What is the role of Hindu Deities in Advaita Vedanta? What is their relation to Brahman?

[punkdbass]

Okay so the following was said in another thread:

"Some non-dualists do use Gods, but they know, intellectually, that these Gods are they're own creations, imagined as meditative focal points.
Gods -- like tea kettles, are real if you choose to realize them, but, like tea kettles, they're maya -- you're dreaming them."

I don't have much exposure to the Hindu deities but I am very drawn to Krishna while reading the Bhagavad Gita, I find Krishna to be a great source of inspiration.. but anyhow, how does Advaita Vedanta view the Hindu deities? what is their relation to Brahman? Are the Hindu deities identical to Brahman? Or does Brahman transcend them? Are the deities a reflection of Brahman through Maya? Or are they more than that? For example:

1) What is the relation of Vishnu to Brahman? Identical? Or does Brahman transcend Vishnu? Or does Vishnu transcend Brahman?

I have opinions on the subject, but I know very little about what Hinduism actually says on the subject, or Advaita for that matter. Would anyone be able to refer me to some source texts, articles, or words from Sri Shankara?

Thanks

 

[Jaskaran Singh]

Okay so the following was said in another thread:

"Some non-dualists do use Gods, but they know, intellectually, that these Gods are they're own creations, imagined as meditative focal points.
Gods -- like tea kettles, are real if you choose to realize them, but, like tea kettles, they're maya -- you're dreaming them."

I don't have much exposure to the Hindu deities but I am very drawn to Krishna while reading the Bhagavad Gita, I find Krishna to be a great source of inspiration.. but anyhow, how does Advaita Vedanta view the Hindu deities? what is their relation to Brahman? Are the Hindu deities identical to Brahman? Or does Brahman transcend them? Are the deities a reflection of Brahman through Maya? Or are they more than that? For example:

1) What is the relation of Vishnu to Brahman? Identical? Or does Brahman transcend Vishnu? Or does Vishnu transcend Brahman?

I have opinions on the subject, but I know very little about what Hinduism actually says on the subject, or Advaita for that matter. Would anyone be able to refer me to some source texts, articles, or words from Sri Shankara?

Thanks

I have already given you a quote from his gItAbhAShyam which shows that at a vyAvahArika level, shrI sha~NkarAchArya did indeed seem to advocate some form of devatAtAratamya (why else would he state that worship of the chaturbhaginI-s results in alpaphalam-s whereas worship of shrI kR^iShNa results in pUrNaphalam-s), so I'm not sure what else you would want? Perhaps your question is not directed to me, but to people who make contradictory claims (like Contemplative Cat's statement that sha~Nkara was a strict smArta [I assume CC hastily reached that conclusion due to his (sha~Nkara's) relationship with dashanAmI-s via his guru gauDapAdAchArya as well as one of his shishya-s, hastAmalakAchArya's, relationship with the nAth sampradAya] or MV's claim that sha~Nkara viewed viShNu as greater than brahma or something). Both made claims which seem to contradict, and both are incorrect to some extent, yet they ask you to simply consult sha~Nkara's works, so I can understand if you are confused. I recommend not just superficially taking everyone's word literally; if you must consult someone then ask people who are knowledgable about advaita, like aupamanyav, Nobodyyouknow, atanu, or amRut and not people like Contemplative Cat and MV (who, despite meaning well, often utter things about sha~Nkara views which are simply not true). To be honest, I'm not that knowledgable about advaita (Ix'm not an advaitI) so I don't think I'll be of much help.

Edit: Seyorni (who I assume you took the quote from) is probably indirectly stating the advaitI view that once one obtains jIvanmukti/mokSham, the separateness of Ishvara disappears making that Ishvara-tattva a mere illusion (he takes it a step further, as aupamanyav also does, and views deities themselves as illusionary at any level, possibly because he is an atheist, but I won't get into that). The fact that advaitavedAnta has such sharp atheistic leanings is actually one of the things which turned me off from it, although ultimately what brought me to become a vaiShNava was my connection with hari (although I do think that dvaitAdvaita/svabhAvika bhedabheda is more philosophically in line with the veda-s than advaita and I do have reasons for doing so; I'm not completely sentimental, ).

