I believe in the Advaitin Brahman, but I am loosing faith in god

Brahman:
The Hindu belief about God, or Brahman, is not of a form-based individual, but of an existence of an unchanging cosmic spirit. Brahman is described as the eternal truth, the universal knowledge, and the infinite existence. The Vedas describe Brahman as imperishable, absolute, unborn and undying, omniscient, omnipotent, the supreme Soul, pure consciousness. Brahman is a Sanskrit word, and the root word brh refers to something that expands, or grows. It is a gender-neutral existence that may be described cannot be defined. The concept of Brahman does not have a single equivalent word in the Western languages, but the concept can be explained as the essence of the universe, the smallest particle of the cosmos, as well as the infinite universe.
Atman:
Atman may be generally translated as a soul, or the inner-self, the spark of divinity that Hindus believe exists within every human being. Hindus believe that Atman is the core of every person's self (not the mind or the ego, as Western philosophy proposed), and that all Atmas (or souls) emanate from Brahman (or Super-soul). This concludes that every soul's fundamental awareness is the same as that of Brahman's: eternal, essential, ageless; the only difference is that the soul's awareness is finite, limited. Therefore, the realization of "Aham Brahmasmi", or "I am Brahman", is the ultimate experiential knowledge that a Hindu seeks.[h=5]The Concept of Karma[/h]
Karma refers to the concept of cause and consequence, which the Hindus believe is a universal law that binds humans to the actions they perform and the resulting consequences of their actions. A soul's Karma is a unique blueprint of all the impressions it ever encountered, including desires, fears, beliefs, thoughts, intentions, influences, experiences, and energy vibrations. The three types of Karma: Agami, Sanchitta, and Prarabdha, are one's past, current and future actions and accumulation of consequences which define a person's life circumstances. Karma, in combination with the concept of reincarnation, is the Hindu explanation for the inequalities in people's circumstances.

[h=5]Reincarnation - Same soul, many lives[/h]
Another core belief of Hindus is that when an individual dies, even though the body is given up, the soul reincarnates, or takes on a new body and a new life. The concept of reincarnation is what the ancient Vedic sages ideated to explain circumstances that cannot be explained by genetics, culture or living conditions. Hindus believe that as long as a soul has intense unfulfilled desires, it will reincarnate in an attempt to fulfill them. The reincarnation process is believed to be repeated for hundreds of lifetimes to allow a soul to experience evolution, spiritual growth, and ultimately self-realization.

Among all means of liberation (mokSha), devotion (bhakti) is supreme. To seek earnestly to know one’s real nature – this is said to be devotion (bhakti).
vivekachUDAmaNi 31
In other words, devotion can be defined as the search for the reality of one’s own Atman.
vivekachUDAmaNi 32 (first sentence)
Where is the need for Isvara or personal god?

Historically speaking, Bhakti as a cult took root in India after the Muslim invasions. The Abrahamic monotheistic religions with their proselytizing spirit attracted the masses offering the promises of a personal God who would fulfill their wants. Perhaps to counter this, indigenous Bhakti cults developed and continue to do so today.
The Advaita scriptural texts, strictly speaking, do say that devotional approach to a personal deity is an inferior path for Enlightenment. Further, some of them explicitly state that the devotee has to be a “Shiva” himself in order to worship Shiva. Yogavaasishta says a Vishnu only can truly worship a Vishnu. The implication in these statements is that the devotee should lose the sense of being a separate individual from what is being worshiped – it insists on a total identity, Oneness, of the subject-object.
I feel that the techniques like meditation, Bhakti, rituals, pilgrimages etc. are useful at two levels to a seeker:

• Bhakti etc. will work as a sort of aid to train the mind in its ability to stay focused (instead of wavering) and unbiased (being aware of one’s own hidden prejudices). These two aspects sharpen the mind and make it ready to take up Self-inquiry on one’s own.
• Bhakti and other such techniques are useful once again at a later stage after the Advaitic message is completely ingested without any doubt but a seeker experiences some difficulty to abide constantly in Brahman. The mind out of its sheer old habit pulls him/her back to the lures of the world from unceasing abidance as Brahman. Using Bhakti and other such things as little crutches, it will be easy for the seeker then to come back to rest as Awareness instead of being driven by the vagaries of the mind.

