Our Gods are not symbolic!

[Chakra]

I think they are symbolic. I don´t believe that Ganesha or Lakshmi are real beings existing on other planes.
I believe that the manifestations are the forms. We are, the grasses, the animals, the mountains everything. So in that sense sure there are many "real" forms. But I think the murtis symbolizes this, not that they are actual deities.

But let's say that the existence of extra-terrestrial life was discovered, even if it were bacteria. Would you then change your opinion on whether Ganesha or Lakshmi are real beings?

 

[Vinayaka]

I did not present the OP to have a debate, but rather to try to better understand where the reduction of importance to 'mere' came from. To me and many others, the reality of our Gods is just a given, as is reincarnation, karma, dharma, etc. It's not really open to debate within the Hindu paradigm. So with that in mind, if you guys want to debate this, please start another thread. I do recognise that there are some Hindus that don't believe in at all. (Like Aup, for example, who's a declared atheist.)

For some background, I have attended several functions that were held by a local priest (and a friend of mine) not of my sampradaya who, in his explanations, uses 'symbolises' a lot. At a fairly recent one, I snuck up to him after the function, and said, 'Some of us believe they're real, you know," to which he responded, 'Yes, I know," but I suspect that was just to appease me. He is a friendly guy, after all. But he's also very much leaning to universalism, and the idea that all religions are the same, so he probably thinks it all just manifestations of that One Supreme. And that's all good, but it's watered down Hinduism, to say the least.

But without going into any specifics, as that is forbidden in my sampradaya I KNOW from a mystical POV that they're real. Heat is real because you can feel it. it's like that, and some days, it's hard to distinguish the difference.

 

[Maya3]

But let's say that the existence of extra-terrestrial life was discovered, even if it were bacteria. Would you then change your opinion on whether Ganesha or Lakshmi are real beings?

I already believe that there is life on lots of other planets, so no it wouldn't change my opinion.

Vinayaka, I'm not trying to debate this. I'm just telling you what I believe.

Maya

 

[Chakra]

I did not present the OP to have a debate, but rather to try to better understand where the reduction of importance to 'mere' came from. To me and many others, the reality of our Gods is just a given, as is reincarnation, karma, dharma, etc. It's not really open to debate within the Hindu paradigm. So with that in mind, if you guys want to debate this, please start another thread. I do recognise that there are some Hindus that don't believe in at all. (Like Aup, for example, who's a declared atheist.)

For some background, I have attended several functions that were held by a local priest (and a friend of mine) not of my sampradaya who, in his explanations, uses 'symbolises' a lot. At a fairly recent one, I snuck up to him after the function, and said, 'Some of us believe they're real, you know," to which he responded, 'Yes, I know," but I suspect that was just to appease me. He is a friendly guy, after all. But he's also very much leaning to universalism, and the idea that all religions are the same, so he probably thinks it all just manifestations of that One Supreme. And that's all good, but it's watered down Hinduism, to say the least.

But without going into any specifics, as that is forbidden in my sampradaya I KNOW from a mystical POV that they're real. Heat is real because you can feel it. it's like that, and some days, it's hard to distinguish the difference.

I was just asking her. Not all my questions are meant to instigate a debate. But I think your post here pretty much sums everything up.

 

[Vinayaka]

Yes, I know Maya, it's all good. I'm glad you presented that POV. We're vast.

 

[Aupmanyav]

.. but to also appeal to the majority of people as a "scientific" religion, since if your gods are simply energies and do not exist, ..

The basic requirement in Hinduism is that one can hold whatever view one does, but should not speak against the views of another Hindu (just like the rules in this directory).

 

[Red Zambala]

Yeah, Murtis, Images - I take as symbols - for Gods themselves, of course....

Of course, Murtis represent Gods for us and their energy and so on, but they are still symbols...

 

[Vinayaka]

So tell me Red Zambala, just where did you get this information from. That speaks to the OP. Did you read it somewhere, and if so, where? You've already mentioned you don't actually go to temples. So again, I'm wondering where this information is coming from, not debating the information itself.

