Do you consider Ram As God

[ratikala]

dear freind zenzero,

Friend sadhak,


Friend Gurtej was inquiring
The correctness of labeling avatars as Gods??
Friend Gurtej should understand that: Sikhism teaches the existence of one God, Ik Onkar. Guru Nanak taught that the creator and creation are inseparable in the way that an ocean is made up of its individual drops. So is the avatar too are inseparable with God and so if calling an avatar God means calling THAT totality [creation] as God is one and the same. This is what is understood.

Love & rgds

'

I am sure that our freind Gurtej does understand what Guru Nanak teaches , One god ,One supreme being .
what is causing the confusion here is the use of the word , or as you say labeling as gods ??

Gurtej .....
Thanks for your explanation...I understand that as Sikhi says:

Creator is in the creation
Creation abides in God...

Thats not the thing...being labelled as Avatar is not an issue, the issue comes when people start comparing the avatar to god...its ok to say"He is a god sent person", but its different when people say" He is our god"...big difference, don't u think so?

it is all here in this one saying , the creator is in the creation , ....being the creator every thing is of his creation , exactly as krsna says in the bhagavad gita....

Of all that is material and all that is spiritual in this world,
know for certain that I am both the origin and the dissolution.

there is no superior knowledge to me .
Every thing rests upon me as pearls are strung upon thread .

ch , 7 ... v , 6...7

the difficulty is in understanding the nature of the supremes creation ,
and even understanding is difficult to convey in words ....
we are minute and as yet imperfect particals born or cerated from that supreme energy , from that inconceivable vastness ,
our perfection will come when our minds become purified and that vastness can be realised .
for that purpose the supreme energy we are calling god sends or appears himself , not in his entirity as his entirity is too vast for our comprehension , but as an avatar , an emenation , we are calling this emination god , as it is of gods perfection ,

thus god appears to create , maintain and finaly to distroy this earthly realm , as it is merely temporary , but through out this realms duration god appears to reveal his true nature ....
he appears to enlighten and instruct , to lead us towards understanding and facilitate our purification .
thus the supreme being and his manifestations are the one same god , allthough we have a habit of refering to each manifestation as god which causes us to mistakenly think of many gods , when in truth there is only one

Gurtej ....
As I said before, there are 1000's of brahma's, vishnu's, indra's, krishna's..etc they were sent by god to spread the truth...but to say that they are god incarnation or they themselves r good is not really right ..isn't it?

I hope ...? prehaps ...? my attempt above to explain ...? that it might be understood
that yes , there are 1000's of brahma's, visnu's and siva's , for the purpous of creation maintainance and dissolution of the many 1000's of created universes , each being expansions of the supreme .
and within the duration of each system there are other apperances which we are calling avataras .....so they are all god , yet we are giving them names according to their apperances and functions therefore we have created god's ... thus we have created our own confusion , simply by trying to encapsulate understanding in words .




there is my humble understanding , or veiw , what ever one wishes to call it , hope it is of some ......use ?

 

[Madhuri]

As I said before, there are 1000's of brahma's, vishnu's, indra's, krishna's..etc they were sent by god to spread the truth...but to say that they are god incarnation or they themselves r good is not really right ..isn't it?

How do you know?

 

[Madhuri]

Dear friend, there is only one brahma, one vishnu and one krishna that i know of. No idea what you are talking about.

Actually there are an infinite amount of Brahmas, one for each creation (cycle).
There are also many Vishnus, but each has its own particular name/title, nature and role. These days when we say Vishnu, we refer to the origin form of God. When we want to specify a role/expansion, we say something like eg: Maha-Vishnu.

But yes, only one Krishna.

 

[chinu]

I am a Sikh and often debating some fellow hindus on their belief, they always say bhagwan Ram Chander. Now my questions is what exactly is the definition of god according to vedas...and please answer the below:

1) Does Veda Say that Sri Ram is a god?
2) Doesn't Vedas say that God has no image, no face etc?
3) What exactly Sri Ram has done to be classified as god? From my understanding he didn't exactly provided any teachings, nor did he gave away his life for a very noble cause?From my side, even after doing that no one can be classified as a god...
4) He Killed Ravan who in eyes of his people was one of the greatest leader for them....and in all honesty even he was a bad person, killing him would not really justify rama position as a god.
5) Sita had to go under Sati test because he heared something about her, well a god would know a bit better right?

Am I right to think that he was one of a great king but comparing him to the level of prophet or a guru let alone god is not really making sense to me unless you can tell me of his deeds and teachings....

Also please tell me the texts from where you get your information from...Thanks

"Ram Rameta so Rama" -GGS
Means: "The one who is ingrained everywhere is ram"

Well... the word Ram was given to supreame god before the birth of Shri Ramchandra the son of king dashratha.
Ram means Rama-hua, or the one which is ingrained everywhere.

