Ask Madhuri a Question about Hinduism

[Parsifal]

I'd love to know more about your beliefs on this subject

OK, you asked for it. . . oops, I mean sure, happy to share! :angel2:

First off, I find it helpful for my understanding to draw distinctions between the divine aspects at the high end of the spiritual spectrum. One of the key distinctions is made in the first three stanzas of Gita chapter 12: Arjuna asks who are the better yogis, "those who worship thee" (Bhakti unto Krishna), or those who worship (seek direct realization of) "the Imperishable, the Undefinable, the Unmanifested, the Omnipresent, the Unthinkable, the Unchanging and the Immobile, the Constant?" To make it easier to think about this ultimate Unthinkable, I just abbreviate it all to OM. It also makes it easier to talk about it, as long as everyone understands that this is precisely what it means.

So as we know, Krishna answered that the Bhaktas are dearer to him than the seekers of OM; but the point I would make to you here, Madhuri, is that Krishna thereby drew a distinction between the OM and himself.

A key insight that I've gleaned about OM from what I consider the highest sources is that it is a seamless fusion of everything and nothing, Being and Non-Being, the All-One and the Nihil-None. Some people think that OM is God, but I disagree. My view is that when OM divides from its perfect whole into One and None, the One is God. Again the import is that there is a vital distinction between OM and the God we all know and love.

I see further distinctions between certain aspects of God, which is why I asked about Īśvara, and you answered:

In the traditions that place Krishna as God, Krishna IS Ishvara. Ishvara is basically the same as saying 'God'.

One reason I enjoy your posts is that you often say things that are surprising for me. But this time, believe it or not, my first guess was that this would be your answer.

What I'm looking for in this case, though, is confirmation of the direct experience of many individuals of what is often called Watcher-consciousness, in which you become aware of, and sometimes even identified with, a seemingly omniscient, dispassionate Observer. The assumption is that this is a local manifestation of an all-pervading cosmic reality. So I believe that somewhere up there at the top of the spectrum there must be a layer of Godmind that just passively watches everything, no doubt with the Eye of God. I.e., this is distinct from the Creator-God, or the creative aspect of God, and may even be aloof from the unconditionally-loving aspect of God ~ it may be IMPERSONAL. So Īśvara is my candidate for the divine Observer. I also have other candidates in other spiritual traditions.

I visualize the whole thing as a series of spheres-within-spheres ~ I call it the Omnicosm. The largest, outermost layer, enclosing all the others, is OM. After a couple of layers that I won't go into here, we would have the sphere of Īśvara, and then within that, at last, the God whom we sentient beings can know as a person, and form personal relationships with. For you: Krishna. For others: Shiva, Buddha, Christ, Allah, etc., etc. None of them are identical with OM. It transcends everything, even God. IMHO.

 

[Maya3]

I am Australian and of European decent. I was born into Hinduism because my parents converted to it before they even met. I grew up with a mix of normal Aussie culture and Indian culture through my religion. I'm definitely some sort of weird *cough* I mean awesome hybrid

I would love to hear more about this. How was that for your parents?
Was it unusual back then (I don't know how old you are, maybe it's not that long ago). How was it for you growing up?

Sounds to my that being a hybrid is a great thing, and I love diversity so I love to hear stories like this.

Maya

 

[Madhuri]

Parsifal, would you agree that the distinction is Brahman vs Ishvara? Brahman is the all-pervading consciousness whereas Ishvara is the personal aspect of Godhead. In the BG, Krishna tells us that God is characterised by 3 aspects: Brahman, Paramatma and Bhagavan. In the Vaishnava tradition (s), Bhagavan (Ishvara) does not come from Brahman, but that all aspects are simultaneously existing eternally without beginning or end.

I suppose Brahman is observing, although I generally think observation is the role of Paramatma. Ultimately, upon realisation, we realise these 3 aspects are non-different.

