Did we kill God?

[thebigthinkg]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) LinkedIn WhatsApp Email Share Link

The concept of 'God' (as Generator Organizer Destroyer) who protects the faithful, who shepherds the sheep, the king of subjects, who rewards paradise to believers, is an abrahamic concept.

There is no such God in Vedas or Upanishads. So there can't be any comparison.

The closest one can come up to is Atman in Vedas and Upanishads. But Atman is the neither the king of his subjects nor the rewarder of the paradise to believers.

Atman is the source (mUlam) from which this Universe has originated. Brahman is that which exists in every matter and being (which I call as evolution). That Brahman propels the Vidya (learning) and avidya (whcih I call as un-learning) of matter and beings and thereby evolves them.

For the Universe, the Brahma is the stratum that generates all the matter and beings, the Creator. (I called it the four dimensional spacetime). Vishnu is the one that 'holds' and thereby protects the matter and beings, the protector. (I called it the Higgs field that condenses/impedes energy and creates perception of mass). Shiva is the one that propels everything and ultimately destroys them, the destroyer (I called it the energy/dark energy).

The divinities/devas those that interact with us, the biological beings, guide our evolution. Hence we invoke them or worship them. What is behind, which we may never know or only partially know (according to nasadiya) is the Atman.

Advaita, Dvaita or Visishta-advaita Vedanta also does not define god. It just says Brahman (evolution) is the manifestation of Atman in all matter and beings. In that way all the Jivas also have the Atman in them.

Where they differ are in the place of view. From infinitiy, all finite are sub-sets. So infinite is the reality. That is Advaita. From finite, any amount of addition of finite does not become infinite. Hence these are two different realities. That is dvaita. From a third party view, large value tends to infinite and is finite with lesser value. Hence the two are distinct but part of one reality. That is visishta-advaita.

None of them 'define' one God as abrahamic religions do. That's why Sankara worshipped/invoked all the divinities. Not because he changed his mind.

-TBT

 

[prasad1]

TBT,
Good explanation.

But going back to OP, In practice, average Hindus (I am not including any other religion) pray to the idol and assume God resides there only.
They beg to that God alone.

The Bhakti movement (Not to be confused with Bhakti Marg), which apes Abrahamic religion, god is strictly idol worship.
The people crowding the temples are not intellectuals, they are looking to fulfill some worldly needs.

In that respect, I agree with Renukaji's OP. I still believe that this saguna god never existed, so there is no way we can kill god.

 

[prasad1]

Now that Prasad Sir is 'enlightened', I guess he would have resigned his post in the temple!!

Why visit a temple where there is NO force?

Not enlightened, just differently disillusioned.
I finished my term as Chairman of Temple. I am still financially involved as an original signatory on the building and land.
It is still my baby, as we spent 25 glorious years in service.
It gives me pleasure that it is growing financially, and The Hindu community is served.

I still go to Temples all over the world, I enjoy the architectures, and people. I have stopped going to overly crowded places. I am freed of begging or expecting anything from visiting Temples.

 

[thebigthinkg]

TBT,
Good explanation.

But going back to OP, In practice, average Hindus (I am not including any other religion) pray to the idol and assume God resides there only.
They beg to that God alone.

The Bhakti movement (Not to be confused with Bhakti Marg), which apes Abrahamic religion, god is strictly idol worship.
The people crowding the temples are not intellectuals, they are looking to fulfill some worldly needs.

In that respect, I agree with Renukaji's OP. I still believe that this saguna god never existed, so there is no way we can kill god.

The OP does not understand what prAna prathiStha is. Since there is no 'God' prAna prathistha does not create 'god'.

If you do ganapati, lakshmi, sarasvati or other pujas/homas at home, you would do prAna prathistha, right..? We invoke the biological functions in the idol and visualize the idol as a living embodiment of the divinity and make it a mUrti.

Then we worship the mUrti and beg the mUrti for favors. Such a begging is equivalent to begging the Brahman in ourselves, as we did the 'nyAsa' the depositing/delivering of the brahman on the mUrti (symbolically).

Average Hindus do the same in temples. The prAna prathisthA of the mUrti is done by the human beings by the nyAsa/depositing/delivering the brahman in them on the mUrti. So the begging the mUrti is begging to the brahman in the mUrti, which is to themselves.

