Question about Hindu view of Deities and Reality

[punkdbass]

Hello,

I know there is another thread already about views on the Hindu Deities, but it is MANY pages long and my question is rather specific. Lately I've been trying to figure out how the Hindu worldview differs from a purely materialistic worldview or even a Buddhist worldview, and I think I've figured it out but I'm curious to hear your guys critique of my thoughts... am I correct in saying the following:

Materialists believe fundamental reality is purely biological, and all change is driven by biological impulses (sexual impulse, for example). Wheras Hindu's generally believe that fundamental reality is not purely biological, but rather there is a mysterious, ineffable spirit that drives and plays with the creative processes of existence. The Hindu "Deities" can then be seen as symbols of this all-pervading Spirit, often personifying different aspects of this Universal Spirit. Now when I say the Deities are symbolic, I am in no way saying that what they stand for isn't real. Rather the key difference between the Materialist and the Hindu is that the Materialist believes that what the Hindu Deities stand for is ultimately unreal, or a figment of the imagination, while the Hindu's firmly believe that the Deities stand for the very real all-pervading Spirit. The Buddhist simply refuses to take a stance on the issue, and rather maintains silence lol.

What do you think?
Thanks

 

[StarryNightshade]

Again, all of this can go back to the individual Hindu; as it's very likely that no two Hindus will believe in the exact same thing. Put 5 Hindus in a room, get 13 answers.

What you described is a very Advaita Vedatin POV; at least as far as I know. Personally, as a non-dualist, my POV is similar to what you described, but not quite the same. While I don't believe that the devas literally exist as the murthis depict them, I do believe that they have individual essences/energies. All of whom manifest from, and thus are a apart of, but still distinct from, Brahman/Lakshmi-Narayan.

 

[Maya3]

I think it is what you describe too.
I think that everything is God, or energy and it pervades everything. Even the deities in the temples to a certain and slower degree, even though I personally see the deities as symbolic.
I think that this all pervading energy is AUM and I think of it as God. I also like to call it The Force, but it reminds me too much of Star Wars, still it is kind of like a force.

Maya

 

[George-ananda]

Well it is relative to our frame of reference. In the ultimate from of reference, we, deities, everything, except Brahman is not real.

In our down-to-earth reality, I believe there are Higher Beings on the higher spiritual planes that are real entities; can hear and respond to prayers people pray to their chosen deity. And they are concerned with fostering our progress.

 

[Sumit]

Hello,

I know there is another thread already about views on the Hindu Deities, but it is MANY pages long and my question is rather specific. Lately I've been trying to figure out how the Hindu worldview differs from a purely materialistic worldview or even a Buddhist worldview, and I think I've figured it out but I'm curious to hear your guys critique of my thoughts... am I correct in saying the following:

Materialists believe fundamental reality is purely biological, and all change is driven by biological impulses (sexual impulse, for example). Wheras Hindu's generally believe that fundamental reality is not purely biological, but rather there is a mysterious, ineffable spirit that drives and plays with the creative processes of existence. The Hindu "Deities" can then be seen as symbols of this all-pervading Spirit, often personifying different aspects of this Universal Spirit. Now when I say the Deities are symbolic, I am in no way saying that what they stand for isn't real. Rather the key difference between the Materialist and the Hindu is that the Materialist believes that what the Hindu Deities stand for is ultimately unreal, or a figment of the imagination, while the Hindu's firmly believe that the Deities stand for the very real all-pervading Spirit. The Buddhist simply refuses to take a stance on the issue, and rather maintains silence lol.

What do you think?
Thanks

From my experience I can say "some deities do exist others may not".

 

[Pleroma]

What do you think?
Thanks

Let me give you a overview of Hindu epistemology and ontology according to the Hindu philosophical system and not according to what other people believe in.

Hindu philosophy states that the subtle body exists.

This is a direct opposition to the scientific world view which states that brain and matter is all that exists.

Hindu philosophy states that the elan vital or Prana flow in the Nadis (energy channels) in the subtle body.

"Nadis are not nerves but rather channels for the flow of consciousness. The literal meaning of nadi is "flow". Just as the negative and positive forces of electricity flow through complex circuits, in the same way, prana shako (vital force) and manas shako (mental force) flow through every part of our body via these nadis. According to the tantras there are 72,000 or more such channels or networks through which the stimuli flow like an electric current from one point to another."

Hindu philosophy states that there are chakras in the subtle body.