 

[Madhuri]

I would love to hear more about this. How was that for your parents?
Was it unusual back then (I don't know how old you are, maybe it's not that long ago). How was it for you growing up?

Sounds to my that being a hybrid is a great thing, and I love diversity so I love to hear stories like this.

Maya

I'm in my mid 20s so my parents aren't very old. They converted in their early 20s to Hinduism (I think dad was influenced by the Beatles haha).
It was very unusual and strange even in the 70s and 80s to be a Hindu in Australia. Nobody really knew anything about it. Even now they don't really. But my parents were completely into it and even lived in the ashrams.

I grew up travelling all the time, including going to and living in India for a little while. But I ended up being sent to Catholic school and spent time with family that were and are mostly non-religious. I grew up believing in Jesus (as a saint), Krishna, Buddha etc etc. so I've developed a fairly open and liberal approach.

You're right, being a hybrid is great

 

[Maya3]

I'm in my mid 20s so my parents aren't very old. They converted in their early 20s to Hinduism (I think dad was influenced by the Beatles haha).
It was very unusual and strange even in the 70s and 80s to be a Hindu in Australia. Nobody really knew anything about it. Even now they don't really. But my parents were completely into it and even lived in the ashrams.

I grew up travelling all the time, including going to and living in India for a little while. But I ended up being sent to Catholic school and spent time with family that were and are mostly non-religious. I grew up believing in Jesus (as a saint), Krishna, Buddha etc etc. so I've developed a fairly open and liberal approach.

You're right, being a hybrid is great

Thanks for sharing, you are very lucky to have been exposed to so many things!

Maya

 

[Parsifal]

Hi, Madhuri. I was glad to see your post because I was afraid I had unintentionally blown you off with a long convoluted tangent. And I do apologize for that, in any event.

Brahman vis-à-vis Īśvara sounds okay. The main thing for my own understanding is to make clear the distinction between the impersonal and personal aspects of the divine presence. I've come across the term Parabrahm, which seems to mean the impersonal all-pervading consciousness. Are you familiar with this? Is it perhaps like a more precise technical term for what you mean here by the impersonal Brahman?

I'm not familiar enough with the terms Paramatma and Bhagavan to fully grasp their significance, but I definitely agree that "upon realisation, we realise these 3 aspects are non-different."

 

[Shuddhasattva]

Parabrahman refers to the non-difference between Saguna Brahman (Brahman perfectly attributed; viz. Ishvara) and NIrguna Brahman (the unmanifest).

Also in Hindu thought it is important to draw various levels of distinction as regards the unmanifest driven by the question: unmanifest where and how?

What is unmanifest at this level of reality is manifest, subtly (sukshma) or causally (karana) elsewhere. The triple world itself (waking - gross form, dreaming - sublime form, dreamless sleep - formless) is all subsumed into the Fourth (turiya), the state of Brahman, in such a transcendental way as to render the distinction meaningless, and even the non-distinction as equally meaningless - we can only approximate by saying such things as the form is the formless and vice versa.

That is to say, the transcendence doesn't necessarily go beyond form. The faculty that discriminates between form and not form is rendered obsolete by what is both perfectly formed and formless.

The ajativada doctrine of advaita also squares the two it holds that Ishvara is manifest at the most subtle level (which is also the all-pervading level, viz. nirvikalpa hridaya - the paramatman) within the heart of the Unmanifest, as does the corresponding paradvaita of trika & kaula doctrines.

Ultimately, all levels are representative of this one reality, that is simultaneously all of these levels and yet beyond. Its beyondness cannot be said either to exclude these levels.

This then is held as truly the Supreme Form, or the Transcendental Form, of God, which cannot in any way be indicated by material motions of form bound in 3(4) dimensions and a narrow sensory band.

 

[Shuddhasattva]

Of course


Is there a sect that is very close to Buddhism?
What is the scene like when there are the two faiths mixed, like in Nepal?

I was going to write a longer post on this issue, as this is rather a hobby for me - exploring the interstices between Hinduism and Buddhism (and I would like to eventually incorporate Taoism), but I think it would best service the purpose of this thread, as well as that theme, to start a new thread on the topic which I will do in the next few days.

But:


While the followers of this degenerate age may bicker between different schools of thought, the masters of such traditions rarely have any real quarrel with one another. Theirs is the common silence, not the disparate and contrary words. Consequently, there was much crosstalk - worded and wordless- between the masters of various traditions at various times. Indeed, sometimes disciples would receive initiations from many traditions, seeking a syncretic wisdom - but a syncretism rich in its appreciation for the differences in their own context.

The traditions that most strongly exhibit the results of this Hindu-Buddhist crosstalk are:

• Trika (Kashmir Shaivism)
• Kubjika (Kulalikamnaya, reflected by the Purnamnaya) Shakta (a major Shakta divisions, which developed in the Kathmandu valley through the Newar people who hold both the vajrayana traditions, and the tantric Hindu traditions in their clans, although generally nowadays a family will adhere to one or the other)
• Advaita Vedanta

Each of these doctrines places great emphasis on the shunya aspect of Brahman and its synonymity with the essential self-nature, using many of the same meditative devices as the Mahayana/Vajrayana traditions.

We should also look at the Buddhist side of the equation. The Vajrayana (tantric Mahayana Buddhism) derives its deities, cosmology, mantras, language itself, chakras/yantras, symbolism, etc. largely from Hindu tantra traditions - in fact, the traditions often share the same 84 legendary founding figures - the Mahasiddhas. Early lineages like the Kapalikas, Kalamukhas and Pashupatas were very influential in shaping both traditions. Buddhist tantra also greatly influenced Hindu tantra & thought.

At one time, there was great philosophical/spiritual cross-pollenization between Kashmir, the Kathmandu Valley and Tibet.

The Buddhist masters that established traditions in China, even, bringing over and translating various agamas/tantras, often brought and incorporated Shaiva, Shakta and Agamic Vaishnava texts directly.

Indeed, in Tibet, where conserved many, many Hindu texts. Explicitly Hindu. My father studying there in the early 70s was given Vishnu as his yidam (ishta devata).

 

[SageTree]

I was going to write a longer post on this issue, as this is rather a hobby for me - exploring the interstices between Hinduism and Buddhism (and I would like to eventually incorporate Taoism), but I think it would best service the purpose of this thread, as well as that theme, to start a new thread on the topic which I will do in the next few days.

But:


While the followers of this degenerate age may bicker between different schools of thought, the masters of such traditions rarely have any real quarrel with one another. Theirs is the common silence, not the disparate and contrary words. Consequently, there was much crosstalk - worded and wordless- between the masters of various traditions at various times. Indeed, sometimes disciples would receive initiations from many traditions, seeking a syncretic wisdom - but a syncretism rich in its appreciation for the differences in their own context.

The traditions that most strongly exhibit the results of this Hindu-Buddhist crosstalk are:

• Trika (Kashmir Shaivism)
• Kubjika (Kulalikamnaya, reflected by the Purnamnaya) Shakta (a major Shakta divisions, which developed in the Kathmandu valley through the Newar people who hold both the vajrayana traditions, and the tantric Hindu traditions in their clans, although generally nowadays a family will adhere to one or the other)
• Advaita Vedanta

Each of these doctrines places great emphasis on the shunya aspect of Brahman and its synonymity with the essential self-nature, using many of the same meditative devices as the Mahayana/Vajrayana traditions.

We should also look at the Buddhist side of the equation. The Vajrayana (tantric Mahayana Buddhism) derives its deities, cosmology, mantras, language itself, chakras/yantras, symbolism, etc. largely from Hindu tantra traditions - in fact, the traditions often share the same 84 legendary founding figures - the Mahasiddhas. Early lineages like the Kapalikas, Kalamukhas and Pashupatas were very influential in shaping both traditions. Buddhist tantra also greatly influenced Hindu tantra & thought.

