The Dogma of Bhakti: The views of a dissident Hindu

[Surya Deva]

you don't know about God just like you don't know about Brahman.

Nor do you, and that it very obvious

It seems you're familiar with the Isha Upanishad and one of the important upanishads of all times.

The verse 15 of the Isha Upanishad says,

hiranmayena patrena satyasyapihitam mukham

tat tvam pushannya apavrino satya-dharmaya drishtaye (Isopanishad, Verse 15 from the scripture)

I always have to check and verify the contexts when fanatics like yourself post a single line from the Upanishads to make a point to see if you are taking it out of context. Indeed, you have taken it out of context. As the Isha Upanishad is the shortest, I can post it in its entirety to clearly show it does not at all support the worship of a separate god:

1. ALL this, whatsoever moves on earth, is to be hidden in the Lord (the Self). When thou hast surrendered all this, then thou mayest enjoy. Do not covet the wealth of any man!

2. Though a man may wish to live a hundred years, performing works, it will be thus with him; but not in any other way: work will thus not cling to a man.

3. There are the worlds of the Asuras covered with blind darkness. Those who have destroyed their self (who perform works, without having arrived at a knowledge of the true Self ), go after death to those worlds.

4. That one (the Self), though never stirring, is swifter than thought. The Devas (senses) never reached it, it walked 2 before them. Though standing still, it overtakes the others who are running. Mâtarisvan (the wind, the moving spirit) bestows powers on it.

5. It stirs and it stirs not; it is far, and likewise near . It is inside of all this, and it is outside of all this.

6. And he who beholds all beings in the Self, and the Self in all beings, he never turns away from it .

7. When to a man who understands, the Self has become all things, what sorrow, what trouble can there be to him who once beheld that unity?

8. He 3 (the Self) encircled all, bright, incorporeal, scatheless, without muscles, pure, untouched by evil; a seer, wise, omnipresent, self-existent, he disposed all things rightly for eternal years.

9. All who worship what is not real knowledge (good works), enter into blind darkness: those who delight in real knowledge, enter, as it were, into greater darkness.

10. One thing, they say, is obtained from real knowledge; another, they say, from what is not knowledge. Thus we have heard from the wise who taught us this .

11. He who knows at the same time both knowledge and not-knowledge, overcomes death through not-knowledge, and obtains immortality through knowledge.

12. All who worship what is not the true cause, enter into blind darkness: those who delight in the true cause, enter, as it were, into greater darkness.

13. One thing, they say, is obtained from (knowledge of) the cause; another, they say, from (knowledge of) what is not the cause. Thus we have heard from the wise who taught us this.

14. He who knows at the same time both the cause and the destruction (the perishable body), overcomes death by destruction (the perishable body), and obtains immortality through (knowledge of ) the true cause.

15. The door of the True is covered with a golden disk . Open that, O Pûshan, that we may see the nature of the True .

16. O Pûshan, only seer, Yama (judge), Sûrya (sun), son of Pragâpati, spread thy rays and gather them! The light which is thy fairest form, I see it. I am what He is (viz. the person in the sun) .

17. Breath to air, and to the immortal! Then this my body ends in ashes. Om! Mind, remember! Remember thy deeds! Mind, remember! Remember thy deeds !

18. Agni, lead us on to wealth (beatitude) by a good path, thou, O God, who knowest all things!

Again, we find as we find in any Upanishad, the notion of self and discovering the self and affirming ones identity with the god(Pusan in this case) Again, not a single reference to worshiping some almighty separate god.

You can clearly see that Yajnavalkya is directly worshipping Pushan to reveal him the truth about Brahman. This is not smriti, this is shruthi and that too one of the most important seers of Hinduism, that's Yajnavalkya. God is indeed anthropomorphic.

No he is not. He directly affirms his identity with Pusan(the being in the sun) He does not worship him. Yajnavalkya is regarded as one of the unanimous teachers of Advaita in the Upanishads. In the oldest Upanishad the Brihadaranyaka, we can clearly see how strongly Advaitist he is in this dialogue between him and his wife:

