What are the Essential Beliefs of Hinduism?

[Guest guest]

> What can you say yourself about point four -

> "all-pervading formless" vs. living God?

 

Dear LeoB...

 

My personal thought on the matter of formless God vs "living" God (God

as ultimately a Spiritually Bodied Person)is such :

 

We know for instance that in one small part of the spiritual space

there exists a " material ball " which is empty inside. Visnu enters

that great covering and from His breathing originate all universes

like tiny balls. That great Visnu expands Himslef and enters each

universe. Those Visnus in turn expand themselves countlessly and

pervade every bit of space dimension hence the term : "God is present

everywhere." This gives rise to the formless aspect of God as all

pervading. But essentially the formlessness is a secondary aspect of

the Person God herein begins the acinta bheda-abhedha logic which

translates into : simultaneously the same and different.

 

For example : God has a form albeit a spiritual form , for our

understanding lets say its made up of spiritual matter. A form by

material definition is dimensionally limited to a certain space. Yet

God's body is limited in that we can see it occupying a limited

spiritual space yet at the same time it is unlimited in that He is

present everywhere by expanding Himself into countless spiritual forms

which pervade every bit of space there is. So in spiritual logic the

terms limited AND unlimited apply simultaneously to the same object

whereas in the material sphere a form spatially limited by its

dimensional magnitude.

God always existed as a Spiritual Person and this is how He was always

seen in the spiritual space - the impersonal understanding of God as

we presently know it is incomplete and only exist in the material

world as a philosophical crutch in order for us to understand His all

pervasiveness.

 

Your sincerely

Athmun

[Guest guest]

A unique belief of Hinduism is : Every Soul is divine.

 

Swetaswatara Upanishad captures this idea beautifully

thus:

 

srinvantu vishve amritasya putrah a ye dhamani divyani tasthuh

 

translated as

 

"We all are the sons of immortality and bliss, we who

once resided in the divine kingdoms."

 

 

 

 

[imranhasan]

Thank you all, for your help. Thank you avinash for the response. I am sorry for the delayed in my response. I was kept busy with some work.

I will request clarification of your first point, here. You write:

 

Hindus believe in a single supreme God with many demigods and demigoddesses (who are not supreme). Not all sects of Hinduism agree on who this supreme is, but it is common belief across all sects that there is one Supreme.

 

What exactly does demigods and demigoddesses mean? Are these a creation of the one Supreme God?

Thank you very much for your time.

[Avinash]

 

What exactly does demigods and demigoddesses mean? Are these a creation of the one Supreme God?

They are creations of Supreme God the way everything (including us) is His creation.

I can give you an analogy of government. If you get some work done from the government of your country, then there are different ministers for different purposes but none has the power to grant everything.

Different demigods are incharges of different things. They have different powers. Because of whatever powers they have, they can grant different kinds of boons. But none of them is really omnipotent and omniscient the way supreme is. No matter how powerful they are, they are subservient to the supreme.

[imranhasan]

Thank you Avinash,

You write:

 

They are creations of Supreme God the way everything (including us) is His creation.

Would I be correct in deriving from this: 'Hindus believe that the creator of all things (including ourselves and the demigods) is the One Sumpreme God only. The demigods have not created anything in this whole material (and all other forms of) existence'. Please correct me, if I am wrong.

You write:

 

I can give you an analogy of government. If you get some work done from the government of your country, then there are different ministers for different purposes but none has the power to grant everything.

Different demigods are incharges of different things. They have different powers. Because of whatever powers they have, they can grant different kinds of boons. But none of them is really omnipotent and omniscient the way supreme is. No matter how powerful they are, they are subservient to the supreme.

Your analogy is quite beautiful. It does give a concept of how the supreme God may be running the affairs in a delegated manner. Am I correct, in deriving this? However, it raises a few questions in my mind. Continuing with the analogy of government:

 

• is the style of this overall government autocratic or democratic among the Supreme God and the demigods?
• Does the supreme God still have complete control over the affairs of the department over which a demigod is appointed or has this control now permanently been transfered to that demigod? For instance, can the supreme God remove one demigod from heading a particular ministry?
• Do the demigods take their own independent decisions with reference to their particular departments or do they simply carry out the directives given by the Supreme God?
• Is the Supreme God alone the one who is Omnipotent and Omniscient. What exactly does your sentence "But none of them is really omnipotent and omniscient the way supreme is", mean?
• Do you mean that the demigods are omnipotent and omniscient relative to their sphere of authority and responsibility?

Thank you very much.

[imranhasan]

Thank you Gaea. While I wait for brother avinash's reply, i'd like to ask you for some clarifications regarding some of your points:

 

I can only answer your questions from my viewpoint so please forgive me if i'm not more expansive...

I thank you, very dearly for your answer, my brother.

 

...the Shiva Purana will have a teaching that many Dvaitins will find antagonistic.

This is interesting. Please excuse my ignorance, can you - if it is not considered wrong - please let me know this teaching of the Shiva Purana, which is taken to be antagonistic by the Dvaitins, and why?

