Hinduism, Hasidism, and Brahman

Originally Posted by BlackBillBlake

Where the Hindu gods are concerned, there are forms of gods on different levels, and these can probably be said to correspond to the higher planes indicated in the Kabbala.

Do you mean the gods or the levels? There are four levels in the ekabbalistic system, ours being the fourth. And sometimes there is also a fifth. And in addition to that there is the kelipah, the shell or husk, which is the complete absence of God. Our world is sometimes called Kelipat Noga because it is part of the shell but the Divine light still shines through it. Each of the upper levels is more aware of its connectednss to God and less aware of multiplicity.

Some of these gods represent cosmic forces, as in other polytheistic systems, or like angels I think in Judaism?

There are different types of angels in Judaism and in Kabbalah it works a little differently. But they only do God's will, whatever that may be. There are those that go up and down the four worlds, if you are familiar with Jacob's ladder and the angels going up and down. They are pure energy, either pure emotion or pure intellect. Our actions create angels, either to reinforce the shell or to go into the upper worlds. But there are also guardian angels and yes, like you've said. Basically, if anything happens in the natural world it's because of an angel. But looking from further away there are no angels, and this is just a way of understanding the energies sent from God, the way the world is made to work.

Executive forces of the Divine within the manifestation - which includes other planes and dimensions of Being.

Could you explain the part about representing other dimensions of Being? Are these gods or planes of existence or both? Do the gods represent the planes of existence?

Others represent directly the Supreme Brahman.
When Brahman is considered as the formless absolute, it is called Nirguna Brahman, or 'God without qualities'. If we consider God with qualities, eg. creative will etc, He is called Saguna Brahman. Both are aspescts of One Reality.

Is Saguna Brahman ever personified in the way that the gods are or just understood as an active All of sorts?

The Saguna Brahman fully expresses the Nirguna Brahman. But he has His manifestation at different levels within and transcendent to the cosmos.

Can you explain this a little bit for me?

In the Kabbala I believe it is said that Malkuth is in Kether and Kether is in Malkuth. This is very similar to the All-in One - One -in - All idea of the Gita and other texts.

This has to do with the four worlds. It explains that the Malkhut(lowest sefirah) of a higher world is the Keter(highest sefirah) of the lower world. I am not sure what is being taught by All-In-One but the hasidim are typically panentheists.

Also, in some schools of teaching, it is said that God Himself, the Supreme, acts only through His Divine Shakti - His Force of conscious and creative being - The Divine Mother. She too is God Supreme to many Hindus.

In Kabbalah there is a Divine feminine, and even in non-mystical Judaism. God's presence in the world, the Shekhinah. She is understood to be in exile from HaKadosh Baruch Hu, the Holy One Blessed Be He, and one of the mystical themes is uniting the two. This is done by raising up the Divine sparks. Shabbat, the Jewish Sabbath, is also personified as a Queen or Bride, whose mate is the Jewish people. Among the liberal Jewish Renewal movement, there is some work being done to recover the divine feminine in Judaism where there is none, or where it has been neglected.

From my limited knowledge of the Kabbala, it would be tempting to ascribe Saguna Brahman to Chokmah, and the Mother to Binah - But I don't think the scheme quite works, because Brahman can't really be Kether.
Perhaps that which lies beyond the ayn soph.

It may make more sense to associate the Mother with the Shekhinah, which is associated sometimes with Binah. I still think that's very tentative though and is just a matter of recognizing them both as being Divine feminine.

To me Saguna Brahman and Nirguna Brahman don't parallel well at all, and here the systems become different. It's not that they don't have parallels. Nirguna Brahman seems similar to the Ayn Sof, which can be known by becoming aware of it, but different because the Ayn Sof begins with the Kabbalistic Creation Story rather than just existing.

Saguna Brahman seems similar to the general understanding of God in Judaism, that being active and creative. All of the human language used to describe God biblically is understood in Judaism to be just that; human language. We still use it anyway.

I may be off on some of this. Please let me know if I am. I think I've posed a lot of questions to you, too.

It seems to me that it's much easier to see similarities when not getting into the specifics, but that getting into specifics can make things much more interesting. The journey is much more valuable than any possible outcome.