Verily, not for the sake of the husband, my dear, is the husband loved, but he is loved for the sake of the self which, in its true nature, is one with the Supreme Self.
"Verily, not for the sake of the wife, my dear, is the wife loved, but she is loved for the sake of the self.
"Verily, not for the sake of the sons, my dear, are the sons loved, but they are loved for the sake of the self.
"Verily, not for the sake of wealth, my dear, is wealth loved, but it is loved for the sake of the self.
"Verily, not for the sake of the animals, my dear, are the animals loved, but they are loved for the sake of the self.
"Verily, not for the sake of the brahmin, my dear, is the brahmin loved, but he is loved for the sake of the self.
"Verily, not for the sake of the kshatriya, my dear, is the kshatriya loved, but he is loved for the sake of the self.
"Verily, not for the sake of the worlds, my dear, are the worlds loved, but they are loved for the sake of the self.
"Verily, not for the sake of the gods, my dear, are the gods loved, but they are loved for the sake of the self.
"Verily, not for the sake of the Vedas, my dear, are the Vedas loved, but they are loved for the sake of the self.
"Verily, not for the sake of the beings, my dear, are the beings loved, but they are loved for the sake of the self.
"Verily, not for the sake of the All, my dear, is the All loved, but it is loved for the sake of the self.

"Verily, my dear Maitreyi, it is the Self that should be realized—should be heard of, reflected on and meditated upon. By the realisation of the Self, my dear, through hearing, reflection and meditation, all this is known.

"The brahmin rejects one who knows him as different from the Self.
The kshatriya rejects one who knows him as different from the Self.
The worlds reject one who knows them as different from the Self.
The gods reject one who knows them as different from the Self.
The Vedas reject one who knows them as different from the Self.
The beings reject one who knows them as different from the Self.
The All rejects one who knows it as different from the Self.

A Dialog between Maitreyi and Yajnavalkya from Brihadaranyaka Upanishad

Again not a single instruction that one should worship some separate god. It talks about, surprise surprise, Self and the need to know and realize the Self and again affirms ones essential identity with the self.

Dvaitists/Bhaktas are on shaky ground. There is no justification for a worship of a almighty separate monothestic god in the Upanishads. The Upanishads teach Advaita.

 

[Surya Deva]

You westerners don't understand our sensitive values and thoughts and you don't know nothing about our religion, so instead of pushing your views and beliefs on others, go and read more about the Vedas and the Upanishads.

Santana Dharma does not belong to India. Stop talking like a fundamentalist as if Hinduism is your exclusive property. I have as much claim to being Hindu as you do, having spent more than 15 years of my life deeply involved in its study and practicing Yoga.

 

[Pleroma]

Nor do you, and that it very obvious

I always have to check and verify the contexts when fanatics like yourself post a single line from the Upanishads to make a point to see if you are taking it out of context. Indeed, you have taken it out of context. As the Isha Upanishad is the shortest, I can post it in its entirety to clearly show it does not at all support the worship of a separate god:

1. ALL this, whatsoever moves on earth, is to be hidden in the Lord (the Self). When thou hast surrendered all this, then thou mayest enjoy. Do not covet the wealth of any man!

2. Though a man may wish to live a hundred years, performing works, it will be thus with him; but not in any other way: work will thus not cling to a man.

3. There are the worlds of the Asuras covered with blind darkness. Those who have destroyed their self (who perform works, without having arrived at a knowledge of the true Self ), go after death to those worlds.

4. That one (the Self), though never stirring, is swifter than thought. The Devas (senses) never reached it, it walked 2 before them. Though standing still, it overtakes the others who are running. Mâtarisvan (the wind, the moving spirit) bestows powers on it.

5. It stirs and it stirs not; it is far, and likewise near . It is inside of all this, and it is outside of all this.

6. And he who beholds all beings in the Self, and the Self in all beings, he never turns away from it .

7. When to a man who understands, the Self has become all things, what sorrow, what trouble can there be to him who once beheld that unity?

8. He 3 (the Self) encircled all, bright, incorporeal, scatheless, without muscles, pure, untouched by evil; a seer, wise, omnipresent, self-existent, he disposed all things rightly for eternal years.

9. All who worship what is not real knowledge (good works), enter into blind darkness: those who delight in real knowledge, enter, as it were, into greater darkness.

10. One thing, they say, is obtained from real knowledge; another, they say, from what is not knowledge. Thus we have heard from the wise who taught us this .

11. He who knows at the same time both knowledge and not-knowledge, overcomes death through not-knowledge, and obtains immortality through knowledge.

12. All who worship what is not the true cause, enter into blind darkness: those who delight in the true cause, enter, as it were, into greater darkness.

13. One thing, they say, is obtained from (knowledge of) the cause; another, they say, from (knowledge of) what is not the cause. Thus we have heard from the wise who taught us this.

14. He who knows at the same time both the cause and the destruction (the perishable body), overcomes death by destruction (the perishable body), and obtains immortality through (knowledge of ) the true cause.

