Who is our True God? (Hinduism)

[Riverwolf]

I just read the entire Aditya Hridayam, and I have a question.

Since this hymn appears in the Ramayana, which is not a Vedic text, why is its authority higher than several other hymns from the same text, the Mahabharata, and Puranas that address other Gods as Supreme? Why is this hymn raised to the same level as Sruti, when it's Smriti?

 

[chinu]

Hiranyagarbha is the God of the Gods. He is the true God of the Hindus. The one who is REAL and exists independent of the mind. He is the Brahman that we all can see and become.

He is the owner of Yoga.

Who is the owner of this world and our bodies? Who owns it?
It is He, Hiranyagarbha. This world and this body belongs to him, take no pride for what you do.

To whom shall all the glory in the world belong?
It is He(Hiranyagarbha), the first-born Savithru.

Who is the destroyer of death and gives us immortality?
It is He(Hiranyagarbha), the master of Agnisoma Mandala.

Who is the one who stimulate our minds into the path of righteousness?
It is He(Hiranyagarbha), the Pushan.

He is the God of the Gods and none beside him.

The Original Teachings of Yoga: From Patanjali Back to Hiranyagarbha

Who taught us yoga? To whom does all forms of Yoga belong to?
It is He.

Toward a Unified Metaphysical Understanding: Hiranyagarbha

Hiranyagarbha - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Congratulations!

 

[Pleroma]

Wait, what? So, Savitur is called a son of Aditi, but is not a son of Aditi? He is called Aditya but is not Aditya?

If She is all that was born and all that shall be born, doesn't that, by extension, since Savitur is born, she is Savitur and more?

As Arjuna said, you seem to be saying contradictory things.

I am not saying contradictory things. The 33 Adithyas as described in the Yajurveda of Yajnavalkya are the sons of the Aditi. These sons and Aditi which is the feminine aspect exists in the agnisoma mandala itself and not outside of it. All these Adithyas and Aditi originated from Savithru himself. Therefore he is the main Father of the Pleroma from whom everything came and who pervades everything in this universe.

There are two foorms of Vedic worship. One is the Vishrutha form, i.e worshipping the each ray of the Agnisoma mandala individually and the Samasthi form i.e. worshipping all the rays of the Agnisoma mandala in a holistic form.

Contradictions only appear when you worship Vedas in the Vishrutha form and argue that each individual gods are greater and others as lesser but when you worship them in the Samasthi form as One whole form you will realize that each ray of that Agnisoma Mandala is a holistic form of Hiranyagarbha.

Hiranyagarbha exists in all these gods and yet they don't see him.

Forgive my ignorance of Sanskrit grammar, but that seems to be referring to an eternal secret, not a secret of Sanatana Dharma itself. Are all instances of the word "sanatana" in reference to Sanatana Dharma?

Sanatana means eternal. Sanatana Dharma means eternal divine law, this law belongs to all people of the world at all times, eternally. This what Hinduism teaches the world. That we all are One. This is the esoteric secret of Sanatana Dharma.

Where'd you get the idea that "He" is Hiranyagarbha, the Sun God?

Isha is Hiranyagarbha and he is the Sun God. I gave you links in my OP.

Then how come most Hindus don't know about Him? Wouldn't your definition reduce Hinduism from the status of major religion to a minority religion? In addition, what, then, would you call those who believe Vishnu, or Shiva, is higher than Surya?

That's why I earlier started a thread as Hindus Wake up!!. Most Hindus don't know about him because they never really study the scriptures deeply like the way Christians and the Jews do.

Only the people in the tradition knew about this. There are traditional scholars who think that everyone should know about this secret and Its not appropriate to say this publicly in a forum, these are sensitive issues even then I have said it because this knowledge belongs to the people of the world and not to anyone and everyone should know about it. I do know its implications.

The idea of Hinduism being more of an umbrella term for many religions (or "sub-religions", if you prefer) is something I've observed. Have you observed otherwise in the behavior and beliefs of Hindus?

They all look different from outside and from inside they all are One.