There is nothing wrong in that begging. For some, seeking protection from that external source, gives them a great feeling of protection and confidence.

The problem comes only when that begging turns into a fanaticism of a particular mUrti or individual. But for average Hindus, there is no problem. They are always ready to experiment different divinities and mUrtis and beg to anyone who seem to respond to their needs.

-TBT

 

[prasad1]

The OP does not understand what prAna prathiStha is. Since there is no 'God' prAna prathistha does not create 'god'.

If you do ganapati, lakshmi, sarasvati or other pujas/homas at home, you would do prAna prathistha, right..? We invoke the biological functions in the idol and visualize the idol as a living embodiment of the divinity and make it a mUrti.

Then we worship the mUrti and beg the mUrti for favors. Such a begging is equivalent to begging the Brahman in ourselves, as we did the 'nyAsa' the depositing/delivering of the brahman on the mUrti (symbolically).

Average Hindus do the same in temples. The prAna prathisthA of the mUrti is done by the human beings by the nyAsa/depositing/delivering the brahman in them on the mUrti. So the begging the mUrti is begging to the brahman in the mUrti, which is to themselves.

There is nothing wrong in that begging. For some, seeking protection from that external source, gives them a great feeling of protection and confidence.

The problem comes only when that begging turns into a fanaticism of a particular mUrti or individual. But for average Hindus, there is no problem. They are always ready to experiment different divinities and mUrtis and beg to anyone who seem to respond to their needs.
-TBT

If we believe in Karma theory, No begging is needed. Begging should not change the results of the karma. So begging should be futile.

There are Visnavites, shakti worshippers, Lingayats to name few who are very particular to their deity. But that is for a different thread.

Running from one idol to another does no service as one is equally futile as other.
BG and other Vedic literature do not promote this bhakti movement which evolved to counter the growth of Abrahamic religions.

My contention is that Hinduism (or sanathan Dharma) did not include Temples and Moorties. It is later addition imported from other practices.

 

[prasad1]

The concept of 'God' (as Generator Organizer Destroyer) who protects the faithful, who shepherds the sheep, the king of subjects, who rewards paradise to believers, is an abrahamic concept.

There is no such God in Vedas or Upanishads. So there can't be any comparison.


None of them 'define' one God as abrahamic religions do. That's why Sankara worshipped/invoked all the divinities. Not because he changed his mind.

-TBT

You are one of the few exceptions, to average Hindu.
The general public is not interested in philosophy. They want some worldly need satisfied. Somehow the religious leaders have
only promoting this false hope of fulfilling these worldly desires.

 

[renuka]

The OP does not understand what prAna prathiStha is. Since there is no 'God' prAna prathistha does not create 'god'.

If you do ganapati, lakshmi, sarasvati or other pujas/homas at home, you would do prAna prathistha, right..? We invoke the biological functions in the idol and visualize the idol as a living embodiment of the divinity and make it a mUrti.

Then we worship the mUrti and beg the mUrti for favors. Such a begging is equivalent to begging the Brahman in ourselves, as we did the 'nyAsa' the depositing/delivering of the brahman on the mUrti (symbolically).

Average Hindus do the same in temples. The prAna prathisthA of the mUrti is done by the human beings by the nyAsa/depositing/delivering the brahman in them on the mUrti. So the begging the mUrti is begging to the brahman in the mUrti, which is to themselves.

There is nothing wrong in that begging. For some, seeking protection from that external source, gives them a great feeling of protection and confidence.

The problem comes only when that begging turns into a fanaticism of a particular mUrti or individual. But for average Hindus, there is no problem. They are always ready to experiment different divinities and mUrtis and beg to anyone who seem to respond to their needs.

-TBT

Well...this is what I was hoping to hear!
Its not that I did not understand anything but my question is why the need to create anything and claim.God or deity resides in it.



why do we need to invoke an external created object to realize Brahman or even beg an external object when we are supposed to do all internally.

I do know that Sanskrit doesnt have a default word for God as in an Abrahamic way.

Now another question i hope you can shed some light..
If its just symbolic invoking why the rules and regulations eg Sabarimalai..that a Prana Prastistha Brahmacarin deity cant have women in the vicinity.

So why these rules by Agama Shastras?