15. The door of the True is covered with a golden disk . Open that, O Pûshan, that we may see the nature of the True .

16. O Pûshan, only seer, Yama (judge), Sûrya (sun), son of Pragâpati, spread thy rays and gather them! The light which is thy fairest form, I see it. I am what He is (viz. the person in the sun) .

17. Breath to air, and to the immortal! Then this my body ends in ashes. Om! Mind, remember! Remember thy deeds! Mind, remember! Remember thy deeds !

18. Agni, lead us on to wealth (beatitude) by a good path, thou, O God, who knowest all things!

Again, we find as we find in any Upanishad, the notion of self and discovering the self and affirming ones identity with the god(Pusan in this case) Again, not a single reference to worshiping some almighty separate god.



No he is not. He directly affirms his identity with Pusan(the being in the sun) He does not worship him. Yajnavalkya is regarded as one of the unanimous teachers of Advaita in the Upanishads. In the oldest Upanishad the Brihadaranyaka, we can clearly see how strongly Advaitist he is in this dialogue between him and his wife:

Verily, not for the sake of the husband, my dear, is the husband loved, but he is loved for the sake of the self which, in its true nature, is one with the Supreme Self.
"Verily, not for the sake of the wife, my dear, is the wife loved, but she is loved for the sake of the self.
"Verily, not for the sake of the sons, my dear, are the sons loved, but they are loved for the sake of the self.
"Verily, not for the sake of wealth, my dear, is wealth loved, but it is loved for the sake of the self.
"Verily, not for the sake of the animals, my dear, are the animals loved, but they are loved for the sake of the self.
"Verily, not for the sake of the brahmin, my dear, is the brahmin loved, but he is loved for the sake of the self.
"Verily, not for the sake of the kshatriya, my dear, is the kshatriya loved, but he is loved for the sake of the self.
"Verily, not for the sake of the worlds, my dear, are the worlds loved, but they are loved for the sake of the self.
"Verily, not for the sake of the gods, my dear, are the gods loved, but they are loved for the sake of the self.
"Verily, not for the sake of the Vedas, my dear, are the Vedas loved, but they are loved for the sake of the self.
"Verily, not for the sake of the beings, my dear, are the beings loved, but they are loved for the sake of the self.
"Verily, not for the sake of the All, my dear, is the All loved, but it is loved for the sake of the self.

"Verily, my dear Maitreyi, it is the Self that should be realized—should be heard of, reflected on and meditated upon. By the realisation of the Self, my dear, through hearing, reflection and meditation, all this is known.

"The brahmin rejects one who knows him as different from the Self.
The kshatriya rejects one who knows him as different from the Self.
The worlds reject one who knows them as different from the Self.
The gods reject one who knows them as different from the Self.
The Vedas reject one who knows them as different from the Self.
The beings reject one who knows them as different from the Self.
The All rejects one who knows it as different from the Self.

A Dialog between Maitreyi and Yajnavalkya from Brihadaranyaka Upanishad

Again not a single instruction that one should worship some separate god. It talks about, surprise surprise, Self and the need to know and realize the Self and again affirms ones essential identity with the self.

Dvaitists/Bhaktas are on shaky ground. There is no justification for a worship of a almighty separate monothestic god in the Upanishads. The Upanishads teach Advaita.

Of course the Upanishads teach Advaita, I myself an Advaiti. You make a strawman of my position and screw me black and blue. Great isn't it?

I am in support of the Vedic Gods not a separate Monotheistic God like in other religions and the Isha Upanishad tells us to know both the vyakta and the avyakta, one should know both the Vedic Gods as well as the Brahman. One cannot exist without the other. Of course ultimately it is the knowing that everything is Self which counts.

As you yourself have quoted in the translation, it says,

16. O Pûshan, only seer, Yama (judge), Sûrya (sun), son of Pragâpati, spread thy rays and gather them! The light which is thy fairest form, I see it. I am what He is (viz. the person in the sun) .

18. Agni, lead us on to wealth (beatitude) by a good path, thou, O God, who knowest all things!

Pushan, Yama, Surya, Prajapati, Agni are gods and the Upanishad themselves explicitly state their existence and of course I am not asking you to worship them as separate from yourself, we should worship them as "I am what He is"(viz the person in the sun). It even states that He is a person which proves that God is a person, he is anthropomorphic and God and I are One. This is Advaita.

This is called as Akhanda Upasana. Have you heard of it? I never worship the Gods as separate from myself, I and God are One. Notice that no where I have denied the existence of the Vedic Gods and neither does the Isha Upanishad.

That's where my problem is, you deny the existence of Gods. Gods exist in us not separate from us. Do you understand? Which part of this that you don't understand? Your translation itself explicitly mention the existence of those Gods.

