Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
hello,
why do so many hindus worship rama, krishna, vishnu even though they are not even mentioned in vedas, koran, bible? why they become so popular in hindusim?
Please tell me how much of Vedas you have read, I am curioushello,
why do so many hindus worship rama, krishna, vishnu even though they are not even mentioned in vedas, koran, bible? why they become so popular in hindusim?
hello,
why do so many hindus worship rama, krishna, vishnu even though they are not even mentioned in vedas, koran, bible? why they become so popular in hindusim?
Dear Surya Deva,As a matter of fact Vishnu and Shiva(as Rudra) is mentioned in the Vedas, but in the Vedas Vishnu is a minor deity and Shiva is even lesser important. Later, during the Puranic phase and the establishment of the Trimurti dogma, Vishnu and Shiva are establised as monotheistic gods, and various sects start to mushroom around them. The reason for this is most likely political, the various kingdoms adopt their favourite god and establish religious control, with Shiva being preferred down South, and Vishnu in the North.
Krishna's case is very similar to Jesus. That is a personality cult spread about the historical Krishna, and Krishna was elevated to the status of Vishnu, being seen as a direct incarnation of Vishnu. In the same way Jesus is the incarnation of the logos. While, in Chriistianity there is only one son, i.e., one incarnation Jesus, in Vaishnavism due to beliefs in reincarnation there are several incarnations of Vishnu. The Vaishnavist dogmatists assembled their own list of the avatars Vishnu has taken so far, including in the list important historical personalties like Lord Rama, Buddha. This is why different sects have different lists.
hello,
why do so many hindus worship rama, krishna, vishnu even though they are not even mentioned in vedas, koran, bible? why they become so popular in hindusim?
Dear Surya Deva,
I don't know what part of Vedas you are talking about. But clearly if one studies the Shurti Vedas collectively then one is guaranteed not to come to the conclusion as "Vishnu is minor deity". Heres just a few verses:
dādhāra dakṣamuttamamaharvidaṃ vrajaṃ ca viṣṇuḥ sakhivānaporṇute
"Viṣṇu hath power supreme and might that finds the day" (Rig Veda 1:156:4)
oṃ tad viṣṇoḥ paramam padam sadā paśyanti sūrayaḥ
"All the suras (i.e., the devas) look always toward the feet of Lord Vishnu." (Rig Veda, 1:22:20)
asya devasya milhuso vaya visnoresasya prabhrthe havirbhih
vide hi rudro rudriyam mahitvam yasistam vartirasvinaviravat
"With offerings I propitiate the branches of this swift-moving God, the bounteous Vishnu. Hence Rudra gained his Rudra-strength: O Asvins, ye sought the house that hath celestial viands."(Rig Veda 7.40.5)
Savo deve eko Narayana na dwitiyacha kaschit
"There is only one God, Narayana and no second"(Yajur veda)
Also read Purusha Suktam. It is considered the essence of Vedas and it glorifies Narayana(Vishnu) as the Supreme Being(Purusha).
If you simply think of Krishna as a historical personality or some ordinary man, then heres what Krishna has to say:
Bhagavad Gita 9.11:
avajānanti māḿ mūḍhā
mānuṣīḿ tanum āśritam
paraḿ bhāvam ajānanto
mama bhūta-maheśvaram
Fools deride Me when I descend in the human form. They do not know My transcendental nature as the Supreme Lord of all that be.
You may stick to the views of scholars. But that is not supported by Vedas. Shruti Vedas are eternal and therefore authoress. They were never in written form. The knowledge of shritu Vedas was passed down from one sage to another by the process of hearing until Srila Vyasadeva compiled them all and Ganesha produced them in written form.I think you will find that you are ignoring the historical context here and treating the Vedas as a comprehensive, complete text that was revealed, in much the same way a Christian treats the bible or a Muslim treats the Quran. This is a religious point of view, and hence carries no weight with scholars.
You will find the scholarly consensus widely agrees that the Vedas were composed over long periods of time, with sections added over time by various authors, and these were done among meetings among the Brahmins. Hence we can see various levels of development in thought in the Vedas and can ascertain the chronology of the hymns.