At the Advaitic point of view all you wrote makes perfect sense but from the Agama Shastra point of view it might not jive cos why would an invoked creation have likes and dislikes.

Then try telling a Vaishnava that Vishnu isnt God and Ramanuja isnt His prophet



Btw when I wrote " did we kill God"..i meant it as in " did we kill true understanding "...i wanted the word kill to " invoke " a response.


To add...your definition of Prana Pratishta though makes the most sense does not match with Rajiv Malhotra..or the Shankaracharya of the video and with Sadguru or Swami Dayanand..everyone is almost there though differing in view

Thats why i want concrete documented evidence from Agama Shastra..book..chapter ..page..so we can have a standard reference.

If anyone can produce documented evidence it would rest my case.

 

[renuka]

[/LIST]

Numbers for convenience of reference:

1) Neti, Neti, Neti.......(Not this, not this, no not this)
Yadha vacha nivartante. Aprapya manasaa sahaa. (words of languages returned back helpless after realising their inability to describe him)
purushamevethagm sarvam yadh bhootham yascha bhavyam. uthAmrutatvasyesanaha........ (He is everything here, the past, the present and the future)
I can quote any number of such passages from Vedas. So what you find in other religions is nothing different from what is there in Hinduism or Vedanta. When my ancestors decided to give a form to the God Idea/entity they just did that - gave a form. They did not want to waste their quietening the mind which looked for or rather which struggled for finding a method to objectify that entity so that they can move over to the next stage of dealing with it. You donot and can not deal with something that is nonexistent. And they did the best that they could when they zeroed in on a form. The form has to be something familiar, something close to the mind of the person, and something that can be venerated. So the anthropomorphous form was selected because that is the best that they had. They took care to include an elephant (for its size) a lion (for its power and strength), and a horse (for its beauty) also in the pantheon.
So these forms fulfilled a basic and widespread need to objectify the God entity to deal with it conveniently. None of my ancestors and none of the bhaktas today ever consider the form is the God. The Form just conveniently represents God so that I can move ahead with my life from which there is no escape for me. The form is not the the physical person of God.
The crack-pots who have understood religion the least and who are anxious to organize masses under a rallying point have a need to find holes in other religions.
And I have heard such long lectures about the idol worship from religious fanatics critical of it. They have just not understood the idol worshipping hindu at all.
God is Al-Ahad - not only for Moslems but also for Hindus. So there is nothing unique or new about this statement لَيْسَ كَمِثْلِهِ شَيْءٌ ۖ. I can give a hundred quotes from Vedas which stress this aspect and it is a scientific fact vedas are much much older in time.

2. It is the natural curiosity which when becomes a tormenting search that it leads the search to the need to objectify the inscrutable entity in a simple representative form. It is like how we use a Lemma in a complicated Mathematical problem. First we handle a certain information in a particular way to solve certain issues and arrive at a conclusion and put it aside as a Lemma. This Lemma later comes when we solve the problem. While solving we do not have to do all those operations again. We just take Lemma and put it in place and move ahead with our problem. For a sound relationship with the creator God I want first to identify and recognize him and then only I can deal with him. Giving a form is this process of Giving an identity and the entire exercise is a Lemma. The Form is a necessity without which it will be the "glorious night" in the darkness of which all cows are black in color. Qualitative aspects of God also need a base. What is that base is the question and when mind struggles to capture that base to deal with its qualitative attributes it comes across an insurmountable barrier of emptiness. Either the mind can give up in desperation or look for alternatives.

This is not something new about Vedas or hindu religion. It has been known and said several times by people in different ways. But Abrahamic religions have been banging it into the ears of faithfuls that this is the weakness of Hinduism. It requires an Einstein or a Stephen Hawking to understand the wisdom of hindus. Very unfortunate indeed.

So in other words you claim to know yet you will never go beyond your bodily identification gene theory and would never go beyond Vishnu and Ramanuja.


I didnt have to be Stephen Hawking or Einstein to know this...I just had to be Renuka to know this

 

[prasad1]

So in other words you claim to know yet you will never go beyond your bodily identification gene theory and would never go beyond Vishnu and Ramanuja.


I didnt have to be Stephen Hawking or Einstein to know this...I just had to be Renuka to know this

Stephen Hawking would be horrified that he is supposed to understand this Hokus-pokus.

