Are GODs just symbolic ???

Srikrishna Ghadiyaram srikrishna_ghadiyaram at YAHOO.COM
Wed Jul 31 22:36:12 CDT 2002

Hari Om !!

--- "Subrahmanian, Sundararaman V [IT]"
<sundararaman.v.subrahmanian at CITIGROUP.COM> wrote:
> Dear Sri. SriKrishna Ghadiyaram,
> Before I proceed I request you not to be hasty in
> lifting quotations from
> speeches and transplant them elsewhere and try to
> find
> meanings/justifications.  The Swami whom you quoted
> was a PhD in Chemistry
> and PhD in Sanskrit before he became a Sanyasi.  He
> is a well read person.
> Your best bet to get a clear answer about what he
> said is to ask him
> yourself.  He is normally in Hyderabad and he visits
> US once a year for a
> few months to teach in PA, USA.

First of all, do not think that I have to "lift"
quotations out of place. I have nothing to prove. I
only need more inputs from others to makeup my own
mind. I do respect the Swami's knowledge in Sanskrit
and Vedas. It has been of great help to me as I
listened to a few of his lectures. But, it is not
necessary that I accept whatever I hear, right ?? You
also know that scholarship in Chemistry is of no
particular advantage for Advaita knowledge, except for
makingup an understanding intellect of aparavidya.
Many 'uneducated' people grasp Advaita intuitively,
right ? I remember, "Devi Mahatmyam" calls this
Sattvic intelligence, by classifying intelligence
itself as Sattvic, Rajasic, and Tamasic.

Yes, I would ask him directly, when I feel more
comfortable to deal with it. At least, I have heard
him enough on this subject that I only need alternate

>  He may reveal higher
> Truths after some degree of
> maturity on part of the disciple.

The problem is that the present teaching is that there
are no Gods, and that is the higher teaching.

>  He also talks
> about lokaas where
> devataas exist.  He has always maintained that
> shruti is a pramaaNam and
> that what is contained in it can neither be proved
> or disproved by other
> means.  As to the definition of a devataa here is
> what he has to say:
> The entire universe is a field of experience.

>  So when Ishvara is viewed
> with reference to a
> particular order, Ishvara is seen as a devataa.  So
> a devataa equals a
> particular order of the universe.  As an example,
> when Ishavara is viewed
> w.r.t the "order/law of sight" he is called
> aadityaa.  Therefore every
> devataa is equally Ishvara but seen w.r.t a
> particular order.  Just as the
> obedience of a law results in the benefits,
> worshipping a devataa will help
> us overcome the ill-effects of not obeying the order
> and also give us the
> strength to see Ishvara in that order.  Example:
> worshipping aadityaa will
> improve our sight etc.

> Regarding the "reality" of devataas, we can see from
> the above description
> that the devataas are as "real" as iishvara.

Your clarification about the views of SDS are helpful.

Ofcourse, I am also understanding that the entire
universe is an expression of Brahman.

My question was, when we read Puranas, we see
different 'Gods', as simultaneous and independent
'Beings'. They are expressions of Brahman, obviously.
But the question is whether they are 'imaginary'
characters created by our 'sages' to just convey
'spirituality', or they have 'reality' equavalent to
'me' or 'higher' than 'me' in the sense that they know
the 'reality'.

I started my original posting because the Swami's
words sounded as representation of the first case.

Om Namo Narayanaya !!


Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Health - Feel better, live better

More information about the Advaita-l mailing list