Hinduism, Initial concept of Shiva, Trinity... [Archive]

Chappani

3rd May 2012, 11:08 AM

Friends,

I was going through an Article about Lord Shiva in "Week magazine" this week. it talks about who was Shiva, his characteristics etc and then ends up how we started worshiping Shiva Lingam - what exactly it is etc, it would be a surprise for many of us here, even though we frequent Shiva temples.

Some questions crepped up in my mind when I was reading this article and digesting the facts(so called). Initially in the subcontinent there was mainly Shiva worshiping including the Harappa and Mohenjudharo civilizations(if you see aged old temples of India from Kashmir to Kanyakumari there are all Shiva temples - Vishnu temples are relatively new). Shiva should have been the god for Creation and Protection - typical duties of a God as per a human mind.

When exactly did the new gods Brahma and Vishnu get in to our society? the concept of Trinity come in and each got specific departments assigned - Brahma for Creation, Vishnu for Protection and Shiva for Destruction (Do we need a God for destruction??? is destruction a portfolio held by a God)??? Why can't one God fulfill all these demands, why did we think that god cannot multitask and do all these tasks parallely?? Also not very sure where is the Demarcation between Creation and Protection?? Creation also involves protection right?? starting from Conception till delivery I thought creation and protection go hand in hand - Only if the Sperm and Egg is protected can the Conception happen, only if the Fetus is protected the Baby can be delivered????

I was reading a book on similarities between Hindu god Brahma and Semitic Prophet Abraham (Christianity/ Jewish - Abraham and Islamic - Ibrahim). He is a old, bearded man said to have born in a place called "OOR" (Tamil word oor for a place) and then wandered west propagating against Idol worshiping - Is this the reason why we don't have Idols of him? as per Hindu traditions his wife Name is Sara-Swathi (Swathi is white in Sanskrit, lady with white dress and her name should be something like Sara) a very intelligent and good looking lady - as per Semitic religions Abraham/ Ibrahim's wife is Sarah (look at the close similarities in names!!!!) who was also very intelligent, learned and good looking.
Also one more commonalty between the two Sarah and Sarah-Swathi is that both are supposed to be daughter's of Abraham/ Brahma - whom the father married - its incest in both the religions (some say as Brahma is the creator, so he had to marry someone he created as there was no one else to offer him his daughter - this is debatable topic).

My question is: Looks like one group of people who were part/ influenced by the Semetic religion moved into India in some historic timeline, who considered Brahma as their roots, worshiped him and then looking into the local trend of religion which was Shiva worshiping, brought in the concept of Trinity as part of unification??? When they brought in the concept of Trinity to maintain their strong hold they added Brahma in the first and then moved the local god to the last???

Please flood in your thoughts on what you think about this.....

PARAMASHIVAN

3rd May 2012, 02:36 PM

Hello

The concept of Guru Brahma, Guru Vishnu, and Guru Devo Maheshawaraga is simply introduced to explain the manifestation of the cosmos. Creation, Preservation and destruction, these are the fundamental functionality of the cosmos.

You are right about Shiva worship, prior to the various other gods of today, infact Shiva worship started off as a "stone worship" hence Lingam worship, later scholars reconstructed the Lingam to significantly explain the idea of creation. Do you know what Shivalinga symbolizes??

PARAMASHIVAN

3rd May 2012, 02:44 PM

My question is: Looks like one group of people who were part/ influenced by the Semetic religion migrated to India in some historic timeline, who considered Brahma as their roots, worshiped him and then looking into the local trend of religion which was Shiva worshiping, brought in the concept of Trinity as part of unification??? When they brought in the concept of Trinity to maintain their strong hold they added Brahma in the first and then moved the local god to the lost???

As you know India had been under many invasion, sanskrit was introduced by various invasion from persia, babylonia and as far as Turkey. It is all part of evolution.

Besides, the Creator of the cosmos alias GOD is not an external entity , it is within you. All religious sects preach the Lord is an external entity, but only in what is called hinduism (name given by Persian invaders) it is taught to realise that the Creator is within you by various forms of Meditation/Yoga and self realisation.

BTW Shiva is considred to be the Adhi Yogi (The Enlightent one)

SoftSword

3rd May 2012, 04:51 PM

the abraham-brahma connection is interesting...

PARAMASHIVAN

3rd May 2012, 05:09 PM

Friends,

Initially in the subcontinent there was mainly Shiva worshiping including the Harappa and Mohenjudharo civilizations Not just in the Indian Subcontinent, in places like Brazil, Peru (The Mayans) there was Shivalinga worship. In the Kabba in Mecca, there is set to be a Shiva lingam.

This Ling worship was evident in what are now Cambodia, Vietnam, Myanmar as well as Java and Sumatra!

NOV

3rd May 2012, 06:18 PM

another school of thought believes that originally the gods worshipped by tamils were thirumal and amman, other than the different village gods.
all other present day gods were "imported."
both these gods were dark-skinned, as opposed to all others.
later the thirumaal worshipped by tamils was absorbed to the "imported" vishnu.
it also explains why siva has no generic tamil name.

on brahma-vishnu-siva trilogy, brahma is not permanent and is created every yuga. you would have seen brahma coming out of the navel of vishnu.
on why must there be a god of destruction, everything created will eventually be destroyed and birth-life-death is a cycle.
destroying is not bad - destroyer of ego, ill-thoughts, anger, greed, etc
brahma - Generator
vishnu - Operator
siva - Destroyer
=
God

many of us know the link between sivalingam and the phallic symbol - there is nothing to be ashamed of, as fertility is the root of existence.

as I said, all these are schools of thought and there is no way anyone can prove which one is right or wrong.

Chappani

7th May 2012, 07:27 PM

Thanks Nov and others for your response.

I understand the agreed upon purpose of each among the trinity, my question is - Is this is a fabricated story that came into existence sometime later just for one group to get supremacy????

anbu_kathir

8th May 2012, 10:32 AM

I understand the agreed upon purpose of each among the trinity, my question is - Is this is a fabricated story that came into existence sometime later just for one group to get supremacy????

We all came from Africa is the claim made by today's scientists. Perhaps it is a fabricated story by Westerners to grant supremacy to Africans.

Have you read the original Shaashtra under a teacher? Please do that and then form your opinions. The article that you claimed to have read is from a "magazine" written by an author who has projected his own ideas to the Hindu scriptures. He does not say whether those ideas are correct or intended by tradition. Who is his teacher, on what basis or grounds does he form his opinions?

When we visit a doctor, we try to ensure by direct verification or by implication (from other sources) that he has got a degree from an accredited institution and has been practising medicine for some time. When parents join their kids to a school, they ensure that the school is accredited by a higher authority and has been giving consistent results for several years.

In the same way, no person, who is for or against religious ideas, has any authority by his own accord. First proceed to verify the authority from which he/she speaks. If you have verified his/her authority and are convinced of it, please carry on your study of his/her ideas for an extended period of time. Then reflect on the ideas using your own developed intellect. Then ultimately give "your" opinion on it, based on all these.

A 3000+ year old tradition cannot be ascertained to one way or another without careful, consistent and systematic study from the appropriate sources.

Just my two cents.

Love and Light.

PARAMASHIVAN

8th May 2012, 02:36 PM

We all came from Africa is the claim made by today's scientists. .

Yes, according to scientists the Indian sub continent plate was joined with Africa millions year ago, and the ocean separated the plates by various natural calamities like Tsunami’s, Earth quakes etc.

anbu_kathir

8th May 2012, 04:43 PM

Yes, according to scientists the Indian sub continent plate was joined with Africa millions year ago, and the ocean separated the plates by various natural calamities like Tsunami’s, Earth quakes etc.

My statement was supposed to be a joke :D. Of course we came from Africa. Infact we did not get separated because of natural calamities. The earliest humans walked all the way along the coast from Africa through Middle East to India till Asia's south east. That is how we spread originally. I think this is our (humanity's) current understanding of the earliest human beings.

Anyway, all this is away from the topic.

Love and Light.

PARAMASHIVAN

8th May 2012, 05:31 PM

My statement was supposed to be a joke :D.

:lol: But there is as high possibilty that the Earth's Continental plates were all joined together over millions of year ago, and got seperated by Tsunamis alike, Look at lanka for example, wasn't seperated by Tidal waves or what is known as Tsunami (now) thousands of year ago ?