Even though you're being rude, I am trying to remove your misconceptions and if you can be patient and be nice to people and ask your doubts or even question it in a polite way its very welcoming but instead you're on a roller coaster ride and criticizing all Hindus for something which happened with your life.

 

[Vrindavana Das]

Nah, that's just Dvaita fanaticism. In order to hold the supremacy of their god Krishna in their texts, they denigrate Shiva by making him subordinate to Krishna and in their Puranas, their own propoganda outlet. In the same way they try to assimilate Buddhism by including Buddha in the list of the 10 avatars of Vishnu and then teaching that Vishnu incarnated as the deceiver to deceive the people by pretending he was atheist.

Honestly, the fanaticism and ridiculousness of the Vaishnavist tradition rivals the worst of the Christian evangelicals and Wahabhi fundamentalists lol

Hindus really need to see the Dvaita vaishnavism for what it is and return back to their original Advaita Vedanta tradition. Our Risis did not teach blind servile worship of some all powerful monothestic god, they taught self-realization. They taught you that you were all divine beings with a divine nature - self. They taught you to know the self, to realize your potentials. Come on Hindus, wake up.

You conveniently choose to ignore the scriptures and you conveniently accept portions that confirm your belief.

You are only speaking your mind my friend. That is not religion.

 

[Pleroma]

Santana Dharma does not belong to India. Stop talking like a fundamentalist as if Hinduism is your exclusive property. I have as much claim to being Hindu as you do, having spent more than 15 years of my life deeply involved in its study and practicing Yoga.

jg22 and I are Advaitis and we are on same grounds here because even you pretend to be an Advaiti and we both have shown you with clear evidence from the sruti itself that Advaita accepts the existence of Devas, Jiva, Manas provisionally and not as an ultimate view.

jg22 and I are neither Dvaitists or fundamentalists and we both have shown you in two separate threads that your view of Advaita is wrong. Your bogus theory that prior to Jnana khanda Vedic seers worshipped the outer manifestations such as sun, water, moon etc etc and that all of a sudden they actually rationalized everything never actually happened. There is no evidence of that and all evidence provided to you contradicts your theory. The Upanishads is not the end of Vedas instead it was the ending message of the Vedas and the Upanishads establishes the relationship of Brahman with the Self, world and Gods. No where it says that gods don't exists. That never really happened.

Whether or not these archetypes(gods) are expressed in all the religions of the world which I think it is, is a separate issue which is not appropriate to discuss in this Hinduism directory and therefore Hinduism is indeed universal and consists of universal principles and not specific to India. So don't misrepresent Hinduism in the Hinduism directory.

 

[Maya3]

No, I disagree. You are swallowing the dogma of Bhakti. That somehow we need an ishata devata, an image of god to devote ourselves to and worship and somehow this will lead one day to grace and vision of god. This is simply not true. It is not supported by the Sruti of the Upanishads. They do not say make an idol of god and then worship it. They say that we need to meditate on the self. Yes they prescribe meditation, not worship of fictional gods.

Why do they prescribe meditation? The higher self is a psychological entity, i.e., it underlies our mind and empirical ego. In order to realize the self the mental activities need to be ceased and this is why the technical definition of Yoga as given in the Yoga sutras is "Yoga is the cessation of the mental activities and modifications of the mind, then the true(transcendental) self is revealed. Thus if you want to know the self, there is no other way but meditation. As meditation is the only means via which you can enter into your mind.

It is actually a purely mechanical process. Any kind of technique that will cease the mental activities of the mind or at least slow them down will allow more and more of your higher self or your transcendental nature to manifest. Much like when the dark clouds in the sky scatter they reveal the light of the sun. The mental activities of your mind are like dark clouds that obscure your consciousness.

If worshipping god/s would bring about enlightenment then the Taliban would have become enlightened ages ago. They are some of the most religious fundamentalist people we know and never miss their prayer sessions to god. Worshiping of fictional gods does not enlighten you, but brainwashes you, erodes your intellect and breeds fanaticism and superstitious attitudes. Like how millions of Hindus bath in the toxic waters of the Ganges thinking it to nectar.

There is no need for any kind of image of god or idol. This is a dogma that the Bhakti philosophers teach, but it is baseless and nowhere to be found in the Upanishads. The process to enlightenment is very simple: meditation.

You make a lot of assumptions here. Both about me and other people.
Please be corteus and respectful to the members. We did not ask you to come here and "teach." All opinions are valid here.

You have no idea whom you are speaking with, and who is enlightened or not, don't assume that you know better then everyone else, it just comes of pompous and rude.