 

You see, you it must understood that there are different teachings for different people. Imagine your body is a vessel. Different people have different sized vessels. Moreover there may be some substances that the vessel might not be able to hold because of its material. Therefore the Vedic people of old, realised souls, evolved beings (whatever you want to call them) taught an ideology that was relevant for the time and the place and for the people who were listening. So, Christ taught his Teachings, Mohammed taught his Teachings, etc. etc. - the teachings were relevant for the time/place/constitution of the people who "needed saving".

I think I understand what you are saying. What you mean is that just like a good teacher would only teach his students the concepts that they would be able to understand and digest and also in a manner that they will understand and digest, so too these great reformers. Am I correct?

However, If what I have understood is correct (and please ignore this, if it is not correct), then the basic difference between the teachings of these reformers should be of the nature of more or less expansive. Obviously, if there are any facts about somethiing that these great reformers have told their audience, those facts cannot be mutually exclusive. Will you not agree?

Thank you.

The one thing you will find constant is LOVE AND DEVOTION for God, whatever the intracacies of philosophy. I would ask you to see this unity in diversity.

Hey, why not? "Hindu", as Avinash alluded to, is just a label for the body. If it makes you happy, good for you, use it. Spirituality is universal to everyone.

Some will say God has a form/name, some will say not. Some will say everybody is God, others will be disgusted by this thought and say God is above us. Very different, as you can see. However none of them will say "Hate God", "Hate people" etc. All realise the importance of Love.

This is a popular misconception encouraged by those who know nothing about Hinduism and try to write text books about it. Hindus are not Idol worshippers in the sense that the Ten Commandments forbid (OTHER POSTERS - if you have a quiff with this start off a different thread please!). Why we use Murtis ("Idols") is a whole different story. But essentially yes, there are many Hindus who do not use Murtis in their regular practice. There are also some Hindus (but not many) who don't believe in reincarnation. Are they gonna burn in hell for this? No, i don't think so. The most important thing is LOVE GOD. That is the essence of Hinduism. It is the essence of almost every religion on this planet (at least in their original states).

G.

[Avinash]

I could not post my reply earlier because of forum downtime.

 

Would I be correct in deriving from this: 'Hindus believe that the creator of all things (including ourselves and the demigods) is the One Sumpreme God only. The demigods have not created anything in this whole material (and all other forms of) existence'.

The answer depends on what you will take as 'creating'. I may build a car and thus I am the creator of that car. In that sense demigods also can create many things. Of course, they can and do create many things which I may not even be able to imagine.

But if I build a car then I have to use many materials which are not created by me. Likewise, when demigods create something, then they use many things which are not created by them. If you are asking about the ultimate creator i.e. who has created things without using things created by somebody else, then the answer is 'the one Supreme'. Demigods are not ultimate creators in this sense.

I guess when you used the word 'creator', you meant in this second sense. But I just wanted my answer the clear and that is why considered both meanings.

 

[*]is the style of this overall government autocratic or democratic among the Supreme God and the demigods?

It is mostly democratic in the sense that supreme God has given authorities to them within their spheres of authority. However, He does exercise control from time to time when need arises.

 

[*]Does the supreme God still have complete control over the affairs of the department over which a demigod is appointed or has this control now permanently been transfered to that demigod? For instance, can the supreme God remove one demigod from heading a particular ministry?

He has full control.

 

[*]Do the demigods take their own independent decisions with reference to their particular departments or do they simply carry out the directives given by the Supreme God?

If supreme God asks them to do something, then they have to do it. But the same thing can be done in various ways. to select one of those ways, the demigods may take their own decisions.

One more things. Some demigods in some situations may not directly interact with supreme God. They may interact with somebody above them but below the supreme.

 

[*]Is the Supreme God alone the one who is Omnipotent and Omniscient. What exactly does your sentence "But none of them is really omnipotent and omniscient the way supreme is", mean?

Yes, He is alone the one who is omnipotent and omniscient. Demigods may be very powerful and knowledgeable but they have some limitations.

 

[*]Do you mean that the demigods are omnipotent and omniscient relative to their sphere of authority and responsibility?

To a large extent but in some cases, even within their sphere of responsibility they may make some mistakes.

[imranhasan]

Thank you very much, my brother, Avinash.

 

The answer depends on what you will take as 'creating'. I may build a car and thus I am the creator of that car. In that sense demigods also can create many things. Of course, they can and do create many things which I may not even be able to imagine.

But if I build a car then I have to use many materials which are not created by me. Likewise, when demigods create something, then they use many things which are not created by them. If you are asking about the ultimate creator i.e. who has created things without using things created by somebody else, then the answer is 'the one Supreme'. Demigods are not ultimate creators in this sense.

I guess when you used the word 'creator', you meant in this second sense. But I just wanted my answer the clear and that is why considered both meanings.

You are absolutely right. I meant it the second way. I have got your absolutely clear answer. Thank you so much. So, would I be correct to assume that in this second sense. The One Supreme God, alone is the creator?

 

It is mostly democratic in the sense that supreme God has given authorities to them within their spheres of authority. However, He does exercise control from time to time when need arises.

I see. Can you please give me just a few examples of some of these demigods/demigoddesses and their respective sphere of authority. This is just for my understanding. Thank you.

 

He has full control.

 

Understood. Thank you.

 

If supreme God asks them to do something, then they have to do it. But the same thing can be done in various ways. to select one of those ways, the demigods may take their own decisions.

One more things. Some demigods in some situations may not directly interact with supreme God. They may interact with somebody above them but below the supreme.