Sunil_M88

8th May 2012, 06:10 PM

@Nov, the name Siva is taken from the thamizh word "red" (I don't know if this is an act of thamizh extremists as in sanskrit it mean the auspicious one :confused:) Has siva always been what he has today or transformed from Rudra and is there such a thing as a rudra lingam or is it the same as siva lingam? Pardon my ignorance.

@Paramashivan and others.

I came across something which may interest you, if you haven't already please watch Vedic Scholar Nicholas Kazanas videos on Youtube.

This is my favourite video, interview by S. Kalyanaraman

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qvr_jlXO8YQ

@ 5.38 :clap: (Bearing in mind Buddhism is off-shoot of Hinduism, This is also the principle that Buddha spread i.e. Godhead inside one or enlightenment)

My take :D

G = great
O = omnipresent
D = divine

PARAMASHIVAN

8th May 2012, 08:38 PM

Sunil

Pls give me a moment, I will explain , but busy at work :(

anbu_kathir

9th May 2012, 10:38 AM

:lol: But there is as high possibilty that the Earth's Continental plates were all joined together over millions of year ago, and got seperated by Tsunamis alike, Look at lanka for example, wasn't seperated by Tidal waves or what is known as Tsunami (now) thousands of year ago ?

There was/is continental drift of course, but this was not a factor in the spread of human beings, simply because we are too "new", evolutionally speaking, for that extremely slow drift to matter in our spread.

See - http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/life/evolution/human-migration.htm

Love and Light.

PARAMASHIVAN

9th May 2012, 05:43 PM

the name Siva is taken from the thamizh word "red"

Sivapoo/ Sigapoo is the word meaning red, so I don't see the connection.

Has siva always been what he has today or transformed from Rudra and is there such a thing as a rudra lingam or is it the same as siva lingam?

No, Linga worship was first form of worship, but earlier Shiva has been refered as Rudra !

PARAMASHIVAN

9th May 2012, 05:47 PM

There was/is continental drift of course, but this was not a factor in the spread of human beings, simply because we are too "new", evolutionally speaking, for that extremely slow drift to matter in our spread.

See - http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/life/evolution/human-migration.htm

Thanks Kathir ! find it quite hard to believe that 400,000 year ago the continental structures were the same :roll:

Sunil_M88

13th August 2012, 03:54 PM

anbu_kathir

13th August 2012, 04:52 PM

I was born into a Hindu family but recently after diving deep through intricacies, I find there are many contradictions in this religion as well as conflicting beliefs. God is far too great to be placed in any religion. Religion is only a focal point and if anyone asks me, I'd say that I'm an agnostic thiest who doesn't deny the supernatural.

Over the weekend, I went to celebrate Shri Krishna Janamashtmi Maha Mahotsav and visited a stall "Back to godhead", which just like any other Isckon subsidiary, primarily aims to get people chanting their transcendental Maha Mantra. Anyway I saw a family tree of Lord Krishna (Trying to find this picture online and no luck so far!) starting with Lord Vishnu, second to come was Lord Brahma in brackets reading from the Lord Vishnu’s naval and then in the third generation amongst others like Agni, Vayu etc. was Lord Shiva.

I was totally baffled... I came home and done my research and found out the Lord Shiva himself is the Trimurti, i.e. Sadyajota (Brahma), Vamadeva (Vishnu) and Aghora (Shiva).

The former belief is obviously a Vaishnav one and the later being a Saivite one. But seriously, despite being considered the oldest religion, Hinduism is no way a religion and is rather a set of collected beliefs that is still evolving even today. So many branches and then you have taboo matters as caste which divides this religion further. At best it should be considered a way of life, not a religion. As a Hindu I used to question myself and say if I believe in Hanuman, then I'm not doing justice to Shiva. If I believe in Mata then I'm not doing justice to Krishna, etc. I used to feel guilty in praying to individual gods though I knew God wouldn't mind as long as I worship him/her in any form. So over the years I've become a monotheist, who doesn't comprehend the idea of worshiping different gods even if they are focal points. I’m not against Polytheism; I just don’t seem to understand it. When I feel that I've received a blessing I just thank god and don't feel the need in chanting a prayer devoted to a specific god. Occasionally I end up chanting, Om Namah Shivay, Namoh Narayan, Jai Mata di, Hare Krishna etc. without any reasoning. I feel that it’s the soul that makes this accidental decision and not the mind.

I also chant Jai Ho! for Rahman Ji lol Jokes apart, as a conclusion, one needs not to be religious or pious! You can still feel a personal connection with the supreme without having a religion. This is just how I feel and spirituality has overtaken my religion for me.
I just wanted to question the Trimurti but ended up getting carried away lol

One World. One Family.

Sunilji

Excuse me if I ask you a personal question, did you live the majority of your personality-forming years in a country other than India?

"Hinduism" is not a religion, indeed, in the notion of Abrahamic religions. But it is a religion in the sense that its fundamental principles are founded on the Veda, which is its holy text.

It is natural to be bewildered by such a "religion" where the people who call themselves as "hindus" subscribe to a whole lot of different and conflicting ideas. Although you do indeed see a similar diversity with other religions (the flavours of Islam, Christianity is a testimony to the fact that they are too not without diversity), in no other do you find it to the extent you find it in Hinduism. The reason for these conflicting ideas is simply that Hinduism allows for different interpretations of the Vedic words according to the nature and mindset of its followers. It allows the diversity, as long as the general guidelines given by the Veda are not contradicted.

As to the issue of polytheism in Hinduism, you yourself have provided the answer.

I knew God wouldn't mind as long as I worship him/her in any form.

You do realise that God is one indeed (in Hinduism), only the forms and names are different. Even when a devout Vaishnavite worships Lord Vishnu, he doesn't simply worship one name or one form. There is the Vishnu Sahasranama which speaks of Vishnu with a thousand names and in a thousand forms (well, nearly.. there are a few repetitions :P) and this devotee is perfectly OK with worshipping Vishnu with all these names and in all these forms. So there is no such thing in Hinduism where God exists only in a particular form alone. So there is no need to feel "guilty" wrt other forms, when you are worshiping one form. Just as you may be playing different roles in your life, like being a son, father, brother, employee, employer, student etc., in the same way, the one and only Lord takes up these names and forms according to the roles that needed to be taken up at those particular occasions. So there is no contradiction at all.

In fact, Hinduism is one of the few religions in this world which is perfectly fine with embracing and encouraging the thinking faculty among the people. As the thirst for knowing the Lord is shown, so too the Lord opens ways for knowing and understanding Her in Her truer and truer forms, which are rewards not just for faith but also for the growing intellect.

Love and Light.

NOV

13th August 2012, 05:09 PM

A large group of hungry people go to a multi-cuisine restaurant.
Some people order typical Indian light food like thosai & chapati
Some others would like to eat heavier stuff like rice with curry or naan and tandoori.
Then there is some who would like to eat noodles and others who would like to eat chicken chop & condiments.

Each person eats what fulfils his hunger and taste bud. Each food is not inferior or superior to another.
Neither does one food feels neglected when you do not eat it.
The idea is to fill the stomach. Thats it.

NOV

13th August 2012, 05:12 PM

I knew God wouldn't mind as long as I worship him/her in any form.God does not need worship or acknowledgement. He will survive your ignoring him. :)
Do your duties and do not expect anything in return. Uphold dharma.

Sunil_M88

13th August 2012, 06:30 PM

Anbu Sir,

Yes, I'm from London, one of the worlds multicultural melting pots :D

Sanatana Dharma (The eternal law) as read on Wiki (A site open to edit) states that amongst polytheism, monotheism and pantheism even atheism is encompassed as a set of a belief.

I've got a friend, from India (Also Hindu) who came to study here in the UK. He asked me a VALID question, to which I became hesitant to reply and this has had some effect in shaping me. He saw a prayer book in my dorm and asked, "Do you know the meaning of every prayer you read or do you just recite it for the sake of praying?" I paused and he asked me again, "What's the point in praying, if you don't understand the prayer?"

For e.g. Gayatri Mantra - The most universal chant amongst Hinduism and different people from different sects chant this on a day to day basis. I did not know how to translate it and hence couldn't answer his question at that time. I took that scenario as a stepping stone and realized that it's only worth reciting a hymn/chant etc. if you understand it. Hence where possible I try to find translations, otherwise honestly it does seem pretty pointless.

