Brahman versus God.

There's been a question on my mind lately, and I would like to hear people's opinion on this topic. (Disclaimer: for the purpose of this particular conversation, I would rather we don't talk about the possibility of there not being any Higher Power.)

I did make a few reference to this in other threads, but I have met someone from the International Society for Krishna Consciousness and have been to a "mass" in South America, where I sang on my knees, gave gifts of prasadam, smell of flowers, water, warmth of fire, etc. to Krishna. Then, people asked questions. It was great.

The person I knew in this group explained to me that Krishna (God), has 3 forms:
1. Brahman (The essence of everything)
2. Body (A spiritual person, like you and I, (but not made of physical energy), who looks like a handsome blue man.)
3. Something within our heart, much like the Holy Spirit of the Catholic Trinity.

So, personally, not having had any more direct experience of God than the fact that I live in this world, my definition of God is the first one: Brahman, the essence of everything.

Now, the person I knew said that understanding/knowing God in his (2.) form was the best. And I do think that most people do think of God, as another person, not made of our same matter but of some divine material.

Not knowing anything about beings that live on "higher planes" as ours, I sometimes wonder if I can say "Shiva, (or God or Krishna), thank you for everything that you gave me" because what if, there are such beings that have those names but as great as they are, they are not the creators of the world or not in control of our lives? What if they are simply, like, Buddha, souls like us, who transcended this life, and can now hear prayers, have small influences on our lives, live on a higher plane?

I know I am probably being really confusing, but it is hard for me to imagine Brahman, the essence of everything, which I and you are part of, also be incarnated in a separate body/individual. How would that person be more Brahman than I? If I am a part of Brahman, how can God in a body comparable to mine be Brahman in its whole?

I just don't know if I can accept Brahman as a person yet. It seems like a dangerous venture, perhaps giving too much credit to a none-the-less worthy being.

I am really interested in hearing people's thoughts on this, I want to play with these ideas. :)

[EDIT] The initial topic was to discuss how people felt about seeing the Higher Power as an entity with a body or as a representation for the whole of life. If anyone still wants to discuss this, do comment and we will further discuss it, but I do welcome people to speak about anything related to clarifying how a person sees and interacts with this Higher Power, and other concepts that need to be clarified for someone to better understand this relationship with this Higher Power.

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.

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 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 experientally viable religion on earth. 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.

Quote:

---

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

Quote:

---

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. :)

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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 :)

I will gladly share what can. It is late and I need to sleep, so tonight I will be brief. Perhaps somethings I say may lead to further discussion.

First, know that Hinduism evolved over thousands of years in many regions and absorbed the tribal religions of each area. You end up with hundreds of traditions and no central consensus on details. As you read you will find all sorts of contradictions, such as one saying this god is actually just a form of this god, and another saying no it is its own thing. Do not worry about that. It is sourced from dozens of books and oral traditions that often are only vaguely related.

Second, know that Hinduism can either be a beautiful open mind spiritual path of transcendence, in which the images are metaphors for grasping complex ideas, or it can be a restrictive dogmatic and oppressive religion on par with Christianity or Islam. Every religion will have those who use it to gain control and those who hold painfully rigid to corrupt ideas.

I have found that the mysticism side of it is profound and a wonderful way to explore and grasp deep spiritual aspects of life. The mystics are not the majority. The majority are just normal and simple people who put about as much thought into higher paths as the normal and simple people of the west.

I am in no way trying to stear anyone away. I just want to limit anyone getting frustrated when they come across something in Hinduism that sounds like stupid B.S. You just ignore the B.S. and search out the mystical side of it. I do find the deeply mystical side of Hinduism to be a wonderful model for knowing God and understanding the nature of the universe.




Here is something I find of great importance. That is defining what is meant by Polytheism. To the simple minded or dogmatic Hindus each of these descriptions and stories are literal and to be taken as fact. To the other half the gods are descriptions of aspects of the one force that is unknowable. In that sense Hinduism is not Polytheistic, because everything merges like a family tree leading back to one wonderful thing that is so grand it defies any simplistic description.

So, you take an unknowable truth and examine what characteristics it has shown us. You try to identify the first point where we can relate and grasp its natures. Those are the main Gods. You then look at knowable aspects of life and the universe and branch them off of these main gods, either as an aspect of that god, or perhaps described as a child of that god.

The worst thing I feel any Hindu or person looking into it can do is think these are descriptions of physical beings! I have had polite arguments with priests about this. They agree on everything I have said, but also dogmatically insist that there are beings with physical bodies matching all the descriptions, right down to how they dress. that is far too literal and misses the point, if you ask me.

