Hindu Deities & their meanings

[everneo]

Please explain to me how the third statement in my post about Shiva in the Vedas deals with his blessing of physical well-being.

He took the 'medicine' from the first line of your quote from Rig Veda. Skipped the 'best among the Gods' part as usual.

"To Rudra [Siva], Lord of sacrifice, of hymns and balmy medicines, we pray for joy and health and strength. He shines in splendor like the sun, refulgent as bright gold is He, the good, the best among the Gods (Rig Veda 43.4--5)."

Don't waste your time asking him for more silly explanations.

 

[lightgigantic]

He took the 'medicine' from the first line of your quote from Rig Veda. Skipped the 'best among the Gods' part as usual.

"To Rudra [Siva], Lord of sacrifice, of hymns and balmy medicines, we pray for joy and health and strength. He shines in splendor like the sun, refulgent as bright gold is He, the good, the best among the Gods (Rig Veda 43.4--5)."

Don't waste your time asking him for more silly explanations.

there are numerous words for "the best among the gods" such as sura-uttama, sura sat tama etc that are not singularly exclusive (they even appear in the SB) - or even such words as adi-deva (as devas and suras have a material lineage)
and furthermore, since the reference number for the Rg Veda is incorrect (a.b.c-d, not a.b-c) its impossible to verify the sanskrit, unless Ayodhya comes up with the right verse number or the sanskrit passage itself.

I guess if you want to advocate that examinations of the context of sanskrit is silly you don't have much of a platform to appreciate the vedas. Actually it smacks of the contemporary lack of philosophical and theoretical basis in mainstream hindu practice which makes most people view it as an orthopraxy ("correct ritual") instead of an orthodoxy ("correct philosophy/idea")

 

[everneo]

there are numerous words for "the best among the gods" such as sura-uttama, sura sat tama etc that are not singularly exclusive (they even appear in the SB) - or even such words as adi-deva (as devas and suras have a material lineage)

Sanskrit sura refers to celestial beings lead by indra. Deva is a common word to indicate suras and gods. As in Vasu-deva (Krishna/Vishnu).

and furthermore, since the reference number for the Rg Veda is incorrect (a.b.c-d, not a.b-c) its impossible to verify the sanskrit, unless Ayodhya comes up with the right verse number or the sanskrit passage itself.

Rig Veda Book 1, hymn 43, verses 4 and 5. (1.43.4 - 5)

I guess if you want to advocate that examinations of the context of sanskrit is silly you don't have much of a platform to appreciate the vedas. Actually it smacks of the contemporary lack of philosophical and theoretical basis in mainstream hindu practice which makes most people view it as an orthopraxy ("correct ritual") instead of an orthodoxy ("correct philosophy/idea")

You talk about all 'big' things in a silly way.

 

[lightgigantic]

Sanskrit sura refers to celestial beings lead by indra. Deva is a common word to indicate suras and gods. As in Vasu-deva (Krishna/Vishnu).

Vasudeva means the platform of unadulterated goodness, also the name of Krishna's 'parents'. Vaasudeva is the name of Krishna himself, the long 'a' indicating 'situated from', thus it means the perception of the transcendental nature of Krishna can only 'come from' the platform of Vasudeva

Rig Veda Book 1, hymn 43, verses 4 and 5. (1.43.4 - 5)

so it appears the word in contention is 'sresthah' which simple means 'better' as opposed to a definite singular title - like for instance 'sura sresthah' means the chiefs among the demigods, or the guna avatars, namely, brahma (rajas- passion), siva(tamas - ignorance) and visnu (sattva - goodness)
so 'srestho devanam' can be seen in many ways

so, in conjunction with this SB verse, there is an indication what is the exact nature of siva's greatness

SB 12.13.16: Just as the Gańgā is the greatest of all rivers, Lord Acyuta the supreme among deities and Lord Śambhu [Śiva] the greatest of Vaiṣṇavas, so Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam is the greatest of all Purāṇas.


and other verses like this indicate who else can be designated as 'sresthah'

SB 6.3.20-21: Lord Brahmā, Bhagavān Nārada, Lord Śiva, the four Kumāras, Lord Kapila [the son of Devahūti], Svāyambhuva Manu, Prahlāda Mahārāja, Janaka Mahārāja, Grandfather Bhīṣma, Bali Mahārāja, Śukadeva Gosvāmī and I myself know the real religious principle. My dear servants, this transcendental religious principle, which is known as bhāgavata-dharma, or surrender unto the Supreme Lord and love for Him, is uncontaminated by the material modes of nature. It is very confidential and difficult for ordinary human beings to understand, but if by chance one fortunately understands it, he is immediately liberated, and thus he returns home, back to Godhead.

