How can "Gods" interact with each other?

[justfoolingaround]

Hello,everyone. Today I saw a video about Hinduism. The man in the video explained the God concept as such:
Different Gods are different aspects of one Ultimate Reality(Brahman). When God creates, he is Brahma. When he preserves, he is Vishnu, etc. Everything is fine until here.
But how do we explain myths where these aspects are interacting with each other? Are they just made-up to make them easier for human understanding or should these be taken really?
Thank you in advance.

 

[Vinayaka]

Not all of us believe in 'the man's' explanation about God. Yes, that is one view, but we're far more complex than that. There are many views. Was 'the man' a Hindu, or someone looking in from the outside?

The 'myths' are a selection of Hindu scripture called Puranas. Most people (I think) see them as lessons, or allegorical tales to teach lessons. There are probably a few people who take them literally. The extent to which the Puranas are considered important to Hindu thought also varies widely.

 

[Chakra]

Hello,everyone. Today I saw a video about Hinduism. The man in the video explained the God concept as such:
Different Gods are different aspects of one Ultimate Reality(Brahman). When God creates, he is Brahma. When he preserves, he is Vishnu, etc. Everything is fine until here.
But how do we explain myths where these aspects are interacting with each other? Are they just made-up to make them easier for human understanding or should these be taken really?
Thank you in advance.

What you learned in the video was just a neo-Hindu concept. It's sad that neo-Hinduism is propagated as the "real Hinduism" in schools. I'll just say that in Vaishnavism, God is Vishnu and does creation, preservation, and destruction. And Vedantins take the Puranas literally.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Most Hindus are polytheistic and as such we do not have a problem with Gods and Goddesses interacting with each other or with humans and even with animals. There is a famous story when an elephant (really a pious man under a curse) is grabbed in the leg by a crocodile and sends an SOS to Lord Vishnu, Lord Vishnu forgets to put on his shoes and rushes bare-foot to help. (Gajendra Moksha - Deliverance of the Elephant King).

 

[Maya3]

What you learned in the video was just a neo-Hindu concept. It's sad that neo-Hinduism is propagated as the "real Hinduism" in schools. I'll just say that in Vaishnavism, God is Vishnu and does creation, preservation, and destruction. And Vedantins take the Puranas literally.

What? No I and other Vedantis do not take the Puranas literally. They are myth with symbolic meaning.

Maya

 

[Chakra]

What? No I and other Vedantis do not take the Puranas literally. They are myth with symbolic meaning.

Maya

I was talking about the original Vedantins, ie Shankara, Ramanuja, and Madhva. They do accept Puranas and Itihasas literally.

 

[ShivaFan]

Some of them are literal. Some of them are a God telling another God or Saint about what another God did when the first God met the second God on the banks of the Yamuna. But the God or Saint who was told by the first God "I remember the good ol' days when people were more free from materialism than today, but... there was that war. Let me tell about that Elephant friend of mine and one of battles in that war... it is really a lesson on how an elephant never forgets. Once upon a time...", then takes what the first God said and tells a nice dancing Apsara. She is beautiful. She tells a savant yogi in Haridwar about it. The yogi likes it and starts to bring it up at satsangs. But then Hari Himself comes along and say to the yogi, "HEY! My part in the story was left out! I was the one who gave that elephant to the King of Varanasi before that, and that elephant had a boon for giving Narada a bath by spraying water over him with his trunk when Narada was too busy singing and chanting to take a bath. Did you know that elephant..." ... then the yogi changes the story because he is worried Hari might take offense. Then it is about how bathing is important, and not about how the elephant never forgets. But a lot if stuff about Narada is added, and then it is all about Narada Muni. And singing. And it is getting really big that story, because life and truth is really big. So the first God part of it is dropped. Then the First doesn't like that. The First comes back later and says, "Hey!"... then there is more interaction between Gods and maybe the original elephant too. And the story about that is added to the story. And it is a never ending story and interactions. With 108 versions.

