1. 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:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

why hindus worship rama,krishna...?

Discussion in 'Same Faith Debates' started by Yuva, Aug 19, 2012.

  1. Yuva

    Yuva New Member

    Messages:
    1
    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?
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 19, 2012
  2. Ekanta

    Ekanta sai ram

    Messages:
    299
    You can think of God with a form
    You can think of God with a name
    You can think of God with some attributes
    Why is one foolish and the other one not? If it helps, as stated, its good. There is idol worship in every religion. Some worship a man on a cross, some a book, some a name and some a picture. Since when is God limited to either of them? They all end up foolish in the end (since God is not that).
    BUT its only foolish or inappropriate to the one who has gone beyond them. For him/her it would be wrong to fall back. Likewise its equally wrong to condemn "idol worship" for those who need it.

    Compare to what Kena Upanishad says:
    1.5 That which cannot be expressed by speech, but by which speech is expressed - That alone know as Brahman and not that which people here worship.
    1.6 That which cannot be apprehended by the mind, but by which, they say, the mind is apprehended - That alone know as Brahman and not that which people here worship.
    1.7 That which cannot be perceived by the eye, but by which the eye is perceived - That alone know as Brahman and not that which people here worship.
    1.8 That which cannot he heard by the ear, but by which the hearing is perceived - That alone know as Brahman and not that which people here worship.
    1.9 That which cannot be smelt by the breath, but by which the breath smells an object - That alone know as Brahman and not that which people here worship.
     
  3. Vinayaka

    Vinayaka devotee

    Messages:
    14,584
    Its really hard to say why things developed historically the way they did. Your guess is as good as mine. But now is now, and then was then. Things change. Things evolve. The Koran and Bible are not part of Hinduism, but yes the Vedas don't mention these particular names. Why? Well, its hard to say really. Why is the sky blue?
     
  4. Surya Deva

    Surya Deva New Member

    Messages:
    2,572
    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.
     
  5. Haridas

    Haridas Humble servant of Kṛṣṇa

    Messages:
    22
    Please tell me how much of Vedas you have read, I am curious :)
    If you are right about Krishna, Rama, Vishnu not being mentioned in Vedas, then I wonder why Krishna would say:

    Bhagavad Gita 15.15:
    sarvasya cāhaṁ hṛdi sanniviṣṭo
    mattaḥ smṛtir jñānam apohanaṁ ca
    vedaiś ca sarvair aham eva vedyo
    vedānta-kṛd veda-vid eva cāham

    I am seated in everyone’s heart, and from Me come remembrance, knowledge and forgetfulness. By all the Vedas, I am to be known. Indeed, I am the compiler of Vedānta, and I am the knower of the Vedas.

    Bhagavad Gita 15.18:
    yasmāt kṣaram atīto ’ham
    akṣarād api cottamaḥ
    ato ’smi loke vede ca
    prathitaḥ puruṣottamaḥ

    Because I am transcendental, beyond both the fallible and the infallible, and because I am the greatest, I am celebrated both in the world and in the Vedas as that Supreme Person.
     
    Last edited: Aug 20, 2012
    Acintya_Ash likes this.
  6. Satyamavejayanti

    Satyamavejayanti Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,462
    Religion:
    Sanatana Dharmah
    Because Ram and Krishna were great heroes and lived and fought for dharma.

    Vishnu, because its one of the attributes of the supreme OM, or Saguna Brahman.

    Koran and Bible are not Hindu texts, Hindus don't have to adhere to these.

    Vedas speak of Vishnu as one of the many attributes of Brahman (OM).

    Vedas don't speak of Rama or Krishna because, both Rama and Krishna came after the Vedas were revealed.

    Vedas are not prophecies of things to come, nor do they contain in them any history, that is why historical figures such as Rama and Krishna are not mentioned
     
    Last edited: Aug 19, 2012
  7. Haridas

    Haridas Humble servant of Kṛṣṇa

    Messages:
    22
    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.
     