You talk about all 'big' things in a silly way.

In short, the references provided are too vague to be taken as authoratative assertions of the absolute supremacy of shivaji (supreme, yes .... absolutely supreme, no)

 

[everneo]

so it appears the word in contention is 'sresthah' which simple means 'better' as opposed to a definite singular title - like for instance 'sura sresthah' means the chiefs among the demigods, or the guna avatars, namely, brahma (rajas- passion), siva(tamas - ignorance) and visnu (sattva - goodness)

No contention, "ShresTho Devaanaam" is as simple as "Best of/among Gods". The references to suras, guna avatars etc are unwarranted.

so 'srestho devanam' can be seen in many ways

Duh.

so, in conjunction with this SB verse, there is an indication what is the exact nature of siva's greatness

SB 12.13.16: Just as the Gańgā is the greatest of all rivers, Lord Acyuta the supreme among deities and Lord Śambhu [Śiva] the greatest of Vaiṣṇavas, so Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam is the greatest of all Purāṇas.

and my gf is the most beautiful in the world.

In short, the references provided are too vague to be taken as authoratative assertions of the absolute supremacy of shivaji (supreme, yes .... absolutely supreme, no)

LOL

 

[lightgigantic]

No contention, "ShresTho Devaanaam" is as simple as "Best of/among Gods". The references to suras, guna avatars etc are unwarranted.



Duh.



and my gf is the most beautiful in the world.



LOL

Therefore it is better to rely on more distinct descriptions that are not so vague such as


BG 10.8: I am the source of all spiritual and material worlds. Everything emanates from Me. The wise who perfectly know this engage in My devotional service and worship Me with all their hearts.

or


BG 5.29: A person in full consciousness of Me, knowing Me to be the ultimate beneficiary of all sacrifices and austerities, the Supreme Lord of all planets and demigods, and the benefactor and well-wisher of all living entities, attains peace from the pangs of material miseries.

or these from the padma purana

"[Lord Śiva told the goddess Durgā:] 'My dear Devī, although the Vedas recommend worship of demigods, the worship of Lord Viṣṇu is topmost. However, above the worship of Lord Viṣṇu is the rendering of service to Vaiṣṇavas, who are related to Lord Viṣṇu.'

"'A person who considers demigods like Brahmā and Śiva to be on an equal level with Nārāyaṇa is to be considered an offender, or pāṣaṇḍī.'"


(BTW if these do not satisfy you I can provide you with dozens more)

and once again, this is not all in the name of sectarian politics, but simply because different results ensue for different processes.



Isopanisad 13: It is said that one result is obtained by worshiping the supreme cause of all causes and that another result is obtained by worshiping what is not supreme. All this is heard from the undisturbed authorities, who clearly explained it.

the more detailed explanations of the distinctions being

BG 7.23: Men of small intelligence worship the demigods, and their fruits are limited and temporary. Those who worship the demigods go to the planets of the demigods, but My devotees ultimately reach My supreme planet.

the qualties of the planets of the demigods in contrast to Krishna's being

BG 8.16: From the highest planet in the material world down to the lowest, all are places of misery wherein repeated birth and death take place. But one who attains to My abode, O son of Kuntī, never takes birth again.

In conclusion, the nature of worshipping the demigods is

BG 5.22: An intelligent person does not take part in the sources of misery, which are due to contact with the material senses. O son of Kuntī, such pleasures have a beginning and an end, and so the wise man does not delight in them.

in other words it is silly.

