• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Who is our True God? (Hinduism)

Pleroma

philalethist
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
 

Shuddhasattva

Well-Known Member
Who?

Do you take this to mean that the other names/forms of God as in Vedanta and the agamas are invalid? Howabot the other names/forms of the Vedas?
 

Riverwolf

Amateur Rambler / Proud Ergi
Premium Member
What about the other Supreme Gods in the Vedas? Aditi, Lord Varuna, Lord Indra, Purusha? What about Pritvimata and Dyauspita? Heck, even Soma is called "God of Gods" at one point, I'm pretty sure.

If Hiranyagarbha is the "first-born of Savithru", why isn't Savithru your "True God"? Heck, isn't it Savitur that the Gayatri Mantra is addressed to?
 

Shuddhasattva

Well-Known Member
That is the true beauty of the Vedas, thank you Riverwolf.

I will give Pleroma a chance to respond, and then I will highlight the meeting of Hiranyagarbha - why it is relevant, but not in such a way as it ought displace other gods. Such would lose the meaning of the Vedas entirely, as Riverwolf has pointed out so well.
 

Andal

resident hypnotist
One's true God is the god that resides in our hearts. It is the God that captivates our minds. It is the god in who's presence all other things melt away. For me my true God is Vishnu, for others it is Shva. For others Maa. For others it is wisdom and others Brahman

When you experience your true God it no longer matters if anyone else recognizes that god

If you want to talk in terms of scriptures, there are plenty of pronouncements of who is true god and it's always different

Aum Hari Aum
 

Pleroma

philalethist
What about the other Supreme Gods in the Vedas? Aditi, Lord Varuna, Lord Indra, Purusha? What about Pritvimata and Dyauspita? Heck, even Soma is called "God of Gods" at one point, I'm pretty sure.

The God of the pantheon of the Vedas is Hiranyagarbha. He is the master of Agnisoma mandala i.e. the pleroma of all gods. He is the God of the Gods or the pantheon and none beside him.


If Hiranyagarbha is the "first-born of Savithru", why isn't Savithru your "True God"? Heck, isn't it Savitur that the Gayatri Mantra is addressed to?


You have misquoted me.

I said "the first-born Savithru" and not "of Savithru" Do you see? Yes Gayatri Mantra is addressed to Savithru. You can call him Savithru, Pushan, Mithra, Aditya, Surya, Arkha, Khaga and Hiranyagarbha. He is the Sun God. Our True God and we are Aryans not Hindus.
 

Pleroma

philalethist
Who?

Do you take this to mean that the other names/forms of God as in Vedanta and the agamas are invalid? Howabot the other names/forms of the Vedas?

All the gods in the Vedas exists in his pleroma, he is the master of the pleroma which means all gods are under him.

As for the agamas I never said that they are invalid, but I don't do idol worship, if you can show me the gods worshipped in our temples then I will accept them and for now I don't deny their existence either.
 

Shuddhasattva

Well-Known Member
The God of the pantheon of the Vedas is Hiranyagarbha. He is the master of Agnisoma mandala i.e. the pleroma of all gods. He is the God of the Gods or the pantheon and none beside him.
You have become attached to the henotheistic meaning rather than the monistic meaning of one of many of such passages in the Vedas, where this or that God is held up as the one without second, or source and abode of all the other gods, etc. etc.


Hiranyagarbha is important, but not for this reason - sufficient other concepts of God are well supplied in Hindu dharma. The importance lies in the meaning.

On the surface, Hiranyagarbha is the sheathes of cosmic manifestation, coming down from consciousness into the various levels (in a gross sense, the mahabhutas - the elements of akash, vayu, agni, jala & prithvi); mirroring in the brahmanda (universe, macro-cosm) the sheathes (koshas, which are subtle - sukshma, rather than gross - sthula) of the individual (pindanda - microcosm).

Morover, Hiranyagarbha generates and contains the lokas, both in the brahmanda (itself) and the pindanda (its individuated reflection).

Hiranyagarbha is the sum total of material manifestation and the conscious controller who pervades it, as well as being the seed of this potential, the bindu that is before the before, and ever present everywhere within the manifestation as the unifying point between purusha and prakriti.