Instead of doing the conventional prayers, he used to directly ask for guidance and express his gratitude via the means of not praying to god. This is better than reciting a prayer which you don’t understand, right? Or does a prayer have more effect, even if you don’t know what you’re reciting? Another notion he put forward, was that all different religious books are manmade. It’s not really the word of God!

Digression - I used to read Hanuman Chalisa every night and started noticing a pattern in my dreams. After chanting this prayer for Hanuman Ji (considered a remover of fear), I used to see myself reminiscing fun times with my junior school friends, who I hardly chat now. Strange but true! – End digression!

Recently, after reading many articles on Sufism and Buddhism I’ve come to an agreement that there is God inside each and every one of us and some of us are enlightened to know this directly this and some aren’t. But after visiting holy places, e.g. mosque, churches and mandir’s I do feel there is God beyond our body. When visiting these places of worship, generally there are herds of people who share and are surrounded by the same divine energy. I too feel this energy and don’t think it’s just a contagious feeling that everyone does just to fit in the scene.

BTW, my granddad belongs to the Arya Samaj sect of Hinduism, who prohibit the of idol worshiping and worship “Aum” instead, but after my mum joined the family, he became a devotee of Shiv Ji. Having faith is “Aum” is a great idea for
Monotheist Hindus.

I asked a Muslim friend, who like me isn’t religious but spiritual. He also question’s the idea of religion but does believe in God. I told him that I don’t see the idea of worshiping a stone to which he replied, “Did you know that idol worshiping exists in Islam?” Down the convo he said the main reciting they do is “a Ilaha Illallah Muhammad Rasool Allah” translated to “There is no god but God, Muhammad is the messenger of God”

Hence, when Muslims go to dargahs and pray to a grave/tomb of a saint or peer it is considered idol worshiping. To make me feel better about Hinduism, he said idol worshiping is only seen as a focal point.

Sorry to drag the convo into many digressions, but sometimes I really do not know where I stand with religion.

Nov, WRT to our convo on FB, the day we meet, before doing anything else, we should deffo go for a phat meal :thumbsup:

Sunil_M88

13th August 2012, 07:05 PM

Forgot to ask, what's the reasoning behind certain people getting possessed by God during religions ceremonies and functions. I've witnessed this during Gujarati Garba outings during Navratri. My granddad, who was a monothiest Hindu before only worshiping shiv ji (yet he had his friend read him the bhagvad gita before passing away), used to shun these people as being pakhandis (attention seekers)

NOV

13th August 2012, 07:09 PM

PARAMASHIVAN

13th August 2012, 07:15 PM

Isckon subsidiary,.

I used to work in oxford circus, this is where their main chanting/march used to be, they also have Radha Krishna mandir in Soho, which I have attended at tender age I was really moved by such movement! But I have realised that this movement has no rational/logical answers regarding the supreme! They are simply a fanatical movement founded in 1960's and were a cult like movement, it started off in USA! I would stay away from such movement and start the realisation of divine within you.

Sunil_M88

13th August 2012, 07:21 PM

NOV

13th August 2012, 07:23 PM

Though I may not follow a certain sect, I still respect every sect. :thumbsup: thats one positive step forward in spirituality :)

PARAMASHIVAN

13th August 2012, 07:25 PM

Though I may not follow a certain sect, I still respect every sect. In relation to Isckon, if its followers are reaping personal benefits from the chants, then who are we to question whether this sect is fanatical or not?

What I am saying is it is no use following any faiths, as faiths and reality are two different things! Start the jounery from within :)

PARAMASHIVAN

13th August 2012, 07:28 PM

Though I may not follow a certain sect, I still respect every sect. In relation to Isckon, if its followers are reaping personal benefits from the chants, then who are we to question whether this sect is fanatical or not?

Sects and Faiths are man made, of course you have to respect every sects, cultures, religion (man made), etc etc this is just the "human thing" it has nothing to do with spirituality :)

Sunil_M88

13th August 2012, 07:31 PM

different ppl have different ways of finding god

being judgmental takes you away from real spirituality

imagine hinduism as a complete education system from kindergarden to multi-phd's and doctorates.
ppl are at different levels of spirituality
only the arrogant high school kid will look down on the kindergarden kid
our purpose in life is to advance ourselves... so lets worry only abt our progress

there is really nothing wrong or right

:grin:

My motto is, as long as you're true to yourself then you don't need to worry about following religious practices e.g. giving up meat, fasting, performing penchants like an ascetic etc. God is there and if you acknowledge him, you automatically get self satisfaction! (No need for atheists to pounce on me, this is just my belief and if anyone disagrees then let's just agree to disagree)

PARAMASHIVAN

13th August 2012, 07:31 PM

There is no point in talking trying to understand the "Cosmic energy" as we will never understand it. Just understand that fact we are part of this "divine cosmic energy" within us! The rest are just Maya!

Sunil_M88

13th August 2012, 07:38 PM

PARAMASHIVAN

13th August 2012, 07:43 PM

Exactly, that's why I've chosen to be an agnostic theist :D #circularreasoning

:thumbsup:

NOV

13th August 2012, 07:44 PM

sunil, giving up meat is good, giving up food as something that palates the taste is better....ie food only for survival
ridding ourselves completely of all desires will be the ultimate
that means no love, no greed, no envy, no disgust, no jealousy, no likes.... total detachment... its like watching ourselves acting out on the world stage without any feelings.
possible?
no?
lets enjoy life for what it is, without hurting or harming others.
that should suffice

Sunil_M88

13th August 2012, 07:59 PM

Harming others, wrong? Yes!
Eating meat, wrong? No!

Sorry for stating the obvious but hunting and eating an animal is different to eating an animal which has been brought from supermarket, restaurant etc. I personally have no attention of killing an animal and eating it, no one does unless you're twisted or have no option of surviving. Yes, I agree more nutrients are present in veggie food but plants have lives as well, right?

What I find funny is in India, or generally in the olden days regardless of country the main source of food was meat. There are doctrines on animals being sacrificed to God (Hinduism), including cows.

This is where the conflicting of ideas lies, which supports the ideas of various beliefs being covered by the blanket term of Hinduism.

NOV

13th August 2012, 08:02 PM

Eating meat, wrong? No!when did i say that? :)

Sunil_M88

13th August 2012, 08:14 PM

sunil, giving up meat is good

My bad, I stand corrected!

NOV

14th August 2012, 08:05 AM

https://fbcdn-sphotos-c-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-prn1/545108_344249388986266_260902597_n.jpg

anbu_kathir

14th August 2012, 11:02 AM

Sunil avargaLE.

I'm from London, one of the worlds multicultural melting pots :D

Good to know that.

Sanatana Dharma (The eternal law) as read on Wiki (A site open to edit) states that amongst polytheism, monotheism and pantheism even atheism is encompassed as a set of a belief.

If Wiki says that, Wiki is wrong. A system of faith can be a part of Sanatana Dharma if and only if it does not reject the claims of the Veda. And Sanatana Dharma is Hinduism. Atheism, which rejects belief in any supernatural entities whatsoever, rejects claims like rebirth and the principle of Karma, cannot be within Hinduism. A tradition can be a subtradition of Hinduism if and only if there is no rejection of the principle of rebirth, the principle of Karma (action reaction across births), the principle of Natural Order called Dharma, and the authority of the Veda in settling philosophical questions.

He saw a prayer book in my dorm and asked, "Do you know the meaning of every prayer you read or do you just recite it for the sake of praying?" I paused and he asked me again, "What's the point in praying, if you don't understand the prayer?"

For e.g. Gayatri Mantra - The most universal chant amongst Hinduism and different people from different sects chant this on a day to day basis. I did not know how to translate it and hence couldn't answer his question at that time. I took that scenario as a stepping stone and realized that it's only worth reciting a hymn/chant etc. if you understand it. Hence where possible I try to find translations, otherwise honestly it does seem pretty pointless.

Sunilji, there is no issue in trying to understand the meaning of a prayer before praying. But its incorrect to say that there is *no* use whatsoever in trying to pray without knowing its meaning.

For example, when we were children, we were taught many little rhymes to memorise and sing. From an adults perspective, the child has no understanding of these rhymes, their meaning is trivial, and therefore it is useless. Yet, it can definitely be said that these rhymes help the child to comprehend and reproduce sounds, to get some hold on the form and structure of language, and does indeed contribute in a small way to the child's development. Similarly, during school, we were taught so many subjects which are not relevant to our life today. Yet studying each of these subjects was not useless, simply because they helped us to understand how to go about studying itself (besides the obvious GK, increase in memory capacity,etc).