 

[Valjean]

Most Hindus, like most Catholics or Muslims, are not theologians. They don't concern themselves with metaphysics or M-theory. Their religion is superficial. They believe in the Gods they were raised with.

For the mystics and theologians, though, the Gods -- if they choose to use them -- are just tools; religious aids like catholic icons.

The goal is expansion of consciousness. At a certain point the illusory Nature of the material world, the Gods, the whole multiform universe, becomes obvious.

 

[Aupmanyav]

I don't have much exposure to the Hindu deities but I am very drawn to Krishna while reading the Bhagavad Gita, I find Krishna to be a great source of inspiration..

That is nice. Let me then introduce you to the major Hindu deities. From left to right, they are (First line) Lord Vishnu (the preserver), Mother Goddess Durga (supposed to be the sum of powers of the Hindu Trinity, Brahma, Vishnu, and Shiva), Saraswati (Goddess of Speach and all kinds of learning). (Second line) Ganesha (remover of obstacles and husband of Riddhi (Prosperity) and Siddhi (Achievement) and son of Shiva), Krishna, Hanumana (the devotees of Lord Rama (you see Rama and his brother Lakshmana on his shoulders) and the Brahmachari of Power). (Third line) Shiva (the destroyer if you go by Vaishnava scheme), Lakshmi (consort of Lord Vishnu and Goddess of all kinds of Wealths), Kartikeya (Shiva's son and the General of the army of Gods which fought against the army of demons). I add a better picture of Lord Rama, his consort Sita, Hanumana, and three brothers of Rama - Bharat, Lakshman, and Shatrughna), since he was not well represented in the first picture. This is known as the Rama Durbar (Rama's Court, official portrait).

 

[Aupmanyav]

Their religion is superficial. They believe in the Gods they were raised with.

For the mystics and theologians, though, the Gods -- if they choose to use them -- are just tools; religious aids like catholic icons.

The goal is expansion of consciousness. At a certain point the illusory Nature of the material world, the Gods, the whole multiform universe, becomes obvious.

I would use a better word. Their religion is sufficient for them - worship their Gods and follow 'dharma' (duties and rightful activities). For many intelligent people, I would say Gods are more than just tools. Some views do not consider the world to be illusory. I think, Seyorni, in Hinduism, generalization is not possible except for 'dharma'.

 

[Ravi500]

Okay so the following was said in another thread:

"Some non-dualists do use Gods, but they know, intellectually, that these Gods are they're own creations, imagined as meditative focal points.
Gods -- like tea kettles, are real if you choose to realize them, but, like tea kettles, they're maya -- you're dreaming them."

This statement is a very good way of putting it.

I don't have much exposure to the Hindu deities but I am very drawn to Krishna while reading the Bhagavad Gita, I find Krishna to be a great source of inspiration.. but anyhow, how does Advaita Vedanta view the Hindu deities? what is their relation to Brahman? Are the Hindu deities identical to Brahman? Or does Brahman transcend them? Are the deities a reflection of Brahman through Maya?

See, as per Advaita, Brahman alone is real, and even the deities, in the highest sense is Maya. The role the deities play is in giving focal points in their minds for the devotees.

Deep love for God in the form of the deity, greatly enhances ones consciousness, destroying karma in the process. If devotion and faith is high, this can be a fast process.

Ramakrishna , through love for the Divine Mother, attained a highly purified mental state in a relatively very short span of time. The image of the Divine Mother to which he was deeply attached to in his mind, however prevented his attainment of the non-dual state.
His Guru Totapuri, who was intuitively lead to him, instructed him and helped him to attain the non-dual state of Brahman by eradicating his last remaining mental construct, that of the Divine Mother.

Or are they more than that? For example:

1) What is the relation of Vishnu to Brahman? Identical? Or does Brahman transcend Vishnu? Or does Vishnu transcend Brahman?

I have opinions on the subject, but I know very little about what Hinduism actually says on the subject, or Advaita for that matter. Would anyone be able to refer me to some source texts, articles, or words from Sri Shankara?

Thanks

Brahman is the highest. All the deities come after that.


Bhakti yoga has its merits in the sense that it is a very good method to focus the mind through love of God through a deity, which otherwise can be scattered in the tremondous stimuli of the external world.

