Awareness and Soul of a human being, Excellent read.. Options

[dattaswami]

When the light rays fall on the object and get reflected, the image of the object falls on the retina of the eye and this image is transferred to the brain. The brain receives the image of the object. The process of receiving the image of the object by the brain is said to be awareness of the object. All the materials like rays of light, object, image of object, materials transferring the image like neurons, materials composing the brain, etc. are either inert matter or inert energy only. The process of transfer of the image to the brain is also inert work. Therefore, awareness is not different from the meaning of the word inert. Inert means that which is controlled by a controller. In the above explained system, the controller other than the above mentioned inert materials and inert work is not separately seen. If any of the above materials is absent, the work cannot take place.

Therefore, the materials control the work. The work or awareness is controlled by the presence of correct materials. Hence, you cannot say that the work or awareness is the independent controller. Each material independently cannot be a controller. The combination of these materials alone generates the work. But, the phenomenon of combination does not exist separately apart from the materials. Even the process of thinking of the brain is a play of different combinations of the impressions received through the senses from the world. Hence, a shrewd analysis also cannot capture the existence of controller in this system.

Science only speaks about ‘how the earth rotates’ and cannot speak about ‘why the earth rotates’. Due to inevitable necessity of a controller in this system, you have to accept the existence of the unimaginable controller. If the controller is like the human being made of imaginable inert materials and energies, again, the same problem is repeated. The controller should be beyond the above inert materials and inert work. Hence, the controller should be totally unimaginable. The will of such a controller should not be like the will of a human being, which is the inert work only controlled by inert materials. The will of God may resemble the will of the human being. But, the generation of that will in the absence of above inert materials is unimaginable. Since the process of generation is unimaginable, naturally, the generator is also unimaginable. Since the process of generation and the generator are unimaginable, such a will can have total independence. Qualitatively, the will of God and the will of human being may be similar. But, potentially, they differ from each other. The difference is lot and the similarity is very little. The nature of work may be same, but the potency differs.

Krishna lifted a mountain. You may lift a small stone. The process of lifting is same. But, there is lot of potential difference. Hence, you cannot compare the will of a human being, which is controlled by inert materials, to the will of God, which is totally independent with unlimited potency. Krishna is like an ordinary human being only. But, the potency is unimaginable since, He showed the entire infinite cosmic energy in Him through the vision of ‘Vishwa Roopa’. By external qualitative similarity, you cannot say that Krishna is an ordinary human being or every ordinary human being is Krishna. Similarly, due to external similarity of nature of work, you cannot say the awareness of God and awareness of a human being are one and the same. You are considering only one similar point forgetting the rest ninety-nine different points. The imaginable awareness can never be unimaginable God.

[Joesus]

Veda say's..... The spiritual top 40 on Gods greatest hits list.

Can you hear someone play a record play over and over and over again and tell if they are connected to the rest of the world? Or does he play it only for himself?

[dattaswami]

Veda say's..... The spiritual top 40 on Gods greatest hits list.

Can you hear someone play a record play over and over and over again and tell if they are connected to the rest of the world? Or does he play it only for himself?

Apart from the experience and logic, one should also take Scriptures as the final approving authority. Otherwise, even false preachers show perfect logic and experience in their interpretation. Therefore one needs the final sanction from the Scripture, which is called as Sruti and Smruti. Sruti is the Veda, which is preserved by recitation from one generation to the other. Not a single word is deleted or added to Veda because the recitation will not allow such pollution. Please do not mistake Me as a fan of Hinduism because I have to tell the truth and merit whatever may be the religion. The only scripture in this world, which is without pollution, is Veda. No other scripture in this world was preserved as Veda by such continuous process of recitation.

If you have the original manuscript, there is no proof of the absence of pollution. Is there hand written manuscript or oral dictation in recorded form of Jesus or Mohammed or Buddha? Even if you say that the hand scripts of disciples of Jesus exist, rationalists will question about the guarantee of the original oral or written version of Jesus. They will ask for the sincerity of the disciples in recording the version of Jesus. Even Gita is not an exception to this powerful analysis. Swami Dayananda says that Sankara has written Gita and introduced into Mahabharata. I am not supporting Dayananda. But at the same time I cannot oppose him also. Can I show the tape recorder in which the Gita was recorded directly from Krishna? Then there is an equal probability for both the possibilities. Therefore Gita comes under the second category called as Smruti.