Maya

 

[Maija]

Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5 It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. 6 Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. 7 It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.

8 Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away. 9 For we know in part and we prophesy in part, 10 but when completeness comes, what is in part disappears. 11 When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put the ways of childhood behind me.

This is what comes to me right now.

 

[Surya Deva]

jg22 and I are Advaitis and we are on same grounds here because even you pretend to be an Advaiti and we both have shown you with clear evidence from the sruti itself that Advaita accepts the existence of Devas, Jiva, Manas provisionally and not as an ultimate view.

Hi, please don't put yourself in the same category as jg22. jg22 is far more polite, rational and educated than you are, and always demonstrates his points, even if I disagree with them. He engages with my arguments and never outright discards them as "nonsense, BS" as you do. You can learn a lot about decorum from jg22. You come across as an out and out fanatic, I have seen your other posts in the debate forum telling people to worship the one and true sun god(hey, that's me )

jg22 and I are neither Dvaitists or fundamentalists and we both have shown you in two separate threads that your view of Advaita is wrong.

Nope certainly you haven't. Please do not speak for jg22, let him speak for himself. We are having a wonderful discussion in the other thread. I have demonstrated that he takes a philosophical position that is not supported by Advaita. I have proven my own position that ishvara, jiva etc are products of Maya. They are born of ignorance and hence they are unreal. Anything which is born of ignorance has no real substratum, like the rising and setting of the sun. Illusion can only be reduced to ignorance and not a real substance.

Your bogus theory that prior to Jnana khanda Vedic seers worshipped the outer manifestations such as sun, water, moon etc etc and that all of a sudden they actually rationalized everything never actually happened. There is no evidence of that and all evidence provided to you contradicts your theory. The Upanishads is not the end of Vedas instead it was the ending message of the Vedas and the Upanishads establishes the relationship of Brahman with the Self, world and Gods. No where it says that gods don't exists. That never really happened.

This is not a bogus theory but the scholarly consensus on the evolution of Vedic thought. The early Vedic people were nature worshipers, like all Indo-European cultures. They performed sacrifices, including animal sacrifices. In the Upanishads we see a very sharp contrast to the previous Purva Mimaasa tradition, for example vegetarianism and disdain for ritual. It is also during this time we see the religion of Buddhism and Jainism break off from the Brahmanical culture expressing similar criticisms that Brahmanical culture was degenerate.

Whether or not these archetypes(gods) are expressed in all the religions of the world which I think it is, is a separate issue which is not appropriate to discuss in this Hinduism directory and therefore Hinduism is indeed universal and consists of universal principles and not specific to India. So don't misrepresent Hinduism in the Hinduism directory.

No the Vedic gods are not universal. The native American people have never heard of their gods, and nor have the Chinese people and nor have the Semitic people. So the Vedic gods cannot define a universal religion.

 

[Shantanu]

jg22 and I are Advaitis and we are on same grounds here because even you pretend to be an Advaiti and we both have shown you with clear evidence from the sruti itself that Advaita accepts the existence of Devas, Jiva, Manas provisionally and not as an ultimate view.

jg22 and I are neither Dvaitists or fundamentalists and we both have shown you in two separate threads that your view of Advaita is wrong. Your bogus theory that prior to Jnana khanda Vedic seers worshipped the outer manifestations such as sun, water, moon etc etc and that all of a sudden they actually rationalized everything never actually happened. There is no evidence of that and all evidence provided to you contradicts your theory. The Upanishads is not the end of Vedas instead it was the ending message of the Vedas and the Upanishads establishes the relationship of Brahman with the Self, world and Gods. No where it says that gods don't exists. That never really happened.

Whether or not these archetypes(gods) are expressed in all the religions of the world which I think it is, is a separate issue which is not appropriate to discuss in this Hinduism directory and therefore Hinduism is indeed universal and consists of universal principles and not specific to India. So don't misrepresent Hinduism in the Hinduism directory.

Surya Deva is right that pure advaita does not accept the existence of devas. To accept it provisionally but not in the absolute sense is a fudge that makes a nonsense of any kind of non-dual philosophy.

 

[Surya Deva]

You make a lot of assumptions here. Both about me and other people.
Please be corteus and respectful to the members. We did not ask you to come here and "teach." All opinions are valid here.

You have no idea whom you are speaking with, and who is enlightened or not, don't assume that you know better then everyone else, it just comes of pompous and rude.