 

I see. So it is almost exactly like the way governments are run.

 

Yes, He is alone the one who is omnipotent and omniscient. Demigods may be very powerful and knowledgeable but they have some limitations.

I understand that these limitations are in their not being omnipotent and omniscient. Is that correct?

 

To a large extent but in some cases, even within their sphere of responsibility they may make some mistakes.

This is interesting. Though, I think it would be an obvious corollary of their not being omnipotent and omniscient. The lack of their perfect knowledge and power would obviously result in their making mistakes. Would you consider that right?

Just a related question. Would the Supreme God also be considered perfect in His Wisdom? Also, would the Supreme God's omniscience and omnipotence also guarantee that He, unlike the demigods and demigodesses, never makes a mistake.

Thank you, very much for your time. God bless you.

[Avinash]

 

The One Supreme God, alone is the creator?

Yes.

 

Can you please give me just a few examples of some of these demigods/demigoddesses and their respective sphere of authority.

Agnideva is the god of fire. It is because of him that fire works. Indra is the lord of rain. it is because of the grace of Indra that there is rain.

 

I understand that these limitations are in their not being omnipotent and omniscient. Is that correct?

Correct.

 

The lack of their perfect knowledge and power would obviously result in their making mistakes. Would you consider that right?

Yes, it is true that because of their ignorance they may make mistakes. Also, they sometime make mistakes because of ego or greed. However, even these (i.e. ego and greed) can be considered as corollary to not being perfectly knowledgeable because perfect knowledge would tell us that ego and greed are not good. So, you are in right in saying that they make mistakes because of the lack of perfect knowledge and power.

 

Would the Supreme God also be considered perfect in His Wisdom? Also, would the Supreme God's omniscience and omnipotence also guarantee that He, unlike the demigods and demigodesses, never makes a mistake.

Yes, that is correct. Supreme God (often referred as God with uppercase 'g') is perfect and never makes any mistake.

[imranhasan]

 

Agnideva is the god of fire. It is because of him that fire works. Indra is the lord of rain. it is because of the grace of Indra that there is rain.

I see. So, the idea is that fire burns, fire warms and fire cooks because Agnideva directs it to. And rain comes down only when Indra directs it to.

Just to understand more. If God were to decide about rain at a particular place, would he order Indra to send rain there? Would Indra have the authority to refuse or delay the execution of God's directives? If Indra were to decide about rain at a particular place, but God's Omniscience and Wisdom would require otherwise, would God be able to stop the rain?

 

Yes, it is true that because of their ignorance they may make mistakes. Also, they sometime make mistakes because of ego or greed. However, even these (i.e. ego and greed) can be considered as corollary to not being perfectly knowledgeable because perfect knowledge would tell us that ego and greed are not good. So, you are in right in saying that they make mistakes because of the lack of perfect knowledge and power.

This is interesting. The questions that immediately comes to mind after reading this part is: Why has the Omnipotent, Omniscient and Wise God given powers of execution as well as decision-making to those who lack in knowledge, power and wisdom? Furthermore, why would an Omniscient God appoint a being subject to such qualities as "ego and greed", in charge of the affairs of a part of His creation? And thinking about it, I feel even a more basic question should have been, why did God give away a part of His creation to anyone, however capable, knowledgeable and safe from greed and ego that other being might be?

 

Yes, that is correct. Supreme God (often referred as God with uppercase 'g') is perfect and never makes any mistake.

Can it be called a mistake to give charge of affairs to beings who are not perfect? If God did this knowingly, does He give us any idea about the wisdom behind such an apparently inexplicable phenomenon?

Please do not misconstrue my questions as criticisms. These are truly my honest questions and I have recorded them, as they occured to me. I assure you I respect you with all my heart, for you have given the most important asset in your life - time and attentioin - I am truly grateful for this. Please do not hesitate to refuse any questions that you may not wish to address immediately. We can continue with the next point, if and when you'd feel that way.

Thank you, my brother. God bless you.

[Avinash]

 

I see. So, the idea is that fire burns, fire warms and fire cooks because Agnideva directs it to. And rain comes down only when Indra directs it to.

In general, yes. However, in order to be precise, I would just add that God can make anything happen without the help of any demigod. So, if God wants to make it rain, either he can cause that Himself or ask some demigod to do so.

 

Just to understand more. If God were to decide about rain at a particular place, would he order Indra to send rain there?

He could do that or cause rain himself.

 

Would Indra have the authority to refuse or delay the execution of God's directives?

No, he does not have any such authoity. If he does that, then he is acting against what he has been authorised. God may decide to punish him or to show him what mistake he is making.

 

If Indra were to decide about rain at a particular place, but God's Omniscience and Wisdom would require otherwise, would God be able to stop the rain?

Yes.

 

Why has the Omnipotent, Omniscient and Wise God given powers of execution as well as decision-making to those who lack in knowledge, power and wisdom? Furthermore, why would an Omniscient God appoint a being subject to such qualities as "ego and greed", in charge of the affairs of a part of His creation? And thinking about it, I feel even a more basic question should have been, why did God give away a part of His creation to anyone, however capable, knowledgeable and safe from greed and ego that other being might be? Can it be called a mistake to give charge of affairs to beings who are not perfect? If God did this knowingly, does He give us any idea about the wisdom behind such an apparently inexplicable phenomenon?

