Guest guest Posted April 6, 2009 Report Share Posted April 6, 2009 The worship of mutiple deities is central to us whether it is veda or tantra. Dayananda saraswati's(Arya Samaj) notion of one god is due to the influence of christian missionaries of his time and should flatly put in the trash can. Please do not limit yourself to what sAyaNa says and give it some deeper thought. Simply because the missionary maggots taunt us on this issue of polytheism, we should not fall into their trap and try to show we are monotheistic. , " sriram " <sriram_sapthasathi wrote: > > > <<<<<<<<<<<<<<< > > The Vedic religion was polytheistic and the different deities were > invoked for different purposes because each Vedic deity has a different function in the scheme of the universe; while the Agamic religion being monotheistic only one deity was worshipped, that had all the functions of the universe in his or her hands.>>>>> > > ************************* > > The 46th rik of the AsyavAmIya sUkta of Rg Veda runs like this: > > // Indram Mitram Varunamagnimaahuratho Divyah Sa Suparno Garutmaan > Ekam Sat Vipra Bahudha Vadanti Agnim Yamam Maatarisvaanamaahuh // > > As per Sayana, the Truth is one in the form of Aditya and as per Yaska it is Agni. The same principle of Agni is perceived as Indra, Mitra, Varuna, Su-parna, Yama and Matarisvaan by Jnanis (vipras). > > Scholars are of the view that this mantra speaks of Monotheism rather > than Monism. As per this rik of famous sukta " AsyavAmIya " there is only ONE VEDIC GOD and the rest are His attributes. > > The *Truth is One* but the *wise* address the Ultimate Truth as Indra, Mitra, Varuna, Suparna, Yama, MatarisvAn etc. Even Yaska and Sayana are also of the same view. > > Though i have certain differences with the theories of Arya Samaj, the Analysis of Dayananda Saraswati especially the *Concept of One God* in Veda is thought provoking. Shri Aurobindo is also of the same opinion. > > It can be concluded that Vedic era propagated Monotheism and NOT Polytheism. Unfortunately, vedic concept of Gods is > misinterpreted by scholars. When i had a personal talk with Swami Tattvavidananda Saraswati, the disciple of Dayananda Saraswati, Arsha Vidya Gurukulam, His Holiness was also of the same view that *there is only monotheism and not polytheism in Veda*. > > with regards, > sriram > > > , " Branko Ivatovic " <mahapratibhawan@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > AGAMAS > > > > H.H. Shri Kumarswamiji > > > > > > > > > > > > The Agamas are of three kinds. The Shivagamas, the Shaktyagamas and the > > Vaishnavagamas according as they treat of the deity Shiva, Shakti and > > Vishnu as the object of worship. The Agamas are also called Tantra and > > there is practically no difference between the two names specially > > between the Agamas of the Shiva and Shakti schools, both of them are > > believed to have been delivered by Shiva to his consort-Parvati. > > Generally the Shaivagamas are called Agamas and Shaktyagamas are called > > Tantras. Yet Shaivagamas have an independent status and their origin is > > as old as three thousand years. The Shivagamas are 28 in number. But all > > of them are not available, few of them are available. Besides 28 > > principal Shivagamas there are many secondary Agamas which intend to > > explain the subject matter of the principal Agamas. > > > > In connection with the Agamas two important questions arise - the age of > > the Agamas and the contents of the Agamas. As regards the first > > question, the age of the Agamas can well be determined from the > > reference made to them in various works. Harita, a writer of Smriti and > > Kalidas the world famous sanskrit poet refer to the Shivagamas and both > > of them lived in the first century of the Christian era. Various Puranas > > namely Skanda Purana, Sutasamhita, Brahmagita and Shiva Purana mention > > the Agamas. In Kurma Purana a reference is made to the fact that Shri > > Krishna was taught Agamic Philosophy by Upamanyu. In the Shanti Parva > > and Drona Parva of Mahabharata, reference has been made to the > > Shivagamas. In Maitrayana Upanishad Agamic literature is referred to > > twice. The Swetashwetopanishad is certainly an Agamic Upanishad later > > followed by other Agamic Upanishads like Atharva Shiras and Kaivalya. > > From all this foregoing account it can well be concluded that the Agamas > > have their origin in times almost coeval with the Aranyakas. > > > > The Aranyakas which form part and parcel of the Vedas and the Agamas > > confront each other as two independent modes