Reality of Shiva, Vishnu and other forms

[Hari]

Sri Ravi,
to tell that the attributes of Brahman exist or not according to the 'appearance' or 'non-appearance' of your "I" presupposes Ishvara to be your projection which makes Him unreal, mind's imagination. That's why for bhakta this is problematic explanation.

[Ravi.N]

Hari,

This is the reason why sri Ramakrishna says:

One should not discuss the discipline of the Impersonal God or the path of knowledge with a bhakta. Through great effort perhaps he is just cultivating a little devotion. You will injure it if you explain away everything as a mere dream

.

Yet,it is not something that a devotee has to be perturbed about.If the 'I' is dropped and the Devotee is free from want of any kind,why does he need anyone else,be it God.What remains is the whole,unqualified and perfect.There is just undivided consciousness.From the JnAni's perspective ,there is only this perfect whole,and there is nothing lacking of any sort.

With sadhana we will be able to harmonize everything and be free from conflict.Everyone has to blossom at his own pace in his or her way.

This is how Sri Ramakrishna explains this:

The worldly man's ego, the 'ignorant ego', the 'unripe ego', is like a thick stick. It divides, as it were, the water of the Ocean of Satchidananda. But the 'servant ego', the 'child ego', the 'ego of Knowledge', is like a line on the water. One clearly sees that there is only one expanse of water. The dividing line makes it appear that the water has two parts, but one clearly sees that in reality there is only one expanse of water.

Namaskar.
 

[Hari]

Here arises another problem. Is bhakti a mean or the Goal. If it is a mean then I accept. If it is the Goal why any annihilation of the "I"? Who needs it or why? Without "I" there is no bhakti. If it is only a mean why Sri Ramakrishna wanted to be born bhakta again? Then we should consider Him or Narada to be not Self-realized.

Saying that Ishvara's qualities are unreal makes bhakti an illusory game and thus it connot be used neither as a mean nor to be considered the Goal.

Even now I cannot understand why we try to syncretize all philosophies into One. This is just another megalomaniac play of the ego trying to take as much as it can. The Truth we are looking for is not in the Books.

[Ravi.N]

Hari,

I have absolutely no conflict with all this.It is quite simple and not contrived.This is not ego play.
Bhakti at its peak is called parabhakti and is no different than JnAna.In the fullness there is neither the path nor Goal.

Sri Ramakrishna wanting to be born again is not to be understood as if it is a personal wish.This is how Lord Sri Krishna also has said in The Bhagavad Gita:'In order to deliver the pious and to annihilate the miscreants, as well as to reestablish the principles of religion, I advent Myself millennium after millennium'.
Sri Ramakrishna talks about the ishwara Kotis and the Jiva kotis.This is another subject.The Ishwara Kotis are ever perfect,Nitya siddhas as He calls them.They are not born out of any compulsion due to karmic imprints.They come down to earth as ordained by the Divine will to show the way for other struggling jivas.

The sadhaka should take as much as he can assimilate and proceed with that.This is how Sri Ramakrishna puts it:

What do I care about knowing how many gallons of wine there are in the tavern? One bottle is enough for me. Why should I desire the knowledge of God's splendours? I am intoxicated with the little wine I have swallowed.

Namaskar.

[Ravi.N]

Friends,
I have posted excerpts from KAnchi mahAswAmi's talk on Hiranyagarbha Loka or Brahma Loka in this thread earlier.Those interested may read what sri paramahansa yogananda has written about this hiranya Loka as well as other worlds,from the Chapter:The Resurrection of Sri Yukteswar.Please visit:
http://www.crystalclarity.com/yogananda/chap43.php
Namaskar.

[atmavichar100]

ANNAMALAI SWAMI

Q: Many people feel an urge to worship something which is apart from themselves. They are not very attracted to the Self. Instead they want to worship an external Guru or a God.

AS: Worshipping forms of the deity or of the Guru is a useful aid
for as long as one is not mature enough to know the formless
of Bhagavan reality. These forms are just signals which point to the unmanifest reality.

If you want to point out a particular star to someone you might say, 'You see the tip of that leaf on the tree? The star is just to the
left of it.'

The leaf is only a signal which helps you to shift your attention
to what you really want to see. The form of the Guru is a similar signpost. He exists with a form as a perpetual reminder to us that our attention should always be on the formless reality.

Q: I am following the path of devotion and surrender. I like to do
puja and other ritual acts because they help me to keep my attention on God. Is it good to restrict our concept of God to a particular form?

AS: Pujas and different aspects of God are for those who want worldly things. As God is present in all forms, the best puja is to worship Him in all forms. The whole universe is a manifestation of
God. If you can love all beings in this universe equally you are
performing the highest and greatest puja.

Living by the Words of Bhagavan p. 291

[Ravi.N]

Atmavichar/Friends,

Pujas and different aspects of God are for those who want worldly things.