According to all spiritual masters of the history there are/were four types of RAM, and this is also very clear in one of quote in "Guru Granth Sahib" too..

1st Ram was being said to the son of king dashratha.

2nd Ram is said to MIND which is residing inside and controling everybody.

3rd Ram is said to Brahman, Brahman means not a man, its the second largest power in this whole universe as like god is the largest. The place of true ram, or god is above brahman, that's why in some of the holy books god is discribed as the power above brahman or "Paar Brahman".

A quote from GGS: "Tati vao naa lage, jo mere paar brahman sharnai "
Means: "Not a hot air can touch that buddy, the one who has reached at Paar-Brahman"

Paar means Above
Brahman means Power Brahman.

4th Ram is said to God, or the power which is residing above brahman, or the power which is ingrained everywhere too.., or the power which is giving energy everywhere.

 

[zenzero]

Friends,

Paar means Above
Brahman means Power Brahman.

4th Ram is said to God, or the power which is residing above brahman, or the power which is ingrained everywhere too.., or the power which is giving energy everywhere.

As this is truly above my level of understanding and so can only allow the understanding to flow by till can flow in its tide!

Love & rgds

 

[atanu]

I am a Sikh and often debating some fellow hindus on their belief, they always say bhagwan Ram Chander. Now my questions is what exactly is the definition of god according to vedas...and please answer the below:

1) Does Veda Say that Sri Ram is a god?
2) Doesn't Vedas say that God has no image, no face etc?
3) What exactly Sri Ram has done to be classified as god? From my understanding he didn't exactly provided any teachings, nor did he gave away his life for a very noble cause?From my side, even after doing that no one can be classified as a god...
4) He Killed Ravan who in eyes of his people was one of the greatest leader for them....and in all honesty even he was a bad person, killing him would not really justify rama position as a god.
5) Sita had to go under Sati test because he heared something about her, well a god would know a bit better right?

Am I right to think that he was one of a great king but comparing him to the level of prophet or a guru let alone god is not really making sense to me unless you can tell me of his deeds and teachings....

Also please tell me the texts from where you get your information from...Thanks

Does Gurtej know his own form? It is a mistake to think that Gurtej is just an embodied being. But then one is as one's knowledge is. From the illusory perspective of an embodied person, it is just a mistake to picture rAma as merely similarly embodied.

BTW, rAma in Veda is that which causes rest, that which delights, and is also the name of Varuna.

 

[Gurtej]

Hi All,

Thanks for your replies. I some what agree with what being said & explained but not sure. Some one said but there is only one Krishna and he is the true lord. OK now from my side, I am fine with this calling God as Krishna great no issues, u call him ram, krishna , shiva , allah , god or waheguru...people call it with different names and one should not have any issues with it and same with me.

But looking at the other perspective, are we talking of Krishna who was born to a mortal and lived a life of a human being? Or we are talking about Krishna (the supreme lord) who has created many Krishna's during the evolution ? Even Krishna(if u r referring to one in Bhagvat Gita, etc) committed sin's(lying?)....so to compare him with Krishna(as u like to call it as true lord) is not really right...

Its like saying I bow to Waheguru( the one & only one) but if someone call himself waheguru singh and show me the true path to lead life, is it right to call him god? Isn't he the one sent by god to show the true path....?

The whole idea of the true lord is amazing and can't be described even if u read vedas, guru granth sahib, quran....just impossible ..

And some one question if I understand the meaning of god as per Sikhism...I would say not 100% as guru granth sahib said,,,u can keep writing about him for million of years with millions of pen, but even then u will not be able to understand his creation a bit.....

 

[ratikala]

Friend Gurtej,


Existence itself is God or its parts.
Not only Ram but you too are THAT!
Ram was a born realized and so is labelled an *avatar* and we are still to realize IT.

Love & rgds

and we are still to realise it

ladus to you my freind gopal has saved you some , well he did taste them a bit .. well quite a lot ...so that makes them prasad

 

[Gurtej]

and we are still to realise it

ladus to you my freind gopal has saved you some , well he did taste them a bit .. well quite a lot ...so that makes them prasad

Yeah god abides in everyone but does that mean we all are equal to god....?

 

[zenzero]

Friend Gurtej,

Yes, understand that we are all parts of God be it anyway except that REALIZATION has not come. Do your understand what *SELF* is??
Read Rama Maharshi: The Bhagavan Sri Ramana Maharshi website

Best Wishes.
Love & rgds

 

[chinu]

Yeah god abides in everyone but does that mean we all are equal to god....?

All childrens are equally important to their parents, but parents are not equally important to their childrens.
Similarly... We all are equally important to God, but God is not equally important to their childrens.

 

[Gurtej]

All childrens are equally important to their parents, but parents are not equally important to their childrens.
Similarly... We all are equally important to God, but God is not equally important to their childrens.