Not only gods but even we humans are God's creations. We suffer from ego and greed. We lack in wisdom and power. But still we have been given decision making abilities. We may not have as much authority as gods have but we do have some authorities. Our sphere of authority is smaller than that of gods, but even this sphere is a part of God's creation. So, in order to get the answer to your question, it is good to consider the wider question:

Why did God create any being (not only gods but humans and other life forms as well) who are not perfect? Why did God give any power to any such being? Whatever is the reason God allows humans to be incharge of some affairs even though human may make mistakes is the reason that God has made gods as incharges of some affairs.

Before describing this in more detail, I would like to know if I have understood your question correctly and then we can discuss this in more detail.

[imranhasan]

 

In general, yes. However, in order to be precise, I would just add that God can make anything happen without the help of any demigod. So, if God wants to make it rain, either he can cause that Himself or ask some demigod to do so.

This, to my understanding, means that if God were to bestow a blessing on me or to afflict me with an injury, no one among the demigods and/or demigoddesses will be able to hold that blessing back from me or to save me from that injury. Is that correct?

 

Why did God create any being (not only gods but humans and other life forms as well) who are not perfect? Why did God give any power to any such being? Whatever is the reason God allows humans to be incharge of some affairs even though human may make mistakes is the reason that God has made gods as incharges of some affairs.

Before describing this in more detail, I would like to know if I have understood your question correctly and then we can discuss this in more detail.

Thank you for providing me the opportunity for elaborating my question. Firstly, let me explain the reason that I ask this question: You see, a human being having authority over me, is not a matter of belief for me. It is merely a matter of the appreciation of his position, through my physical and objectively observable experiences. No one considers the individual in authority to be perfect in knowledge, power or wisdom. We would only accept his decisions, to maintain organization of the society. Furthermore, considering the decisions of another human being to be wrong or foolish or even sinful does not make me lesser in my faith or belief regarding that human being, for I never held him to be perfect, to start with.

Now, if I were told to believe that God has delegated matters to other lesser gods, the matter does not fall within the scope of my observation. It is a matter that I may never be able to observe in this lifetime. On what communicable and understandable basis, then, would I be told to believe in this phenomenon?

As for the question, "Why did God give any power to any such being?", the answer that comes to my mind is to test these beings in the very sphere in which they have been given power. Would the same answer apply to the appointment of demigods and demigoddesses? Is God testing these demigods and demigoddesses for their abilities? Why does he, then, require us to believe in them, worship them, and have love and devotion for them?

I do sincerely hope that these questions are not indicative of a confused and unclear mind...

God bless you.

[Eternal Law]

Unexplained Angles of Abrahmic Faiths are devas of Hinduism, believe it or not!

 

 

 

 

 

 

(joking!)

[Avinash]

 

This, to my understanding, means that if God were to bestow a blessing on me or to afflict me with an injury, no one among the demigods and/or demigoddesses will be able to hold that blessing back from me or to save me from that injury. Is that correct?

Correct

 

You see, a human being having authority over me, is not a matter of belief for me. It is merely a matter of the appreciation of his position, through my physical and objectively observable experiences.

Not only the concept of demigods but many concepts in any religion are not directly known through our physical and observable experiences. The very concept of God is one of these. That is why, there are many people who do not believe in God. But, what is important is that the concept should not be inconsistent with what is known to be a fact. As far I understand, the concept of demigods is not inconsistent with any known fact. Though, of course, if somebody does not believe in demigods, then his belief also will not be inconsistent with any known fact.

 

No one considers the individual in authority to be perfect in knowledge, power or wisdom. We would only accept his decisions, to maintain organization of the society. Furthermore, considering the decisions of another human being to be wrong or foolish or even sinful does not make me lesser in my faith or belief regarding that human being, for I never held him to be perfect, to start with.

Likewise, gods are also not to be held as perfect.

 

Now, if I were told to believe that God has delegated matters to other lesser gods, the matter does not fall within the scope of my observation. It is a matter that I may never be able to observe in this lifetime. On what communicable and understandable basis, then, would I be told to believe in this phenomenon?

As I mentioned above, there are many things (including the very concept of God) in any religion which do not fall within the scope of our observation.

 

As for the question, "Why did God give any power to any such being?", the answer that comes to my mind is to test these beings in the very sphere in which they have been given power. Would the same answer apply to the appointment of demigods and demigoddesses? Is God testing these demigods and demigoddesses for their abilities?

Testing beings could be one possible reason, though, it may be that there are other reasons as well. However, let us concentrate on this particular reason. It is true that, just as God can test other beings, he tests demigods also. The same demigod is not given a particular post for ever. Consider Indra, the god of rain. The word Indra is a post. Something like prime minister. Rightnow, somebody is the prime minister of a particular country. But, he did not always hold that post and also he will not always hold that post. Likewise, there have been and will be many Indra's.

A demigod is given some authority depending on his earlier conduct. But, depending on his conduct during the time he was holding that authority and also depending on the conducts of some others, somebody else can be given that authority i.e. made as the demigod for that position.

There are also stories in Puranas in which some human being became more powerful than a demigod because of his conduct.