Smruti is valid when it is found in Sruti or Veda. This is the reason why Sankara or Ramanuja or Madhva quotes first the Sruti and then only Gita as Smruti, which can be only supporting evidence. Unless the meaning of any verse of Gita is found in Sruti or Veda, it is not valid. Atleast the verse of Gita should not contradict the concept presented in Veda. Thus Gita, Bible, Q’ran and the statements of Buddha etc are analysed in the light of Veda. If any concept is contradicting Veda and if the correlation is not possible, such concept is to be rejected.

Fortunately all the scriptures of the second category (Smruti) could be correlated with Veda and therefore the same God who spoke Veda in the beginning of the creation subsequently came down and preached all the scriptures. You need not worry that I have brought your religious scriptures under the second category because there is no single instance where your scripture contradicted Veda, if your scripture is represented in the light of correct interpretation. You should feel worried if I show a single instance where your scripture is rejected due to contradiction with Veda. Since such possibility never arose, you need not worry because your scripture becomes equal to Veda since it has never contradicted Veda in the light of correct interpretation.

If somebody brings a statement like that the anti-Christ will try to bring the world peace by uniting all the religions, such statement cannot be accepted as the statement of God. It is only pollution. God is the very essence of the peace. Jesus is the very embodiment of peace. I am not finding such things only with Christianity. I can quote such things even in Hinduism, if you mistake Me as a fan of Hinduism internally. The scholars of Visishtadvaita branch of Hindu religion found by Ramanuja quoted some verses from a book written by Vyasa. These verses say that Sankara was an incarnation of a demon. It is very clear that these verses were composed by those scholars and were introduced into the book. Hinduism stands as a mini model for the whole world

Whatever you find in the world in the macro-scale can be found in Hinduism in the micro-scale. The hand written scripts were always subjected to intrusions and extrusions in course of long duration of time. But Veda did never exist in the form of written script, even before the technology of writing on Palm Leaves was discovered. Veda existed in the process of the recitation only. During the process of recitation a very large number of scholars were involved who belonged to old, middle and new generations.

Pollution at any level was impossible. Thus the authority lies in 1) Sruti (Veda); 2) Smruti (Gita, Bible, Q’ran, statements of Buddha etc.) which must coincide with Sruti or atleast not contradict Sruti; 3) Yukti, the logical analysis with discrimination power to differentiate truth and falsehood and 4) Vidvadanubhava, which is the experience of scholars who are the realised souls. I once again request all the other religions with folded hands and many many salutations, that one should not mistake me as a fan of Hinduism because I was born as a Hindu, especially by giving the first position to Sruti or Veda, which is a Hindu scripture.

I am not a blind fan of any religion including Hinduism. Did I not praise the Christians and Muslims in the concept of re-birth and condemned the Hindus severely? Hindus became lazy and neglected the spiritual effort thinking that there are several human re-births. I condemned this concept and showed the Hindu scripture itself, which states that the human birth is very rare. Thus Hindus have misunderstood their own religious scripture, whereas Christians and Muslims have clearly understood their own religious scriptures. If there is a merit in Hinduism, I shall not feel shy to expose it, doubting that other religions may misunderstand Me as a fan of my own religion. Similarly I shall not feel afraid to criticize my own Hindus if there is de-merit in Hinduism and I shall not feel unhappy to praise other religions if they have a merit.

[Joesus]

Veda say's..... The spiritual top 40 on Gods greatest hits list.

Can you hear someone play a record play over and over and over again and tell if they are connected to the rest of the world? Or does he play it only for himself?

Apart from the experience and logic, one should also take Scriptures as the final approving authority. Otherwise, even false preachers show perfect logic and experience in their interpretation.

