Guest guest Posted April 22, 2008 Report Share Posted April 22, 2008 Shyam-ji Pranams, Dennis: I am not attempting to dispute the teaching value of Ishvara for a certain type of mind but I would refute that it is an *essential*concept. Indeed, as you indicate, it actually causes problems for some westerners. I accept that a failure to address Ishvara at all *also*causes problems, even if the westerner would rather not! _____________________ _________ _________ _________ ____ Shyam: I am curious and wonder if either of you may choose to elaborate why this may be so? After all a spiritual tradition does exist even in Christianity with emphasis on values, prayer, faith, surrender, etc Why then should Westerners have a discomfort (in some I have found almost a anathema) to the concept of God or Divinity (almost to the point of as though it were something grounded in superstition. ) This refers to your question to Durga-ji and Dennis-ji. I hope it is okay for me to comment though I am not able to express myself as elaborately as them. My understanding: I cannot say much about Americans, because they seem to be far more rooted in Christian tradition than most Europeans are. So this applies to Europe (and certainly to German speaking countries, Scandinavian countries and I guess to England and the Netherlands): Here many seem to have outgrown the Christian tradition because of its dualistic approach and more specifically because of the idea of God that was promoted. There are definitely Westerners in whom Christian dualism did not create such big wounds that they had to dismiss their religion altogether. Those might be the ones with a concept of a loving God. But those who reject concepts of a personal God strongly probably are reminded of middle aged Christianity which was a nightmare and which they are very happy to leave behind altogether. That kind of dualism looks like this: Up there one God sitting in the heavens watching over everything and punishing severely if his rules are not followed. Punishment will happen either in this life or right afterwords. Down here the human beings (called sheep!), guilt ridden and afraid of hell,which they are bound to end up in because Gods rules are too strict and everyone only has one lifetime chance to fulfil them all. My experience is that most people in the above countries have dismissed this kind of God and they certainly do not want it to be replaced by any other personal God. Maybe its kind of a collective trauma. Thats why most of those Europeans who have turned their back to Christianity turn to Buddhism or Direct Path or Neo-Advaita - no personal God involved. It is obvious that they will not turn to another monotheistic religion like Judaism or become Muslims. But why they do not become interested in Hinduism? They do not turn to Hinduism because of the concept of Ishvara, no matter in what form he/she/it appears. Om Shanti, Shanti, Shanti! Sitara Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 23, 2008 Report Share Posted April 23, 2008 I would just like to add my two cents here as one of those Americans who rejected the idea of a personal God for a long time because the one given to me was not one I could accept as a god, the Christian one, i mean, not the one taught by Christ but the one advocated by modern Christianity. When i came back to a spiritual path about eight years ago I found that if i wanted to go further I had to accept that there was something much greater than me, i was feeling it, becoming closer to it. Now, I could allow my past resentment to overcome that and say, no, no God, and stop there. But I wanted to go as far as I could, and still do, wanted to know what that greater things i was feeling was. So, i had to call it God and redefine that God because that is what i knew at the time. It has helped me a great deal to accept that. When i came to Yoga, Isvara became part of that and then Shiva when I went to India and then when I found Advaita it became the Self, Brahman but with aspects of all those other things as I am not self realized and still see duality. Now, i chose to see this higher power, or feel it because i wanted or needed to move forward spiritually and I had to challenge many of the ideas I had about this and still have to and realize this must be done to move to where i would like to be. I humbly offer this to you, John Miller Sitara <smitali17 advaitin Tuesday, April 22, 2008 5:54:32 PM Western people and God (was Brahman and Ishvara) Shyam-ji Pranams, Dennis: I am not attempting to dispute the teaching value of Ishvara for a certain type of mind but I would refute that it is an *essential*concept. Indeed, as you indicate, it actually causes problems for some westerners. I accept that a failure to address Ishvara at all *also*causes problems, even if the westerner would rather not! ____________ _________ _________ _________ _________ ____ Shyam: I am curious and wonder if either of you may choose to elaborate why this may be so? After all a spiritual tradition does exist even in Christianity with emphasis on values, prayer, faith, surrender, etc Why then should Westerners have a discomfort (in some I have found almost a anathema) to the concept of God or Divinity (almost to the point of as though it were something grounded in superstition. ) This refers to your question to Durga-ji and Dennis-ji. I hope it is okay for me to comment though I am not able to express myself as elaborately as them. My understanding: I cannot say much about Americans, because they seem to be far more rooted in Christian tradition than most Europeans are. So this applies to Europe (and certainly to German speaking countries, Scandinavian countries and I guess to England and the Netherlands) : Here many seem to have outgrown the Christian tradition because of its dualistic approach and more specifically because of the idea of God that was promoted. There are definitely Westerners in whom Christian dualism did not create such big wounds that they had to dismiss their religion altogether. Those might be the ones with a concept of a loving God. But those who reject concepts of a personal God strongly probably are reminded of middle aged Christianity which was a nightmare and which they are very happy to leave behind altogether. That kind of dualism looks like this: Up there one God sitting in the heavens watching over everything and punishing severely if his rules are not followed. Punishment will happen either in this life or right afterwords. Down here the human beings (called sheep!), guilt ridden and afraid of hell,which they are bound to end up in because Gods rules are too strict and everyone only has one lifetime chance to fulfil them all. My experience is that most people in the above countries have dismissed this kind of God and they certainly do not want it to be replaced by any other personal God. Maybe its kind of a collective trauma. Thats why most of those Europeans who have turned their back to Christianity turn to Buddhism or Direct Path or Neo-Advaita - no personal God involved. It is obvious that they will not turn to another monotheistic religion like Judaism or become Muslims. But why they do not become interested in Hinduism? They do not turn to Hinduism because of the concept of Ishvara, no matter in what form he/she/it appears. Om Shanti, Shanti, Shanti! Sitara Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 23, 2008 Report Share Posted April 23, 2008 2008/4/23 Sitara <smitali17: > My experience is that most people in the above countries have dismissed > this kind of God and they certainly do not want it to be replaced by any > other personal God. Maybe its kind of a collective trauma... Based on Sitara-ji's post, I have a sincere suggestion to offer to western members of our group. It is in general not a good idea to compare Indian notions of the divine/Brahman/Ishvara with the monotheistic conceptions of God. Hindu notions of the divine are primarily about " connectedness " , i.e. one senses a deep connection with all observed phenomena whether living or non-living, material or abstract. The different streams within the Hindu dharma, such as Advaita, describe this connectedness in different ways. To understand this one must observe the traditional Indian way of life in its ritualistic aspects and not just get stuck on the philosophy, because the philosophy is an outcome of the way of life and not vice versa. To give an example, whenever food is cooked in my house, it is first offered to the deities in the household shrine and then a small portion is kept outside (on the window or terrace) for crows & other birds. The same practice has been followed by millions of families in India for thousands of years. In rural areas, a part of this food may be offered to cows and other animals. Another example - traditionally before a tree was cut for its wood, a ritual was performed to say " sorry " to the tree and seek its forgiveness and blessings. Rivers, mountains, trees, rocks, animals are all seen as divine in some or the other context. Westerners seeking to understand these points might benefit from studying the old Greek/Roman/Celtic philosophies & traditions and the concepts of divinity/sacredness/connectedness that these cultures had. The Hindu dharma, in terms of philosophy as well as culture, is much closer to these than it is to the Abrahamisms. Studying their own old cultures may better help the Europeans relieve themselves of their " collective trauma " , if there is such a thing as Sitara-ji mentioned in her post. Ramesh Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 23, 2008 Report Share Posted April 23, 2008 Ramesh-ji. Thanks for bringing this connectedness of Indianness to the fore in such a very touching manner. I feel really thrilled and proud to have such ancestry. Best regards. Madathil Nair ______________ advaitin , " Ramesh Krishnamurthy " <rkmurthy wrote: >> Hindu notions of the divine are primarily about " connectedness " , i.e. > one senses a deep connection with all observed phenomena whether > living or non-living, material or abstract. The different streams > within the Hindu dharma, such as Advaita, describe this connectedness > in different ways. > > To understand this one must observe the traditional Indian way of life > in its ritualistic aspects and not just get stuck on the philosophy, > because the philosophy is an outcome of the way of life and not vice > versa. To give an example, whenever food is cooked in my house, it is > first offered to the deities in the household shrine and then a small > portion is kept outside (on the window or terrace) for crows & other > birds. The same practice has been followed by millions of families in > India for thousands of years. In rural areas, a part of this food may > be offered to cows and other animals. > > Another example - traditionally before a tree was cut for its wood, a > ritual was performed to say " sorry " to the tree and