The concept of demigods will be difficult to understand if you put them in a group together with God. Think of them as beings the way there are many other beings. All beings are given some power. Demigods also have some power. No being is perfect. Demigods are also not perfect.

 

Why does he, then, require us to believe in them, worship them, and have love and devotion for them?

God does not require us to believe that demigods can never be wrong. But, just as we request some human beings in power for some favours even though we know that they may not grant those favours, we worship (in the sense of praying or requesting) demigods. The word devotion towards demigods is to be understood in this sense. So far love is concerned, we are required to have love towards demigods the way we should have love towards other beings.

[imranhasan]

Thank you, my brother Avinash,

 

Correct

Brother, if this is correct, then - without intending any disrespect - why would anyone worship any demigods. If all the blessings and all the afflictions are controlled only by God, why should anyone then worship anyone but the Supreme God?

 

Not only the concept of demigods but many concepts in any religion are not directly known through our physical and observable experiences.

I agree with this. You are right. My statement was not correct. Please accept my apology. What I had intended to imply was not that our beliefs and religious concepts should always be known through physical and observable experiences, but rather that our beliefs should be based on observable and communicable realities. Would you agree with this?

 

The very concept of God is one of these. That is why, there are many people who do not believe in God.

I fully agree that the concept of God is not a physically observable experience. But, I have always felt that we believe that there is a God on the basis of the study of His creation? If this is true, then our belief in God is based on a physically observable and communicable reality - the existence of the vast universe, the magnicent and varied forms of life, etc. If this is not true, then what exactly is the basis of our belief in God?

 

But, what is important is that the concept should not be inconsistent with what is known to be a fact. As far I understand, the concept of demigods is not inconsistent with any known fact. Though, of course, if somebody does not believe in demigods, then his belief also will not be inconsistent with any known fact.

This is slightly confusing. Please correct me if I am wrong, but what you are saying is that both believing as well as not believing in demigods/demigodesses is not inconsistent with any 'known facts'. This can only be true if the 'known facts' was irrelevant to the belief in demigods and demigoddesses. Isn't that true? Please elaborate.

 

Testing beings could be one possible reason, though, it may be that there are other reasons as well. However, let us concentrate on this particular reason. It is true that, just as God can test other beings, he tests demigods also. The same demigod is not given a particular post for ever. Consider Indra, the god of rain. The word Indra is a post. Something like prime minister. Rightnow, somebody is the prime minister of a particular country. But, he did not always hold that post and also he will not always hold that post. Likewise, there have been and will be many Indra's.

A demigod is given some authority depending on his earlier conduct. But, depending on his conduct during the time he was holding that authority and also depending on the conducts of some others, somebody else can be given that authority i.e. made as the demigod for that position.

There are also stories in Puranas in which some human being became more powerful than a demigod because of his conduct.

The concept of demigods will be difficult to understand if you put them in a group together with God. Think of them as beings the way there are many other beings. All beings are given some power. Demigods also have some power. No being is perfect. Demigods are also not perfect.

Ok. Just two more questions in this respect:

1- For people who do not hold the Puranas to be divine, how would you recommend that I present the Hindu belief in demigods and demigodesses?

2- In your example of human governments, people say that human beings have to govern through delegation of control because of the lack of omnipotence and omniscience. Why do we believe that God would govern on the same principle?

 

God does not require us to believe that demigods can never be wrong. But, just as we request some human beings in power for some favours even though we know that they may not grant those favours, we worship (in the sense of praying or requesting) demigods. The word devotion towards demigods is to be understood in this sense. So far love is concerned, we are required to have love towards demigods the way we should have love towards other beings.

I am extremely sorry for not being clear in my statement. Does God not require us to believe in demigods and demigoddesses? Would a person who does not believe in demigods/demigodesses be considered sinful in not believing so?

Thank you, my brother. God bless you.

[Avinash]

 

If all the blessings and all the afflictions are controlled only by God, why should anyone then worship anyone but the Supreme God?

It may indeed be thought that we should worship only the supreme. If all Hindus worship only the supreme, then they should not worship different gods. But, in practice, we do

observe Hindus worshipping different gods. The reasons are the following:-

1. Not all Hindus agree on who the supreme is. Vaisnavas (one group of Hindus) say that Visnu is supreme. Saivas (another group) say that Siva is supreme. Vaisnavas worship

Visnu. Saivas worship Siva. In this sense Visunu is supreme and Siva is demigod for Vasinavas. It is just the opposite for Saivas. One may wonder if all gods are considered

supreme by one or another Hindu? The answer is No. Majority are considered demigods by all Hindus.

If the above explanation is correct, then any Hindu should worship only one god (the one whom he considers supreme)? Why does the same Hindu individual worship so many

gods (including those who are not supreme according to him?). For that we have to read the other explanations given below:-

2. There are many aspects of the same God. For example, Visnu has incarnated many times. In some incarnation, He was Rama, in another He was Nrisimha etc. So, a person who is

a devotee of Visnu, may worship many or all of these. These all may look different but, in reality they are the same God. In different incarnations, Visnu did different things. Some

Hindus like what He did in one incarnation. So, they worship that incarnation. Some like what He did in another incarnation. So, they worship that incarnation. Of course, as I

metnioned, there are some who worship many or all of these incarnations.