Stephen Hawking believed that there is a "grand design" to the universe, but that it has nothing to do with God. In 1988, he spoke of God in his groundbreaking book A Brief History of Time, and said that if physicists could find a sound “theory of everything” they would understand “the mind of God.” He once believed that we would one day discover this unifying, coherent theoretical framework—like God—that explains the universe—but after studying Gödel, he decided that it would never happen. He said,

 

[Vaagmi]

..............Thats why i want concrete documented evidence from Agama Shastra..book..chapter ..page..so we can have a standard reference.
If anyone can produce documented evidence it would rest my case.

There is something called psychokinetics. There are people who can bend a iron rod from a distance just by seeing it and without touching it.

We do not yet know how this happens. If it is psychic energy which is doing the work, we do not know how the energy is passed on. There is no obvious visible medium and yet it happens. What we can say is just that we do not know how this happens. There is no use documenting the repeatability of this phenomena. People have in fact recorded the happenings with different people and yet we do not know why or how this happens.

There is no standard reference either.

So, shall we dismiss this as hocus pocus?

I went to an astrologer to ask him for an auspicious date for conducting the Kumbabhishekam of my village temple which is in a remote village in the south. I had no previous contact with that man and I went to him because a friend had got similar things done by him. My friend had given me just the address and he did not know why I was going to meet the astrologer. To my surprise, as I entered the hall in which this astrologer was seated he welcomed me and asked whether I want a date for the kumbabhishekam of the Krishnan temple in my village. He went on to tell me about the temple and deity like which direction the temple was facing, which were all the deities in the temple etc. as if he was just seeing them. How do we explain this hocus pocus?

Obviously this gentleman was able to go to my village using me as the campus instantly and look at the temple standing before the deity there.

So there are several things which are inexplicable in the knowledge domain.

If you do not agree, you can just say that you will agree when you experience. That is the outer limit for you. But facts and the world remain what they are whether you believe or not because your logical thinking is unable to find these fact within the schema of your knowledge.

So let us not be judgmental. If there is something acceptable accept them and if there is something you are unable to accept learn to live with it until the time comes for you and you understand it. There is no need to condemn them and call them hocus pocus as a friend here is very happy to call them.

 

[renuka]

There is something called psychokinetics. There are people who can bend a iron rod from a distance just by seeing it and without touching it.

We do not yet know how this happens. If it is psychic energy which is doing the work, we do not know how the energy is passed on. There is no obvious visible medium and yet it happens. What we can say is just that we do not know how this happens. There is no use documenting the repeatability of this phenomena. People have in fact recorded the happenings with different people and yet we do not know why or how this happens.

There is no standard reference either.

So, shall we dismiss this as hocus pocus?

I went to an astrologer to ask him for an auspicious date for conducting the Kumbabhishekam of my village temple which is in a remote village in the south. I had no previous contact with that man and I went to him because a friend had got similar things done by him. My friend had given me just the address and he did not know why I was going to meet the astrologer. To my surprise, as I entered the hall in which this astrologer was seated he welcomed me and asked whether I want a date for the kumbabhishekam of the Krishnan temple in my village. He went on to tell me about the temple and deity like which direction the temple was facing, which were all the deities in the temple etc. as if he was just seeing them. How do we explain this hocus pocus?

Obviously this gentleman was able to go to my village using me as the campus instantly and look at the temple standing before the deity there.

So there are several things which are inexplicable in the knowledge domain.

If you do not agree, you can just say that you will agree when you experience. That is the outer limit for you. But facts and the world remain what they are whether you believe or not because your logical thinking is unable to find these fact within the schema of your knowledge.

So let us not be judgmental. If there is something acceptable accept them and if there is something you are unable to accept learn to live with it until the time comes for you and you understand it. There is no need to condemn them and call them hocus pocus as a friend here is very happy to call them.

What can you just say " I dont know where the evidence is" instead of comparing apples and oranges?

When we want to build a structure eg a bridge..we have to adhere to Std Operating Procedure.( SOP)

When I want to prescribe meds I have to follow SOP too.

But when it comes to religion alone..there cant be a SOP?

This is what gives our religion a bad name.

There surely is evidence but may be very few of us know where to look for it.

