Reality of Shiva, Vishnu and other forms

[Ravi.N]

Friends,
What Sri kanchi MahAswAmi had said about the Brahma -Loka -"it is this Brahma-loka that appears to different viewers in a different way. The same paramAtmA shows up as Vishnu, Shiva in the 'different' lokas', is equally true for this Bhu Loka(terra firma) as well .
Sri Ramakrishna narrates the parable of the Dyer and his tub:

A certain man had a tub. People would come to him to have their clothes dyed. The tub contained a solution of dye. Whatever colour a man wanted for his cloth, he would get by dipping the cloth in the tub. One man was amazed to see this and said to the dyer, 'Please give me the dye you have in your tub.'

Namaskar.

[ksksat27]

ksksat,

When we exist with a body, can not Ishwara exist with a body?  And that body will be holding good until the final dissolution?  Why are we not digesting that fact?

This is how isAvasya upanishad says:IsAvAsyam idam Sarvam.Anyway,I am not here to disturb your Faith and Belief.Please continue with whatever Faith and inspiration that you are endowed with.Godspeed to you.
Namaskar.

Dear Ravi Sir,

This is not just  a superstitious  belief or a mythological faith on some form created by some minds that we dont want to disturb it.

Sir - it is there in vedas quite clearly, sudha spatika mangaasham thrinethram etc.

For 2+2=4, no faith is required, it is inherent.

I assumed all these days that for Sri Ramana devotees or Sri Ramakrishna devotees, belief in existence of Shiva and Kailash is inherent.

Again I am not tagging 'Ramana devotee' or Sai devotee -- just using some nomenclature.

So wondeirng where did we mix the neo-advaitins formlessness into the traditional approach?

Despite Appaya Dikshithar and famous advaita acharyas clearly proclaiming the vyavahaariak satyam of shvia and other forms, why are we having this hestitation to believe?

Do we feel shy or uneasy --  do we want to use Thiruppavai and Thiruvembavai to bypass the reality of forms and interpret some 'formless' meaning?

Is this what Krishna Chaitanya or Jnanasambandhar spoke about in their lives and teachings?

We can use our great literary knowledge to twist their poem's meanigns and give nice formless, consciouness based interpretation . what is the end result we achieve by that?




I am not a bit angry but bit strained to see this pattern in our thinking.

Regards,
Krishna

[Ravi.N]

Ksksat(Krishna),
you are saying:

I assumed all these days that for Sri Ramana devotees or Sri Ramakrishna devotees, belief in existence of Shiva and Kailash is inherent

.

Please quote from the saying of Sri Ramakrishna or Sri Bhagavan that substantiates your belief.I have already given some excerpts from Sri Bhagavan on this.I have also given excerpts from Sri Ramakrishna on God with form and his formless aspect.

The Vedic Hymns cannot be taken literally and are deeply symbolic.A cursory look at Sri Aurobindo's 'The Secret of the Veda' will reveal this aspect.Ditto with TiruppAvai as well.My presentations here are from what the Great ones have said and not my 'views'.
As I have said,I am not here to parade my 'Learning' or to twist or misrepresent things.If you do not find anything useful,please ignore it.Go by what appeals to you and what inspires you.
In case you are interested in knowing the implications of that phrase from isAvasya upanishad,you may refer to Swami Krishnananda's writing here:
http://www.swami-krishnananda.org/upanishad/upan_04.html

Namaskar.

[Hari]

Sri Ksksat. I can only share my understanding about this topic.
According to pure monists (idealists) mind is everything and it shapes the world. So actually they say all is in your mind - there is no other minds, people, God, world, liberation, heaven, hell, bondage and so on. Within Advaitins there are Sages teaching that although the Self is one, It has many reflections and every reflection еxists as long as the medium of this reflection exists. So in this case Ishvara although is reflection of Brahman is eternal because the body (the medium) of Ishvara is eternal. The ignorant people (ajnanis) are not aware of the Self and are mortal. The Sages are Self-aware and mortal. Ishvara is Self-aware and Immortal. In this case Ishvara is reflection of the Self (as the souls are), not creation of one mind (your mind).

