i read the puraans alot as i grew up... and back then i didn't pass judgement.. i took it for granted that shiv, for whom i fasted on shivaratri, got aroused by the smoothly curved thighs of parvati and ejaculated into the nuptial fire... it didn't matter that indra, the king of my gods, covetted the property of another (a mortal) and even stole it... it didn't matter that my god, for whom i pasted the 'namo' vibuthi on my forehead, became a temptress to beguile and lead people astray, so the favoured ones could drink nectar.. as goddesses felt rivalry and made curses when brahma called gayatri instead of saraswati (she was busy dressing up), i didn't lose faith... and when i read that the holy trimurti started off quarreling about 'who came first', i didn't feel ruffled...

but then, slowly, the realisation dawned on me... these were my gods.. the heights of moral perfection... the devas were higher than humans, the all-knowing god made them that way.. i drew them profusely, on textbooks and art books and canvas..
but they were liscentious.. they assumed the forms of women's husbands and made love to them in deceit...
they stole - but the yamas say i must practise asteya - non-stealing.. why should i, a mere mortal worry when the gods up in swarga didn't care about it? it couldn't be that important, could it?
if the gods can seduce poor innocent ladies like ahalya and then be cursed by a human to have testicles growing all over their bodies, what makes them any higher than me? coz they float, and they never blink, and their garlands are always fresh?

and when did all this happen? was my science teacher, who went on about atoms and the vastness of outer space, lying? as i got older, i came to accept that the puraans and other hindu stories were myths like the ones that greeks had... but how could i call such literature my holy books and continue to revere them?
sure there was some good stuff in them, but if i had to chop and change my holy books to make them moral and decent, what could i really put my faith in? when i read satyarth prakash, it was a straw that collapsed an already weary camel...

other kids weren't interested in religion... they didn't read the scriptures and they didn't care when i talked about them.. then i asked the pandit who worked at my school... and he said that's the way things were.. it's not good to challenge the holy books.. great men wrote them... i should watch my tongue..

when i read satyarth prakash, things that for a long time had lost their moorings found a place.. it showed me how the true rishis wrote sublime moral things and did not condone indecent lascivious gods.. the vedas were around long before the puraans, i read, and they spoke of one almighty god who was sudharma (the most righteous) and apaapavidha (untouched by sins).. the pantheon of rival deities was just a mountain of mythology.. i had no cause to feel ashamed that my gods were like petty, lustful human beings... i had one god and he was perfect...

i had always known that to philosophers and my dadaji, all the polychrome devas were expressions of one transcendental reality that people didn't like to think about coz it was just so hard... my elders didn't seem to realise that though...
monday was 'lakshmi's day' and friday was 'sivan's day', and on vinayaga saturthi you're supposed to sing about this one god only, but not on varalakshmi viratham and saraswathi puja... then you pray to the mothers...

why couldn't all the names and forms be interchangeable, i asked myself, as i bowed before kali ma, and kept vigil swaying in front of our big bronze nataraja, if all the gods are really one? why worship them seperately and be careful of not offending one over the other? why couldn't ganesh be the murti on lakshmi puja, and durga mata on mahashivaratri? why did we want to pray for wealth to one god, good school marks to another, and good luck for the business year to yet another god...

in my school, i was sadly the only hindu student well-read enough to defend the hindus against the muslim and christian critics... when they called us idol-worshippers with stone gods, i was the first to preach about the ultimate unity.. about how it's kinda complicated but at the end of the day, we have one god.. and all the stone images where just symbolic representations... that we bathed, and dressed, and served food to, and treated better than our servants... and eventually i couldn't take it anymore...
why were the powers of heaven pigeonholed into a zillion little gods? why did mariamman love the blood of freshly slaughtered chickens, while strinivasa govinda, sri venketesa hated meat and made us fast for purtaasi? aren't they one and the same?

why couldn't it just be simple? one good almighty god - that i could pray to directly... not going through all the secretaries and posters and incarnations and forms and different rituals...

and today, day and night, i give thanks for the satyarth prakash and my beloved rishi, who saved me from the jaws of islam, and showed me that the god of the muslims was morally no better - making war on unbelievers and condemning them to hell...
at last, i had a god, one god, a good one at that - no sex and pilfering, not one god split up into many.. and i felt complete.

to all,
namaste... i am aware that the above post may inadvertently harm some sensitivities.. it may provoke heated controversy... and it may boil some already heated blood...
but before this thread explodes into full-on arya-sanatana warfare, let me say a few things...

as most of you probably realise the post is intensely personal... it describes my religious journey from my early youth until now.. it is not the same for everyone, i completely agree... we are all different and we respond to things differently...
this is a story about me.. where i've come from, religiously... why i am where i am right now...
i don't want anybody to feel i'm picking on them or the texts they hold so close to their hearts.. please know that that is not my intention... my mother still does her puja, singing sweetly near my room... i have not scorned my family or my heritage...

i am not anti-sanatana now... in fact perhaps my understanding has grown a little...
i have tried many ways in my short life... neo-vedanta didn't do much - i didn't want to be god, i wanted to worship him... buddhism had no god but its teachings were good... basically, all i thought was that i wanted a hinduism stripped of the things that i felt i didn't need... i might be wrong... i might be right... the journey is going on... and the pen has not rested... like most stories, it will go on too.. and i trust and pray that the ending will be a happy one..

Hello,

I like yourself grew up with the puranas. My father was a very orthodox religious person with both knowledge and a fundamental understanding of religion. Growing up I used to look forward to saturday morning dicussions and conversations on various topics in hinduism. I still look Nastolgically on those days.

How are the devas greater than us?

I should be understood that gaining the status of deva is not dependent upon conquering one's desire and passions. To a certain extent its opposite. One gains the status of a deva by performing austerity, tapas, charity and other good deeds. In essense the accumulation of "good" karma. At the same time the motives for this karma cannot be completely selfless --- otherwise it would lead to moksha (through the path of karma Yoga). Remember that anyone (through tapas) acend to the status of a "deva".

Thus, a "deva" is simply an individual that has accumulated a great wealth of Punya in his previous life. Thus, in many ways they exhibit the same passions as humans. The Puranas both document and use these as an illustration of dharma in action.

Remember -- Indra was cursed for his deeds. After he repented the curse was modified (though it cannot be eliminated) . He is therefore celebrated as the "thousand" eyed (not testicled) one.

Dear Ashegan,

To respond to the main points in your first post:

AP:i read the puraans alot as i grew up... and back then i didn't pass judgement.. i took it for granted that shiv, for whom i fasted on shivaratri, got aroused by the smoothly curved thighs of parvati and ejaculated into the nuptial fire...
VA: No Sanatani draws any inspiration from this story. While I myself do not remember which Puranas you are talking about (I have not read all), you are free to reject this story as apocryphal. In general however, the act of creation is often explained in terms of Sexual metaphors in Hindu texts, the Vedas not excluded. You will recall the Gita verse "Mam yonirmahad brahman, tasmin garbha..."

AP:it didn't matter that indra, the king of my gods, covetted the property of another (a mortal) and even stole it...
VA: Please give the address of the story in the Puranas. Anyway, this is another story which can be rejected.

AP:it didn't matter that my god, for whom i pasted the 'namo' vibuthi on my forehead, became a temptress to beguile and lead people astray, so the favoured ones could drink nectar..
VA: Sri Vishnu favored the Devas because they were better than the Asuras. If I would come across a situation where I see that the wicked have an upper hand over the good, I would not hesitate to adopt a strategem to set things right. The moral of the story also is that people who cannot control their lust cannot attain Salvation. (Since Amrit also means Moksha).

AP:as goddesses felt rivalry and made curses when brahma called gayatri instead of saraswati (she was busy dressing up)
VA: The 4 heads of Brahmaji represent the 4 Vedas and even to this day, the Vaidiks classify themselves into the Brahma (also called the Angirasa) and the Aditya Samradayas. Sarasvati devi is the spiritual wisdom. It is but natural that the two are husband and wife. When Sarasvatiji was not available, Gayatri Mata was called forth because she is the essence of all Vedas. As Manu also says: "The 3 hemistiches of Gayatri were extracted from the Rik, Yajus and the Saman respectively by Prajapati." Therefore, those who cannot understand Brahmavidya in totality should seek recourse to Gayatri.

AP:but then, slowly, the realisation dawned on me... these were my gods.. the heights of moral perfection... the devas were higher than humans, the all-knowing god made them that way.. i drew them profusely, on textbooks and art books and canvas.. but they were liscentious.. they assumed the forms of women's husbands and made love to them in deceit... they stole - but the yamas say i must practise asteya - non-stealing.. why should i, a mere mortal worry when the gods up in swarga didn't care about it? it couldn't be that important, could it?
VA: If you read my Q & A under the thread "Help for Hindu converts", you will note that the 'Devayonis" (= state of devata) are attained by the performance of virtuous actions. One may proceed further in this state and attain Salvation, or one can fritter away this exalted state and then fall back to lower states of existence. The choice is ours, and the effort for perfection must be continued till the very end, without getting tired. These Devas who performed wicked deeds wasted their opportunity and will pay for their sins. The Dharmasastras also say: "Do not copy the Holy men of older sages in their transgression. They got away with their sins because they had Tejas (which nullified their sins)." Gautama Dharma Sutra

AP: if the gods can seduce poor innocent ladies like ahalya and then be cursed by a human to have testicles growing all over their bodies, what makes them any higher than me?
VA: As pointed out by Sri Chetan Gandhi, Indra was cursed to become 'Sahasraksha' or 'Sahasrabhaga' and suffered a lot of humiliation because of this. The moral is that no matter how exalted you are, your sins will catch up with you one day.

AP:coz they float, and they never blink, and their garlands are always fresh?
VA: No. Follow them when they are right and reject their example when they are wrong.

AP:and when did all this happen? was my science teacher, who went on about atoms and the vastness of outer space, lying? as i got older, i came to accept that the puraans and other hindu stories were myths like the ones that greeks had... but how could i call such literature my holy books and continue to revere them?
VA: The Puranas present their own world view which may be right or wrong. But as you are aware, Hinduism does not stand on such non-verifiable statements. Nevertheless, 1000's of verses of Puranas describe creation in wonderful Samkhyan and Vaiseshika terminology. Such descriptions are not available in the Vedas.

AP:sure there was some good stuff in them, but if i had to chop and change my holy books to make them moral and decent, what could i really put my faith in?
VA: The Puranas are full of interpolations and apocryphal sections. It is not very difficult to sift the good from the bad. Those sections of Puranas which accord with the Vedas are authorititative, and the other sections are not. For that matter, you will have to labor a lot with the Vedas to understand their import.

AP:when i read satyarth prakash, it was a straw that collapsed an already weary camel...
VA: I happened to read the Satyartha Prakash before I read the Puranas and was full of prejudice against them although I had not read them yet. When I finally started reading them, my opnion changed. I still read the Vishnu Purana etc. as I find them very inspiring. I ignore those passages that I find offensive.

AP:it's not good to challenge the holy books.. great men wrote them... i should watch my tongue..
VA: You were correct in not accepting this logic.

AP:when i read satyarth prakash, things that for a long time had lost their moorings found a place.. it showed me how the true rishis wrote sublime moral things and did not condone indecent lascivious gods.. the vedas were around long before the puraans, i read, and they spoke of one almighty god who was sudharma (the most righteous) and apaapavidha (untouched by sins)..
VA: I suggest that once you are done with the Satyartha Prakash, please read our Shastras in the original too. The mantra "Suddham papaviddham kavirmanishi...." (YV 40.7) incidently refers to Mukta Atmans (souls that have attained salvation). It refers to God only secondarily.

AP:the pantheon of rival deities was just a mountain of mythology.. i had no cause to feel ashamed that my gods were like petty, lustful human beings... i had one god and he was perfect...
VA: There was, is and will be only one God. There is one Devata who is Mahadeva, and there are many devas as well. For this, read the definition of devata that I wrote for the American student. In 1869, Swamiji asked the Sanatanist Pundits at the Kashi Shastrartha: "Are there many Isvaras, or is there just ONE Isvara." They replied: "There is indeed ONE Isvara." People who say that Hinduism of the Vedas is dead are of two types:
1. Indologists who look at the form, but not the spirit of Hinduism
2. Arya Samajists: Who imagine that the Vedas preach pure monotheism (a Semitic Concept).
I think that both are incorrect. Modern Hindus also believe in their heart that there is one 'Paramatman', but they worship many devas. Some say that these Devas are manifestations of that ONE, others say that these are merely names of the ONE. And yet others say that these are 'portions' of the ONE. Similar is the concept of divinity in the Vedas. They have many devatas with ONE devata at their heart. I suggest that you read the Vedas first hand (or even try reading the Bhashya of Dayanand Swami to realize that it is erroneous).