 

[Red Zambala]

Vinayaka,

I am pondering what to answer....I think it is clear that as God's we take energies of those gods....

I have almost all my life felt energies around...... But on the other hand - I have not been inclined naturally to imagine any "God" or "Gods" ....

I have started my spiritual career on most part in Buddhism philosophy and meditations - being told that our "meditation deities" like Avalokiteshwara, Vajrasattwa, etc. - are Buddha Aspects - Aspects of our Enlightened Mind - we have to recall them again to receive their blessings and merge with them, but they are still our mind - but not conditioned, but the absolute, perfect mind....

Probably - that's how I've been seeing also Hinduism Devas - they "work" - so they exist; if they would not exist - we had to invent them.....

But - since everything existing is a one whole ocean - not separated from my Mind - so, probably so are Devas....
They are "real" - as much I like to think about them so, and it is needed for my chosen practice....Of course, I can feel them energetically too very well.....But what they actually are - that is probably beyond our explanations...

In between - it's a superstition to tell - I am not going to temples - since there are no temples around - currently it is true, but in earlier times when I had chance - I was going to our Hindu/ Babaji center (no Indians there.... well, may be 1 sometimes, from India's embusy), as well I have been in ISCKON center/temple a few times; and when I was living in London - I have been a few times in Temples.....But I have lived with Hindu Devas and Murtis for some 20 years....I have a few in my mind as mantras almost always and a few as Statues or Images in my home....

 

[Vinayaka]

Thanks for the response.
So you're retained the Buddhist doctrine then, and not encountered the Hindu mystical teachings that much? That would make sense to me, as Buddhism (from what little I know) is almost atheistic.
It's not really the teachings so much that one encounters to lean towards the 'they're real' POV, but more the energy. I can't understand why a million or more people daily would go to a shrine like Tirupati just to see a symbol of their religion. But of course those who feel it's mere symbolism would have no great reason to go, would they?

From your second part, it sounds like you think I (and others) are just imagining God's existence. I don't think that's what you meant, but its hard to tell from the wording.

 

[Red Zambala]

People go there for a heap of energy!
Outwardly it may appear they are going to look to a symbol, but actually they go for energy...Old Temples or Murtis or similar - have accumulated a lot of energy, the same as great enlightened Teachers do or common Sankirtans or meditations do...

"It sounds like you are imagining God" - Your major problem I would tell is - conceptualization.....

You see - if somebody would put some image of deity with face up - and hide it - under some bed - while I'm not at home - I would instantly feel it when arriving, even nobody has told me it's there - that I call "energy" ....

But the idea - what it is - that it's some God or not, or idea - it's your imagining.....

You know - even great men - like Ramanuja and Shankara - has told that we know about God - only from scriptures - there is no other way (in Brahma Sutras, I was recently reading...)

 

[Vinayaka]

So now I have a problem, and I'm still imagining? Why thank you for that clarification.

You see, there are different POVs in Hinduism, and lots of them. In some sampradayas that energy you speak of is God, just as the debate rages over Brahman, the underlying essence is God or not. In other sampradayas that energy is something that God emanates. "Ganesha's energy was particularly strong tonight." In other sampradayas the energy will be different from one God to the next. "I could feel the ____ shrine, but not the _______ shrine."

Ramanuja and Shankara were two great teachers, but not the only ones. The Brahma Sutras are one scripture.

What I am getting out of this is that 'The Gods are imaginary" is a belief that is out there, just not one I hold.

 

[Satyamavejayanti]

I'm really not sure how it came to be, but may people think that Hindu Gods are some sort of symbols for something else. Even some Hindus think this. "Oh, they're just symbolic." Of what, I ask.

Hinduism, especially in the mystic and bhakti schools, is full of magic. Energy that whirs, uplifts, whirls, and scintillates. Gods whose presence can absolutely be felt, as when a charismatic person walks into a room, or a strong scent enters.

So any ideas where this idea that it's all 'merely symbolic' came from?

