Hello, I would like you to explain me the concept of Saguna Brahman.
Is Saguna Brahman a samsaric being?
Is the concept of Saguna Brahman different from the concept of Ishvara?
Thanks.
Hello, I would like you to explain me the concept of Saguna Brahman.
Is Saguna Brahman a samsaric being?
Is the concept of Saguna Brahman different from the concept of Ishvara?
Thanks.
Dear friend ,
Saguna brahman is a concept created by human mind .When a student is asked to study a subject for the sake of knowledge ,he would not show much interest .But if he has to get a degree or certificate to get a god job , he puts all his effort in getting good result . The same way when a person encounters problems , whether of familial , financial , professional or of health and when he is pushed to the wall he turns towards the unknown natural force whom we call God. All gods are beings only with supernatural powers . Some of them are beings gone to higher planes through their sheer merit like Shirdie saibaba . What actually gives result is the faith of devotee . Even if a stone is worshipped with all trust , faith and love , the result is given . But God , the Absolute Brahman is the supreme power. It is energy from the rational point and love and compassion from the emotional point .When a sadhaka starts he takes recourse in a sagunabrahma and later a stage comes where the personal deity himself or her self takes the devotee to that path.
Namaste
I personally feel that the form is given due to the limitations of the mind.
Lets think from the scientific view point. why do you think texts focussing on Saguna Brahman fail to give the correct structure of the universe.
So the basic question arises if the texts dont know the correct structure of the universe how would they know the correct structure of God?
Also why do most texts focus just on eyes chest legs of God? What about His internal organs like brain heart etc?Do the texts intend that Gods hands or eyes are more important than Gods Brain? The answer is simple. Texts focus on external organs because that is what the writers of those texts could comprehend as they had no clue about the chambers of heart or the gyri or sulci. Also I read the embryology given in srimad bhagavatam and it is not correct and doesnt coincide with the reality.
So i think its easier for people to write books on things they cant see or prove because they might get a lot of followers who dont question their credibility in a vague hope of finding the truth. No wonder you see people fighting over forms of Vishnu or Shiva that dont exist and get over emotional which i think is not spiritual or for that matter not even real.
God doesnt have a form and that is the truth.
Namaste,
I disagree with everything spoken above.
Next,
Not true. You are discounting the truthful, masterful, forms produced by great artists, the greatest still among which is mother Nature herself.
You are again looking in a wrong direction. There is no such thing as Sagun Brahman (nor Maya, etc). The closest word (correct one) to it is BrahmA.
I invite all Advaitins (BrahmANa-s) to do bhakti of Lord BrahmA and discover the strucuture of material and other universes (if there) for yourselves (and spare rest of us the trouble).
KT
1. brahmA: The deity whose core aspect is brahm (brahman).
2. After sandhi of "Absolute Brahman", what we get is, "Abraham". Good luck.
3. brahmANa: mystic, rahasyavid (courtesy, MV)
Things to remember:
1. Life = yajña
2. Depth of Āstika knowledge is directly proportional
to the richness of Sanskrit it is written in
3. Āstika = Bhārata ("east") / Ārya ("west")
4. Varṇa = tripartite division of Vedic polity
5. r = c. x²
where,
r = realisation
constant c = intelligence
variable x = bhakti
Saguna Brahman is a crude word for BrahmA. BrahmA is the deity whose core aspect is brahm (brahman).
Also, there is no such thing as MAYA. Everything is included within Lord BrahmA, and is real. Upon steadfast mystic bhakti of Lord BrahmA we are bestowed with the integral knowledge, para and apara.
Lord BrahmA has four mAnas putra-s, each being an extremely powerful deity, and the brahmANa-s (mystics) who are into this path are deep into their worships.
The other important deities of this sect are:
Indra, Saraswati, Vayu, Brahm. (not exhaustive)
namaste,
Things to remember:
1. Life = yajña
2. Depth of Āstika knowledge is directly proportional
to the richness of Sanskrit it is written in
3. Āstika = Bhārata ("east") / Ārya ("west")
4. Varṇa = tripartite division of Vedic polity
5. r = c. x²
where,
r = realisation
constant c = intelligence
variable x = bhakti
Dear friend ,
most of our so called Gods like Indra are posts. Any soul with anathapunyam but with transitory yearnings would do all the rituals to occupy that post . That's why all our puranas are replete with stories , where they all are not devoid of the weaknesses like kama , krodha , moha, mada matsarya etc . It is not to decry their greatness in any way , but to point out their inherent weakness for power . Take the example of Nahusha , who became Indra by dint of merit . Like all point out , all the beings are Brahman . In such a case the question of worshipping some form or name or shape does not arise .All can worship all .Of course that's what ultimately takes place . BUT here the question pertains to ordinary mortals like me .
As I said, the problem is not here or there, it is everywhere, every word, letter.
If I believed such a thing, I'd have left Hinduism a long time ago.
Rituals are worthless by themselves. No amount of mere rituals can achieve anything. On the other hand, there is a whole science of language and Yagya which if correctly understood (that you have not made any effort to) can force your mighty Brahman to come running to the sādhaka.Any soul with anathapunyam but with transitory yearnings would do all the rituals to occupy that post .
Even a toddler can do an intellectual analysis of PurANa-s.That's why all our puranas are replete with stories , where they all are not devoid of the weaknesses like kama , krodha , moha, mada matsarya etc .
A Dasyu may see Indra as an arrogant and power hungry mythical entity, but Indra sees the Dasyu for what they really are, that is, Dasyu.It is not to decry their greatness in any way , but to point out their inherent weakness for power .