(PS - notice how many of the quotes provided are direct comparisons to other things rather than assertions of "the best" etc)

 

[everneo]

Vedic verses are vauge but vaishnavite scriptures are clear and ultimate to you. Not to all hindus.

You shamelessly force your stupid conclusions in such debate. Shame on you, boy. It is a complete waste of time to debate with you.

 

[lightgigantic]

Vedic verses are vauge but vaishnavite scriptures are clear and ultimate to you. Not to all hindus.

You shamelessly force your stupid conclusions in such debate. Shame on you, boy. It is a complete waste of time to debate with you.

Once again, it is not my conclusions - unlike you, I have backed up what I am saying with scriptural quotations (to do otherwise would be shameless) - as for the nature of most hindus, I referred to that earlier, how most of them are considered to be operating out of orthopraxy (rituals/superstition) rather than orthodoxy (philosophical conclusions) .

the symptom of such orthopraxic practioners is that they are unable to offer scriptural references for their activities - there is still a lot of merit in orthopraxy, but such practices can easily be misdirected or deteriorate without orthodoxy.

 

[Rusty]

well i think u guys have half baked cakes in ur head u guys know who r brahmins?ha im newly signed in but not new to this subject wish somebody wid full knowledge posts his comments here

 

[lightgigantic]

well i think u guys have half baked cakes in ur head u guys know who r brahmins?ha im newly signed in but not new to this subject wish somebody wid full knowledge posts his comments here

its not clear on what grounds we should accept your statements .... charisma?

 

[lightgigantic]

Anyway, back to the topic - today is Bhismastami - the appearance day of Bhismadeva

Bhisma is famous for making Krishna break his promise on the battle field of Kurukshetra by taking up a chariot wheel as a weapon.

he is also one of the twelve mahajanas (great personalities who establish the path of religious principles)

SB 6.3.20-21: Lord Brahmā, Bhagavān Nārada, Lord Śiva, the four Kumāras, Lord Kapila [the son of Devahūti], Svāyambhuva Manu, Prahlāda Mahārāja, Janaka Mahārāja, Grandfather Bhīṣma, Bali Mahārāja, Śukadeva Gosvāmī and I myself know the real religious principle. My dear servants, this transcendental religious principle, which is known as bhāgavata-dharma, or surrender unto the Supreme Lord and love for Him, is uncontaminated by the material modes of nature. It is very confidential and difficult for ordinary human beings to understand, but if by chance one fortunately understands it, he is immediately liberated, and thus he returns home, back to Godhead.

He had the benediction that he would only die when he willed - he is probably more famous for his departure than his appearance

SB 1.9.30: Thereupon that man who spoke on different subjects with thousands of meanings and who fought on thousands of battlefields and protected thousands of men, stopped speaking and, being completely freed from all bondage, withdrew his mind from everything else and fixed his wide-open eyes upon the original Personality of Godhead, Śrī Kṛṣṇa, who stood before him, four-handed, dressed in yellow garments that glittered and shined.

 

[lightgigantic]