At one time, there was great philosophical/spiritual cross-pollenization between Kashmir, the Kathmandu Valley and Tibet.

The Buddhist masters that established traditions in China, even, bringing over and translating various agamas/tantras, often brought and incorporated Shaiva, Shakta and Agamic Vaishnava texts directly.

Indeed, in Tibet, where conserved many, many Hindu texts. Explicitly Hindu. My father studying there in the early 70s was given Vishnu as his yidam (ishta devata).

I would love it if you would start a thread of some sort on the matter.

This Buddhist stuff I was somewhat familiar with, and Advaita Vendanta, I know a about as well, but you spoke so nicely about everything I thoroughly enjoyed reading this post.

Perhaps would you include the Jonang school of Vajrayana into the 'hybrid' model as I perceive it sounds more theistic, so to speak, in that there is an eternal element to their philosophy.

Maybe that is something for the other thread as well?

Thank you for taking the time to lay all that out.
I'll do some reading on the Hindu sects you mention that I don't know so.

And what I underlined I particularly liked. It's sort of where my question comes from, as a person who has a time dickering over labels and all that, instead of getting to the point, as it were.

Thanks, I feel a littles less lonely in the world now because of it.

:namaste

SageTree

 

[Pleroma]

The God of the Rig Veda and the Upanishads is Hiranyagarbha. He is the God of the Gods, this is our true religion, he is our true God. This is the Aryan religion on which Hinduism is based on. Let's revive our true religion and start worshiping our true God.

Brahman is not meant for discussion in a forum, it is beyond everything. Its pointless and stupid to even talk about Brahman. We can reach up to Hiranyagarbha through our intellect and Brahman is beyond intellectual comprehension. It should not be discussed.

 

[Shuddhasattva]

Ah, the thought police have arrived, sporting their usual attire of self-righteous hypocrisy adorned by ignorance of their chosen subject matter.

 

[Pleroma]

The western scholars and scientists who resorted into eastern mysticism have falsely misrepresented many things about the Vedas and the Upanishads. Its time to fix it right.

There are many differences between Buddhism and Advaita Vedanta. Advaita Vedanta is highly theistic and has a God of its own. Its wrong to mix these separate traditions under the same carpet.

Advaita Vedanta stands on its own, it has its own epistemology and methodology, it doesn't require any justification either from science or from other traditions for it to be true.

If anyone wants to understand it then understand it in its own milieu, don't misrepresent these traditions for God's sake.

 

[Shuddhasattva]

Perhaps you are not aware that Buddhism is also theistic or transtheistic, in my opinion a better term as per Paul Tillich, as opposed to what he calls 'theological theism.'

Let us discuss this issue in the thread that I will create in a few days, or one that you can create now.

Madhuri-ji, my apologies for the thread-derails.

 

[Satyamavejayanti]

Is there anything you are confused about, think is weird, are unsure of or are just plain curious about Hinduism? How do Hindu concepts compare with the other main world religions?

I find that people are generally clueless about Hinduism.

Most importantly, I'm bored. So please ask me questions about Hinduism. It may even challenge me!

Do you think the theory that all is illusion is supported by Vedas?

And if many believe that all is MAYA, then is it not the belief of that all is Maya is in itself just an illusion of an illusion,

What are your thoughts on the Karma Sutra. I only ask because when i wanted to study sanskrit, one of the things that was in the modules was Karma Sutra, which i dont think has anything to do with Sanskrit.
Do you think it is appropriate for non sanskrit speaking (and non hindus) to learn about the language and religion and have something like the Karma sutra as a part of the module.