AP:i had always known that to philosophers and my dadaji, all the polychrome devas were expressions of one transcendental reality that people didn't like to think about coz it was just so hard... my elders didn't seem to realise that though...
monday was 'lakshmi's day' and friday was 'sivan's day', and on vinayaga saturthi you're supposed to sing about this one god only, but not on varalakshmi viratham and saraswathi puja... then you pray to the mothers...
VA: This is an example of ritualism and symbolism gone beserk. For that matter, the Brahmana text of the Vedas are not free of this fault. The endless hair spliting over ritual acts can irritate even the most patient reader at times.

AP:why couldn't all the names and forms be interchangeable, i asked myself, as i bowed before kali ma, and kept vigil swaying in front of our big bronze nataraja, if all the gods are really one? why worship them seperately and be careful of not offending one over the other? why couldn't ganesh be the murti on lakshmi puja, and durga mata on mahashivaratri? why did we want to pray for wealth to one god, good school marks to another, and good luck for the business year to yet another god...
VA: As above. It should not really matter which devata/devi we bow to. As the Shastras say:
"They who regard the Shiva and the Vishnu as the same Atman alone are the true devotees of God." (Narada Purana chapter 5)

AP:in my school, i was sadly the only hindu student well-read enough to defend the hindus against the muslim and christian critics... when they called us idol-worshippers with stone gods, i was the first to preach about the ultimate unity.. about how it's kinda complicated but at the end of the day, we have one god.. and all the stone images where just symbolic representations... that we bathed, and dressed, and served food to, and treated better than our servants... and eventually i couldn't take it anymore...
why were the powers of heaven pigeonholed into a zillion little gods? why did mariamman love the blood of freshly slaughtered chickens, while strinivasa govinda, sri venketesa hated meat and made us fast for purtaasi? aren't they one and the same?
VA: The myriad wierd practices in Hindu dharma are often due to the all-inclusivist nature of our Dharma which has elevated a tribal deity to the status of Jagannatha of Puri. Hinduism has spread by assimilation and incorporation of diverse practices and beliefs within the framework of its structure. However, as Sri Adi Samkara reformed so many Agama Sampradayas, we too can do the same. For instance, he wrote the Prapancasara Tantra to reform the Shaktra Sampradaya.

AP:why couldn't it just be simple? one good almighty god - that i could pray to directly... not going through all the secretaries and posters and incarnations and forms and different rituals...
VA: That sounds like Islamic logic to me: "See, our religion is so simple. Adam, Moses, Jesus, Muhammad. One message, One God." When trivial worldly things are not simple, why should spritual truths be simple. Only the lazy would not want to expend some effort in exploring spritituality, while spending their whole lives over trivial issues. Simplicity is no proof for correctness.

Good wishes

Vishal

Sri Ashegan,

I wish everyone could ask such questions as you asked. I wish everyone could relate oneself to devas as a reflection or promise of one's own perfected state of beingness and then wonder why? I wish everyone could understand what are mrityu loka, deva loka and Brahma loka and examine devas' against the loka these symbolize. One must ask questions to get an answer.

Dear Ashegan, you have been brave enough not to be content with simplicity and dive deeper into true meanings and understandings. Indeed experiences and paths followed differ from person to person and your experience should neither harm any sensitivities nor provoke heated controversy nor explode into any intellectual warfare. It should evoke more questions, lead many to question what they have simply accepted so far and lead to the understanding of what seems unacceptable on simple readings.

In my personal case, I read, I laughed, I almost rejected, I questioned, I got new insights, reread and found that I could figure out what to accept and what to reject. The process continues.

Shree Rama
Ashegan as being in a similar age group and situation to you, i totally understand what you went through. I too, went through this. I was born in Madras and came to the United States at the age of 2 months. I have been raised in this country since then. My family is a strong shri-vaishnavite family but are quite liberal in their thoughts and views. I was raised off of these puranic stories and teachings. I used to read amar chitra kathas and other such books as a child. Then as i got to about 11 or 12 i begin to read the actual puranas. I read them like i did the amar chitra kathas, it was a history or story of the world and all the devatas. I used to believe in them quite a bit.
Then came high school, i went to a catholic high school. My views began to change i started to really dislike hinduism and the puranas and everything "indian", it was a reaction to the atmosphere i was going to school in. The views imposed upon me in school were very catholic and scientific, a weird contradiction of beliefs. It was quite hard on me, going to all these classes and having them tell me this is possible and this is not and so on. Then going to catholic religious classes and having them tell me that "christ is the path and the way", "he is the lamb of god", "only through the son can you come to know the father" and so. So from the second year of high school to the end of my senior year i essentially gave up much of my beliefs. I stopped doing my sandhyavandam and prayers or would just go through the motions without real caring.
Then about 3 years ago when i first started college, it began to change. I read the bhagavad gita as it is by srila prabupada, (it is a decent translation as i look upon it now but then it was the thing for me), and i rapidly began to regain my lost faith and strengthen my faith. This was the stepping stone i used to begin my never-ending journey to the feet of Sriman Narayana. I began to read more and more, starting with the puranas, i read the purana ratna Vishnu purana, bhagavatam, agni, padma, brahmananda, narada and garuda puranas. This time i read them with a discriminating mind. I took what was good and true and disregarded the ugly and bad, (some of which might be interpolations). I did the same with the Manusmriti. It was only by reading the puranas that i began to read more philosophical works like Brahma Sutras: Sankarabhashya and Ramanujabhashya or Sribhashya and the Upanshids.
I can't read sanskrit so i have to read the translations, i am starting to teach myself sanskrit so i can read the actual work itself.
The Bhakthivedanta Institute (a branch of iskcon) does a lot of puranic research and such. They have a quite a number of books which substantiate the puranas via science and other resources and evidence. You might want to look into it.
Sorry about the length of the post. Simply said one should look at something in its proper context that is the only way to see something in the light of truth that it is presented in. Instead of explaining away the puranas, one should explain them.
Shree Rama
-Mukunda

Dear Ashegan and Mukunda,

It has been heart warming for me to read your experiences growing up. They parallel my own experiences of a long time ago.

A young adult is curious and ever questioning, and that is his saving grace. He should never lose that questioning curiosity, and he must always establish his own certainty.

After all what is knowledge? Knowledge is not DATA. Knowledge is CERTAINTY.

Here are some of my musings on this subject:

YOUNG ADULTS AND RELIGION

The future is yours. Create it.

namaste to sri chetan, sri jha and sri mukunda...
i am grateful for all your contributions... i expected a much more violent and angry response, but strangely what i got was support and nostalgia.. i am glad the post that launched this thread was taken in the right spirit... it has fuelled my belief that eventually, we can all come to a common understanding through dialogue...

sri mukunda, i'm pleased to have someone of a close age whose been through similar experiences in his own life, post here as well... you will also realise the difference having a discriminating intellect makes as compared to reading the puraans without vivek... there is good in the scriptures of every nation... the torah, the bible, the quran.. i have read them and found untold wisdom and good teaching therein... i am sure to many it is the same experience with the puraans... wedged between myth, and exaggeration, and falsity, is the silver lining of a vedic truth... i pray i will have the ability as i grow to help others find this more easily, and not have to go through the religious tumult that i experienced...

prem namaste vishalji.. and thank you for the indepth coverage of most of my points... naturally there are some i agree with, and those that i am hesitant to accept... what i felt at those moments of agonising self-questioning was that if these were holy books passed down from the days of my fathers, and books that people regarded with such awe and prayerful attitudes, how could there be mistakes or indescrepencies in them?... why should the prerogative of sifting and filtering be left up to me? perhaps there have been other young (and not-so-young) people that have thought along a similar vein... some might not agree with this, but i feel the puraan should be edited and only the parts that are morally worthy and are clearly coherent with shruti should be kept and consolidated...

i like to remind myself of what manu rshi laid down in his smriti:
yenaasya pitaro yaataa yenayaataah pitaamahaah
tena yaayaatsataam maargam tena gacchatra rishyate

'let children walk in the footsteps of their forefathers but only if they be good, not otherwise; since by treading in the path of good and pious men no one ever comes to grief' - manu iv 178

obviously the path of my fathers wasn't all that perfect if the foundations of my religious world could be shaken so quickly...

regarding the use of sexual metaphor in the vedas, i agree that the element of this is there.. but in the nividaa of the almighty it is not so overt and blatently erotic... the related story (i think it's in skanda puraan - i'll have to check) describes the desire shiv felt as parvati neared the wedding altar with full, rounded thighs... apparently he couldn't restrain himself and the veerya leapt out into the fire were skanda kartikeya was concieved and subsequently suckled by the krtikkas (pleiades)... as a child i knew sivan to represent the blissful god of kailash who was the greatest yogi... i didn't feel right that such an act could be written regarding god himself... i think my doubts were justified...

indra covetted the horse of king sagar and after stealing it from the place of 'sacrifice', hid it in the land of patal, near the ashram of the great sage kapil... i'm not sure which puraan it is from, but you must be familiar with this story... the moral aptitude of indra is well-known to most hindus by his immoral exploits in so many of the puraans and the itihasas... if this was really an evolved soul who was placed in a position of greatness because of his pure heart and punya karma, why is he of such base character... shouldn't the ruler of swarga know a bit more about moral action? what kind of example is he setting for other devas and mortals? who coronated him? was it the almighty? if it was, shouldn't it have been in the purview of his omniscience that indra was an unfit candidate for leadership of heaven? was he chosen on real merit at all?

vishal, i didn't understand back then why i should have to reject anything... the christians didn't have to alter their holy book, and the muslim guys wouldn't dream of messing with the quran.. why did i have to mentally delete the sleaze, the porn, and the immorality? what was wrong with my holy books? they are thousands of years old, and my people gave the world science and mathematics... why didn't they do any editing in their time? these were among the thoughts that plagued me as a child...

i knew after a while that the devas weren't above a little corruption, jealousy, anger etc... they had pretty human emotions and desires.. so why did vishnu choose them over the daityas when neither side was morally perfect? the daityas did penances and worshipped the gods, and often were better behaved than the rowdy devas of mount meru...
why doesn't sri vishnu intervene now and give wealth and good fortune to the rightly deserving by turning into mohini and enticing the bad guys, i asked? by giving the devas the amrit, sri vishnu started a huge war between the two rival factions... and through the dynasties of mahabali etc. the warfare continued and grew... why would god play an agent provocatuer and instigate violence instead of peace? didn't he interfere with mortal issues anymore?
i wish the actual story had the moral tagline you added, vishal.. it would have been quite useful...

the saraswati-myth was that brahma wanted to hold a sacrifice and the auspicious hour was almost up so hurriedly he sent for saraswati who was still applying make-up and dressing, and she didn't show up, so he was angered and picked a buxom milkmaid called gayatri instead.. when the goddess of knowledge did arrive, she was infuriated at her husband and the other assembled gods for allowing him to pick someone else over her... she cursed lakshmi and parvati to never bear children normally, and vishnu to be reborn in a prison and as an exile, and that shiv would be worshipped as a reproductive organ... and she cursed brahma to never to be praised on earth...(after this tantrum, she apparently returned to his side...)

what i saw was that gods were tempermental and moody and not above cursing other gods.. and that the gods had to sacrifice too (but to who? we prayed to them - is there something higher than them?)... i saw that innocents could be caught in the crossfire of my whimsical gods' anger.. i saw that my gods weren't perfect...
and again, vishal, the choice abstract interpretation wasn't an addendum at the bottom of the page i was reading... it is a beautiful analogy, but how many readers of the puraan know it? how was i supposed to get that iconography out of all the quarreling and curses?

