana and bhakti compatible?'...), I

> propose discussing the meaning of Gods and Goddesses in Hinduism.

>

> I realize that this may not quite be appropriate for Advaita, which

> presumably transcends even Ishwara. So I will not initiate any

such

> discussion.

>

> Please rest assured that as a Westerner I am in no way hostile to

or

> opposed to the concept of Gods. And I find the Hindu Gods to be

> rather reassuring and inspiring, unlike some others. I have read

> enough of Ramana to appreciate his subtle view that Ishwara exists

as

> long as the ego and world seem to exist. He also said similar

things

> about specifically Hindu Gods, such as Krishna, Shiva, etc.

>

> Speaking for myself, I presently regard Krisha or Shiva as being

> 'archetypes' of the divine when it takes human form. In other

words,

> there is not just one specific corporeal manifestation called

Krisha

> or Shiva living at a certain address in some universe or another.

> Rather, as conscious beings become enlightened, they retain enough

> trace of 'personality' that they resemble Krishna, Shiva,

Buddha,...

> For example, a more introspective and meditative jnana might

resemble

> Shiva, and a more extroverted and charming jnana might resemble

> Krishna. Just my opinion. Also, I have no major problem with

> Brahman manifesting in a vision from time to time, wearing the

> 'clothes' or bodily forms (i.e. Krishna, Shiva, etc.) appropriate

to

> the cultural background of that religion.

>

> Is anyone interested in tackling this? Is it appropriate for this

> list? I would not be willing to moderate this discussion, due to a

> lack of background in this area.

>

> Hari Om!

> Benjamin

[Guest guest]

Namaste Benjaminji!

 

This list ! stale? no way? where buddha and shankara resides , how

can it be stale? smiles!!!

 

Yes, this is a wonderful topic re meaning of Gods and Godesses in

Hinduism... yes, time to set the rdcord straight ! Hindus are

not 'idol' worshippers rather they are "ideal" worshippers!!! Pun

intended !

 

Yes, Adi shankara was the greatest of all advaitins ! But though a

jnani outwardly, inwardly he was a bhakta , that too a Shakta (

worshipper of the Divine mother.) I believe, his mother was his guru

in this regard ; it is from her he developed the love for the mother

goddess! all his divine compostions on the hindu goddesses like

Lakshmi, Saraswati, Bhavani, Lalithambika, Kamakshi etc testify to

this ! what about other compostions like lakshmi-narasimha stotram,

sivananda lahari, soundarya lahari etc... ?

 

JNANA AND BHAKTI are two sides of the same coin.

 

without JNANA ONE IS bLIND

 

WITHOUT BHAKTI one is lame !

 

we need both jnana and bhakti to carry us across the ocean of

samsara...

 

please read verse 61 0f sivananda lahari of adi shankara

 

Aökaðl:ö en:j:b:ij:s:nt:et:ry:skant:aðp:l:ö s:Üec:ka

s:aDv:i n:òj:ev:B:Øø l:t:a ex:et:,hö

es:nD:Øss:er¾ll:B:m:Î .

)apn:aðt:ih y:T:a t:T:a p:S:Øp:t:ðH p:adarev:nd ¾y:ö

c:ðt:aðv:àe¶:,p:ðty: et:Ået: s:da s:a

B:¡Vt:erty:Øcy:t:ð /61/

 

Aökaðl:ö - the Ankola tree

en:j: b:ij: s:nt:et:H - own series of seeds

Ay:skant: up:l:ö - the load stone

s:Üec:ka - the needle

s:aDv:i - the chaste woman

n:òj: ev:B:Øø - own lord

l:t:a ex:et:,hö - the creeper, the tree

es:nD:ØH s:ert:Î v:ll:B:ö - the river, the ocean

)apn:aðet: Eh y:T:a - just as it reaches here

t:T:a - likewise

p:S:Øp:t:ðH p:ad Arev:nd ¾y:ö - the two lotus feet of

Pasupati, lord of beings

c:ðt:H v:àe¶: - the function of the mind

up:ðty: - having approached

et:Ået: s:da - remains always

s:a B:¡Vt:H Eet: ucy:t:ð - that is said to be devotion

 

Just as it's own series of seeds reaches the Ankola

tree here, the needle the loadstone, the chaste woman her

own lord, the creeper the tree and the river the ocean,

like wise, (when) the state of the mind having approached

the two lotus feet of Pasupati, stays there always, that

(state) is said to be devotion.

