Your deities?

[Jainarayan]

For those of you, if any, who revere deities, I'm just curious who your deities are. I myself have on my tiny altar a framed 4x6 print of taijitu inside the bagua with the character for Tao in Chinese, and the first four lines of the Tao Te Ching in a nice script. That is higher and centered. I have images of the Jade Emperor (my avi); the Eight Immortals; Guanyu (left side of course); a small photo of my deceased parents; small resin statues of Fu Lu Shou. I have a print of Xuanwu; and two 4x6 prints of Men Shen for each of my entrance doors.

 

[Songtsan]

My deity/self is a combination of Padmasambhava, a little bit of Buddha, Avalokitesvara (Chenrezig), MahaShakti (who = Durga, Kali, etc.), and a few wrathful deities (and some Demon Kings!) thrown into the pot. It has a constantly shifting face, sort of like this Krishna picture: http://www.oneness4all.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/krishna16.jpg

Edited July 11, 2013 by Songtsan

[silent thunder]

I've had a couple growing up...

Eventually went Kali on their ass and chopped em down...

 

 

 

 

My current worship, Nature, breath-work, dream-work, living in love.

 

 

[Jainarayan]

I forgot to mention I also include the Hindu and Buddhist deities in my pantheon... Shakyamuni Buddha, Avalokiteshvara (Chenrezig, Guanyin), Medicine Buddha, Green Tara and White Tara (whom I believe are forms of Durga), Manjushri (the Buddhist consort of Saraswati), Hanuman, Devi in her many forms, Ganesha, Shiva, and of course Vishnu in his forms as Rama, Narasimha, and of course Krishna. Krishna is my ishtadevata... personal God. I love that image of his universal form. I have a copy of it myself. I'm just beginning to learn little bits about the Taoist deities. I equate The Jade Emperor, who is also the protector of Buddhist dharma, with Indra, as both are known as Shakra. And the Thunder god bears a strong resemblence to Garuda, Vishnu's vahana (vehicle). It's interesting how much cross influence there is among Hindu, Buddhist and Taoist deities. I'm an unabashed panentheistic syncretic henotheist.

[Songtsan]

I think it's important to merge all the deities into one deity. Unless you merge them, you will never attain mergence with yourself. That is why I constantly try to melt them into each other. I would have to say that Shakti takes the point focus in the end. Shakti can become anything, or anyone, so basically it all falls into her/he/it. It's all Chi in the end. Shakti invigorates the Chi that you are and creates whatever you want it, deities included. In the end, I intend to merge myself into my deity self and become one self. One with chi, one with vital essence, no demarcations.

Edited July 11, 2013 by Songtsan

[Creation]

Lord Maitreya.

[Jainarayan]

I think it's important to merge all the deities into one deity. Unless you merge them, you will never attain mergence with yourself. That is why I constantly try to melt them into each other. I would have to say that Shakti takes the point focus in the end. Shakti can become anything, or anyone, so basically it all falls into her/he/it. It's all Chi in the end. Shakti invigorates the Chi that you are and creates whatever you want it, deities included. In the end, I intend to merge myself into my deity self and become one self. One with chi, one with vital essence, no demarcations.

 

Absolutely correct from my p.o.v. One of the practices of Vajrayana is yidam yoga... visualizing oneself as one's chosen deity.

 

I call myself a henotheist: someone who believes in one God, a monist or monotheist, but accepts the existence of other deities, either as manifestations of the one God, or as helper deities in their own right. For example I don't think of Hanuman or Ganesha as supreme God. But Devi, Shakti the energy of God takes the forms of Durga, Lakshmi, Saraswati, Parvati, Kali, et. al. I think the bodhisattvas and buddhas are independent, enlightened, helper beings. Yet, like us, they emanate from One (call it Tao, Brahman, Adi-Buddha... ).

 

I compare the idea to a diamond... there is one diamond with many facets, each looks different from a different angle, and reflects light differently to different people (who, as with religion, will fight over what they see ). Or better yet, an ingot of gold. There is one ingot that can take many shapes, for many purposes, yet it is still part of that one ingot and can be melted back into one.

 

Most people believe that moksha is merging into God, Brahman, or whatever one calls It. But it's not a merging because there never was a separation. You may know the phrase "aham Brahmasmi", "I am Brahman", indicating the oneness of all. I think of the Tao the same way. To me, it's another way of saying Brahman... the only thing there is. Though I'm not technically Advaitin because I don't like the idea of maya as understood to be God hiding behind a curtain or illusion: if we are God, why we would be playing hide-and-seek with ourselves? But that opens a whole other can of worms probably best discussed elsewhere. That said, these are great conversations on this site that would without question! cause hurricane force shit storms at the Hindu and Buddhist sites (many of which I unwittingly start because I tend to shoot from the lip and lead with my chin ). Some of the people can be so un-Taoish at times.

[Songtsan]

I believe that Taomind is equivalent to Brahma. I suppose if we are God, we may simply be playing games in the infinite amount of time we possess as divine immortality, and this is why the illusions come up.

[Jainarayan]

I believe that Taomind is equivalent to Brahma. I suppose if we are God, we may simply be playing games in the infinite amount of time we possess as divine immortality, and this is why the illusions come up.