This is important because here Hiranyagarbha is the key reference for uniting the inner and the outer through yoga.

There is also a more subtle dimension.

As I had earlier posted in the previous thread, though I don't think it was read:


1. Maya means "Not this." Ma = No, Non, Not. Ya = That.
2. Brahman is described, and self-inquired, in terms of "Neti, neti." Not this thought construct, not that material sensation, not the limited view. Mahamaya is Brahman, Para Mula Prakriti, Akula Kundalini; Shiva.
3. As you have spoken of the Hiranyagarbha as Ishvar, let us not forget that the bija / true name is Ka as in the sukta which I assume you've read many times. Who? Who? Who?
Who is Hiranyagarbha? This might be called the key of the hiranyagarbha sukta. Who? Who? Ka. Hiranyagarbha is Ka "Who." This expresses the ineffable mystery that correct perception of the manifest (vyakta) reality causes awareness of. Moreover, Ka expresses why and how the Hiranyagarbha - the universe and its denizens, came into being - through desire, Kāma.

Ka is Kameshvara/Kameshvari, Ishwar in the form of Desire / Desire's control.

It expands into Kliṃ. Ka + La + I + M + Anusvara/(Bindu). This bija has immense significance in all agamic traditions; that is, traditions which uphold the varnamala, including vaishnava-sahajiya.

The gross meaning, as relevant to Hiranyagarbha, is:

Ka = Earth
La = Water
I = Fire
M = Air
Half Syllabic M (containing subtly the Bindu) = Akash
Bindu = Mahat


There are also more subtle meanings.

Klim contracts to "Im," the gupta mahasarasvata bija - samarasa, the unity of Shiva & Shakti, unmodified by particular emphasis falling on qualities, ie:

Klim
Krim
Hrim
Shrim


For a more complete understanding of the Hiranyagarbha, one must also understand Purusha, in whom all gods (mantras; sarvamantramayi) reside as the being-that-is-the-universe. The cosmic form, of which we are the microcosm.

All yogas are related to the Hiranyagarbha as they involve piercing the sheathe of gross elements in bhuta-shuddhi (and unifying the inner and the outer), dissolving with phenomenal manifestation into the universal Self, that which is the core of awareness in all subjects and objects, to realize the innate state.

It is good to know our Vedas, but partial knowledge born from partial understanding is disruptive and blinding. It is bondage of a second ignorance.
 
Last edited:

Pleroma

philalethist
It is good to know our Vedas, but partial knowledge born from partial understanding is disruptive and blinding. It is bondage of a second ignorance.

I don't disagree with much of what you have said. If you worship only the manifested then you will go to a deeper darkness. I didn't said that we should worship only the manifested, we should accept that Hiranyagarbha is the God of the Gods and that through something beyond any comprehension of thought once you see Hiranyagarbha you will become him. You will then realize that you are the one who is existing in these mandalas and giving the power to them.

In this way Advaita is upheld. This is the true Advaita, the true meaning of the Isha Upanishad. I don't worship Hiranyagarbha as separate from me but as the Brahman shining and giving power to Hiranyagarbha.

The main aim of this thread is to show that We can only reach up to the Hiranyagarbha through our intellect but not beyond that, there is no words to describe what's beyond that, this is why Yajnavalkya advices Gargi to not ask too much questions beyond that. Hiranyagarbha exists to guide us to know Brahman and not to take us away from Brahman and the truth.

Why do you have to worship Hiranyagarbha as separate from oneself, I and Hiranyagarbha are One.

This is what Yajnvalkya is praying to Hiranyagarbha in the 15th verse of the Isha Upanishad. Ayya Pushan reduce your intense rays so that I can see the truth and take the path of righteousness.

"Hum Hirenyena patrena sathya syapi itham mukham
Tattvan pushanya appavruno
Sathya Dharmaya Dhrustaye"

These are sensitive issues of Hinduism. We should talk with great care.
 
Last edited:

Shuddhasattva

Well-Known Member
That's because Hiranyagarbha is the Cosmic/Internal Sun, and represented in the buddhi-tattva. It is therefore confined to the intellect. This is why we have a triad of Ishvara (Moon), Hiranyagarbha (Sun) & Virat (Fire) to take us beyond the intellect.