of thought. This fact is > > brought into bold belief, when we take into consideration the contents > > of the Vedic religion and the contents of the Agamic religion. > > > > 1. The Vedic religion consists in the performance of sacrifices with all > > rites and rituals, while the Agamic religion consists in the worship of > > the deity - Shiva, Shakti and Vishnu. > > > > 2. The Vedic deities were the forms of nature and the Vedic religion was > > a system of propitiation of those nature powers. Powers by means of > > sacrifice offered into fire regarded as the mouth of the deities; while > > Agamic deity was personal deity that controlled the forces of nature. > > > > 3. The oblations in the case of Vedic worship were consumed by the > > deities through their mouth, the fire; while the Agamic deities took > > only the subtle portion of the offerings exhibited to them as Prasad or > > consecrated food. > > > > 4. The Vedic religion was polytheistic and the different deities were > > invoked for different purposes because each Vedic deity has a different > > function in the scheme of the universe; while the Agamic religion being > > monotheistic only one deity was worshipped, that had all the functions > > of the universe in his or her hands. > > > > 5. The Vedas consist of the Mantras addressed to the different deities > > and recited during the performance of the sacrifices in honour of those > > deities; while the Agamas contain prayers consisting of various names of > > the deity and salutations addressed to the deity. > > > > 6. The Vedic Worship consisted of the offering made to Gods, while the > > Agamic worship was personal service rendered to the God, like washing, > > decking and feeding them. > > > > 7. The Vedic Gods being the forces of the nature had no physical > > representation, while the Agamic deities were represented by means of a > > visible emblem or image. > > > > 8. There is no trace in the hymns of the temple worship, while the > > worship of the idols in temples is purely Agamic. The Vedic religion is > > the fire cult while Agamic religion is the deitic cult. > > > > 9. The Vedas kept the door of religion restricted to some people while > > the Agamas kept the door of religion open to all without any > > distinction. > > > > 10. The Agamas treat the Yoga Philosophy and Yogic practices which are > > all together absent in the Samhitas or Vedic hymns. > > > > The contents of the Shivagamas are divided into four parts namely > > Charya, Kriya, Yoga and Jnana. The Charya and Kriya parts describe the > > names of worship of Shiva with love and adoration but as the discipline > > of love or Shakti has to be supplemented by some psychological > > discipline in the form of yoga practice, the third part of every Agama > > deals with yoga. The fourth part of the Agama deals with jnana but jnana > > in the sense of exposition of the philosophical principles underlying > > the Agama teaching. The Charyapada represents a Marga, the path of the > > servant following the master. The servantship is the discipline of the > > Charya-pada. It consists in the search of God in the world and has for > > its aim the objective worship of a material idol. The singing of the > > glories of God the extension of the honour and hospitality to the > > servants of God constitute the chief marks of the first part. The > > Kriyapada represents the Satputramarg the path of son serving the will > > of his father. It is the higher step of worshipping God under the mental > > image. In this stage the rites are indicative of purification of the > > mind and heart. The worshipper behaves towards God as a son does towards > > his father with a combination of purity and piety. Yogapada represents > > Sahamarga which indicates the spirit of an associate. Here the > > worshipper behaves towards God as an associate. The whole spirit of the > > worshipper is being affiliated to God through the practice of Yoga or > > meditation. Jnanapada represents Sanmarga which means the attainment of > > Sayujya or atonement with God. In this condition the subject and the > > object become indistinguishable and the worshipper becomes possessed of > > Samadhi or trance. In the Sahamarga the worshipper starts with the idea > > of being similar to God and attains similarity which by the Sanmarga > > expands into Sayujya or atonement. > > > > The main three Agamic Schools, Shiva, Shakti and Vaishnava maintain > > three ultimate realities, namely > > > > 1. A supreme being with male or female aspect predominant. > > > > 2. The group of individual