But the question remains...are all children right or some are?Plz don't get me wrong, I don't disrespect any of the avatars, infact I would be foolish to do so, but at the same time I don't consider them gods simply for one reason only...For me God is the purest of all, no one doesn't matter how grt they are can't come close to him, I say the same for my Guru's , no one is even ant size if I compare god to an elephant....Don't get me wrong, but whatever explanation is provided to me doesn't justify the concept of ppl beliefs,,,,some people either twist them or some simply don't understand them but its their decision and I am no one to tell them.

TC, may waheguru bless u all, moving to the Sikhism thread

 

[chinu]

But the question remains...are all children right or some are?

Only god knows, its not fair that we childrens may make fault in each others.

 

[Madhuri]

But looking at the other perspective, are we talking of Krishna who was born to a mortal and lived a life of a human being? Or we are talking about Krishna (the supreme lord) who has created many Krishna's during the evolution ? Even Krishna(if u r referring to one in Bhagvat Gita, etc) committed sin's(lying?)....so to compare him with Krishna(as u like to call it as true lord) is not really right...

There is only one Krishna. In Hinduism it is explained in some detail the method with God uses make himself appear 'human' or 'mortal'. But the Krishna that appears again and again on Earth and other universes is not a material body and every single thing that He does in that time has deep significance. He is not being a human being. In fact, he appears in numerous forms including various animal species and relates to the living entities in many ways. He would not appear as an ant to you because it would not do you any good. You would probably step on him.

The whole idea of the true lord is amazing and can't be described even if u read vedas, guru granth sahib, quran....just impossible ..

I agree. The concept of Avatar does not contradict this idea when you understand it properly.

And some one question if I understand the meaning of god as per Sikhism...I would say not 100% as guru granth sahib said,,,u can keep writing about him for million of years with millions of pen, but even then u will not be able to understand his creation a bit.....

Yes, Hindus agree with this. Nobody is claiming to understand God perfectly. And when God (I use God as a title) appears, the perciever is not seeing His true or entire greatness. The perciever is covered by Maya, illusion, and may only see a human being. Or whatever the Lord desires that individual to percieve. When he showed Arjuna his Universal form, which is not even his complete form, Arjuna could not handle it. It was too great. And so our understanding of God and the form of God is only very limited, even if he does appear in front of us.

 

[Gurtej]

So do u agree with all the things that Krishna did in his life time or even in Mahabharat? If so then, I don't need to say anything, may be my definition of god is completely different to urs....no trying to offend u

 

[ratikala]

dear Gurtej ,

Yeah god abides in everyone but does that mean we all are equal to god....?

I think that from a vaisnava perspective I agree with you, god abides in all living beings , but where the quality may be the same quantitively we are but a minute particle of that which is the supreme being , so how could we assume our selves to be equal !!!!

we canot !
well at least I canot !!!
god is eternaly supreme :bow:

 

[zenzero]

Friend ratikala,

we are but a minute particle of that which is the supreme being

The problem is that you see that but not realize that. Once the realization dawns that there is no *I*, *ME* or *WE* its all THAT, then all comparisons vanish!

Love & rgds

 

[ratikala]

dear prabhu ji ,

Friend ratikala,


The problem is that you see that but not realize that. Once the realization dawns that there is no *I*, *ME* or *WE* its all THAT, then all comparisons vanish!

Love & rgds

once the realization dawns that there is no *I* , *me* or *we* .....and once the being ceases to be absorbed in the self then the being sees the magnitude of the lord in all his true glory in all his splendor , in all his greatness spreading throughout time and space , one then becomes absorbed in the lord , in that supreme being .
but absorbed in wonder , in awe , in love , this has happened to beings whilst still embodied .....this I am calling enlightenment :angel2: ...
.....achintya bheda abheda !...inconceivable oneness and difference !

 

[ratikala]

dear prabhu ji ,

....just a thought on the *I* , *me* and *mine* .... or even *we* , there are two levels of refference here ....

*I* from the veiwpoint of conventional reality , the *I* that is sitting here thinking the *I* that attatches to those thoughts and to the thinker ....
and *I* from the veiw point of ultimate reality realizing that ultimately I am not the body , I am not the thinker , but the realizer of thought the realizer of the true nature of all phenomena .....

and both can symultaniously exist ... as truth on the conventional level and truth on the ultimate level !


.... but dont worry am used to reading your posts without personal refference , It would not be the same if *you* suddenly started to ....

 

[zenzero]

friend ratikala,

just wanted to covey that if one feels a separation it means the observer is still observing.
The realization of oneness dispels duality even though they remain two in appearances which you are referring to.
Personal understanding is referring to or speaking thus too goes to project a duality in understanding. Yes, it is only a personal understanding which may not be so in everyday life. Over time am sure that too will get rectified.

Love & rgds