Yesterday was Madhvacharya's disappearance day

http://www.goloka.com/docs/spiritual_leaders/madhva01.html

Madhva was a multi-faceted personality who lived a long and healthy life. He was a natural leader who believed in physical culture as well as intellectual, moral, and spiritual culture. He took part in many athletic activities, such as wrestling, swimming, and mountain-climbing, which served him well in the Himalayas. As he came from a family of brahmanas that had descended from the warrior brahmana and incarnation of Godhead, Parasurama, he was tall, strong, and robust. It was reputed that there was no limit to his bodily strength. The Madhva-vijaya records how a strongman named Kadanjari who was said to have the strength of thirty men once challenged Madhvacarya to a contest of strength. Madhvacarya placed the big toe of his foot firmly upon the ground and asked Kadanjari, the famous strongman, to see if he could lift it. Straining with all his brawn again and again, the mighty Kadanjari was unable to move even the big toe of Madhvacarya. According to Trivikrama Pandita, Madhvacarya was endowed with all the thirty-two bodily symptoms of a great personality. He had a deep, sonorous, and melodic voice and was an expert singer. His recitation of the verses of Srimad-Bhagavatam was regarded as being especially sweet.
....
According to the Sri Kurma inscriptions of Narahari Tirtha, his direct disciple, Sripad Madhvacarya was born between 1238 and lived for 79 years, until 1317 A.D.
....
When he was only 12 years old, Madhvacarya left home and accepted the renounced order of life, under the guidance of Acyutapreksa, his sannyasa-guru. Madhva's sannyasa name was Purnaprajna Tirtha. His deep study of the scriptures was unparalleled, and had convinced him of the uselessness of the Advaita interpretation of Vedanta. He was inspired to revive the original and pure interpretation of Vedanta which promotes personal theism. He was to do this on the basis of a profound and innovative interpretation of the scriptures, for which he was to become famous. This interpretation is known as Dvaita-dvaita-vada, or pure dualism.
...
After returning to Udipi, Madhva once again immersed himself in prolific literary activity. He wrote commentaries on the ten major Upanisads. He wrote ten major philosophical treatises, the Dasa-Prakaranas, as well as what many consider his most important work, the Anu-Vyakhyana. He wrote a summary of Mahabharata called the Moksa-dharma, and he also commented on Srimad-Bhagavatam.
...
Shri Madvacaharya taught that:

1. Krishna, who is known as Hari is the Supreme Lord, the Absolute.
2. That Supreme Lord may be known through the Vedas.
3. The material world is real.
4. The jivas, or souls, are different from the Supreme Lord.
5. The jivas are by nature servants of the Supreme Lord.
6. There are two categories of jivas: liberated and illusioned.
7. Liberation means attaining the lotus feet of Krishna, that is, entering into an eternal relationship of service to the Supreme Lord.
8. Pure devotional service is the cause of this relationship.
9. The truth may be known through direct perception, inference, and Vedic authority.

 

[lightgigantic]

Today is Ramanujacharya's disappearance day

http://www.goloka.com/docs/spiritual_leaders/ramanuja.html

Ramanuja was born in India during the year 1017 A.D.
....
Ramanuja's philosophy became known as visishtadwaita or qualified non-dualism. Accordingly, the living entities are believed to be qualitatively one with the Supreme and at the same time quantitatively different. Ramanuja's assertion was that the quantitative difference means that the fragmentary parts of the Supreme are dependent on the Supreme but they cannot become the Supreme.


Ramanuja's philosophy became known as visishtadwaita or qualified non-dualism. Accordingly, the living entities are believed to be qualitatively one with the Supreme and at the same time quantitatively different. Ramanuja's assertion was that the quantitative difference means that the fragmentary parts of the Supreme are dependent on the Supreme but they cannot become the Supreme.

The philosophy of Shankara stated that everything is Brahman and Brahman itself is absolutely homogeneous, undifferentiated, and without personality; individuality arose only due to illusion or maya. But this concept was staunchly opposed by Ramanuja. His philosophy stated that there can never be knowledge of an unqualified object; knowledge necessarily points to an object as characterized in some way. Ramanuja never admitted to an attributeless, undifferentiated Brahman, but rather a Brahman which is an attribute of a greater reality: Godhead Himself. He reasoned that as the living entities are individual personalities, so too is the Supreme also a personality-the Ultimate Personality.

Ramanuja further reasoned that if illusion could cover the identity of the Supreme, then illusion was greater than Godhead. Therefore he asserted that we are eternally individual personalities and the Supreme is eternally the Supreme Personality, but due to our finite nature we are sometimes subject to illusion.

Ramanuja also accepted the theory of transformation rejected by Shankara. According to Shankara the material world is false; it has no existence .Ramanuja, on the other hand, said that the material world is the energy of Godhead, and the subjective reality does not undergo any change of substance in the matter of material manifestation in the same way that a singer who creates a song out of his own energy is not diminished due to his creation; rather, he becomes more glorious.
.....
Neither the material world nor the living entities are conceived of as being independent of the Supreme Personality in the system of vtsishtadwaita philosophy. The living entities are a different manifestation of the Supreme due to their being endowed with free will, whereas the material energy is manifest directly under the will of the Supreme. The free will of the living entity is an all-important factor, since that free will is considered to be the basic principle of reciprocal relations between Godhead and the living entity.
......
Ramanuja was indeed a great theologian whose life and teachings have had a lasting influence on the development of theistic thought in India. Ramanuja's introduction of the Godhead as the absolute entity with supersubjective characteristics and his having pioneered the dawning of devotion to Godhead opened the door for future theistic reformers who would in due course fully reveal the highest potential of the soul in a loving relationship with God and His eternal servants.
.....
Ramanuja's Literary Contributions:

