Thread: Brahman versus God.

Originally Posted by Dthoughts

First of, thank you for asking this question. This blue man has been on my mind for some time now. And this really helped clear things up. You see, I really have no past association with Hinduism. I liked the religion but that's about it. I know nothing of it. Yet, I experienced some type of Hinduic Deities and it amazes me.

And

Originally Posted by Dthoughts

I speak from very crude glimpses and speculative guesswork. I have been basically thrown into this. From my own doings. I have to say, Hindiusm is the most beautiful understanding of religion and most experimentally viable religion on earth.

I, too, find Hinduism to be the most beautiful understanding of religion but I would be careful saying it out loud, lest they get jealous and I sound ignorant of the other religions.

Originally Posted by Dthoughts

My thoughts: There is Shiva, Brahma and Vishnu. Those are the only 3 gods that I have heared of. I read on a dutch wiki that Shiva is considered transformative. Brahma the creating aspect and Vishnu (the blue man) is the maintaining aspect of god.

In fact, I see all 3 of this trinity as being equal. To my mind, Brahma as the creating aspect of god does not equal superiority over the others. In fact, god itself is simply god. It is undefinable. I realize this is an opinion and a guess, I readily admit it. But I think that knowing god in this form that I speak of now is even more important. But.. I can see why knowing Vishnu is more relevant to human beings.

Vishnu, the way I see it. Is our savior. It is jesus in energetic form. I do not see the difference.
In it's energetic form. I reckon that Vishnu is easily accepted as a deity. And the form of god. Vishnu is our introduction to understanding god-hood.
Not that knowing Brahma is a higher step. But to humans, I think that Vishnu is crudely stated the most convenient form to start to know god.

I agree with all you say (as much as I can, I don't have any authority on the subject, most of what I know comes from fragments of different branches of the Hindu root.)

Given this Trinity, I agree that they would all be equal whichever one is known first by humans, but in this case, it seems that they are very much all equal: representations of different aspects of life, Existence, Death, Birth, or something like that.

What I would like to understand better is whether they should be seen as the whole of life, the essence of existence, of the void and of everything, or should I see them or God as an entity with a form or as both? I've been saying Brahman for the essence definition and God for the form with a body.

See, you can think of Brahman (not the Brahma from the Trinity) but the one which refers to everything, as the plants, the birds, the rocks, human bodies, souls, lesser gods, everything that exists, all particles and all the space between them. And then, there is the form which is a body made of spiritual energy. The Hare Krishna Movement believe both forms to be true. But it is not intuitive to me yet, to understand how this essence of everything be everything and a part of it all at once. Because, just like this bodied god, I and you are also parts of Brahman, are we not. And so if you have my body in my spiritual form, and the body of Shiva or Krishna side by side, are we not like two Lego bricks that make up a Lego tower. yes, one might be bigger and more beautiful, blue. But how can the whole tower be one of the brick at the same time? It's just hard for me to see, and I wonder if a bodied god is not a lesser god than Brahman, the essence of everything or if they are one and same entity.

Originally Posted by Dthoughts

I would hope that RedKali and Sivason and the likes are able to elevate this thread very soon.

Edit: I'm probably very wrong it is hilarious. But I like to have given my true 2 cents anyhow.

I, too, hope they join in, but I will not buy candies with your two cents, I'll make a collection out of them