Neither Nahusa nor Indra were, at any point of time, real humans.Take the example of Nahusha , who became Indra by dint of merit .
Who said that? Or are you still following political correctness of a bygone era?Like all point out , all the beings are Brahman .
Open your eyes. Because last time I checked, Hindus were still an idol worshipper people. Or you want to disrespect Hindus? Under some vineer of sophisticated (which everyone understands, btw) wordery?In such a case the question of worshipping some form or name or shape does not arise .
Allah Akbar Anthony? Add: Sai Baba?All can worship all .
There is no elitism in Hindu Dharma, for your kind information.Of course that's what ultimately takes place . BUT here the question pertains to ordinary mortals like me .
If you have still something worthwhile to say, pray continue.
Pranam,
KT
Things to remember:
1. Life = yajña
2. Depth of Āstika knowledge is directly proportional
to the richness of Sanskrit it is written in
3. Āstika = Bhārata ("east") / Ārya ("west")
4. Varṇa = tripartite division of Vedic polity
5. r = c. x²
where,
r = realisation
constant c = intelligence
variable x = bhakti
Kalicharan Tuvij Namaste,
Not true. You are discounting the truthful, masterful, forms produced by great artists, the greatest still among which is mother Nature herself.
___________________________________________________________
So have you experienced that "truth" If not, are you telling me that i should believe the notions of the artists without experiencing them and tag the term "truth" to it just because im emotionally attached to them ? .So the form that you describe is obviously of two arms or fours arms or eights arms? what about the number of coils in the intestine? What about the heart chambers? Number of kidneys?why do forms focus on external parts and not internal? im not saying this out of ego but please give me a good answer
So why do things like human embryology,shape of universe which were all different in different scriptures also be termed as "truth" when in reality they are all false? Dont your "great truthful masters" know the truth behind them?
You are again looking in a wrong direction. There is no such thing as Sagun Brahman (nor Maya, etc). The closest word (correct one) to it is BrahmA.
_________________________________________________
If people know the shape of God why dont they know the shape of earth?
I invite all Advaitins (BrahmANa-s) to do bhakti of Lord BrahmA and discover the strucuture of material and other universes (if there) for yourselves (and spare rest of us the trouble).
_________________________________________________________
Bhakti OF FORMS and names is emotional.And if people can get emotionally attached to sai baba, asaram bapu am sure they will obviously have no problem in getting attached to an imaginary form of shiva or vishnu ;ll How different is it from a muslim worshipping allah or a christian worshipping christ? Now who is correct? If we worship even a stone i am sure we will get attached to it does that make the stone a God?
And on who does the onus of proof lie? Us or you? A man who talks he invented a car, has to provide a test drive himself. He obviously wont ask the common man to go create his own car. I have already seen a lot of bhaktas of Brahma like sanaka etc who obviously gave a wrong description of the universe and also suka of bhagavata who gave a wrong description of earth and also of kaliyuga and also of human embryology. So tell me one point why i should accept it as truth? But by experience if you mean emotional indoctrination all abrahamic devils call themselves the followers of truth too. How different are we from them
Last edited by ganeshamylord; 22 July 2014 at 10:07 AM.
Have I experienced? Yes, being an artist myself, I have.
Not necessarily. Each deity can be described by virtually an illimitable number of forms, and still in the end judged by the peers to be truthful. Forms and murthis in Hinduism, it must be said, "have just started to unravel". Veda itself uses a language that is full of the imagery (not fixed).So the form that you describe is obviously of two arms or fours arms or eights arms?
In art the movement is from the concrete (corporal/ corporeal) to the abstract, and from the abstract to again concrete (divine). So yes, technically, we can build up from intestines.what about the number of coils in the intestine? What about the heart chambers? Number of kidneys?why do forms focus on external parts and not internal? im not saying this out of ego but please give me a good answer
1. Human embryology : kindly refer to ancient texts/ knowledge of Hindu medical practitioners, for the kind of information that you seek.So why do things like human embryology,shape of universe which were all different in different scriptures also be termed as "truth" when in reality they are all false? Dont your "great truthful masters" know the truth behind them?
2. Shape of universe: round?
Round? Again?If people know the shape of God why dont they know the shape of earth?
Emotion and faith are different things, as you very well know. Our Dharma says that ultimately a perfected Faith can be used to derive all truth, and vice-versa. Dharma also equally extols another principle: rasa, art, etc.Bhakti OF FORMS and names is emotional.
No, as I said earlier, the truthful movement is from concrete to abstract (and then again concrete). That is why Shiva and Vishnu (and their images) are truthful. Also note that even though both of them can be depicted in an illimitable number of ways, still, both are different from each other.And if people can get emotionally attached to sai baba, asaram bapu am sure they will obviously have no problem in getting attached to an imaginary form of shiva or vishnu ;
Surely, if "your" version of Advaita is correct, then it is better to make a move towards purer forms of religions such as Islam which has only one deity, that too formless, just like "your" Brahman.How different is it from a muslim worshipping allah or a christian worshipping christ? Now who is correct?
Seriously? Do I need to even reply this?If we worship even a stone i am sure we will get attached to it does that make the stone a God?
Things to remember:
1. Life = yajña
2. Depth of Āstika knowledge is directly proportional
to the richness of Sanskrit it is written in
3. Āstika = Bhārata ("east") / Ārya ("west")
4. Varṇa = tripartite division of Vedic polity
5. r = c. x²
where,
r = realisation
constant c = intelligence
variable x = bhakti
Hello all.
What is the concept of Ishvara in advaita vedanta?
Are there other samsaric beings in higher realms of existence?
Can they help us if we are devoted to them?
Thanks.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Bookmarks