(continued...)
i prayed to the devas and asked for their blessings... if they were capricious otherworldly beings who had little patience and not much of a conscience, what was i really praying to? sure we can say they've frittered away their divinity by behaving badly.. but did this apply to the high devas as well, like saraswati and shiv and vishnu? how did this deva-grading scheme really work? which devas are worthy and which are unworthy? and why did the all-knowing one give them such power if he knew they'd be messing in mortal affairs? and if we humans could affect their fates by cursing them with a stock of tapas, how great could they really be?
(i'm reminded here of the sage brighu who, offended by shiv and brahma, cursed them, and after he kicked vishnu and the god massaged his feet, he felt sorry for his actions, and blessed vishnu)

if the devas can be right and wrong, then what's the difference between them and us? i could get the same benefit following other people.. it sounded to me that they were like larger-than-life human beings themselves...

vishal, to be able to sift between what is in accordance with shruti from what is not, one has to be experienced in the vedas first... how many readers have that ability or capacity? and many hindus here have told me that the puraans are preparing the aspirant for the vedas - how can this be if the vedas need to be studied first, as to ascertain what is coherent in the puraans?

i feel the fact that we have to sift good from bad is not a sign of a genuine scripture... i learn good morals from the panchatantra and the grimm fairytales too, and i don't have to be wary every moment of good and evil hiding in the text...
accept the good and reject the bad - that's what swami dayanand said, but when it came to accepting a scripture as authoritative he asks whether we would take the best food mixed with a little poison... the puraans might be good allegorical descriptions of human experiences and godly histories but they emphasize sectarian notions of one god over another, and the unifying philosophy of the upanishads is highly distilled.. i can accept them as imperfect story books but not as holy scriptures...

i actually didn't take the epithets of sudharma and apaapvidha from the aforesaid mantra, though i know they are mentioned there as well... arya samajists believe that the verses of the veda can be interpreted to refer to god, the soul and the cosmos... hence the mantra might rightly imply the almighty god as well... it is good to read the mantra on as many levels as possible... i don't think any one interpretation is secondary or less important than another, whether adhyatmik, adibhautik, adidaivik etc.... since the primary subject of the vedas is said to be god, it would seem the first way to look at it would be how it applies to the almighty...

(continued)
as for the criticism of the arya samaj, who said we believe the hinduism of the vedas is dead.. we are following it aren't we? and yes, though the kashi pandits insisted that there is ultimately one isvara, in practise they didn't show it, by refering to many rival gods, and worshipping them in sequence and different methods of appeasement... swami dayanand would have laid down his case and stopped preaching if the hinduism of his day was vedic...

i don't believe monotheism is a semitic notion at all.. in fact, conversely, i subscribe to the theory that the monotheism of the west which is not pure but adulterated with duality, ascribing other figures alongside the almighty etc. has been derived from the adivaidika dharma through the channels of the mazdayasnim... this has been documented and supported by many arya samajist and hindu scholars, including the esteemed b g tilak, who in this posthumous work, 'vedic chronology and vedanga jyotish' actually traces the name of the semitic god, yahweh, directly back to the vedas in which the name 'yahva' is addressed to the almighty in the invocative sense and as a descriptive name (eg. RV x 110. 3, RV iii 1.12, RV viii 13.24), via chaldea...

yes, i believe god is mahadeva - the great power, higher than all the powers of earth and heaven.. but i also believe in the words of the shatapatha brahmana (xiv 4) that only god, among all the devas is to be worshipped...
yo'nyaam devataamupaasate na sa veda yathaa pashureva sa devaanaam
'he who worships any other devata (besides the one almighty god), he knows not... he is like unto a brute among the learned'

i believe the vedas teach the most austere monotheism in the history of recorded religion.. even among the jews and the muslims, god has become anthropomorphic, a tyrannical king issuing orders from above, battling another god of evil and darkness... the purity of the vedic monotheism can be seen in all its praises, especially the 'ka' sukta in which the word 'eka' is mentioned no less than four times in strong terms and quick succession...
i believe in what the yajurved tells me - nanyah panthaa vidyate yanaya -there is no other way to reach salvation... only through the knowing of the ONE god seated in the hearts of all... it is not a semitic concept that god is only one and should be worshipped as one... the vedas are replete with reference to his unity, and indivisibility... ekam evaditiyam...

you already know the devatas are described as the learned ones (vidwaanso hi devaah - shatapatha), the senses that make the world known to us (yajur xi 4), things that are beneficial, the subject of exposition (nirukta vii 1), ones parents/teacher etc (maatridevo bhava..), anything that bestows an advantage upon us (devo daanaadvaa...)... i don't believe this means we must go ahead and worship all of these various elements and figures and objects...
nor do i believe the pervader and the pervaded are the same thing, to be worshipped together... i also believe that as one thinks, so should one act... yanmanasaa dhyaayati... tadkarmanaa karoti..

so if you believe there is one parmatma, worship one parmatma... why is there a need to complicate the worship of god and develope family ties and marriages and conflicts between different aspects of the same being?
in the vedas, brahma means 'great one', vishnu means 'all-pervading', shiva means the 'blissful'... but in the puraans, each of these holy names has evolved into a person with different features, attributes and personalities, and likes and dislikes, and wives and lovers and families... all the powers and names of the almighty that have been described in the veda are so thoroughly anthropomorphised in the puraan, that the principle behind them is largely forgotten...

to me, brahma was a four-headed old man that didn't like to poke into human goings-on but was good at granting boons, vishnu was a friendly do-gooder who descended to earth regularly to keep tabs on creation, and shiva was an otherworldly mendicant who lived in graveyards and associated with ghouls and demons... nowadays, when i think about it, i wish i had the luck you had, to read satyarth prakash first and be able to know the everlasting name and quality, before the bejewelled form...

vishal, you're very learned and i've absorbed so much valuable information from you but when it comes to taking your authority over swamiji, i have to admit i feel more secure with the one who was a neishtika brahmachari with a guru like swami virjanand and one who studied 3000 books in merely 6 years with prolific experience and literary output...
i respect your knowledge and opinions, but when you are on a par with the study and experience of swami dayanand, i feel your criticism of his bhashya will be more valid... so far i feel there is nothing discordant or against the aryan monotheism in them... when i can read the vedas in the original, and can interpret them properly for myself, then i feel we can discuss this matter as equals... for now, i am secure in my belief that the vedas teach the greatest and purest montheism, and my readings of the bhashya have reassured me thus far...

we can sit back and give philosophers' comments that the murtis can be interchangeable and the rituals have gone beserk, but in practise it is nothing like that.. that is the way hindus out there think.. i see it all the time... it isn't something made up or an isolated case.. it is going on out there in many hindu homes... we have the benefit of understanding of how it all fits in with the concept of ekam sat, but do my brothers out there really know or want to know?... how many of them will actually substitute gods and goddesses on the holy days of other gods, believing them to be 'all the same, so what's the difference if i use this murti'..?

these are theoretical arguments, not actualities... if it is true that only true devotees will substitute one god for another readily in whatever situattion believing them to be the same anyway, then there are almost no true devotees of god that i know of... to hindus it's like - 'yeah, yeah, we know they're all the same... that's okay.. but don't go putting the durga murti there on krshna janmashtami, or ganapati on the altar for navaratri... that's not the way it works...'
some have told me fear of offending a certain aspect over another aspect is what keeps them in this mistaken seperatist belief..

the puraans have brainwashed people into believing in a whole complicated network of gods with different rituals of appeasement, and diets and dress codes etc etc... this one of the reasons youth take no interest in the garbling of elders about how to please each god in the crowded mantlepiece...

there's a lady in my old neighbourhood who used to get 'kali-trance', slit the neck of a live goat and suck the blood straight from the jugular, apparently 'possessed' by the 'mother'... our old neighbours used to have a guy over who got into 'hanuman-trance' and bloated his cheeks, climbing trees and throwing down rotten fruit (last year he had a heart attack and died while performing the ritual... everybody thought the convulsions and unintelligible shouts were part of the trance..)...

there are droves of people every year who buy live chickens to be hurled onto the temple roof after having it absorb their misfortunes or sins (later, temple handy boys climb up to fetch the frightened critters and resell them)... there used to be a belief that someone who died in an accident should be buried with a live animal (preferably poultry) strapped to their chests so the bad luck would be averted for good... my dadaji raised his nose and would tell me those are ways of the lower jaadis... we are more refined.. don't go to these lowly activities, he'd say...
but the guys whose parents did and still do all this said they were just being good hindus and following their tradition... i didn't argue with them... as far as any of them knew.. that was their religion.. perhaps wierd and a little meaningless, but hey, that's the way things were...

i believe the reason vedic religion degenerated into the barbaric or the confusing or the tribal practises of today was because it became so complacent and overly tolerant and then adharmik things began creeping in...

who said simplicity implied correctness? all i was trying to get across was that compared to the mind-boggling number of gods and rituals i had to take care of previously, with their own little favourites (ganesh loves laddus, and remember to pick tulsi leaves for vishnu, and don't forget the red sari for lakshmi mata), the worship and theology of one overspreading god was more simple, reasonable, understandable, calming, devotional, philosophical and just generally made more sense...
i realise our lives are complicated... who said spirituality isn't? when i think of my god, i do not have an image to concentrate on... so i go through his qualities, his wisdom, his justice, his love for humanity, his compassion... the list is endless..
not everything needs to be complicated... and trust me that there is more than a little effort involved in believing in one almighty creator who you cannot see but is ever with you... my spiritual life is not flaccid and hollow... in fact it is more active now than it was when there was a pantheon to serve...

actually, since the islamic label has been tagged on to me, i feel i might add that hindus are alot like catholics, in that the latter believes that in order to get to christ, you must go through a bunch of other departments - the reverend, the pope, the saints, the apostles, the mother mary etc... i was told i could get to a certain god by worshipping another demi-god who had that gods ear.. like praising hanumanji to get my message to sri raam... or praying to mahaveeran to intercede with mariamman... even in the mandir i had to go through the purohit and ask him to make the offering in the gharbagriha.. a go-between with quick fingers for cash donations...

if i had to go back and choose whether i wanted to worship one god directly, not going through a sidekick, or a murti, or a guru, or a priest; or worshipping many to get to the one eventually, i guess i'd pick the former...

ummm... the above post is also a continuation

Ashegan,

You bring forth the voice of discrimination and reason. More power to you.

The test of any spiritual practice is: Does it lift you up and improve you spiritually, or does it only help you pass the time?

Ashegan,

I agree with your objections to dangerous practices and superstitious beliefs that humans can overcome laws of the universe. The best definition of dharma I've seen is "that which sustains" and conforming with the laws of the universe is therefore, upholding dharma. As I understand, punishment in Hinduism isn't because someone offended some capricious, jealous God but because someone violated dharma.

I am not persuaded that monotheism is an advance over polytheism (read, "primitive" religion). Even though a lot of people in the West have rejected church-going and maybe even reject the divinity of Christ and question the existence of God, monotheism continues to be a cherished belief. So I had a lot of cultural prejudices to overcome.

As I see it, the choice of God or gods should remain a preference, not become a moral imperative to impose on everyone. We can see from the "sacred" texts and history of revealed religions (Christianity, Judaism, and Islam) what a disaster imposing that belief has been for humankind. If the idea of one God is simpler and more logical for you, more power to you. However, even with my (very) rudimentary understanding of the Vedas, I'm not sure that the Vedas teach monotheism as such.

Julie

Smt. Julie:
I quite agree with your last posting. My own understanding of divinity is "polypanentheistic" - a word I have never heard of till I coined it some years ago. It implies a PANENTHEISM (i.e., "God" or "Brahmam" is composed of all that exists and more, and is greater than the sum of it's parts. It also implies a POLYTHEISM whereby this Brahmam assumes inifinite number of forms by partaking in all attributes (sarvaguna), as well as being formless, with no attributes (nirguna).

I hear much lauding of monotheism from my arya samajist friends here, but I think their understanding of monotheism is fundamentally different from the typical western, christian concept of monotheism. They tend to think of monotheism as I do, in what is really a pantheism or panentheism (in essence God is one, in form God is all and none). Monotheism may once have literally meant ONE GOD, but the modern (especially semitic, be it christian, jewish or islamic) interpretation is ONLY MY GOD. For how can a monotheistic God posses some attributes and not others? That entity would no longer be a God. Perhaps with luck such a one could be a minor devata or demiurge. Or possibly even what some would call a demon. In the mystical and gnostic forms of Christianity, which were persecuted into extinction by the Church during the early centuries of the common era, we find Yahveh (Jehova) openly declared to be a minor creative deity, jealous and intolerant, termed the demiurge. The true God was far and above the Jehova that is given so much emphasis in semitic
fundamentalist sects of christianity and islam alike. Even the jews have violent fundamentalist sects within judaism.

Lest I seem intolerant to some on this forum, at this point let me quickly point out that I have been generous in my praise of the true and sincere mystics and seekers of truth that exist in jewish, christian and islamic religions, minorities though they all may be.

