Do you consider Ram As God

[Gurtej]

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

 

[Cassandra]

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

As I see it ...

• Hinduism comprises of many traditions. The concept of Avatars is part of well established Hinduism traditions.
• The Veda's are not a Hindu theology ordering or forbidding what to believe. The Veda's do not give a definition of God. Understanding God is not a matter of definition, but a goal in Hinduism. So any definition defines you rather than God.
• The Veda's predate Shri Ram.
• Shri Ram is an aspect of God, one of his many. It serves to tell us the path of Dharma, how a person should act in life. To be of any value as example to human beings, God has to take human form and undergo its limitations. For instance he has to undergo the pain, the fear, the desperation and show how a human can overcome these within the limitations and the means a human being has.
• Ram did not kill Ravan as God, but as a righteous king. You have to understand Ram acts according to his Dharm as a human King. It is a King's duty to combat enemies, punish criminals according to laws and restore order.

I think the Ramayana is first and foremost an answer to the question: If God were a man, how would he act? It presents us with many dilemma's and difficult emotional situations people face in life and how to act in them. Of all the writings I consider this one to be of most practical use. Also the one that truly inspires to humility and servitude to others. Seeing how Ram fulfills his duty makes one very much aware of ones shortcomings and are at the same time immensely inspiring.

[Also the story shows more than one layer to understand events. We have the visual level in which world acts, the level in which the Gods act, and we also have the level of fate or Divine law that no one can change, all play out at the same time]

Jai Shri Ram

 

[Charzhino]

From what I understand, Ram was born Self-realized like other avatars. From a adviatic viewpoint there was no distinguishable factor between him and God/Brahman because material existence is only an illusion to the Self-Realized individual. Ram showed what duties shoulod be carried out as a king as mentioned above. To be fearless in the face of injustice, to punish evil and to be a model husband to his wife and a worthy teacher to his devotees.

 

[ratikala]

dear gurtej ,

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?

they explain that rama is born in the line of the ikshvaku dynasty a decendant of manu, but it is allso explained that lord rama is dasavatara the 7th incarnation of visnu .

lord rama is discussed in the the visnu purana , the brahma purana and bhagavat purana , and of course valmiki's ramayana

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...

lord ramachandra is concidered one of the ten dasavatara's , incarnations of visnu there fore is god himself in the form of ramachandra who came for the purpous of re establishing rightious rule , ramachandra was the perfect example , the perfect king , the perfect husband . thus he taught by example .thus he is known as maryada purushottma

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.

Bhagavata Purana.... Ravana and his brother, Kumbhakarna were said to be reincarnations of Jaya and Vijaya, gatekeepers at Vaikuntha, the abode of Vishnu and were cursed to be born in Earth for their insolence. These gatekeepers refused entry to the Sanatha Kumara monks, who, because of their powers and austerity appeared as young children. For their insolence, the monks cursed them to be expelled from Vaikuntha and to be born on Earth.
God Vishnu agreed that they should be punished. They were given two choices, that they could be born about 100 times as normal mortals and devotees of Vishnu, or 3 times as powerful and strong people, but as enemies of Vishnu, for which they chose the latter one. Ravana and his brother Kumbhakarna were born to fulfill the curse on the second birth as enemies of Vishnu in the Treta Yuga. The curse of first birth was fulfilled by Hiranyakashipu and his brother Hiranyaksha in Satya Yuga when they were both vanquished by earlier avatars (incarnations) of Vishnu and the curse of third birth was fulfilled by Dantavakra and Shishupala in the Dwapar Yuga when they were both vanquished by Lord Krishna.

5) Sita had to go under Sati test because he heared something about her, well a god would know a bit better right?

this is a long explanation , but in short ... and different stories tell it differently !
sita asked lakshman to build a fire so that she may prove herself , not to lord rama but to the people of ayodia as the agni pariksha would consume the impious and leave the pious or inocent un touched .

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....

for this my freind you must read the ramayana , valmiki's ramayana :yes:

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

 

[Jainarayan]

2) Doesn't Vedas say that God has no image, no face etc?

Yes and no, but actually I believe it is a concept put forth by Adi Shankara. I think you are referring to the concept of Nirguna Brahman Nirguna Brahman - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia God without attributes, and Saguna Brahman Saguna brahman - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia God with attributes, i.e. non-manifest or manifest.