 

Who else but a pure bhakta composed such beautiful lyrics?

 

now read this from Saundarya lahari verse 27

 

favorite sloka in Saundarya lahari describes this bhava of

devotion thus ....

 

Japo japah silpam sakalam api mudra-viracana

gatih pradaksinya -kramanam asanady ahuti-vidihi

pranamaha sarveshah sukham akilam atmarpana-drsa

saparya -paryaya tava bhavatu yan me vilasitam (sloka 27)

 

Literal translation

 

May everything that i do with the sense of self-dedication

(atmarpana -drsha) be items in thy service - my prattle , the

utterance of thy mantra; the movements of my hand , the gestures and

poses of THY worship; my walking, THY circumambulation ; my eating ,

fire -sacrifce to THEE; the stretching of the body in sleep and rest,

prostration to THEE; and all my enjoyments , offerings made to Thee.

 

This is the literal meaning.

 

The esoteric meaning is whatever enjoyments comes to us in the course

of life , we have to accept them not for ourselves but make an

offering of them to the divine mother .

 

**********************************************************************

This should be an interesting topic for discussion! i do not see

anyone splitting 'hairs' on this one! except the vaishnavites may say

vishnu is superior and the shavites may say shiva is supreme and the

shakta tantriks may claim Shakti is para brahman! Smiles !

 

love

[Guest guest]

Namaste SrI Benjamin,

 

> In order to keep this list from becoming stale and always revolving

> around the same topics ('Do objects exist?', 'Are Advaita and

> Buddhism the same?', 'Are jnana and bhakti compatible?'...), I

> propose discussing the meaning of Gods and Goddesses in Hinduism.

 

 

That was indeed a very much welcome move from you sir. I agree with

you that the list was becoming stale what with all the intellectual

gymnastics going on. At last we have come to one point which is

relevant to sAdhana. Congrats on starting it and thank you very much

from my side.

 

> I realize that this may not quite be appropriate for Advaita, which

> presumably transcends even Ishwara. So I will not initiate any

>such

> discussion.

 

 

I think this is very relevant to this group. Dont be shy of

initiating this discussion. I am with you.

 

> Please rest assured that as a Westerner I am in no way hostile to

or

> opposed to the concept of Gods. And I find the Hindu Gods to be

> rather reassuring and inspiring, unlike some others. I have read

> enough of Ramana to appreciate his subtle view that Ishwara exists

as

> long as the ego and world seem to exist. He also said similar

things

> about specifically Hindu Gods, such as Krishna, Shiva, etc.

 

 

I think the acceptance of Ishwara is required (whether or not he

exists) in order to keep our ego in check. In this sense, Ishwara is

a powerful tool for our sAdhana. Of course, once the ego is

conquered, Ishwara may not be necessary, but I think that is a very

very advanced stage.

 

> Is anyone interested in tackling this? Is it appropriate for this

> list? I would not be willing to moderate this discussion, due to a

> lack of background in this area.

 

 

Surely I would be interested in this discussion. I only hope you

would not make this a dry discussion by introducing logic or

intellectual arguments. Believe me, I indulged in such dry

intellectual stuff and found absloutely nothing positive coming out

of it. So I dont want to burn my fingers again. I would say, let us

discuss this topic from the point of view of sAdhana.

 

 

Regards

Raghavendra

[Guest guest]

Namaste Raghavendraji,

 

Thanks for your post. Now I will just watch and read this particular

message thread. Now that things are moving in the direction: in terms

of sadhana, I will find it very interesting. Even I have burned my

fingers, with tarka. What futility!

 

We don't want to know what that God is. We want to know how to

realize him.