Words exist certainly to describe the beyond. Hiranyagarbha exists at madhyamavak level, pashyanti vak, and para vak, are certainly capable of expressing at vaikhari level; though the map they lay out is not to be confused with the territory. That is to say 'the Tao that can be spoken of is not, in of itself, the Tao.' Yet it is not not the tao.

Let's turn to Dnyaneshwar's Amrtanubhav here:


  1. When my tongue says the word, “tongue,” Is there any difference between the
    Organ which utters the word
    And the object signified by that word?
  2. Although the Ganges and the ocean are different, When they commingle,
    Are their waters not the same?
  3. The Sun is both the source And the object of illumination; Still, it is only one.
  4. If moonlight illumines the moon,
    Or if a lamp is revealed by its own light, Is there any separation here?
...



However, the word,
So well known as a reminder, Cannot coexist with the Self.

In the case of the Self,
Which is self-luminous and without support, The word is absolutely useless.

There is nothing else besides the one Being. Therefore, It cannot be the object
Of remembering or forgetting.

Can one remember or forget oneself? Can the tongue taste itself?

...


  1. The Self does not seek himself; Neither does he conceal himself from
    himself.
    He merely retains a name To serve as a veil.


  1. Experience depends on the existence
    Of the experienced and the experiencer. When both of these vanish,
    Can the experience alone experience itself?
  2. Of what use are words When even the experience Dissolves itself in this way?
  3. How can words describe the supreme Reality Where even the subtlest speech itself disappears, And there is left no trace of sound?

Yet earlier, and throughout the poem, he is engaged in describing brahman. Why is that? Because we proceed from the intellect into purusha, in whom vakya and vacaka disappear.


I appreciate actually that you are taking the time to illuminate the importance of Hiranyagarbha in Vedic thought, but I feel there is danger of falling into a narrow cross-section of Vedic hymns and representing them as absolutely defining the Vedas in entirety. Many, many other arrangements of truth are presented in the Vedas, such is the purpose of constructing the mandalas in sequence through the order of richas.

The key thing with study of any part of the Vedas, including the Upanishad, is that they must be read as fully as possible, and taken in context, as they make complementary, paradoxical statements, rather than contradictory ones.

We don't need need to bash our heads out on holding up Hiranyagarbha as the "True God of Gods" as if the others named in the Vedas/Upanishads are not. And they are all named only in attributed form representing this or that aspect. Attribution is not to be confused with form (though conjugated as nama, ie namarupa). Intellectually, we can easily understand that God is beyond our capacity to conceive or attribute.

Brahman can be manifest in form without name, or unmanifest as name without form in the descent of Nada into physical manifestation (which generates the egg, who is really Brahmā, the created creator, Prajapati.),

I'll follow up post tomorrow on Vedic mysticism and its current representation in the Agamas, I need to sleep soon.
 
Last edited:

Riverwolf

Amateur Rambler / Proud Ergi
Premium Member
The God of the pantheon of the Vedas is Hiranyagarbha. He is the master of Agnisoma mandala i.e. the pleroma of all gods. He is the God of the Gods or the pantheon and none beside him.

Doesn't answer my question. You're just repeating your argument.

You have misquoted me.

I said "the first-born Savithru" and not "of Savithru" Do you see? Yes Gayatri Mantra is addressed to Savithru.
Ah, yes. My mistake.

Still doesn't answer who Satitur was first born of whom. Aditi?

You can call him Savithru, Pushan, Mithra, Aditya, Surya, Arkha, Khaga and Hiranyagarbha. He is the Sun God. Our True God and we are Aryans not Hindus.
...but we're not speaking an Aryan language. English is a Germanic language.

Nitpikcing aside, I've heard it said that the Sun is Lord Varuna's Eye during the day, while the moon and stars are His eyes at night. Lord Varuna's double is Mitra, who is the friend of mankind.

So then why is Lord Varuna not supreme to Hiranyagarbha? After all, he is also the Supreme God of the Avesta religion: Ahura Mazda.
 
Last edited:

Pleroma

philalethist
I'll follow up post tomorrow on Vedic mysticism and its current representation in the Agamas, I need to sleep soon.