souls. > > > > 3. The objective universe as real. > > > > These three realities are given different names in the three different > > schools. > > > > All the three schools agree in opposing and demolishing the Mayawada or > > the illusion theory of the Vedanta. Thus says Pauskaragama: " If the > > world is an illusion of the conscious being the effected world will be a > > hollow reality. How can the world which is established to be really > > existing by all methods of proofs be a false transaction of > > consciousness? " > > > > The Agamas do not regard the world as a false show. The universe is real > > because, as there is absolutely no difference between Brahma and the > > universe, just as there is no difference between a pot and clay of which > > it is made, the reality of the universe necessarily follows from the > > reality of Brahma. Intense devotion or sincere Bhakti to deity forms > > another common feature of the three Agamic Schools. The movement of > > Agamic devotion gave rise to the art of temple building and the making > > of the images which in India, in south India especially has reached a > > higher order of perfection. It also gave rise to devotional lyric poetry > > full of poetic imagery. So also music, singing and dancing developed > > fast under the influence of the Agamas. > > > > Dr. Radhakrishna in his " Outlines of Indian Philosophy " has observed > > thus: > > > > " This living Hindu religion of today from Cape Comorin to the remotest > > corners of Tibet is essentially Tantric. Even the genuine Vedic rites > > that are preserved and are supposed to be derived straight from the > > Vedas, namely the Sandhya, have been modified by the addition of Tantric > > practice. " > > > > The two streams of thought, the Agamic and the Vedic gradually > > gravitated towards each other. After running side by side for long time > > they acted and reacted on each other and modified each other's practice > > in religion. Attempts were later made to reconcile the differences > > between them and to establish the unity of thought in Hinduism. > > > > Historically considered Virashaivism is a fine and full blown flower of > > Shaivism. For Shaivism as well as for Virashaivism the 28 Shivagamas are > > the scriptures. But Virashaivism considers the latter two parts of the > > Agamas as scriptural authority. Since the end portion of the Agamas is > > regarded as authority Virashaivism is known as Agamanta. Shiva is the > > worshipping deity for Shaivism and Virashaivism in the form of Linga. > > The Shaivas worship Shivalinga in the temples while the Virashaivas wear > > the miniature form of Shivalinga known as Ishtalinga. The Linga worn on > > the body is made of light grey slate stone and to be kept intact all > > through the wearer's life, it is coated all over with the fine durable > > black paste prepared out of certain ingredient. The coating is called > > Kanti or covering. The Linga is worshipped by placing it on the palm of > > the left hand. This is the subjective mode of worship in which the > > devotee and the divine are facing each other. Linga is three fold; > > Bhavalinga, Linga the ideal corresponding to the causal body of the > > devotee, Pranalinga, Linga the vital corresponds to the subtle body of > > the devotee. Ishtalinga, Linga the gross or the physical corresponds to > > the gross body of the devotee. The devotee starts with the worship of > > Istalinga and reaches by stages the Pranalinga and the Bhavalinga with > > the idea of his being a part and parcel of God through all the stages > > when he reaches atonement with God or Shiva. > > > > Anatomy speaks of the plexuses in the human body. These plexuses which > > are otherwise known as Chakras, are the network of the autonomic nervous > > system. The Plexuses are said to have petals as the lotus have. > > Physiologically the petals are no other than the branches of nerves > > shooting from the ganglia in different directions for the regular > > functioning of the different parts of the body. Prana runs through these > > branches and activates the different parts of the body in the particular > > locality in which a plexus is situated. > > > > The lowermost Chakra is the basis plexus called Muladhara. It has four > > branches or petals and the shape of a triangle. The second Chakra is > > Swadisthana which is situated in the pelvic region and it has six > > petals. The third Chakra is the Solar plexus with ten petals and its > > location is in the region of the navel. The fourth Chakra is the Anahata > > which has twelve