 

Satyameva Jayate Naanrtam

[Guest guest]

Namaste Benjaminji,

 

You said:

> For example, a more introspective and meditative jnana might

resemble

> Shiva, and a more extroverted and charming jnana might resemble

> Krishna.

 

This is fine and I agree to this a lot. But please note my point of

difference:

 

While the above-said may be true (which I cannot ascertain, right now

due to my ignorance) the mere terminology 'introspective and

meditative jnana' would mean attaching an attribute to Brahman. In my

opinion, if the manifestation of Brahman in some form were to be

accepted, it may still not be well understood by a person like me

(one who is still ignorant and is still only a seeker)

 

Wonder it is that Brahman is said to be formless in one part of the

sentence and is said to be the manifestation of the world in the

other. (The Shruthi) How could this be? To a beginner this is not a

good starting point. That is why it is not a good thing to tell a

beginner about Brahman right at the start. (refer Yogavasishtha. I

don't remember chapter or the verses. Somewhere it sayssomething

like: He who knows the truth, and tells about Brahman to the

uninitiated has destroyed the life of that person)

 

Thus it would be a better starting point to introduce these Gods as

great ideals to be followed and then proceed to upasana, dhyana, and

Nirodha.

 

Satyameva Jayate Naanrtam

[Guest guest]

Namaste Raghavendraji,

>I think this is very relevant to this group.

>Dont be shy of initiating this discussion. I am with you.

 

Thank you for this encouragement. However, due to the novelty of the

topic, I would like to get some response from the moderators.

 

I will say one thing. Something about Hinduism that attracts me very

powerfully is this persistent tendency to believe that Brahman really

is everywhere, including in the core of our being. I think that the

most vivid and concrete manifestation of this that one could imagine

is if our consciousness actually rises to higher and higher levels.

This is the true manifestation of divinity, far more meaningful than

magnificent visions with thunder and lighting and so forth. Those

still remain within the realm of illusion, as much as anything else

we (seem to) see.

 

This being said, I really wish I understood the Hindu gods better,

specifically what they mean to actual devotees. I've read all the

official versions of what they are, but I am more interested in the

spiritual and psychological reality.

 

We'll see where this discussion goes...

 

Hari Om!

Benjamin

[Guest guest]

Namaste everyone,

 

First I apologize for my absence. I thought I would be banned from

the list, but I seem to be here only. (My apologies to dadiji if I

hurt her. I sent a message, I assume it was not meant to be sent as a

message to the list and was deleted) I hope I don't hurt or put off

anyone from now onwards. I know, not many may like my return to this

list, but, I shall try not to hurt anyone in future. (My apologies to

all those I might have hurt directly or indirectly)

 

This list is simply wonderful and I can see a wide range of messages

here. This one however, provoked me to write a reply.

 

Sri Benjamin wrote:

> This being said, I really wish I understood the Hindu gods better,

> specifically what they mean to actual devotees. I've read all the

> official versions of what they are, but I am more interested in the

> spiritual and psychological reality.

>

 

I cannot say what exactly it means to the devotees. But when I was

young, about 13-14, I got a book which contained many dohas of Sri

Tulsidas and Sri Kabirdas. One of them really captivated me:

 

'Ghunghat ke pat to khol re,

Piya nazar woh aaye re'

 

and so on....

 

While a direct translation of this would be:

 

"Lift off your head cover, (women in India, cover their head with a

portion of their saree out of respect and modesty) Your darling is

visible"

 

But the bhaavarth was (the true meaning):

Remove your ignorance and there you can see the knowledge that you

are 'shy' of....

 

The term shy was used here, to signify, that while we are truly the

very same knowledge, we are not aware of it.

 

Again, when Sri Tulsidas was asked, "Who is Ram?" he said:

 

"Ram hai satya ke jaisa"

 

Ram is like the truth.

and then continues...

 

"Jo satya jahan, woh satya wahan|

Jo satya jaise, woh satya waise||"

 

The truth, you see somewhere, know it equanimously, there only, the

truth that you experience, know it equanimously (as though you are

just surveying and not actually experiencing it..... Does it remind

you of Sri Ramana Maharishi?) as it is....