 

[Pleroma]

I just read the entire Aditya Hridayam, and I have a question.

I think you have read it from here-
Adityahridayam - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Since this hymn appears in the Ramayana, which is not a Vedic text, why is its authority higher than several other hymns from the same text, the Mahabharata, and Puranas that address other Gods as Supreme? Why is this hymn raised to the same level as Sruti, when it's Smriti?

Because Agasthya says its the old and ancient secret which existed prior to Ramayana. It will exist eternally.

 

[Riverwolf]

I am not saying contradictory things. The 33 Adithyas as described in the Yajurveda of Yajnavalkya are the sons of the Aditi. These sons and Aditi which is the feminine aspect exists in the agnisoma mandala itself and not outside of it. All these Adithyas and Aditi originated from Savithru himself. Therefore he is the main Father of the Pleroma from whom everything came and who pervades everything in this universe.

There are two foorms of Vedic worship. One is the Vishrutha form, i.e worshipping the each ray of the Agnisoma mandala individually and the Samasthi form i.e. worshipping all the rays of the Agnisoma mandala in a holistic form.

Contradictions only appear when you worship Vedas in the Vishrutha form and argue that each individual gods are greater and others as lesser but when you worship them in the Samasthi form as One whole form you will realize that each ray of that Agnisoma Mandala is a holistic form of Hiranyagarbha.

Hiranyagarbha exists in all these gods and yet they don't see him.

So, Hiranyagarbha is not an Aditya? So Aditi's Name is a misnomer, since She is bound within this mandala?

BTW, I tried doing a google search for "agnisoma mandala", just to try to see what it was, but all that was linked to was this thread, and one other website that looked like some New Age thing. Where did you get it?

Sanatana means eternal. Sanatana Dharma means eternal divine law, this law belongs to all people of the world at all times, eternally. This what Hinduism teaches the world. That we all are One. This is the esoteric secret of Sanatana Dharma.

...that doesn't answer my question.

That's why I earlier started a thread as Hindus Wake up!!. Most Hindus don't know about him because they never really study the scriptures deeply like the way Christians and the Jews do.

Only the people in the tradition knew about this. There are traditional scholars who think that everyone should know about this secret and Its not appropriate to say this publicly in a forum, these are sensitive issues even then I have said it because this knowledge belongs to the people of the world and not to anyone and everyone should know about it. I do know its implications.

They all look different from outside and from inside they all are One.

Wait, what?

So, you're part of some secret traditional school of Hinduism, thus being privy to secret information, and you feel like everyone should know those secrets? Is that what's going on?

 

[Riverwolf]

I think you have read it from here-
Adityahridayam - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Nope. I've got better sources than that.

Because Agasthya says its the old and ancient secret which existed prior to Ramayana. It will exist eternally.

So, it's old and secret because the text says so... still doesn't address the problem of the fact that the Ramayana is Smriti and not Sruti. Whoever wrote the Aditya Hridayam and/or inserted it into the Ramayana could have had Agastya say that to give an artificial boost to the authority of the hymn. How do you know this was not the case?

 

[Pleroma]

So, Hiranyagarbha is not an Aditya? So Aditi's Name is a misnomer, since She is bound within this mandala?

BTW, I tried doing a google search for "agnisoma mandala", just to try to see what it was, but all that was linked to was this thread, and one other website that looked like some New Age thing. Where did you get it?

There are things which Google can't find you. Traditional Scholars who are well versed in Vedas and in Mimamsa Shastras know what it is, its no mystery at all. Some ashrams reciting the Vedas and teaching it to young students would understand what it is. Its in the Vedas.

Wait, what?

So, you're part of some secret traditional school of Hinduism, thus being privy to secret information, and you feel like everyone should know those secrets? Is that what's going on?

Its not so secret as to no one doesn't know about it. Everyone knows about Gayatri Mantra and every Brahmin practices sandhya vandhane daily. What they do is they worship the Sun God. The problem in Hinduism is, in the past it was these Brahmins who knew about this but as Dharma declined true Brahmins, the Head part of our society got knocked out as Sri Prabhupada of the ISKCON says. Most of them are jati Brahmins with no knowledge of Brahman and its being worshipped here and there.