 

[Maya3]

I was talking about the original Vedantins, ie Shankara, Ramanuja, and Madhva. They do accept Puranas and Itihasas literally.

I see, ok. You scared me for a minute.

Maya

 

[Vinayaka]

Thank you in advance.

Were our answers helpful?

 

[Vinayaka]

I was talking about the original Vedantins, ie Shankara, Ramanuja, and Madhva. They do accept Puranas and Itihasas literally.

How do you know this? I'm curious.

 

[Chakra]

How do you know this? I'm curious.

All of them quoted from the Puranas...there's no point in quoting if it didn't happen.
They all wrote a commentary on Gita and one (Shankara) wrote a commentary on Vishnu Sahasranamam which meant they accept the Mahabharata.
Ramanuja and Shankara quoted from Vishnu Purana, Madhva quoted from Bhagavata Purana, and their disciples and the later great acharyas of each tradition all quoted from various Puranas.

 

[Vinayaka]

I don't see how quoting from the Puranas means that you take them literally. Lots of people might quote from them today, but see them metaphorically. So do the successors, like the current Guru of Sringeri Math, also believe in the Puranas literally?

 

[Chakra]

I don't see how quoting from the Puranas means that you take them literally. Lots of people might quote from them today, but see them metaphorically. So do the successors, like the current Guru of Sringeri Math, also believe in the Puranas literally?

No idea. Better to ask an Advaitin.
Some people think that some stories in the Puranas show God's grace and his willingness to help, but don't accept them literally (such as the beautiful Gajendra story). This doesn't make sense because if God really wanted to show his grace to the world, he would actually do it instead of giving us useless stories. But it was common for Vedantins those days to take them as literal. Puranas mean history.

That being said, that doesn't mean that Puranas don't have metaphorically meanings. They do, but they also have a metaphorical meaning. That being said, I can't defend Adi Shankara too much as being a literalist, but Ramanuja and Madhva surely were.

 

[StarryNightshade]

Just for the record, here is my take on the Puranas:

I do believe that they have nuggets of truth to them. However, do I believe that every single detail in them literally happened?

I don't know. As a whole, I tend to take a more mystical and philosophical POV towards scripture. I'm of the stance that not taking a scripture as absolutely literal makes it lose any value.

 

[Chakra]

AFAIK, Vedanta accepts three legitimate ways of getting knowledge. Logical inference, perception, and scriptural authority. That means that the believe in what scriptures say, and Puranas do call themselves as literal. And when there is a metaphor or story, the person actually says that this is a metaphor or a story.

 

[justfoolingaround]

Your answers are quite helpful. Thank you. I now understand that it is up to the individual. But do you have a list or something of which schools take them literally and which not?

 

[Aupmanyav]

IMHO, no Hindu will brand Puranas as totally false or metaphorical.

 

[Vinayaka]

Your answers are quite helpful. Thank you. I now understand that it is up to the individual. But do you have a list or something of which schools take them literally and which not?

I'd be very surprised if we did. Hinduism is too vast, with hundreds of lineages. Nobody would have the time to research it thoroughly.

 

[Stormcry]

What? No I and other Vedantis do not take the Puranas literally. They are myth with symbolic meaning.

Maya

you're not Vedantin, more precisely I could say you're western minded person. All our important traditional vedantin like Adishankara or Ramanuja placed purana in high esteem equal with shruti. They said Purana is fifth veda and in this yuga this fifth veda is recommended for common people like us. In fact, Purana is the cream of Veda, in which Vedanta is clearly explained not using metaphors unlike in Veda.

 

[Stormcry]

@maya If Purana is not divine, how Vishnu Purana accurately predicts about Kashmir ..It says in kaliyuga, population of mleccha ( Muslim) will be much more in Kashmir. So who wrote it how did he know the future so accurately? He must be divine and he was Parashara, real divine Vedantin. Others who see Purana as myth are just tom and harry.