Instead, you are supposed to be able to look at the iconic images of these gods and with no written language be able to teach your child about the many aspects of God. Here is an example: Ganesh is basically a child of Shiva or the product of his consort or something of that nature, so when contemplating it we are focusing on an aspect of Shiva. Shiva in the most primal form means change, so Ganesh will have to do with changes in the universe or life. Now we look at the icon and see it has the head of an elephant. Literal dogmatic people will say there really is a physical being with the head of an elephant, others such as me will think the icon is conveying a message. The elephant is supposed to show one aspect of Ganesh which is a sub division of the concept of Shiva. He is referred to as , "he who goes BEFORE me to remove obstacles from my path." The imagery is supposed to invoke the idea of a forest path on which a tree has fallen. Blessed by God you have an elephant leading your caravan. He gladly moves the tree so you can go forward. You never could have moved such a tree, and it is only by the gift of such a powerful friend that you could safely go forward. The message here is that Shiva cares about those who honor him and can exert force in the universe to alter outcomes before you even know you needed help. In fact God can and does clear your path in such a way that you may never realize it has done so.

So, two choices. Elephant headed humanoid who was the child of Shiva, or a deeper understanding of the nature of God. There was no written language so they recorded their thoughts on god in symbols and parables, people just got too dogmatic and confused (in my opinion, of course). So do not worry about a blue man. The blue is the beautiful sky, to remind you that you ARE looking at God, when you look at nature.

I really need to sleep, darn it, so just one more concept.



What is the trinity of major Gods Dthoughts mentions (and he was correct in his data). You again can be literal and think there are these three physical beings or you can look at this as an attempt to break God into knowable aspects to ease the process of understanding such a large thing.

We picture a still ocean. This is the fact that something exists. We do not know what, but clearly something exists. We also know that there is movement. We also know that things change. We picture something has moved the ocean, say an oar (metaphorical) has cut through the water. We have the ocean, we have something that moved, we have the effect this movement created, and we have one more thing, we have patterns that emerge. This is then the most basic way we can describe the universe. What do we get?

Something exists (Vishnu)
Something moves (Brahma)
Something causes the results to evolve or change (Shiva) the eddies that swirl off into new patterns

The patterns that emerge (life, the universe and everything) are only possible with all three aspect together.

Thank you for sacrificing some of your sleep for sharing this with us. :)

Thus, if I pray to Shiva, I am praying to that aspect of God (change)? That is already more intuitive to me.

I would be interested to hear about your idea of Samsara-Nirvana (although, everyone's opinion is welcomed here).

From what I've read from you, you believe our soul travels from body to body (reincarnation), Bodies are affected by genes, biology, environment, neuron pathways, and the soul. The whole of the body is our identity and therefore the identity doesn't live on after the body dies, only the soul. (correct me if I am wrong). This makes sense to me. Then, if one were to become "enlightened", to become a Buddha, and the soul leaves the cycle of birth and rebirth, what can that mean? I have been given two answers to this,

Version 1: You become a part of the whole (Brahman) but aren't we already? You're soul becomes a dust particle in a sea of star dust? This seems like a horrible end to me, I am very pleased with Samsara despite the pains.

Version 2 (From the Hare Krishna Movement member): When your soul leaves Samsara, you leave the world of physical energy and meet Krishna in the world of spiritual energy, but it is very like our world, where we can use your senses to see Krishna, the blue man and where the fruit trees are always providing.

Again, the second version seems too literal too me, and it has this problem I have with every religion. The fact that "Heaven" is exactly like this life, but without anything remotely unpleasant, and no need for any spiritual nurturing, except for drinking and partying with God. It really just doesn't seem right to me. It's more intuitive to me that Samsara is completely inescapable, and someone who knows and loves God would see God everywhere in the Samsara and would be content with it.

The first version is very hard for me to grasp. And again, it seems so "dull" to me, like I would stop experiencing God, change, existence, movement.

Yes, prayer to Shiva is a prayer for change that is guided and nurtured by a benevolent force and a praise for all the things God has caused to happen, all the times you have been protected and sheltered from the possible horrors of this world.

If you pray to Vishnu (Krishna) you are giving thanks for the world you are currently in. You would pray to Krishna when about to eat, or when in awe of the beautiful sky.

