The need for deities in philosopy

[Jahnava Nitai Das]

"What is the need for Deities philosophically, when Prakti (Nature) is operating on a set of predetermined scientific laws being controlled by a Supreme Controller?"

 

Philosophically one may say there is no need for deities, but one could carry this argument endlessly in any direction. It is just a fact of existence. Philosophically what is the need for planets? Why can't we all just float in empty space? Philosophically what is the need for eating? Why can't we just be self-sufficient energy sources? Philosophically what is the need for Krishna to be blue?

 

One can doubt anything based on the logic that it could have worked just as well another way, but (according to the Vedas) this is the particular manner in which God decided to create the material manifestation.

 

He created three levels of control for every object:

 

The Adhibhuta - elemental level (the matter).

The Adhyatma - perceiving level (the self).

The Adhidaiva - controlling level (the deities).

 

God is defined as one situated beyond these three in the Bhagavatam as follows:

 

yo 'dhyatmiko 'yam purushah

so 'sav evadhidaivikah

yas tatrobhaya-vicchedah

purusho hy adhibhautikah

ekam ekatarabhave

yada nopalabhamahe

tritayam tatra yo veda

sa atma svashrayashrayah

 

"The individual person possessing different instruments of senses is called the adhyatmic person, and the individual controlling deity of the senses is called adhidaivic. The embodiment seen on the eyeballs is called the adhibhautic person. All three of the above mentioned stages of different living entities are interdependent. In the absence of one, another is not understood. But the Supreme Being who sees every one of them as the shelter of the shelter is independent of all, and therefore He is the supreme shelter."

 

Each of the three is sheltered by another of the three, and thus they are all interdependent. God is the shelter of the shelter of the adhibhuta, adhyatma and adhidaiva.

 

 

Back to your question, these three levels of control are the scientific laws you hint at.

 

I fail to understand why there should be so many departments in a government. Why can't there just be one government office that controls everything. But for some reason everywhere there is delegation of powers. In nature it is no different. The power of prakriti is delegated to various individuals, including us. For example, the power to see has been delegated to each of us. But since we are only the adhibhuta seerer, our control is quite limited over our sight. If there was no fire (or light), despite our having the instrument to see, still we would not be able to see. Thus we become dependent on another level of control. But fire itself is controlled by a personality, and thus the fire also becomes dependent on another level of control. Ultimately the dependence goes all the way back to the prakriti, who has been empowered by Vishnu.

 

For anything to function, it requires these three levels of control. If you remove one, it will not function. Instead of questioning the need for deities (adhidaiva), why not question the need for our self, the perceiver (adhyatma). If you remove the perceiver, the question becomes quite meaningless. Same is the case if you remove the deity.

 

 

[lakeqi8]

ah man, have you lost all sense of the beauty of life- the deities speak for themselves,have you ever read their words- their words are the essence of art- only the beauty of the female form can approach them, which brings me to my question.

 

can anyone tell me if there are any other full legnth hindu novels or epics that are like the mahabharata or the ramayana?

i realize that there are short tales but is there anything else that a person can read that is in the same form as these two epics- i dont want my philosophy to be dry and dead, there has to be a story and dialogue, the more boasting and bravado the better

 

 

 

[Bhakta Shakta]

Thanks for the replies so far Dasha, Jndas, and Viji_53.

 

"It is just a fact of existence."

 

It might be a fact too you but not to everyone. Not everyone accepts God's existence, nor does everyone accept some Deities existence.

 

"Philosophically what is the need for planets?"

 

Because I can verify its existence empirically. But I know not all questions can be answered empirically.

 

I could ask what is the philospohical need for God in my model of the universe.

 

And they're many needs.

 

Creation for one. The only arguement that satisfactorily explains the existence of the universe to me is Creationism (Vedic of course).

 

Cause-effect is reason two. If we trace back the cause-effect to the origin. There must be A Prime Mover.

 

I could go on and on.

 

That's why I asked what's the philosophical need for Deities. I know it's not an important question, but it's something i'm wondering about. I just don't understand how Indra is controlling millions of clouds on Earth causing rain...

 

[Gauracandra]

<<scratch scratch>> I'm a bit confused here on what your question is Bhakta Shakta. It seems to me your questions is "Given a certain philosophical system (in this case Vedantic)why is there a need for deities". I think JNDas has answered this but that you have changed the question mid-stream. Given a certain philosophical construct, we have words that have meaning within context, and a flow of thought that connects various elements to provide the "need" for an element in that philosophical construct. You may accept or reject that philosophy, but that is really a separate issue. If I ask "Why need the sky be above me? Why can't it be below me?" the answer is that "We have defined the word sky as that which is above you".

 

Ultimately, it seems to me your point comes down to "Why?" to which I would respond "Why ask Why?" {for those in the US, please no cheesy beer promotions}.

 

When JNDas asked:"Philosophically what is the need for planets?"

 

You replied: "Because I can verify its existence empirically."

 

But I think you missed his point, because really you have changed the question mid-stream. You did not ask for proof that dieties exist, just what is their need in a certain philosophy. The need can only be explained within the context of that philosophy.

 

I think the best way to aid in this questioning would be for you to try to give us an answer to your question. I realize that you are the questioner so you really shouldn't have an answer. However, if you attempted to answer your own question it may give us clues as to the precise nature of your inquiry. Beyond that I honestly don't see where this question is heading.