I dont prefer to call anything hocus pocus.
In fact I NEVER used the word or even implied the word..all I asked is evidence from the Agama Shastras.
Even psychokinesis has an explanation..its thought waves that can cause kinetic energy.

May be my questions are just uncovering the lack of an evidence based knowledge of myself and some others but at least I am not giving replies that evade the question.

If you dont know..just say you dont know
Its that simple.

If no one can produce scriptural documented evidence than no one should complain about the Supreme Courts decisions cos at least Supreme court has the constituition to refer too.

 

[prasad1]

wow psychokinetics.

<span style="color: rgb(51, 51, 51); background-color: rgb(250, 250, 250);">[video=youtube_share;JKBM9my5eOA]https://youtu.be/JKBM9my5eOA[/video]

Carl Sagan included telekinesis in a long list of "offerings of pseudoscience and superstition" which "it would be foolish to accept (...) without solid scientific data". Nobel Prize laureate Richard Feynman advocated a similar position.

A panel commissioned in 1988 by the United States National Research Council to study paranormal claims concluded that "despite a 130-year record of scientific research on such matters, our committee could find no scientific justification for the existence of phenomena such as extrasensory perception, mental telepathy or ‘mind over matter’ exercises... Evaluation of a large body of the best available evidence simply does not support the contention that these phenomena exist."

In 1984, the United States National Academy of Sciences, at the request of the US Army Research Institute, formed a scientific panel to assess the best evidence for psychokinesis. Part of its purpose was to investigate military applications of PK, for example to remotely jam or disrupt enemy weaponry. The panel heard from a variety of military staff who believed in PK and made visits to the PEAR laboratory and two other laboratories that had claimed positive results from micro-PK experiments. The panel criticized macro-PK experiments for being open to deception by conjurors, and said that virtually all micro-PK experiments "depart from good scientific practice in a variety of ways". Their conclusion, published in a 1987 report, was that there was no scientific evidence for the existence of psychokinesis.


Felix Planer, a professor of electrical engineering, has written that if psychokinesis were real then it would be easy to demonstrate by getting subjects to depress a scale on a sensitive balance, raise the temperature of a waterbath which could be measured with an accuracy of a hundredth of a degree centigrade, or affect an element in an electrical circuit such as a resistor, which could be monitored to better than a millionth of an ampere. Planer writes that such experiments are extremely sensitive and easy to monitor but are not utilized by parapsychologists as they "do not hold out the remotest hope of demonstrating even a minute trace of PK" because the alleged phenomenon is non-existent. Planer has written that parapsychologists have to fall back on studies that involve only statistics that are unrepeatable, owing their results to poor experimental methods, recording mistakes and faulty statistical mathematics.


Philosopher and physicist Mario Bunge has written that "psychokinesis, or PK, violates the principle that mind cannot act directly on matter. (If it did, no experimenter could trust his readings of measuring instruments.) It also violates the principles of conservation of energy and momentum. The claim that quantum mechanics allows for the possibility of mental power influencing randomizers — an alleged case of micro-PK — is ludicrous since that theory respects the said conservation principles, and it deals exclusively with physical things.

Between 1979 and 1981, the McDonnell Laboratory for Psychical Research at Washington University reported a series of experiments they named Project Alpha, in which two teenaged male subjects had demonstrated PK phenomena (including metal-bending and causing images to appear on film) under less than stringent laboratory conditions. James Randi eventually revealed that the subjects were two of his associates, amateur conjurers Steve Shaw and Michael Edwards. The pair had created the effects by standard trickery, but the researchers, being unfamiliar with magic techniques, interpreted them as proof of PK.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychokinesis


If belief in Prana Pratishta is similar to Psychokinesis, then it proves that both are irrational or slight of hand.


I am sorry to say that so-called scientists fall for such tricks. Maybe they are gullible to begin with.

 

[prasad1]

I am sorry I do not know we killed God, but we killed rationality.

 

[renuka]

I am sorry I do not know we killed God, but we killed rationality.

[video=youtube_share;RqDY8Kbx3dE]https://youtu.be/RqDY8Kbx3dE[/video]

 

[renuka]

[video=youtube_share;mEm9xda4KwM]https://youtu.be/mEm9xda4KwM[/video]

Some parts make sense and some parts are simply hilarious!