Maya

I apologize if I am coming across as rude. I think you are mistaking my passion for my Advaita as rudeness. Like I said, I don't think all opinions/beliefs are valid, for if I accepted that position I would have to accept Dvaita as valid, which I cannot because it the opposite of the truth of Advaita. However, as I said to you before, I do not respect your beliefs, but I respect your right to have your beliefs.

 

[Maya3]

I apologize if I am coming across as rude. I think you are mistaking my passion for my Advaita as rudeness. Like I said, I don't think all opinions/beliefs are valid, for if I accepted that position I would have to accept Dvaita as valid, which I cannot because it the opposite of the truth of Advaita. However, as I said to you before, I do not respect your beliefs, but I respect your right to have your beliefs.

Thank you, I accept your apology.

But I'm curious to what you think that I believe?

Maya

 

[Surya Deva]

Of course the Upanishads teach Advaita, I myself an Advaiti. You make a strawman of my position and screw me black and blue. Great isn't it?

Thank you. I agree. There is no Dvaita in the Upanishads. Dvaita is a forgery. The Upanishads did not teach the worship of some monotheistic god.

I am in support of the Vedic Gods not a separate Monotheistic God like in other religions and the Isha Upanishad tells us to know both the vyakta and the avyakta, one should know both the Vedic Gods as well as the Brahman. One cannot exist without the other. Of course ultimately it is the knowing that everything is Self which counts.

So you are polytheistic like the early Vedic people? The Upanishadic people are not polytheistic, they are monistic. Yes, they use the language of the culture they are in, much like Sankarcharya did as well, but their actually viewpoint is completely counter to the early Vedic people. The early Vedic people literally worshiped natural phenomena, which was a common practice among the Indo-European people. By the times of Vedanta, Upanishads, the Devas were internalized, this is why Devas also came to mean senses. The Risis of the Upanishads had started to reinterpret all the extrinsic rituals an and gods and goddesses of the early Vedic people as internal and psychological phenomena. This is how the devas got their esoteric meanings like Indra as the "lord of the senses" or Agni as the fire within.

There is a case to be argued that the Vedic people were always like this, as Aurobindo argues, that the real meaning of the ritual and devas was psychological and yogic, but this depends on which translation of the Vedas you consult. In any case it is difficult to prove because Vedic Sanskrit is an arcahic language and the words in modern Sanskrit do not exactly mean the same thing in the Vedas. This is proven by comparative linguistics, which I rejected in the past, but now understand the historical significance of, the languages of Indo-European had similar meanings for words and roots. In any case there is a sharp contrast between the early ritual brahmanical culture and the philosophical culture of the Upanishads. This is clear for any social anthropologist or historian to see.

There is a religious-based viewpoint about the history of Hinduism and there is an evidence-based viewpoint about the history of Hinduism. Just as there is a religious-based viewpoint about the history of Christianity and evidence based viewpoint about Christianity. I am through and through rationalist - I do not do faith as I have already said many times. I only go with what the evidence says. My mind is far too mature to be taken in by faith.

As you yourself have quoted in the translation, it says,

16. O Pûshan, only seer, Yama (judge), Sûrya (sun), son of Pragâpati, spread thy rays and gather them! The light which is thy fairest form, I see it. I am what He is (viz. the person in the sun) .

18. Agni, lead us on to wealth (beatitude) by a good path, thou, O God, who knowest all things!

Pushan, Yama, Surya, Prajapati, Agni are gods and the Upanishad themselves explicitly state their existence and of course I am not asking you to worship them as separate from yourself, we should worship them as "I am what He is"(viz the person in the sun). It even states that He is a person which proves that God is a person, he is anthropomorphic and God and I are One. This is Advaita.

This is called as Akhanda Upasana. Have you heard of it? I never worship the Gods as separate from myself, I and God are One. Notice that no where I have denied the existence of the Vedic Gods and neither does the Isha Upanishad.

You need to look at the usage of gods in the Upanishads within their wider context. The Upanishads cannot be read without a system of interpretation, this is why the Brahma Sutras were created, because the Upanishads contain many statements which seem contradictory like "Brahman is Akasha" and then also mention akasha as a physical element or "The soul the size of a small thumb" The Upanishads are composed in pre-technical language containing many metaphors, allegories and poetic devices, that reading them literally will lead to obvious errors and contradictions. The reason why the Darsanas of Samkhya, Yoga and Advaita arose was to technically express the truths of the Upanishads, and to demonstrate them using perception and inference.