Of course, the analogies above only to illustrate a point that there are several things in our life which are useful even before we understand their meaning. In the same way, the prayers, even without understanding the meaning, reap fruit if they are chanted with faith and humility. The fruits of prayer will be more if they are told keeping the meaning in mind, but they are not useless even otherwise. Of course, really speaking this statement about prayer has to be taken on faith only.

Another notion he put forward, was that all different religious books are manmade. It’s not really the word of God!

There is no evidence for the claim that all religious books are man made. But it is definitely a logical statement. If you have read about the Veda, you would have noticed that it has no authorship associated with it, which is rather unlike the other religions.

But after visiting holy places, e.g. mosque, churches and mandir’s I do feel there is God beyond our body. When visiting these places of worship, generally there are herds of people who share and are surrounded by the same divine energy. I too feel this energy and don’t think it’s just a contagious feeling that everyone does just to fit in the scene.

First I must ask you here. What you do think "God" is anyway? Is it a person or something else? Without defining it, it might not be accurate to say that "God is beyond our body" or "God is within each of us". People generally have some conceptualization of "God" as a "non-material" entity that they know from common parlance. But the technical definition(s) for God in Hinduism is(are) different and rather based on common sense and the individual's capability to understand.

I told him that I don’t see the idea of worshiping a stone to which he replied, “Did you know that idol worshiping exists in Islam?”

No devout Hindu believes he is "worshiping a stone". There is no awkwardness in his manner of worshiping, for through the stone shines the Lord himself and he is pretty clear that it is that Lord that is worshiped. People who claim to not worship idols and yet claim to be religious are funny, because they then start worshiping some other symbol, like the Swastika or Om or the Kabba or a Cross or some other mental image. The essential point here is that *any* form of worship requires an image as a second entity to oneself. Now this image can be either material or mental. There can really be *no* worship but idol worship, only that in some cases the idol is actually made of some material, in other cases, it is an insignia, and in some others, it is a mental image. In any case, to one who is a believer, each represents the Divinity only.

Nov, WRT to our convo on FB, the day we meet, before doing anything else, we should deffo go for a phat mea

I don't remember us chatting on facebook! Perhaps I am forgetting things, or you got me confused with someone else.

Love and Light.

PARAMASHIVAN

14th August 2012, 04:06 PM

Sunil_M88

14th August 2012, 04:17 PM

Sir, your post was definitely enlightening and throughly thought provoking. I think my doubts have been cleared and will definite forward your passage about praying to my friend.

First I must ask you here. What you do think "God" is anyway? Is it a person or something else? Without defining it, it might not be accurate to say that "God is beyond our body" or "God is within each of us". People generally have some conceptualization of "God" as a "non-material" entity that they know from common parlance. But the technical definition(s) for God in Hinduism is(are) different and rather based on common sense and the individual's capability to understand.

:clap:

The FB line was only directed to NOV, so please dw and it's because he used cuisine as a metaphor for polytheism which reminded me of our private banter which has nothing to do with the context of this thread :D

SoftSword

14th August 2012, 04:21 PM

Sunilji, there is no issue in trying to understand the meaning of a prayer before praying. But its incorrect to say that there is *no* use whatsoever in trying to pray without knowing its meaning.

For example, when we were children, we were taught many little rhymes to memorise and sing. From an adults perspective, the child has no understanding of these rhymes, their meaning is trivial, and therefore it is useless. Yet, it can definitely be said that these rhymes help the child to comprehend and reproduce sounds, to get some hold on the form and structure of language, and does indeed contribute in a small way to the child's development. Similarly, during school, we were taught so many subjects which are not relevant to our life today. Yet studying each of these subjects was not useless, simply because they helped us to understand how to go about studying itself (besides the obvious GK, increase in memory capacity,etc).

Of course, the analogies above only to illustrate a point that there are several things in our life which are useful even before we understand their meaning. In the same way, the prayers, even without understanding the meaning, reap fruit if they are chanted with faith and humility. The fruits of prayer will be more if they are told keeping the meaning in mind, but they are not useless even otherwise. Of course, really speaking this statement about prayer has to be taken on faith only.

do u mean to say if faith is the foremost and if that is there, it doesn matter what you are chanting?
in that case cant just faith be enuf, why do u need a chant at all?

correct me if i am wrong.

Sunil_M88

14th August 2012, 05:50 PM

Folks

Let’s apply some logics here, where does this idea of "GOD" come in your mind? You come out of your mother’s womb and awestruck by all the creation around you, so by applying a bit of logic and you come to a conclusion that in order for the creations to exist, there must be a creator / GOD. This concept exists within your mind!

This concept does not exist for you when you are asleep, unconscious or in a coma. But you are still alive right, how ? It is that divine cosmic energy is still residing within you! This is why you should turn inwards to seek spirituality. But Majority of people seek the Creator outside using the 5 sensory organs, these organs are meant for survival and are capable detecting the physical elements only. GOD/CREATOR/COSMIC ENERGY is not physical, hence can not be understood by sensory organs!

Pardon my ignorance. To any Buddhists or anyone who has an understanding about this religion - From my gathering the most common definition of religion is to believe in the supernatural and in Buddhism, the idea of God is non existent. However, it is mentioned Buddhists or any one for that matter can reach enlightenment via deep ascetic penchants by cutting off all materialistic desires. Can't this divine power enabling us to reach enlightenment be considered as God. Hence, can it be questioned that the idea of God in Buddhism is that "God is within each of us".

Coming back to Anbu sir's post

First I must ask you here. What you do think "God" is anyway? Is it a person or something else? Without defining it, it might not be accurate to say that "God is beyond our body" or "God is within each of us".

Just want to iterate what Paramashivan said - When we're children, we ideally think that God or Creator is beyond our body... e.g. During Ramayan it is known that Lord Rama worshiped Lord Shiva as well performing aartis for navaratri and in turn Lord Hanuman (Incarnation of Rudra) worshiped Lord Rama. So we see Gods worshiping gods in Hinduism.

My question - Hindu's suggest that Buddha is an incarnation of Lord Vishnu, but Buddhists don't really abide by this and coming to the notion that as kids we see God (creator being a better word) beyond our body then surely Buddha (Siddartha Gautama) must have some where down the line considered God being beyond his body?

Again pardon my ignorance and hope I made sense. Sorry if I offended anyones sentiments.

anbu_kathir

15th August 2012, 06:42 PM

do u mean to say if faith is the foremost and if that is there, it doesn matter what you are chanting?
in that case cant just faith be enuf, why do u need a chant at all?

correct me if i am wrong.

Since this question has little meaning beyond religion, I am going to assume the tenets of Hinduism before answering the question.

Every individual when he or she prays asks essentially for removal of some situation that causes suffering and sustenance of comfortable/happy situations. All prayer is for these two only. Faith means having firm belief that God is perfectly capable of helping us move through our difficult situations and restoring/sustaining the happy situations in our lives. Without this firm belief, our prayers will only be a lie, and therefore will not bear fruit.

Now to the issue of the activity itself, which involves doing something or the other to demonstrate this faith (it might be chanting, or going to temple, or lighting a lamp.. anything at all). This activity is required to ensure the commitment of the individual to his faith. "Faith" by itself has no meaning to it if it does not drive activity. Such a faith is dormant and amounts to nothing, for in the world, it is only the activities that matter.

Furthermore, in the initial stages, such faith-related activity should not be yet another worldly activity, which involves our daily routine of acquiring survival and comforts. This is important because our minds are already trained to think only of our worldly concerns and worries during these activities, and it will be near impossible to use these activities as "prayer". Thus, a dedicated non-worldly activity is required to help concentrate the mind on the divine, not distracting it with the concerns of the world.

Such activity is also necessary because the individual often loses sight of the fact that he or she only has the ability to do actions and does not have the capability of controlling which reactions have to come at what times, and with what intensity. The principle of Karma, which merely says that actions are rewarded justly, does not offer us any information about the time delays or the intensities with which the rewards come. Conjoining faith with a particular activity makes it a ritual, and in effect is also supposed to remind the individual that there are forces beyond his or her control, and prepare him psychologically to handle whatever experiences may turn up at his doorstep as a just result of his prior actions (known or unknown).