Great! Have a nice day.

Why do you have to worship Hiranyagarbha as separate from oneself, I and Hiranyagarbha are One.

This is what Yajnvalkya is praying to Hiranyagarbha in the 15th verse of the Isha Upanishad. Ayya Pushan reduce your intense rays so that I can see the truth and take the path of righteousness.

"Hum Hirenyena patrena sathya syapi itham mukham
Tattvam pushanya appavruno
Sathya Dharmaya Dhrustaye"

(Isha Upanishad, Verse 15)

This is the very soul of my learning.

Its something which is supported by traditional scholars. I am just going in their line of thought, tradition is important.
 

Shuddhasattva

Well-Known Member
I've heard it said that the Sun is Lord Varuna's Eye during the day, while the moon and stars are His eyes at night. Lord Varuna's double is Mitra, who is the friend of mankind.

So then why is Lord Varuna not supreme to Hiranyagarbha? After all, he is also the Supreme God of the Avesta religion: Ahura Mazda.

As I'm sure you're aware, every deity is mantra; shabdabrahman. Each mantra is correlated with many things; vehicle, shakti, shakta, tattva, etc. Of key importance is the presiding Rishi and the presiding Meter.

Hiranyagarbha is the Rishi when Varuna is the Mantra.
 

Riverwolf

Amateur Rambler / Proud Ergi
Premium Member
As I'm sure you're aware, every deity is mantra; shabdabrahman. Each mantra is correlated with many things; vehicle, shakti, shakta, tattva, etc. Of key importance is the presiding Rishi and the presiding Meter.

Hiranyagarbha is the Rishi when Varuna is the Mantra.

I was actually not aware of that philosophy. Could you direct me to more detail on it, as well as its source?
 

Shuddhasattva

Well-Known Member
See John Woodroffe in "The Garland of Letters" for an explanation of shabda & brahman, even the first chapters are incredibly enlightening on this subject.

I'm going to rest now, please expect your references tomorrow. Goodnight & Namaste all.
 

Pleroma

philalethist
Still doesn't answer who Satitur was first born of whom. Aditi?

Savithru came into existence from a golden egg, it is a metaphor, we cannot say what it is, its mystical. Savithru was the first manifestation of Brahman.

As to Savithru being born of Aditi, that's Puranas and I don't know. Vedas are the highest authority and I am only interested in intellectual arguments and not about mythology. I only believe in things which we can testify or falsify or validate it with our own eyes. I can not speak anything about the myths.
I accept both Karmakhanda as well as Jnyankhanda, so both devotion and knowledge is necessary but not blind belief.

...but we're not speaking an Aryan language. English is a Germanic language.

Aryans doesn't mean those people who speak the Aryan language.

Aryans means "Venerable and highly civilized and cultured people known for their learning, wisdom and large heartedness"

One of the main qualities of Aryans is Vinaya, they are highly humble people.

Nitpikcing aside, I've heard it said that the Sun is Lord Varuna's Eye during the day, while the moon and stars are His eyes at night. Lord Varuna's double is Mitra, who is the friend of mankind.

So then why is Lord Varuna not supreme to Hiranyagarbha? After all, he is also the Supreme God of the Avesta religion: Ahura Mazda.

Well I know both Persian Mithraism as well as Vedic Mithraism started as Sun worship as Max Muller says and there is no doubt that Vedic Mithraism is based on Sun Worship.

As I said I don't deny other Gods of other religions, this is hinduism and we should define Hinduism something which we have not done.

No one actually knows what makes a Hindu, its time to define it. If you want to talk about other religions then you can do it in their respective forums and I may read it and learn something.
 
Last edited:

Riverwolf

Amateur Rambler / Proud Ergi
Premium Member
Savithru came into existence from a golden egg, it is a metaphor, we cannot say what it is, its mystical. Savithru was the first manifestation of Brahman.

As to Savithru being born of Aditi, that's Puranas and I don't know. Vedas are the highest authority and I am only interested in intellectual arguments and not about mythology. I only believe in things which we can testify or falsify or validate it with our own eyes. I can not speak anything about the myths.
I accept both Karmakhanda as well as Jnyankhanda, so both devotion and knowledge is necessary but not blind belief.

