Who is our True God? (Hinduism)

[Vinayaka]

good evening prabhu ji

a favorite subject , ... the difference between aquired knowledge and experiencial knowledge

Ahh , yes, but old souls like you help so much.

I have much to ponder:

1) Is the swami a swami, or just a scholar in robes?
2) What does it take to say, "I don't know." Is it all that hard?
3) Without a mystical experience, is it really possible to view it any other way than from the intellect?
4) Are the expectations too high some days?

 

[Skeptisch]

Without a mystical experience, is it really possible to view it any other way than from the intellect?

“Mysticism is a rational enterprise. Religion is not. The mystic has recognized something about the nature of consciousness prior to thought, and this recognition is susceptible to rational discussion. The mystic has reasons for what he believes, and these reasons are empirical. The roiling mystery of the world can be analyzed with concepts (this is science), or it can be experienced free of concepts (this is myticism). Religion is nothing more than bad concepts held in place of good ones for all time. It is the denial--at once full of hope and full of fear--of the vastitude of human ignorance.”
Sam Harris

 

[Wannabe Yogi]

“Mysticism is a rational enterprise. Religion is not. The mystic has recognized something about the nature of consciousness prior to thought, and this recognition is susceptible to rational discussion. The mystic has reasons for what he believes, and these reasons are empirical. The roiling mystery of the world can be analyzed with concepts (this is science), or it can be experienced free of concepts (this is myticism). Religion is nothing more than bad concepts held in place of good ones for all time. It is the denial--at once full of hope and full of fear--of the vastitude of human ignorance.”
Sam Harris

Nice quote. Leads me to believe that differences between an Atheist like Harris and a Monist like my self is less then many on the religious divide would like to believe.

 

[Vinayaka]

“Mysticism is a rational enterprise.

Sure thing. I don't come to argue. :yes: Nice to have differing views. I don't know who Sam Harris is, so what can I say? You believe him?

 

[Pleroma]

If it's not the Sun, which is the only thing the word can refer to except metaphorically, why is Hiranyagarbha called a "Sun God"?

It is one of the words used to describe the Sun God. Hiranyagarbha means having a golden womb. Who has a golden womb? Yes, it is the Sun God. That's what he should be called and that's what he is and that's what he is being called from millennia. Why do I have to change it just because you have got your own personal problems with it? Sun God is our True God.

...no, the word "Nirguna" means without or beyond the gunas. The physical world (as in, this world that operates under the laws of physics) is the manifested gunas, and so anything beyond them cannot be physical.

The physical world operating under the laws of physics is an illusion, only the physical Sun God exists and nothing exists apart from it. To understand all this you need to do research on mandalas and please read that before making any arguments.

 

[Pleroma]

dear pleroma ,

it is not difficult, personaly I feel no need to address hiranyagharbha other than how I have been taught it .

Surya is Narayana.

shuddhasattva has fortunately corrected you here , ahamkara , the false sence of ego or strong identification with the self is what I was refering to ......

I have addressed his post with a verse from Bhagvad Gita chapter 13 verse 30, I think you missed that. It is the Lord who is doing everything, we don't have free will, lord or parmathma is the one who is behind the intellect and stimulating our thoughts. Only the unwise think that it is they who are doing everything instead of seeing the god residing in them.

 

[Wannabe Yogi]

Surya is Narayana.

Is that in the Vedas ?

 

[Vrindavana Das]

It is the Lord who is doing everything, we don't have free will, lord or parmathma is the one who is behind the intellect and stimulating our thoughts. Only the unwise think that it is they who are doing everything instead of seeing the god residing in them.

That, my friend, I politely disagree with. We all have a free-will. Supreme Lord does not interfere with our free-will.

I quote the Bhagvad Gītā. After explaining the whole of Bhagvad Gītā, Lord Kṛṣṇa left the freedom to exercise his will, to Arjuna, in the following verse:

iti te jñānam ākhyātaḿ
guhyād guhyataraḿ mayā
vimṛśyaitad aśeṣeṇa
yathecchasi tathā kuru​

Thus I have explained to you knowledge still more confidential. Deliberate on this fully, and then do what you wish to do. [B.G. 18.63]

 

[Riverwolf]

It is one of the words used to describe the Sun God. Hiranyagarbha means having a golden womb. Who has a golden womb? Yes, it is the Sun God. That's what he should be called and that's what he is and that's what he is being called from millennia. Why do I have to change it just because you have got your own personal problems with it? Sun God is our True God.