Within this statement is the reality of interpretation. One cannot by themselves take the interpretation of an authority and act upon their own interpretation as being the same voice as that which has been interpreted. Therefore the obvious, would be that Scripture itself cannot act upon, commit or change, the life of anyone who does not know the absolute and cannot meet the absolute as the source of scripture.
Consciousness must meet consciousness as both the student and the Guide.

One who limits themselves by the definition of words, surrenders their absolute self to the resolute ideas of a signpost which only points in a direction (and an unknown one at that). To what you define as, "Unimaginable".

Therefore one needs the final sanction from the Scripture, which is called as Sruti and Smruti. Sruti is the Veda, which is preserved by recitation from one generation to the other. Not a single word is deleted or added to Veda because the recitation will not allow such pollution.

History shows us that understanding Veda thru self interpretation does not have very glorious results. We can use the example of India's culture. Where it was once rich with people living in Spiritual wisdom, there are now millions who live in poverty, and the cow has been raised to the status of God. Whether an argument ensues as to whether words have been added or deleted or not,... the painfully obvious reality would be that India suffers in its inability to decipher the language of Veda, because its mind does not sit at the level in which the Veda was cognized in the first place.

If a surgeon writes a book about surgery, it will resonate with the experience of another surgeon when another surgeon reads the book. If someone who knows of surgery but has never been a surgeon reads the book, the lack of experience with surgery will leave only the intellect to assume it must give the authority to the book.
Hence if the inexperienced were to give self referral to the authority of the surgeons book and begin to perform surgery without any experience the results would not be so glorious.

This is often the case when an aspirant surrenders him or her self to the authority of any written word without the direct experience. The interpretation of the word does not often lead to glorious results.

Please do not mistake Me as a fan of Hinduism because I have to tell the truth and merit whatever may be the religion. The only scripture in this world, which is without pollution, is Veda. No other scripture in this world was preserved as Veda by such continuous process of recitation.

There is no scripture ever written that cannot be polluted thru the projections and beliefs of the ego. Continuous recitation by any ignorant man does not create enlightenment by erasing his thoughts of ignorance.

Only the purity of maintaining a lineage of enlightened instruction, where the master instructs the student and the student becomes the master, does one guarantee the purity of any Teaching. To assume any other possibility is naive.
Once Shankara, Jesus or Buddha were visibly vacant from the relative perspectives of this planets idea of living in form, the source with all of its wisdom and guidance to the word, was lost to the interpretation of those who if not becoming Shankara, Jesus or Buddha imagined from some lesser state of experience and being.

The results of this fact is obvious.

you appear to be blind to how detrimental your spam-like posting style is. You continue to ignore this issue, or any issue for that matter, which would require you to answer directly. Prove that you are not a machine, unable to break free from its programming - by simply addressing my queries.

This may be an investment.
Righteousness of faith and purpose often requires blind obedience to ones own path and actions. Everyone surrenders themselves to that which one believes is reality and truth or the greater authority to their present experience. This is because we all know our experience changes and gives way to greater experience. So to prepare ones self to evolve one finds a direction that involves serving the greater in order to serve ones self.

The point of surrender and its recognition is often driven by a need.
The need to substantiate the personal ideal to help free ones self from the idea of judgment. This idea of judgment runs both self worth and purpose of life.
Surrender to individual need rather than the supreme being leads to different results and different actions.
If we use the idea that Veda is the ultimate authority (God) one could assume that veda in and of itself will speak for itself and deliver its own message.
But in this case veda is not an authority of voice without a messenger. So the messenger finds righteousness by being in service to the given authority. This allows the intellect to assume the relationship of being aligned with Truth/God. Sort of like a ship being without a rudder cannot sail and so it must find its rudder and its captain.

Religionists often act like a ship sailing thru a storm. The idea is to keep sailing and weathering all storms, when instead it could be anchored in a calm warm lagoon. Sacrifice is seen as service to the needs of God. This in and of itself is contradictory, for if God exists as the Supreme God, then God in and of itself should be whole, complete, full, and without needs.
This does not presuppose a nature to God just a lack of limitation.

Religions are created by presupposing God and Gods needs and service to those needs to gain favor. The promise of reward for faithful service and dedication often turns a blind eye to reality and the perfection of God in all things.