He says " infinity of one is self conflicted mental retardation"

 

[prasad1]

[video=youtube_share;RqDY8Kbx3dE]https://youtu.be/RqDY8Kbx3dE[/video]

What is this, I just wasted 5 minutes of my time to listen to this convoluted talk.

 

[Raji Ram]

I listen to Nithi (the comedy Guru!!!) only when I want to laugh out loud!!

 

[Raji Ram]

Dear Renu,

If you want concrete proof from Agama sastrA, you should approach

a person well versed in the subject and not our dear members!

 

[Raji Ram]

And, Renu, some of your posts make me feel that you are

attracted more to another religion!

 

[Vaagmi]

Renukaji,
I appreciate your effort. Wow. What a sweeping range -- ending with our Nithi finally. You deserve an award. LOL.

 

[thebigthinkg]

Well...this is what I was hoping to hear!
Its not that I did not understand anything but my question is why the need to create anything and claim.God or deity resides in it.



why do we need to invoke an external created object to realize Brahman or even beg an external object when we are supposed to do all internally.

I do know that Sanskrit doesnt have a default word for God as in an Abrahamic way.

Now another question i hope you can shed some light..
If its just symbolic invoking why the rules and regulations eg Sabarimalai..that a Prana Prastistha Brahmacarin deity cant have women in the vicinity.

So why these rules by Agama Shastras?

At the Advaitic point of view all you wrote makes perfect sense but from the Agama Shastra point of view it might not jive cos why would an invoked creation have likes and dislikes.

Then try telling a Vaishnava that Vishnu isnt God and Ramanuja isnt His prophet



Btw when I wrote " did we kill God"..i meant it as in " did we kill true understanding "...i wanted the word kill to " invoke " a response.


To add...your definition of Prana Pratishta though makes the most sense does not match with Rajiv Malhotra..or the Shankaracharya of the video and with Sadguru or Swami Dayanand..everyone is almost there though differing in view

Thats why i want concrete documented evidence from Agama Shastra..book..chapter ..page..so we can have a standard reference.

If anyone can produce documented evidence it would rest my case.

1. I translated what prAna prathisthA mantras mean. As a tambrahm grhastha, I do it for various pUja rituals and wrote what I practice. I did not philosophize around them. In fact I have a post on it, but if I have to link it here, I have to remove the 'science' aspects of it, as it could divert the discussion.

2. I did not understand what 'cos why would an invoked creation have likes/dislikes mean'...? We invoke the 'aham' in us in the idol (after invoking it as a biological being), make it the mUrthi and pray to it. The brahman in that mUrthi which we invoked has no likes and dislikes.

3. Again I have to resort to vaagmi's example. Soldiers get inspired from a flag going down or going up. Players in a match get extra energy from a cheering crowd (or may get demoralized from a booing crowd). For many, including me, the inspiration/support/confidence that we get from a divinity that is external to us, though we invoked the brahman in that idol and made it a mUrthi, is great. Many others may have a self-inspirational mechanism in variety of ways.

4. Agama sAstras are an ocean different for different traditions and temples. For prAna prathistha we don't need to go to Agama sAstras. The core of the prAna prathistha are common across all pUja rituals and all Agama sAstras. Any TamBrahm would find it the pUja (sampradaya pUja vidhanam kind) ritual books.

5. On Sabarimala, Sabarimala does not follow Agama sAstras.

6. Sabarimala worship follows Tantra samuchayam, a tantra practice. As far as I know (I am not sure), tantra samuchchayam is common for all temples and does not prohibit women entry.

7. The prohibition for women entry in Sabarimala came from a Kerala HC ruling and a devaprashna in 1985 that menstruating women should not enter the temple. Before 1985, menstruating women were anyway not making it to sabarimala because it was arduous and almost impossible for menstruating women. But in 1985 it was conveyed as a devaprashna and then a Kerala HC ruling.

8. The word 'Agama' is used in sabarimala to indicate 'tradition' and not any specific Agama sAstra.

9. In comparison, prAna prathistha is a well documented practice with Rk vedic slokas and well defined prayoga.

-TBT

 

[renuka]

1. I translated what prAna prathisthA mantras mean. As a tambrahm grhastha, I do it for various pUja rituals and wrote what I practice. I did not philosophize around them. In fact I have a post on it, but if I have to link it here, I have to remove the 'science' aspects of it, as it could divert the discussion.