My problem is with the fact that the English word "Sun" has not been applied to the English word "God" for millenia; only for about half a millenium at most, since the word "sun" itself is no older than Middle English. (In Old English it was "sonne.")

The term "Sun God" means "God of the Sun" or "God who is the Sun" or something along those lines. The English word "Sun" only refers to our own Sun, or sometimes other stars, except metaphorically.

If the Sanskrit word is different, having multiple meanings, then fine. Use that instead, because that's the one that's been in use for millenia. Modern English is only about 400 to 500 years old. Sanskrit is thousands of years old.

The physical world operating under the laws of physics is an illusion, only the physical Sun God exists and nothing exists apart from it. To understand all this you need to do research on mandalas and please read that before making any arguments.

I will make my arguments based on what I know right now. That does not mean I will not research mandalas, but that doesn't change the fact that if you're going to describe Hiranyagarbha as "physical", then that literally means "of physics", as in, operating under the laws of physics. If Hiranyagarbha does not operate under the laws of physics, then He is not physical. None of the Gods are physical, since they do not operate under the laws of physics. If they did, then technology would have been able to detect them by now.

At this point, it's not your concepts that I'm arguing; it's your choice of words.

...BTW, when you say "mandala" are you referring to Yantras?

 

[Pleroma]

Is that in the Vedas ?

Its in the Mandala Brahmana.

Mandala Brahmana Upanishad - Translation

Look, we are basically Sun Worshippers and I don't know why is that so hard to accept that fact, there is far more truth in the esoteric Vedas and the Upanishads than in the exoteric religion of Hinduism.

 

[Pleroma]

That, my friend, I politely disagree with. We all have a free-will. Supreme Lord does not interfere with our free-will.

I quote the Bhagvad Gītā. After explaining the whole of Bhagvad Gītā, Lord Kṛṣṇa left the freedom to exercise his will, to Arjuna, in the following verse:

iti te jñānam ākhyātaḿ
guhyād guhyataraḿ mayā
vimṛśyaitad aśeṣeṇa
yathecchasi tathā kuru​

Thus I have explained to you knowledge still more confidential. Deliberate on this fully, and then do what you wish to do. [B.G. 18.63]

Bhagvad Gita, chapter 13, verse 30.

TEXT 30

prakrtyaiva ca karmani
kriyamanani sarvasah
yah pasyati tathatmanam
akartaram sa pasyati

SYNONYMS

prakrtya--by material nature; eva--certainly; ca--also; karmani--activities; kriyamanani--engaged in performing; sarvasah--in all respects; yah--anyone who; pasyati--sees; tatha--also; atmanam--himself; akartaram--non-doer; sah--he; pasyati--sees perfectly.

TRANSLATION

One who can see that all activities are performed by the body, which is created of material nature, and sees that the self does nothing, actually sees.

PURPORT

This body is made by material nature under the direction of the Supersoul, and whatever activities are going on in respect to one's body are not his doing. Whatever one is supposed to do, either for happiness or for distress, one is forced to do because of the bodily constitution. The self, however, is outside all these bodily activities. This body is given according to one's past desires. To fulfill desires, one is given the body, with which he acts accordingly. Practically speaking, the body is a machine, designed by the Supreme Lord, to fulfill desires. Because of desires, one is put into difficult circumstances to suffer or to enjoy. This transcendental vision of the living entity, when developed, makes one separate from bodily activities. One who has such a vision is an actual seer.

This might be enlightening for you. We don't have free will. Whatever is going to happen is going to happen.

 

[Pleroma]

My problem is with the fact that the English word "Sun" has not been applied to the English word "God" for millenia; only for about half a millenium at most, since the word "sun" itself is no older than Middle English. (In Old English it was "sonne.")

The term "Sun God" means "God of the Sun" or "God who is the Sun" or something along those lines. The English word "Sun" only refers to our own Sun, or sometimes other stars, except metaphorically.

If the Sanskrit word is different, having multiple meanings, then fine. Use that instead, because that's the one that's been in use for millenia. Modern English is only about 400 to 500 years old. Sanskrit is thousands of years old.

Our True God is the Sun God residing in us not a star of any galaxy. Okay.

I will make my arguments based on what I know right now. That does not mean I will not research mandalas, but that doesn't change the fact that if you're going to describe Hiranyagarbha as "physical", then that literally means "of physics", as in, operating under the laws of physics. If Hiranyagarbha does not operate under the laws of physics, then He is not physical. None of the Gods are physical, since they do not operate under the laws of physics. If they did, then technology would have been able to detect them by now.

At this point, it's not your concepts that I'm arguing; it's your choice of words.