petals and is located in the region of the heart. The > > fifth Chakra is Vishuddhi situated in the region of the throat and it > > has sixteen petals. The sixth is Ajna Chakra which has two petals and is > > situated between eyebrows. This is called plexus of command. > > > > In the process of Yoga the centres have a fixed physiological use and a > > general function. The Muladhara governs the physical down to the > > subconscient. The abdominal centre the Swadisthana governs the lower > > vital. According to Virashaivism these two Chakras represent the domain > > of Ishtalinga and are respectively occupied by the sub-forms of > > Istalinga -- Acharlinga in the Muladhara and Gurulinga in Swadisthana. > > This is the place of Tyaganga. The navel centre or Manipura governs the > > larger vital and the heart centre or Anahata governs the emotional > > being. These two form the vital or the intermediate plane. According to > > Virashaivism this is the plane of Bhoganga and is the domain of > > Pranalinga or the vital because the vital force of consciousness > > functions here. The throat centre or Vishuddhi governs the expressive > > mind, here consciousness assume concrete form of the sound. The centre > > between the two eyebrows governs the will. According to Virashaivism > > this is the plane of Bhavalinga - the higher intellectual plane. > > > > The human body is identified with Tyaganga with Ishtalinga working > > behind it. The autonomous nervous system with Bhoganga with Pranalinga > > working behind it; the central nervous system or cerebrum with Yoganga > > with Bhavalinga working behind it. The bodily mechanism is Tyaganga > > because it is to be directed towards the higher and in performance to > > the demands of matter. Here the Istalinga aids the soul when it becomes > > conscious of the higher end. Full faith in the divinity in the spirit of > > submission is the means to that end. The faith in relation to Shakti or > > the devotee is Shraddha which develops into Nishtha or singleness of > > purpose of Mahesha. In the first stage Acharlinga, the practical and in > > the second stage Gurulinga, the perceptive are aroused for giving the > > soul and an insight into the spiritual truth. This is the first process > > of sublimation in the upward march of the soul. Here the soul is > > purified and divested of the thoughts of the worldly life. Acharlinga > > and Gurulinga are connected with Adhara Chakra and Swadisthana Chakra > > with the corresponding awakening of the powers in them. > > > > The intermediate plane is the plane of Bhoganga, the soul in the stage > > of enjoyment. This is the psychic plane, the plane of Pranalinga. In > > this stage the soul has the co-operation of Pranalinga, for his further > > development. Here the soul has the enjoyment of material world in so far > > as it is necessary for the substance of the body which is the basis of > > all life - temporal or spiritual. In this plane the truth that material > > enjoyment and spiritual experience are in no way inconsistent but are > > mutually helpful, is demonstrated. The enjoyment of the soul is in > > company with Pranalinga so that everything that the soul takes or enjoys > > is in the first instance dedicated to Linga and is then taken as Prasad > > or consecrated food. Here conscious aspiration is the means to the > > objective of atonement of the divinity, with its two sub-division of > > Avadhana, the undivided attention fixed on the divinity in contemplation > > and Anubhava or partial experience of the divine life. The two forms of > > Shakti invoke the aid of two modifications of Pranalinga - Shivalinga > > the gracious and Charalinga the itinerant. Prasadi is the third > > modification of the soul which strives with undivided attention to earn > > the grace of God in his aspect as Shivalinga. So also the Pranalinga - > > the fourth modification of the soul attentively meditates on divinity > > and attains the stage of partial experience of the divine life. Here the > > form of Shakti is called Anubhava Bhakti, the experiential stage of the > > spiritual life. The two modifications of Pranalinga, Shivalinga and > > Charalinga are connected with Manipura Chakra and Anahata Chakra with a > > corresponding sublimation of their powers. > > > > The third plane is the plane of the highest intelligence. This is the > > plane of Yoganga to which the soul rises up gradually step by step. Here > > the soul is in the stage of regaining his oneness with the universal > > consciousness. Here he secures the help and co-operation of Bhavalinga, > > the ideal. Yoganga in its two modifications, Sharana and Aikya strives > > for regaining his essential oneness with the divinity. The two forms of > > Bhakti, Anandbhakti and Samarasabhakti invoke the aid of the two forms > > of Bhavalinga - Prasadlinga, the peaceful and Mahalinga, the great. > > Prasadalinga and Mahalinga are connected with Vishuddhi Chakra and Ajna > > Chakra with a corresponding awakening of powers in them. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Article from book: Unto The First, by H. H. Shri Kumarswamiji > > > > > > > > Branko Ivatovic ? > > > > Rakarska 5, > > > > 10410 Velika Gorica - Croatia > > > > branko.ivatovic@ > > > > > > > > Foundation H.H. Mahatapasvi Shri Kumarswamiji ? > > > > Tapovan, > > > > DHARWAD - 3 > > > > KARNATAKA - INDIA > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 11, 2009 Report Share Posted April 11, 2009 Jai Gurudev, According to me one god concept is correct. One person will become father, husband, son, uncle, brother, ..... Only on attaining the level these great statements can be said.? Till then, to reach that level you need to have multiplied no of gods for your own concepts. For instance,?? When you bow down to a god to whom do you bow down ? Is it the statue or stone or material with which the statue is made of? or to that divinity that you believe.? A photo printed on a paper is not seen as just a paper, you imagine that it is the manifestation of the picture which is hidden in your mind.? Only when you can think that a photo as good as any other paper which may be used for writing notes or a pasted wall paper or some paper in the dust then it these great statements will definitely worth quoting.? These statements are said only by those sages / maharshis who have attained such a height of sthithi / samadhi. If there are any corrections please let me know. Subramanya --- On Sat, 11/4/09, Kumar Ramachandran <kramach wrote: Kumar Ramachandran <kramach RE: Re: Polytheism in Vedas??? " 'Kumar Ramachandran' " <kramach, Saturday, 11 April, 2009, 2:00 AM shrI gurubhyo namaH shrI mahAgaNapataye namaH Perhaps I was getting ahead of myself. Various persons have asked us to stop pretending that we are monotheists, and that there is no Vedic basis for monotheism. I think this statement " ekam sadvipra bahudha vadanti " and various other statements talk directly of monotheism. shrI mAtre namaH Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 12, 2009 Report Share Posted April 12, 2009 Hari OM! When all the arguments and counter arguments and the definition stops.. only there is Peace. HE cannot be understood or SHE cannot be understood You can only stand under! With Love & OM1 Krishna Prasad [Give some thought as to why our AchArya-s so much time authoring treatises with arguments and counter arguments. It is not without reason that some indologists comment that most of the current day Indians display intellectual laziness, unlike our ancestors.] On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 5:28 PM, manoj_menon <manoj_menon wrote: > > > Om Namah Shivaya. > > Perhaps a better to describe Sanathana Dharma would be 'pantheism'. > > I impersonally think Advaita is the Supreme way but do understand accept > and revere all manifestations as part of the Divine. > > Such a thought is neither mono (1 god) nor poly (many specific Gods). it is > a 'pan' phenomenon. > > I can see arguments coming forth that we don't have temples for and worship > all manifestations of the divine etc, but still feel that 'pan' is closer to > defining it than 'mono' or 'poly'. > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pantheism > > Jai Ma! > > <%40>, " Kumar > Ramachandran " <kramach wrote: > > > > > > > > shrI gurubhyo namaH > > > > shrI mahAgaNapataye namaH > > > > > > > > Perhaps I was getting ahead of myself. > > > > Various persons have asked us to stop pretending that we are monotheists, > > and that there is no Vedic basis for monotheism. > > > > I think this statement " ekam sadvipra bahudha vadanti " and various other > > statements talk directly of monotheism. > > > > > > > > shrI mAtre namaH > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 13, 2009 Report Share Posted April 13, 2009 , " Kumar Ramachandran " <kramach wrote: > I think this statement " ekam sadvipra bahudha vadanti " and various other > statements talk directly of monotheism. First we should understand what is meant by monotheism and in what context. This is word used to describe religions like Islam and Christianity where they worship only one god