Shankara's Advaita is not what modern Advaitins teach. I must be very clear about that. No matter what the followers of Advaita today try to convince us. Shankara did not taught that Lord is creation of your mind and imagination. This is much later interpretation of Advaita followers. Shankara considered God to be very real, the Controller, The Bestower of Liberation and so on. He didn't taught that God is our imagination. If God is our imagination why would we need it? If God was your imagination how can you loving this Imaginary God being liberated? If loving imagination can give you liberation then many people must be liberated because many people love imaginary things (which are not God). So Shankara was not such kind of extreme monist creating some crazy philosophies contrary to the experience of the conventional world. Even more - it was one of the reason of His anger against the contemporary Buddhists around Him because most of them were close to solipsism, following Yogachara Buddhist school. So we must very careful when we use the word Advaita because of its historical connection with the personality of Shankara.

I personally cannot put Bhagavan Ramana in any category. In some places He very clearly teaches that Vishnu, Shiva and so on are just imaginary creations of the mind. For example this conversation:

Q: Do Vishnu, Siva, etc., exist?
A: Individual human souls are not the only beings known.
Q: And their sacred regions Kailasa or Vaikuntha, are they real?
A: As real as you are in this body.
Q: Do they possess a phenomenal existence, like my body? Or are they fictions like the horn of a hare?
A: They do exist.
Q: If so, they must be somewhere. Where are they?
A: Persons who have seen them say that they exist somewhere. So we must accept their statement.
Q: Where do they exist?
A: In you.
Q: Then it is only an idea which I can create and control?
A: Everything is like that.
Q: But I can create pure fictions, for example, a hare's horn, or only part truths, for example a mirage, while there are also facts irrespective of my imagination. Do the Gods Iswara or Vishnu exist like that?
A: Yes.

But He was also devoted entirely to Sri Arunachala. So considering the life of Sri Ramana I cannot give final answer of what He really believed. May be nothing. Or everything. Who knows? Bhagavan is a mystery but His followers are very much convinced that they know Him well.

About Sri Ramakrishna I can say that He had the most holistic understanding (or more correctly - interpretation) of the Vedic Knowledge, unsurpassed even by His beloved student Sri Vivekananda who was considered as one of the Vedic Giants of India. His teachings embrace all schools of thought and at the same time transcend them.

[Ravi.N]

Friends,
God is ever present, accessible and responds to our Prayers.This is the teaching of all Great ones.To confine God to a special world is just untenable and no sage has said that.As Jesus has clearly said,that the kingdom of god is within us.This is what Sri Bhagavan has said.Every Sage has said this and there is no two opinion about it.I think I have covered just about all views about God through my posts from The Gospel of Sri Ramakrishna.

The communion with God takes place in our Heart and every devotee will acknowledge this fact from first hand experience.This is how swami Vivekananda puts it:

"Each soul is potentially divine. The goal is to manifest this divinity by controlling nature, external and internal. Do this either by work, or worship, or psychic control, or philosophy - by one, or more, or all of these - and be free. This is the whole of religion. Doctrines, or dogmas, or rituals, or books, or temples, or forms, are but secondary details".

Namaskar.

[Nagaraj]

Friends,

In Lalita Sahasranama, the thousand names of the Mother:

avyaktā - She who is not clearly seen
vyaktāvyakta-svarūpiṇī - She who is visible and not visible
vyāpinī - She who is spread everywhere