As to the particulars of the ritual itself, why one has to do it in one way or another, the only (secular) answer that comes to my mind is that there is a certain inherent potency it carries because it has been reinforced through generations of practice by the elders in the particular tradition, or other people close to the individual whose opinions and actions he or she might have come to respect. All these increase the faith that one has on the ritual, and enables it to take effect more powerfully within the mind of the individual.

Love and Light.

anbu_kathir

15th August 2012, 06:52 PM

Pardon my ignorance. To any Buddhists or anyone who has an understanding about this religion - From my gathering the most common definition of religion is to believe in the supernatural and in Buddhism, the idea of God is non existent. However, it is mentioned Buddhists or any one for that matter can reach enlightenment via deep ascetic penchants by cutting off all materialistic desires. Can't this divine power enabling us to reach enlightenment be considered as God. Hence, can it be questioned that the idea of God in Buddhism is that "God is within each of us".

Buddhists do believe in Divinity and supernatural entities. They do have temples. Lets seek to understand one system from the basics at first. A jack of all trades is all trades is a master of none. With respect to religions and philosophies, its even worse; such a person will be a really confused person.

Love and Light.

PARAMASHIVAN

16th August 2012, 03:36 PM

Sunil,

Our thoughts and emotions are just a psychological reality. The
psychological reality has nothing to do with the existential reality.

anbu_kathir

16th August 2012, 03:55 PM

-deleted-

anbu_kathir

16th August 2012, 04:02 PM

Folks

Let’s apply some logics here, where does this idea of "GOD" come in your mind? You come out of your mother’s womb and awestruck by all the creation around you, so by applying a bit of logic and you come to a conclusion that in order for the creations to exist, there must be a creator / GOD. This concept exists within your mind!

This concept does not exist for you when you are asleep, unconscious or in a coma. But you are still alive right, how ? It is that divine cosmic energy is still residing within you! This is why you should turn inwards to seek spirituality. But Majority of people seek the Creator outside using the 5 sensory organs, these organs are meant for survival and are capable detecting the physical elements only. GOD/CREATOR/COSMIC ENERGY is not physical, hence can not be understood by sensory organs!

Paramashivan,

What you say is right, but there is certainly nothing *wrong* in seeking God through the senses. Yes, most of us are in this stage only. In whatever stage we are in, there is always the opportunity to uphold Dharma in one's life and do so in the service of the Lord. The forms of the Lord that are seen all over the world are all nothing less *real* than human beings, because even by your own logic, the word "human being", "body", "mind" all these are *concepts in the mind* only. There is no source of knowledge as to why these concepts should be less or more real than the concept of God as a being with name(s) and form(s).

As long as there is the notion of attachment to the body, i.e., as long as we think we are the body-mind complex, or that we *have* a body-mind complex that is *ours*, it is best to seek the Lord through actions through the body, through words, and through the mind. It is certainly not wise to give up this pursuit saying that "God cannot be understood through physical organs", fact though it may be. The lives of so many saints of this world are testaments to this.

Love and Light.

PARAMASHIVAN

16th August 2012, 09:59 PM

but there is certainly nothing *wrong* in seeking God through the senses

Senses can only perceive what is physical, since we all agree that the "Omnipotent" is not physical, then how? You see our thoughts/behaviours/attitude/emotions are nothing but an imitation from the environment / culture we are born in, and it varies from individual to individuals, hence there can never be a "general concept". Devotion is like any other human emotions, and it is never constant, it is just one of those feelings generated from your Adrenalin glands. :)

anbu_kathir

17th August 2012, 10:43 AM

Senses can only perceive what is physical, since we all agree that the "Omnipotent" is not physical, then how? You see our thoughts/behaviours/attitude/emotions are nothing but an imitation from the environment / culture we are born in, and it varies from individual to individuals, hence there can never be a "general concept". Devotion is like any other human emotions, and it is never constant, it is just one of those feelings generated from your Adrenalin glands. :)

Bhakthi is not "just another emotion" which is generated from your adrenalin glands. This is not acceptable in the Hindu model. If you are talking science, all your "seek the Creator within" is also just another pseudoscientific mumbo jumbo which apparently sounds more interesting and philosophical. From a point of view of science, there is no such thing as a "creator", you are nothing but a mass of atoms which interact in a particular way so as to create the "I". Your "seeking" is also some neurons in the brain firing here and there. All we have is then some inert matter which came out of a big bang, and which by chance conjoined to produce this thing we call "life" with no known purpose. Certainly this viewpoint is not shared in Hinduism.

In Hinduism, God, in the most true meaning of the word, is indeed not perceptible to the senses. But this does not mean Bhakthi towards an external form is a waste. The Lord who is found in the temple is 100% real, as real as any other being in this universe. It is not for nothing that the greatest saints of India spent their time and energy worshiping the Lord in the way they saw/knew him, as Krishna, as Rama, as Shiva, as Murugan, as Abirami, as Saraswati, as Meenakshi, etc.

To say that all their efforts were useless is incorrect. You say Bhakthi is some emotion produced by adrenalin glands. Yet, why should it be more in some people and less in others? There is no real answer to this question if you consider only science (you only get infinite regress). According to Hinduism, the mind is prior to the human body. Though there is no denial of a mind-body connection, it is the particular characters or inherent impressions in the mind of the individual Jiva (which he accumulates through his actions over several lifetimes) that the particular body with its particular characteristics is available to him in this lifetime. So Bhakthi is not just some emotion "caused" by some physical activity. The physical organs which are involved in maintaining Bhakthi are merely intermediary causes for it. The same holds for any other emotions and thoughts. They are all the expressions of the characteristics accumulated by the Jiva over several lifetimes.

All of the different modes of Bhakthi present in Hinduism are relevant and necessary in any time and age. But the individual has to observe his own nature and tune himself to the particular mode of Bhakthi that is best for him. It is definitely impossible to discard any of the modes of worship and still call the system as Sanatana Dharma or the way of Eternal and Universal Dharma. In fact, it is not exactly correct to say "God is not physical". God is indeed *also* physical. But He is not *just* physical.

Love and Light.

PARAMASHIVAN

20th August 2012, 02:51 PM

anbu_kathir

20th August 2012, 03:13 PM

Kathir

I did not say Bakthi was a bad thing at all, all I said was in order for one to reach "Ultimate" you need a combination of bakthi(devotion) , Gnana (intellect) Kriya(Life energies) and Karma (actions) . By one of these accept alone it is virtually impossible to reach the Ultimate, (IMHO). Imagine all these were four wheels of a car, in order to reach the destination, you will need all these 4 wheels to work simultaneously right? :)

If one decides to go in a different direction, will you reach your destination? No right? This is what I meant :)

Frankly, I think you need much more groundwork to establish what you are saying, i.e., "a combination of bhakthi, jnana, kriya, karma". It is like saying "to succeed in life, one needs a combination of skill, intelligence, action, passion for life, etc." It is a very loose statement, so I cannot reject it nor can I accept it as a perfect statement, because it will not stand its ground when examined in the light of the scriptures. Loose statements like these are dangerous in philosophy, and are practically not very useful in spirituality either, for it leaves the individual in a dilemma as to what and how to pursue these, and moreover what exactly are we hoping to attain by their pursuit.

The Hindu system, according to the scriptures, is simple and uncomplicated. There are two ways only, the way of Action (Karma Yoga) and the way of Self-Knowledge (Jnana Yoga). For a Jiva, spirituality begins with Karma Yoga, which leads to Jnana Yoga, which finally leads to Jnana or Self-Knowledge, which confers liberation. A *mixing* of the paths is actually not possible at all. Bhakthi is needed in each of these paths, but according to the mindset of the individual it will mean different things at different points in his spiritual evolution. This succession of paths and the reaching of the ultimate goal takes several lifetimes.

Anyway, my point was that Bhakthi towards a personal god (God as an external compassionate entity who is responsible for the cycle of Creation, and who justly delivers experiences to the Jivas according to their Karma) is highly recommended in Hinduism. Whether it is "enough" for liberation or not, that question we can bother about later.

Love and Light.

PARAMASHIVAN

20th August 2012, 03:27 PM

anbu_kathir

20th August 2012, 03:33 PM

My opinion was not based on any scriptures, just a general opinion by me. My views are not "entirely" based in Hinduism. Besides, if one follows our scriptures and Vedas, it will be impossible as we have infinite no of scriptures/Vedas!