 

[Marble]

I think Ravana respresents the ego.
From here:

The 10 heads given to Ravana represent the following :

Ego, Passion, Pride, Anger, Greed, Infatuation, Lust, Hatred, Jealousy, Selfishness. These are the 10 head cut off on the day of "Dusshera" (cutting off 10 heads of Ravan), the 10the day after Navrathri.

 

[Gurtej]

Hi All,

I guess there is some confusion here or is it me only

According to Vedas, God according to the vedas is attributeless( Nirguna ), opinionless( Nirvikara ), formless( Nirakara ) and infinite/timeless( Ananta ) supreme consciousness( sacchidananda). Now these are pretty straight forward definition of God and I think from a neutral point of view all this makes sense to me. And as per Sikhism its more or less the same.

But now comes the part where Hindus consider the avatar as god. Now this is surely contradictory to the above. Hinduism say that god is without form so how can it take the human form?
Also, Avatars were sent to earth to perform the good deeds and were suppose to guide people to the right path, there are 1000's of Rama, krishna , shivas, prophets etc but none can even be a dust to his feet. And its very strange that God himself will want to born in a hindu family

Jokes apart, now coming back to some answers I got for my questions:

lord ramachandra is concidered one of the ten dasavatara's , incarnations of visnu there fore is god himself in the form of ramachandra who came for the purpous of re establishing rightious rule , ramachandra was the perfect example , the perfect king , the perfect husband . thus he taught by example .thus he is known as maryada purushottma

"Well being a perfect king, perfect husband, or even more than that doesn't make a person god right? Even great rulers do all the above should we consider them as god, the recent example anna hazare

I feel there is a lot of mythological references that Hindus believe in but they fail to see the big pictures which I can understand as it is a bit harder to accept that what you been taught from childhood is actually not quite right. From a neutral side, I can also understand having these references in vedas to make people understand that god can do anything. Also, rama didn't really show the right path or was even concerned about it, else he should have put his own teaching some where, but Ramayana was written before his birth. Ok when Christians say that Jesus is a god(Even though I son't agree with them), I can sort of understand from where they are coming from, cause he taught people to follow the right path and sacrifice himself and then re born again....

However, Rama didn't do anything substantially good to even be considered close to god....just keep aside what is written in Vedas etc...answer me in a logical way...please

 

[Gurtej]

I think Ravana respresents the ego.
From :

Yes yes yes, I agree, but its more to teach people that these egos are not right to have and they will lead you to death,,,but even Dharayodhad(from Mahabharat) had them so you mean we should treat people who killed him as god? Everyone these days have the same ego....what the difference..

 

[Vinayaka]

Hi All,
I guess there is some confusion here or is it me only

I don't think its confusion ... its more just that there is no unified point of view within the vastness of Hinduism. For me personally, since I'm a Saiva, Ram is irrelevant. But that doesn't say I believe he should be irrelevant to all Hindus. Obviously Vaisnavas would disagree, and well they should. He's an avatar of Vishnu, no?

 

[zenzero]

Friend Gurtej,

Do you consider Ram As God

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

 

[Gurtej]

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

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?

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?

 

[Gurtej]

I don't think its confusion ... its more just that there is no unified point of view within the vastness of Hinduism. For me personally, since I'm a Saiva, Ram is irrelevant. But that doesn't say I believe he should be irrelevant to all Hindus. Obviously Vaisnavas would disagree, and well they should. He's an avatar of Vishnu, no?

I think its a big issue if different sectors of hindu's believe in different things and specially god...Its just like making fun of the purest of all...some people also consider satya sai baba as god...should i believe them?

The point is why people fail to realise the big picture....also can someone please explain the definition of Avatar as per hinduism...is it directly related to god,,,or something else?

 

[Vinayaka]

I think its a big issue if different sectors of hindu's believe in different things and specially god

Oh there are a few things we have in common ... like we mostly all believe in God. But lets put it this way... Do you think Muslims, Jews, and Christians should all believe in the same thing?

Well, Hinduism is as vast as those three combined ... maybe more ... as someone has said before, Hinduism is a label put on a group of several religions. Some people would put your religion as another branch of Hinduism. I don't but some others do.