The love for the personal God ( as opposed to the impersonal Brahman ) , has a immence sweetness in itself, that it is sometimes referred to as the fifth purushartha i.e supreme love towards God.

The other four purusharthas beings artha, kama, dharma and moksha.

 

[punkdbass]

@Jaskaran Singh - You gave me a verse from the Gita correct? If I remember correct, the verse essentially was Krishna (Vishnu) establishing himself as the most Supreme. What was the exact verse again? But then many people keep telling me that technically Brahman is transcendent of even Krishna. Lot's of contradictions. I guess the reason why I want source texts so much is because I've brought similar versions of this question up before and I keep getting contradicting views from everyone - I want to be able to differentiate between Adi Shankara's views on the subject and other Hindus.

@Aup - thanks for the brief overview of the deities

@Ravi500 and Seyorni - Thanks for sharing, deep down my gut/intuition tells me you guys are spot on here..

I guess the main reason I'm so interested in this question is because often I use Krishna as a meditative aid. I will meditate on Krishna, which often helps me to be calm/balanced while also being devoted in performing dutiful action. Krishna was calm and balanced despite being a literal King who had numerous worldly responsibilities - yet he was able to remain calm and balanced despite the many duties he had, which he performed with fullness and compassion.. it is a source of inspiration for me to do the same. However, deep down I feel like I know that the "idea I have of Krishna" that I meditate on is really nothing more than an idea (although ideas can lead to actions, and then to character.. very powerful are ideas, ideas carry the potentiality for transformation.. I suppose the "idea" of a being who is pure love, balance, and compassion is not the worst idea to have in your karma belt lol). It is just a mental construct in my mind.. and regardless of how beneficial this mental construct can be for me, it still, on a technical level, is putting slight distance between me and Brahman. Like you said Ravi, eventually even the mental construct of the Deity must go, at least your attachment to it.

NYK has often talked about this, how she deep down knows she and Shiva are one, she probably could totally merge with Shiva and Brahman if she hand the single-mindedness/focus to do so, but she also has a strong desire to love Shiva, to worship and be devoted. I think I am caught in a somewhat similar position - I still have not completely exhausted my desire as a child to find God and love God - even if deep down I know "God" is just a mental construct and that if there truly is a "Higher Being" that is equivalent to Brahman or transcendent of Brahman, I will probably never be able to know if such a "Being" is real.

 

[Sees]

@Jaskaran Singh - You gave me a verse from the Gita correct? If I remember correct, the verse essentially was Krishna (Vishnu) establishing himself as the most Supreme. What was the exact verse again? But then many people keep telling me that technically Brahman is transcendent of even Krishna. Lot's of contradictions. I guess the reason why I want source texts so much is because I've brought similar versions of this question up before and I keep getting contradicting views from everyone - I want to be able to differentiate between Adi Shankara's views on the subject and other Hindus.

@Aup - thanks for the brief overview of the deities

@Ravi500 and Seyorni - Thanks for sharing, deep down my gut/intuition tells me you guys are spot on here..

I guess the main reason I'm so interested in this question is because often I use Krishna as a meditative aid. I will meditate on Krishna, which often helps me to be calm/balanced while also being devoted in performing dutiful action. Krishna was calm and balanced despite being a literal King who had numerous worldly responsibilities - yet he was able to remain calm and balanced despite the many duties he had, which he performed with fullness and compassion.. it is a source of inspiration for me to do the same. However, deep down I feel like I know that the "idea I have of Krishna" that I meditate on is really nothing more than an idea (although ideas can lead to actions, and then to character.. very powerful are ideas, ideas carry the potentiality for transformation.. I suppose the "idea" of a being who is pure love, balance, and compassion is not the worst idea to have in your karma belt lol). It is just a mental construct in my mind.. and regardless of how beneficial this mental construct can be for me, it still, on a technical level, is putting slight distance between me and Brahman. Like you said Ravi, eventually even the mental construct of the Deity must go, at least your attachment to it.

