Are GODs just symbolic ???
miinalochanii at YAHOO.COM
Thu Jul 18 12:41:07 CDT 2002
Answers is NO. devata-s are as real as we are. They are not *just*
symbolic. People who espouse such views (that they mere symbolic) do a
greater harm to our religion than outsiders.
The way we understand devata-s in advaita-vedaanta is
a) Our main concern is to attain liberation which is non-dual state and
that is realizing our identity with brahman by discarding avidya.
b) In vyAvahAra, different worlds and different devata-s do exist. We
need not feel shy or embarassed at this fact looking at mono-theistic
religions like Islam or Christianity.
c) How we approach the underlying unity is driven into our head day
after day in sandhya in the step called aikya anusandhaanam -- were we
say "aasavaadityo brahma, brahmaiva satyam, brahmaivaahamasmi". When
the upaadhis are removed, the underlying what remains is true and that
is the non-dual brahman only. And the upaadhi-s are not real from an
absolute stand point. It would be incorrect to say I am same as
aaditya. There are so many differences between me and aaditya. These
differences are caused by upaadhi-s and they are mithya. That is what
causes the differences. As long as I am in the spell of avidya and
suffer in this duality -- to me devata-s as real as I am.
d) Withing this framework, we have aditya, soma, raahu, ketu etc as
real as we are. And we propitiate them as we do our superiors etc.
e) In addition, it is OK to think of there symbolic presence interally
within ourselves. That will help us to internalize our worship. But to
call they are all just symbolic is unacceptable.
f)Many modern day swami-s operate under various constraints (such as
appeasing their western devotees etc.) One should carefully consider
their views and in the light of their overall philosophy and life.
Typically, people say that of all varNa-s brahmana-s are the most
corrupted these days. I would extend that to say of all ashrama-s
sannyaasa ashrama is the MOST corrupted these days. Of course there
are always exceptions. This is my view and feel free to disagree with
--- Srikrishna Ghadiyaram <srikrishna_ghadiyaram at YAHOO.COM> wrote:
> Hari Om !!
> Yes, I meant Swami Dayananda of Arsha Vidya Gurukulam.
> However Sri Rajesh Sarin's posting is a welcome
> I would urge the knowledgeable members of this list to
> comment on the topic of 'mere symbolic status of Gods'
> as per Advaita view. Comments from other Acharyas are
> also appreciated.
> Om Namo Narayanaya !!
> --- Ashish Chandra <ramkisno at HOTMAIL.COM> wrote:
> > On Thu, 18 Jul 2002 17:04:12 +0530, Rajesh Sarin
> > <Rajesh_Sarin at RIL.COM>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >Namaskar !
> > >
> > >In response to the query by Sh. Srikrishna
> > Ghadiyaram :
> > >"Have any of you heard similar ideas from Swami
> > Dayananda"
> > >
> > >I am sending a few ideas gathered from reading one
> > of the
> > >Books "SATYAARTHA PRAKASH" by Swami Dayanand
> > Saraswati.
> > >
> > Rajesh
> > I think the Swamiji intended here is Swami Dayananda
> > Sarasvati of the Arsha
> > Vidya Gurukulam of Pennsylvania and not the Swamiji
> > who authored Satyartha
> > Prakash.
> > Your other remarks can be answered by others more
> > conversant with the Veda.
> > namaste
> > ashish
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Autos - Get free new car price quotes
sharaNAgata raxakI nivEyani sadA ninnu nammiti mInAxI
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Autos - Get free new car price quotes
More information about the Advaita-l mailing list