 

[Shântoham]

pranām

I guess that Madhuriji will reply to your question in due time. For the moment, then, let me point out a couple of quick things.
The word illusion, or unreal is often used as an equivalent of Māyā; but illusion is not the right equivalent. As far as I know, there is no equivalent word for Māyā in the English language.
We can say that Māyā is the creative power of Īśvara. Śvetāśvatara Upaniṣad (4.10) says:

māyāṃ tu prakṛtiṃ vidyān māyinaṃ tu maheśvaraṃ |
tasyāvayavabhūtais tu vyāptaṃ sarvaṃ idaṃ jagat ||

Know Prakṛti to be Māyā. And know Maheśvara to be the Lord of Māyā. The whole universe is the body of Maheśvara.

Bhagavadgītā 7.14 can be used for further reference. Tattvabodhaḥ says:

Brahmāśrayā sattvarajastamoguṇātmikā māyāsti

Māyā – which is of the nature of Sattva, Rajas, and Tamas – exists – being dependent on Brahman for its existence.

If you check my signature you’ll see that Śrī Śaṅkarācārya defines that the most permanent thing is Brahman, and the Jagat (universe) is Mithyā.
Here, the word Mithyā does not mean “illusion”, “false”, or “unreal” as it does in many modern Indian languages. It is a word that is used to point out the status of any object with respect to its cause. For example, a Vyāsa-Pīṭha (book-stand) is essentially wood. Before it existed, there was wood, after it is destroyed, wood will remain, and even now when the Vyāsa-Pīṭha is there, it is nothing but wood.
Does this mean that the Vyāsa-Pīṭha is an illusion? No, because it has a form and we can use it in a way in which we cannot use other forms of wood. But its existence is entirely dependent on wood, which is its cause and is more real than it. The wood is Satya, and it is more Nitya than the Vyāsa-Pīṭha. Here, the cause of everything, which is more Nitya than everything, is given the name Brahman.
Nitya-Anitya-Vastu-Viveka is a general awareness of the fact that the universe is Anitya, and that there is a Nitya-Vastu that we are seeking.

In fact, we are constantly performing a discrimination between what is Nitya and Anitya in our lives. If offered a choice between a high-paying but unsteady job, and a moderately paying, steady job, most of us would prefer steady security over an uncertain job. We always want what is more permanent in life.

 

[Satyamavejayanti]

pranām

I guess that Madhuriji will reply to your question in due time. For the moment, then, let me point out a couple of quick things.
The word illusion, or unreal is often used as an equivalent of Māyā; but illusion is not the right equivalent. As far as I know, there is no equivalent word for Māyā in the English language.
We can say that Māyā is the creative power of Īśvara. Śvetāśvatara Upaniṣad (4.10) says:

māyāṃ tu prakṛtiṃ vidyān māyinaṃ tu maheśvaraṃ |
tasyāvayavabhūtais tu vyāptaṃ sarvaṃ idaṃ jagat ||

Know Prakṛti to be Māyā. And know Maheśvara to be the Lord of Māyā. The whole universe is the body of Maheśvara.

Bhagavadgītā 7.14 can be used for further reference. Tattvabodhaḥ says:

Brahmāśrayā sattvarajastamoguṇātmikā māyāsti

Māyā – which is of the nature of Sattva, Rajas, and Tamas – exists – being dependent on Brahman for its existence.

If you check my signature you’ll see that Śrī Śaṅkarācārya defines that the most permanent thing is Brahman, and the Jagat (universe) is Mithyā.
Here, the word Mithyā does not mean “illusion”, “false”, or “unreal” as it does in many modern Indian languages. It is a word that is used to point out the status of any object with respect to its cause. For example, a Vyāsa-Pīṭha (book-stand) is essentially wood. Before it existed, there was wood, after it is destroyed, wood will remain, and even now when the Vyāsa-Pīṭha is there, it is nothing but wood.
Does this mean that the Vyāsa-Pīṭha is an illusion? No, because it has a form and we can use it in a way in which we cannot use other forms of wood. But its existence is entirely dependent on wood, which is its cause and is more real than it. The wood is Satya, and it is more Nitya than the Vyāsa-Pīṭha. Here, the cause of everything, which is more Nitya than everything, is given the name Brahman.
Nitya-Anitya-Vastu-Viveka is a general awareness of the fact that the universe is Anitya, and that there is a Nitya-Vastu that we are seeking.