This is the truth about Hinduism, we are basically Sun Worshippers and anyone who has studied the Gayatri knows it, this is no new age thinking, this is reality.

 

[Pleroma]

So, it's old and secret because the text says so... still doesn't address the problem of the fact that the Ramayana is Smriti and not Sruti. Whoever wrote the Aditya Hridayam and/or inserted it into the Ramayana could have had Agastya say that to give an artificial boost to the authority of the hymn. How do you know this was not the case?

Smriti means that's which is written.

Sruti means that's which is secretly passed on to the pupil by the master by whispering it in his ears.

Just because Sruti was not written that doesn't mean that it didn't existed in prior. Adithya Hridayam is not the only source that I gave you to support my claim, its in the Rig Veda and its in the Isha Upanishad and in other Upanishads. Whatever it is Upanishads is the end of Vedas and its interpretation should be in accordance with the Vedas and not by completely discarding it and relying only on the Upanishads. Both Purva Mimamsa and Uttara Mimamsa are important.

 

[Riverwolf]

There are things which Google can't find you. Traditional Scholars who are well versed in Vedas and in Mimamsa Shastras know what it is, its no mystery at all. Some ashrams reciting the Vedas and teaching it to young students would understand what it is. Its in the Vedas.

If it's in the Vedas, there ought to be mention of it in one of the translations, two of which are readily available on the internet. Yet it is not. Which hymn is it in? Or Upanishad? Or Brahmana or Aranyaka?

And again, so Aditi is not aditi at all?

Its not so secret as to no one doesn't know about it. Everyone knows about Gayatri Mantra and every Brahmin practices sandhya vandhane daily. What they do is they worship the Sun God. The problem in Hinduism is, in the past it was these Brahmins who knew about this but as Dharma declined true Brahmins, the Head part of our society got knocked out as Sri Prabhupada of the ISKCON says. Most of them are jati Brahmins with no knowledge of Brahman and its being worshipped here and there.

This is the truth about Hinduism, we are basically Sun Worshippers and anyone who has studied the Gayatri knows it, this is no new age thinking, this is reality.

I don't consider this new age thinking; I might classify what you're describing as yet another sub-religion, alongside Vaishnavism, Shavism, etc. It's probably as old as those two, as well.

But to call it the only true way, thus stating indirectly that all other forms of Hinduism are false, is no different than ISKCON people calling Krishna-worship the only true way to liberation, or Christians calling their religion the only way to God, and other such ways of thinking.

Smriti means that's which is written.

...no, it means that which is remembered.

Sruti means that's which is secretly passed on to the pupil by the master by whispering it in his ears.

"That which is heard." Such a word can easily mean not whispered, but simply something not to be written down, or forgotten, or tampered with.

The European equivalent to the Brahmins, the Druids, also had their own equivalent to the Vedas. The problem is that they, too, did not write them down, and as a result... well...

Just because Sruti was not written that doesn't mean that it didn't existed in prior. Adithya Hridayam is not the only source that I gave you to support my claim, its in the Rig Veda and its in the Isha Upanishad and in other Upanishads. Whatever it is Upanishads is the end of Vedas and its interpretation should be in accordance with the Vedas and not by completely discarding it and relying only on the Upanishads. Both Purva Mimamsa and Uttara Mimamsa are important.

What do those mean? I'm not familiar with the Mimamsa philosophy.

 

[Shuddhasattva]

Uttara Mimamsa = Vedanta.

(Purva) Mimamsa is basically a take on the vedas based more on the Brahmanas than the Upanishads, it is heavily ritiualized and exoteric in the main, and considers the deities to have not existence outside of the mantras, memorization and recitation of which in shrauta is emphasized.

From what I can tell, pleroma's beliefs seem to be a blend of neo-vedic revivalism (possibly arya-samaj?), mimamsa and advaita. An odd combination - I don't say this dismissively, but I am puzzled by it.