Scriptures are infinite, correct, but their essence can be conveyed in finite number of words. The Bhagavad Gita is the visible evidence that we have.

Love and Light.

PARAMASHIVAN

21st August 2012, 04:44 PM

anbu_kathir

21st August 2012, 07:05 PM

Coming to the devotion aspect.....

Why is a Deity/Object/Picture required to invoke bhakthi? Isn't that "Bakthi" happening within you? I guess you need an external stimulant to invoke such feelings :)

It is easiest to love a person who is near and dear to you, who cares for you, who provides for you, who comforts you in times of difficulty, is it not? The Lord is such a person. He or she is invoked in the idol or picture and that is loved. When our loved ones die, don't we keep pictures of them in our homes and reminisce our good times with them? Is it not easier to do it that way, rather than throw away all external objects that remind us of them and simply say that "That remembrance is happening within you, so why do you need these objects?".

Love and Light.

PARAMASHIVAN

21st August 2012, 08:19 PM

It is easiest to love a person who is near and dear to you, who cares for you, who provides for you, who comforts you in times of difficulty, is it not? .

Yes, but these feeling/thoughts are happening within you not with the person whom you think loves/cares for you. All I am saying is such feelings are invoked by external stimulant, but these feelings you get is based within you, it is not out side but inside. So to conclude it, the Cosmic energy/Creator/GOD is within you not outside as per hallucination created by your mind based on the info you gathered from your sensory organs + imagination of your mind :)

anbu_kathir

21st August 2012, 08:40 PM

Yes, but these feeling/thoughts are happening within you not with the person whom you think loves/cares for you. All I am saying is such feelings are invoked by external stimulant, but these feelings you get is based within you, it is not out side but inside. So to conclude it, the Cosmic energy/Creator/GOD is within you not outside as per hallucination created by your mind based on the info you gathered from your sensory organs + imagination of your mind :)

Everything that we know or understand is based on info gathered from senses and the thoughts of our mind. So this way of coming to the conclusion that "god is within us" is also within the mind. How are we to believe it?

The issue here is that most people are unable to view themselves as the source of all emotional support. Why should they not lean on a perfect and compassionate and all powerful entity? This is much better than leaning on the worldly objects or people for support. The existence of this entity is known through faith in scripture, in the elders in the family, and in all the masters and saints who have witnessed this deity. Why should one not trust these?

Love and Light.

PARAMASHIVAN

21st August 2012, 09:07 PM

The issue here is that most people are unable to view themselves as the source of all emotional support.

Thanks , this is exactly what I have been trying to convey here, and to be honest it took me a while to figure this one for my self through rough experiences thrown at me in the name of "life".

asiqwevob

22nd August 2012, 01:34 PM

The vedas have been mentioned, but is Lord Siva mentioned in the Vedas? I don't mean as 'Rudra', I mean as Lord Siva/Shiva/Sivan etc.
What about other sources, such as the Agamas/Agamams, Tirumantiram, etc?

I know Tirumantiram is available in English at least.

PARAMASHIVAN

22nd August 2012, 03:03 PM

The vedas have been mentioned, but is Lord Siva mentioned in the Vedas? I don't mean as 'Rudra', I mean as Lord Siva/Shiva/Sivan etc.
What about other sources, such as the Agamas/Agamams, Tirumantiram, etc?

Which Vedas are you talking about ?

I know Tirumantiram is available in English at least.

Source pls ?

Thanks

Sunil_M88

23rd August 2012, 09:30 PM

http://www.mayyam.com/talk/showthread.php?7358-Origin-of-Lord-Murugan&p=937665&viewfull=1#post937665

anbu_kathir

24th August 2012, 11:51 AM

http://www.mayyam.com/talk/showthread.php?7358-Origin-of-Lord-Murugan&p=937665&viewfull=1#post937665

http://www.mayyam.com/talk/showthread.php?7358-Origin-of-Lord-Murugan&p=938088#post938088

Sunil_M88

31st August 2012, 10:58 PM

anbu_kathir

4th September 2012, 02:34 PM

There is a massive difference between religion and faith.

Religion makes you do, Faith makes you want to.

Religion is man made, Faith is spiritual.

Religion you are taught, Faith you are born with.

Religion is a standard for you to follow, Faith is something you feel.

Religions were started, Faith is infinite.

Religion kills, Faith heals.

God has no religion as long as we have faith.

Hinduism is a matter of faith for me, not a religion, it is not an ism. I believe it because I feel it not because I am told to.

Many people that I have spoken to of other faiths feel the same way, There is only One God after all.

Anyone can have any beliefs they want to, including you, Sunilji. Truth, unfortunately, is never easily seen, simple though it might be. It requires a tremendous exercise of intellect, perhaps requiring the whole of our lifetime. If we are interested in Truth, even in a basis sense, the very least we can do is to have the humility to accept that we may be wrong (completely and absolutely), that we are confused, and we indeed do need guidance from those that have already gone along the path.

Love and Light.

PARAMASHIVAN

4th September 2012, 02:50 PM

Sunilji.

Avaru eppO irunthu Ji aanar ? :lol:

Truth, unfortunately, is never easily seen, simple though it might be. It requires a tremendous exercise of intellect, perhaps requiring the whole of our lifetime.

Very true!

If we are interested in Truth, even in a basis sense, the very least we can do is to have the humility to accept that we may be wrong (completely and absolutely), that we are confused,

we indeed do need guidance from those that have already gone along the path.
with due respect to these "Mahans" , I disgaree with this, spiritual awakening needs happen from where you are at the moment, I feel it is lost cause, if we try to start from where the period where such mahans existed, we will be lost for ever, one should start from wher he is now :)

anbu_kathir

5th September 2012, 10:57 AM

Avaru eppO irunthu Ji aanar ? :lol:

Hehe.. avarOda pEru "ji" pOdrathukku vasadiyaa irukku.

with due respect to these "Mahans" , I disgaree with this, spiritual awakening needs happen from where you are at the moment, I feel it is lost cause, if we try to start from where the period where such mahans existed, we will be lost for ever, one should start from wher he is now :)
[/QUOTE]

I was talking about "Truth" (as in that which cannot be contradicted at any time) and not spiritual awakening. Spiritual awakening is not any discrete event, unless you further supply it with a very precise definition. A person who tries to live a moral and ethical and compassionate life, without bothering about religion, is also a spiritual person. As for the "Mahaans", the characteristics of such people are mentioned in the scriptures and without doubt such people always exist. One merely has to keep the flame of spiritual life alive by ones thoughts words and deeds. Sooner or later one will find oneself led to them. "Truth" is to be found only from such persons.

Love and Light.

Sunil_M88

3rd December 2012, 09:30 PM

Anyone can have any beliefs they want to, including you, Sunilji. Truth, unfortunately, is never easily seen, simple though it might be. It requires a tremendous exercise of intellect, perhaps requiring the whole of our lifetime. If we are interested in Truth, even in a basis sense, the very least we can do is to have the humility to accept that we may be wrong (completely and absolutely), that we are confused, and we indeed do need guidance from those that have already gone along the path.

Love and Light.

Do you mean priests? It's very difficult to seek the right guidance these days! Does the seeker find the guider or is seeker chosen by the guider?

anbu_kathir

4th December 2012, 11:22 AM

Do you mean priests? It's very difficult to seek the right guidance these days! Does the seeker find the guider or is seeker chosen by the guider?

When did I ever mention 'priests' ? Priesthood is an occupation, like any other occupation. There is no established correlation between priesthood and spirituality. I was only talking about those who who have studied under a teacher themselves, who have learnt the real nature of their own self, and are therefore free from anger, fear, jealousy, hatred, attachment, etc. It is not necessary that priests be such people or that people be such priests.

Both the seeker and the guider find each other, really. The seeker has to have the thirst, though. By the continual performance of one's duty selflessly, by living a prayerful, ethical and moral life, by mentally renouncing the desire for worldly pleasures, by yearning to be free from sorrow once and for all, by all these the seeker comes into contact with a teacher, who then quenches all the seeker's desires and frees him from his sorrow once and for all by his teaching.

PARAMASHIVAN

4th December 2012, 04:31 PM

. There is no established correlation between priesthood and spirituality.

Correct!

.