seek its > forgiveness and blessings. Rivers, mountains, trees, rocks, animals > are all seen as divine in some or the other context. > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 23, 2008 Report Share Posted April 23, 2008 Shyam: I am curious and wonder if either of you may choose to elaborate why this may be so? After all a spiritual tradition does exist even in Christianity with emphasis on values, prayer, faith,surrender, etc Why then should Westerners have a discomfort (in some I have found almost a anathema) to the concept of God or Divinity (almost to the point of as though it were something grounded in superstition.) Namaste Sri Shyamji and all respected members, From my perspective this is a very beautiful, interesting and fruitful discussion, and I find that everyone's response on the subject helps to build my own understanding. I wrote most of the below last night, and now I see that others, as usual, have addressed most of the points, but I'll add my own thoughts as well. What is the problem westerners have including 'God,' in their understanding? I think that Sri Sitara-ji pretty much hit the nail on the head in her post #40418, and Sri Ramesh-ji completed it in his post #40421. If one was brought up from childhood to think of oneself as a product of sin, and as such, never ever really good…if there is such a thing as a devil, an intrinsic evil (equally as real as God), waiting around every corner to get you, (not only around corners, but in your mind as well)… if prayers offered to 'God' are generally prefaced by admitting how 'bad' you are, and 'please forgive me because I'm so very unworthy and a miserable sinner, ' (even though you might have been feeling okay about yourself a minute ago)…if you are told that Christ, whom you are supposed to love more than anything else, because he is intrinsically good, suffered a horrible death, which was your fault because of your sins (which is very confusing because you weren't even born at the time), anyway, if your only hope of a way out of the whole mess is to continually own up how weak, feeble, sinful, evil, guilty and unworthy you are, and not only that, this same God you are praying to, who is supposed to be all love and compassion, will condemn you to eternal hell fire and damnation after you die if you aren't very very very careful, (and you've only got one life to get it right) well, wouldn't any thinking person reject all of that if they could? Even if a person was not indoctrinated with all of those beliefs as a child, but is born in a western culture to western parents, whose roots and traditions came from the within Judeo/Christian culture, that same person would still imbibe those beliefs subliminally just by living in the culture, because those beliefs are pretty much accepted and woven into the fabric of the culture. If someone rejects those ideas, then that person might say, " I don't believe in God. " If the God they are referring to is the God described above, probably it is healthier not to believe in that God's existence. But say the person who has rejected all of that is really thinker and a ponderer, and he or she becomes a mumukshu, a person who has recognized that all of those things which are *supposed* to make me happy, actually don't, and that person is looking around for some answers, such as is there a way that I can feel really whole and complete, i.e. happy. Then perhaps that person comes to find the teachings of non-duality, or the teachings of Vedanta (and for the moment let's not attribute that finding to anything, be it luck, Ishwara, or grace. We could just call it 'mental readiness.') So that person perhaps hears some satsang teacher give a talk, and it sounds pretty good, although what is said isn't totally clear. (Generally the words 'God, or even 'higher power' are not brought into those teachings.) Or perhaps that person finds a Vedanta teacher. Things are going along pretty well, and then that person hears the word 'God' introduced in the context of those teachings. The person's mind comes to a screeching halt. The word 'God' is already so loaded with such negativity in the mind of the person that it really becomes a problem. 'God' was long ago rejected by a sane mind, and there is no way He's getting back in. I think that Ramesh-ji was absolutely correct in his beautiful post #40428 when he said: " Hindu notions of the divine are primarily about " connectedness " , i.e. one senses a deep connection with all observed phenomena whether living or non-living, material or abstract. The different streams within the Hindu dharma, such as Advaita, describe this connectedness in different ways. " Western notions about the divine very often reflect a complete disconnect, an alienation, not only from all observable phenomena, but also from the observer's own intrinsically divine, (i.e. good) nature, and that is terribly destructive. Those westerners who were influenced by the events of the late 1960's may have been trying to recapture that connectedness in various ways, although lacking any sort of cultural roadmap or support, they weren't always very successful. What the western cultures lack almost completely as far as I can see is 'connectedness,' while at the same time they view those cultures who do have this sense of connectedness as having less understanding. And I think this view can spill over into the study of Vedanta, so that certain parts of the teaching are completely misunderstood, or