In fact, we are constantly performing a discrimination between what is Nitya and Anitya in our lives. If offered a choice between a high-paying but unsteady job, and a moderately paying, steady job, most of us would prefer steady security over an uncertain job. We always want what is more permanent in life.

thanks for the reply, i agree with all you say. i just wanted madhuri view on these.
I myself think that maya means ignorance, but there are many who say the world is an illusion and they call the illusion maya.

 

[Shuddhasattva]

Ignorance (avidya) and illusion (maya) are closely related, the joint factor being moha (delusion.).

 

[Prophet]

Is there anything you are confused about, think is weird, are unsure of or are just plain curious about Hinduism? How do Hindu concepts compare with the other main world religions?

I find that people are generally clueless about Hinduism.

Most importantly, I'm bored. So please ask me questions about Hinduism. It may even challenge me!

Hi Madhuri:

My first reading of the Bhagavhad Gita served largely to confirm what I already knew to be true. However, there are parts of it, which, even upon repeated readings, feel confusing to me although this may be simply a matter of ignorance on my part of Hindu culture.

Ignorance and truth seem to be related subjects. Passion seems to me to be unrelated to either. Why, then, are these three concepts grouped together as the gunas? I fail to see how the guna of rajas fits in with tamas and sattva.

Another way to word my objection is that you can be passionate about the truth as well as ignorance, making passion a separate concept.

Another translation for tamas is indolence. If this translation is correct, than I can see how tamas and rajas are of the same essence, but sattva (truth) becomes the odd man out in this case.

Do you understand what bothers me about this?

 

[Madhuri]

Do you think the theory that all is illusion is supported by Vedas?

And if many believe that all is MAYA, then is it not the belief of that all is Maya is in itself just an illusion of an illusion,

I think the Vedas support the idea that the material existence is illusory. I do not agree that it supports an idea that the world is unreal. People seem to interpret Maya differently. I agree with what you said that maya refers to ignorance. This world is not unreal- it certainly exists, but the way we perceive and interpret is illusory since we are blinded by ignorance. When we achieve Realisation, the world does not disappear. We simply see it for what it is.

What are your thoughts on the Karma Sutra. I only ask because when i wanted to study sanskrit, one of the things that was in the modules was Karma Sutra, which i dont think has anything to do with Sanskrit.
Do you think it is appropriate for non sanskrit speaking (and non hindus) to learn about the language and religion and have something like the Karma sutra as a part of the module.

Do you mean the Kama Sutra? If you do mean Kama Sutra, my main thought is that I do not consider it part of Sanatana Dharma and find it annoying when people talk about it like it is.

I do not see why it would be important to learn about the Kama Sutra when studying Sanskrit but maybe the professor thinks it will make the studies more interesting.

 

[Satyamavejayanti]

Madhuri;3015722]I think the Vedas support the idea that the material existence is illusory. I do not agree that it supports an idea that the world is unreal. People seem to interpret Maya differently. I agree with what you said that maya refers to ignorance. This world is not unreal- it certainly exists, but the way we perceive and interpret is illusory since we are blinded by ignorance. When we achieve Realisation, the world does not disappear. We simply see it for what it is.

I agree with you there.

Do you mean the Kama Sutra? If you do mean Kama Sutra, my main thought is that I do not consider it part of Sanatana Dharma and find it annoying when people talk about it like it is.

I do not see why it would be important to learn about the Kama Sutra when studying Sanskrit but maybe the professor thinks it will make the studies more interesting.

I mean the one with all the positions ect ect.

I too think it has nothing to do with study of Sanskrit, or Hinduism in general.