Both the seeker and the guider find each other, really. The seeker has to have the thirst, though. By the continual performance of one's duty selflessly, by living a prayerful, ethical and moral life, by mentally renouncing the desire for worldly pleasures, by yearning to be free from sorrow once and for all, by all these the seeker comes into contact with a teacher, who then quenches all the seeker's desires and frees him from his sorrow once and for all by his teaching.

Very well said, the initial thirst for spirituality must come from deep within, the pain of ignorance should tear one apart, this will lead you to seek the truth, and in this journey you would find the guru to lead you in the correct path! But it is also possible to attain spirituality without a guru.

Sunil_M88

4th December 2012, 07:05 PM

When did I ever mention 'priests' ?

You didn't... I wasn't sure what you meant by, "those that have already gone along the path" hence I wanted to clarify my assumption.

Priesthood is an occupation, like any other occupation. There is no established correlation between priesthood and spirituality. I was only talking about those who who have studied under a teacher themselves, who have learnt the real nature of their own self, and are therefore free from anger, fear, jealousy, hatred, attachment, etc. It is not necessary that priests be such people or that people be such priests.

:thumbsup: but I strongly think no one is free from anger, fear, jealousy, hatred, attachment, etc. I've also read that there is no one who is equally wealthy, powerful, famous, beautiful, learned and scholarly yet renounces order of life unattached to material possessions as someone who has all these six qualities is understood to be the supreme personality of godhead.

I feel that material possessions is a blanket term i.e. if you want to want to devote your life to god then do you seriously have to give up material possessions. I believe when "Mahans" say that one should give up material possessions, they are actually referring to greed.

Both the seeker and the guider find each other, really. The seeker has to have the thirst, though. By the continual performance of one's duty selflessly, by living a prayerful, ethical and moral life, by mentally renouncing the desire for worldly pleasures, by yearning to be free from sorrow once and for all, by all these the seeker comes into contact with a teacher, who then quenches all the seeker's desires and frees him from his sorrow once and for all by his teaching.

One can think he is ethical and moral in every way possible but it's always external influences that shape us a people, hence if we want to attain "Moksha" it's not in our hands even if we choose a simple and ascetic lifestyle. A person who makes himself oblivious to the world and is immersed completely in "jaap" 24/7 either is a reformed character or sociopath. If god showers wealth, power, fame on an individual then he/she should acknowledge it instead of giving it up! Is it a test from god to see how that individual will respond i.e. stay humble or become a show off either way god is always testing each and everyone of us but before they prove anything to god they need to first prove to themselves who they actually are. Hence some people might not even need guidance :)

PARAMASHIVAN

4th December 2012, 08:06 PM

but I strongly think no one is free from anger, fear, jealousy, hatred, attachment, etc.

Yes there are!!

Sunil_M88

4th December 2012, 11:45 PM

I'm not denying it's truth but I personally don't comprehend it being possible.

anbu_kathir

5th December 2012, 11:35 AM

:thumbsup: but I strongly think no one is free from anger, fear, jealousy, hatred, attachment, etc.

Free from anger etc. does not necessarily mean anger etc. will not be displayed. What it means is that the person is in control of his emotions and not otherwise. Since this is a constitution of such a person's mind, it cannot be brushed off as if they are impossible, neither can it be accepted if it be told simply in words. That such and such person is free from all these confusions is to be found by patience and observation of the person. One hint to find such a person is that he or she would seem peaceful most of the time, but at the same time never claim anything special or great to himself. In fact, mostly the work of a teacher is to simply point out that the seeker is himself the greatest thing in the world. Such a person would never attribute any greatness to himself. Even if he or she did on rare occasions, it would merely be a device to teach something.

I've also read that there is no one who is equally wealthy, powerful, famous, beautiful, learned and scholarly yet renounces order of life unattached to material possessions as someone who has all these six qualities is understood to be the supreme personality of godhead.

I don't understand what you are saying, except for the fact that you have given the possessions of Bhagavan, which are known as the "Bhaga"s in sanskrit. They include Jnaanam, Yashas, Sri, Aishwarya, Virya, Vairagyam. Obviously Bhagavan is considered to be the repository of all these possessions. What is this "no one who is equally wealthy.. yet renounces"? Didn't make sense.

I feel that material possessions is a blanket term i.e. if you want to want to devote your life to god then do you seriously have to give up material possessions. I believe when "Mahans" say that one should give up material possessions, they are actually referring to greed.

Please reread what I said - " by mentally renouncing the desire for worldly pleasures" . This is 100% necessary if one wants to know God, or be free from sorrow and its causes once and for all. Physical renunciation, physically separating oneself from material possessions is considered to be very important, nevertheless. But its not like a "rule" if one wants to know God. It is merely meant to provide a convenient setting in which one can spend time exclusively for study of the scriptures in order to know and be established in that by which all sorrow comes to an end. The value one attaches to all worldly attachments, relations, and possessions *have* to be given up to know God. One cannot be 100% sure if one has given up this (emotional) value until one loses the things he possesses. Therefore physical renunciation is a great aid in this matter.

Of course, this is only the last leg of the journey, it is meant only for those who have the thirst to know God. There are several other spiritual disciplines prescribed for those who still have desires and attachments in the world. Depending on their mental state they can make use of these disciplines.

One can think he is ethical and moral in every way possible but it's always external influences that shape us a people, hence if we want to attain "Moksha" it's not in our hands even if we choose a simple and ascetic lifestyle.

If you don't want an ascetic lifestyle, don't choose it. As I said, it is only for those who want God exclusively that the ascetic lifestyle is preferable. Not for those who have desires to achieve something in the world, to gain something, to love someone or be loved by someone, to have different kinds of experiences in the world, etc. It is not that all these desires are wrong, certainly one may have them. But having them in excess, having them at the cost of ethics and morals (i.e. adharma) is detrimental to a peaceful life. Therefore there are several disciplines which are prescribed by religion(s). One can make use of these disciplines to lead a (relatively) peaceful life, even without attempting to be an ascetic. But to root out the cause of sorrow, an ascetic life is extremely helpful.

As for "Moksha being not in our hands", you couldn't be more wrong. Moksha is completely in our hands. It depends purely on our mental capabilities like renunciation and desire to be free. This should never be doubted by any spiritual seeker.

A person who makes himself oblivious to the world and is immersed completely in "jaap" 24/7 either is a reformed character or sociopath.

Its not jaap, but japa or jap or japam, I guess. Anyway, the statement is purely your opinion and viewpoint of what a Sanyaasi's life should be. It does not reflect the opinion of the scripture, nor is this the only way Sanyaasa is practised. But I guess what you mean is that a Sanyaasi's life is dedicated to the pursuit of the divine and the divine only. So much is indeed true.

If god showers wealth, power, fame on an individual then he/she should acknowledge it instead of giving it up!

God has no necessity of our prayers, our devotion, our renunciation, or our moral life. You cannot dictate what other people should or should not do. The mind of a renunciate is very different from our minds (in general). Our minds are generally accustomed to hold on to the objects of the world to derive our pleasures, whether it be people, or objects, or circumstances. The renunciate's mind rejoices in himself/God alone. It is not that he "hates" the world. No. He is tired of holding on to temporal things and he deeply desires something permanent. This permanency he finds in his own Self, if not, then in God. So he wanders about (or keeps himself in one place) with this understanding all the time. Since he has no need for wealth or power or fame, he gives it to those people who need them. God plays no role in this matter. It is purely the mind of the worldly people by which they depend on temporal things for their happiness, and thereby they get misled. Similarly it is purely the mind of the renunciate by which he learns to depend on God or his own Self, and thereby he takes the correct approach towards being content.

Is it a test from god to see how that individual will respond i.e. stay humble or become a show off either way god is always testing each and everyone of us but before they prove anything to god they need to first prove to themselves who they actually are. Hence some people might not even need guidance :)

I didn't get what your point is here at all. As for "proving anything to God", God does not need any proof of our divinity. It is we who miss it. Therefore it is we ourselves who have to remember it. The result of this remembrance is the destruction of the cause of sorrow once and for all.

Love and Light.

anbu_kathir

5th December 2012, 11:44 AM

I'm not denying it's truth but I personally don't comprehend it being possible.

I didn't believe that there is such a thing called a zero-mass particle either. I couldn't comprehend that it was possible. Then people taught me about the photon. After much thought and study, I understood what it meant.

Well, kind of. But I don't doubt that there is such a thing called a zero-mass particle anymore.

Love and Light,
Prasad.

anbu_kathir

5th December 2012, 11:50 AM

Correct!
But it is also possible to attain spirituality without a guru.