I feel to most people having a belief of any kind gives them some sort of "security" to fall back upon in times of need.

Humans resort to adhering to beliefs purely for an anti depressant and anti- stress effect but they choose to call that Bhakti/Jnaana to mask their personal self vested interest.

A person who believes in Advaitin and does not subscribe to a personal God concept is no different from a person who believes in an Personal God or Dualism or Qualified Dualism...the common ground is both have BELIEFS.

Some choose NOT to have personal beliefs but not having a belief itself and adhering to it also is a form of personal belief.

So what to do?

Nothing..just lead life from day to day without the need to adhere to anything or any concept nor reject anything.

Prasadji, I assume you are losing faith in "a personal God". Could you define for the layman what the term personal God means? Is it God in a certain form, having 4 hands or elephant trunk etc. ?

If there is no extreme ideology driven by a religious ego , simple devotion expressed at a personal level to their Ishta Devatha is very powerful to a person's well being.

A religious ego will divide others based on their beliefs or put other human being down for what they are.

Some people will lose faith in the idea of God they have come to believe all their life when events or reasons conflict with their beliefs.

Advaitam is not a concept or an idea subject to belief. If it is a belief, it is no different than any other belief. Our scriptures are full of words seemingly contradictory that do not have a way to define using other words such as Brahman - Saguna, Nirguna, Maya, Karma, Papa Punya etc. Though indescribable the Upanishads use shabda (words) to communicate what cannot be communicated directly. Without enormous time, total dedication of life to know the truth and well qualified teacher these teaching can at best remain as beliefs only.

The best prescription is for one to do one's duty fully, be kind to others regardless of their beliefs and learn to meditate on one's Ishta Devatha in private.

hi

even great advaita acharya wrote all kinds of slokas about gods/godess......without saguna no nirguna.....just my thoughts....

BAJA GOVINDAM ..BAJA GOVINDAM.....SAMPRAPRATHE SANNIHITE KALE NAHI NAHI RAKSHTI...

tbs said:

hi

even great advaita acharya wrote all kinds of slokas about gods/godess......without saguna no nirguna.....just my thoughts....

BAJA GOVINDAM ..BAJA GOVINDAM.....SAMPRAPRATHE SANNIHITE KALE NAHI NAHI RAKSHTI...

Click to expand...

Baja Govindam is a sloka whose real meaning is profoundly vedantic. It is attributed to Sri Sankara and it might be anyone else in his lineage.
Regardless the meaning given to the first stanza is:

"Worship Govinda, worship Govinda, worship Govinda, Oh fool !
Rules of grammar will not save you at the time of your death."

Idea of this popular translation is about reciting the name Govinda. Not sure how it is supposed to help ward off death of a fool. There is even a seemingly concocted story that there was an old fellow studying grammar and Sri Sankara was addressing such people from getting caught up with grammar issues and instead say the name of the Lord - Govinda.

This is the common interpretation of 'Bhakthi for Mukthi' type people...

Govinda means one who is understood by Shabda (words) of Veda. It will make no sense to call anyone reading this as fools and then tell them to ignore grammar. How is that supposed to help one be saved from death. What does being saved mean anyway? Why pick on grammar of a language.

There are more profound and more fitting translation with particular emphasis of choice of words in the stanza including the use of डुकृञ्करणे

People immersed in the current Bhakthi culture does not care about such things.. (this post is not directed at Sri tbs, just using his post to make a point).

Good point TKSji.
I wish Sangomji visits this thread. I would like his opinion too.

My contention is:Historically speaking, Bhakti as a cult took root in India after the Muslim invasions.

hi

even in vedic period....some kind of bhakti there....they worship varuna/indra/some etc....even rig vedic period...

a lot of stuti there....so mere BRAHMAN worship....like allah in ISLAM.....

Anyone who is seriously interested in learning the Truth of who we are , and truth of what this phenomenological world is all about will pursue knowledge at a level that is comfortable to them. The knowledge area includes fundamental Science (study of matter) and meta-science that does not require blind belief as its foundation (Vedanta without superimposed theological overtones).

Even a minimal exposure to such knowledge in a proper setting with right teachers, a person will recognize an emotive power within themselves that may be called Bhakti which is a 'directionless love' to one and all. Such an emotive power leads one the quest to learn about Isvara which can be called the unifying reason for all the existence we see around including ourselves

There are many expressions of this Bhakti and it is unwavering when it is born out of an understanding. This form of bhakti has always existed from time immemorial.