Aditi is the Vedic All-Mother. The word "Aditya" means "Son(s) of Aditi". The word "Aditi" means "not-bound."

Aditi is the heaven, Aditi is mid-air, Aditi is the Mother and the Sire and Son.
Aditi is all Gods, Aditi five-classed men, Aditi all that hath been born and shall be born.

(RV 1.89.10)

I agree with you about blind belief, though. I do, however, enjoy mythology and believe it can have much to teach when viewed in the proper ways.

Aryans doesn't mean those people who speak the Aryan language.

Aryans means "Venerable and highly civilized and cultured people known for their learning, wisdom and large heartedness"

One of the main qualities of Aryans is Vinaya, they are highly humble people.

I know, I was mainly just jokingly nitpicking. The word can mean both things depending on the context; the definition I gave is the one used by historians and linguists, as a synonym for Indo-Iranian.

Well I know both Persian Mithraism as well as Vedic Mithraism started as Sun worship as Max Muller says and there is no doubt that Vedic Mithraism is based on Sun Worship.

As I said I don't deny other Gods of other religions, this is hinduism and we should define Hinduism something which we have not done.

No one actually knows what makes a Hindu, its time to define it. If you want to talk about other religions then you can do it in their respective forums and I may read it and learn something.

Except that the religion Vedic and Avestan religions are linked together; I'd wager that at one point they were the same religion, and then eventually split, likely by time, cultural diffusion, and geographic distance. It is well known among scholarly circles that Lord Varuna and Ahura Mazda are the same God.

Defining Hinduism is difficult mainly because it's an umbrella term more than anything else; it primarily refers to any religion that originated in India that is tied to the Vedas and/or Puranic literature. It also doesn't help that it's an ever-evolving religion that has changed rapidly throughout the ages, unlike most Abrahamic religions which went through centuries of relative stagnation at certain points in their histories.

However, there have been attempts in the past to more solidly define Hinduism, such as one by Satguru Sivaya Subramuniyaswami:

The world's billion Hindus, one-sixth of the human family, are organized in four main denominations, each distinguished by its Supreme Deity. For Vaishnavites, Lord Vishnu is God. For Saivites, God is Siva. For Saktas, Goddess Sakti is supreme. For Smartas, liberal Hindus, the choice of Deity is left to the devotee. Each has a multitude of guru lineages, religious leaders, priesthoods, sacred literature, monastic communities, schools, pilgrimage centers and tens of thousands of temples. They possess a wealth of art and architecture, philosophy and scholarship. These four sects hold such divergent beliefs that each is a complete and independent religion. Yet, they share a vast heritage of culture and belief--karma, dharma, reincarnation, all-pervasive Divinity, temple worship, sacraments, manifold Deities, the guru-shishya tradition and the Vedas as scriptural authority. While India is home to most Hindus, large communities flourish worldwide. The Vedas elaborate, "He is Brahma. He is Siva. He is Indra. He is the immutable, the supreme, the self-luminous. He is Vishnu. He is life. He is time. He is the fire, and He is the moon."

While Hinduism is certainly more vast than just those four religions, I think he's right in saying it refers primarily to multiple religions that share a common historical, literary, and cultural link.
 

Pleroma

philalethist
Aditi is the Vedic All-Mother. The word "Aditya" means "Son(s) of Aditi". The word "Aditi" means "not-bound."

Aditi is the heaven, Aditi is mid-air, Aditi is the Mother and the Sire and Son.
Aditi is all Gods, Aditi five-classed men, Aditi all that hath been born and shall be born.

(RV 1.89.10)

The feminine aspect of Veda Purusha is Gayatri and she manifests herself in three forms Savitri, Gayatri and Saraswathi. She along with Pushan and other gods exists in the Agnisoma Mandala itself and the master of Agnisoma Mandala is Savithru and He is our true God.

Just because Savithru is called as one single from of Adithya doesn't mean he is the son of Gayatri, what they mean when they say sons of Aditi is the 33 Adithyas as described in the Yajur Veda of Yajnavalkya. These Adithyas are the different rays of Savitri and hence they are called as the sons of Aditi.