1. Vedartha-Sangraha - A treatise presenting the tenets of Visistadwaita, a reconciliation of different conflicting srutis.
2. Sri Bhasya - A detailed commentary on the Vedanta Sutras.
3. Gita-Bhasya - A detailed commentary on the Bhagavad-Gita.
4. Vedanta-Dipa - A brief commentary on the Vedanta Sutras.
5. Vedanta-Sara - Another brief commentary on the Vedanta Sutras and meant for beginners.
6. Saranagati-Gadya and Sri Ranga-Gadya - Manuals of self surrender to Lord Visnu.
7. Sri Vaikuntha-Gadya - Describes Sri Vaikuntha-loka and the position of the liberated souls.
8. Nitya-Grantha - A short manual intended to guide the Sri Vaishnava devotees.

 

[Rusty]

ok guys time to vex it up madhwa and ramanuja were from kali age so don take their personal teachings to ur head one proposes dwaita and the other adwaita and they r master manipulators of religion and met to their timely situations and morover we should stick to the original treta and dwapara teaching u know it is in the nature of blue blooded brahmins to manipulate teachings and in turn manipulating the society its high time we stick to the oldest vedic system of the society some vaishnavas tell us not visit shiva temples and viceversa assuming we know the fact that they are the operator and destroyers well i think if the vaishnavas think there is no need to respect shiva they dont want reincarnation and want to be operated infinitely it is all in the cycle boys there is no escaping for that unless sri maha vishnu and pareameshwara come and announce u the official breakup in their working which i doubt both of them (shaivas an vaishnavas) had witnessed so don get carried away stick to the genuine and the most scientific and oldest religion on earth follow the river boys not its tributaries.

 

[lightgigantic]

ok guys time to vex it up madhwa and ramanuja were from kali age so don take their personal teachings to ur head

the question remains how one would determine what is the exact teachings of treta and dwarpara yuga unless one had received them through someone existing in kali yuga (unless you are laying claim to possessing direct experience, having lived in treta or dwarpara yuga)

one proposes dwaita and the other adwaita and they r master manipulators of religion

actually ramanuja proposed visishtadwaita or qualified non-dualism. ie, the living entities are believed to be qualitatively one with the Supreme and at the same time quantitatively different.
and it was madhvacharya who proposed dvaita-dvaita-vada, or pure dualism, ie that there is an irrevocable difference between the living entity and god (namely in quantity) which establishes one as the constitutional eternal master and the other as the constitutional eternal servant - I can only assume that you are not familiar with their philosophical treatises since seeing any essential differences between the two is usually the business of ecclesiastical hair splitters

and met to their timely situations and morover we should stick to the original treta and dwapara teaching

and those teachings are?

u know it is in the nature of blue blooded brahmins to manipulate teachings and in turn manipulating the society its high time we stick to the oldest vedic system of the society

how do you propose to determine what actual religious principles are unless you utilize brahminical resources (either resources in terms of scripture or resources in terms of personal qualification, ie BG 18.42: Peacefulness, self-control, austerity, purity, tolerance, honesty, knowledge, wisdom and religiousness — these are the natural qualities by which the brāhmaṇas work.

some vaishnavas tell us not visit shiva temples and viceversa assuming we know the fact that they are the operator and destroyers

There are many shiva deities installed in or near vishnu/krishna temples - there are many places strongly associated with Lord Siva that are inextricably connected to vishnu (eg Bhubeneswar)

There are many prayers vaisnavas offer to shiva

vRndAvanavani-pate! jaya soma soma-maule
sanaka-sanandana-sanAtana-nAradeDya
gopIzvara! vraja-vilAsi-yugAGghri-padme
prema prayaccha nirupAdhi namo namaste