Advaita is a system of hermeneutics on the Upanishads which attempts to derive from them a systematic philosophy and then very rigorously demonstrates it using perception and logic. However, this is not entirely true either, because Advaita actually adopts much of the Samkhya philosophy, almost entirely, only that it reconciles Samkhya with the Upanshadic philosophy by reducing the Samkhya dualism to monism, only accepting the existence of consciousness as existent and singular, and reducing prakriti to maya, as being neither existent or totally non-existent.
In fact the Samkhyakarika itself says that creation, bondage and transmigration happens due to ignorance, this point is emphasized by Advaita.

That's where my problem is, you deny the existence of Gods. Gods exist in us not separate from us. Do you understand? Which part of this that you don't understand? Your translation itself explicitly mention the existence of those Gods.

Of course I will deny the gods, I am an Advaitin. We only accept the existence of the Self. Everything else is Maya. There is no jiva, no jagat, no ishvara, no devas. They are not existent entities, they only have for their existence name, and they are born of ignorance. Why are you shooting me for holding onto a legitimate position of my philosophy? You clearly are not Advaitin. I am a true Advaitin.

Even though you're being rude, I am trying to remove your misconceptions and if you can be patient and be nice to people and ask your doubts or even question it in a polite way its very welcoming but instead you're on a roller coaster ride and criticizing all Hindus for something which happened with your life.

If there is anyone being explicitly rude here it is you. Like I said you come across as an out and out fanatic.

 

[Surya Deva]

Thank you, I accept your apology.

But I'm curious to what you think that I believe?

Maya

You say you are an Advaitin, however I don't think you are a strong Advaitin, because you accept Dvaita, at least provisionally, and encourage the worship of god/s. An Advaitin does not worship god/s, they practice Jnana, self-inquiry, self-study, self-meditation.

 

[Maya3]

You say you are an Advaitin, however I don't think you are a strong Advaitin, because you accept Dvaita, at least provisionally, and encourage the worship of god/s. An Advaitin does not worship god/s, they practice Jnana, self-inquiry, self-study, self-meditation.

Again you make a lot of assumptions without any knowledge whatsoever about my daily practice.

Maya

 

[Surya Deva]

Again you make a lot of assumptions without any knowledge whatsoever about my daily practice.

Maya

I can only assume from the responses you give. I don't know you, so unless you tell me yourself what your daily practice is and what your beliefs are, I can only assume based on what you say here.

 

[Pleroma]

So you are polytheistic like the early Vedic people? The Upanishadic people are not polytheistic, they are monistic. Yes, they use the language of the culture they are in, much like Sankarcharya did as well, but their actually viewpoint is completely counter to the early Vedic people.

Even the Vedic people were monistic and this verse is evidence of that.

"Often quoted isolated pada 1.164.46 of the Rig Veda states (trans. Griffith):

Indraṃ mitraṃ varuṇamaghnimāhuratho divyaḥ sa suparṇo gharutmān,
ekaṃ sad viprā bahudhā vadantyaghniṃ yamaṃ mātariśvānamāhuḥ

"They call him Indra, Mitra, Varuṇa, Agni, and he is heavenly nobly-winged Garutmān.

To what is One, sages give many a title they call it Agni, Yama, Mātariśvan."(trans. Griffith)"

There is no change or shift in thought from the Vedas to the end of the Upanishads. Its one coherent message to the people of the world.

The early Vedic people literally worshiped natural phenomena, which was a common practice among the Indo-European people. By the times of Vedanta, Upanishads, the Devas were internalized, this is why Devas also came to mean senses. The Risis of the Upanishads had started to reinterpret all the extrinsic rituals an and gods and goddesses of the early Vedic people as internal and psychological phenomena. This is how the devas got their esoteric meanings like Indra as the "lord of the senses" or Agni as the fire within.

The early Vedic people knew the difference between the microcosm which is the world inside you and the macrocosm which is the empirical reality which we see through our eyes.

How do you think Astrology works? How is that the motion and position of the planets indicate what was going to happen in a person's life? It is because what are planets and stars in the macrocosm are in fact gods in the microcosm and they are psychological and that's how they affect human beings, gods do exist and that's how the early vedic people viewed their world.

There is a case to be argued that the Vedic people were always like this, as Aurobindo argues, that the real meaning of the ritual and devas was psychological and yogic, but this depends on which translation of the Vedas you consult. In any case it is difficult to prove because Vedic Sanskrit is an arcahic language and the words in modern Sanskrit do not exactly mean the same thing in the Vedas. This is proven by comparative linguistics, which I rejected in the past, but now understand the historical significance of, the languages of Indo-European had similar meanings for words and roots. In any case there is a sharp contrast between the early ritual brahmanical culture and the philosophical culture of the Upanishads. This is clear for any social anthropologist or historian to see.

