[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: QUESTIONS!!!!!!!!!!!!
In article <4k1cmi$pkr@babbage.ece.uc.edu>, johnyoga@aol.com says...
> To get to the point at which the
>formless truly has meaning for us requires giving the analytical mind a
>point of focus that will help it to let go of its control over all our
>perceptions.
This is why the Deity appears as stone, wood, metal, etc.
This focus may be the gross form of a deity or a more subtle
>form such as a concept about God.
However, not everyone will agree that the form of the Deity is
"gross," or for that matter, even comprised of material elements
at all. Your satements above are similar to those popularized
by a plethora of Hindu reformers around the turn of this century.
Very few people can "worship" the
>formless.
I would even go so far as to say that *no one* can. How does
one offer a garland to Nirakar Brahman? Where do you put it?
Even "worship" implies duality - the worshipper and the
>worshipped.
Here it is important to recognize that duality is not rejected
in Vedanta invariably, although that is what is popularly
taught by persons as authoritative as Huston Smith. As a
matter of fact, only two out of the five major Vedanta schools
reject duality. In that sense, they are the minority of Hindus.
>
>Regarding God incarnations: God incarnates because of what I previously
>stated concerning the nature of the mind needing a point of focus.
This is very interesting. Would you please substantiate this
with references to the Sastras? How would you then interpret
the well-known "yada yada hi dharmasya" sloka of the Gita?
If
>everyone would meditate on the formless, then we would not need Krsna,
>Jesus, etc.
Again, most worshippers of incarnations accept those
incarnations as identical to the formless.
But I believe if this was so, we would not even be on this
>level of existence.
Indeed.
Santi,
-m