3. In many cases, what we think of as worshipping is actually giving respect. For example, take a Hindu according to whom Ganesh is a demigod. He does not consider Ganesh as

supreme, but He does consider Ganesh as great. So, he gives respect to Ganesh. Our Puranas contain stories in which Ganesh did some great work. There are some festivals

based on those works. In those festivals, Hindus give respect to Ganesh.

4. Many Hindus are not very clear on whom to consider supreme as they have not studied scriptures or not studied in detail. They may not have studied either because they are

not really that much interested in reading scriptures or because they cannot spend that much time or because they could not get access to the scriptures or simply because they

do not know how to read. They follow what their forfathers did and what they see other Hindus doing. Since they follow so many Hindus, they worship so many gods.

5. Some Hindus do Puja of some demigods in some festivals. They give respect to those demigods. While giving respect, they think:- Why not also ask for something. Of course,

God (supreme) can grant me the same. But right now, I am celebrating a festival based on this demigod. This demigod should also be able to grant me the same thing. So, let me

worship him. This way, celebrating the festival and asking for something can be done together.

 

What I had intended to imply was not that our beliefs and religious concepts should

always be known through physical and observable experiences, but rather that our beliefs should be based on observable and communicable realities. Would you agree with this?

I agree that our beliefs should not contradict what we observe. If, in some cases, they are found to contradict, then there should be some reason as to why we did not trust in what we observed.

However, there are many things in all religions which can neither be conclusively proved nor disproved through what we observer. Take an example of what happens after death. Different religions have different answers to this. By observing things in this world during our lifetime, we cannot be sure which of these answers is correct. Based on faith, we accept one of these. So, it is true that our beliefs should be based on our physical and observable experiences. But the same experiences can be interpreted in many ways.

 

I fully agree that the concept of God is not a physically observable experience. But, I have always felt that we believe that there is a God on the basis of the study of His creation? If this is true, then our belief in God is based on a physically observable and communicable reality - the existence of the vast universe, the magnicent and varied forms of life, etc. If this is not true, then what exactly is the basis of our belief in God?

It is true that our belief in God is based on our observing things in the universe. In that sense, our belief is based on what we observe. However there are people (i.e. atheists) who observe the same things but say that there is no God. The case of interpreting the same observation in different ways.

 

This is slightly confusing. Please correct me if I am wrong, but what you are saying is that both believing as well as not believing in demigods/demigodesses is not inconsistent with any 'known facts'. This can only be true if the 'known facts' was irrelevant to the belief in demigods and demigoddesses. Isn't that true? Please elaborate.

I would again give the example of different religions giving different answers to what happens after death. Two persons may observe the same things in their lifetimes. But they may believe in different (even contradictory) answers.

If you are asking if there is any basis in believing in demigods (even if there are people who observe the same things but do not believe in demigods), the answer is yes. The reasons for believing in demigods are:-

1. Our scriptures say so. This can be considered as blind belief. But Hindus believe that the scriptures were authored by great sages of the past. Those sages, through their good conduct, could directly perceive the existence of demigods. Some of them even got knowledge from God Himself. Therefore, we should believe in what these scriptures say. It is similar to Muslims believing in Quran because they believe that Prophet Muhammed was given the knowledge by God and Christians believing in the teachings of Jesus Christ written in Bible because they believe that Jesus Christ was divine.

2. Many Hindus learn from religious teachers whom they call as gurus. By observing the way these gurus live, by hearing their words, by listening to their arguments, their followers have reasons to believe in the gurus. They may not be able to convince others of what they believe in. But, when they interacted to their gurus, then, for some reason, they felt that what gurus spoke were correct. And their gurus talked about demigods.

 

For people who do not hold the Puranas to be divine, how would you recommend that I present the Hindu belief in demigods and demigodesses?

It is really difficult to believe in demigods and demigoddesses if we put them in a group with God. But think of them as beings the way there are human beings. Human beings are doing their work. These demigods are also doing their work. Of course, just because we see human beings, we cannot immediately conclude that there must be demigods. At the same time, we cannot immediately conclude that the existence of demigods is impossible. That is why I said that many things are based on faith. Different people see the same thing but interprete in different ways.

 

In your example of human governments, people say that human beings have to govern through delegation of control because of the lack of omnipotence and omniscience. Why do we believe that God would govern on the same principle?

The same way God lets us human do various things even though, being omnipotent and omniscient, He can do whatever He wants to achieve through us.

 

Does God not require us to believe in demigods and demigoddesses? Would a person who does not believe in

demigods/demigodesses be considered sinful in not believing so?

God does not say that it is a must to believe in demigods and goddesses. Therefore, not believing in them will not amount to sin.

[imranhasan]

Thank you, my brother Avinash,

 

It may indeed be thought that we should worship only the supreme. If all Hindus worship only the supreme, then they should not worship different gods. But, in practice, we do observe Hindus worshipping different gods. The reasons are the following:-

1. Not all Hindus agree on who the supreme is. Vaisnavas (one group of Hindus) say that Visnu is supreme. Saivas (another group) say that Siva is supreme. Vaisnavas worship Visnu. Saivas worship Siva. In this sense Visunu is supreme and Siva is demigod for Vasinavas. It is just the opposite for Saivas.

May I kindly request you to clarify the basis of this difference? Is this difference based on the scriptures?