The faithful messenger must act in service to gain reward. And in this case the messenger must act on behalf of the authority which cannot, in and of its self, reveal its Self.

[dattaswami]

understanding Veda thru self interpretation does not have very glorious results. We can use the example of India's culture. Where it was once rich with people living in Spiritual wisdom, there are now millions who live in poverty, and the cow has been raised to the status of God. Whether an argument ensues as to whether words have been added or deleted or not,... the painfully obvious reality would

There are several religions and there are several scriptures corresponding to these religions. We must fix a scripture as the primary standard so that other scriptures can be standardized with reference to that. The other scripture also becomes standard with reference to which some other scripture can be also standardized. This is called as the process of standardization in Science.

Such a primary standard can be the Veda. I know immediately the colours of your faces will change. Immediately you will blame Me that I am not the preacher of Universal Religion. You will misunderstand Me as the preacher of Hinduism in guise. This situation will arise even if I take the scripture of some other religion also as the primary standard. The misunderstanding is inevitable and unavoidable.

I have to take one scripture of some religion and I have to be subjected to the criticism. Therefore, I ignore the criticism. I know what I am in My inner consciousness. My inner self is the real witness as long as I am the preacher of Universal Religion to My inner self, I need not fear for any external criticism from any angle.

The reason for selecting Veda as the primary standard is that even today the Veda is being preserved by oral recitation with the help of thousands of families. If you go to older and older times millions of families were reciting Veda just to preserve it from any type of intrusions or deletions. In Indian spiritual field there are several branches of philosophy who fight with each other orally.

For all these branches, Veda is the standard text. Such situation never existed in any religion in this world and does not exist even today. Even today different schools of philosophy in Hinduism fight with each other and all of them quote the same Veda. Such competition was and is unique in Hinduism. In such competitive atmosphere pollution of Veda is impossible.

If any word is added or deleted, immediately the other schools will shout because they fear that in such case Veda may support a particular branch of philosophy due to the possibility of a new interpretation for a new sentence. Leave the past. Tell Me frankly whether such situation exists in any religion in this world even today. This is the main reason why I have selected Veda as the primary standard. The diversity in Hinduism has done lot of good in this direction.

The sanctity of the scripture is well protected. In the olden days the books were in the form of written scripts of palm leaves. Printing was not there. Therefore, a very few scripts were only present. In such case it was very easy to introduce a new palm leaf or to remove an older palm leaf because hardly one or two scripts were present in a very large region.

Except this one reason there is no any other reason for Me to favour Veda but you need not worry that the scriptures of other religions have to be judged with reference to Veda only. Fortunately, all the scriptures of all the religions agree with Veda. The primary standard is useful in very few places where there is disagreement. Even that disagreement arises only from the misinterpretation of the statement. If the correct interpretation is given all the statements are perfectly coinciding with Veda.

Moreover, one can decide the final version of any concept based on the logical analysis. If the logical analysis fails, then mere Veda need not be taken as authority. If the logic disagrees you can reject any scripture including Veda. Therefore, Veda along with the logical analysis only stands as a primary standard. When you are convinced logically about a concept and when such concept is found in Veda, then only the concept is authorised.

Therefore, I am not rubbing Veda on any head without the logical analysis. Therefore, one need not doubt about the fanatic. The primary standard means the original word of God heard directly. But when other scriptures are perfectly in agreement with such word where is the question of fanatic? Every scripture becomes the word of God.

This point supports the Universal Religion, which says that the single God delivered the scriptures of all the religions. When the author is one and the same how can there be difference between the scriptures? If there is any difference it is only by your misinterpretation. Therefore, primary standard is only for convenience but not for fanatic.

[Joesus]

There are several religions and there are several scriptures corresponding to these religions. We must fix a scripture as the primary standard so that other scriptures can be standardized with reference to that. The other scripture also becomes standard with reference to which some other scripture can be also standardized. This is called as the process of standardization in Science.

And science creates standards from relative values based on knowledge and experience of the Known. This process has limitations and always improves upon itself.
The Absolute itself needs no improvement and it is beyond all standards. Immersing the Awareness into the absolute frees the mind from scientific standards and guides science to reflect a direction that releases the mind from standards.