NYK has often talked about this, how she deep down knows she and Shiva are one, she probably could totally merge with Shiva and Brahman if she hand the single-mindedness/focus to do so, but she also has a strong desire to love Shiva, to worship and be devoted. I think I am caught in a somewhat similar position - I still have not completely exhausted my desire as a child to find God and love God - even if deep down I know "God" is just a mental construct and that if there truly is a "Higher Being" that is equivalent to Brahman or transcendent of Brahman, I will probably never be able to know if such a "Being" is real.

True non-duality is the forms and formless are the same. Transcendental monism is not pure non-duality. It's almost silly simple but tends to remain a complex mystery since dualistic thinking is so ingrained and pounded in daily.

 

[punkdbass]

True non-duality is the forms and formless are the same. Transcendental monism is not pure non-duality. It's almost silly simple but tends to remain a complex mystery since dualistic thinking is so ingrained and pounded in daily.

Interesting, I actually think I get what you mean here. It's just so tough to talk about these things because language is inherently dualistic, esp. English with it's emphasis on Subject-Predicate relationship. But this is how I understand what you've said: transcendental monism is not pure non-duality in the sense that as long as you are saying Brahman(Reality) transcends this or transcends that, you are creating a duality of opposition - and Alan Watts brilliantly explains how opposition is a concept that can only apply to finite things and that the Infinite(Reality) by definition cannot oppose anything, for the Infinite, being Infinite literally has nothing else to oppose! The solution is non-dualism which Watts best describes as the Infinite wholly embracing/containing the finite within it, not opposing the finite, but embracing the finite within it - which on a simple level makes perfect sense: if the infinite is infinite, then it would naturally contain infinite variety(hence the apparent existence of multiplicity).

But anyways, I have said similar things to what you have just said in another thread. The irony is when someone comes up with an idea of what Brahman/Reality is, we often want to tell them that nope, Brahman/Reality transcends your idea or is empty of your limited mental construct. There is truth to this but also untruth - just as you said, the form and formless are the same in Reality. I.e. the "idea" you have of Reality is just as much a part of reality as literally anything else you can think of, express, or experience. Everything plays its part in Brahman - Brahman is not even in opposition to ones "ego," even one's ego plays its part in Brahman. Everything exists in Brahman, there is no opposition. On one hand we wish to say that "Om" is beyond the mental constructs/ideas we come up with, but on another hand, we must assert that even our ideas are densely permeating with "Om."

 

[Sees]

Interesting, I actually think I get what you mean here. It's just so tough to talk about these things because language is inherently dualistic, esp. English with it's emphasis on Subject-Predicate relationship. But this is how I understand what you've said: transcendental monism is not pure non-duality in the sense that as long as you are saying Brahman(Reality) transcends this or transcends that, you are creating a duality of opposition - and Alan Watts brilliantly explains how opposition is a concept that can only apply to finite things and that the Infinite(Reality) by definition cannot oppose anything, for the Infinite, being Infinite literally has nothing else to oppose! The solution is non-dualism which Watts best describes as the Infinite wholly embracing/containing the finite within it, not opposing the finite, but embracing the finite within it - which on a simple level makes perfect sense: if the infinite is infinite, then it would naturally contain infinite variety(hence the apparent existence of multiplicity).

But anyways, I have said similar things to what you have just said in another thread. The irony is when someone comes up with an idea of what Brahman/Reality is, we often want to tell them that nope, Brahman/Reality transcends your idea or is empty of your limited mental construct. There is truth to this but also untruth - just as you said, the form and formless are the same in Reality. I.e. the "idea" you have of Reality is just as much a part of reality as literally anything else you can think of, express, or experience. Everything plays its part in Brahman - Brahman is not even in opposition to ones "ego," even one's ego plays its part in Brahman. Everything exists in Brahman, there is no opposition.

Yep, I read a lot of Alan Watts when I was younger and visited the library often.

I think this puts it well in a cross-traditional way http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/taoism-dir/158378-1-if-interested.html

And my comment is only about non-duality in a general way - so people browsing this thread know with certainty I'm not a non-Hindu trying to speak on Hinduism. I am a slightly crazy old school polytheist :angel2:

 

[punkdbass]

So after meditating on Krishna this morning(and achieving a level of peace/stillness I haven't had in several days of neglecting Krishna) and while driving to work, I think I figured out exactly what Krishna means to me.

