Lesser Gods

[atanu]

"I am" is the one and only factual truth, more self evident than an apple on one's palm. All observations automatically prove "I Am", which however is not observable or graspable, unlike the apple.

So, when scriptures teach "I am" is the only God and all else is lesser (other gods, anya devata - in Sanskrit), IMO, they are not teaching worship of a fictional thing.

OTOH, worship-attachment to created objects due to the very existence of "I Am" is idolatry.

Subject open for dissection.

Therefore mortify [put to death] the deeds of the body that are of the earthly life: fornication, impurity, inordinate affections, evil lusts of the flesh, and covetousness, which is idolatry. Col 3:5

So, does anyone hold that destroying idols (murtis) in temples is equal to overcoming idolatry?

 

[sojourner]

Dear Gloone

Is "I am" awareness, which is devoid of contents, same as "I am this" awareness, which has one's body as the observed contents and which automatically puts universe in opposition to oneself?

The problem is that we are particular beings, while God is Being. We occupy temporal space, so it's natural for us to conceptualize ourselves as this particular thing. It's also natural for us to conceptualize God as this particular thing.

There is a vast difference between particularity -- "thisness" -- and universality.

 

[atanu]

The problem is that we are particular beings, while God is Being. We occupy temporal space, so it's natural for us to conceptualize ourselves as this particular thing. It's also natural for us to conceptualize God as this particular thing.

There is a vast difference between particularity -- "thisness" -- and universality.

Very true. However, the particular discreteness is apparent and the continuous is not. Idolatry is mainly covetousness, which is the main thing in every mind, arisen simply due to the notion of discrete existence.

 

[sojourner]

Very true. However, the particular discreteness is apparent and the continuous is not. Idolatry is mainly covetousness, which is the main thing in every mind, arisen simply due to the notion of discrete existence.

I agree. If we were to apprehend God indiscretely, we'd be a lot better off -- in a whole lot of ways!

 

[PolyHedral]

The problem is that we are particular beings, while God is Being. We occupy temporal space, so it's natural for us to conceptualize ourselves as this particular thing. It's also natural for us to conceptualize God as this particular thing.

There is a vast difference between particularity -- "thisness" -- and universality.

The only thing that's universal in that sense is the universe itself, and that's still a particular thing; it's just the largest thing.

 

[Onkara]

God can't be and must not be "graspable".

it contradicts with God definition.

Hi Moahmmed
On what grounds can you be so sure of these two statements?

 

[PolyHedral]

God can't be and must not be "graspable".

it contradicts with God definition.

Not all definitions correspond to existing objects. That one, for instance, doesn't.

 

[sojourner]

The only thing that's universal in that sense is the universe itself, and that's still a particular thing; it's just the largest thing.

Except for God.

 

[Willamena]

The only thing that's universal in that sense is the universe itself, and that's still a particular thing; it's just the largest thing.

:no:

Things have attribute.

 

[PolyHedral]

:no:

Things have attribute.

Attributes aren't universal either. At least, I can't think of any.

 

[Willamena]

Attributes aren't universal either. At least, I can't think of any.

Indeed...

 

[PolyHedral]

Indeed...

I do not understand.