Yes, my dear sister, it is monstrous the way belief has been, and is continuing to be cruelly imposed on others, especially the disadvantaged, the poor and the spiritually or socially vulnerable.

I hear so much about whether this or that practice is truly vedic or pure. The truth is that any act can be vedic and pure. Every action of our lives can be a purifying sadhana, if only we make it so. Certainly there has been great losses of knowledge and vedic tradition, corruption and interpolations of scriptures, and general mistaking symbols for their inner realities. But even in this kaliyug, the vedas will sustain us. And if a few of us persist, we may just bring the vedas back to the world and into the light. Surely such a great event would lead us out of this yug into a new golden age. As the saying goes... hope springs eternal in the human heart.

jaya jagadambe!

"Are there one or many gods? To a Hindu this question is misleading. "Can you argue if Love is one or many?" He asks, "How do you quantify something which is not physical?" The numerous manifestations of Love may be counted but it is absurd to quantify Love itself. God is a spiritual reality much deeper than Love. Its manifestation is the whole universe and everything in it. When somebody argues, "God is One" or "God is many," he is confusing God with God's manifestation.

"A person believing in "one God" is likely to hold a mental "image" for that God. He is worshipping that image believing it to be God. In this frame of mind he looks at someone who is worshipping a physical image, and condemns him for doing so. It never occurs to him that the physical image may just be a prop in one's effort to experience God. The idea, "God is One," thus, misleads the "believer" into thinking that God must have an identity. It further serves to generate the claim, "My God is true, your god is false." This claim provides a wonderful excuse to the ignorant to indulge in violent and barbaric crimes. To a Hindu, the idea of quantifying God is misleading at the first place. It is a result of ignorance."

- From the article, "Can God be Defined?"

Mr. Ashegan,

Crude beliefs are still practiced among Hindus. Whatever you wrote about trance and others is also happening here.

Crude practices were village oriented in India and followed migrating Indians as well. Such prctices originated from tribes and villages who does not have access to actual Hindu scriptures. What surprising me is the reluctance by people to abondoned such practices in this modern era. Such practices were also found in Tantrism, which is also a kind of authoritative text in Hinduism.

As for the puranas, I think you should go into historical and philosophical approach to it. I have not shown much interest in puranas but I have read it from historical and philosophical points about puranas. Such approach may clear your mind of the wrong immpression on our puranas.

Thandabani

julie, christians are not monotheists so you don't have to feel that you're trying to defend yourself against your past demons... monotheism is a beautiful and inspiring concept... the fact the islam, christianity and judaism are so fraught with problems is not because their religion is 'monotheistic'.. in their quest to conquer and reshape according to their mould they have created an attitude of violence, or 'do what i say or i'll pummel you'... that's caused the crummy state of affairs in their faiths...

vedic religion doesn't tell anyone that.. we say investigate for yourself, think it out and see that god is one and only one... aryas were once one mighty nation and eventually were whittled down into the aryas of persia and india... after disputes and dissensions the two groups broke off and the veda dharma also splintered...

the persian aryas tried to discover god through a dualistic monotheism, and hindus tried to find unity in multiplicity... neither was really the pure vedic monotheistic doctrine... the worship of many to reach one is a later developement, not the adi vedika dharma which centred on the all-important unity of the almighty...

to get to western religions, the monotheism they follow is messed up with duality (belief in an opposing force to god - the devil), belief in other figures alongside the almighty (holy spirit, christ, virgin mary etc.), anthropomorphising him or making him into a person (walking in the garden of eden, chatting with the prophets now and then etc.), incarnation, and degrading him by turning him into a local patron god, favouring them over the rest of humanity, sitting up on cloud 9 issuing orders to knock off the unbelievers...

that is not something that should be related in any way to the austere and divine monotheism of the vedas, which say repeatedly that god is only
one (eka eva)...

i don't wanna sound patronising but go through any of the vedas and find evidence to suggest otherwise... the names in the vedas are all in the yaugika derivative sense, in that each one refers to the almighty - like all-merciful, all-knowing, all-pervading, most blissful, the friend of all etc... read my post to vishal to see the many things that deva can refer to besides the almighty god...


sri bani, i thought some of the stuff i mentioned would sound familiar to some people out there... i know that the practises i mentioned like ritual sacrifice etc. are from the rural hindu dharma, but the fact is that they are hindu... and though these hindus are now all urbanised and educated, evil, adharmik things are still going on in the name of religion...

like i said on a previous thread, people get so comfortable in indolence that questioning tradition and developing a discriminating intellect never come into the picture... i wouldn't call them 'crude' but rather 'misled' coz they have complicated rituals, side effects etc. that go along with whatever they do...

in all the indian townships, 'healers' and experts in 'black magic' are doing great business.. you can put a curse on your neighbour, remove a hex, communicate with the other side and get a manicure just in a single outing...
even the priests persist in doggedly holding on to faulty practises, probably coz they are so misinformed themselves..

people want to be sure of something in life.. if you know that by hurling a chicken up the temple
roof will take away the problems that are bugging you, you won't want to listen to reason and leave the poor animal alone... to believe in any practise that is so escapist soon becomes a nasty habit...
every bad event, from a car accident to a bad investment is the work of a bad-intentioned member of the family, like your mother-in-law or jealous sister... easy isn't it.. just go to a local 'spiritual' healer, fork out a bundle of hard earned cash and make a counter-curse... many families and relationships have been broken up because of this...

my family were traditionally orthodox saiva vegetarians who wouldn't go near a place of sacrifice or do any of these wierd things, but its hard to ignore something that goes on all the time around you...

regarding the puraans, for the convenience of hindus, the arya samaj here has edited some puranic stories (cancelling the many gods, sex etc.) and provided excellent philosophical analogies that are readily applicable to our own lives.. presenting them as traditional hindu story books, but not in the same league as other scriptures...
i have tried most approaches to reading them and i still maintain that the way the puraans are in their natural form is far from perfect..
when i have children, i hope to teach them sound reasoning and how to use a little buddhi when reading, before i let any of them even go near the puraans...

julie, christians are not monotheists so you don't have to feel that you're trying to defend yourself against your past demons... monotheism is a beautiful and inspiring concept... the fact the islam, christianity and judaism are so fraught with problems is not because their religion is 'monotheistic'.. in their quest to conquer and reshape according to their mould they have created an attitude of violence, or 'do what i say or i'll pummel you'... that's caused the crummy state of affairs in their faiths...

vedic religion doesn't tell anyone that.. we say investigate for yourself, think it out and see that god is one and only one... aryas were once one mighty nation and eventually were whittled down into the aryas of persia and india... after disputes and dissensions the two groups broke off and the veda dharma also splintered...

the persian aryas tried to discover god through a dualistic monotheism, and hindus tried to find unity in multiplicity... neither was really the pure vedic monotheistic doctrine... the worship of many to reach one is a later developement, not the adi vedika dharma which centred on the all-important unity of the almighty...

to get to western religions, the monotheism they follow is messed up with duality (belief in an opposing force to god - the devil), belief in other figures alongside the almighty (holy spirit, christ, virgin mary etc.), anthropomorphising him or making him into a person (walking in the garden of eden, chatting with the prophets now and then etc.), incarnation, and degrading him by turning him into a local patron god, favouring them over the rest of humanity, sitting up on cloud 9 issuing orders to knock off the unbelievers...

that is not something that should be related in any way to the austere and divine monotheism of the vedas, which say repeatedly that god is only
one (eka eva)...

i don't wanna sound patronising but go through any of the vedas and find evidence to suggest otherwise... the names in the vedas are all in the yaugika derivative sense, in that each one refers to the almighty - like all-merciful, all-knowing, all-pervading, most blissful, the friend of all etc... read my post to vishal to see the many things that deva can refer to besides the almighty god...


sri bani, i thought some of the stuff i mentioned would sound familiar to some people out there... i know that the practises i mentioned like ritual sacrifice etc. are from the rural hindu dharma, but the fact is that they are hindu... and though these hindus are now all urbanised and educated, evil, adharmik things are still going on in the name of religion...

like i said on a previous thread, people get so comfortable in indolence that questioning tradition and developing a discriminating intellect never come into the picture... i wouldn't call them 'crude' but rather 'misled' coz they have complicated rituals, side effects etc. that go along with whatever they do...

in all the indian townships, 'healers' and experts in 'black magic' are doing great business.. you can put a curse on your neighbour, remove a hex, communicate with the other side and get a manicure just in a single outing...
even the priests persist in doggedly holding on to faulty practises, probably coz they are so misinformed themselves..

people want to be sure of something in life.. if you know that by hurling a chicken up the temple
roof will take away the problems that are bugging you, you won't want to listen to reason and leave the poor animal alone... to believe in any practise that is so escapist soon becomes a nasty habit...
every bad event, from a car accident to a bad investment is the work of a bad-intentioned member of the family, like your mother-in-law or jealous sister... easy isn't it.. just go to a local 'spiritual' healer, fork out a bundle of hard earned cash and make a counter-curse... many families and relationships have been broken up because of this...

my family were traditionally orthodox saiva vegetarians who wouldn't go near a place of sacrifice or do any of these wierd things, but its hard to ignore something that goes on all the time around you...

regarding the puraans, for the convenience of hindus, the arya samaj here has edited some puranic stories (cancelling the many gods, sex etc.) and provided excellent philosophical analogies that are readily applicable to our own lives.. presenting them as traditional hindu story books, but not in the same league as other scriptures...
i have tried most approaches to reading them and i still maintain that the way the puraans are in their natural form is far from perfect..
when i have children, i hope to teach them sound reasoning and how to use a little buddhi when reading, before i let any of them even go near the puraans...

Ashegan: The Puranas are the histories of this universe and others universes since the beginning of creation. They tell the stories of people who are not liberated, but still within the material worlds. Lord Brahma is still within the material world even though he is on the highest planet, the one we call heaven. Still being a part of the material world, these demi-gods and goddesses are still subject to the same sense gratification pursuits as we are here on earth. Isn't this the message the Puranas teach: that no matter how high you go, even to the post of Brahma, as long as you are in the material worlds you will be subject to trying to gratify your senses. Worship of the different demi-gods are for people seeking material benedictions. All the Vedic literatures propound the worship of only one person as God. The Puranas also state that worship of different demi-gods is for the less intelligent, who want temporary happiness over eternal happiness. The Puranas are as much an authentic scripture as the Bhagavad Gita or Srimad Bhagavatam. We cannot pass judgement on the pleasantness or unpleasantness of Vedic scriptures. We simply have to accept them as they are. You are intelligent. Use your intelligence to search out the truth.

namaste suzy...
it sounds like you're a follower of iskcon... i realise you may believe in a whole constellation of devas and demi-gods.. but i believe that to use the excuse of stupidity or lower intelligence to ignore the essential truth of the one almighty god and blindly carry on in the worship of a zillion little devatas each with their own little preferences, isn't right at all...
people are being drawn ever deeper into the ditch of intellectual stagnancy by rejecting a questioning discriminating buddhi, and falling into dormancy by accepting that they 'aren't smart enough' or advanced enough to even make an attempt to appreciate and understand the message of the original word of god in the vedas..

the puraans teach that the gods on our mantlepiece and the ones we bow before are nothing more than emotion-bound beings stuck in a material world... so they have super-powers and act on a larger scale.. big deal... does that excuse the gross sins and misdemeanours the stories elaborate on?
the puraans as they are, are a chain binding hindus into indolence and complacency... the sooner that chain is shattered or at least reinterpreted, the better... 'simply accept[ing] them as they are' will be the bane of hindu society.. our religion has grown and strengthened itself by self-questioning and reexamination.. using 'intelligence to sift out the truth' sounds familiar.. i think i've refered to that quite a few times.. but it isn't easy when the puraans, full of illogical, exaggerated material, are the enemy of true reasoning and intelligent thought...
times have changed... and the veda is available for all...

if you take the time to read my posts on other threads you will see that i've consistently advocated reinterpreting them on a philosophical and abstract level as well... and making them into texts that rather that spinning yarns about 'divine histories', are readily applicable in everyday mortal life... to do this, a discriminating intellect needs to be developed so as to ascertain the relevance to one's own personal experiences and life and the iota of truth in the myth itself...
read the shatapatha brahmana to see what you assume the many conflicting devas to really be... all these new age 'planets' and entities are not in the nividaa of the almighty...

he is one and should be worshipped as such... there is no excuse for placing all these imaginary figures before him... gods and goddesses are being invented everyday... santoshi ma was born after independence... mariamman was born during a smallpox epidemic.. today i can go ahead and invent a patron god for cricket... to substitute a plethora of minor deities before the almighty and to worship them in his place mistakenly thinking that you'll advance to the point where you will worship him alone is not in accordance with vedic teaching...

the concept of seva is on all levels...
it befits every good, thinking person to help others... to sit back and say the puraans are full of demi-gods caught up in petty emotions, and let those ignorant of the veda carry on with this misled belief - is that benefiting anyone?
i understand that you are westerner seeking the truth of the vedas.. if you knew the mountain of myth, crass practises and shallow belief that the puraans have placed on indian society, i think your opinion would differ somewhat...

please visit the site:
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Ithaca/3440/chaptereleven.html
for a more detailed treatment of puranic religion...