However when ego-identity is involved that is deeply intertwined with an idea of Bhakthi, it can give rise to a cultural identity that may not be healthy for an individual or a society.

There are people who put Vibhoothi on Sri Sankara and feel ownership to their cult. Many do not know that Sri Sankara has commentaries on Vishnu Sahasranama (possibly his first Bhashya).

Similarly others put different namam on icons such as Sri Rama and Sri Krishna who is associated with teachings of universal principles.

Hinduism is not a history centric religion and we do not care if the ideals attributed to Sri Rama for example have to historically match with a real Sri Rama who may have lived a few millenia ago. A bhakthi culture distorts true meaning of Bhakthi and divides people.

The concept of Ishta Devata is a beautiful concept in Hinduism. One can worship a deity in any form that they can relate to for their own personal peace. A formless Isvara does not negate such a worship because any form can be deliberately superimposed on a formless Isvara that a person is able to relate to.

Even if devotion may be materialistic in nature, if a person is not leading a life against dharma, such a person will eventually discover the right direction in their life.

In summary, Bhakthi even in immature form seeking material goods , is useful to a person if it is sincere and does not lead to a collective religious ego identity with others at which point it becomes a cult.

hi

all sankaracharyas are doing daily poojas......some kind of ista devatas....in general....sometimes advaita shadows of

BUDDHISM....SO SOME SAYS ....ADVATINS ARE PRACCHANA BAUDDHA....MEANS.....like SUNYAVADIN BUDDHISM...

ADVAITIN ALSO FOLLOW SUNYAVADA....like some say.....SUNYAMIDAHA....SUNYAMIDHAM....SUNYAATH...SUNYAM

UDACCHATE,,,,,SUNYSYA SUNYAM AADHAYA....SUNYAMEVA AVASISYATE....SO ADVATINS NOT MERELY BHAKTHI VADINS..

tbs said:

hi

all sankaracharyas are doing daily poojas......some kind of ista devatas....in general....sometimes advaita shadows of

BUDDHISM....SO SOME SAYS ....ADVATINS ARE PRACCHANA BAUDDHA....MEANS.....like SUNYAVADIN BUDDHISM...

ADVAITIN ALSO FOLLOW SUNYAVADA....like some say.....SUNYAMIDAHA....SUNYAMIDHAM....SUNYAATH...SUNYAM

UDACCHATE,,,,,SUNYSYA SUNYAM AADHAYA....SUNYAMEVA AVASISYATE....SO ADVATINS NOT MERELY BHAKTHI VADINS..

Click to expand...

Saying "Some say this... some say that....." is mere invitation to polemics without earnest desire to understand. There are also refutations to some say this and some say that stuff and one should go through the refutations to see if it refutes arguments of the opponents convincingly.

Anyone having a bit of understanding of Buddhist philosophy would know that bliss is momentary as per Buddhas and it just comes and passes away. No advaitin would subscribe such a theory of momentary or fleeting moment, without an unchanging reality in the background. To say advaitins folow "SUnyamidham" etc. is gross wrong statement. No kshaNam ksshaNam in advaitam.

I am surprised that you say this after having done your Ph.D in vedanta.

tbs said:

hi

all sankaracharyas are doing daily poojas.......

Click to expand...

But they do not do sandhyA-vandanam which they exhort others to do all, right..? So some beginning may be made if a jignAsu tries to understand that.

zebra16 said:

Saying "Some say this... some say that....." is mere invitation to polemics without earnest desire to understand. There are also refutations to some say this and some say that stuff and one should go through the refutations to see if it refutes arguments of the opponents convincingly.

Anyone having a bit of understanding of Buddhist philosophy would know that bliss is momentary as per Buddhas and it just comes and passes away. No advaitin would subscribe such a theory of momentary or fleeting moment, without an unchanging reality in the background. To say advaitins folow "SUnyamidham" etc. is gross wrong statement. No kshaNam ksshaNam in advaitam.

I am surprised that you say this after having done your Ph.D in vedanta.