Setting standards as the authority and the absolute, is the creation of religion and a God within boundaries.

Such a primary standard can be the Veda.

Never. Never can a relative signpost become absolute.

I know immediately the colours of your faces will change. Immediately you will blame Me that I am not the preacher of Universal Religion. You will misunderstand Me as the preacher of Hinduism in guise. This situation will arise even if I take the scripture of some other religion also as the primary standard. The misunderstanding is inevitable and unavoidable.

Consciousness recognizes Consciousness. People bound by standards recognize themselves in rules and life binding boundaries of definition, and they believe in their own righteousness. Whether they are bothered by diverging opinions is irrelevant. Being Self righteous or pious is doesn't matter.
When someone spends so much time defending himself against the wave of doubt and criticism with points and references created within relative whys and wherefores.. , he/she is not free from the thoughts of being something of measure within the boundaries of relative measures.

I have to take one scripture of some religion and I have to be subjected to the criticism.

That would only be a choice. You draw to you, and experience, what you believe is true. This is cause and effect.

Therefore, I ignore the criticism.

Also a choice, to acknowledge the opposing thought within ones own reflection of being one with everything. One with diversity of opinion, one with the side you wish to take in and amongst the two sides of acceptance and denial, and one with criticism.... or not. One could choose to be a martyr, a victim or a creator within ones own experience.

I know what I am in My inner consciousness.

Say Halleluja.."Can I get a witness!"

My inner self is the real witness as long as I am the preacher of Universal Religion to My inner self, I need not fear for any external criticism from any angle.

As long as you are the preacher to your inner self.. You can convince yourself of anything. (The self made man who loves his creator)

The reason for selecting Veda as the primary standard is that even today the Veda is being preserved by oral recitation with the help of thousands of families. If you go to older and older times millions of families were reciting Veda just to preserve it from any type of intrusions or deletions.

Memorizing, like memorizing a recipe without knowing how to cook.

In Indian spiritual field there are several branches of philosophy who fight with each other orally.

Such is life from belief.. fighting to preserve something that in its essence cannot die, but the fight continues to preserve the appearance of the eternal. Unfortunately the eternal cannot be bound by appearances, so the fight becomes one of futility. Thousands of years reciting words and still the world of those remains ridden with poverty and death. Non of the perfectionists become enlightened or help the world to become enlightened. Instead they preserve and continue to preserve for hundreds of years a script. Hoping something will change in the world around them and hoping they will find reward for a lifelong duty tethered to a post that has them reciting and arguing over the perfection of their recitation. Ah the life of bliss.................

For all these branches, Veda is the standard text. Such situation never existed in any religion in this world and does not exist even today.

Au contraire mon frere, such a situation has existed in every religious ideal

Even today different schools of philosophy in Hinduism fight with each other and all of them quote the same Veda. Such competition was and is unique in Hinduism. In such competitive atmosphere pollution of Veda is impossible.

Nothing is impossible.

If any word is added or deleted, immediately the other schools will shout because they fear that in such case Veda may support a particular branch of philosophy due to the possibility of a new interpretation for a new sentence. Leave the past. Tell Me frankly whether such situation exists in any religion in this world even today.

Fanaticism exists in every belief and in every age.

This is the main reason why I have selected Veda as the primary standard. The diversity in Hinduism has done lot of good in this direction.

I can tell. All I need is a cow and to recite and argue veda, and I will become one with God.

The sanctity of the scripture is well protected.

Like placing a seed in a block of concrete. It is well protected, tho it will never sprout in the case that it is entombed within.

In the olden days the books were in the form of written scripts of palm leaves. Printing was not there. Therefore, a very few scripts were only present. In such case it was very easy to introduce a new palm leaf or to remove an older palm leaf because hardly one or two scripts were present in a very large region.

In olden days and in present, script is an aid to instruction and hands on practice. It was only after such a time when man began to forget, that they decided to try and preserve in script what could only be lived inside. It was an act of desperation.
Not saying that scripture has no practical application, but it has no use or application without first having knowledge and experience of the absolute. Kinda like a cart without wheels. It won't roll..