Its not that we who have to change the words its you who has to change it, the things of physics can be called as empirical not physical because they don't exist out there in the physical world. This is philosophy, only the Sun God exists out there in the physical world and hence it is called as the physical Sun God. That's what the Vedas and the Upanishads says and if you got problems with it you can open an another thread. This is tradition, not the place to question its truthfulness.

 

[ratikala]

dear vinayaka ji

Ahh , yes, but old souls like you help so much.

I have much to ponder:

we all , my freind , we all !

1) Is the swami a swami, or just a scholar in robes?

before taking instructions , this we should deffinately ask !

2) What does it take to say, "I don't know." Is it all that hard?

realising that one does not know is prehaps ones first mistical experience
again untill the experience is our own in truth we do not know , in that we canot truely relate to it , it is not our own vocabulary to express .

3) Without a mystical experience, is it really possible to view it any other way than from the intellect?

the interlect takes us to the point of surrender from then on (if it is true surrender)it is all mistical experience

4) Are the expectations too high some days?

ah ha ..that is the interlect supposing thst he knows how it will be !



p.s. ... sorry I do not know who sam harris is either , ....

 

[Riverwolf]

Our True God is the Sun God residing in us not a star of any galaxy. Okay.

If it's not a star, it's not a sun, except metaphorically.

Its not that we who have to change the words its you who has to change it, the things of physics can be called as empirical not physical because they don't exist out there in the physical world. This is philosophy,

No, that is not. I'm sorry I have to be so blunt, but that statement makes no sense, due to lack of punctuation and proper conjugation. Slow down.

only the Sun God exists out there in the physical world and hence it is called as the physical Sun God. That's what the Vedas and the Upanishads says and if you got problems with it you can open an another thread. This is tradition, not the place to question its truthfulness.

This is the subject of your thread. All statements must be questioned if we are to finally arrive at the Truth, regardless of its source.

The Vedas say many things. As you yourself have admitted to being a novice, who are you to be making such bold statements about what's in the Vedas and making rash assumptions about those who question your argument?

 

[ratikala]

“Mysticism is a rational enterprise. Religion is not. The mystic has recognized something about the nature of consciousness prior to thought, and this recognition is susceptible to rational discussion. The mystic has reasons for what he believes, and these reasons are empirical. The roiling mystery of the world can be analyzed with concepts (this is science), or it can be experienced free of concepts (this is myticism). Religion is nothing more than bad concepts held in place of good ones for all time. It is the denial--at once full of hope and full of fear--of the vastitude of human ignorance.”
Sam Harris

ha ha hooray for wickipedia ......

Jump to: navigation, search
Sam Harris
Harris pictured c. 2007 Born 1967 (age 44–45)
United States Occupation Author Nationality United States Alma mater Stanford University, UCLA Genres Non-fiction Subjects Religion, philosophy, neuroscience Notable work(s)

• The End of Faith
• Letter to a Christian Nation
• The Moral Landscape

Notable award(s) PEN/Martha Albrand Award Spouse(s) Annaka Harris (m. 2004)

Influences[show]​

[www.samharris.org www.samharris.org] Sam Harris, Ph.D. (born 1967) is an American author, public intellectual, and neuroscientist, as well as the co-founder and CEO of Project Reason.[1] He is the author of The End of Faith, which was published in 2004 and appeared on The New York Times best seller list for 33 weeks. The book also won the PEN/Martha Albrand Award for First Nonfiction in 2005.[2] In 2006 Harris published his book Letter to a Christian Nation, a response to criticism of The End of Faith. This work was followed by The Moral Landscape published in 2010, his long-form essay Lying in 2011 and the short book Free Will in 2012.
Harris is a well-known contemporary critic of religion and proponent of scientific skepticism and the "New Atheism."[3] He is also an advocate for the separation of church and state, freedom of religion, and the liberty to criticize religion.[4] Harris has written numerous articles for the Huffington Post, Los Angeles Times, Washington Post, New York Times, Newsweek, and the journal Nature. His articles touch upon a diversity of topics, including religion, morality, neuroscience, free will, and terrorism.[5]

end of faith !!!! ... I dont think mr harris understands what faith is !


yet he likes to talk a lot .....

Religion as failed science

Harris postulates that religion is essentially a failed science. He states that "religion was the discourse we had when all causes in the universe were opaque" such that religion developed as a consequence of humans' "cognitive imperative" to seek explanations coupled with an earlier obliviousness to the natural order of the environment.

failed science , ..... ? the original science !!!





enough said about mr harris !