Let me tell you how the Shruti Vedas are structured. Shruti is divided into 3 sections:karma-kanda,upasana-kanda, and jnana-kanda. That's why Vedas are sometimes refereed as trai-vidya. The karma-kanda section talks about rituals which one to perform to gain some material benefit such as residence in heavenly planets, wealth etc. Upasana-kanda talks about worshiping demigods such as Indra, Agni etc. for the same purpose of material benefit but there is some partial application of knowledge. Jnana-kanda is about philosophical knowledge and the Upanishads fall into this category. Acaryas explain that the Vedas are structured like that because the bring the reader from level 0 to the higher levels. e.g. they slowly bring the reader from karma-kanda to upasana-kanda then at last to jnana-kanda. But the thing I am saying is that most of the Vedas are karma-kanda and upasana-kanda which deal with the 3 gunas and therefore there are mostly hymns of various demigods. This is confirmed by Bhagavad Gita:Much like the Old testimant evolution of thought from polytheism gods to monotheistic god, the Vedas also develop from polythestic gods to monotheistic god, and finally pure monism in the Upanishads. The early Vedic culture mainly worshipped Indra, Agni, Mitra-Varuna, Soma, and this is evident because the highest number of hymns are addressed to them. There are are less than half a dozen addressed to Vishnu. Later, however when Vedic thought becomes more monotheistic, there does indeed seem to be a preference for 'Vishnu' to represent the supreme being. This is probably because even in early Vedic thought Vishnu was seen as all all pervading. However, it not unanimous, as some Vedic people prefer 'Shiva'
There are 6 Vedanta schools and only one of them agree with what you said above(advaita). All the rest of the schools greatly refute the idea you mention above. So please don't claim that Vedanta is all about advaita because an unbiased reader will clearly see that advita clearly ignore the hundreds of bheda statements made in Upanishads.However, what cannot be denied is by the times of Vedanta Vedic thought had become purely monistic: Opting for the impersonal and abstract term 'Brahman' and only sparingly using the terms Vishnu or Shiva as epithets.
It should also not go amiss, that the Vedanta directly equate Brahman to the Atman over and over again, to the extent that Atman becomes the most important subject of devotion. The conclusion of the Vedanta is 'the self is the most beloved'
That is not an interpretation but exactly what Krishna said.Again, this is a religious interpretation that treats the Gita as literally being spoken by godhead Krishna on the battlefield of Kurukshetra to prince Arjuna, remote viewed by Sanjaya, transcribed by Ved Vyassa, on dictation from the elephant god Ganesha.
The above is opinion of scholar not what Vedanta or acaryas have said. Human beings even though scholarly will posses 4 defects:Again, scholarly consensus differs, there is more evidence to show that the Gita was composed after the Mahabharata, and then inserted into it. There is clear evidence to show the Gita is a composition, as there are passages within verbatim taken from other sources. But I understand that the scholarly consensus maybe unacceptable to you, as you would probably literally like to believe the Gita is the gospel of Krishna, because of your faith in Krishna.
Clearly once again you put your views above what Vedic literature says. You say that you accept shurti but if you accept shritu then you must accept smirti(Itihasas,Puranas) too. And here's why:Many Hindus regard the Gita as their bible, but not me. The Gita is Smriti it is by definition man-made, remembered or recollected text. I only accept the Sruti as defining of my Aryan religion. As Pleroma says, most Hindus are not truly Aryan. Aryans did not worship Krishna.
You may stick to the views of scholars. But that is not supported by Vedas. Shruti Vedas are eternal and therefore authoress. They were never in written form. The knowledge of shritu Vedas was passed down from one sage to another by the process of hearing until Srila Vyasadeva compiled them all and Ganesha produced them in written form.
This is confirmed by Bhagavad Gita:
trai-guṇya-viṣayā vedā
The Vedas deal mainly with the subject of the three modes of material nature.
Then Krishna tells Arjuna to transcend these modes and be established in the philosophy of Vedanta.
learly once again you put your views above what Vedic literature says. You say that you accept shurti but if you accept shritu then you must accept smirti(Itihasas,Puranas) too. And here's why:
Brihadaranyaka Upanishad (4.5.11) : "The Rig, Yajur, Sama, and Atharva Vedas, the Itihasas, Puranas, Upanishads, verses and mantras, sutras, and the spiritual knowledge and explanations within, all emanate from the Supreme Being."