and not believing in that will lead you to " eternal hell " . If we are monothiest then technically we should all be put in hell for the kind of worship we do daily. :-)) If one is intent to classifying ours as some x, y, z theism then as Manoj said Pantheism will come close as also the word Henotheism. Strictly speaking you can be a total atheist(in the western sense) and still be a Hindu. In monotheist religions you would be stoned( " psychological stoning " if it is a rich Christian nation) to death if you say something like this. :-) I asked you to supply the preceding and succeeding lines of your quote because these things cannot be understood in isolation. We need to observe the context and if understood in isolation as stand alone sentences we may miss the exact meaning and or its spirit. Take a look at your daily rituals and that should tell you that we are no where near monotheism. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 13, 2009 Report Share Posted April 13, 2009 shrI gurubhyo namaH shrI mahAgaNapataye namaH Dear Satish: I know what polytheism and monotheism mean. After all, its not for naught that I had a good education. I think we need to define what our perspective is. If you word smith enough, you can make anything possible. You can make Lord Shiva a phallic symbol and you can make the Kama Sutra into a religious text. We need to exercise caution before we put out texts that mislead everyone. There is one Truth. All of the respective forms are different aspects of this Truth. Our Vedas talk of this Truth and tell us so. Thank you. shrI mAtre namaH Shri gurubhyo namaH Shri mahAgaNapataye namaH In my view, I have always been told / taught that the forms were created by us to help comprehend the one true God. I happen to agree with that. Thanks. shrI mAtre namaH [i combined your two posts on this. marked most messages on this thread a spam - Satish] On Behalf Of Satish Monday, April 13, 2009 12:13 AM Re: Polytheism in Vedas <%40> , " Kumar Ramachandran " <kramach wrote: > I think this statement " ekam sadvipra bahudha vadanti " and various other > statements talk directly of monotheism. First we should understand what is meant by monotheism and in what context. This is word used to describe religions like Islam and Christianity where they worship only one god and not believing in that will lead you to " eternal hell " . If we are monothiest then technically we should all be put in hell for the kind of worship we do daily. :-)) If one is intent to classifying ours as some x, y, z theism then as Manoj said Pantheism will come close as also the word Henotheism. Strictly speaking you can be a total atheist(in the western sense) and still be a Hindu. In monotheist religions you would be stoned( " psychological stoning " if it is a rich Christian nation) to death if you say something like this. :-) I asked you to supply the preceding and succeeding lines of your quote because these things cannot be understood in isolation. We need to observe the context and if understood in isolation as stand alone sentences we may miss the exact meaning and or its spirit. Take a look at your daily rituals and that should tell you that we are no where near monotheism. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 14, 2009 Report Share Posted April 14, 2009 , " Kumar Ramachandran " <kramach wrote: > > > I know what polytheism and monotheism mean. After all, its not >for naught > that I had a good education. Knowing the words of meanings is not enough. You need to understand where and in what context those are used. Ex: brahmacharya - Literally this means something like performing divine acts or something similar. But the general understood meaning is having sexual control. pa~nkaja - means that which comes from mud .. but the popular meaning is a lotus. This has to be understood and this is where I see you lacking and hence this misunderstanding of our tradition to be monotheistic. > > If you word smith enough, you can make anything possible. I already explained about the literal and popular meanings. > You can make Lord Shiva a phallic symbol and you can make the Kama >Sutra > into a religious text. Btw, the shiva li~Nga is indeed a phallic symbol. It represents shiva's phallus. See the shiva purANa and other purANa-s and also the guDimallaM shiva linga which is one of the earliest shiva linga-s. Dont let the christian minds influence you. The kAma sUtra is a nice hindu text which all Hindu-s should study. rAghava quotes the kAma sUtra in his commentary on shAradA tilaka. This is one of the main