Ashegan,

I am not defending myself against my "past demons"...I was not raised as an orthodox (with a small "o") Christian, so I do not regard Christian beliefs as my personal "demons."

Your analysis about Christianity as not being purely monotheistic is interesting. Islam faults Christianity for not being purely monotheistic, but the Qur'an identifies beings other than mortals and Allah, including jinns and angels. Interestingly, Islam tauts itself as one of the "three great monotheistic religions" to ride the coattails of Judaism and Christianity, in a bid for acceptance in the U.S., where many proudly declare is rooted in the "Judeo-Christian heritage." All the more reason to see that

I am still not convinced that the Vedas teach monotheism. How can one verify that the Vedic rshis saw Indra, Agni, Soma, Saraswati, etc. as attributes of the one God (the Arya Samajist view: I have a book Vaidika Mantras compiled by Smt. Uma Saini, an Arya Samaj pundita, which claims that these names represent different attributes of GOD) or as individual beings?

Ashegan,

I am not defending myself against my "past demons"...I was not raised as an orthodox (with a small "o") Christian, so I do not regard Christian beliefs as my personal "demons."

Your analysis about Christianity as not being purely monotheistic is interesting. Islam faults Christianity for not being purely monotheistic, but the Qur'an identifies beings other than mortals and Allah, including jinns and angels. All the more reason to see that terms like polytheism, monotheism, etc., are hairsplitting and divisive. [Interestingly, Islam tauts itself as one of the "three great monotheistic religions" to ride the coattails of Judaism and Christianity, in a bid for acceptance in the U.S., which many proudly declare is rooted in the "Judeo-Christian heritage."]

I am still not convinced that the Vedas teach monotheism. How can one verify that the Vedic rshis saw Indra, Agni, Soma, Saraswati, etc. as attributes of the one God (the Arya Samajist view: I have a book Vaidika Mantras compiled by Smt. Uma Saini, an Arya Samaj pundita, which claims that these names represent different attributes of GOD) or as individual beings?

namaste julie

what i said was that the monotheism of those 'three great monotheistic religions' is flawed and cannot be compared to the pure and austere faith of the vedas.. islam and judaism are as guilty as christianity in tainting monotheism...
the closest equivalent you can get nowadays to vedic monotheism is that of the zarathustris, but even theirs has deterred from the original aryan concept...

when i read that you "had a lot of cultural prejudices to overcome." i thought you were referring to the culture clash you experienced when you became hindu, and the preconcieved notions of idolatry, polytheism etc. that had to be countered...
i took this to mean 'past demons', or psychological remnants of a christian upbringing that needed to be faced and challenged, in the light of a new understanding...

julie ji, i'm glad you are at least considering the arya belief in one god... but read through the vedas, and the upanishads and the brahmanas and you will see that they are all coherent in the belief that the various epithets in the vedas referred to one almighty god... the ved tells us repeatedly there is one god, and not once have i read 'there are many gods'...

even in the translations of westerners who were intent on putting down the vedic religion, there is still undeniable proof of the naming system of the vedas.. i have quoted from a european translation to show my view is not biased:

tvamagna indro vrshabhah sataamasi tvam vishnurugaayo namasyah
tvam brahmaa rayivid brahmanaspate tvam vidhartahsachase purandhyaa
tvamagne raajaa varuno dhrtavratastvam mitro bhavasi dasma iidyah

" Hero of Heroes, Agni! Thou art Indra, thou art Visnu of the Mighty Stride, adorable:
Thou, Brahmanaspati, the Brahman finding wealth: thou, O Sustainer, with thy wisdom tendest us.
Agni, thou art King Varuna whose laws stand fast; as Mitra, Wonder-Worker, thou must be implored.
Aryaman, heroes' Lord, art thou, enrich ing all, and liberal Amsa in the synod, O thou God."

(rigved 2.1.3-4)

now, agni is called indra (the almighty), vishnu (the all-pervading), mitra (the friend to all) and the other names that you suppose belong to different beings...
this is a translation by a christian (griffiths) so obviously there is no intention of flattering the vedas.. can you dispute that god has at once all these various qualities?

you must be familiar with this mantra from the very first mandal of the rigved:

indram mitram varunamagrimaahuratho divyah sa suparno garutmaan
ekam sat viprah bahudhaa vadantyaagri yamam maatarishvanamaahuh

here it is said unequivocally that though god is one and only one, he is glorified by many names like indra, mitra, agni, divyah - the source of all light, suparna - protector and preserver, matarishvaa - powerful like the wind and garutmaan - the most mighty... i don't understand how when these verses are so clear and the same in every interpretation, that someone can still make the unfounded comment that the vedas teach more than one god...

the tenth mandal declares again exactly the same message as in the first :
suparna vipraa kavayo vachobhirekam santam bahudhyaa kalpayanti -
the learned and wise describe the one existing god in many epithets and expressions..

the yajurved exclaims again tirelessly:
tadevaagnistadaadityastadvaayustadu chandramaa,
tadeva shukram tadbrahma taa-aapah sa prajaapatih

'verily he is agni, he is aaditya, he is vaayu.
surely he is chandramaa, he is shukra, he is brahma, he is aapa and he is prajaapati'

i don't think you can get much clearer than that on how many gods there are in the vedas... if you still consider them 'individual beings', think about it... that would be like saying ashegan is julie, ashegan is vinaire, ashegan is vishal, ashegan is ramesh etc... that wouldn't make sense would it? we are individuals, and different people.. so why would the vedas say god is referred to by all these names if they really are seperate beings?

by claiming this blasphemous suggestion, one is degrading the vedas for the holy names aren't just chosen arbitrarily... it is a long recognised canon of vedic interpretation, that cannot be overemphasized, that all vedic words are to be interpreted in their yaugika or derivative sense... the words in vedic language often carry two or more meanings..

eg. the word 'indra' is derived from the root idi - to be glorious, or to have glory (idi aishvaryye) and can be used in at least three senses...
depending on the context or the situation it is used in, it can mean the sun, which has glorious light, or the king, who possesses earthly glory, and at other times it refers to god, whose glory is transcendental...

chaandas is not such a simplistic or primitive language, that we can assume that whenever the word indra appears it always refers to a certain god, and has no etymological background...

how can words which are clearly descriptive adjectives like mitr (the most beloved, the friend to all), or rudr (the punisher of the wicked), or priyapati (protector of our loved ones), or maniishii (the wise, or bambhaari (the guardian of all), or aayurdaa (the giver of life), or shuddha (the pure) or shataniitha (one whose praises are a hundredfold) be taken to each mean different gods with different attributes and different natures? i think it is obvious judging on their descriptions alone that they all signify the one almighty god...

you asked whether our vedic rshis saw them as attributes of the almighty or as individual beings... perhaps the works of the rshis themselves will clarify this:

manu rshi, our most revered law-giver, says in his smriti (xii.122-3) -

prashaasitaaram sarveshaamaniyaamsamanorapi
rukmaabham svapnadhiigamyam vidhyantam purusham param
etamagni vidantyeke manumantye prajaapatim
indrameke'pare praanamapare brahmashaashvatam

'one ought to know that supreme god who is the ruler of all, subtler than the subtlest, of resplendent glory, and realised through meditation.
being all-glorious, some call him 'agni'. being the embodiment of true knowledge, others call him 'manu'. some call him 'prajaapati', the lord of all creatures, and being all powerful, others call him 'indra'. still some call him 'praana', the source of life, and others, 'brahma', the greatest of all beings'

another great rshi speaks through the kaivalya upanishad -
sa brahma sa vishnuh sa rudrah sa shivah so'ksharah sa,
paramah swaraat, sa indrah saa kaalagnih sa chandramaah

'he is brahma, the great, he is vishnu, the pervader, he is rudra, the chastiser, he is shiva, the blissful, he is akshara, the immortal, he is swaraat, the self-effulgent, he is kaalagni - regulator of time and cause of the dissolution, and he is chandramaa - the giver of happiness'

the rshis declare in the manduk upanishad (1.1):
aomityetadaksharamida'aom sarva tasyopatyaaruyaanam
'all the vedas and the shastras aom as the primary and natural name of god. all others are his secondary names'

basically all the rshis declare the same thing... testimony or shabda is one of the eight kinds of vedic evidence, that form part of the five tests of truth.. and the testimony of the vedic rshis are all consistent with each other and the vedas.. that is one of the rules of verification... the shabda is consistent and coherent.. and i think what they themselves recorded in the shastras is probably their real opinion..

hence if you ever hear of a rshi saying that there is more than one god, know that to be inconsistent with the other great rshis and the word of the greatest rshi (the seer of all, the omniscient) - god almighty... and thus it must be rejected..

this is a short summary of how the vedas and the rshis are coherent in the teaching of one god, and the various epithets that describe him... this not such a scholarly attempt, as many other learned aryas have written much valuable material in support of this most sensible belief...

personally, julie, aside from all this scriptural backup.. i must admit to you that when i think about it, i would rather be in the hands of one almighty, all-knowing god, rather than being tugged in different directions by a whole pantheon of petty, quarreling rival gods...

the names of god in the vedas are among the most beautiful and meaningful in the entire glossary of mankind, and if we read them with a keen eye and an inquiring mind, we will find truths and lessons in them for the betterment of our own lives...

Please note the word "devaha" in this Shanti mantra:

Bhadram karnebhi shruyaama devaha
Bhadram pasyemakshabhiryajatraha....
(Oh Devas let us hear good things from our ears,Let us see good things from our eyes...)

This word "devaha" is a plural and this mantra is addressed to all the devas.I feel that Agni,varuna,vayu etc., are all different devas/devathas performing their respective dharmas.But ALL these devas and all living and non living things in this entire universe are all situated in the one Reality(God,Purusha as in purusha sukta).
In the Upanishad it is declared thus:
"shivascha Narayanaha,shakrascha Narayanaha,Dyava prithivyou cha narayanaha, Narayanevedagam sarvam.."
The viswaroopa of Lord Krishna (As seen and described by Arjuna) also supports this view.
So in my opinion All the different devas exist but they (and we and everything) and all exist in the one Reality/Purusha called Narayana
Since All the different Devas exist and function within HIM it can be viewed that they are All attributes of the same one Reality/God -HariOm

sri suresh, did you read any of the mantras i produced in support of my claim? what you are saying goes against the grain of the vedas and is directly repugnant to the testimony of the rshis...

if you read yaska nirukta or nighantu to verify your translation of the mantra you would find out that it does not refer to many gods but the one almighty god..

oh (devaah) god almighty, may we always hear with our ears what is auspicious,
oh (yajatraah) performer of the greatest yajna (creation/maintenance and dissolution of the universe), may we only see with our eyes what is edifying...

this mantra (yajurved xxv, 21) is part of the whole svastivachanam before agnihotr or brhad yajna, which is entirely addressed to god and humanity.. i don't know where this plural idea came up from...
where is the evidence there for the existence of more than one god?? have you considered the word deva, which you believe to be pluralistic, and its meaning?

deva is derived from 'div' -
to operate, desire, win, work, illuminate, praise, please, punish, sleep and know..
hence deva by etymological derivation means the one who operates this vast universe and governs it, and does all his mighty works by his own power and without help from others; who desires or helps the good and the righteous to win and is himself invincible, giving all power and means to work; who knows everything and is just and glorious, illuminates and enlightens all, is worthy of praise; the all-blissful who bestows happiness on others, punishes the wicked and gladdens the heart of the good... who has ordained night, for all to sleep and rest and is the cause of the dissolution, when he causes souls to rest in the indefinable, imperceptible, primeval elementary prakriti; whose will is holy and who is desired and sought after by the good and pervades and knows them all...

deva among many other things is a descriptive name of the almighty and is used throughout the vedas... you cannot base your judgement just on the mistranslation of a single mantra...
the ved is consistent from the very first letter to the last.. in the word of god (apaurusheya shruti) there are no contradictions or mistakes, for the almighty is perfect and his wisdom is eternal...
perhaps you have mistaken the term deva in the adibhautika or adidaivika senses if you think there is more than one god mentioned in the vedas...

if you read the nirukt (7-15) of yaska muni, the celebrated author of the vedic lexicon and philology, you will see it written that :
devo daanaadvaa deepanaadvaa dyotanaadvaa
dyusthaano vaa bhavati

'that which confers some advantage upon us, can illuminate things ie. explain or throw light on them and that which is the source of light, is called 'deva''

the sun, the moon, the stars and fire all shine and thus can rightly be called devas.. however they are not god as they are inanimate and have no life..
learned ones are called devas in the shatpath brahmana, and one's mother, father, teacher and guest are called deva in the upanishads because they do good to the world and deserve our respect...

i'll try to summarise some of the many things deva can refer to in the vedas...

