3

I heard that the Bhagavad gita says this,and I read it in the mahaskanda purana.where in bhagavad geeta does it say this?and are there any other places that say this?

  • Brahman is Nirguna infinite formless consciousness subject but not some finite object that can be actually perceived by a jiva just like one can never see himself/herself, while mirror has only temporary virtual reflection of body. What is perceived in Maya is Triguna Prakriti which is inert in reality and Brahman can assume any form using it and depending upon the wish of bhakt though there are default settings like of Gods and nature rules within this earthly Maya just like day-night, inhale-exhale, Sun rises from east but not west. – user21300 Aug 9 at 15:33
  • Explanation of Brahman by Yâgñavalkya in Brihadâranyaka Upanishad 'He said: 'O Gârgî, the Brâhmanas call this the Akshara (the imperishable). It is neither coarse nor fine, neither short nor long, neither red (like fire) nor fluid (like water); it is without shadow, without darkness, without air, without ether, without attachment, without taste, without smell, without eyes, without ears, without speech, without mind, without light (vigour), without breath, without a mouth (or door), without measure, having no within and no without, it devours nothing, and no one devours it.' – user21300 Aug 9 at 15:36
1

The Gita 4.11 may be interpreted that way.

O Partha! Whosoever worship Me through whatsoever path, I verily accept and bless them in that way. Men everywhere follow My path.

Gita 4.11

| improve this answer | |
1

Rig Veda 5.44.6 says so:

यादृगेव ददृशे तादृगुच्यते ...

In whatever form he is seen, in that form he is praised/worshiped...

Now, we must be careful not to over-extend (ativyApti) this uniquely Vedic metaphysical mystical principle by keeping in mind historical, philosophical and practical realities vis-a-vis other religious systems. For example, in regards to factually incorrect and practically foolish sayings such as "ishvar allah tere naam".

The above magnanimous and grand principle only applies within a framework where there is mutual recognition of reciprocity. Where one side does not recognize the validity of the other side's beliefs, it is unwise and self-defeating for the more magnanimous side to open arms only to have its arms chopped off by the other side. In other words, there is no sense in saying that "all religions are equal".

https://hinduism.stackexchange.com/a/41021/20829

| improve this answer | |

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .