Comments on: Stop Praying to Hindu

By: Vishal

Vishal — Thu, 12 Mar 2009 13:59:23 +0000

Religion has been a part of elections in India as well. In fact political leaders use religion as a means to create vote banks. But this situation is utterly foolish and at an individual level. Can’t comment much on the intelligence level of people as such.

By: froginthewell

froginthewell — Wed, 15 Oct 2008 11:04:26 +0000

Oops – I might be wrong, in that dvaitins may not consider Ishvara to be finite.

You might also want to check vishiShTAdvaitic conceptions of Ishvara – the forms Para, Vyuha, Avatara, Antaryamin and Archa. The Antaryamin is certainly not external.

At any rate, for our pastor guys it is a question of close competition and oneupmanship

By: froginthewell

froginthewell — Wed, 15 Oct 2008 10:57:15 +0000

From the dvaitist perspective, as you say, Ishvara is finite and external ( and eternal ).

I am no expert on the subject, haven’t experienced anything myself, but the following are some ideas I have heard on it, from an advaitin’s perspective.
Some advaitins seem to talk of Ishvara as “the universal”. According to them the gross body of Ishvara, or “virAT”, is the sum total of all gross bodies and the subtle-body ( sUkShma-sharIra ) of Ishvara is the “universal mind”, which is the aggregate of individual minds.

According to panchadashi prakRti is of two “grades” – mAyA or pure sattva, as well as avidyA or sattva mixed with rajas and tamas. It says that Ishvara is the “reflection” of brahman in mAyA that, as it were, controls mAyA; while the jIvAtman is the “reflection” of brahman in avidyA. In this characterization, of course, Ishvara is viewed not as His gross body or the mind, just like the jIvAtman doesn’t refer to our gross bodies or minds.

Again, I suspect all this sRShTi, sthiti, samhAra, “sambhavAmi yugE yugE” etc. refer to Ishvara rather than brahman – as in, Ishvara as a “principle of cosmic order”, which is the “reflection” of brahman in mAyA.

Again, these are just some words I have come across, my so called understanding is hazy. You might want to read pancadashI or talk to well-read advaitins if interested. Those fellas get really technical!

By: Hiren

Hiren — Wed, 15 Oct 2008 09:05:33 +0000

Irrespective of religion, those who want to use religion to do irreligious things will do them anyway.

By: JK

JK — Wed, 15 Oct 2008 07:21:52 +0000

froginthewell, thanks! My understanding is that Brahman is formless and something you experience, whereas Ishwara is something finite and external.

By: Hrishi

Hrishi — Wed, 15 Oct 2008 03:37:42 +0000

Americans are given a lot more respect for their intellect than they really deserve. The average American is quite backward (the Conrad variety or the voter who got impressed with GWB, Jr the second time around).
So I’m not surprised. See how they’ve handled their economy! I’m told that pizza-delivery boys with an annual income of 30K USD were allowed to own 5-bedroom houses with swimming pools and tennis courts! Lord ‘Hindu’ save us!!

By: froginthewell

froginthewell — Mon, 13 Oct 2008 17:33:51 +0000

JK, Vedanta has a notion of “Ishvara” different from Brahman. Ishvara is the universal, and a word like “universal” doesn’t apply to Brahman. eg. the vishva-rUpa-darshanaM of the bhagavad-gItA was a representation of the Ishvara, not brahman. It is still not the simplistic notion these pastors speak about, nevertheless.

By: JK

JK — Mon, 13 Oct 2008 16:38:27 +0000

Kedar, For guys who have been pastors at at Evangelical Free Church for 37 years, Hindu is a God. I would say, he should get his money back.

By: Kedar

Kedar — Mon, 13 Oct 2008 08:29:29 +0000

“Hindu”, is a “God”?

By: B Shantanu

B Shantanu — Mon, 13 Oct 2008 07:47:09 +0000

Brilliant!