Dauer

I will try to answer at least some of your points. Please know that this is only one line of understanding - others might explain things quite differently.

Starting with the Saguna Brahman then - He does indeed exist in personal form. In the Upanishads the Divine Person is mentioned as the Supreme. He is identified with among others Krishna, the speaker of Bhagavad Gita. Also with Shiva, Vishnu, and Kali. All these are seen by their respective devotees as Saguna Brahman.
As to His manifestation - and I said this is on various levels - one way to see it is in terms of the duality described by Krishna in the Gita of Purusha and Prakriti.
Purusha is the principle of pure consciousness - sat-chit-ananda (being-bliss-consciousness). Prakriti is Nature, the external world which includes also the body, the senses, mind, as well as matter itself. This Purusha exists, or rather seems to our limited consciousness to exist on different levels. We can say that He is the Knower in all beings, and thus appears to be fragmented, divided into packets of separative consciousness. Prakriti is in fact the same as Maya or Sakti. Nature as we perceive it is only one level of manifestation of the Divine creative energy, the lower prakriti. At this level (of consciousness), the ordinary level, the inner Purusha is wholly immersed, or seems to be, in the play of nature. Thus we identify ourselves as the body, the mental ego etc, and we are not aware of the Divine Consciousness in us.
But there is also what Krishna calls Para-prakriti - a higher Divine nature.
This fits in to the idea of other planes of existence. It is believed that above this material universe, is a graded series of higher worlds or planes. As with Jacob's ladder, there is a two way traffic.Nothing can exist here that in some sense doesn't have it's origin in these worlds. So for example, there are worlds of higher mind, which as they descend/ascend in order towards the Suporeme, become more and more spiritual in nature, and reflect a higher Divine order than this lower material world, or the limited levels of ordinary rational thought. There are higher beings - some like Angels are simply servants of the Divine will in the processes of the cosmic manifestation, others express other aspects of consciousness. Hanuman, for example could represent stregnth and intense devotion, as pure qualities.
Through yoga the idea is to reveal the Divine inner Self, the inner Purusha in our own being, to become One with that consciousness.
And this Purusha also exists as the knower of the entire cosmos, and all that is beyond our present ken. That He is divided is only an illusion of our avidya, ignorance. He is in fact One.

The 'all-in one' thing is again from the Bhagavad Gita. Krishna, speaking as the Supreme Brahman says He is in all beings, and all beings are in Him. He further says that one who sees Him truly, sees Him in all beings, from the highest down to the most lowly or even degraded.

Where the Kabbala is concerned, I'm afraid my knowledge is quite limited, and what I said was only speculation. I am aware of the idea of a Divine Femmine in Kabbala, I don't know if it relates precisely to the concept of Shakti or Divine Mother. In the Hindu version, She is the creatrix of the universe. Prakriti, again, is only seen as a lower, executive portion of Her totality, which comprises all existences.

Sorry if this is a bit rambling, and if I've not made any point clear, I'll have another try. I don't actually think differences in detail are very important. One can see things in a number of ways, all of which reflect truth, which is above all systemization, although our 'systems' may reflect it to some degree. The main point really is realization through yoga, or whatever spiritual practices are part of one's own path.

Om Shanti. (peace).

BBB,

I agree with you about truth. I don't think it's necessary to show that system A equals system B, just an interesting exercise.
It sounds like the divine feminine is different than in Judaism.

Dauer

God bless you both, this is probably my favourite thread in the entire time I have been on the forums. Thank you.

Bhaskar, do you think you could get to my post from page one? I think you may have missed it. I will paste it here.

There are some things I think I'm starting to see a little clearer now. In the Kabbalistic worldview as well, God is found in everything. But because of the heavy taboos that are in place, worship can only be directed beyond that which is physically represented. But God is still seen as being there. It is possible to meditate on the Divine spark within an object, a rock for instance, but it is also recommended not to stay with the same object for more than a month or so because of the taboo. The sparks can also be found in human actions. I don't think that part is really a matter of viewing the world differently, but just a matter of approach. It still amounts to the Divine being in everything.