1) it is used for parents and teachers as they confer innumerable advantages upon us...

maatri devo bhava, pitr devo bhava, acharya devo bhava - taittiriya upanishad

2)it's also used for men of learning, whose minds are illuminated and who explain things to us...
it is written in shatpatha brahmana:
vidwaanso hi devaah - verily the learned are the devas

3) it is used to describe the senses which make the material world known to us...
yajurved tells us:

anejadekam manaso javiiyo nainad aapnuvan purvamarshat

'god is one. he does not move, yet he is swifter than the mind; the senses (devas) cannot reach him though he is already in them'

again mundaka upanishad emphasizes:

nachakshushaa grihyato naapi vaachaa naanyaidevaistapasaa karmanaa vaa,
chaanaprasaadena vishudvasantvastatastutam pashyati nishkalam dhyaayamaanah

'god cannot be attained or apprehended by the eye, nor by speech, nor by the other senses (devas) nor by austerity or works. the contemplator with a mind purified sees him by the calm light of knowledge'

4) we are all aware that each mantra of the ved has its devata.. now european sanskritists were apt to translate this into 'god', hence implying that because different verses had different devatas, the vedic rshis must have worshipped many gods... sadly, this was a great mistake..

had they bothered to read nirukt they would have read that:

athaato daivatam tadhyaani naamaasi praadhdhaatyastutiinaam devataanaam tadaivatamityaachakshate,
saishaa devatopariikshaa yatkaam rshiryasyaam devataayaamarthapatyamicchan stuti prayu'nk-ta-dha-vatah sa mantro bhavati

you will know that the purport of this is that the devata of a mantra means the things which form the subject of exposition in the mantra, not one of these many little gods you claim are there...
the great scholar prof. max muller, who was a christian with little intention of glorifying the vedic message, had to admit in his book, ('india-what can it teach us?'):

'if we call them (the things described in the vedic verses) gods or goddesses, we must remember the remark of an ancient native theologian (meaning yaska muni) evidently that by devata, he means NO MORE THAN THE OBJECT VENERATED IN A HYMN'

5) and of course, deva is used for god, who is the illuminator all things, the source of light and knowledge, and the giver of all that we enjoy in the world... but as we have seen, it does NOT ALWAYS mean god.. most sanskrit scholars agree that the word is not a substantive but an adjective, and as such, is applicable to whatever possesses the qualities which the word connotes (brightness, conferring advantages, illuminating or throwing light on a thing etc)

now do you still feel justified in calling our great aryan forbears polytheists and believers in more than one god?
just because they called the sun and moon, and the sky and the sea, and the earth and the dawn, and the forces of nature 'devatas', it is not to be inferred that they believed all of these to be gods or worshipped them as such...

i believe god is mahadeva - the great power, higher than all the powers of earth and heaven.. but i also believe in the forceful words of the shatapatha brahmana (xiv 4) that only god, among all the devas is to be worshipped...

yo'nyaam devataamupaasate na sa veda yathaa pashureva sa devaanaam

'he who worships any other devata (besides the one almighty god), he knows not... he is like unto a brute among the learned'

thus of all the substances and objects and qualities that 'deva' denotes, it is only god almighty that is to be worshipped...

deva can thus refer to many different things besides god almighty, and this was the cause of the misstranslation of the vedas by western scholars who mistook any reference to deva as meaning 'god'... this confounded the original message of much of the hymns and inevitably the false notion that the vedas spoke of many gods arose...

the misinterpretation of no other single word in the entire sanskrit literature has been a cause of such misunderstanding of a great and ancient religion, on a most material point...

your view that the devas are each distinct entities is also a result of the puranic mentality that led to the degradation of the great vedic religion... the pauraniks personified the powers of heaven and earth and the natural forces etc. and gave them forms and names and families... these are not to be found in the vedas, in which anthropomorphic or polytheistic religion is unknown...

'indra' which was sung in praise of the almighty god for his protecting hand and glorious power, became the insignificant rain god of the puraans, a lustful king of swarga riding a many-trunked elephant...
nobody bothered to check the root meaning of this great and beautiful name.. had they done this, they would have read (nirukt - x.8.11) that it signified the omnipresent god who was 'the one possessed of unlimited power' and derived from the root 'ind' - to have great power, or 'idi' - to be glorious...

the name 'agni', that once described the one eternal god was reduced to a minor demigod of fire who appeared here and there in a few myths as a witness to fidelity, or gorging himself on a forest...
had people not been caught up in the corrupted ideology of the puraans, they would have read (nirukt vii, 14,3,4) that it was the name of the 'one that leads all on the path of progress', the 'worthy of adoration', the omniscient, fit to be sought after and realised...
did anybody care that the name had a meaning, derived from the root 'anchu' which signifies 'gati' (to know, to move, to realise) and 'worship'?

how did 'varuna', a most holy name in description of god, the one who is the greatest, the holiest of all, desired and sought after by all righteous, pious and learned men who are seekers after truth and salvation (see nirukt x.3,2 - from 'vr'-good, to choose, or vara- to desire) - 'the one who is worth-attaining being the most excellent', become whittled down to the name of a minor sea god riding a makara?
does that title sound like one belonging to the demigods that are employed in various functions in your 'purusha'?

is 'vaayu' a minor demigod blowing the wind currents and guarding one of the points of the compass, rather than a name of the one almighty god, derived from 'vaa' - to move, to strike, to kill (nirukt x.1,3); meaning 'he who is the life and support of the universe', the most dynamic, the cause of its dissolution, mightier than the mightiest?

every one of the names of god in the vedas can likewise be traced to a lofty, spiritual meaning, and do not necessarily refer to this brooding pantheon of minor deities...

is narayana alone the name of this cosmic reality that supports all the little devas?
does narayana not signify the almighty god as much as any of the above-mentioned names, being derived from 'nara' (water/souls) and 'ayana' (abode), and meaning 'god', as he is the abode of souls and pervades them? is this not on the authority of manu rshi (1.10) himself?

if narayana is the name of the one true reality, why are the names - agni, indra, varuna etc. that you claim are minor godlings employed 'in' him like the rest of us, so celebrated in the vedas (as much your authority as they are mine) as being the names of the supreme god, the 'knower of all', the 'protector of all', the 'most holy'?
why isn't the name narayana applied as much in the nividaa as these names you believe connote individual beings?

then again, is 'purusha' (derived from 'puurii' - to be complete and meaning 'one who is complete in oneself', and described in nirukta (ii.3.1) as 'one who resides in 'puurii' ', thus doubly referring to 1)god, in which case 'puurii' signifies the 'universe', and 2)the soul, wherein 'puurii' signifies the 'embodiment', or from 'pri' - to fill, to sustain, describing the almighty who fills this vast universe and sustains it), any more the ultimate reality than agni or vaayu or mitra?
is it not a beautiful description, no better and no worse than the hundreds of others we have been blessed to have?

what makes you think 'purush' and 'narayana' are more special than the plethora of divine names praised in the chaturved? and what gives you the authority to disclaim the other names as being embodied demigods working out seperate 'dharmas' in the almighty god?

why do all our rshis and the vedas themselves say there is just one almighty god who controls by his own ability all the functions of the universe?? are they in the wrong (brahma kshamaami)?

why do you ignore the direct injunction of yajurveda (xxxi, 1) - 'he is agni, he is aditya, he is vayu, he is chandramaa'.. ??
is this pauranik theory of many gods 'living' in an inexplicable 'reality', based in the vedas at all?
can you substantiate these claims?

why does it say in none of the vedas and none of the upanishads that indra and agni and mitra and varuna are all different gods subservient to your one purusha?
why do they say indra is agni is vaayu is chandramaa is purusha is narayana is rudra is saraswati??
are they lying to us (brahma kshamaami)?
and not telling us the real truth that all these names actually refer to dozens of demigods forking out a living in the vastness of this one dormant reality?

is god incapable of supporting and managing this world without the help of a squadron of demi-gods?
does he of infinite power (oja, urukrama [uru=great + krama=energy]) need assistance in the maintanence of the universe??
for a hundred and one little gods to be carrying out their chores while he just exists as a bedrock for them to fulfil their duties?
it is odd that i have never come across that statement in any vedic text...

you are entitled to have your opinion, but know that it is foreign to the vedas... i have only given a summary of the many things the word 'deva' could mean, and i have tried to properly substantiate them with scriptural evidence from the vedas and the shastras...
(***please see my post to julie on monotheism in the vedas, and dispute the mantras quoted there, which again stress heavily on only one god)...

you are quick to quote the vishvarupa in the gita, but do you remember that the veda is shruti, while gita is smriti, and that smriti must be in accordance with shruti to have authority... hence, aryas believe the verse that goes on about arjun seeing a bunch of gods and other spirits and creatures in the divine light, is but an interpolation, and must be rejected as is discordant with the vedas (teaching of one indivisible (eka evaditiyam, advait) god)... the description 'divi suuryah sahasraayah' in the gita is right on track with the vedic concept of hiranyagharbha and thus is consistent...

your quotation from the upanishad is dubious, and no etymological elucidation was given in support... do you have the name of the upanishad, verification of it, co-ordinates of the mantra etc.?

getting back to the issue of 'deva' in sanskrit usage, panini lists ten different senses for the root 'div' - divu triinaavijiniishaavyavyavahaaradhu tistutimodamadasvapnakaantigatisha.. need i elaborate that the very roots themselves are hugely expansive and inclusive in nature... we cannot go through the vedas disregarding the guidance of the vedic etymologies and textbooks, and take every appearance of a certain word to signify but one thing, irrespective of the context in which it is used...

the vedas and the upanishads go to great lengths to impress upon the reader, the unity and indivisibility of the almighty god.. the mantras in the previous post are just a fraction of the massive testimony that lies on their behalf... to expect the vedas to conform to puranic mythology and turn all the sacred names praised and invoked therein into petty demigods carrying out their own little functions within the one 'reality', is not in accordance with what i have read of the shruti and what i have adduced in defence of their teaching...

(sureshji, i'd appreciate it if you could respond to these mantras from my previous post, and find evidence to suggest that there are many devas described in the hymns... can you support your belief in different devatas from the vedas themselves?.. if you can, it means the veda is inconsistent and thus not the revealed shruti)

tvamagna indro vrshabhah sataamasi tvam vishnurugaayo namasyah
tvam brahmaa rayivid brahmanaspate tvam vidhartahsachase purandhyaa
tvamagne raajaa varuno dhrtavratastvam mitro bhavasi dasma iidyah

" Hero of Heroes, Agni! Thou art Indra, thou art Visnu of the Mighty Stride, adorable:
Thou, Brahmanaspati, the Brahman finding wealth: thou, O Sustainer, with thy wisdom tendest us.
Agni, thou art King Varuna whose laws stand fast; as Mitra, Wonder-Worker, thou must be implored.
Aryaman, heroes' Lord, art thou, enrich ing all, and liberal Amsa in the synod, O thou God."