I want to entertain a thought for you guys to ponder over. I think there is a danger is a person thinking they have achieved Self-Realization when they have not, under a certain scenario. Let me explain this scenario: Suppose you believe you are Self-Realized and no longer have a need/use for the Deities. Secondly, suppose you vehemently have this idea that Brahman is indifferent and impersonal. You cling to this idea that ultimately, Brahman/Reality is indifferent to what happens in your life, or the lives of others. I'm sure you all know the popular saying: A thought/idea manifests itself in your words, then actions, then eventually your character. Clinging to the idea that Brahman is indifferent and impersonal increases the likelhood that you, yourself, become indifferent, impersonal, and less compassionate to the lives of others. Let me be absolutely clear: I am not accusing anyone here of clinging to this view of Brahman, I'm just giving you guys something to ponder over.

Anyhow, here's where the use of the Deities comes into play. I'm not absolutely certain that I've fully achieved Self-Realization. But, I do know, through the laws of karma, that if I meditate on a particular Deity - say Krishna and his qualities of balance, equinimity, calmness, even-mindedness, dutiful action, and compassion - these ideas and mental constructs I have of Krishna will slowly start to manifest into my thoughts, my words, my actions, and eventually my character. The beauty of all of this, is slowly but surely, I am becoming Krishna - the mental construct I have of Krishna that is. Slowly I will become more calm, even-minded, balanced, compassionate, and perform actions wholeheartedly. Yes, I wholly acknowledge that this "mental construct" I have of Krishna while I meditate on him is nothing more than a "mental construct," and idea of my own creation. But if one understands the workings of karma, and still has an element of doubt that they have achieved "nirvana," why wouldn't you want to incorporate the deities into your spiritual practice, in some way? Will it not simply increase your good karma - the likelihood of you being more compassionate and even-minded? What do you guys think of my logic?

I think there is a danger in clinging to the idea that Brahman/Reality is indifferent and impersonal. Every single person has experienced love, care, beauty, friendship, etc at some point in their lives.. and in this sense, one can not assert that Reality is 100% purely indifferent and impersonal... When your family member or spouse tells you they "love you," this is literally Brahman/Reality staring you right in the face expressing it's appreciate towards you! When someone expresses love or compassion to you, this does not mean you are in some far off fantasy land called "non-reality," there is no such thing as non-reality, it's impossible to escape Reality, it's impossible to escape Om, it pervades everything. It's impossible to be anywhere else than Reality or the Present Moment, there simply is no other "place" to go. You would have to be a fool to ignore or trivialize these moments of Reality in which you feel love and compassion. Of course Reality has its moment of love and care. Now this is not to say that Reality doesnt also have it's moments of indifference and coldness.. but hopefully you get the idea here - it's wrong to fixate/cling to either extreme.. in doing so you are missing the mark of pure non-duality and are still under the trap of duality.

So in conclusion, to me, Brahman/Reality is neither strictly personal nor strictly impersonal; strictly loving nor strictly indifferent. I accept that Brahman is all of these, and hence I no longer am uncomfortable "worshiping" or "meditating" upon a Deity that associates love, personality, compassion, balance, even-mindedness with Reality. Reality does not oppose these things, but wholly embraces them.

 

[Jaskaran Singh]

@Jaskaran Singh - You gave me a verse from the Gita correct? If I remember correct, the verse essentially was Krishna (Vishnu) establishing himself as the most Supreme. What was the exact verse again? But then many people keep telling me that technically Brahman is transcendent of even Krishna. Lot's of contradictions. I guess the reason why I want source texts so much is because I've brought similar versions of this question up before and I keep getting contradicting views from everyone - I want to be able to differentiate between Adi Shankara's views on the subject and other Hindus.

Actually, it wasn't the gItA itself which established a hierarchy (as the original verse can be interpreted many different ways), but sha~Nkara in his commentary/bhAShyam on the gItA who clearly establishes a difference between kR^iShNa and other deities by stating that worshipping gaNesha or tAntrika devI-s produces lesser results than worshipping kR^iShNa. Does that make sense?
Look at the post again: http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/3659430-post21.html

 

[punkdbass]

Thank you for the reference Jas, the meaning behind Bhagavad Gita 9:25 for the most part makes sense to me now.