 

and sometime later he said somewhere (I am writing all of this from

my memory. Unfortunately, I don't have that beautiful book here with

me.)

 

"Ram ka na hai koi roop,

Ram to hai sabka soor|"

 

The bhavarth written there was:

Ram has no form, He is our very nature. The word soor here means the

enlightened nature (The word actually refers to the Sun)

 

Such profound philosophy was rarely talked of by the saints. A

beautiful prayer, we used to sing in our assembly (long long years

ago) was:

 

Raam naam ras peeje, manwa

Raam naam ras peeje, manwa

Ram naam ras peeje

 

taj kusang, satsang baith nit

hari charcha sun leeje manwa

Ram naam ras peeje

 

kam krodh madh lobh moha koo

kam krodh madh lobh moha koo

bahateej so leeje

meera ke prabhu giridhar naagar

meera ke prabhu giridhar naagar

tahi ke rang mein leeje manwa

Ram naam ras peeje

 

I had the fortune of singing this song on the school choir (when I

was young) and so many other too, but this and 'Vaishnava Jana to'

(by M K Gandhi) were my favourites.

 

The song urges the devotee to drink the wine (the true meaning being,

the essence) of Sri Ram naam. It urges as a first step to leave bad

company and to take to satsang and to hear the praise of Hari.

 

The second satnza says something very important:

Bad indeed are lust and anger and allied forces, that they take away

in their flow, the one who is not paying attention.

 

Meera advises, her own God being Gridhar.(here the word God, refers

to the knowledge that she is giving us) Mix the colors of the love of

God in this violent river of lust, (and you will be liberated).

 

I hope the concept of 'God' from the devotees' standpoint shall be

further discussed. In fact there were many other places, where I

remember, Kabir also went and adviced people to involve in the love

of God (Bhakti) or to look for that Gyan (The same as Jnana) and not

to simply chant or worship an idol, which they did just mechanically

and had not any feeling of love. But I don't remember everything and

then the book is not with me anymore.

 

Satyameva Jayate Naanrtam

[Guest guest]

Hi Balaji!

 

Welcome back! Cannot you tell that this group is about spreading the

message of Love through the teachings of Ancient Vedic Wisdom?!

 

I really liked this post of yours a lot. very devotional!

 

You write ...

 

> 'Ghunghat ke pat to khol re,

> Piya nazar woh aaye re'

> But the bhaavarth was (the true meaning):

> Remove your ignorance and there you can see the knowledge that you

> are 'shy' of....

 

In sufi literature, the devotee is always referred to as a 'woman' (

or a lover ) and God as the 'beloved' and "veil" or Ghunghat is the

euphemism for 'maya or illusion' and the esoteric meaning is when

you are in front of your beloved , you drop all veils - drop all

ignorance or illusion and merge with the 'truth' - the 'marriage of

Jivatma with Paramatma !

 

Balaji, in one post, you have mentioned all my favorites- Meera,

Tulsidas, and Kabir. Bhakti saints and poets, par excellance!

 

KABIR'S DOHAS (verses of two lines ) entire 'advaita' philosophy.

 

here is one bhakti poem I like a lot!

 

jânh khelat vasant riturâj

 

WHERE Spring, the lord of the seasons, reigneth, there the Unstruck

Music sounds of itself,

There the streams of light flow in all directions;

Few are the men who can cross to that shore!

There, where millions of Krishnas stand with hands folded,

Where millions of Vishnus bow their heads,

Where millions of Brahmâs are reading the Vedas,

Where millions of Shivas are lost in contemplation,

Where millions of Indras dwell in the sky,

Where the demi-gods and the munis are unnumbered,

Where millions of Saraswatis, Goddess of Music, play on the vina

There is my Lord self-revealed: and the scent of sandal and flowers

dwells in those deeps.

 

Kabir- translated by Rabindranath Tagore

 

Jai Ram!Jai Sita Ram!

[Guest guest]

Namaste Balaji,

 

I also welcome you back!

 

You said:

>Ram is like the truth.