 

I agree that our beliefs should not contradict what we observe. If, in some cases, they are found to contradict, then there should be some reason as to why we did not trust in what we observed.

I fully appreciate that. I understand from this that when our belief is found to contradict what we observe, the reason we did not find our observation to be decisive would be easily understandable and communicable to others. Am I correct?

 

However, there are many things in all religions which can neither be conclusively proved nor disproved through what we observer. Take an example of what happens after death. Different religions have different answers to this. By observing things in this world during our lifetime, we cannot be sure which of these answers is correct.

I agree. But as you have clarified earlier, the basis of this belief will be understandable and communicable to others. No?

 

Based on faith, we accept one of these.

I agree that that is the case. However, would you not agree that it should actually be based on our understanding of the strength of the reasoning, rather than faith?

 

So, it is true that our beliefs should be based on our physical and observable experiences. But the same experiences can be interpreted in many ways.

I agree again. In such a situation, what would you tell a person who is truly trying to seek the truth to do? Which of the many different interpretations should he follow?

 

It is true that our belief in God is based on our observing things in the universe. In that sense, our belief is based on what we observe. However there are people (i.e. atheists) who observe the same things but say that there is no God. The case of interpreting the same observation in different ways.

I have talked to a few of my athiest friends. I have great regard for them as human beings and I give them all the right to ascribe to whatever they understand to be correct. Nevertheless, as much as I have talked to them, I have never been able to see that there is a difference of interpreting the observation. It is, on the contrary, a refusal to interpret the observation. A believer in God would say that this universe and all that is in it is an indicator of how grand its creator is. While an atheist would say that there is no need to take from this whole creation any indications about its creator. Let us, on the contrary, just take this whole existence to have come into existence on its own, without a creator.

 

I would again give the example of different religions giving different answers to what happens after death. Two persons may observe the same things in their lifetimes. But they may believe in different (even contradictory) answers.

I agree, my brother. Once again, I would ask you if these people were to exhange their interpretations respectfully, do you not think they'd be able to understand the strengths and weaknesses of each of the interpretations and, thereby, arrive at what was correct, according to their understanding.

 

If you are asking if there is any basis in believing in demigods (even if there are people who observe the same things but do not believe in demigods), the answer is yes. The reasons for believing in demigods are:-

1. Our scriptures say so. This can be considered as blind belief. But Hindus believe that the scriptures were authored by great sages of the past. Those sages, through their good conduct, could directly perceive the existence of demigods. Some of them even got knowledge from God Himself. Therefore, we should believe in what these scriptures say.

I would never pass any value judgments about any beliefs. whether a belief is ascribed to 'blindly' or not is not for me to decide. It is for you to teach me. However, in view of the importance of this topic, I have taken the liberty to start a separate thread on this topic, so that it can be given its due importance.

 

2. Many Hindus learn from religious teachers whom they call as gurus. By observing the way these gurus live, by hearing their words, by listening to their arguments, their followers have reasons to believe in the gurus. They may not be able to convince others of what they believe in. But, when they interacted to their gurus, then, for some reason, they felt that what gurus spoke were correct. And their gurus talked about demigods.

I respect this. However, I am sure you would agree that when matters of belief are based on feelings, rather than reasoning and understanding, then such beliefs can only be of value to the person who has felt. Not for anyone else.

 

God does not say that it is a must to believe in demigods and goddesses. Therefore, not believing in them will not amount to sin.

So, one may not believe in demigods and still be a hindu, without any sin of rejecting a Truth?

[imranhasan]

My brother Avinash, this was the second essential belief that you had posted in one of your earlier replies.

 

Eternal soul:- One's body dies but his soul is eternal.

WIll I be correct to interpret that your statement means that the soul has no begining and no end? If yes, would it mean that the soul is not created by God?

Thank you.

[Avinash]

 

May I kindly request you to clarify the basis of this difference? Is this difference based on the scriptures?

It is based on scriptures, on personal choice and also practice followed in a family through generations. Out of these, let us concentrate on scriptures. If you take all the all the scriptures of Hinduism, then the total content will be real huge. There are certain parts which are more easily understood by taking Siva to be supreme and certain others by taking another to be supreme. There is also possibility that there are some later interpolations. Howver, if you study more and more of scriptures and see them in totality, you will find that the differences keep on decreasing as you study more. This is because many differences are because of taking certain parts in isolation. What I am trying to say is that if you read some part in a scripture. Then you read some part in another scripture. You may feel that they are inconsistent. It is possible that you may always see that inconsistency. But if you keep on reading more and more, then you may even feel that they are not really inconsistent. It is just that there were certain things which you were not aware of earlier and you made some assumptions which are not really supported by scriptures.

 

I understand from this that when our belief is found to contradict what we observe, the reason we did not find our observation to be decisive would be easily understandable and communicable to others. Am I correct?

It should be understandable to me. But it is not always possible to communicate it to others in such a manner that they are able to understand the same things which I have understood. This is because I might have personally experienced certain things which others have not.

I wrote:

 

However, there are many things in all religions which can neither be conclusively proved nor disproved through what we observer. Take an example of what happens after death. Different religions have different answers to this. By observing things in this world during our lifetime, we cannot be sure which of these answers is correct.