This needs to be taken with caution.It may be meant for the person addressed by Swami.This is not to be taken as a general statement.
Swami gave me a piece of rock from ArunAchala.Before giving it to me(he also gave one to my brother-in-law who accompanied me),he said that he found these two rocks imbued with ஆகர்ஷன சக்தி,i.e power of attraction ;He asked me -"can you perform pooja to this?".
That was a momentous decision that I had to take!I am not given to doing pooja and the like.I thought of my wife who chants lalitha sahasranamam and asked him-'Is it okay to chant lalitha sahasranamam?'.'Yes' said Swami and handed me that rock which occupies a central place in the Altar.So,I have Arunachala with me,so to say.Swami gave the other rock to my brother-in-Law who is in the U.S and he has kept it in the chapel as well.

Namaskar.

[Ravi.N]

Friends,

The main thing with worship is not what we worship, but that we worship, and if we have got love, we can easily surrender the feeling of 'I' which is the wall between ourselves and God.
Swami Ramanagiri

The above quote is quite like a Sri Ramakrishna saying!It goes straight to the essence of true worship.

I warmly recommend this article in David Godman's blog on Swami Ramanagiri:
http://sri-ramana-maharshi.blogspot.in/2009/01/swami-ramanagiri.html?commentPage=3

Namaskar.

[Hari]

The main thing with worship is not what we worship, but that we worship, and if we have got love, we can easily surrender the feeling of 'I' which is the wall between ourselves and God.

If one worships Tooth Fairy can he/she get liberation?

[Ravi.N]

Hari/Friends,

If one worships Tooth Fairy can he/she get liberation?

The answer is here:

if we have got love, we can easily surrender the feeling of 'I' which is the wall between ourselves and God

We may begin with any object of worship that inspires love in us ; as the feeling intensifies and deepens,the object drops off and the focus shifts to the Heart,leading to the surrender of the 'I' feeling.Surrendering the 'I' is true worship.

Worship is called upAsana;upAsana means that which seats us or takes us near god.

I will post a very inspiring story from the Book 'Sri Ramakrishna ,The Great Master' a little later.

Namaskar.

[Hari]

I understand your point, Sri Ravi. But for example Sri Vivekananda says in His work Bhakti Yoga very clearly what true bkati and love are:

"Love! For whom? For the Supreme Lord Ishwara. Love for any other being, however great, cannot be Bhakti."

That's why I gave this ridiculous example with Tooth Fairy, not from disrespect. According to Sri Vivekananda not all objects of worship are equal. Such kind of commentaries create some kind of tension and confusion.

[Ravi.N]

Hari,
Yes,it is very important that we have clarity regarding what we mean by Love.I agree with you that commentaries cause more confusion sometimes.What Vivekananda has meant is that Love should not be limited by anything whatsoever.One should not stagnate anywhere by attachment to object of Love ,however great be that object,if it hinders this turning within to the core of our Being.
I understand what you are saying here.Thanks very much.
Namaskar.

[Hari]

Sri Ravi, yes. "Love" also is very problematic topic within Vedanta for me because for Love there must be mind, there must be two. Even if we talk about loving our Self there is subject/object dichotomy (ego/the Self). Many Vedanta teachers teach that Love is Supreme and at the same time teach the Supreme is the absolute impersonal nondual consciousness. Who is to love whom there? We cannot even love ourselves in that state. So the word "Love" is somehow obscure for me from Vedantic point of view (I mean Advaita). May be it is a mask pointing just to Self-realization but being used because Love is the Supreme ideal for the phenomenal world. Love and Self-realization in the way Advaita (which Hindus respect most) teaches them as the Highest Goal simultaneously is somehow contradictio in terminis for me.

[Ravi.N]

Hari,
There is truly no contradiction here.Love is not dependent on any object.Love is giving oneself.When one gives oneself totally Love alone is.This is called Sivam.
This is what Sage Tirumoolar says in his Tirumantiram:

அன்பும் சிவமும் இரண்டென்பர் அறிவிலார்
அன்பேசிவமாவது யாரும் அறிகிலார்
அன்பே சிவமாவது யாரும் அறிந்தபின்
அன்பேசிவமாய் அமர்ந்திருந்தாரே

Translation:
Love and Sivam are two(different)say the ignorant
Love alone is sivam, no one knows;
Knowing Love alone is Sivam
Abided  as Sivam in Love.

Sivam is pure consciousness and this is Love.(anbu in Tamizh).anbey sivam-means 'Love alone is Sivam'.This needs to be intuited.It cannot be grasped by thought.The problem is that we think of the impersonal as something cold and aloof,lacking the warmth and intimacy of the personal.This is how thought conceives the impersonal!

Namaskar.

[Hari]

It is not the point. See this. If the impersonal is the Supreme realization and the personal is not then realizing the one and discarding the other is not real and full realization because the manifest and nonmanifest exist simultaneously and cannot be separated.

Love is unconditional giving without wanting nothing in return in conventional sense of the word. So there must be 'other', second. Love is the feeling when you let go everything in the name of someone else. This is Love. There must be second person or at least ideal (which is also duality). What Sages mean by Love is not the Love as we understand it at least intellectually. And this is somehow misleading for the students and readers, especially for the christian westerners.

Thank you for sharing your thoughts!