I have already given you a quote from his gItAbhAShyam which shows that at a vyAvahArika level, shrI sha~NkarAchArya did indeed seem to advocate some form of devatAtAratamya (why else would he state that worship of the chaturbhaginI-s results in alpaphalam-s whereas worship of shrI kR^iShNa results in pUrNaphalam-s), so I'm not sure what else you would want?

I'm not sure exactly what you mean here, my knowledge of Sanskrit is very superficial. Could you further explain what you mean here? This is my understanding: you have given me a quote fom his "commentary" that shows that on an "empirical" level, it appears Shankara did seem to advocate some form of "deity worship?"

However, the main question I'm interested in is How does Shankara specifically view Vishnu/Krishna's relation to Brahman? Does Brahman transcend Krishna? Or does perhaps Krishna transcend Brahman? Or are they both identical/one? I'm really curious to see what Shankara says on this subject.

 

[Poeticus]

However, the main question I'm interested in is How does Shankara specifically view Vishnu/Krishna's relation to Brahman? Does Brahman transcend Krishna? Or does perhaps Krishna transcend Brahman? Or are they both identical/one? I'm really curious to see what Shankara says on this subject.

What about this...

Adi Shankara said in his Bhaja Govindam, "The same Vishnu dwells in me, you and everything. If you wish to attain the quality of Vishnu, have sama-bhāva always."​

Or, is that still not enough? I'm confused as much as Jaskaran is. The statements he has offered you should put this matter to rest.

Listen, I'll put the joking about Shri Vishnu spinning brahman-s on his fingers like basketballs to the side, and help you out with this in a serious manner.

Brahman is an aspect of Vishnu. It's still Vishnu. Even if He doesn't have that blue skin and that awesome crown and the garlands and his celestial weapons and all that, and it's pretty much a blank void of lala-land stuff, it's still Vishnu.

Have you ever dissected the name "Vishnu"? The answer is in his name: "all-pervading".

Well, what in the freaking world would account as "all-pervading"?

Dhun dhun dhunnnnnn. Vishnu!

 

[punkdbass]

What about this...

Adi Shankara said in his Bhaja Govindam, "The same Vishnu dwells in me, you and everything. If you wish to attain the quality of Vishnu, have sama-bhāva always."​

Or, is that still not enough? I'm confused as much as Jaskaran is. The statements he has offered you should put this matter to rest.

Listen, I'll put the joking about Shri Vishnu spinning brahman-s on his fingers like basketballs to the side, and help you out with this in a serious manner.

Brahman is an aspect of Vishnu. It's still Vishnu. Even if He doesn't have that blue skin and that awesome crown and the garlands and his celestial weapons and all that, and it's pretty much a blank void of lala-land stuff, it's still Vishnu.

Have you ever dissected the name "Vishnu"? The answer is in his name: "all-pervading".

Well, what in the freaking world would account as "all-pervading"?

Dhun dhun dhunnnnnn. Vishnu!

Please be patient with me friend I have only been immersing myself in Vedanta for a few months now. My knowledge of Hinduism is primarily limited to the Bhagavad Gita and the few Upanishads I've read (I've read other Hindu books, but these are the main sources I consider authoritative and divinely inspired). So when you and Jas tell me Brahman is an aspect of Vishnu, or that Vishnu encompasses Brahman, you must understand that for me, I can either take your guys word for it... or find out for myself through experience or evidence in the Scriptures. I am not like many of the Hindu members here who have been immersed In Hindu culture and the Vedas for many years.. so a lot of this stuff isn't super obvious to me. I don't have any hidden agenda here, I'm asking these questions out of sincere seeking.

Thank you very much for referencing me to the "Bhaja Govindam." I found a translation online, and after reading the introductory commentary, it is blatantly obvious that Sri Shankara endorsed worshiping Vishnu/Krishna wholeheartedly. As the introductory commentary states:

"It is in this prayer that he emphasizes above all else the importance for developing devotion for Lord Krishna, which is the principle means for attaining the Grace for the Supreme, and the freedom from further rounds of reincarnating in material existence. It is this prayer that leaves us no doubt that his final instruction was to give up our egotistical differences and surrender to Lord Krishna."