dismissed. The teachings of Vedanta do, I think, need too be interpreted by a teacher who is a 'wise person of his or her time and place.' That is not to throw out what they say, but rather the teacher needs to be skillful to be able explain what is meant by the words. Just like everything in the teachings of Vedanta, we at first bring our own interpretations to the words. If the words are pointing to that which is not an object, at first we can only think of objects, because that is what words usually point to. If the words point out that everything is 'divine,' or 'that there is only God,' then we bring our initial notions of what the words 'divine' and 'God' mean. My teacher never uses the word 'God' when teaching Vedanta, just because that word carries so much baggage in the minds of most westerners. Instead the words Ishwara or Bhagavan are used. Of course, we can load those two words with the same baggage, but if the teacher and teaching are good, and clear explanations given, that shouldn't happen. When I first began studying Vedanta, I could not understand at all what was meant by the word 'Ishwara.' I didn't understand the way the word was used, why it was used, or what it meant. Sometime later I attended a Vedanta retreat with Swami Dayananda. He was unfolding some verses of the 'Visnusahasranama' (the thousand names of Vishnu or Ishwara). I remember one thing which he said, " If you want to see Ishwara in action, look around you. " Looking out the window and watching the leaves and branches of the trees being moved by the wind, I realized that everything must be Ishwara. I came to the teachings of nonduality after being interested in Hinduism for over twenty years, and over the course of those twenty years I made seven journeys to India, sometimes staying for quite a long time. So, perhaps although I didn't understand that God was everything, or that there was only God, I also hadn't rejected 'God' completely. I had, in fact, embraced other, happier, healthier gods, but still I couldn't say that I was able to embody the same type of devotion and relationship to them, or understanding of them which I observed came so naturally to those born as Hindus. I often felt shy or awkward, but I have to say my Hindu friends were lovingly encouraging and non-judgmental. On my first trip to India in 1973 I met a sage in Rishikesh who asked me what I wanted. I really wanted to say 'enlightenment,' (even though I had a pretty vague, and now I realize incorrect, notion of what that was). But to say that enlightenment was what I really wanted seemed a bit too grand and presumptuous to me, so instead I said, " To see God. " The saint replied, " In order to see God, you need to have divine sight. " I asked him how one acquired divine sight. But since his words were translated, I've either forgotten what he told me, or perhaps I wasn't in a position to understand him at the time. Instead, on the basis of what I had been exposed to or read, I assumed that 'divine sight' meant the acquisition of some type of yogic power similar to astral travel. Now I know that divine sight means one clearly sees (as in knows)that everything is divine, that everything is brahman, everything is Ishwara, nothing left out, and as my teacher often reminds us, " Don't forget to include yourself as well. " Pranams, Durga Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 24, 2008 Report Share Posted April 24, 2008 Pranams Durga-ji Thank you for that very moving account of your long and supremely committed search. My salutations to you for nurturing such humility in your writings and thoughts inspite of being a veteran of over two(three?) decades in this field. I certainly have a better appreciation now of why words like " God " unfortunately gets tainted with such negativity in some people's minds. (My thanks to Sitara-ji and Ramesh-ji as well for their wonderful posts.) I found this particular anecdote of yours very meaningful: ************** On my first trip to India in 1973 I met a sage in Rishikesh who asked me what I wanted. I really wanted to say 'enlightenment, ' (even though I had a pretty vague, and now I realize incorrect, notion of what that was). But to say that enlightenment was what I really wanted seemed a bit too grand and presumptuous to me, so instead I said, " To see God. " ************* You couldnt have said it any better Durga-ji! This is the humble thought that came to my mind on reading it, and I thought of sharing it with you. Here is one viveki who leaves America her homeland and goes to India in search of and to find the Truth, Ishwara. And in contrast, there are scores of avivekis (including yours truly) who leave their motherland India and come to America in search of and to find the Illusion, Maya(i.e. wealth) Wondrous is the spell of MAyA! My humble salutations to you once again! Hari OM Shyam --- Durga <durgaji108 wrote: > Or perhaps that person finds a Vedanta teacher. > Things are going along pretty well, and then that > person hears the word 'God' introduced in the > context > of those teachings. The person's mind comes to a > screeching halt. The word 'God' is already so > loaded > with such negativity in the mind of the person that > it really becomes a problem. 'God' was long ago > rejected by a sane mind, and there is no way He's > getting back in. ______________________________\ ____ Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile./;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.