Hindu philosophy states that there are inner deities residing behind these chakras who control all our actions, thoughts, physiology, smell, tastes and all senses including will and thinking.

Deities are not symbolic or figments of your imagination. They literally exists and you can have a dialogue with these deities.

As you can see it agrees next to nothing with the materialism of science. Hinduism is incompatible with materialism and in fact even with atheism.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Yes, the deities really exist and help all people including their worshipers. Who am I to doubt it? Can I give a proof that they don't?

 

[Vinayaka]

Hello punkdbass

Volumes have been written on the subject, so there is no concise answer, as Starry said. Personally, I could not make sense of your explanation, as the words were currently beyond my comprehension, or I hadn't seen it expressed that way before.

The most common view in the west is Advaita, but that's just one view. My personal view is more encompassing than that, as I don't like to put limits on what God is or isn't. So He/She is simultaneously with form and without form. It may seem odd for someone who needs a stricter definition for their own limits, but I've never felt like putting God in a box. If God is all powerful, surely he can be many things to many people, all at the same time. So we (in my sampradaya) have 3 perfections, operating simultaneously. Two are formless, and one has form.

 

[Maya3]

I love the poster with the chakras and nadis, but I have never heard that there are inner deities, just the flow of kundalini.

Maya

 

[Poeticus]

Yes, the deities really exist and help all people including their worshipers.

I may not see them; I may not feel their presence; I may not hear them. Yet, I acknowledge them when the sun rises; when the wind rushes; and when the rain falls.

Jai Shri Ram!

 

[punkdbass]

Hello punkdbass

Volumes have been written on the subject, so there is no concise answer, as Starry said. Personally, I could not make sense of your explanation, as the words were currently beyond my comprehension, or I hadn't seen it expressed that way before.

The most common view in the west is Advaita, but that's just one view. My personal view is more encompassing than that, as I don't like to put limits on what God is or isn't. So He/She is simultaneously with form and without form. It may seem odd for someone who needs a stricter definition for their own limits, but I've never felt like putting God in a box. If God is all powerful, surely he can be many things to many people, all at the same time. So we (in my sampradaya) have 3 perfections, operating simultaneously. Two are formless, and one has form.

Interesting, this makes sense to me. God being infinite does not annihilate the finite but rather wholly contains/embraces the finite - i.e. He is simultaneously with and without form. And yes, it makes sense to me that the Infinite would be many things to many people, all at the same time. Your response reminds me a lot of something Alan Watts would say.

Thanks

 

[Vrindavana Das]

Hello,

I reproduce here what I have heard from elevated saints on the subject.

When someone dies, the dead body is not accepted as that person. Even if the body is preserved perfectly, still its vote will not be accepted in the formation of any nation's democratic govt. Although all the gross and subtle material ingredients in the dead body are there, still the dead body is not considered a person. Then what is missing? That 'missing' thing is the spiritual spark, the soul, which was controlling the body made of dead material elements. As soon as this spark of life, the soul, leaves the body, it starts to decay.

Hinduism is a very vast religion. The two most popular views are of Advaita and Dvaita.

Advaita: Accept that spiritual spark as Brahman, or the all-pervading light. The theory is that this spiritual spark has fallen down into inferior material energy, and therefore has got covered by the material modes of nature. Once the material contamination is removed, the soul will again regain its position as Brahman. The problem with this doctrine is that it cannot explain how can the supreme soul (full of knowledge, eternity and bliss) fall down into inferior ignorance in the first place. If it can fall down into inferior material energy, or maya, then it loses its position as the supreme Brahman.

Dvaita: Accepts the soul as part and parcel of the Infinite Lord who has a personal form. That Supreme Lord has a body that is 'sac-chit-ananda' or full of eternity-knowledge and bliss. As the infinitesimal part of the Lord, the soul is also eternal, full of knowledge and bliss. Anything that does not have happiness, cannot seek happiness. That which does not have knowledge, will not seek knowledge. And, that which is not eternal, will not seek eternal life. As the soul's eternal nature has been covered by a material body which is perishable, full of ignorance, and miseries, the soul is always seeking eternal life, knowledge and bliss through the agency of the material body.

The soul has an eternal personal loving relationship with the Supreme Soul, which he has forgotten. Therefore, the soul is seeking Him in all the temporary material relations of the world such as parents, master, lover, friend etc.