Click to expand...

hi

may be its called poorva paksha....i quote poorva paksha theory.....not my theory....so i said some say...

zebra16 said:

But they do not do sandhyA-vandanam which they exhort others to do all, right..? So some beginning may be made if a jignAsu tries to understand that.

Click to expand...

hi

sandhya vandanam is NITYA KARMA. FOR BRAHMACHARI/GRIHASTHA/VAANAPRASTHAS...ONLY FOR BRAHMINS .NOT FOR SANYASI....BUT POOJA IS
BHAKTHI....WHICH IS COMMON TO EVERYBODY..

EVEN FOR LADIES TOO...

I know we have living Sankarcharyas, but do any of them, can be Adi Shankara?
For that matter do we really know Adi Shankara?
The strotrams and other blind devotions, run counter to his Advaita philosophy. Bhaja Govindam has stanzas that were not created by him.
The present Sankaracharyas are Caretakers, and they have a business to run.

So without disparaging them, I do not have great expectation from them.

The benevolent GOD, who rules like a king, and expects subject to pray to him, is not the advaitin Brahman. Yes even He/She is included in Brahman as everything is Brahman. This personalized God is false.

The deity that expects you to beg for everything CAN not be GOD. This deity that is so vain the you have to paise can not be God.

I believe in God, but a deity is not God.

prasad1 said:

I know we have living Sankarcharyas, but do any of them, can be Adi Shankara?
For that matter do we really know Adi Shankara?
The strotrams and other blind devotions, run counter to his Advaita philosophy. Bhaja Govindam has stanzas that were not created by him.
The present Sankaracharyas are Caretakers, and they have a business to run.

So without disparaging them, I do not have great expectation from them.

The benevolent GOD, who rules like a king, and expects subject to pray to him, is not the advaitin Brahman. Yes even He/She is included in Brahman as everything is Brahman. This personalized God is false.

The deity that expects you to beg for everything CAN not be GOD. This deity that is so vain the you have to paise can not be God.

I believe in God, but a deity is not God.

Click to expand...

Due to influence of biblical religions and their influence, many Hindus have become history centric. Our religion is not history centric at its core. There are commentaries available attributed to Sri Sankara. Regardless of who transcribed these spoken commentaries we find them profound and useful. We know they were spoken from the styles of presentations.

It does not matter who actually wrote or taught because history has no relevance to our personal growth here and now.

Sankara Madams continue with their own focus on what they think the people need. Instead of focusing on teaching, they have chosen to adopt a more ritualistic acts of devotion. My take is that if it is not useful I do not have to support that. I did find the works of Paramacharya titled 'Daivatthin Kural' of 7 volumes to be somewhat useful.

Over the years many acharyas have written stotrams and attributed to Sri Sankara (and it may not be Adi Sankara). It does not matter who the author is because we can examine what is available here and now and see if it is useful to our personal growth.

Baja Govindam is one such work and it is deeply vedantic in its message. Most literal translations available is used to emphasize blind faith to a magical God which appeals to a common person.

Bhakthi and Isvara are core to the teachings of Vedantic truths. One cannot simply understand the profound messages easily. There are intermediate steps and practices that are actually useful. Ishta devatha superimposed on a deity form has a useful role in one's growth.

One will find true Jignasa person to be a true Bhakta and is not opposed to deity worship.

PS: Benevolent God that expects one to beg is all creations of confused men and women

tks said:

Due to influence of biblical religions and their influence, many Hindus have become history centric. Our religion is not history centric at its core. There are commentaries available attributed to Sri Sankara. Regardless of who transcribed these spoken commentaries we find them profound and useful. We know they were spoken from the styles of presentations.

It does not matter who actually wrote or taught because history has no relevance to our personal growth here and now.

Sankara Madams continue with their own focus on what they think the people need. Instead of focusing on teaching, they have chosen to adopt a more ritualistic acts of devotion. My take is that if it is not useful I do not have to support that. I did find the works of Paramacharya titled 'Daivatthin Kural' of 7 volumes to be somewhat useful.

Over the years many acharyas have written stotrams and attributed to Sri Sankara (and it may not be Adi Sankara). It does not matter who the author is because we can examine what is available here and now and see if it is useful to our personal growth.

Baja Govindam is one such work and it is deeply vedantic in its message. Most literal translations available is used to emphasize blind faith to a magical God which appeals to a common person.