2. I did not understand what 'cos why would an invoked creation have likes/dislikes mean'...? We invoke the 'aham' in us in the idol (after invoking it as a biological being), make it the mUrthi and pray to it. The brahman in that mUrthi which we invoked has no likes and dislikes.

3. Again I have to resort to vaagmi's example. Soldiers get inspired from a flag going down or going up. Players in a match get extra energy from a cheering crowd (or may get demoralized from a booing crowd). For many, including me, the inspiration/support/confidence that we get from a divinity that is external to us, though we invoked the brahman in that idol and made it a mUrthi, is great. Many others may have a self-inspirational mechanism in variety of ways.

4. Agama sAstras are an ocean different for different traditions and temples. For prAna prathistha we don't need to go to Agama sAstras. The core of the prAna prathistha are common across all pUja rituals and all Agama sAstras. Any TamBrahm would find it the pUja (sampradaya pUja vidhanam kind) ritual books.

5. On Sabarimala, Sabarimala does not follow Agama sAstras.

6. Sabarimala worship follows Tantra samuchayam, a tantra practice. As far as I know (I am not sure), tantra samuchchayam is common for all temples and does not prohibit women entry.

7. The prohibition for women entry in Sabarimala came from a Kerala HC ruling and a devaprashna in 1985 that menstruating women should not enter the temple. Before 1985, menstruating women were anyway not making it to sabarimala because it was arduous and almost impossible for menstruating women. But in 1985 it was conveyed as a devaprashna and then a Kerala HC ruling.

8. The word 'Agama' is used in sabarimala to indicate 'tradition' and not any specific Agama sAstra.

9. In comparison, prAna prathistha is a well documented practice with Rk vedic slokas and well defined prayoga.

-TBT

My problem is the No 2 on the list above.

Why do we have to idolize the "Aham" and make it a " Tvam" and create forms.

For eg I am Renuka..do I need to create an idol of myself to know I am Renuka.

 

[thebigthinkg]

My problem is the No 2 on the list above.

Why do we have to idolize the "Aham" and make it a " Tvam" and create forms.

For eg I am Renuka..do I need to create an idol of myself to know I am Renuka.

That's what is answered in point 3. We are all unique, right..?

thanks and regards

 

[renuka]

That's what is answered in point 3. We are all unique, right..?

thanks and regards

well No 3 is practiced by most religions cos God or Brahman etc is always viewed externally as long as the Ego/Self exists.

That I understand...so the person who needs an idol is just externalizing of Aham but when the mind knows this why should he become dependent on a form?
Is it so hard to be sans a dependent form?

I know a person whose Ishta deva is Ganesh and he insists to have an idol in daily prayer till he got posted to a Middle East country which doesn't allow idols to be brought in.


So I asked that person "how do you pray now?"

To which he replied..."well I realized that Ganesha is within and I don't need an idol now"

So somehow he only realized this when he was in a place where no idols are allowed..it was not as if the person could not be motivated to pray when no idol was available.

So its not really an acute need as a must to make one focus on externalization of Aham....so why not we Hindus take small steps to realize this?

 

[thebigthinkg]

well No 3 is practiced by most religions cos God or Brahman etc is always viewed externally as long as the Ego/Self exists.

That I understand...so the person who needs an idol is just externalizing of Aham but when the mind knows this why should he become dependent on a form?
Is it so hard to be sans a dependent form?

I know a person whose Ishta deva is Ganesh and he insists to have an idol in daily prayer till he got posted to a Middle East country which doesn't allow idols to be brought in.


So I asked that person "how do you pray now?"

To which he replied..."well I realized that Ganesha is within and I don't need an idol now"

So somehow he only realized this when he was in a place where no idols are allowed..it was not as if the person could not be motivated to pray when no idol was available.

So its not really an acute need as a must to make one focus on externalization of Aham....so why not we Hindus take small steps to realize this?

Because there is no need to do so.

Sanatana is a 'dharma', a free way of life, where one evolves their thoughts and views over their life, where one is free to question any beliefs and faiths, where having a doubt on every concept and investigating them is valid.

Evolution is the only reality.

It's not a 'mata', a 'dogma', an 'ideology' which calls for specific belief or methods and ways.

-TBT