"O gatekeeper of Vrindavana! O Soma, all glories to you! O you whose forehead is decorated with the moon, and who is worshipable for the sages headed by Sanaka, Sanandana, Sanatana and Narada! O Gopisvara! Desiring that you bestow upon me prema for the lotus feet of Shri Shri Radha-Madhava who perform joyous pastimes in Vraja-dhama, I offer pranamas unto you time and again!"

well i think if the vaishnavas think there is no need to respect shiva

then obviously you have an incorrect understanding of vaishnavism

SB 12.13.16: Just as the Gańgā is the greatest of all rivers, Lord Acyuta the supreme among deities and Lord Śambhu [Śiva] the greatest of Vaiṣṇavas, so Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam is the greatest of all Purāṇas.

they dont want reincarnation

and you do want to take another material birth?

and want to be operated infinitely

even in the material world we yearn to speak words of eternality (all the time while our molars are rotting)

it is all in the cycle boys there is no escaping for that unless sri maha vishnu and pareameshwara come and announce u the official breakup in their working which i doubt both of them (shaivas an vaishnavas) had witnessed so don get carried away

perhaps you should explain how your views differ from standard atheism

stick to the genuine and the most scientific and oldest religion on earth follow the river boys not its tributaries.

fine, but perhaps you could explain what is the most scientific and oldest religion (and also how you came to understand it by not taking the teachings of anyone who appeared in kali yuga)

 

[Rusty]

i respect ur knowledge and ur painstaking research on this subject sir but have u also heard the debates that took place during the period of the great pontiffs they themselves quarelling and calling vishnu as a womanizer and shiva as a an aghori(literary sense)( aghori has a very different meaning) why so? if u watch the vaishnava families closely and their rituals closely u get to know wat im talking about some of them are i daresay all of them are restricted from visiting shiva temples now who gave them this right is it sri maha vishnu. u tell me there is not a slightest discrimination in them ill surrender to you as you yourself are specially speaking of shiva praises in vaishnava hymns and abt ur concept of reincarnation im regretting to tell u it is in the hand of all the thrimurtis if brahma dint create u you wount be here and if u want to sit idle and do no work without stimulation for operation u r committing a sin by being a load on the society and if u fail to fulfill ur duties properly and u want mukti and for that u need another chance another incarnation which i think u know is headed by shiva now who gave the permission to ur supreme kalis to discriminate between them have u heard of this phrase "athi vinayam dhoortha lakshanam"in sanskrit i think this speaks volumes and our kailpurushas were suffering from this and lo! the operator and destroyer are discriminated and moreover called names im not against ramanuja or any ajas or acharyas or any pontiffs but wat im telling is why not follow the scientific and pious teachings of bharadwaja,vyasa and of course the the bhagvad gita and the thing u r telling me abt shiva being the greatest vaishnava again i tell u i regeret that all the trimurthis have been equally been helpful and equally powerful it is just the infatuative bhakti which makes u see only vishnu is the supreme ruler but the reality is only devi gayathri is the supreme being of this universe of which ur thrimurtis are anshas when it comes to difficult situations the same vishnu u r talking abt and shiva and brahma combine their power to wake the shakti u tell me this is wrong then ill tell u you r a kali maniac and infatuated wid the teachings of madhvas,ramanujas,acharyas and wat not and the most scientific and oldest religion is aryan hinduism not vaishnavaism or shaivaism (both are hinduisms i agree i dont want you dining out lines that im not considering them as hinduism) but original aryan hinduism and the oldest texts include the four vedas the two epics and the upanishads not the commentaries wrote by acharyas and wat not.i request this is also harmful in some ways some socalled sexist bastardic artists who dont have control over theirs things in the pants are taking up the taunts on vishnu as subjects and painting him masturbating and wat not im not supposed tell his name here but ill give u an anagram please rearrange and find out for urself MIAAF QABOOL HASSDINU bye

 

[Rusty]