Except this one reason there is no any other reason for Me to favour Veda but you need not worry that the scriptures of other religions have to be judged with reference to Veda only.

I'm not worried.. I never worry about such things

Fortunately, all the scriptures of all the religions agree with Veda.

Veda agrees with all other scripture, so Veda not need worry about losing its luster, it is easily cognized and replaced. God knows no loss or favor of idols and can easily fax a new copy of a shiny scripture.

The primary standard is useful in very few places where there is disagreement. Even that disagreement arises only from the misinterpretation of the statement. If the correct interpretation is given all the statements are perfectly coinciding with Veda.

As with all scripture, for scripture is just the description of experiences. And since the experience of God cannot be contained there are plenty of experiences of God to go around and in varying forms and revelations of thought.

Moreover, one can decide the final version of any concept based on the logical analysis.

When logic falls way to the awareness of the absolute all finalities and versions of finality fall away.

If the logical analysis fails, then mere Veda need not be taken as authority.

Logic is always based on relative measures of what is known at the time of logical deduction.

If the logic disagrees you can reject any scripture including Veda.

Rejection is always from self measure and the inability to integrate ones self with the world around ones self

Therefore, Veda along with the logical analysis only stands as a primary standard.

Primary in a world of limitation and belief where the world around you is seen as a standard of measure

When you are convinced logically about a concept and when such concept is found in Veda, then only the concept is authorised.

Now were talking. Concepts concepts concepts. Years and years of memorizing concepts and arguing concepts makes for years of arguing concepts. What a world what a world....I'm..... melting...

Therefore, I am not rubbing Veda on any head without the logical analysis.

I rubbed a balloon on my head and it stuck to the ceiling.

Therefore, one need not doubt about the fanatic.

I have no doubts about the fanatic.

The primary standard means the original word of God heard directly. But when other scriptures are perfectly in agreement with such word where is the question of fanatic? Every scripture becomes the word of God.

Relatively speaking yes, but..... and here is the clincher... The Word of God is multidimensional. God cannot be contained within scripture, and so any concept or description of the word is only a signpost pointing toward something that cannot be described but only pointed at. If you aint been there pointing at something is not the authority for someone looking for something they cannot recognize without the experience. Validation can only come from experience, not the signpost and its descriptive words.
Scripture is not like a road sign to a town in ones mind where there are matching signposts put up by everyone with the same vision and experience with the need to remember where one is. No two people see and experience the reflections of God in exactly the same manner.
One can recognize themselves in words that point in any direction, and people who point toward personal experiences.
Ultimately when one stops looking for anything in everything or one thing, then one finds everything and nothing, at the same time and in all time.
Until them one clings to idols and fantasies of authority, and argues about authority, and preaches about authority, and defends themselves and their authority, just to validate themselves in the mirror of diverse thoughts that are still plaguing the individual mind which seeks to stamp the permanent idea of being "One with the Father" on ones forehead as well as attempting to rub the idea upon everyone else's head

This point supports the Universal Religion, which says that the single God delivered the scriptures of all the religions. When the author is one and the same how can there be difference between the scriptures? If there is any difference it is only by your misinterpretation. Therefore, primary standard is only for convenience but not for fanatic.

For the fanatic all points of belief support ones own idea of self defense. Defense and argument for the defense is the only convenience of the fanatic.

Religions are created by presupposing God and Gods needs and service to those needs to gain favor. The promise of reward for faithful service and dedication often turns a blind eye to reality and the perfection of God in all things.

God is not in need of love from others because He is always contented (Aptakamasya….Veda). The king goes to the forest for hunting not for killing an animal and to eat it like a hunter (Lokavattu…..Brahma Sutra). It is a game of entertainment with His own imagination (creation). You cannot take the example of king also here in complete sense because the king, forest, animal, hunting etc., are equally real. The love is the best and most sacred type of entertainment.

Well then, the king needs no points, reasons, logic or authority, nor does he need to make a point of his authority, because he is equal to everything in his kingdom. Ergo, one need not look outside of ones self for the ultimate authority but instead within, to the equality of the king, as the king, and in the kings kingdom.