The Lord is Personal and Impersonal at the same time. It is said:

vadanti tat tattva-vidas
tattvaṁ yaj jñānam advayam
brahmeti paramātmeti
bhagavān iti śabdyate​

Learned transcendentalists who know the Absolute Truth call this non-dual substance Brahman (Impersonal all-pervading light), Paramatma (Supersoul dwelling in the hearts of all living entities) or Bhagavan (the Supreme Personality of Godhead).

Just like the President of a country has many officials controlling the functioning of his Govt. The Govt. may look impersonal, but on closer look we find that there are many officials who contribute to the smooth functioning of their respective departments. Similarly, different demigods are the presiding deities and are appointed representatives of the Supreme Lord controlling the functional affairs of the entire created cosmic manifestation.

 

[Maya3]

Advaita: Accept that spiritual spark as Brahman, or the all-pervading light. The theory is that this spiritual spark has fallen down into inferior material energy, and therefore has got covered by the material modes of nature. Once the material contamination is removed, the soul will again regain its position as Brahman. The problem with this doctrine is that it cannot explain how can the supreme soul (full of knowledge, eternity and bliss) fall down into inferior ignorance in the first place. If it can fall down into inferior material energy, or maya, then it loses its position as the supreme Brahman.

I love how you are saying that it is covered by material modes of nature. But I don't think it has fallen down into anything inferior. I think it has "forgotten" who it is. It has been covered with material for so long that it sees itself as separate.

Maya

 

[Vrindavana Das]

My understanding is that the soul, which is accepted as Brahman in Advaita, is full of knowledge. However, if it forgets it's Supreme nature as Brahman, then forgetfulness (which is maya) is superior to the supreme Brahman.

 

[Fireside_Hindu]

I was thinking about this last night because sometimes if i wake up at night I have trouble going back to sleep, so I start thinking too much

There's no reason God (If we define God as that which permeates, inhabits, and supersedes everything at the same time) can't be everything and nothing at the same time. Do I think Sri Lakshmi or Sri Ganesh as they are shown in Indian artwork are the default faces for God? No. But they are beautiful and meaningful images and since I see God as both those things, there's no reason not to feel a connection with that imagery.

I know many people do well with a formless God. I am not advanced enough for that kind of connection, so the images are helpful. I balance that through Pujas at temple where maybe the only "image" of god I might have is a coconut or a coin. Or maybe even just a large flower. These are more abstract for me and with a little effort I can connect to them on a spiritual level. (Because all the while the source of God is within. I am projecting outward)

Strangely, even though I am not a devotee of Shiva per say, I find his Lingam form the easiest (of his forms) to connect with. Perhaps because in my mind it suits him. A mysterious and ambiguous for or a seemingly mysterious and ambiguous deity. (My impressions only - no offense intended.)

I don't actually perceive Dvaita and Advaita as being in opposition. I think they exist on a spectrum.

 

[Vinayaka]

FH, all the great Saiva temples of the South, excepting one, have the lingam installed in the moolasthanam. It does represent the formless mysterious Shiva. My take is that when you stare at one, it brings up millions of thought tubes of others contemplating Absolute Reality by merely staring. There is something in the 'air' around these places. It's an amazing mystical practice.

 

[Maya3]

I love the lingham too. I have a very small one right behind my AUM om my altar. First I think of God as AUM, then it solidifies into the formless Lingham and then it becomes all the deities.


Maya

 

[ShivaFan]

A Hindu Deity that is opened by the Needle, is a Magic Telephone booth.

 

[Fireside_Hindu]

FH, all the great Saiva temples of the South, excepting one, have the lingam installed in the moolasthanam. It does represent the formless mysterious Shiva. My take is that when you stare at one, it brings up millions of thought tubes of others contemplating Absolute Reality by merely staring. There is something in the 'air' around these places. It's an amazing mystical practice.

A bit of a tangent, but the first time I ever attended Shivratri I was the absolute last person in line to pour milk over the Lingam. I don't know why, but it was a particularly special evening for me. I have always struggled to connect with Shiva, but I feel like getting to participate in the ceremony helped me a little.

I very much want to see the painted temples of South India. And I can't wait for my first temple to be completed back in Indiana because is will be brightly painted in that South Indian style - or so I was told. I forget the name of the pilgrimage, but there's an ambitious part of me that wants to travel to the four major tirthas of India. Even crazier ...I'd love to walk it.

 

[Aupmanyav]

My understanding is that the soul, which is accepted as Brahman in Advaita, is full of knowledge. However, if it forgets it's Supreme nature as Brahman, then forgetfulness (which is maya) is superior to the supreme Brahman.

Jai, Shrimati Radha Rani ki jai.