>Ram has no form, He is our very nature

 

 

Like any good Hindu, you reply with a wise and philosophical answer

when asked an 'intellectual' question. It seems that Hindus have no

problem understanding that God is formless, ineffable,

transcendental, etc. Yet they happily return to worshipping him with

this form or that ... except perhaps people like the Arya Samaj.

 

Perhaps I must accept that a certain kind of religious fervor, such

as often found among Hindus, has no trouble immersing itself in what

may seem like an inconsistency from a dry philosophical point of

view. I guess that is the answer to my question.

 

Still, if anybody has any further experiences or feelings to share

regarding the worship of God with form.... This is something I do

not understand well. Even as a child, I never developed much

devotion for Jesus but wondered a great deal about the invisible and

infinite Source, which I somehow knew must exist.

 

Hari Om!

Benjamin

[Guest guest]

Namaste all,

 

(Am I pleased to know that dadiji is not so cross with me?) That

prayer was very beautiful. But was that in Hindi or Urdu or was it in

English only. Though beautiful, I do love enjoying things in their

own language. That is why I beleive that an English translation of

Sanskrit text loses the real meaning. However, I still appreciate the

English language to be able to find words that can atleast be

understood to clearly (without ambiguity, but with a lot of over-

sophistication) represent the equivalent words in Sanskrit.

 

 

Satyameva Jayate Naanrtam

[Guest guest]

Namaste All and Benjaminji,

>

> >Ram is like the truth.

>

> >Ram has no form, He is our very nature

>

>

> Like any good Hindu, you reply with a wise and philosophical answer

> when asked an 'intellectual' question. It seems that Hindus have

no

> problem understanding that God is formless, ineffable,

> transcendental, etc. Yet they happily return to worshipping him

with

> this form or that ... except perhaps people like the Arya Samaj.

>

 

About your concept of a formless and a 'formfilled' God, I shall

discuss at the end of this email. First I have a very important point

to make.

 

I would rather not be called a good Hindu, I would want to be called

a person following dharma. The popular idea of 'Hindu' is one who

worships a deity and follows the so-called 'Hindu-literature'. I

categorically state herein, (without bothering how it occurs to

anyone here) that the Vedas are not 'Hindu' texts in the popular

sense. They are texts of 'Dharma'. The same goes for all others.

 

Please note, that while the statement may seem funny, it is

distinctly devoid of any need for religion (in the sense of religion

as it is today.) I think everyone would agree that more lives have

been lost in the name of religion and God than in the name of any

land or woman. Thus the popular meaning of 'Hindu' is something I am

very wary of.

 

I know that there are many who would oppose to this. They would

simply say that 'Hindu' is very tolerant. That is something I don't

wish to discuss and is simply a matter of attachment to one's own

religious community, that is evident in such proclamations.

 

Dharma on the contrary is not any religion. It is the law of nature.

It is the way the world works. There is nothing one can do about it.

If one gives it some thought, one would realize that nature possibly

runs a much better government than any man-made form of government.

 

I don't say that Hinduism is man-made. Please understand that my

attack is on Hindu not Hinduism. Again I know that this religion

was 'Sanatana Dharma' and therefore not created by man. But Sanatana

dharma was nature's law. Today's Hinduism is not.

 

Please donot misunderstand me. I have much sympathy with many

people's beleifs that today's practices are good. However, please

donot ask me to accept that view. I don't mind people holding a

different opinion.

 

This said, I shall return to the issue of Gods. You are right! It

appears very astounding to me also, that people can accept a form for

a God when told that there is no form. The trouble arose about 3000

years ago, when some people had this funny practice of speaking in

riddles.

 

For example the description of Shiva:

The form of a meditating personality, clothed in the attire of the

then sanyasins (They used to have a jata, clothed in deerskin, etc.).

But the other accessories of Shiva are: Snakes all around - to tell

the devotee how fearless Shiva is, and to imbibe in him this

fearlessness. Ganges from his head - a cool, tranquil mind, again to

be developed. etc.

 

One very classic accessory they add is nandi. Shiva called Pashupati

is not called so because he rides on nandi. The pashu here refers to

the mind that is so difficult to control and make tranquil. Patanjali

notes how easy it is to make the mind concentrated, but so difficult

to control and make it tranquil. Shiva is pashupati - the one who has

gained control over his mind. This is again something to be developed

by the devotee.