Jnaneshwar says: The Sun appear to hine because of its rays, But it is the Sun itself, which produces the rays In act, that glorious Sun and its shining Are one and the same To have a reflection, one must have an object; If we see a reflection, then we infer That an object exist. Likewise, the supreme Reaity, which is one, Appears to be two Through Her, The absolute Void becomesz the manifest world But her existence Is derived from Her Lord Shiva Himself became His beloved But, without Her presence No universe exists Because of Her form God is seen as the world But He created Her form Of Himself Embarrassed by Her formless Husband And Her own graceful form, She adorned Him with a universe Of myriad names and forms In Unity, there is little to behold So She, the mother of abundance Brought forth the world as a play She made evident the glory of Her Lord By spreading out Her own body-form And He made Her famous by concealing Himself He takes the role of Witness Out of love of watching Her But when Her appearance is withdrawn The role of Witness is abandoned as well. I forcibly stop myself from posting more... such wonderful expresions of Beloved Jnandev

[ksksat27]

Ksksat(Krishna),
you are saying:

I assumed all these days that for Sri Ramana devotees or Sri Ramakrishna devotees, belief in existence of Shiva and Kailash is inherent

.

Please quote from the saying of Sri Ramakrishna or Sri Bhagavan that substantiates your belief.I have already given some excerpts from Sri Bhagavan on this.I have also given excerpts from Sri Ramakrishna on God with form and his formless aspect.

The Vedic Hymns cannot be taken literally and are deeply symbolic.A cursory look at Sri Aurobindo's 'The Secret of the Veda' will reveal this aspect.Ditto with TiruppAvai as well.My presentations here are from what the Great ones have said and not my 'views'.
As I have said,I am not here to parade my 'Learning' or to twist or misrepresent things.If you do not find anything useful,please ignore it.Go by what appeals to you and what inspires you.
In case you are interested in knowing the implications of that phrase from isAvasya upanishad,you may refer to Swami Krishnananda's writing here:
http://www.swami-krishnananda.org/upanishad/upan_04.html

Namaskar.

The Vedic Hymns cannot be taken literally and are deeply symbolic.

Sir this is basic flaw in the core of the understanding.

Heart and Heart we tend to say like 'kandadhe kaakshi kondadhe kolam' 'whatever seen is only truth, whatever having is only truth'?

And we want to interpret dialogues of mahatmas to achieve this end.

Is then everything from the devotion of Tukaram to Markendaya just poetic, symbolic?

When we have two hands, two legs , we have a form, why not God sir?

Shiva was there those days comign to take Havis in the yagas.

Nowadays we dont have  that level of devotion I agree, so what?  We can nicely interpret and nicely prove scientifically using Talks or Gospel to deny their existence of Shiva and Vishnu.

But it is not so.

Until we see the slightest duality, yes , we have a universe and a rule governing the universe.

LIke human beings, at different levels, devas exist. 

Same Aurboindo Mother has seen Shiva whom she described as with the height until the ceiling.

She has seen Lord Ganesh and even painted one.

She has clearly told like for every spirit of nature like Rain, Fire etc. there lies a form behind the spirit.

We have Ashwini devas.  Adityas etc. 

Vibhuthi Yoga clearly says all this.

But if I go with atheistic mindset to only take all these symbolically, yes , our scriptures will allow our mind to get twisted. 

I think this is the danger of reading advaita in one sense. For this same reason, Kanchi Mahaswami told many times that he hesitated to open that topic.

To deny God is Atheism straight forward.

This advaitic symbolism, poetic, representation, aid, concentration etc. is another form of atheism in disguise.

That is why we should not jump to Mandukya Upanishad or Ribhu Gita without setting the basics right.

Anyway sir,  what has gone into your mind I cannot erase.  It is your samskaras.

What lies in my mind you cannot erase, it is my samskaras.

I think the underlying current of love and reference to Maharishee binds us together.

[ksksat27]

Sri Ksksat. I can only share my understanding about this topic.
According to pure monists (idealists) mind is everything and it shapes the world. So actually they say all is in your mind - there is no other minds, people, God, world, liberation, heaven, hell, bondage and so on. Within Advaitins there are Sages teaching that although the Self is one, It has many reflections and every reflection еxists as long as the medium of this reflection exists. So in this case Ishvara although is reflection of Brahman is eternal because the body (the medium) of Ishvara is eternal. The ignorant people (ajnanis) are not aware of the Self and are mortal. The Sages are Self-aware and mortal. Ishvara is Self-aware and Immortal. In this case Ishvara is reflection of the Self (as the souls are), not creation of one mind (your mind).