 

[zenzero]

Friend Gurtej,

but its different when people say" He is our god"...big difference, don't u think so?

You sip ocean water and you know the taste of the ocean; now if you say, there is a big difference between a sip and the ocean?? what can anyone say? It is your own mind perception. When you are connected with that *whole* labelled *God/Guru/etc] you are no more it is THAT.
Can the whole of existence be within you? No you are a part of existence so similarly ram, shyam, laxman, haridas, chinu, minu, tinu, gurtej,x,y, z everybody and everything, seen, unseen are all IT's parts.
It is simply the perceiving mind that needs to be stilled!

Love & rgds

 

[Cassandra]

Hi All,

I guess there is some confusion here or is it me only

According to Vedas, God according to the vedas is attributeless( Nirguna ), opinionless( Nirvikara ), formless( Nirakara ) and infinite/timeless( Ananta ) supreme consciousness( sacchidananda). Now these are pretty straight forward definition of God and I think from a neutral point of view all this makes sense to me. And as per Sikhism its more or less the same.

But now comes the part where Hindus consider the avatar as god. Now this is surely contradictory to the above. Hinduism say that god is without form so how can it take the human form?
Also, Avatars were sent to earth to perform the good deeds and were suppose to guide people to the right path, there are 1000's of Rama, krishna , shivas, prophets etc but none can even be a dust to his feet. And its very strange that God himself will want to born in a hindu family

Jokes apart, now coming back to some answers I got for my questions:

lord ramachandra is concidered one of the ten dasavatara's , incarnations of visnu there fore is god himself in the form of ramachandra who came for the purpous of re establishing rightious rule , ramachandra was the perfect example , the perfect king , the perfect husband . thus he taught by example .thus he is known as maryada purushottma

"Well being a perfect king, perfect husband, or even more than that doesn't make a person god right? Even great rulers do all the above should we consider them as god, the recent example anna hazare

I feel there is a lot of mythological references that Hindus believe in but they fail to see the big pictures which I can understand as it is a bit harder to accept that what you been taught from childhood is actually not quite right. From a neutral side, I can also understand having these references in vedas to make people understand that god can do anything. Also, rama didn't really show the right path or was even concerned about it, else he should have put his own teaching some where, but Ramayana was written before his birth. Ok when Christians say that Jesus is a god(Even though I son't agree with them), I can sort of understand from where they are coming from, cause he taught people to follow the right path and sacrifice himself and then re born again....

However, Rama didn't do anything substantially good to even be considered close to god....just keep aside what is written in Vedas etc...answer me in a logical way...please

To truly understand a religious tradition one must understand thoroughly inside out. That takes considerable effort from an outsider and that is not what I taste here. You seem to want to scorn rather than understand. And things are only straightforward for simple minds, simplifications and simple logic does not cut it in these matters.

To understand how God can be a human being one has to understand how Hinduism understands God. God has four states: without form or attributes, with form-without attributes, without form-with attributes, with form and attributes. That is somewhat more than you seem to be aware of.

One also has to understand how Hinduism views the human being. In no other religion the human being has the same elevated status that it has in Hinduism. The lowest probably in atheism where is he is animal. The rest of the religions somewhere in between. In Abramic religions a being God had better not created, a failure. With such a bias it is hard to understand that God can be a Human being. In Hinduism however man is not a failure. Tat Tvam Asi. Man is God. The only thing that prevents man from realizing that is ignorance. In Hinduism man can realize God and so the other way round is possible too. If this is beyond your comprehension we are not to be blamed. Neither is it our fault that Sikh God is more limited and can not do those things.

You say that you rather see Jesus as an avatar than Rama. But Jews who founded Abramism, reject Jesus for the sole reason he did nothing to improve things for his people, only let himself be martyred. They are not impressed by that and see him as a failure unworthy to be even called a Messiah. Ram actually came to free his people and did so. So what is the teachings of Jesus: Sorry no can do, the only hope lies in the afterlife. And what is the teachings of Ram: Following Dharma with faith in God, you can accomplish anything.

What you display here is a lot of bias, lack of knowledge and a lack of sincerity to understand. You clearly came here with the reason to insult Hindu's and show your contempt. These kind of posts are direct violation of the rules.