Bhakthi and Isvara are core to the teachings of Vedantic truths. One cannot simply understand the profound messages easily. There are intermediate steps and practices that are actually useful. Ishta devatha superimposed on a deity form has a useful role in one's growth.

One will find true Jignasa person to be a true Bhakta and is not opposed to deity worship.

PS: Benevolent God that expects one to beg is all creations of confused men and women

Click to expand...

hi

i agreed sir....saguna /nirguna upasana is stages of ritual/spiritual/philosophical,,,,,

tbs said:

hi

i agreed sir....saguna /nirguna upasana is stages of ritual/spiritual/philosophical,,,,,

Click to expand...

Not sure I understand your comment.

I do not understand the word spiritual (it has all kinds of meaning based on who is saying it). What I am saying has nothing to do with a philosophy.
Nirguna by very definition cannot even be imagined and therefore there cannot be any upasana of 'Nirguna' possible.

Sri Prasad's point if I understand correct is that today's Bhakti movement which is largely driven by superstitions (using my words) cannot be related to by someone who wants to know the nature of Isvara. If that is his point, I can relate to that.

tks said:

Not sure I understand your comment.

I do not understand the word spiritual (it has all kinds of meaning based on who is saying it). What I am saying has nothing to do with a philosophy.
Nirguna by very definition cannot even be imagined and therefore there cannot be any upasana of 'Nirguna' possible.

Sri Prasad's point if I understand correct is that today's Bhakti movement which is largely driven by superstitions (using my words) cannot be related to by someone who wants to know the nature of Isvara. If that is his point, I can relate to that.

Click to expand...

Yes sir, you are right.
I am not enlightened enough to know brahman. I have some bookish and vague idea about Brahman.
I have been a regular Hindu, praying and visiting Temples. I was also the puja committee Chairman of the Temple.
I have come to the conclusion like Renukaji and Sangomji, that what people worship as God, is false.
I am just not able to live that lie anymore. I go to Temple so that I do not rock the boat, but I think it is futile.

I don't think it is possible to know Brahman. If you fully understood Brahman, wouldn't you become Brahman itself?

Science refers to Brahman as the Theory of Everything and Hawking refers to this paradox in the book A Brief History of Time.

prasad1 said:

Yes sir, you are right.
I am not enlightened enough to know brahman. I have some bookish and vague idea about Brahman.
I have been a regular Hindu, praying and visiting Temples. I was also the puja committee Chairman of the Temple.
I have come to the conclusion like Renukaji and Sangomji, that what people worship as God, is false.
I am just not able to live that lie anymore. I go to Temple so that I do not rock the boat, but I think it is futile.

Click to expand...

\\

hi

i can understand ur position.....the seeker and seekings.....as puja committee chair...to conduct and organise temple

rituals....sometimes more show than real....to satisfy the board and devotees..

prasad1 said:

Yes sir, you are right.
I am not enlightened enough to know brahman. I have some bookish and vague idea about Brahman.
I have been a regular Hindu, praying and visiting Temples. I was also the puja committee Chairman of the Temple.
I have come to the conclusion like Renukaji and Sangomji, that what people worship as God, is false.
I am just not able to live that lie anymore. I go to Temple so that I do not rock the boat, but I think it is futile.

Click to expand...

I understand your point, Prasad ji.

Vedas that have this term Brahman defined also says that no words can describe it. None of us are enlightened and if we are we will be just silent

The modern devotion culture is one of bartering with a deity. It is one thing to pray when one is afraid or want something. But there is almost an adharmic manner in which some people approach their God.

One enterprising priest in USA (that I know) told a Gujarathi business fellow that the he (that is the priest) will talk to Lord Ganesha on the business guy's behalf for this fellow to succeed in a new business venture. The business guy is known to be a bit of a crook but wanted Ganesha's blessings.

The priest told him "you will succeed and when you do please take care of me too " . Priest did puja for a week or so. Along with good remuneration for the priest, business guy gifted priest and his family a fully paid cruise vacation of 2 weeks , since the business deal had succeeded. It is hilarious but this is how people look at religion.

What people worship is their business and religion has become another business. There are temples that are known because a fellow can get Visa to USA if he goes to this Visa venkateswara temple before the visa interview

Our teachings do have a more loft vision and in that vision bhakthi is personal and can only arise with an understanding of Isvara.