And also there is one thing i forgot the priestly class is a double edged sword they did not spread their superior technology in the hands of tyrants like there is a nakshatra a particular time when u steal u do not get caught it has a precise scientific reason which is my resarch i cannot expose it here but at they played wid the spiritual emotions of the common man and manipulated it which is despicable and please these r my views and views are extremly personal if i have hurt u im terribly sorry and i beg ur pardon

 

[lightgigantic]

And also there is one thing i forgot the priestly class is a double edged sword they did not spread their superior technology in the hands of tyrants like there is a nakshatra a particular time when u steal u do not get caught it has a precise scientific reason which is my resarch i cannot expose it here but at they played wid the spiritual emotions of the common man and manipulated it which is despicable and please these r my views and views are extremly personal if i have hurt u im terribly sorry and i beg ur pardon

Basically you are confusing the distinction between a brahma-bandhu (relative of a brahmin) and an actual brahmin
I would agree that the brahma-bandhus have done much to deteriorate vedic culture, but I would disagree that they are properly qualified as brahmins (since the vedas determine one is a brahmin by karma - action - and guna - quality - , not janma - birth - )

 

[nicholas1M7]

Contrary to popular belief in the West, Hindu deities are not "individual gods", indicating a polytheistic faith. They are, rather, different representations of particular aspects of the one god, the source, known as Brahman. The "human" or physical representation of Brahman's aspects or attributes in the form of deities is a vehicle for the devotee to focus his or her attention, devotion or meditation on that particular aspect or attribute in a form more easily visualized and held in the mind.

The many deities of Hinduism, which may be seen as reflecting different aspects of Brahman, are represented by images. Use is made of such features as posture, dress, multiple arms and symbolic objects to represent each deity. It should be noted, however, that there may be a range of different ways of representing a particular deity, particularly when the deity is seen to represent several different qualities. In some cases, symbols are used to show that a deity belongs to a particular 'family', e.g. there is a range of deities associated with Vishnu. In addition some symbols belong to the common heritage of Hinduism or more generally of India.

The image only becomes a "murti", an embodiment of Brahman, through a special act of consecration when it is installed in the temple or home. It then becomes a focal point for worship. Some images are consecrated on a 'permanent' basis and will continue to be used on the temple or home shrine unless they become damaged. Broken or damaged images are discarded as they no longer fulfill their purpose of representing the deity. Sometimes an image will only be consecrated for a specific period of time, e.g. a festival, after which it will be destroyed, perhaps as part of the concluding ritual of the festival.

Each deity is associated with a 'vehicle', a bird or animal on which it travels. The vehicles are used in Indian religious art to reflect and at times to extend the powers or qualities of the deity with which it is associated. These are often better expressed by an animal than by a human being. The vehicle also represents the close relationship between all living things.

There is a range of views within Hinduism about images of the deities. Most accept that within the context of worship they mediate the presence of Brahman/the particular deity and help the worshipper to visualize the deity. To those outsiders who find it difficult to empathize with the brightly colored plastic images which feature in many Hindu homes, some Hindu writers point to the very 'concrete' mental images of God held by many worshippers in other traditions, e.g. God as 'an old man in the sky'. Perhaps the very fact that there are so many images makes the point that each can tell only a very small part of the whole story.

Okay samcdkey, I'll take the bait here. Which you probably was hoping for. Unfortunately, I wanted to show you your contradiction here. You stated that each image is an expression of the one god. First off, why is it that the one god would need an animal to carry it places if it were the real god, the god I grew up with is everywhere. Let alone, extend its powers, what is it, lacking now? I'm not arguing about his/her/its existence here. Just the claim that the Hindu god is "The God".

 

[lightgigantic]

Okay samcdkey, I'll take the bait here. Which you probably was hoping for. Unfortunately, I wanted to show you your contradiction here. You stated that each image is an expression of the one god. First off, why is it that the one god would need an animal to carry it places if it were the real god, the god I grew up with is everywhere. Let alone, extend its powers, what is it, lacking now? I'm not arguing about his/her/its existence here. Just the claim that the Hindu god is "The God".

Why does god have to be isolated from every other living entity and be prohibited from accepting service from anyone? (Just because god may appear to have a particular object or be in the association of a particular living entity, it doesn't mean that he is dependent on them)