Vinayaka Ji,

I will give my personal opinion, regarding Deva and Devi being "mere", Symbols i would not agree, to me they are the Shakti of the MahaPurusha manifest in the Bhakt's Atma, they are the graspable faces of the incomprehensible multi faced one. The Symbolism is in the Murti and artistic depictions of the Deva and Devi, for e.g: the garland of heads on Mata Kali Ji , to me symbolize the ego and the meaning i attach to the symbol is that we should not be attached to our egos as these are all but fleeting, and Mata reminds us of this. Obviously the Symbol varies from one Hindu to another even for the same Devi or Devta, and the Symbol can also mean something "Bad", to someone who is not Hindu, but then we Hindus should understand the CONTEXT of the Symbols, severed heads taken in context of for e.g: ISIS is different when taken into CONTEXT of Kali Mata, and there is enough Mata Bhakts who can explain this better.

I think Symbolism is used by individual Hindus to comprehend the multi dimensional unity, also to remind us that the Deva and Devi is not limited to just the Murti or Artistic expression but transcends it and yet is imminent within it.

I think of the Symbolism in this way, and my Pundit also expresses the inner meaning of the Murti and also the symbols/meanings used/expressed during puja, but never has he said that the Devi herself is a mere Symbol of a God.

He and i both agree that there is no GOD nor Gods in Hinduism, but that is my view.

 

[Poeticus]

You know - even great men - like Ramanuja and Shankara - has told that we know about God - only from scriptures - there is no other way (in Brahma Sutras, I was recently reading...)

That's interesting, because, for example, the Vedas, on the other hand, are not scripture. They are shabda. Therefore, the Rishis that "heard" were not "hearing" scripture. It was shabda; and shabda, in my opinion (as is the case with most of the Astika lines of thought, especially in Purva Mimamsa), is eternal. They gained "insight" from "hearing" shabda. And that shabda gives us the Veda-s, which aren't scripture. Thus the gods can't be held as knowing only from scriptures since their origins aren't to be found in the written form, but rather come directly from the "insights" of the Rishis.

Note: Yes, I admit this is only a karmakandin perspective.

 

[ratikala]

namaskaram RZ ji

welcome ,

I have started my spiritual career on most part in Buddhism philosophy and meditations - being told that our "meditation deities" like Avalokiteshwara, Vajrasattwa, etc. - are Buddha Aspects - Aspects of our Enlightened Mind -

may I please without causing offence stress that it is 'mind' as in enlightened mind , Buddha mind , ...not ''our mind'' ....as it is the limitations of our mind that we wish to trancend .

we have to recall them again to receive their blessings and merge with them, but they are still our mind - but not conditioned, but the absolute, perfect mind....

from my experience it is through Deity Sadhana within Vajrayana Buddhism that one is able to familiarise one self with , and ultimatly realise the qualities of the Deity , prehaps we could call this to merge in that by becoming one it could be said that one becomes free from all ignorance and delusion of the embodied self .
this makes the Deity very real as real and as eternal as truth and wisdom , ..

Probably - that's how I've been seeing also Hinduism Devas - they "work" - so they exist; if they would not exist - we had to invent them.....

fortunatly there is no need to invent them as just in the same way they are prehaps more real than we are in that they are eternal embodiments of truth , wisdom , knowledge ...etc

[ quote]
But - since everything existing is a one whole ocean - not separated from my Mind - so, probably so are Devas....
They are "real" - as much I like to think about them so, and it is needed for my chosen practice....Of course, I can feel them energetically too very well.....But what they actually are - that is probably beyond our explanations...[/quote]

here again it is the concept of 'My' as in ''My mind'' that is the missconception that sepperates us from true knowledge ,

it is when we are able to go beyond the concept of self that we are in the best position to feel their presence but yes I agree fully they are most definatly here all of the time .