problem especially for those living in US. They want to constantly confirm to christianity or like religions. So kindly do not mislead yourself. Please de-christianise your mind :-) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 14, 2009 Report Share Posted April 14, 2009 , subramanya h c <subba_mce wrote: > > Jai Gurudev, > > According to me one god concept is correct. But according to our sages there is nothing like this in Hinduism.There is something called brahman or the super consciousness and then there are devata-s or deva-s. There is NO ONE TRUE GAWD or ONE GAWD concept in hinduism. Oh my GAWD!! I cant beleive people der are dish many GAWD people(christians) in da list.hic! hahaha :-)) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 14, 2009 Report Share Posted April 14, 2009 shrI gurubhyo namaH shrI mahAgaNapataye namaH dear Shri Satish: Out of all of the names in the shata rudriyam, how many pertain to the phallus ? Please don't be selective in your interpretations. If what people are saying about polytheism is true, then please also look at Ganapathi Atharvasheersham, wherein Ganesha is called as Brahma, Vishnu and is finally equated to PraNavam. How can this be true if the theories on polytheism are true. Thanks and Regards. KR. shrI mAtre namaH Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 14, 2009 Report Share Posted April 14, 2009 , " Kumar Ramachandran " <kramach wrote: > > shrI gurubhyo namaH > > shrI mahAgaNapataye namaH > > > > dear Shri Satish: > > > > Out of all of the names in the shata rudriyam, how many pertain to the > phallus ? Please don't be selective in your interpretations. Namaste The name bhairava doesnt appear in shata rudrIyaM either. Does this mean we conclude rudra and bhairava are not related? I am trying to say that there is no relation between not finding a name of rudra which doesnt relate to the phallus and hence shiva linga being unrelated to phallus. The purANa-s are very clear that it is the mighty rudra's penis which is worshipped as a shiva linga and it is gaurI's yoni which is the base. There is nothing to be ashamed about this. If the westerners you are arguing with laugh/cackle, then use the same thing against them. Say that it is a million times better than salughtering infants which the christians are so fond of. Put them on the defensive by heaping criticisms because most likely they are not arguing with you to learn about our traditions but only to do the " psychological stoning " that I mentioned before. I am sure of one thing: If you continue with this mind set and look at our scriptures like this there will come a point where you will abandon our traditions. What is required is that we should try to understand our traditions for what they are instead of comparing with christianity and islam. If this mindset is because you wanted to make our traditions presentable to your western audiences I have nothing to say. If they make fun of our traditions you should fight back and show ours is the better way of looking at this cosmos snd not wind our tails around our backs and submit to their criticism. If you need tools(sharp criticism) to hammer those maggots we can supply them. > If what people are saying about polytheism is true, then please >also look at > Ganapathi Atharvasheersham, wherein Ganesha is called as Brahma, Vishnu and > is finally equated to PraNavam. How can this be true if the theories on > polytheism are true. That we are not monotheistic is true just because of the very fact that he is equated with brahma, viShNu etc. Doesnt this mean that brahma and viShNu are equally important. If they are not they would not have been mentioned in the first place right? If we are monotheistic the text would have said brahma, viShNu are false only ganesha is " ONE TRUE GAWD " . But it doesnt say that. At this stage it is very important that you read the following article closely. http://www.india-forum.com/indian_culture/Why-Understand-the-Western-Culture-044\ ..html PS: Many years back I was arguing with others about how shiva linga is totally unrelated to anything phallic so I understand your concerns and your discomfort atleast to some extent. :-) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 14, 2009 Report Share Posted April 14, 2009 [Gopi- I will repeat that aspect which is so special for monotheism - In monotheism if you worship any other god other than Jehovah, Allah you will go straight to hell - eternally damned - that is it. This is what monotheistic religions are known for. This idea is totally alien to our traditions and