 

[ratikala]

iti te jñānam ākhyātaḿ
guhyād guhyataraḿ mayā
vimṛśyaitad aśeṣeṇa
yathecchasi tathā kuru​

Thus I have explained to you knowledge still more confidential. Deliberate on this fully, and then do what you wish to do. [B.G. 18.63]

jai jai !

 

[nameless]

end of faith !!!! ... I dont think mr harris understands what faith is !

yet he likes to talk a lot .....

to him faith actually means abrahamic faiths, those 'faiths' which are solely based on faiths are troublemakers in the world, i think he is spot on that.

Sam harris is a different kind of atheist, he does meditation, admires buddha, and dont consider buddhism to be a faith/religion.
World badly needs people like him

 

[Vrindavana Das]

Bhagvad Gita, chapter 13, verse 30.



This might be enlightening for you. We don't have free will. Whatever is going to happen is going to happen.

You are confusing two different things.

One who can see that all activities are performed by the body, which is created of material nature, and sees that the self does nothing, actually sees.

This means that the soul is not the doer. The activities are performed by the material body, made up of material nature.

Meaning, the body, made up of material energy - 5 elements, mind, ego & intelligence, carries out all activities ...not the soul, which is transcendental. This does not mean that soul does not have a free-will. Soul has a free-will, because of which it makes choices. If soul did not make choice, there is no meaning to the theory of Karma. No meaning to heaven (reward for right things) and hell (punishment for wrong things). There is no meaning to the ability of Bhishma Pitamah to give up his body by free-will of choosing when he wants to die...

I further quote:

ye yathā māḿ prapadyante
tāḿs tathaiva bhajāmy aham
mama vartmānuvartante
manuṣyāḥ pārtha sarvaśaḥ​

As all surrender unto Me, I reward them accordingly. Everyone follows My path in all respects, O son of Pṛthā. [B.G. 4.11]

Kṛṣṇa makes this clear: "As they approach Me, I reciprocate with them." Thus it is up to the devotee to choose to serve the Lord out of his own free will.

 

[Pleroma]

If it's not a star, it's not a sun, except metaphorically.

Om Hraam ‘Udhyannadhyamitramahaha’ Mitraya Namaha (Mitra - friend)

Om Hreem ‘Aarohannuththaraamdivamm’ Ravaye Namaha (Ravi - radiance)

Om Hruum ‘Hridrogam mama surya’ Suryaya Namaha (Surya – dispeller of darkness)

Om Hraim ‘Harimaanam cha naashaya’ Bhanave Namaha (Bhanu – Shining with luster)

Om Hroum ‘Shukeshu May Harimaanamm’ Khagaya Namaha (Khaga – all
pervading)

Om Hraha ‘Ropanaakaasu dhadhmasi’ Pooshne Namaha (Pushan – mystic
fire which gives)

Om Hraam ‘Atho Haaridraveshu May’ Hiranyagarbhaya Namaha
(hiranyagarbha – golden colored)

Om Hreem ‘Harimaanannidhadhmasi’ Marichaye Namaha (Marichi – Ray of light)

Om Hruum ‘Udagaadhayamaadithyah’ Adityaya Namaha (Aditya – Sun,
aspect of Vishnu, Son of Aditi)

Om Hraim ‘Vishwena Sahasaa Saha’ Savitre Namaha (Savitru – Light of
enlightenment)

Om Hroum ‘Dwishantham Mama Randhayann’ Arkaya Namaha (Arkah – a ray of light, a flash of lightning, Sun)

Om Hraha ‘Mo Aham dwishatho Rattham’ Bhaskaraya Namaha (Bhaskara –
Shining Light)

Hiranyagarbha is being called as the Sun God from millennia. Can you see how silly your argument is? I have been patient and tolerant with you. Please don't test my patience.

No, that is not. I'm sorry I have to be so blunt, but that statement makes no sense, due to lack of punctuation and proper conjugation. Slow down.

This is the subject of your thread. All statements must be questioned if we are to finally arrive at the Truth, regardless of its source.

The Vedas say many things. As you yourself have admitted to being a novice, who are you to be making such bold statements about what's in the Vedas and making rash assumptions about those who question your argument?

I'm sorry too, I have to be blunt, your knowledge seems outdated, time to learn something, your physical objects don't exist out there.

Bernard d'Espagnat: What we call 'reality' is just a state of mind | Science | guardian.co.uk

 

[Shântoham]

the difference between aquired knowledge and experiencial knowledge

Two things:

1) the difference between (acquired) knowledge and (experiential) knowledge? 2) Isn’t an experience in itself acquired?