Shankara's Advaita is not what modern Advaitins teach. I must be very clear about that. No matter what the followers of Advaita today try to convince us. Shankara did not taught that Lord is creation of your mind and imagination. This is much later interpretation of Advaita followers. Shankara considered God to be very real, the Controller, The Bestower of Liberation and so on. He didn't taught that God is our imagination. If God is our imagination why would we need it? If God was your imagination how can you loving this Imaginary God being liberated? If loving imagination can give you liberation then many people must be liberated because many people love imaginary things (which are not God). So Shankara was not such kind of extreme monist creating some crazy philosophies contrary to the experience of the conventional world. Even more - it was one of the reason of His anger against the contemporary Buddhists around Him because most of them were close to solipsism, following Yogachara Buddhist school. So we must very careful when we use the word Advaita because of its historical connection with the personality of Shankara.

I personally cannot put Bhagavan Ramana in any category. In some places He very clearly teaches that Vishnu, Shiva and so on are just imaginary creations of the mind. For example this conversation:

Q: Do Vishnu, Siva, etc., exist?
A: Individual human souls are not the only beings known.
Q: And their sacred regions Kailasa or Vaikuntha, are they real?
A: As real as you are in this body.
Q: Do they possess a phenomenal existence, like my body? Or are they fictions like the horn of a hare?
A: They do exist.
Q: If so, they must be somewhere. Where are they?
A: Persons who have seen them say that they exist somewhere. So we must accept their statement.
Q: Where do they exist?
A: In you.
Q: Then it is only an idea which I can create and control?
A: Everything is like that.
Q: But I can create pure fictions, for example, a hare's horn, or only part truths, for example a mirage, while there are also facts irrespective of my imagination. Do the Gods Iswara or Vishnu exist like that?
A: Yes.

But He was also devoted entirely to Sri Arunachala. So considering the life of Sri Ramana I cannot give final answer of what He really believed. May be nothing. Or everything. Who knows? Bhagavan is a mystery but His followers are very much convinced that they know Him well.

About Sri Ramakrishna I can say that He had the most holistic understanding (or more correctly - interpretation) of the Vedic Knowledge, unsurpassed even by His beloved student Sri Vivekananda who was considered as one of the Vedic Giants of India. His teachings embrace all schools of thought and at the same time transcend them.

Hari

I agree all of your points 100% but with the exception of reference to Bhagavan Sri Ramana.

He no doubt looked like discouraging forms to many devotees.

But Bhagavan responded to the superficial layer of devotion and the mindset of those questioners.

When Papa Ramadas or Papaji appraoched, they got it straight into the Heart by a great Push.

So Bhagavan respdoned only to the insincerity or sincerity of the questioner.

When Venkata Sastri's death news was brought, Bhagavan told that he has reached Satya Lokha.

Ofcousre Bhagavan's devotion to form of Shiva and the form of the Hill is unparalleled.

He discouraged all 'symbolic' business when someone referred to arunachala hill as mere stone and symbolic. Bhagavan was the greatest Bhaktha in this sense.

When a devotee of Bhagavan post his nirvana period, approached teh Hugging saint Ammachi and told his reservations about Bhakthi and forms, Ammachi rightly corrected that devotee. Ammachi simply asked to go back and read all Sri Ramana literature esp. with respect to Arunachala Shiva to understand Bhagavan's devotion to Arunachala and Bhagavan being the prime Bhaktha .


Nowadays there is one more Anaratham going on with Dasavatars comparing it to some evolution theory .  What to say?  Is this what Jayadeva meant in his Ashtapadhi?

We are not here for literary and artistic appreciation. We are dealing with liberation .

[Ravi.N]

ksksat(Krishna),

To deny God is Atheism straight forward.

I am not sure whether you are reading my posts at all.Where did I deny God?