And straight from the Bhaja Govindam:

"In me, in you and in everything, none but the same Vishnu dwells. Your anger and impatience is meaningless. If you wish to attain the quality of Vishnu soon, have Sama Bhaava always.....Regularly recite from the Bhagavad-Gita, meditate on Vishnu in your heart, and chant His thousand glories. Take delight to be with the noble and the holy. Distribute your wealth in charity to the poor and the needy."

Thank you, I have put this matter to rest. I have found the answers I needed, I'm completely content on the subject now. I know now that Reality/Brahman is not strictly impersonal and indifferent. Reality is filled with personal moments, loving moments, caring moments, warm moments.. sure it has its impersonal moments and indifferent moments, but to cling to the idea that Reality is strictly impersonal and indifferent is not the Advaita Vedanta of Sri Shankara. I think I understand now. Reality is filled with Krishna, and I no longer feel "doubts" about whether or not meditating on Krishna is helpful to my path.

Namaste

 

[Jaskaran Singh]

Thank you for the reference Jas, the meaning behind Bhagavad Gita 9:25 for the most part makes sense to me now.
I'm not sure exactly what you mean here, my knowledge of Sanskrit is very superficial. Could you further explain what you mean here? This is my understanding: you have given me a quote fom his "commentary" that shows that on an "empirical" level, it appears Shankara did seem to advocate some form of "deity worship?"
However, the main question I'm interested in is How does Shankara specifically view Vishnu/Krishna's relation to Brahman? Does Brahman transcend Krishna? Or does perhaps Krishna transcend Brahman? Or are they both identical/one? I'm really curious to see what Shankara says on this subject.

According to Adi sha~NkarAchArya, kR^iShNa is the supreme lord/parameshvara, hence why he states in his viShNushaTpadIstotram, "matsyAdibhiravatArairavatAravatA'vatA sadA vasudhAM parameshvara paripAlyo bhavatA bhavatApabhIto'haM (O one who has descended/taken avatAta as matsya (fish) and other forms [i.e. viShNu], O parameshvara, always protect me who is fit to be saved by you). Therefore, I would say that Adi sha~Nkara viewed them both as identical at a practical level. Those people who claim that parabrahma is the origin of mahAviShNu are operating not from the views of sha~Nkara, but from their own perspective.

Please be patient with me friend I have only been immersing myself in Vedanta for a few months now. My knowledge of Hinduism is primarily limited to the Bhagavad Gita and the few Upanishads I've read (I've read other Hindu books, but these are the main sources I consider authoritative and divinely inspired). So when you and Jas tell me Brahman is an aspect of Vishnu, or that Vishnu encompasses Brahman, you must understand that for me, I can either take your guys word for it... or find out for myself through experience or evidence in the Scriptures. I am not like many of the Hindu members here who have been immersed In Hindu culture and the Vedas for many years.. so a lot of this stuff isn't super obvious to me. I don't have any hidden agenda here, I'm asking these questions out of sincere seeking.

Thank you very much for referencing me to the "Bhaja Govindam." I found a translation online, and after reading the introductory commentary, it is blatantly obvious that Sri Shankara endorsed worshiping Vishnu/Krishna wholeheartedly. As the introductory commentary states:

"It is in this prayer that he emphasizes above all else the importance for developing devotion for Lord Krishna, which is the principle means for attaining the Grace for the Supreme, and the freedom from further rounds of reincarnating in material existence. It is this prayer that leaves us no doubt that his final instruction was to give up our egotistical differences and surrender to Lord Krishna."

And straight from the Bhaja Govindam:

"In me, in you and in everything, none but the same Vishnu dwells. Your anger and impatience is meaningless. If you wish to attain the quality of Vishnu soon, have Sama Bhaava always.....Regularly recite from the Bhagavad-Gita, meditate on Vishnu in your heart, and chant His thousand glories. Take delight to be with the noble and the holy. Distribute your wealth in charity to the poor and the needy."