 

You may be very right about the game-playing. Shankaracharya did call creation the recreation of God; that God can no more not create than we can not breathe. So maybe we are playing hide-and-seek with ourselves because it's fun. Of course, how does one then explain the causes of evil and suffering? Well, following this convoluted logic (as you get to know me, you'll know this is my logic... convoluted ), perhaps the basic laws of existence were laid out at the beginning, wound up like a clock, and let run to come to whatever results, good or ill. You know... throw it against the wall and see what sticks (incidentally, as an Italian-American that's how we know pasta is cooked properly ).

[Fū Yue]

Lord Bam, he's the guy with the B*D*SS M*THERF*CKER wallet

[RongzomFan]

I call myself a henotheist: someone who believes in one God, a monist or monotheist, but accepts the existence of other deities, either as manifestations of the one God, or as helper deities in their own right.

 

I'm an unabashed panentheistic syncretic henotheist.

 

 

You are simply a Hindu

 

Hinduism is itself syncretic.

 

One of the popular deities in Hinduism right now is a dead Muslim named Sai Baba. The first one....not the second guy with the puffed hair.

 

 

Krishna is my ishtadevata... personal God.

 

Yeah, you are a Hindu.

Edited July 11, 2013 by alwayson

[Cheshire Cat]

[Jainarayan]

 

You are simply a Hindu

 

Hinduism is itself syncretic.

 

One of the popular deities in Hinduism right now is a dead Muslim named Sai Baba. The first one....not the second guy with the puffed hair.

 

 

 

Yeah, you are a Hindu.

 

Hinduism is indeed syncretic from pre-Vedic times. But try telling that to a rabid Hindutvavadi ("rabid" and "Hindutvavadi" are a redundancy). I don't deny being Hindu first and foremost; Hinduism is the foundation for my syncretic beliefs. There are elements of Buddhism (Mahayana especially) and Taoism that I find not incompatible with, overlapping, supplementary and complementary to Hinduism. That cross-pollination I always refer to. And I like variety. This makes me the target of invective from some of those orthodox Hindus who are alpha behind the anonymity of the keyboard.

[Apech]

 

A chocolate donut ... excellent ... yum.

[Jainarayan]

Some are the same but go by different names though.

 

That's what I believe.

[Seeker of Wisdom]

My deities are the Thusness shining in all expressions of existence from the lowest hell to the highest heaven, and the Buddha-nature able to bloom in all beings from the darkest demon to the brightest deva.

[RongzomFan]

Hinduism is indeed syncretic from pre-Vedic times. But try telling that to a rabid Hindutvavadi ("rabid" and "Hindutvavadi" are a redundancy).

 

Modern Hindutva simply wants to preserve a secular India against Islamic sharia.

[RongzomFan]

There are elements of Buddhism (Mahayana especially) ....I find not incompatible with, overlapping, supplementary and complementary to Hinduism.

 

Of course they are highly interrelated. Basically it boils down to which deity you put at top of the food chain.

 

Dudjom Rinpoche, as a Buddhist, of course states that Vishnu and Narayana will die:

 

"Even such mighty beings as Brahma, Indra, Ishvara and Vishnu, great sages, and Narayana are not exempt from death."

[Jainarayan]

Which I have no problem with; consider the recent bombing of Bodh Gaya. As the Indian Supreme Court stated: "Ordinarily, Hindutva is understood as a way of life or a state of mind and is not to be equated with or understood as religious Hindu fundamentalism... it is a fallacy and an error of law to proceed on the assumption... that the use of words Hindutva or Hinduism per se depicts an attitude hostile to all persons practising any religion other than the Hindu religion... It may well be that these words are used in a speech to promote secularism or to emphasise the way of life of the Indian people and the Indian culture or ethos, or to criticise the policy of any political party as discriminatory or intolerant."

 

But I don't want to turn this into a political issue. That's why I said "rabid" and only brought it up in passing, because some of them are. Any organization has fundamentalist and fringe elements that are more vocal than the mainstream.

[Jainarayan]

...and Narayana are not exempt from death."

 

That I don't agree with, because even for Shaivas, Vishnu who is Narayana is deathless. Shiva and Vishnu transcend all cycles of creation and destruction. Brahmā (the creator, not Brahman) is not immortal, and is born from Vishnu and creates the universe(s) at the behest of Vishnu.

[RongzomFan]

I know you don't agree with that. Its cool with me.

[Jainarayan]

I should have mentioned I do agree that it's valid from Dudjom Rinpoche's perspective because in Buddhism none of the gods are immortal, and there is no concept of Brahman or any supreme God. I give credit where credit is due. From a Hindu perspective, of course, it destroys the very foundations of puranic Hinduism (which is 99%). It's a difference in belief, but there are reasons, albeit stretching them almost to the breaking point, why it could be valid in Hinduism.

Edited July 11, 2013 by Jainarayan

[RongzomFan]

You might be interested in this academic Krishna book, which I read recently:

 

http://www.amazon.com/Krishna-Sourcebook-Edwin-F-Bryant/dp/0195148916

[Jainarayan]

Very cool. Thanks. I can get paperback and get it where I get a discount. I have http://www.amazon.com/Krishna-Beautiful-Bhagavata-Penguin-Classics/dp/0140447997/ref=pd_sim_sbs_b_1 Krishna: The Beautiful Legend of God: (Srimad Bhagavata Purana Book X). . It's a tough read.

[Songtsan]

I believe that when one enters a state of divine mind, that everything becomes divine, so much so that it could be said that everything is deity. That is why I like the Tibetan practice of viewing the world as a mandala, and all beings as mandala deities. One simply imposes the divine archetype onto everyone, and this is greeted by gods/goddesses everywhere one goes, which is quite the treat.