There is overlap between the idea of creation and change. Thinking of Brahma as creation is confusing as change is creation. A seed changes into a plant, so is that creation or change. Instead Brahma is the force that is driving creation, and Shiva is the redirection of that force. Brahma has almost no following, probably because it is harder to relate to in our daily lives.

It is false for the Krishna consciousnesses people to say Krishna is Brahman. They have just decided to claim ultimate power for the God of their religion. Brahman is the unchanging reality behind everything that can not be known, Vishnu is one aspect of that.





Samsara-Nirvana: Not everyone is wanting to escape Samsara. Let's describe Samsara as the physical world in which life takes place in cycles of birth and death. Many groups want to leave this world and merge with the non-duality, meaning to give up there individual force and be reabsorbed into the unknowable truth. This must have been a sad and hungry group of people who wanted that. The truth if you dig deeper is that once able to obtain that state, they gain the ability to re-enter physical worlds and bring the equivalent of waking lucidity with them. It depends on who you ask. Some say the goal is to cease to be individual, but if you ask me that is basically working very hard to commit spiritual suicide. Others feel the end goal is to become like Buddha.

Those who follow Shiva in the way I do, see another path. Another line of Hindu thought says that those who master mental yoga (Shiva is the master of yoga) can grow in power and pattern until you can reach the ability to exist on higher realms. This is what the Krishna follower was referring to. This is basically an idea of dream like realms controlled by powerful beings that have much less suffering because they are basically invitation only. To have a heavenly realm, you must have a way to keep out those who would harm the peace of the setting. This is basically the idea of Heaven. It is not to be taken as the end to spiritual growth, and in a sense is still Samsara. You do not have to be born and die, but it is still a cycle and involves experience of a physical reality which changes. It should be viewed as a reward or vacation between journeys into this type of physical world. It would be expected that upon re-entry into this world you would spread knowledge and help others reach enlightenment.

People do not like the idea of eternity, at least not one in which they are always having to improve, work towards a goal, so humans tend to create false end points. Be it the merging with the whole, or eternity of heaven. The truth (IMO) is that both are steps that do not last. Those who merge with the whole are embraced and then placed back into duality after a rest. Those who find their way to heavenly worlds, find that they are still expected to improve and eventually preform some sort of service like teaching others in the physical world.

The end of this all? Hinduism holds to the idea of cycles even in the grandest sense. The personalities that are guiding creation are not the unknowable truth. They were like you and me once and grew in goodness and strength and pattern. The idea is that after what seems like eternity (let's say 100 billion years) the universe fails. This is sort of a big bang/ entropy idea of a beginning and an end. Maybe the universe becomes so expanded that it can no longer create life bearing planets. There are then two course for souls. Either you have made something beautiful out of yourself or even after so much time you have failed to become anything worth keeping. Those who are still petty and nasty are not punished, they are simply reabsorbed, and they have reached the conclusion of their journey (the end). Those being who have become powerful and wonderful are removed whole from the universe and preserved. The universe is then reabsorbed. When a new universe (there are now infinite universes) is created those preserved are given positions which are god like as jobs. They may be in charge of any number of divine tasks, say creation of life forms via evolution, or designing wonderful natural events. After very long this universe will end also, then another and another. Eventually these beings have reached overwhelming size and beauty (having existed for say 1,000 billion years). At that point they may actually become the Vishnu, Shiva, and Brahma of a new small universe.

The whole time Brahman is still in the back ground, an unknowable truth that forms all things. So, you can see why I feel it is silly for anyone to claim Krishna is Brahman, like being the personality of the universe as it is, is not grande enough.

Wow, that clears things up for me. It makes the most sense for me out of all theories. Although the Krishna Consciousness have given me a better introduction than I had before to Hinduism, many things seemed wrong to me, thus the questions. I have previously "identified" mostly with Buddhism. (1) How do you compare your following of Shiva to Buddhism, is it that your practice incorporates a relationship with the divine, while Buddhism is "merely" a philosophy of life, which does not give as much guidance (like mental yoga, that is?).

(2) (If you have any really good reference to mental yoga and things of the sort, it would be nice if you shared. I will obviously do my own research on the subject but there is so much irrelevant stuff in the way, especially when I Google it. May Ganesha wash the dust off with its pure water trumpet :P)

Okay, so here's another question on top of that (3): I have been putting every single religious person in the same boat, believing that whether someone prays the Catholic God, Allah, Horus, Krishna from Krishna Consciousness, or Shiva, we are all praying to the same God. I have even gone to believe that atheists, who also have a relationship with life, change, and death, also share this relationship with the same God. Because the laws of physics, genes, quantum physics, biological predispositions were created by Vishnu or Brahman, not sure which, (still the same God), and besides, they will for example respond in different ways to change in their lives. I just feel like there is no escapable way from a relationship with God. Is that fair on my part to assume this? Because, talking with someone from Krishna Consciousness, I am scared I would come across as arrogant/disrespectful to assume that their God with the blue body is merely a representation of what I consider to be God. I don't know if I am addressing this properly.