You responded:

 

I agree. But as you have clarified earlier, the basis of this belief will be understandable and communicable to others. No?

As I have mentioned above two people might have experienced different things. That is why their beliefs may be different.

 

However, would you not agree that it should actually be based on our understanding of the strength of the reasoning, rather than faith?

I am very much supportive of reasoning. But we cannot reach a conclusion on the basis of reasoning alone. Most of time faith is required. Take Science. Often it happens that two scientists get the same experimental results but give different theories. Each of them is able to tell through strength of reasoning as to why he considers his theory to be correct. But purely on the basis of reasoning we are not able to know which of the two theories to accept. In science, we deal with things we observe in this world. But scriptures often talk about things which are generally not seen in this world (e.g. God, demigods, heaven, hell etc.). If reasoning is not sufficient in science, how can it be sufficient in understanding scriptures?

 

What would you tell a person who is truly trying to seek the truth to do? Which of the many different interpretations should he follow?

He should study scriptures. It is important that while studying he should not study with the intention of finding faults with scriptures. If this is his intention, then he would interprete things in such a way that what he studies will appear to be faulty. He may understand things which are based on his own assumptions and not what scriptures really say. I am not recommending that he should start believing in the beginning itself that what he studies cannot be wrong. I am saying that he should study with the intention of knowing what the scriptures say and not with the intention of trying to find out whether the scriptures are right or wrong. As he studies more and more, then he will start having some feelings of what interpretation to follow and what to reject. It is highly recommended to study under the guidance of some knowledgeable person.

 

I have talked to a few of my athiest friends. I have great regard for them as human beings and I give them all the right to ascribe to whatever they understand to be correct. Nevertheless, as much as I have talked to them, I have never been able to see that there is a difference of interpreting the observation. It is, on the contrary, a refusal to interpret the observation. A believer in God would say that this universe and all that is in it is an indicator of how grand its creator is. While an atheist would say that there is no need to take from this whole creation any indications about its creator. Let us, on the contrary, just take this whole existence to have come into existence on its own, without a creator.

They can give reasons for the existence of this universe without assuming any creator. For example, they can say that the universe has existed from the beginning of time. They can give various scientific reasons (mostly based on Quantum Physics) as to how the universe could exist without any God.

In order not to deviate from the topic, let me clarify that I gave the example of atheists not to dicuss whether God exists or not (that is a completely different topic). But, only to point out that different people interprete the same things in different ways. And, as I have mentioned above, only by strength of reasoning all of them may not agree on which interpretation to accept.

 

Once again, I would ask you if these people were to exhange their interpretations respectfully, do you not think they'd be able to understand the strengths and weaknesses of each of the interpretations and, thereby, arrive at what was correct, according to their understanding.

Reasoning is not sufficient as mentioned earlier. It has been mathematically proven that reasoning is not sufficient. Remember Godel's theorem?

 

However, I am sure you would agree that when matters of belief are based on feelings, rather than reasoning and understanding, then such beliefs can only be of value to the person who has felt. Not for anyone else.

Yes. But there is no alternative because there may be some personal experiences.

 

So, one may not believe in demigods and still be a hindu, without any sin of rejecting a Truth?

According to Hinduism, it is rejection of truth to think that demigods do not exist. However, there is no sin in thinking that they can sometimes be wrong.

But, it is important to understand that even though they may be wrong, we should not think they are as imperfect as human beings are. They have been assigned their positions for some reasons. So, in spite of all their failings, they are more qualified to hold those positions than others.

[Avinash]

 

WIll I be correct to interpret that your statement means that the soul has no begining and no end? If yes, would it mean that the soul is not created by God?

That is right. Soul is not created by God. That is why in one of my posts, I was very careful in saying that <B>whatever has been created</B> has ultimately been created by God. I did not say everything has been created by God. Soul has not been created by God.

[imranhasan]

God bless you, my brother Avinash

 

That is right. Soul is not created by God. That is why in one of my posts, I was very careful in saying that whatever has been created has ultimately been created by God. I did not say everything has been created by God. Soul has not been created by God.

In one of the earlier posts, I am really sorry for I could not find it to reference it, one of the brothers had said that my soul is actually the real me while this body is only a vessel. So, this mean that only my material vessel is created by God, while the real 'me' is not created. Why then am I made to be a prisoner of the cycle of life and death. Was it only because God was stronger than my eternally existing soul and thus forced 'me' into this cycle?

[imranhasan]

 

Out of these, let us concentrate on scriptures. If you take all the all the scriptures of Hinduism, then the total content will be real huge. There are certain parts which are more easily understood by taking Siva to be supreme and certain others by taking another to be supreme. There is also possibility that there are some later interpolations. Howver, if you study more and more of scriptures and see them in totality, you will find that the differences keep on decreasing as you study more. This is because many differences are because of taking certain parts in isolation. What I am trying to say is that if you read some part in a scripture. Then you read some part in another scripture. You may feel that they are inconsistent. It is possible that you may always see that inconsistency. But if you keep on reading more and more, then you may even feel that they are not really inconsistent. It is just that there were certain things which you were not aware of earlier and you made some assumptions which are not really supported by scriptures.

My brother, you say that there is also a possibility of later interpolations. Can you please elaborate on this? Has this possibility ever been analysed and checked for confirmation or complete rejection?