 

[ratikala]

dear gurtej ,

I think its a big issue if different sectors of hindu's believe in different things and specially god...Its just like making fun of the purest of all...some people also consider satya sai baba as god...should i believe them?

I can understand your fellings , and I can see the point behind seeing god as supreme , and that to concider many beings as god would somehow detract from the greatness of god himself .

yet within hinduism , which we all agree spans a great many differing veiws , if it were possible to lay every beleif out as if it were an enormous family tree one would still be presided over by the all mighty supreme lord of all lords , the greatest power without begining and without end ..... which for this example we are calling god , .....then from this god many expansions appear ,( as would our thoughts if we were all powerfull)the dasavataras are simply eminations from that supreme non the less they are the supreme and act in accordance with the will of the supreme , in the case of the dasavataras each coming for a purpous , lord rama appearing in treta yuga to re establish rightious rule

krsna in the bhagavad gita says ..... where ever there is a decline in religious practices, and a predominant rise in irreligion , at that time I will manifest .

to deliver the pious and annihilate the miscreants , as well as to re establish the principles of religion , I my self will apear millenium after millenium .
ch . 4 ...v . 7 & 8

so one could draw from this that as krsna in the bhagavad gita says at times if need I will appear , such is the same in the earlier period of treta yuga when the lord appeared as ramachandra to anniihliate the misscreant ravan , and re establish rightious rule .

The point is why people fail to realise the big picture....also can someone please explain the definition of Avatar as per hinduism...is it directly related to god,,,or something else?

however if we return to the big picture of the supreme god of all gods the all knowing all powerfull god , existant throughout all time without begining and without end ....
and veiw our earthly realm as a minute portion of his creation ,for throughout time he has created universes opon universes , and will continue to create for eternity ....
what then of our own earthly realm which is in it self beyond our full knowledge ....as science and historical understanding are them selves in complete .

according to the laws of manu it is told that within the existance of our earth alone there have been four yugas
satya yuga , treta yuga , dvapara yuga and kali yuga which cover a period of time beyond the comprehension of scientific knowledge ,
....lord rama appeared in the closing quarter of treta yuga , krsna appeared at the close of dvapara yuga (and left this earth at the begining of kali yuga(3102 BCE).....so from this one can understand that the das avatara aperances of the lord are by no means a common event and happen over a very long period of time . therefore when one looks at the greater picture these are rare apperances of the lord and canot in any way be seen to dimminish the lords potency .

personaly my feeling is that because these historical apperances are , as in the case of lord rama , so far back in our history that the stories have been handed down and as with all stories some what embelished with inturpretations over the years that it is hard to see the ramayana as more than mythology , however we need to read carefully between the lines of folk law to assertain the true meaning and true understanding of god within the figure of lord rama .

prehaps it is simply that the big picture is so big that to us mere mortals it is some what beyond our comprehension , there for we simply canot see and we argue about the minute differences in understanding that we our selves have inadvertantly created ......when there is no need to do so

I hope that in some way this part answers some of your question, but to answer in full one would have to write quite a few books

 

[ratikala]

dear cassandra ,

What you display here is a lot of bias, lack of knowledge and a lack of sincerity to understand. You clearly came here with the reason to insult Hindu's and show your contempt. These kind of posts are direct violation of the rules.

I would simply like to say ....
that as a vaisnava ,a hindu or a practitioner of sanatana dharma , I am not in the least offended or insulted by the question asked .

it simply gives the oppertunity to discuss topics that may be of interest to many and that a forum is the place where questions may be freely asked.


there is a lot I could say about the content of your post , but I will refrain from doing so , but I would suggest that if you wish to concider youself to be under the umbrella of sanatana dharma , that you aproach others with a little more tollerance and respect .

 

[sadhak]

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?

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?

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

 

[Vrindavana Das]

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

There is one Krishna, the Supreme Personality of Godhead.

That one Godhead is the source of countless incarnations, countless material universes and countless spiritual worlds - the source of all-that-be!

In these countless universes & spiritual worlds, there are countless Bramha, Vishnu, Shiva, Rama, Narsingha etc. Appearance of different incarnations from one Godhead is like lighting up many candles from one candle.

The original candle is the Supreme Personality of Godhead - Krishna.

 

[zenzero]

Friend sadhak,

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

Friend Gurtej was inquiring

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?
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?

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

'