Anyways, I'm asking too much for now. :P
(And everyone else with opinions on this are welcomed!)

1) That is exactly correct. Buddhism involves many of the same mental yogas, but intentionally is not focused on a relationship with the divine. Buddhism has become poisoned a bit, in that now many of the followers assume the teachings are the whole of what they should know. They assume Buddha would have taught about God if they were supposed to believe in God. A story I have heard is that on one occasion someone wanted to know what Buddha felt was the truth about God, and he replied, "If you want toknow about God, go speak with the God intoxicated Brahmin (priests)." This is in no way the same as saying, "do not think about God," it was saying, "I have something specific to teach you, and it is not about God."

Another short coming that can happen in Buddhism is the follower may never explore any meditations that were not taught by Gatama. He likely never suggested people not look deeper into yoga, he just taught basic stuff most people could remember and grasp.


2) Unfortunately much of it is written in ways that are heavy with dogma. I would suggest any disciplined exploration of your mind and heart will carry you forward on the path. The training that goes into lucid dreaming is powerful mental yoga, and I have tried to offer some basics in my DVA class. A fairly advanced yoga is Kundalini, but not everyone will be ready for that in this life time. I think exploring it is still worth while.

3) I agree with you. There is only one God. However, you can address the ultra powerful and beautiful beings who are currently filling the role of Vishnu, Shiva, and Brahma. This is a strange idea for some. You have the one true unknowable source that is always there from universe to universe into infinity. However, the idea is that there are in fact personalities who are a little closer to what we can relate to. They are aspects of God, but actually have a mind in a sense. They are so grande and vastly wonderful that they may as well be the whole, but they are closer to actual beings than an unknowable force. It is hard to grasp. An unknowable whole, that can not care because it is more of a force, and then aspects of it that actually can care about outcomes and smaller entities.



Edit: I have clearly crossed into a very hard to explain area. These things are aspects of god, but are directed to some extent by powerful (ultra) forces that evolved in past universes. They were chosen by God (?) to fill the creative roles needed to, well create. They are no longer really entities in the way we think of individuals. But, unlike the ultimate (Brahman) they can listen and care. The truth is we will not know fine details about if there is one or three, so I just address my prayer to God, be it as Shiva or Krishna and know that the "powers that be" will understand what I need and also feel my thankfulness.

I am eating your words gluttonously, Sivason. :)

I do understand what you are saying, and if not, I can certainly play with the concepts in my mind. I have three other questions. (Every time I read your answers, I think I have nothing else to ask, but the questions just pop out)

1. Many religions describe "demons". For example, my father follows a different worldview, I don't think it has a name. The gist of it is that there is reincarnation and the goal of life is to learn so we may become proper gods in future lives (which is quite similar to what you said). But then, it's different in the sense that our bodies are separated from out spirit which sees clearly. If we hear what our spirit tells us, than we see clearly. But competing with the spirits' knowledge is the "astral" which can be imagined as thousands of negative entities playing with us, making our lives hard, when they wouldn't be if we just listened to our spirit. This describes all our thoughts, none of them being ours. We are the filter. I am wondering if there is a Hindu counterpart to this? I personally see this, not as entities trying to put obstacles in my way, but simply as my own weaknesses.

2. How would you compare [an "atheist" who uses a big chunk of his day to be grateful for the world, and is in awe with it almost constantly, and does play with these concepts of change, life, death, etc, and does practice his mind, through lucid dreaming, and dream yoga lets say] and [a person like you]?

In this case, is the label "atheist" or "theist" irrelevant, and mostly whatever the person prefers to identify as, or is there a major difference? Because, when an atheist admires the sky, is it not comparable to a Krishna Consciousness person admiring Krishna, while looking at the sky?

3. Whenever I say "I" and use that word in my mind when, let's say, assessing my relationship with God, by saying "I am grateful for you, Vishnu, for the food I eat, and such", is "I", my soul, or can it only be my identity (which includes my body as well), is the soul able to talk? Because I have been wondering a few times, if I should change the way I speak, and perhaps even talk as if I (my body/identity) was praising my soul (which is not the speaker but a bit of the moderator of the body if you want). That could come off as a bit narcissistic. I just did wonder about this.