(rigved 2.1.3-4)

now, agni is called indra (the almighty), vishnu (the all-pervading), mitra (the friend to all) and the other names that you suppose belong to different beings...
this is a translation by a christian (griffiths) so obviously there is no intention of flattering the vedas.. can you dispute that god has at once all these various qualities?

you must be familiar with this mantra from the very first mandal of the rigved:

indram mitram varunamagrimaahuratho divyah sa suparno garutmaan
ekam sat viprah bahudhaa vadantyaagri yamam maatarishvanamaahuh

here it is said unequivocally that though god is one and only one, he is glorified by many names like indra, mitra, agni, divyah - the source of all light, suparna - protector and preserver, matarishvaa - powerful like the wind and garutmaan - the most mighty... i don't understand how when these verses are so clear and the same in every interpretation, that someone can still make the unfounded comment that the vedas teach more than one god...

the tenth mandal declares again exactly the same message as in the first :
suparna vipraa kavayo vachobhirekam santam bahudhyaa kalpayanti -
the learned and wise describe the one existing god in many epithets and expressions..

the yajurved exclaims again tirelessly:
tadevaagnistadaadityastadvaayustadu chandramaa,
tadeva shukram tadbrahma taa-aapah sa prajaapatih

'verily he is agni, he is aaditya, he is vaayu.
surely he is chandramaa, he is shukra, he is brahma, he is aapa and he is prajaapati'

manu rshi, our most revered law-giver, says in his smriti (xii.122-3) -

prashaasitaaram sarveshaamaniyaamsamanorapi
rukmaabham svapnadhiigamyam vidhyantam purusham param
etamagni vidantyeke manumantye prajaapatim
indrameke'pare praanamapare brahmashaashvatam

'one ought to know that supreme god who is the ruler of all, subtler than the subtlest, of resplendent glory, and realised through meditation.
being all-glorious, some call him 'agni'. being the embodiment of true knowledge, others call him 'manu'. some call him 'prajaapati', the lord of all creatures, and being all powerful, others call him 'indra'. still some call him 'praana', the source of life, and others, 'brahma', the greatest of all beings'

another great rshi speaks through the kaivalya upanishad -
sa brahma sa vishnuh sa rudrah sa shivah so'ksharah sa,
paramah swaraat, sa indrah saa kaalagnih sa chandramaah

'he is brahma, the great, he is vishnu, the pervader, he is rudra, the chastiser, he is shiva, the blissful, he is akshara, the immortal, he is swaraat, the self-effulgent, he is kaalagni - regulator of time and cause of the dissolution, and he is chandramaa - the giver of happiness'

I would like to bring up an anology used by another member of this forum. If you saw a man walking down the street an obvious observation would be that there is one man (brahman/reality.) If you look at this man in term of his existence you can see that there is only one (just as there is only one reality, one brahman.)

However, if you took this man's life apart and looked at his actions, you will find that to his wife he is known as HUSBAND, to his children FATHER, to his employees BOSS, to his friends he is GREAT POKER PLAYER, and to his mother he is SON. All of these forms of one man have different attributes (deities) and act as different people though this man is one.

From an observer point of view, this man would seem quite different if you could be both his child and co-worker. As a polytheistic view, I believe that these different aspects of this can reasonably be interpreted as being seperate entities. Considering that Brahman (God) is infinite then this is even more possible (Infinity/3306=Infinity and Infinity/1=Infinity.)

I believe that you, Ashegan, and the greater constituents of this forum believe that the gods represent different aspects of one concept. The difference I see between you, Ashegan; and the others is not that you are in conflict with each other, but that you are simply viewing from seperate points of view. Ashegan, you see God in terms of the concept, whereas the others see God in terms of the aspects. The way I see it, you are arguing about which is more important, reverance for the man or reverance to his positions.

Any flaws and mistakes in my post are mine alone. May Brahman teach me what is truth.

"Our Lord of full and perfect intelligence,
O Lord of full and flawless knowledge,
Stand near, stand near on all sides, in our home.
Your are the foremost of those who rule with excellence!"

Om Hari,
Andrew

sri andrew, i have to leave now... but when i get back i will reply to this post and defend the pure vedic monotheism over the degeneration of worshipping 'aspects' over the unified god...

Sri Ashegan,

I am very confused by the idea that there is one unified God , when the Vedas clearly state that the names of multiple Gods. I have a copy of the Rg Veda, and am quite aware that Indra is Agni who is Visnu who is... but I see no purpose in giving multiple names and aspects to the Ultimate Reality if it is only meant to be worshipped as a single being. I would certainly call into question the logic of such.

I have expressed only my personnal interpretation of the concept of God. That God is both one and many, based on existence and in purpose. I am quite interested in hearing your perspective, as I am still a neophyte to the religion.

I apologize that I may have mislead you in my post. I also support the idea of worshipping the unified force, perhaps more so than in worshipping the aspects. But the Vedas and the ancient vedic societies placed importance on this aspects, and I believe there is some inherit worth in the polytheistic view. If there is degeneration, I contend that it is not the fault of polytheism itself, but just a fault of other consequences.

Anxiously awaiting your views,

Your brother in faith,

Andrew

Vinaire the postulant is the only begotten clone of his founder Ron Hubbard the STATIC Scientologist God, deceased. He knows not a word of our Vedas yet he claims to demystify them, indeed offers Vedic Truths in his numerous posts, the while introducing new terms like STATIC and equations to make everything plain and transparent as - mud.

Vinaire is trying to shoe-horn all our divine teachings into a strait-jacket, designed by his late master Hubbard. ( He is still being controlled from the other side of the static void, no?) He has the tenacity and bluster of a con-merchant, after all he is an MSS (Master Schmuk of Scientos) and the stickability, despite his many goings/comings from/to this forum, the stickability of a human variant of a leech.

I postulate that Vinaire Hubbard deserves a web BEING, web site of his own. I can help build it.

Vinaire + Hubbard + STATIC = Nonsense + STATIC
= Zilch

Does anyone know of his full name, his place of work and the name of his boss; also his attorney's name and address? They will all receive a missive from me, couched in my usual courtly language and dulcet tones, enjoining them to make Vinaire the pope of Scientologists. Or give him more real work to do.

This post will be repeated ad nauseum and ad randomium (if you will pardon my French), for I cannot waste more time for such an unpalatable NON-Beingness. (Why does he write a word in caps and a little later the same word is in lowercase, oh, NEVER mind, otherwise I might need a bath in the Ganges. However, I will be willing to perform Shuddi on him should he divest himself of all that Scientologist garb.) For, as is decreed, go forth naked in the world, Vinaire; the Vedic reference for it will be given later, remind me.

Dear Andrew,

Per my understanding, Indra, Agni, Vishnu, etc. are various manifestations of Brahmam as Parmatamam's. Unfortunately, the term "God" has been used for Brahmam as well as for Parmatamam's with no clear differentiation, and thus causing this confusion.

Please see the discussion under "What are Vedic Truths?"

I would love to have you on that discussion if you can stomach some of the "fireworks" that come from misunderstandings.

Vinaire

The Hindu concept of 'Monotheism' and 'Polytheism' could be understood with the help of the following Q and A that I posted elsewhere. Lack of time right now prevents me from showing how one-sided the Vedic citations of Ashegan are. The following matter was posted under another thread by me earlier but apparently some have missed it.

2. How do you view God?
2. God is the all-pervading conscious entity who oversees the creation, preservation, destruction of the Universe, who monitors our deeds and gives us the fruits of our actions, who reveals the scriptures for our salvation, who grants us salvation and eternal communion with Him when we are liberated. God is all pervading, eternal, unchangeable, unborn, formless, uniform, Holy, pure and so on. His glory is manifested in the whole of the Universe comprising of insenitent as well as senitent things. He is impersonal because of the attributes mentioned earlier, and also personal because he is capable of relating to each individual personally, due to His impersonal attributes of omnipotence, all pervadingness and so on.

3. How do you view Gods? Are the many deities merely symbolic aspects of one great God, or is each deity a separate entity?
3. Our scriptures use the word ‘devata’ or ‘deva’ for gods. The root meaning of this word is ‘The shining ones, or they who grant something, or the virtuous ones.’ Accordingly, the devatas mean all of the following:
a. God, who is One, is the true devata, because he is the most luminous entity, he is the true giver of everything and is is the repository of all virtues. Therefore, God is sometimes called ‘Mahadeva’ or the great deva.
b. Hindu scriptures speak of 14 levels of animate creation. Man is 6th from the bottom and all the other 8 levels of beings above us are called devas collectively. These beings are at a spiritually more advanced state than human beings and might be likened to ‘angels’ in Christianity. Just as we respect our elders and wise men, similarly we should respect these devas.
c. Saints, sages, holy men etc are also sometimes called devas or gods.
d. Just as a single person is address as son, father, brother, brother-in-law by different people, so also, we can address the one God in any ways because we have so many relationships with him (creator, father, mother, brother, teacher, guide etc.). Each of these aspects of God is equally true and is a deva in itself.
e. God performs so many multifarious functions like creation, preservation and so on and the various gods represent symbolically these various functions of God.
f. According to Hindu belief, the whole Universe is animated by souls just as our own body is aninamted by a soul. Some souls, due to their exemplary conduct, animate the sun, the moon and so on. Therefore, these natural cosmic bodies are also considered living creatures like us and we respect them by worshipping them.
g. Natural powers like Sun, clouds etc. give us so much and so we should treat them with respect. These are also devas. Worshipping them does not constitute disrespect to God since He alone is the Being who receives all our prayers. When we praise a painting, we actually praise the person who has done the painting. Similarly, when we worship the various divine powers, we are actually praising God. A very famous Hindu saying is- “As every drop that falls from the sky eventually reaches the ocean, prayers to every devata eventually reach the Supreme”

We must keep in mind that all the devatas of gods are dependent on God for their very existence and sustenance and they grant boons and favors only through God. We shoulfd rise above the worship of devatas and worship God who is the true Devata.

God in reality is not in need of our flattery, it is we who gain by praising Him. Also, God is not a jealous or a vindictive being who will be nasty to us if we do not worship him or if we worship him indirectly. The entire creation derives its properties and existence from God. Therefore, true and perfect worship comprises in realizing Him in totality and not in confining him in some form or concept that has spatial limitations. It is in this respect that worshipping him in Icons (or idols) is not a sin (since God is not vindictive) and is in spiritually elevating, but only to an extent. If aspire perfection,we ought to realize him as a Soul within and outside our soul, and the entire creation.

Thank you Vishal for that enlightenment.

I have some need of clarification regarding a few things you mentioned. First off is regarding Mahadeva and the relationship of the other devatas to Mahadeva. I have long since had the understanding that all souls are merely manifestations of Brahman, in your post you seem to be saying that the Hindu pantheon are also manifestations similar to the human soul, but at a much higher state of spiritual development. That is how I interpreted your post. Does this mean that you consider the devas, such as Lord Visnu, to be inferior in relation to Mahadeva?

Secondly, you mentioned that the devas are names given to certain aspects of God's faculties (Brahma is creation, Siva is bliss, etc.) Are these devas with seperate consciousness, hence does Ganesh tap from a seperate source of consciousness than Laxmi; or, are they truly just aspects of Brahman, and Ganesh and Laxmi just different masks in front of the same brain?

Om hari,
Andrew

Shree Rama
Actually visisthadvaitains take that the vedas in fact when speaking about agni, rudra, brahma, vayu, indra and all other devathas in actually refer to Sriman Narayana, who is the antaryamin of all the devas. This can be viewed in two ways, one that Sriman Narayana is the antaryamin or the indwelling soul in their souls or the second way to view it is that all the devas constitute the body of Sriman Narayana like mentioned in the vishwaroopa in the Gita and the Purusha in Purusha Sookta. All the devas recieve their powers from one fountain and that fountain is Narayana and Lakshmi. The devas are elevated jivaatmas, they are positions given to various jivas due to large amounts of punya. After the life of each devata a new jiva takes their place. Mahadeva is a just a epithet which various gods get, Shiva is sometime called Mahadeva, so is Vishnu or Indra or so on. I think that i what vishalji was trying to say. Hope this clarifies this subject.
Shree Rama
-Mukunda

Here is an attempt to clarify the various terms used in Hinduism. The relationship among the concepts of BRAHMAM, ATMAM, PARAMATMAM, and JIVATMAM appears to be as follows.

BRAHMAM (Static) + decision to BE = ATMAM

Thus, unmanifested, IT is BRAHMAM.
And, manifested, IT is ATMAM.

"BEING" simply means "being manifested" ... changing from potential to actual.

"BEING" does not mean "becoming some identity." There is no identity to BECOME at this point.

Now, when BRAHMAM is manifested as ATMAM we are talking about a whole dimension from PARMATMAM to JIVATMAM. It is a scale of ATMAM:

Sri Mukunda,

Forgive me, but I'm afraid I am not quite familiar with about 50% of the terms you have used in your last post. My knowledge of Sanskrit is still improving, until then I rely heavily on help from more well-versed scholars.