it simply does not fit anywhere. What we mean when we say brahman and what they mean when they say GAWD is simply world's apart. For them this GAWD is somewhere up in a physical heaven and he punishes you if you dont acknowledge him or if you acknowledge any other GAWD other than him. Is that what we think of brahman? Far from it no? - Satish] Dear srI Kumar shrI gurubhyo namaha In addition to ganapathy atarvasheersham, purushasUktam, nArAyaNa suktam say exact thing. (nArAyanath brahmmo jAyathey.... ) In my limited reading, each says exactly the same. Brahmam is/was. a " disturbance " was created in that brahmam as IT saw itself. It wished........and things emanated from it. Including the forms of Gods. And when pralayaa happens both the manifestations, the seeds of these manifestation and the potential for more manifestations get back exactly to this single point of brahmam( or into the stomach of that particular God as per that suktham etc.) So at the end state( or is it the begining state?) is there a " God " God( as read as a manifested form)?or just the isness of brahmam? In my limited understanding, monotheism talks of this manifested God, whereas hinduism talks of that TAT. If there is anything incorrect or inappropriate here, pl attribute it my ignorance. shrI mAtre namaha shrI harI Gopi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 14, 2009 Report Share Posted April 14, 2009 [Dear shrIman Kumar- This post doesnt help either you or me. To me or the others who epsouse this view we never view the devata-s as physical beings FYKI. That for us devata-s doesnt mean a being with a physical form will become clear to you if you observe my posts. I gave you ample reasons for our position on this mono-poly and backed it up with examples. We are not seeing any justification from your side other than a repeated dogmatic assertion that we are monotheistic. No one knows everything in this world and we should be willing to accept and learn at some point. Otherwise there will be no growth. May this god- dude(whatever that is) guide you while we hindu-s continue our age old tradition worshipping our various devata-s :-) - Regards, Satish ] shrI gurubhyo namaH shrI mahAgaNapataye namaH Dear Satish: Perhaps time will tell you of the real truth. Continue in your path and your philosophy, dear friend, and I will continue in mine. You have to get past the physical aspects of our deities and look at the more subtle definitions. If you look at all the physical aspects only, then you will arrive at the polytheistic conclusion. This is an immature and superficial view of our philosophy. If, however, you and others are spouting these words just to be different and appear to be scholarly, then that is a wrong approach also. Please look inward to find the truth of this matter for yourself. I will not be commenting further on this. God bless. Om Name nArAyaNAya. Thanks. shrI mAtre namaH Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 14, 2009 Report Share Posted April 14, 2009 shrI gurubhyo namaH shrI mahAgaNapataye namaH Dear Satish: I would never make reference to God as " this god-dude " , dear Hindu Bandhu. shrI mAtre namaH On Behalf Of Kumar Ramachandran Tuesday, April 14, 2009 2:53 AM RE: Re: Polytheism in Vedas [Dear shrIman Kumar- This post doesnt help either you or me. To me or the others who epsouse this view we never view the devata-s as physical beings FYKI. That for us devata-s doesnt mean a being with a physical form will become clear to you if you observe my posts. I gave you ample reasons for our position on this mono-poly and backed it up with examples. We are not seeing any justification from your side other than a repeated dogmatic assertion that we are monotheistic. No one knows everything in this world and we should be willing to accept and learn at some point. Otherwise there will be no growth. May this god- dude(whatever that is) guide you while we hindu-s continue our age old tradition worshipping our various devata-s :-) - Regards, Satish ] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 15, 2009 Report Share Posted April 15, 2009 monotheism implies duality which we are not, hence Advaitham is not monotheism. At the same time we are not absolute polytheists as that also implies duality. Of course Hinduism covers the entire gamut of all theism's Advaita is one aspect, there are belief sects that range regards Vishwam ________________________________ subramanya h c <subba_mce Saturday, April 11, 2009 2:34:47 AM RE: Re: Polytheism in Vedas Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.