In between - it's a superstition to tell - I am not going to temples - since there are no temples around - currently it is true, but in earlier times when I had chance - I was going to our Hindu/ Babaji center (no Indians there.... well, may be 1 sometimes, from India's embusy), as well I have been in ISCKON center/temple a few times; and when I was living in London - I have been a few times in Temples.....But I have lived with Hindu Devas and Murtis for some 20 years....I have a few in my mind as mantras almost always and a few as Statues or Images in my home....

jai jai not only is the deity present in the form of the murti but the Deity is equaly present in mantra .

in one school of Buddhism it is considered that we have two minds Gross and Subtle , it is the gross mind that perceives our seperateness , and the Subtle mind which carries the imprints of mantra and open to perception of the Deity .

 

[ratikala]

namaskaram Vinayaka ji

That would make sense to me, as Buddhism (from what little I know) is almost atheistic.

no no , not at all says she adamantly !!!

Non theistic , but not Atheistic !!!

I dont want to derail your thread by giving an explanation , ...our deities are precious beyond beleif , ...especialy within vajrayana Buddhism , ...

It's not really the teachings so much that one encounters to lean towards the 'they're real' POV, but more the energy. I can't understand why a million or more people daily would go to a shrine like Tirupati just to see a symbol of their religion. But of course those who feel it's mere symbolism would have no great reason to go, would they?

we feel just the same about our deities and the temples where they are enshrined .

it realy does depend a lot on the tradition , ....

 

[ratikala]

namaskaram poeticus ji

it is interesting that Ramanujacharya is mentioned , as it was Ramanujacharya that when listening to the scriptures was pure enough of mind to hear the true meaning , and who then corrected his own Guru who gave an impure inturpretation , ...were it true that one can learn from scripture alone this intuitive understanding would not have been possible .

They gained "insight" from "hearing" shabda. And that shabda gives us the Veda-s, which aren't scripture. ...

Thus the gods can't be held as knowing only from scriptures since their origins aren't to be found in the written form, but rather come directly from the "insights" of the Rishis.

jai jai , it is also this insight that is the inportant aspect of Buddhist meditation , the remainder are purely the prelimonaries which bring one to the point of insight .

the example of Ramanujacharya is an example of subtle mind which can preceive the Deity

 

[Vinayaka]

He he. When I wrote that, I actually thought, "I bet Ratikala comes on and corrects me." But with regard to Buddhism, I'm ridiculously ignorant. What little I know is because of following conversations on this forum, and I don't always do it. Obviously there are differing schools.

But back to the point of the OP, all I really wanted to say is, "Don't lump us all together in your generalisations about Hinduism." Telling someone who believes in God's reality that it's just your imagination, without prefacing it by, "In my opinion," borders on an insult.

That and the fact we have a duty to educate about the many myths that are held about our religion.

 

[Chakra]

That's interesting, because, for example, the Vedas, on the other hand, are not scripture. They are shabda. Therefore, the Rishis that "heard" were not "hearing" scripture. It was shabda; and shabda, in my opinion (as is the case with most of the Astika lines of thought, especially in Purva Mimamsa), is eternal. They gained "insight" from "hearing" shabda. And that shabda gives us the Veda-s, which aren't scripture. Thus the gods can't be held as knowing only from scriptures since their origins aren't to be found in the written form, but rather come directly from the "insights" of the Rishis.

Note: Yes, I admit this is only a karmakandin perspective.

I'm pretty sure Vedantins also call Vedas as Shabhda and as eternal. We don't believe that the Vedas can completely be written down in paper.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Of course, Murtis represent Gods for us and their energy and so on, but they are still symbols...

Not the consecrated ones (after 'prana-pratishtha'). As Vinayaka says, there are various beliefs in Hinduism. They are Gods and Goddesses in person (whatever my personal views may be ).

However, welcome to the forum, Red Zambala. I remember to have corresponded with you earlier also.

It is when we are able to go beyond the concept of self that we are in the best position to feel their presence but yes I agree fully they are most definatly here all of the time .

Go beyond the concept of 'self', then you are Brahman and none other. 'Brahma veda Brahmaiva bhavati' (One who knows Brahman, verily, becomes Brahman).