 

Gauracandra

 

[animesh]

"What is the need for Deities philosophically, when Prakti (Nature) is operating on a set of predetermined scientific laws being controlled by a Supreme Controller?"

 

I am also not sure that I understand the question correctly. But the words "Supreme Controller" in the question indicate that perhaps Bhakta Shakta is trying to ask "If everything is governed by Supreme Controller, why worship so many deities?"

 

Well, it is just a guess.

[Jahnava Nitai Das]

In reference to Animesh's second paragraph, it is interesting that Lord Krishna presented the same arguments (known technically as the Karma Mimamsa Darshana) to His father in order to convince Him that it wasn't necesssary to worship Indra. Basically He said since all reactions are due to our past activities, whether or not we worship Indra, rain will still come or not come based on our karma. Therefore it is better not to worship Indra, and instead to worship the Govardhana Hill which is providing grass for our cows.

 

The exact conversation occurs in Srimad Bhagavatam. Lord Krishna utilizes this philosophy to establish the worship of Govardhana Hill, but later He defeats this exact same philosophy. It is kind of a philosophical game of the Lord.

 

[Bhakta Shakta]

Previously posted by Gauracandra:

"But I think you missed his point, because really you have changed the question mid-stream. You did not ask for proof that dieties exist, just what is their need in a certain philosophy. The need can only be explained within the context of that philosophy."

 

I don't see how I missed his point, as I thought it was an excellent answer from a metaphysical viewpoint.

 

"...You did not ask for proof that dieties exist, just what is their need in a certain philosophy."

 

Actually I asked for their need in philosophy and religion in general and not specifically within the Vedantic tradition. Yes, I am looking for proof that dieties exist, but I didn't want to stay it directly.

 

Anyway, I still haven't realized the need for dieties.

 

It is by the force of karma that a living entity takes birth, and it is by karma alone that he meets his destruction. His happiness, distress, fear and sense of security all arise as the effects of karma, not from some multi-armed demigod carrying axes! Even if we postulate that there is some so-called Supreme Controller who awards all others the results of their activities, He must also depend upon a performer engaging in activity. After all, there is no question of being the bestower of fruitive results unless fruitive activites have actually been performed. Living beings in this world are forced to experience the consequences of their own particular previous work. Since some multi-headed demigod can't change the destiny of human beings, which is born of their own nature, why should I believe in demigods? Every individual is under the control of his own acquired conditioned nature from the 3 modes of material nature (sattva, rajas, tamas), and thus he must follow the nature. This entire universe is based on the acquired conditioned nature of the living entities. It's only the karma that causes the conditioned living entity to accept and then give up different high high or low material bodies.

[animesh]

________

Yes, I am looking for proof that dieties exist, but I didn't want to stay it directly.

________

 

Well, it is not possible to give a convincing proof. I can at most cite verses from scriptures, but you can ask for the proof of the authenticity of those scriptures. So, it is better if I do not try to give the proof.

_________

Even if we postulate that there is some so-called Supreme Controller who awards all others the results of their activities, He must also depend upon a performer engaging in activity. After all, there is no question of being the bestower of fruitive results unless fruitive activites have actually been performed.

_________

 

I agree with this. Scriptures never say that God will award us without keeping in mind our karma. Scriptures always give importance to performing one's duties.

 

__________

Since some multi-headed demigod can't change the destiny of human beings, which is born of their own nature, why should I believe in demigods?

__________

 

Just because demigods can not change our destiny, we can not conclude that they do not exist. Can I change the destiny of others? I can't, but I exist. Why do we think that only those who can affect human beings should exist? The universe is made up not only of human beings. There are many others. Universe is not made up of only living beings either. There are many non-lbing things. jndas ji has given an excellent analogy of many departments in a government. That example shows that even though law is made by parliament, there are many in government who are not members of parliament. Similarly even if we assume that laws are made by Supreme Controller, we can not say that there is no need of demigods.

 

 

[Jahnava Nitai Das]

Actually there is no need to limit this type of question to demigods. The same question can and should then be applied to God Himself. If everything is happening due to our karma, what's the need for a God? If I am good, God will give me only good, and if I am bad, He will give me only bad. He is therefore under the control of karma (as He is forced to act as a dispenser based on my actions). For example, if I do good He won't give me bad. Thus the ultimate absolute truth is in reality karma, or so the karma-mimamsa philosphy states. One should refer to the Vedanta-sutra for Vyasa's refutation of this doctrine. I won't get into details here as it will be long and divergent.

 

[shvu]

 

Hi Jndas,

 

That is a point.

 

The impression given by the Gita is that a person goes on through the sequence of birth and death due to Karma. If the person wants to get out of this cycle, he/she should turn towards God. That will eventually burn all the Karma and liberate the person.

 

So this way, we can explain God and Karma together.

 

Cheers

[Bhakta Shakta]

Previously posted by Jndas:

 

"...One should refer to the Vedanta-sutra for Vyasa's refutation of this doctrine."

 

Where can I get Vedanta-Sutra? I can't find it on the internet. Can you post it on your website in the Library section? And the GVV commentary Govinda-Bhashaya too while your're at it. This is a great webpage you've put up.

 

Thanks.