Hence that verse of the Rig Veda doesn't contradict with what I am saying. The goddess Savithri, the feminine aspect of the Veda do exist along with other gods in the pleroma of Savithru itself, he is the master and hence Savithru is our true God.

I agree with you about blind belief, though. I do, however, enjoy mythology and believe it can have much to teach when viewed in the proper ways.

Its important on how you interpret the mythology. Myths are mystical and here it should be taken in allogerical and not in literal. When they say that Adithyas are the sons of Aditi, it should not be taken in a literal way, it should be taken in a allegorical way as Aditi is the feminine aspect of the Veda Purusha and sons means that these gods emanated from her and not literally giving birth to them. Sons means rays emanating from the Goddess Savitri and each ray represents a God and that's how it should be interpreted and not in a literal way like the Purunas say it.

I know, I was mainly just jokingly nitpicking. The word can mean both things depending on the context; the definition I gave is the one used by historians and linguists, as a synonym for Indo-Iranian.

I am using the word in my context. Scholars outside the tradition take it in your context. Linguistics and History is based on the emiprical and it is based on a different methodology where as I am talking about the numinous and its based on a different epistemology. So lets not go there.

Except that the religion Vedic and Avestan religions are linked together; I'd wager that at one point they were the same religion, and then eventually split, likely by time, cultural diffusion, and geographic distance. It is well known among scholarly circles that Lord Varuna and Ahura Mazda are the same God.

I am interested in Comparative religion, there is a common esoteric essence in all religions and its something we should investigate it and only the empirical investigation would not suffice we also need to investigate the numinous to really know the truth of Religion.

Defining Hinduism is difficult mainly because it's an umbrella term more than anything else; it primarily refers to any religion that originated in India that is tied to the Vedas and/or Puranic literature. It also doesn't help that it's an ever-evolving religion that has changed rapidly throughout the ages, unlike most Abrahamic religions which went through centuries of relative stagnation at certain points in their histories.


However, there have been attempts in the past to more solidly define Hinduism, such as one by Satguru Sivaya Subramuniyaswami:

The world's billion Hindus, one-sixth of the human family, are organized in four main denominations, each distinguished by its Supreme Deity. For Vaishnavites, Lord Vishnu is God. For Saivites, God is Siva. For Saktas, Goddess Sakti is supreme. For Smartas, liberal Hindus, the choice of Deity is left to the devotee. Each has a multitude of guru lineages, religious leaders, priesthoods, sacred literature, monastic communities, schools, pilgrimage centers and tens of thousands of temples. They possess a wealth of art and architecture, philosophy and scholarship. These four sects hold such divergent beliefs that each is a complete and independent religion. Yet, they share a vast heritage of culture and belief--karma, dharma, reincarnation, all-pervasive Divinity, temple worship, sacraments, manifold Deities, the guru-shishya tradition and the Vedas as scriptural authority. While India is home to most Hindus, large communities flourish worldwide. The Vedas elaborate, "He is Brahma. He is Siva. He is Indra. He is the immutable, the supreme, the self-luminous. He is Vishnu. He is life. He is time. He is the fire, and He is the moon."

While Hinduism is certainly more vast than just those four religions, I think he's right in saying it refers primarily to multiple religions that share a common historical, literary, and cultural link.


Have you read Adithya Hridayam? The hymn which was given to Rama by the sage Agasthya in the battlefield.

Sage Agasthya begins by saying that there is an esoteric secret in Sanatana Dharma which is very old and ancient and advices Rama to know it.

rama rama mahabaho shrinu guhyam sanatanam |
yena sarvanarin vatsa samare vijayishyasi || 3

There is an esoteric secret in Sanatana Dharma. guhyam - esoteric secret, sanatanam - Sanatana Dharma.

esha brahma cha vishnush cha shivah skandah prajapatihi |
mahendro dhanadah kalo yamah somo hyapam patihi || 8

He(Hiranyagarbha, Sun God) is Brahma, He is Vishnu, He is Shiva, He is Skanda, Indra, Yama, Kala, Soma, Varuna. All is He.
He is the God of the Gods.

pitaro vasavah sadhya hyashvinau maruto manuh |
vayurvahnih praja-prana ritukarta prabhakarah || 9

He is Pithru Devathas, He is Ashvini Devathas, He is Manu, He is Agni, He is Prana, He is Vayu, He is Praja, He is ritukartha.
All is He and none beside them.