Isn't this what Veda describes? The written testimony to the personal experience from one who has lived in the Kingdom in equality with all things as does the King with all the riches and wisdom the King can have.
Ain't no authority like that kind of experience.

No combined words or single written word can match or contain that.

It can only attempt to describe or point toward it.

I'd say God has more to say than just words, and wouldn't leave to humanity One single statement to his existence as the authority to be idolized by chanting, cow worshiping, heads, who would memorize and argue for generations over one set of words. Life lives on in those who will live life in the ever present and eternal Now, rather than in the past.

[dattaswami]

idolized by chanting, cow worshiping, heads, who would memorize and argue for generations over one set of words. Life lives on in those who will live life in the ever present and eternal Now, rather than in the past.

The statue or photo is the inert object. The form carved in a stone or painted on a paper is also an imaginary form and not even a direct photo. The statues and photos are only models representing the concept, which is knowledge. The form of statues and photos is mainly human form, which represents the concept that the Lord always comes to this world in human form as said in Gita (Manusheem Tanu Masritam). Please remember that Gita did not tell that the Lord would come in any other form. The forms of fish, tortoise etc., were only temporarily to kill the demons and nobody worshipped such forms during their time. But Rama, Krishna etc were the human forms worshipped by several devotees like Hanuman and Gopikas. The Lord will come in every human generation; otherwise, He becomes partial to a particular generation. If necessary the Lord can come whenever there is necessity as said in Gita (Yedaa yedaahi).

Once this concept is realized, there is no need of temple and statue for you. You should go from school to college and then to university. This does not mean that when you leave the school, the school should be destroyed. The school must exist for the future batches. Therefore for you, the statue and the photo are not necessary and this does not mean that the statues, photos and temples should be broken. They should be protected and must be respected as the models of divine knowledge for the future ignorant devotees. Some devotees cannot accept the human form, which is before their eyes as said in Veda (Pratyaksha dvishah).

For such devotees the statues and photos are necessary for meditation since they are at the school level. The statues and photos are useful for the meditation of such limited minds as said in Sastra (Pratima svalpa buddhinam). Veda says that the Lord does not exist in the inert objects (Natasya pratima, Nedamtat), but says that the inert objects can stand as models representing the Lord (Adityam brahmeti). Therefore seeing and meditation upon the statues and photos are correct in the case of the ignorant devotees. But the other rituals like offering food, burning camphor, fume sticks, oil lamps and breaking coconuts, offering flowers etc. are not mentioned in Vedas and there are unnecessary and are causing the air pollution harming the humanity. All these unnecessary rituals should be avoided.

Offering food should also be done to the human form of the Lord only but not to the inert statues. Ijya or Yajna is cooking and offering of the food. Gita says that such Ijya should not be done to the inert objects. In the name of the statues, people are stealing the food and money. The statue and photo is not taking the food or Gurudakshina. The people behind the statue are taking those things and most of them are either cheating or wasting the money with ignorance. Whatever the Gurudakshina is given should go only to the priest and not the managing devotees. The business of the merchants by selling such materials in the temples should be stopped, because such materials are not even heard in Veda. Of course, the priest should be a Satguru and preach the divine knowledge to the devotees and the devotees should give Gurudakshina to such Satguru only. Thus, the temple should become a center of learning selfless devotion and divine knowledge and the priest must do only ‘Jnana Yajna’ in the temple and not the ‘dravya yajna’ as said in the Gita (Sreyaan dravyamayat).

Gita condemned such Ijya before inert objects because such Ijya is only cheating and business. Such a devotee will be born as inert object (Bhutejya yanti). This business is connected to removal of the fruits of sins and getting the fruits of good deeds, which are not done. All this is false, because the theory of ‘karma’ says that one has to suffer for all his bad deeds and can never get the result of any good deed without doing it (Avasyamanubhoktavyam…kalpakotisatairapi). The spiritual path should be preached in the temple, which must be ‘nishkama karma yoga’ i.e., sacrifice of work and sacrifice of fruit (money) of the work to the Lord without aspiring any fruit in return. Remember, that only the Ijya is condemned and not the temples or statues, which are the models of the divine knowledge.