Anyway since you have referred to Saint Tukaram,I will just point to some wonderful abhangs by Saint Tukaram and Saint Eknath.They are soulfully rendered by Sri Bhimsen Joshi and the translations in English will be helpful to understand the meaning.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MjEPzIj73QQ&index=14&list=PL60AE8B003CFE60F3

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VUZjuYpjqA8

All the other abhangs featured here are wonderful as well .

Namaskar.

[Hari]

Sri Krishna,
I am just saying that Bhagavan did not hold any philosophy and theory. He just told to people what they wanted to hear, what they were ready to hear and what would be best for them to hear. That's why I prefer to not put Bhagavan in any category. He is just the Self with form for the sake of the ignorant people and nothing more. His intention was that way I feel. He didn't want to become Guru or to develop some philosophy, to correct the other philosophies or people. He was simply fire always ready to burn the filth of the people who surrender to Him entirely. But no, I don't think that any of us understand Him. All His teachings, dialogues and so on are just glimpses of the the Reality, innocent pointers, being dissolved in It when the time is ready. But our problem is not that we cannot comprehend or understand Bhagavan. Our problem is that we don't know and realize who we really are. We are so overwhelmed with proving, disproving, correcting, subtracting, adjusting and so on our view of Reality that we forget our goal - to realize the Reality. May be this is because our desire for liberation is not strong enough.

[Hari]

Sri Ravi,
I think that what Sri Krishna meant is the rejection of the reality of Ishvara (Saguna Brahman), not God in the absolute sense of the word. By atheism/theism we understand rejecting/believing in the existence of personal God or Gods. Rejecting the personality and the His/Theirs attributes makes them not real and so - fundamentally nonexistent which is atheism at the core. This is the objection of the Hare Krishna movements against the 'mayavadis' as far as I know. But this view is not held by many of the Vedantic teachers and must be scrutinized very carefully.

[Ravi.N]

Hari,
Ishwara ,God,Bhagavan are all one and the same.Saguna Brahman means Brahman with Guna or qualities.God is one only.If we think of him as a person ,he accepts that and appears to us as a person. I have already posted from The Gospel regarding all these aspects.If only we calmly and patiently go through what has been posted ,we can benefit.
I will again post  excerpts  from The Gospel of Sri Ramakrishna:

"The devotees-I mean the vijnanis-accept both God with form and the Formless, both the Personal God and the Impersonal. In a shoreless ocean-an infinite expanse of water-visible blocks of ice are formed here and there by intense cold. Similarly, under the cooling influence, so to say, of the deep love of Its worshipper, the Infinite reduces Itself to the finite and appears before the worshipper as God with form. Again, as, on the rising of the sun, the ice melts away, so, on the awakening of Knowledge, God with form melts away into the same Infinite and Formless".

Personal God and Impersonal Truth
MASTER: "These things do not become clear until one has realized God. He assumes different forms and reveals Himself in different ways for the sake of His devotees. A man kept a solution of dye in a tub. Many people came to him to have their clothes dyed. He would ask a customer, 'What colour should you like to have your cloth dyed?' If the customer wanted red, then the man would dip the cloth in the tub and say, 'Here is your cloth dyed red.' If another customer wanted his cloth dyed yellow, the man would dip his cloth in the same tub and say, 'Here is your cloth dyed yellow.' If a customer wanted his cloth dyed blue, the man would dip it in the same tub and say, 'Here is your cloth dyed blue.' Thus he would dye the clothes of his customers different colours, dipping them all in the same solution. One of the customers watched all this with amazement. The man asked him, 'Well? What colour do you want for your cloth?' The customer said, 'Brother, dye my cloth the colour of the dye in your tub.' (Laughter.)