He goes by an another 49 names and all is He.

This is the true definition of Hindu, we don't have separate religion like you have mentioned, we have one True God and he is Hiranyagarbha and He is the rishi who taught us the Vedas and all forms of Yoga, all our knowledge originated from him. All glory should belong to him.

Even Brahma, Vishnu, Shiva worship this Hiranyagarbha because he is the one True God, the master of the Agnisoma Manadala. This is the esoteric secret of Hinduism.

This is what makes a Hindu. Hiranyagarbha is our true God and none beside him.

We don't have separate religions, we all are One. There is no difficulty in defining what Hinduism is and we can trace back all our knowledge to Hiranygarbha.
 
Last edited:

Riverwolf

Amateur Rambler / Proud Ergi
Premium Member
The feminine aspect of Veda Purusha is Gayatri and she manifests herself in three forms Savitri, Gayatri and Saraswathi. She along with Pushan and other gods exists in the Agnisoma Mandala itself and the master of Agnisoma Mandala is Savithru and He is our true God.

Just because Savithru is called as one single from of Adithya doesn't mean he is the son of Gayatri, what they mean when they say sons of Aditi is the 33 Adithyas as described in the Yajur Veda of Yajnavalkya. These Adithyas are the different rays of Savitri and hence they are called as the sons of Aditi.

Hence that verse of the Rig Veda doesn't contradict with what I am saying. The goddess Savithri, the feminine aspect of the Veda do exist along with other gods in the pleroma of Savithru itself, he is the master and hence Savithru is our true God.

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? :confused:

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.

Its important on how you interpret the mythology. Myths are mystical and here it should be taken in allogerical and not in literal. When they say that Adithyas are the sons of Aditi, it should not be taken in a literal way, it should be taken in a allegorical way as Aditi is the feminine aspect of the Veda Purusha and sons means that these gods emanated from her and not literally giving birth to them. Sons means rays emanating from the Goddess Savitri and each ray represents a God and that's how it should be interpreted and not in a literal way like the Purunas say it.
Yes, I know.

Have you read Adithya Hridayam? The hymn which was given to Rama by the sage Agasthya in the battlefield.

Sage Agasthya begins by saying that there is an esoteric secret in Sanatana Dharma which is very old and ancient and advices Rama to know it.

rama rama mahabaho shrinu guhyam sanatanam |
yena sarvanarin vatsa samare vijayishyasi || 3

There is an esoteric secret in Sanatana Dharma. guhyam - esoteric secret, sanatanam - Sanatana Dharma.
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?

esha brahma cha vishnush cha shivah skandah prajapatihi |
mahendro dhanadah kalo yamah somo hyapam patihi || 8

He(Hiranyagarbha, Sun God) is Brahma, He is Vishnu, He is Shiva, He is Skanda, Indra, Yama, Kala, Soma, Varuna. All is He.
He is the God of the Gods.
Where'd you get the idea that "He" is Hiranyagarbha, the Sun God?

pitaro vasavah sadhya hyashvinau maruto manuh |
vayurvahnih praja-prana ritukarta prabhakarah || 9

He is Pithru Devathas, He is Ashvini Devathas, He is Manu, He is Agni, He is Prana, He is Vayu, He is Praja, He is ritukartha.
All is He and none beside them.

He goes by an another 49 names and all is He.

This is the true definition of Hindu, we don't have separate religion like you have mentioned, we have one True God and he is Hiranyagarbha and He is the rishi who taught us the Vedas and all forms of Yoga, all our knowledge originated from him. All glory should belong to him.

Even Brahma, Vishnu, Shiva worship this Hiranyagarbha because he is the one True God, the master of the Agnisoma Manadala. This is the esoteric secret of Hinduism.

This is what makes a Hindu. Hiranyagarbha is our true God and none beside him.

We don't have separate religions, we all are One. There is no difficulty in defining what Hinduism is and we can trace back all our knowledge to Hiranygarbha.
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?

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?
 
Last edited:
Top