Interestingly, this terminology is reflected in the classification of shakta amnayas (gates of the dharma, ie sampradaya), which include out of the 4 original (correlated to cardinal directions) purvamnaya and uttaramnaya.

 

[Riverwolf]

Uttara Mimamsa = Vedanta.

(Purva) Mimamsa is basically a take on the vedas based more on the Brahmanas than the Upanishads, it is heavily ritiualized and exoteric in the main, and considers the deities to have not existence outside of the mantras, memorization and recitation of which in shrauta is emphasized.

From what I can tell, pleroma's beliefs seem to be a blend of neo-vedic revivalism (possibly arya-samaj?), mimamsa and advaita. An odd combination - I don't say this dismissively, but I am puzzled by it.

Interestingly, this terminology is reflected in the classification of shakta amnayas (gates of the dharma, ie sampradaya), which include out of the 4 original (correlated to cardinal directions) purvamnaya and uttaramnaya.

Ah. Thanks.

Knowing that, I already agree: the Karma Kanda and Jnana Kanda are equally important in studying the Vedas.

The problem is that the Vedas never extol one God over another, not even Surya. While I'm sure Surya-worship was very common during Vedic times (Sun-worship is probably one of, if not the, oldest form of religion), the Rig Veda is primarily focused on Indra, Agni, and Soma. What that tells me is that, during the centuries while the Rig Veda was being compiled, those three Gods were worshiped most frequently. (I could be wrong; that's an educated guess.)

 

[ratikala]

Isha is Hiranyagarbha and he is the Sun God. I gave you links in my OP.

what then do you make of the bhagavad gita ch 4 ...v 1

lord krsna said , I instructed this imperishable science of yoga to the sungod ........

That's why I earlier started a thread as Hindus Wake up!!. Most Hindus don't know about him because they never really study the scriptures deeply like the way Christians and the Jews do.

I beg your pardon !!!what exactly do you mean by this ?

 

[Pleroma]

If it's in the Vedas, there ought to be mention of it in one of the translations, two of which are readily available on the internet. Yet it is not. Which hymn is it in? Or Upanishad? Or Brahmana or Aranyaka?

Vedas declare "Surya atma jagataha tasthushascha" meaning the Sun God(Surya) is the very soul (atma) of both sthavara and jangama (the immobile and the mobile) beings.

Veda says "Agnishomatma Kamidam Jagat" meaning the entire jagat(World) is suffused with Agni and Soma. Agni can be called the Purusha, the masculine aspect and Soma can be called the Prakrithi. The master of purusha and prakrithi is Savithru Deva. Our true God.

Its in the Vedas, its in the Upanishads, its in Adithya Hridyam.

And again, so Aditi is not aditi at all?

I told you don't take it too literally, I never said Aditi is not aditi at all. I said even Aditi is a part of this pleroma and not something beyond it so as to think she is the mother of all, Yes she is the mother of all the Adithyas and represent the female aspects of Veda Purusha but not the master of Agnishoma mandala itself if that's the case then that would be contradictory to the Veda verses which I have given above.

I don't consider this new age thinking; I might classify what you're describing as yet another sub-religion, alongside Vaishnavism, Shavism, etc. It's probably as old as those two, as well.

But to call it the only true way, thus stating indirectly that all other forms of Hinduism are false, is no different than ISKCON people calling Krishna-worship the only true way to liberation, or Christians calling their religion the only way to God, and other such ways of thinking.

Hiranyagarbha is the soul of Vedas and the Upanishads, its in the Vedas and the Upanishads, this is not based on ordinary human thinking, it is based on esoteric knowledge.

All other forms of Hinduism are not false, I didn't said that. What they don't realize is that it is Hiranyagrabha who exists in them and yet they don't see it. He is Brahma, He is Vishnu, He is Shiva. I am not declaring other forms of Hinduism as false. I am saying all forms of Hinduism are One and it all leads to Hiranyagarbha. Its time to fix our preconceived notions and beliefs.