Actually, when you were saying that I was thinking of a guided meditation I've listened to that suggested experiencing the cosmos as one being, with nothing independant. And that to take hold of a part is to take hold of the whole thing.

But if everything is Brahman, and everything can be worshipped, where does that leave the gods themselves? What is their role? Why not ignore them and only worship that which you find every day in your life?

Dauer

I just want to be clear that this question was not meant to be offensive and I am only looking for a better understanding. It occurred to me after I posted that since interfaith dialogue on this board often seems to be about getting the upper hand, at least by showing superiority with a final statement, that this may be viewed as a a dig. It is not. I want to understand the role of gods if you can worship Brahman through anything that exists.

Thank you.

Dauer

Beloved one,

Hari Om!

I apologise for not responding to that. I completely understand hat you mean no offence and I think this thread is a model thread for interfaith dialogue, the emphasis being on understanding and finding common ground rather than fighting over trivial differences.


Your question was, if Brahman can be worshipped in any form at all, why have gods?

Brahman can be worshipped in any form, but some forms are easier to worship. Consider the following example.

See Sri Krishna, his dark lustrous skin glowing, his laughing eyes, half closed, full of love, in his delicate hands a flute, soft serene music wafting from it, pressed to his beatiful lips. His black hair flows in easy waves, like the Ganges flowing down from the Himalayas. He is crowned with the feather of a peacock. He is dressed in yellow silk, with silver anklets on his feet that tinkle softly when he dances. When he speaks his voice is deep and gentle, vibrating with love and beauty, even his speech is like the most beautiful music, what then shall we say of his singing?

Now look at the fat slob living next door. He is lying slumped on his couch, beer stains on his wife-beater. He has hasn't washed his shorts for a month. He is unshaven. The cigarette between his lips has long since burned out and the ashes are all over the carpet. In one hand he holds a flat beer, in the other the remote control. His hairy feet have misshaped toenails overflowing with toejam. As he slides down on his sofa his hairy buttcrack is exposed an dit has lil bits of toilet paper stuck in it. He sets down his beer with a loud belch and a proceeds to pick his nose, carefully examine the contents therein and savour them.

Both of these are manifestations of the same Brahman. From the highest absolute standpoint, there is no difference between Sri Krishna and Sweet Sir Snoteater. Which would you rather worship?

Bhaskar,

So do the gods then serve as an idealized form of what we come across in reality? I remember you said before that to you the gods are absolutely real. I thought this had meant they serve as more than just archetypes.

What about non-human forms, like rocks, trees, birds, etc? I have never seen one of these in which I would have had difficulty perceiving a reflection of their Creator.

There is a teaching from the Baal Shem Tov, who is regarded -- outside of scholarly circles -- without dispute as the founder Hasidism, that even in that which which seems bad or ugly or evil, we can find Divine sparks to raise up. I know we are each using different language, but I think that in this case it has not been so much of a barrier. The famous example is if one is praying, and then thinks of a beautiful woman who is not their wife, just a woman they have been lusting for, and so at this point they recognize that the woman is created B'tzelem Elohim, in the image of God, and transform their desire for the created into a desire for the Creator.

I think the same could be done for Snoteater, just not by a beginner. And I think it would be a worthy task. But yes, I see your point.

Dauer

Different people see divinity in different things. We see it in nature, in beauty, in art and in good people.

Yes, the gods do serve as ideals. Sri Rama, for example is an Ideal king, an ideal husband, a model of dharma and humanity. Sita is the same for a woman. But they are living examples. When we see great people, the Gandhis, the Martin Luther Kings, the Dalai Lamas, The Ramakrishnas, we find great qualities and ideals in them that we can absorb in our lives. Divine avatars (special manifestations) of the lord are like that, living examples of perfection, examples to show us dharma and how to live right, and also focus points for worship and devotion.

Originally Posted by the dauer

Bhaskar,

So do the gods then serve as an idealized form of what we come across in reality? I remember you said before that to you the gods are absolutely real. I thought this had meant they serve as more than just archetypes.

In hinduism ofcourse, Gods are absolutely real, they are little ishvaras or "controllers" of the material nature. they are all manifestations of the supreme like we are, but they have more power in their hands than we do. We can rise to the level of Gods by the power of our karma.