Thank you, I have put this matter to rest. I have found the answers I needed, I'm completely content on the subject now. I know now that Reality/Brahman is not strictly impersonal and indifferent. Reality is filled with personal moments, loving moments, caring moments, warm moments.. sure it has its impersonal moments and indifferent moments, but to cling to the idea that Reality is strictly impersonal and indifferent is not the Advaita Vedanta of Sri Shankara. I think I understand now. Reality is filled with Krishna, and I no longer feel "doubts" about whether or not meditating on Krishna is helpful to my path.

Namaste

 

[Poeticus]

So when you and Jas tell me Brahman is an aspect of Vishnu, or that Vishnu encompasses Brahman, you must understand that for me, I can either take your guys word for it... or find out for myself through experience or evidence in the Scriptures. I am not like many of the Hindu members here who have been immersed In Hindu culture and the Vedas for many years.. so a lot of this stuff isn't super obvious to me. I don't have any hidden agenda here, I'm asking these questions out of sincere seeking.

Of course you don't have any hidden agenda here!!! Who's the fool that think you might??!! I have repeatedly said that you are one of the most honest seekers the HinduDIR has ever come across. And, I'll continue backing that statement up. I mean it.

And, consulting the scriptures and the commentaries (bhAshya-s) of the Vedantic Gurus is the best advice - trust me, it's much better than asking ppl on here.

"It is in this prayer that he emphasizes above all else the importance for developing devotion for Lord Krishna, which is the principle means for attaining the Grace for the Supreme, and the freedom from further rounds of reincarnating in material existence. It is this prayer that leaves us no doubt that his final instruction was to give up our egotistical differences and surrender to Lord Krishna."

Dhun dhun dhunnnnnnnnnn!!!!!

And straight from the Bhaja Govindam:

"In me, in you and in everything, none but the same Vishnu dwells. Your anger and impatience is meaningless. If you wish to attain the quality of Vishnu soon, have Sama Bhaava always.....Regularly recite from the Bhagavad-Gita, meditate on Vishnu in your heart, and chant His thousand glories. Take delight to be with the noble and the holy. Distribute your wealth in charity to the poor and the needy."

Dhun dhun DhunnnnnnnnnnnnnnnN!!!!!!

Reality is filled with Krishna, and I no longer feel "doubts" about whether or not meditating on Krishna is helpful to my path.

For that awesome comment^, you deserve to hear this:

[youtube]P-vEfCaWW9I[/youtube]
Kurai Ondrum Illai - with lyrics & meanings. - YouTube

Those people who claim that parabrahma is the origin of mahAviShNu are operating not from the views of sha~Nkara, but from their own perspective.

^Yeah, what he said.​

 

[punkdbass]

Thanks guys

Also, I really enjoyed that video, thanks for sharing. I do not know any specific Indian music, but whenever my family and I get Indian food (there is an amazing Indian restaurant 40 minutes from where I live back home that consistently gets awards.. we always go for the lunch buffet), I always enjoy the Indian music playing in the background, so does my Dad lol.

 

[George-ananda]

What is the role of Hindu Deities in Advaita Vedanta? What is their relation to Brahman?

The Spiritual teacher I most revere always refers to advaitan thought but also speaks favorably of Dvaitan thought. He says that in this age, Bhakti Yoga is the easiest and fastest path to enlightenment.

Bhakti has never been my basic inclination. I'm a Jnana Yoga type of guy.

 

[NobodyYouKnow]

I was asked via PM to contribute as to how Shaivas see Brahman.

Brahman is outcome...everything else is process, therefore deity worship becomes a means unto an end.

How I see it, is that at the level of Saguna Brahman, Mithya is still in play leading us to believe we are 'worshiping' or 'loving' a deity. Once that is dropped, can Nirguna Brahman, the formless be realised.

Deities are that 'bridge' between the conscious and the super-conscious state. They are the distinction between what is known and what is unknown and they are the physical manifestation and representation of Brahman.

They are 'stepping stones', they are 'guides' and they are 'mediating forces'. Deities are also 'points of reference' for our conscious awareness to somehow even begin to focus on an abstract concept like Brahman.

Many get hung up on the fear or even misconception that once Brahman is realised, the deity becomes redundant. This is true up to a point. It is more correct to say that the deity becomes optional. Superfluous, maybe...but optional (i.e you can still choose to believe even after knowing).

Of course you realise it is all folly...all mithya, but only then can you really and fully appreciate and enjoy it.