Brihadaranyaka Upanishad (2.4.10) "As from a fire kindled with wet fuel, clouds of smoke issue forth, so, my dear, verily, from this glorious great God has been breathed forth the Rig-veda, the Yajur-veda, the Sama-veda, Atharvanagirasa, Itihasas, Puranas, science of knowledge, mystic doctrines or Upanishads, pithy verses, aphorisms, elucidations and commentaries. From Him, indeed, are all these breathed forth."
Chāndogya Upaniṣad (7.1.4): the Purāṇas and Mahābhārata, generally known as histories, are mentioned as the fifth Veda.
Now here's some proof from smriti itself:
The Mahabharata (Adi Parva 1.267) explains the necessity of understanding Vedic knowledge with the help of the Puranas: "One should expand and accept the meaning of the Vedas with the help of the Itihasas and Puranas. The Vedas are afraid of being mistreated by one who is ignorant of the Itihasas and Puranas."
Prabhasa-khanda (2.93) section of the Skanda Purana, where it is said, "I consider the Puranas equal to the Vedas."
So clearly Vedic literature itself proves that smriti are not man made but are part of Vedas.
Also I see that a lot of people think that Krishna is just someone newly worshiped and he was not worshiped during ancient times. BUT THIS IS NOT SUPPORTED BY VEDIC LITERATURE BUT SIMPLY AN OPINION. According to Srimad Bhagavatam Lord Brahma the creator of beings was born from the lotus flower coming from the navel of Maha-Vishnu. Brahma was confused and asked to himself who is is his creator, why is he here, what is he. Then he did penance to understand these things. Krishna being pleased with Him appeared before him and said:
aham evasam evagre
nanyad yat sad-asat param
pascad aham yad etac ca
yo 'vasishyeta so 'smy aham
Brahma, it is I, the Personality of Godhead, who was existing before the creation, when there was nothing but Myself. Nor was there the material nature, the cause of this creation. That which you see now is also I, the Personality of Godhead, and after annihilation what remains will also be I, the Personality of Godhead.
Then afterwards Brahma conducts a prayer known as Brahma Samhita. There he clearly says:
īśvaraḥ paramaḥ kṛṣṇaḥ
sac-cid-ānanda-vigrahaḥ
anādir ādir govindaḥ
sarva-kāraṇa-kāraṇam
Kṛṣṇa who is known as Govinda is the Supreme Godhead. He has an eternal blissful spiritual body. He is the origin of all. He has no other origin and He is the prime cause of all causes.
And he says:
govindam ādi-puruṣaḿ tam ahaḿ bhajāmi
I worship Govinda, the primeval Lord.
So it's clear from here that Krishna is the very first person worshiped and in the time of material creation.
There are 6 Vedanta schools and only one of them agree with what you said above(advaita). All the rest of the schools greatly refute the idea you mention above. So please don't claim that Vedanta is all about advaita because an unbiased reader will clearly see that advita clearly ignore the hundreds of bheda statements made in Upanishads.
Sorry sir I should have known better that you have more faith in the limited knowledge of scholars than the eternal Vedic literatures. Thanks for letting me know more clearly.Yeah, I am sorry I am going to stick to the views of scholarship. That is because scholarship is based on actual evidence, and not on faith. I don't do faith sorry. I dismiss everything that cannot be tested and validated by evidence or reasoning. Ultimately, it is scholarship that carries weight in our professional world, nobody in the professional academic world takes arguments from faith seriously.
Again, you lack historical context. The Vedas do not contain the concepts of the trigunas. The triguna concept is a later concept formulated within Samkhya philosophy. The authors of the Gita were aware of Samkhya, Yoga and other current philosophies in India at the time, hence why they included it in the Gita, there is even chapters entitled 'Samkhya Yoga' However, the Samkhya in the Gita is given a theistic spin, whereas classical Samkhya of Kapila is atheist.
Again, no historical context. The word Purana and itihas simply means old and history. The Upanishads refer to a class of literature that existed during that time that contained history. However, the Puranas as they are handed down to us today are not the same Puranas that were existent during Vedic times. They have edited over and over again over the centuries by many hands, redacted many times and new ones composed(much like new Upanishads have also been composed) and this editing on well into the 19th century, as we can clearly see in the Bhavaishya Purana, which contains an explicit reference to Queen Victoria.
I don't take the Puranas seriously. It is possible some parts of the current Puranas are very ancient but it impossible to tell which is old and which is new. Scholarship has reached no consensus, but it is known in scholarship that the Puranas are a relatively recent text, appearing somewhat around the middle ages.