Not accepting this means one is not accepting the message of Vedas and the Upanishads. Now if you don't accept the Vedas and the Upanishads which is the highest form of authority why do you(in general) call yourself as Hindu in the first place.

What do those mean? I'm not familiar with the Mimamsa philosophy.

Mimamsa has huge resources and it is well studied. You can find information about it.

 

[Pleroma]

what then do you make of the bhagavad gita ch 4 ...v 1

lord krsna said , I instructed this imperishable science of yoga to the sungod ........

Krishna appeared to us in his human form. How do you know what he was before that?

“Chchaaya Samjna Sametha Sri SuryaNarayanaSwamine Namaha, Aum Namo Naaraayanaaya, Swamin Praseeda Praseeda”.

How do you think Ramanujacharya interpreted the Isha Upanishad?

Hum Shri Surya Narayanaye Namaha.

Sun is our true God.

I beg your pardon !!!what exactly do you mean by this ?

Do you think just by doing idol worship in the temples we can achieve liberation. Knowledge is the key and that requires a deep study of the methodology of the Vedas.

 

[Riverwolf]

Vedas declare "Surya atma jagataha tasthushascha" meaning the Sun God(Surya) is the very soul (atma) of both sthavara and jangama (the immobile and the mobile) beings.

Veda says "Agnishomatma Kamidam Jagat" meaning the entire jagat(World) is suffused with Agni and Soma. Agni can be called the Purusha, the masculine aspect and Soma can be called the Prakrithi. The master of purusha and prakrithi is Savithru Deva. Our true God.

Its in the Vedas, its in the Upanishads, its in Adithya Hridyam.

The Vedas frequently extol various Gods over each other; each in turn being Supreme. Surya is no different.

Soma is the ancient drink that was sacrificed and consumed by priests and warriors. This is a fact accepted by scholars. Soma is also called "God of Gods" in the Vedas, so someone considered Soma Supreme to all others.

I told you don't take it too literally, I never said Aditi is not aditi at all. I said even Aditi is a part of this pleroma and not something beyond it so has to think she is the mother of all, Yes she is the mother of all the Adithyas and represent the female aspects of Veda Purusha but not the master of Agnishoma mandala itself if that's the case then that would be contradictory to the Veda verses which I have given above.

But Surya is frequently referred to as an Aditya. Therefore, born of Aditi, the not-bound. Boundless. That means Aditi is not part of anything. It's right there in Her Name.

Hiranyagarbha is the soul of Vedas and the Upanishads, its in the Vedas and the Upanishads, this is not based on ordinary human thinking, it is based on esoteric knowledge.

...which can only be arrived at by human thinking. We can't think in any other way except for human thinking, because we're human beings.

All other forms of Hinduism are not false, I didn't said that.

Indirectly, you did.

What they don't realize is that it is Hiranyagrabha who exists in them and yet they don't see it. He is Brahma, He is Vishnu, He is Shiva. I am not declaring other forms of Hinduism as false. I am saying all forms of Hinduism are One and it all leads to Hiranyagarbha. Its time to fix our preconceived notions and beliefs.

But if they're not false, then they're not broken, and therefore don't need fixing.

Not accepting this means one is not accepting the message of Vedas and the Upanishads. Now if you don't accept the Vedas and the Upanishads which is the highest form of authority why do you(in general) call yourself as Hindu in the first place.

No True Scotsman informal logical fallacy.

I accept the Vedas as the ultimate spiritual authority... and that the Vedas transcend even the hymns, rituals, and discourses which bear that name. Words are just words, easily corruptible through simple linguistic evolution. The heart of the Vedas extols not any one God, but all Gods as One. Worship any God, and that God is Supreme. If Shiva is Hiranyagarbha, then worshiping Shiva is no different than worshiping Hiranyagarbha; in other words, Hiranyagarbha simply becomes another epitaph of Shiva. (Which, BTW, it is in Shiva Sahasranama).

Ultimately, there is only the Potential (Brahman, what I call Siva) and Manifest (Prakriti, what I call Kali).

 

[Vinayaka]

Do you think just by doing idol worship in the temples we can achieve liberation. Knowledge is the key and that requires a deep study of the methodology of the Vedas.

Just where did you hear we worship idols? We don't. Where does knowledge come from. Where did the recorders of the Vedas get their knowledge? By reading the Vedas?

 

[Pleroma]

The Vedas frequently extol various Gods over each other; each in turn being Supreme. Surya is no different.

The truth is in the Adithya Hridyam, the eternal esoteric secret of Sanatana Dharma.

Eshhah brahmaa cha vishhnushcha shivah skandah prajaapati. Mahendro dhanadah kaalo yamah somo hyapaam pati. 8

He is Brahma, Vishnu, Shiva, Skanda, Prajapati. He is also Mahendra, kubera, kala, yama, soma and varuna.

He is all our true God. From the traditional point of view there is no contradiction with the Vedas and the Adithya Hridhyam.

This is the truth.

Soma is the ancient drink that was sacrificed and consumed by priests and warriors. This is a fact accepted by scholars. Soma is also called "God of Gods" in the Vedas, so someone considered Soma Supreme to all others.

That's the difference between the traditional scholars and western scholars outside the tradition. Soma is a god of the pleroma, a ray of Savithru mandala.

If western scholars wants to study the Vedas study it in its own milieu and not by misrepresenting it. Yes it belongs to the people of the world but if you people misrepresent things in the tradition we will not tolerate it.

But Surya is frequently referred to as an Aditya. Therefore, born of Aditi, the not-bound. Boundless. That means Aditi is not part of anything. It's right there in Her Name.

Just mere linguistics is not enough to understand the Vedas and hence therefore we don't have a common ground for our arguments. I told you I am coming from the numinous metaphysical thinking and not your linguistic way of understanding the Vedas.

You guys will never understand it if you study it only from a linguistic perspective, that's why no one takes the Vedas seriously and no one knows the true wisdom hidden in it.

...which can only be arrived at by human thinking. We can't think in any other way except for human thinking, because we're human beings.

You have presumed that Humans are not divine, We are divine, Upanishads say we can know the truth, we all are Brahman. Revelations gives you esoteric knowledge something which scholars outside the tradition do not have and hence they do not understand the Vedas completely.

Indirectly, you did.

That's your opinion. To which god of Hindu I have shown disrespect. The traditional scholars have revived Hinduism to a much firmer ground.

But if they're not false, then they're not broken, and therefore don't need fixing.

Fixing means adding knowledge and making it more coherent and not dividing it like you are trying to do. We all are One.

No True Scotsman informal logical fallacy.

I accept the Vedas as the ultimate spiritual authority... and that the Vedas transcend even the hymns, rituals, and discourses which bear that name. Words are just words, easily corruptible through simple linguistic evolution. The heart of the Vedas extols not any one God, but all Gods as One. Worship any God, and that God is Supreme. If Shiva is Hiranyagarbha, then worshiping Shiva is no different than worshiping Hiranyagarbha; in other words, Hiranyagarbha simply becomes another epitaph of Shiva. (Which, BTW, it is in Shiva Sahasranama).

Ultimately, there is only the Potential (Brahman, what I call Siva) and Manifest (Prakriti, what I call Kali).

Anyone cannot talk about Brahman like that. We have methods to falsify and see the gods of the Vedas with our own epistemological approaches. This is the kind of misinformation and disorganisation that has creeped into hinduism and no one takes it seriously. Its time to fix it. Our claims should be based on tradition and not on our own individual opinions.

 

[Shuddhasattva]

Pleroma, I find your approach arrogant and ignorant.

 

[Pleroma]

Just where did you hear we worship idols? We don't. Where does knowledge come from. Where did the recorders of the Vedas get their knowledge? By reading the Vedas?

You might know that but what about the common man. What efforts have we made to raise ourselves and others into the divine.

Where is the Yajnavalkya of the 21st century?

 

[Pleroma]

Pleroma, I find your approach arrogant and ignorant.

That's your personal incredulity.