1) demons can be used in the same way as the gods, that is as a method of describing aspects of the physical world as opposed to higher concepts. Demon of ignorance is a common theme. Shiva is often shown overcoming the demon of ignorance. This shows that through a relationship with God even those trapped in the state of ignorance can change. Ignorance can be overcome.

Secondary to that, is the fact that many beings trapped in the wheel of reincarnation have grown powerful, but have not grown beautiful (chaotic knots in there energy body due to untold past acts of wickedness.) Some of these beings act in negative ways attempting to gain control over weak minded people, essentially by whispering in their metaphorical ear. It is not of concern for most people, but if that person abuses alcohol or meth, the being can have more influence. This could unfortunately be used by people to excuse there own weakness. 999 times out of a thousand weakness is the answer and not something more mystical.

2) I am sure an atheist can be a happy person who feels awe. I am assuming that people with a happy relationship with God have more contentment in many ways, but I could not say. From a mystical point of view, I feel the theist has access to resource the atheist does not. Think of role playing games and the classes Mage vs Cleric or priest. Both use magic, but one believes the power comes from the individual, and the other believes they are channeling something far greater than themselves. Assuming God does exist and listen, then the theist has access to a great resource the atheist ignores. However, I find it unlikely in the first place any atheist will be able to harness any form of mysticism or would even believe in such things.

3) The concept of "I" is a falsehood. It is easiest for me to explain by a metaphor of colored light. We have blue light and we have yellow light. We do not have green light. What?! Of course we do, I can see green, can't I? The state of "self" is like the green light. If the soul is a type of energy we will call yellow light, and the animal body, with its hormones and chemicals is blue light, where they cross over each other a new thing results. A body devoid of any kind of soul can still exist and is acting strictly on biology. A soul can exist without a body, but has the passions of biology removed and can not experience the physical world (not well at least).

Each time you incarnate you get a new body and that, plus the experience the animal goes through (abuse vs love) will impact what the resulting "self" is. Some would call the soul the true self, but I disagree, The self is transient, and the soul will be unlike the self when it is detached from the body. Through yoga (discipline of mind and heart) we can shift the balance away from animal and towards soul, but we can not and should not treat the body as a beast to be subdued. It is a partner in this "self."

Thank you for sharing all this wisdom with us, Sivason. You have helped me make another step in my journey. And it's funny to think how:
"but we can not and should not treat the body as a beast to be subdued. It is a partner in this "self."" this sentence improved some aspects of my life you wouldn't expect would be related.

I don't have more questions for the time being. :)

I stand in awe. Sivason, #6 post in this thread reminded me of something i've read not long ago: A PROPHECY FROM A TIMELESS REALM-THE ADVENT OF THE FOURTH ATTENTION . What do you think?

The first three paragraphs sound like they were taken almost directly out of Hinduism, except they substitute Vast ocean with dragon, and cosmic egg with scale. It is likely the writer had heard this description of the Hindu idea of cosmology and altered it (realizing it or not) to make his story.

Everything after that makes little sense to me, but it was a fun read.

Ok. I have a friend who prophecizes. I've had a dream that is stunningly accurate to what he says.

Writer of this article has a book called Scales of the Dragon. It is a stunning piece of work. I've discussed with him on facebook the nature of black holes and their spiritual origins it's mindblowing. He's a very knowledgable soul. I don't think he's directly influenced by hinduism at all.

I should really read up on Hindiusm. Where do I find these origin stories? Can you recommend a nice book? I've listened to the audiobook of The Bhagavad Gita but no deities there. But I am more interested in higher deities. :D

Consider that Hindus also believe knowledge can be rediscovered from with in. If he had known of the Hindu cosmology in another life, then he could remember parts of it know. Another idea is that if something is truth one could discover it entirely from with in themselves.



Here is a great book. It is the size of an old phone book and full of knowledge, minus all dogma. He teaches what dogma is to be expected in various cults and sects, but approaches it as history.


The Myths and Gods of India: The Classic Work on Hindu Polytheism from the Princeton Bollingen Series (Princeton/Bollingen Paperbacks) Paperback – December 1, 1991
by Alain Daniélou (Author)


I just lost mine in the fire, but used it as a reference book for 25 years.

Just remember it will be full of contradictions as this stuff evolved in various region only loosely connected.