This is mythology. This will not pass of as proof with rational people, as much as the story of Adam and Eve doesn't.
By the Srimad Bhagvatam is recent Puranas, it is dated during the late middle ages by most experts. It thus carries no weight with me. In fact none of the Puranas do. I only accept Sruti, and that too after I have closely read it, analysed it and interrogated it.
I don't see any possibility for there to be any kind of rational discussion between us.
I have read all the principal Upanishads and they all clearly teach Advaita - identity of Atman and Brahman. The very fact that it took a millenia before the other schools of Vedanta emerged is clearly showing that the Upanishads never taught any kind of dualistic philosophy. The Dualistic schools of philosophy emerged within the Vaishnavist tradition by theologians as a need to rationalize the faith in Krishna. As such I give it no weight.
In any case I am all ears as to these hundreds of statements in the principal Upanishads that suggest bheda/dvaita. In all likeliness all these statements you claim are taken out of context.
Sorry sir I should have known better that you have more faith in the limited knowledge of scholars than the eternal Vedic literatures. Thanks for letting me know more clearly.
So from this we can know that the correct philosophy of the Upanishads is neither advaita(since there are bheda statements) nor dvaita(since there are abheda statements). But the rather the philosophy is Achintya Bheda Abheda which literary means inconceivable oneness and difference or simultaneous oneness and difference. This philosophy clearly forms the conclusion of Upanishads.
bulk of the Vedas is addressed to Indra, Agni, Mitra-Varuna, Vayu, not Vishnu. Again, anybody can back me up on this who reads the Vedas. There are thousands of hymns, and only half a dozen say anything about Vishnu. Hence Vishnu is a minor deity in the Vedas. This is fact, born out by referencing the Vedas directly. Nor do those few half dozen that describe Vishnu as supreme change the fact that overall Vishnu is a minor deity in the Vedas, the other Risis even call Indra and Agni supreme, in fact all gods are called supreme by their respective Rishis.
Seems like you need to understand the whole purpose of why Krishna spoke the Bhagavad Gita to Arjuna. Come back after you understand.1) It is highly unlikely that such an in-depth philosophical discourse would be given on the eve of a battle on the battle field, and the two sides would politely wait for the discourse to finish.
What do you expect, the Gita not to have verses similar to Upanishads. It is only because of that Gita is considered a main scripture of Vedanta philosophy. Krishna didn't speak some invented philosophy.2) There are definite passages in the Bhagvad Gita which are directly taken from other Upanishads, such as Katha Upanishad.
Ya you are right and the Gita should because if it didn't then it wouldn't be Vedic.3) There are similar dialogues found throughout Vedic literature stating the same things
The Gita is not contradictory but you think it is. Krishna explains different paths to liberation but Arjuna says its difficult fro Him to follow so in the end Krishna says:4) The Gita is contradictory, describing several different paths and philosophies in the same text, which conveniently cover many of the philosophies in vogue at the time and attempts a reconciliation.
Ganesha simply acted as a scribe, he wrote whatever Vyasadeva told Him. Vyasa had special vision by which he could see present, past, future and Sanjaya also got such vision since he was disciple of Vyasa.5) Why would the elephant headed god come to dictate the entire story of the Mahabharata to the eternal Ved Vyassa, including knowing the entire discourse given to Arjuna and how did he know that Sanjaya was remote viewing the discourse, and why would the Gita be explained from the perspective of Sanjaya explaining to the king what is happening and not Ganesha's perspective? This all basically gives away the explanation of its authorship is obviously mythology and fantasy.
Have you read Sankaracarya's Gita Bhashya. I don't think so because if you did you wouldn't constantly question the supremacy of Vishnu:Don't get me wrong. I appreciate the Gita as an interesting philosophical text, with a deserved reputation as a classic, but I do not buy into the mythology sorry.
Well my hypothesis is that your so-called Bheda statements are taken out of context. I cannot test whether my hypothesis is correct or incorrect, because you have not given any references to where I can find the statements you cited. Please provide references so I can do my own investigations.
Ganesha simply acted as a scribe, he wrote whatever Vyasadeva told Him. Vyasa had special vision by which he could see present, past, future and Sanjaya also got such vision since he was disciple of Vyasa.
Your idea is whatever I see I believe. But guess what you can't see your own brain and I guess it can be concluded that you really have no brain and it's simply just mythology and fantasy.