Illustration of the chameleon
"Once a man went into a wood and saw a beautiful creature on a tree. Later he told a friend about it and said, 'Brother, on a certain tree in the wood I saw a red-coloured creature.' The friend answered: 'I have seen it too. Why do you call it red? It is green.' A third man said: 'Oh, no, no! Why do you call it green? It is yellow.' Then other persons began to describe the animal variously as violet, blue, or black. Soon they were quarrelling about the colour.
At last they went to the tree and found a man sitting under it. In answer to their questions he said: 'I live under this tree and know the creature very well. What each of you has said about it is true. Sometimes it is red, sometimes green, sometimes yellow, sometimes blue, and so forth and so on. Again, sometimes I see that it has no colour whatsoever.'
"Only he who constantly thinks of God can know His real nature. He alone knows that God reveals Himself in different forms and different ways that He has attributes and, again, has none. Only the man who lives under the tree knows that the chameleon can assume various colours and that sometimes it remains colourless. Others, not knowing the whole truth, quarrel among themselves and suffer.
Namaskar.

[Hari]

Sri Ravi,
of course that Brahman is Brahman being Saguna or Nirguna. The point is that according to some Sages the attributes are not real. This is what produce the tension between the major Vedanta schools. I am aware of all what you have posted. Thank you for sharing.

[Ravi.N]

Hari/Friends,
To confine Lord Siva to kailasa and Lord Vishnu to Vaikunta is what we are questioning.Where is their Lordship if they are so confined?
This sort of a story is quite convenient for the story teller(the exponent of katha Kalakshepam)as well as listeners -Neither needs to do anything to realize the Divine here and now!Neither needs to prove the existence of siva or Vishnu  on earth.They comfortably hope to be transported to Kailasa or vaikunta after their death and be with the Lord there forever.
In a lighter vein ,wonder whether Christians would like to go to these worlds and Muslims as well;Or  have they reserved Different Lokas for their Jehova and allah and would rather avoid any mixup.

It is quite clear that this is just our lack of clarity and understanding that leads to this sort of a mixup.As Sri Ramakrishna clearly states:

To a devotee Krishna is Spirit, His Abode is Spirit, and everything about Him is Spirit

.

God is one only, and not two. Different people call on Him by different names: some as Allah, some as God, and others as Krishna, Siva, and Brahman. It is like the water in a lake. Some drink it at one place and call it 'jal', others at another place and call it 'pani', and still others at a third place and call it 'water'. The Hindus call it 'jal', the Christians 'water', and the Mussalmans 'pani'. But it is one and the same thing. Opinions are but paths. Each religion is only a path leading to God, as rivers come from different directions and ultimately become one in the one ocean

.
Namaskar.

[Ravi.N]

Hari/Friends,

The point is that according to some Sages the attributes are not real

To perceive the attributes,there must be an observer.This is the point.What if the 'I' is totally effaced?What is left behind?This is something indescribable and such is the Nature of God,totally unfathomable.

This is how Sri Ramakrishna explains this:

Parable of the four friends

"Once four friends, in the course of a walk, saw a place enclosed by a wall. The wall was very high. They all became eager to know what was inside. One of them climbed to the top of the wall. What he saw on looking inside made him speechless with wonder. He only cried,'Ah! Ah!' and dropped in. He could not give any information about what he saw. The others, too, climbed the wall, uttered the same cry, 'Ah! Ah!', and jumped in. Now who could tell what was inside?

"Sages like Jadabharata and Dattatreya, after realizing Brahman, could not describe It. A man's 'I' completely disappears when he goes into samadhi after attaining the Knowledge of Brahman. That is why Ramprasad sang, addressing his mind:

'If you should find the task too hard, Call upon Ramprasad for help'.

The mind must completely merge itself in Knowledge. But that is not enough. 'Ramprasad', that is, the principle of 'I', must vanish too. Then alone does one get the Knowledge of Brahman."
This is why Sri Bhagavan has over and over emphasized 'who am I'-to unravel the unreal nature of 'I'.Instead of doing that we are trying to find out whether Ishwara is Real or unreal!The problem lies here.Sri Bhagavan's teaching is crystal clear.No one has taught the way he has done,so utterly simple and straight forward.

Namaskar.