If you, or anyone else for that matter, would be kind enough to help a poor American boy who knows too little about the language of his faith it would be greatly appreciated.

Om hari,
Andrew

Shree Rama
Andrew, sorry about all the sanskrit terms but these are the words that i am used to, i don't know sanskrit that well at all, i can't read or write it but i can understand some of it. If you can just let me know what words i have written that you don't understand i will send a post giving the meaning of the words. By the by, what university or college do you go to? I go to UC Irvine and am a Criminology and Political Science major with a minor in philosophy.
-Mukunda

Shri Ashegan,

In Sanskrit Devaha is singular and Devaaha is plural.So if you read the shanti mantra quoted by me earlier it is very much clear that the mantra is addressed to All Devathas in general.
In the Purusha Sukta, it is clearly explained about the different devathas like Indra,Agni,Vayu etc.,and their relationship with the Purusha.

"Mukhadindraschagnischa pranadvayurajaayata"

"From the Face (of the Purusha) Indra and Agni (originated) and from (His) Prana Vayu originated"

Purusha sukta further explains how all this Universe, and other Lokas were originated.

From this it is very clear that All these different devathas exist and they all including this Universe with sentient and Non-sentient things exist in the same Purusha.

The Viswaroopa of ShriKrishna further establishes this Truth.

So whatever Devatha one worships, indirectly he/she worships this Purusha only. - Harihi Om

On the concept of Monotheism and Polytheism these are philsophical concepts normally designed to guide or generate debate (as is being done now). In acutality the "TRUTH" is beyound these descriptions. The Truth is experienced.

Those who have tasted the nectar of spirutuality will understand what I mean. For a Bhakta the experience of bliss or joy that he experiences while worshiping his chosen diety. Is indeed the same bliss that is experienced by the Jyani in deep meditation. Or the inner joy that the Karma Yogi experiences through selfless service.

Books such as the puranas are our sources of inspiration. But its up to the individual to find it there. I remember when I was in second grade sick with the flu I had a comic book of the Ramayana. It was the truthfull example of Ram that inspired me most. I can say that these small stories really did inspired and guide me through my life. I later found great inspiration in the example of Harishchandra, and Yudisitira.

I think by debating the monotheism, polytheism and absolute vs. manifest. We sometimes loose track that even today we've seen people realize the truth by various paths. Therefore, we shouldn't waste time by debating the validity of those paths that have been valididated again and again.

Remember that Sri Ram Krishna Parahamsa was a orthodox bhakta and a clear devotee of Ma Kali. His disciple Vivekananda was a strong Jyani.

Its examples such as this that really inspire me to look up to my Hindu tradition. Where else has religious freedom produced soo many mulfaceted paths to reach spiritual enlightenment.

Hope to write more later,


Chetan

Sri Chetan,
You are absolutely Right.Our Dharma stresses on practice.Whether one chants veda,sloka or worships his ista devatha, or does tapas/mantra meditaion or involves in serving/karma Yoga or ponders over philosophical issues (Jnana marga)...All these will improve the person/Jiva spiritually.All these are different forms of Yoga and only practice of Yoga takes one near to God.Thats what I am stressing at.To be always God concious is what is to be achieved.The beauty of Hinduism is..It does not offer one coat of a particular size for All to wear.Each and every person based on his nature and temperament can get his coat stiched to size.But one thing is true that God/Brahman realisation is not available by just intellectual arguments.It is a reward that one gets after continuous practice ( in the path of his/her yoga) under the guidance of a able Guru, life after life. - Hari Om

Vedas are very sound philosophically. However, the spiritual practices currently prevelant in India take too long to achieve their goal.

It is taken for granted that it will take several life times for an average individual to achieve this goal. This is too slow. One should be able to attain this goal in their current lifetime.

Vinaire,

You are incorrect in your assumption. The very essense of Hinduism is that God realization is possible in this lifetime. Spiritual practices of almost any sort can lead to this goal. What really counts in not the practice or form of discipline. But the determination of the Sadak (individual). Anyone who's firmly resolved to achieve God can do it.

Chetan

Sri Chetan and Sri Vinaire,

What is too long? None of us know how many lives our soul has assumed to reach the point we are at now. This soul of mine could be a 1,000,000 years old. Our existence (our soul) passes on through death just as it moves from childhood to adult. Your body and all your ego are the only things that prevent will be lost in time. There is no need to feel rushed.

There is no time like the present though. Just because our souls cannot die is no reason to become spiritually apathetic. We can't truly know when we have attained moksha, so the best we can do is just always try with firm, steady determination and to not be impatient.

That is my opinion.

Om hari,

Andrew

From what I've seen patience and moksha don't normally go hand in hand. People who attain moksha are generally disasified with material life. This drives them to the spiratual side. When the Individual's desire for God or Guru reaches a point where its near obsession. Then only does he/she reach the goal.

Sri Ramkrishna's analogy of a child playing with toys in appropriate. While the child is playing with toys the mother ignore's him. When he cry's she trys to offer him another toy. But finnally when he crys for mother alone. She comes to him.

Its by impatience and longing that one reaches moksha. Afterwards stability comes.

Regards,

Chetan

Dear Participants,

Please take a look at this relevant article "Enlightenment, Are you prepared?" by Dr.David Frawlay. - Hari Om.
http://www.vedanet.com/YogaArticle.htm

Sri Chetan,

By having patience, what I mean to say is that a person should not feel that a person MUST accomplish their goal before they die. They have another name for that train of thought- Christianity.

There is certainly no reason in my mind to put off a spiritual awakening. Moksha isn't something you put on a grocery list, or prioritize in a schedule. What else can be more important to a Hindu?

What mean to say is that a person's efforts will not be in vain if they fail to suceed in this life.

Sincerely,
Andrew

namaste to all who've continued on this thread...

sri andrew, i feel the greatness of the vedas are that they recognise the myriad aspects and functions of the one almighty god... to read these names and search for their yaugik meanings brings great fruit... personally, it fills me with mind-churning awe and yet, transcending peace that one indivisible unseen god can by his own infinite power and ability maintain this vast universe and all of creation... that he himself is abhishrii (the mainstay of all beings), atharya (the omnipresent god), oja (infinite power), uurjah bharatam (sustainer of our energy), teja (absolute lustre), indra, mitra, varuna, agni...
in the vedas god almighty is addressed as maataa (my mother, the respector of emancipated souls), pitaa (my father and protector), bandhu (my companion), sakhaa (my friend), aayurdaa (the giver of life) - yes, similar to the way one man is a husband, a father, a provider, a protector...

but we do not cleave those aspects apart, giving them different forms and duties and attributes, develope family or love relations between those aspects, dedicate different things to different attributes of different aspects... the father, the friend, the husband, the lover are one and the same... he does not incarnate in a certain form for a certain function or change appearance or gender for another function... he remains at all times the same good old indivisible mortal guy, whichever way you look at him...

in the same way when i look at god as indra (the glorious) or mitra (the friend of all) or chandramaa (the giver of happiness), i do not see them as many little devatas existing in a greater god... for god alone is varuna (worth-attaining) and prashasya (worthy of worship) and to him alone do my prayers go... not to 'angels' or spirits or freed souls having a vacation in swarga or saints or sages or other levels of existence... for god in himself, reconciles every function and every attribute... that is his glory and that is his power and that is why i worship him above all else...

its easy to read polytheism into the vedas... for a long time, the only translations i had where those of western 'scholars' like griffiths and williams who distorted the hymns and got me to believe my holiest books were basically poems to nature gods and war gods and spirits and battle hymns... they never took the essential step of examining those names... their derivation, their many meanings, how each one of those words could refer to the almighty god and still so much else...
those who read the shastras looking at the words carefully in all their derivative senses will see that the holy vedas teach of one undying god and alot more...

sri andrew, i know my post looks pretty long and boring... but have you read the whole thing? i have tried to summarise the argument against vedic polytheism by focusing on the inclusive, multi-meaning nature of vedic names like 'deva'...

vishalji, you may see the vedic citations as being one-sided or biased... i might say the same of the translation by a hare krshna or sanathanist... but as far as i have seen, the mode of interpretation is vedic and in accordance with the shastras, the nirukt etc. which elucidate the vedas for us...

to me, the interpretation is fully and scripturally justified and based on the authority and vast experience of great vedic scholars...
refute them if you want to prove that the vedas throb with a thousand godlings representing each facet of the almighty, with the philology and sanskruti lexicon...
it won't change my trust and belief in my monotheistic interpretation of the vedas, just as my refutation of polytheism or henotheism or poly-henotheism in the vedas has not changed yours...

sureshji, i appreciate your attempt to explain the sanskrit and use of plurality, but it seems to leave me with the question of whose authority on vedic grammar and vocabulary is stronger... yours or that of the wise arya teachers like swami dayanand sarasvati and swami satyananda shastri, who dedicated their lives to the study of sanskrit...
could it not be that maybe you have taken the use of the tool of maatra notation in vedic usage to mean lots of little gods praised in the hymn? also, this hymn in the plural sense is addressed to the learned and the wise (devaah) for it is with their guidance that we may see and hear what is good... is this the thorn that we are stuck with?

also your interpretation contradicts itself, for the very next verse addresses itself to 'yajatraah', which refers both to a performer of the great yajna (creation/sustenance/dissolution), and also to the noble and learned men who perform yajna and live yajna (goodness, nobility, personal sacrifice) in their daily lives...

why do you see the word 'deva' in just one sense... i spent a great effort in last post showing how many meanings our rshis have given for the word 'deva' and how western scholars did not realise the the canon of proper interpretation...

again, why does the next verse declare 'tushtuvaamsah' - may we work for YOUR glorification... the 'your' refers to the almighty who must always be the one who is worshipped, but vedic yaugika meaning does not stop there.. the verse equally advises that we be able and willing to help to serve in the cause of the wise and enlightened...

i still don't understand why this isolated hymn in the svastivachanam is polytheistic while all the others praise and glorify the almighty and beseech the learned men who worship him and ask for their guidance and helping hand... vedic language is too complex to be bottled and labelled as "'deva' always means 'god'", no matter what the interpretation...

why does the yajurved in a preceding mantra implore : tamiishaanam jagatasthushaspatim dhiyamjinvamavase huumahe vayam -
for our protection we adore him who is the master of the world that moves and moves not, he who is the inspirer of the intellect... {(tam) that well-known (iisaanam) almighty lord (singular)}
could the yajurved be contradicting itself here by insisting in one mantra that only one god exists and is to be worshipped, and in another that many different gods are available for 'beseechment'?

sureshji, i cannot rewrite the evidence of the many shades of meaning inherent in the word 'deva'... at the end of the day, you must investigate and see for yourself what interpretation of your mantra best suits you and makes the most sense to you and is supported by the rshis and the shastras... i cannot change the belief that you hold in your heart.. it is you alone that can choose to do that, or not, if you feel you're right...

i see you have passed by the many mantras i have quoted and resorted to the purusha sukt to claim:

"Mukhadindraschagnischa pranadvayurajaayata"

"From the Face (of the Purusha) Indra and Agni (originated) and from (His) Prana Vayu originated"

sureshji, of all the names that are praised in the vedas and the upanishads, it is AOM alone which refers only and exclusively to the almighty... all others can mean many other things.. for example 'indra' above can refer just as strongly to the sun, of glorious light, or the
all-pervading electricity that vivifies the universe... and 'agni' could well mean fire, heat and things generated by heat, all of which are ultimately derived from the almighty god (purusha).. could it be possible that 'prana' refers to the life-breath and the force that controls inhalation and exhalation? couldn't vaayu refer equally to the wind that circulates this world with such energy and dynamism?
and are not all these forces and entities and bodies given form and function by the almighty at the time of creation?
the vedas are not so primitive to suggest that a little god, gremlin-like, popped out of purusha's face and a another little god from somewhere else... i think you should dig a deeper into the other meanings of words like 'indra' and 'agni'...

why must these words be pigeonholed to only mean 'god'?? should we ignore the testimonies of the rshis the words of the vedas are filled with many meanings and therein lies their beauty and complexity??

i am deliberately refraining from quoting any further vedic support or mantra, as usually, they are brushed away along with a large part of my argument, and the points are often missed... that is the disadvantage of very long posts, so i end this one here... if need be, i will continue this argument in the succeding post...

shubhamastu