Aurobindo is right and we should start to take his views seriously.
Sri Aurobindo. The Isha Upanishad // Writings in Bengali: [Translated into English]

The Mayavada or the theory of Illusionism sinks in the bottomless ocean. I repeat again Gods are real and they do exist.

I strongly criticize the method used to understand the Vedas by historians and on a linguistics basis. If you study from such a perspective you won't understand anything about the Vedas. The methodology to study the Vedas should be based on Mandalas. Mandala - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Of course your Phd's and scientists will not come out of their scientific method and do research on mandalas and hence they will never know the truth about the nature of reality which we are living in.

That's why our traditional scholars are right and scientists will never be able to know the truth if they don't research on mandalas. This mandala exists in in every living being in this world and it is the basis for the origin of our cosmos not big-bang.

There is a religious-based viewpoint about the history of Hinduism and there is an evidence-based viewpoint about the history of Hinduism. Just as there is a religious-based viewpoint about the history of Christianity and evidence based viewpoint about Christianity. I am through and through rationalist - I do not do faith as I have already said many times. I only go with what the evidence says. My mind is far too mature to be taken in by faith.

You don't have to go by faith because I didn't arrived at this conclusion by faith. I arrived at it through facts established from science.

You need to look at the usage of gods in the Upanishads within their wider context. The Upanishads cannot be read without a system of interpretation, this is why the Brahma Sutras were created, because the Upanishads contain many statements which seem contradictory like "Brahman is Akasha" and then also mention akasha as a physical element or "The soul the size of a small thumb" The Upanishads are composed in pre-technical language containing many metaphors, allegories and poetic devices, that reading them literally will lead to obvious errors and contradictions. The reason why the Darsanas of Samkhya, Yoga and Advaita arose was to technically express the truths of the Upanishads, and to demonstrate them using perception and inference.

Aurobindo has clarified all your doubts and misconceptions.

Of course I will deny the gods, I am an Advaitin. We only accept the existence of the Self. Everything else is Maya. There is no jiva, no jagat, no ishvara, no devas. They are not existent entities, they only have for their existence name, and they are born of ignorance. Why are you shooting me for holding onto a legitimate position of my philosophy? You clearly are not Advaitin. I am a true Advaitin.

I am showing you that you're not only doing bad philosophy and bad science but also seriously misrepresenting the views of Vedas, Upanishads and also about the Advaita. Claiming yourself as a winner even before refuting my arguments doesn't look nice about you.

If there is anyone being explicitly rude here it is you. Like I said you come across as an out and out fanatic.

My views are not based on beliefs but based on facts established from experiments by science and facts established by the works of our traditional scholars which give us the correct interpretation of Vedas and Upanishads.

 

[Maija]

Card from my Gita Deck, wisdom of the day:

God's Reciprocation: "I reciprocate with all beings in accordance to the way that they surrender to Me. Everyone follows My path in all respects."

Chapter 3. Verse 11.

 

[ratikala]

Card from my Gita Deck, wisdom of the day:

"I reciprocate with all beings in accordance to the way that they surrender to Me. Everyone follows My path in all respects."

Chapter 4. Verse 11.

yes this is a realy nice verse, the understanding of which certainly beats arguing , can we not learn to live together accepting anothers conception of the supreme ?

having accepted strict vows some become enlightened by sacrificing their possessions , and others by performing severe austerities , by practicing the yoga of eightfold mysticism , or by studying the vedas to advance in transendental knowledge .
bhagavad gita ch 4 , v 28

so it shows a tolerance tpwards practices performed by different aptitudes of persons , continuing to read verse 4 one sees many methods of surrender and their results .

 

[Jainarayan]

yes this is a realy nice verse, the understanding of which certainly beats arguing , can we not learn to live together accepting anothers conception of the supreme ?

I got verbally beaten up once when I cited that verse to support my belief that even if people don't know they are worshipping Sri Krishna, they are. It was a conversation about many different paths leading to God (OK, the Aztec practice of ripping out live hearts was questionable at best ), and being called a "neo-Vedic" because I also cited "ekam sat... " in the same conversation. People can just be so narrow-minded... "my way or the highway".

 

[Riverwolf]

Heck there are many Bhakti fanatics on this forum alone endorsing punishment of homosexuals and endorsing scripture like Manusmriti which oppresses women and lower castes.

When did "one" and "many" become synonymous?

The vast majority of bhaktas I've interacted with have been kind, loving, and caring people. Quite the opposite of fanaticism, which can be found outside religion as well as within it.

Bhakti isn't the problem. The problem is obsession to the point where any disagreement, no matter how reasonable, is met with harsh reactions.