The famous saint Sri Ramakrishna used to say that even to become a good thief, one needs to have an excellent thief as a teacher. Then what to say of knowing God, who is most difficult to know ? Also, all the scriptures speak of getting this knowledge from an accomplished teacher only. Never do they mention any technique to attain God without a teacher.

Of course, the decision is left to the individual.

Love and Light.

PARAMASHIVAN

5th December 2012, 04:05 PM

I feel that material possessions is a blanket term i.e. if you want to want to devote your life to god then do you seriously have to give up material possessions.

Who said that ?? You don’t have to give up any material objects to attain the knowledge of your self, you can use materials for your day to day life, but don’t become emotionally attach to it.

Eg. You use a car to go to work, do shopping etc, but if some thing happens to your car (Lost/stolen/Damaged) you should not show any emotions, if there is no emotion towards any object, then there is no attachment. :)

Sunil_M88

5th December 2012, 09:14 PM

I was merely paraphrasing but I should have given the exact quote -

So
from practical experience we can observe that one is attractive due to
(1) wealth, (2) power, (3) fame, (4) beauty, (5) wisdom and (6)
renunciation. One who is in possession of all six of these opulences at
the same time, who possesses them to an unlimited degree, is understood
to be the Supreme Personality of Godhead. These opulences of the
Godhead are delineated by Paräçara Muni, a great Vedic authority.
We have seen many rich persons, many powerful persons, many famous
persons, many beautiful persons, many learned and scholarly persons,
and persons in the renounced order of life unattached to material
possessions. But we have never seen any one person who is unlimitedly
and simultaneously wealthy, powerful, famous, beautiful, wise and
unattached, like "God", in the history of humanity.

It's always a pleasure to read your comments, sir and I thoroughly enjoyed it! :clap: Though I still have a tiny nitpick as I'm still not convinced by "Moksha" being a result of our mental capabilities. i.e. if god created us then did he give us personality or did we develop that ourselves? Does this define the line between humans and the supernatural?

BTW Jaap is a Punjabi variant of the words you've listed.

God has no necessity of our prayers, our devotion, our renunciation, or our moral life. You cannot dictate what other people should or should not do.

Pardon me :ashamed:

I didn't get what your point is here at all. As for "proving anything to God", God does not need any proof of our divinity. It is we who miss it. Therefore it is we ourselves who have to remember it. The result of this remembrance is the destruction of the cause of sorrow once and for all.

That's what I meant but my lack of vocabulary let my expression down.

anbu_kathir

6th December 2012, 10:24 AM

So
from practical experience we can observe that one is attractive due to
(1) wealth, (2) power, (3) fame, (4) beauty, (5) wisdom and (6)
renunciation. One who is in possession of all six of these opulences at
the same time, who possesses them to an unlimited degree, is understood
to be the Supreme Personality of Godhead. These opulences of the
Godhead are delineated by Paräçara Muni, a great Vedic authority.
We have seen many rich persons, many powerful persons, many famous
persons, many beautiful persons, many learned and scholarly persons,
and persons in the renounced order of life unattached to material
possessions. But we have never seen any one person who is unlimitedly
and simultaneously wealthy, powerful, famous, beautiful, wise and
unattached, like "God", in the history of humanity.

This is indeed true as a comparison between the capabilities of the Lord and the capabilities of individuals.

I'm still not convinced by "Moksha" being a result of our mental capabilities. i.e.

I didn't say Moksha is a 'result' of our mental capabilities. I said it is in our own hands. A popular analogy for this is that the Lord's grace is like the ever present wind and the individual is like a boat on the sea. If the individual by his effort (i.e renunciation and desire to know god) raises the mast, then the wind takes care of everything that is required to reach the destination. There is no "effort" put forth by the wind to do this. The effort is all by the boatman, who understands the point of being in a boat, how it works, what is detrimental to reaching the goal and what is useful, and has the courage enough to raise the mast. All these are in the hands of the boatman only, not the wind. In the same way Moksha is completely dependent on the individual's desire and mental qualifications. The rest is God's grace, which is ever-present, about which we need only to be thankful for but not bother about.

if god created us then did he give us personality or did we develop that ourselves? Does this define the line between humans and the supernatural?

There are loaded words here - like "God" , "Creation", etc., that it is slightly difficult to answer the questions before defining them properly (I generally use them only from a utility point of view). But the point is not difficult to make. The mental and physical characteristics possessed by an individual is because of a portion of aggregate of actions done in the past (lives). This is known as Praarabhda Karma. 'God' as such is merely a facilitator, an entity which lends existence to the individual and all the possible shades that he can take. In the particularity of the shades, God plays no part, and it is purely the individuals free will which decides. The same law governs all beings, including plants, animals, human beings, and supernaturals.

All this can be accepted or rejected as blind belief. From another perspective, these questions don't matter at all. We find ourselves right now with so many issues and problems in life. We find ourselves incapable to handle many of them, afraid, incomplete, insecure and bound. Is there any solution at all? How does it matter *how* we came about to this issue? The house is burning. Do we see it? If we see it, we take action to protect it. We don't stop to ask how it started burning in the first place. That we can bother after we have extinguished the fire. Similarly these questions on "how" and "why" will subside after our issues (of being insecure, afraid, self-loathing, guilt, hurt, sorrow) are dealt with. And to deal with them, to cure them, such that they don't reappear again, is called finding God.

BTW Jaap is a Punjabi variant of the words you've listed.

I didn't know that, pardon me.

Love and Light.

PARAMASHIVAN

10th December 2012, 10:20 PM

When the very source of creation is within you, all the solutions are within you.but you spend your entire life seeking the creator outside by various methods / Idiologies known as Religion. This is why you are not getting any where! The source of creation is within you, if you remove the curtains of "Maya" , you would find the creator within you!

anbu_kathir

11th December 2012, 09:03 AM

When the very source of creation is within you, all the solutions are within you. The source of creation is within you, if you remove the curtains of "Maya" , you would find the creator within you!

What is this 'you'? What is the meaning of 'within'? What is Maya? How do you say there is a creator?

but you spend your entire life seeking the creator outside by various methods / Idiologies known as Religion. This is why you are not getting any where!

What is 'religion' and how do you ascertain that it is useless?

Love and Light.

P.S : Asking these questions out of curiosity and out of an interest in clarity.

PARAMASHIVAN

11th December 2012, 05:06 PM

What is this 'you'?
The Cosmic energy within us and ever single atoms in the cosmos.

Body - is just an accumulation of food and water we have consumed from nature and nature will take this back one day.

Mind - an imitation of what is around you, it's just that you don't imitate one person; you take bits and pieces of hundred people and make yourself. The rest is just hallucination based on these info you have gathered from outside.

How do you say there is a creator?

Cosmic energy which is present in us and every atoms in the cosmos

What is 'religion'

Man made belief system based on the culture and environment in which one is born, these belief systems and reality are completely different aspects.

How do you ascertain that it is useless?

I did not imply that. In my view Religion/morals/ethics good education as to how one may live "socially”, but not spiritually :)

anbu_kathir

11th December 2012, 07:09 PM

Thank you for your answers.

The Cosmic energy within us and ever single atoms in the cosmos.

Let us leave the body and mind for now. You answered this for "What is this 'you'"? But here again, you say, "within us". So I must take that your answer says "What we are is (cosmic energy) within us". Isn't this statement suffering from circular logic?. Again, I must ask - what is this "within" and who is this "us" ?

Cosmic energy which is present in us and every atoms in the cosmos

You answered this for - "How do you know that there is a creator? ". The question is, " How do you know? ", not what you mean by the creator.

Man made belief system based on the culture and environment in which one is born, these belief systems and reality are completely different aspects.

How do you know religion is man-made? How do you differentiate something that is man-made and something that is not man-made?

I did not imply that. In my view Religion/morals/ethics good education as to how one may live "socially”, but not spiritually :)

Where is the line of division between social life and spiritual life? What differentiates the two?

Thanks. If you wish not to delve into these questions, its OK. But I put them forth simply because passing opinions is easily done, but thinking is difficult. Its seems to me that there is not much use by passing opinions (i.e., when we say 'according to me....'), especially on forums like this. But if you have a well thought out and logically coherent viewpoint, then there will always be people who will appreciate it and get the inspiration to inculcate whatever good things you have said.

LOve and Light.