 

Interesting, what began as a literary exercise in trying to tell

people between the lines, what qualities were to be developed, has

today evolved to the practice of worship of deities. No matter how

much people are told, they can never and never will they shed these

attachments to look for the truth by making the mind tranquil. But

such is the world and we shall have to accept is as such.

 

In the upanishad, a rishi (I don't quite recall who - I can have a

close guess. It must be Rishi Gautama, or someone who had a wife who

attained to nirodha state befor the rishi himself!) was explaining to

his wife how one's attachments are the main cause of sorrow. His wife

then remarked: 'You have an attachment to this mantra and this deity,

why don't you shed this attachment?' The rishi thus realized this and

shed his attachement for them. The upanishad says that that was his

first step towards liberation.

 

Please understand that here the attachment to deities and mantras are

being discussed. Not to criticise any mantra or deity. Everyone's

love for his deity and mantra is duly respected. But Benjaminji's

question was 'why do people still return to the form, knowing well

that Brahman has no form?' The answer lay inside the so-called 'good

Hindu'. His attachments are the root cause for such a phenomenon.

 

Satyameva Jayate Naanrtam

[Guest guest]

Bala-ji!

 

SORRY! I Did not have the Hindi Version only the EnGlish translation!

 

But here is another one (kabir poem) equally beautiful with the

Hindi version and the English translation!

 

Moko Kahan Dhundhere Bande

Mein To Tere Paas Mein

Na Teerath Mein, Na Moorat Mein

Na Ekant Niwas Mein

Na Mandir Mein, Na Masjid Mein

Na Kabe Kailas Mein

Mein To Tere Paas Mein Bande

Mein To Tere Paas Mein

Na Mein Jap Mein, Na Mein Tap Mein

Na Mein Barat Upaas Mein

Na Mein Kiriya Karm Mein Rehta

Nahin Jog Sanyas Mein

Nahin Pran Mein Nahin Pind Mein

Na Brahmand Akas Mein

Na Mein Prakuti Prawar Gufa Mein

Nahin Swasan Ki Swans Mein

Khoji Hoye Turat Mil Jaoon

Ik Pal Ki Talas Mein

Kahet Kabir Suno Bhai Sadho

Mein To Hun Viswas Mein

maaokao khaM ZUZo ro bando

maOM tao toro pasa maoM

naa tIrqa mao naa maUrt maoM

naa ekant inavaasa maoM

naa maMidr maoM naa maisjad maoM

naa kabao kOlaasa maoM

maOM tao toro pasa maoM bando

maOM tao toro pasa maoM

naa maOM jap maoM naa maOM tp maoM

naa maOM bart ]pasa maoM

naa maOM ikiryaa krma maoM rhta

naihM jaaoga sanyaasa maoM

naihM p`aNa maoM naihM ipMD maoM

naa ba`(aND AakaSa maoM

naa maOM p`kuit p`vaar gaufa maoM

naihM svaaMsaaoM kI svaaMsa maoM

Kaoija haoe turt imala jaa]M

[k pla kI talaasa maoM

kht kbaIr saunaao Ba[- saaQaao

maOM tao hUM ivaSvaasa maoM

 

(in hindi)

 

Translation

 

Where do you search me?

I am with you

Not in pilgrimage, nor in icons

Neither in solitudes

Not in temples, nor in mosques

Neither in Kaba nor in Kailash

I am with you o man

I am with you

Not in prayers, nor in meditation

Neither in fasting

Not in yogic exercises

Neither in renunciation

Neither in the vital force nor in the body

Not even in the ethereal space

Neither in the womb of Nature

Not in the breath of the breath

Seek earnestly and discover

In but a moment of search

Says Kabir, Listen with care

Where your faith is, I am there.

 

boloji.com

 

**********************************************************************

 

"Because you have so little faith. I tell you the truth, if you have

faith like a mustard seed, you can move mountains."

 

Matthew 17:20

 

LOVE AND BLESSINGS TO ONE AND ALL!