    Last edited: Aug 20, 2012
  8. Pleroma

    Pleroma philalethist

    Messages:
    665
    Religion:
    Valentinianism, Sauram, Tibetan Buddhism, Taoism, Paganism and Neoplatonism
    The followers of Vedas were called as Aryans and they don't worship rama, krishna, vishnu etc. They worship Indra, Mithra, Prajapathi, Prana, Agni, Soma etc.

    Hindus are not Aryans and they worship rama, krishna, vishnu etc etc. They became popular as we lost our divinity in us.
     
    Last edited: Aug 20, 2012
  9. Surya Deva

    Surya Deva New Member

    Messages:
    2,572
    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.

    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'

    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'

    The Vedanta is very much like a new testimant of the Vedic people, bringing focus and emphasis on Jnana as opposed to Karma(in the ritual sense) However, it is strange how modern Hindus still seem to be stuck in the Old testimant. I don't think most Hindus are even aware of the Vedanta.





    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.

    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.

    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.
     
  10. Haridas

    Haridas Humble servant of Kṛṣṇa

    Messages:
    22
    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.

    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:
    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.
    nistrai-guṇyo bhavārjuna
    O Arjuna, become transcendental to these three modes.
    But also note that all the hymns conducted to various demigods such as Indra, Agni etc. do glorify them but not in a manner that they are Supreme God. Vedas make it clear that Vishnu or Narayan is Supreme God as I have shown you the verses in previous verse.

    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.

    That is not an interpretation but exactly what Krishna said.

    The above is opinion of scholar not what Vedanta or acaryas have said. Human beings even though scholarly will posses 4 defects:
    1.bhrama (he/she is illusioned)
    2.pramada (he/she has the tendency to make errors)
    3.aranapatava (he/she has imperfect senses)
    4.vipralipsa (he/she has the tendency of cheating)
    But these defect are not present in Vedanta since they are transcendental. Nor are in acaryas because they are God-realized. Bhagavad Gita is sometimes called Gitopanishad and here's reasoning acaryas give:
    Bhagavad Gita has all the qualities of an Upanishad, it describes the essence of Vedic knowledge and it is spoken by the Supreme Lord Krishna Himself. All the acaryas of Vedanta schools say that Bhagavad Gita along with other texts makes the formation of Vedanta philosophy. So it is clearly to that you don't follow what the acaryas nor what Vedic literature has said but you are simply stuck to your or some scholar's opinion.

    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:

    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.
     
    Last edited: Aug 20, 2012
    Hinduism♥Krishna likes this.
  11. Surya Deva

    Surya Deva New Member

    Messages:
    2,572
    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.
     
    Last edited: Aug 20, 2012
  12. Surya Deva

    Surya Deva New Member

    Messages:
    2,572
    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.
     
  13. Haridas

    Haridas Humble servant of Kṛṣṇa

    Messages:
    22
    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.
     
    Last edited: Aug 20, 2012
  14. Haridas

    Haridas Humble servant of Kṛṣṇa

    Messages:
    22
    You probably read the Upanishads with the translations or commentaries of advaitins. So what conclusion do you expect to come?

    Anyways, there are 3 types of verses in the Upanishads:
    1.Abheda Sruti
    2.Bheda Sruti
    3.Ghataka Sruti
    The Abheda Srutis seems to state that the universe (all chit and achit entities) and the Brahman are one and the same. They seem to convey the identity of the universe and the Brahman.
    The Bhedha Srutis seems to categorically declare the difference between the Brahman and the universe.
    The Ghataka Sruti synchronizes the above two types of sruthis and resolves the apparent contradiction in the above mentioned two types of Srutis. The explanation follows.
    Some Abheda Srutis: (which advaitins use)
    "Tat Tvam Asi", "Sarvam Kalu Idam Brahma", "Aham Brahmaasmi" are a few verses amoung the Abedha Sruthis.
    "Tat Tvam Asi" seems to tell that the Jeevaatman (Chit) and the Brahman (Iswara) are one and the same.
    "Sarvam Kalu Idam Brahma" seems to tell that the universe and the Brahman are one and the same.
    "Aham Brahmaasmi" seems to tell that "I (Jeevaatman) am the Brahman". These verses have declared that the universe and the Brahman are one and the same.

    Bheda Sruti (which dvaita uses)
    "Prutak Aatmaanam Preritaaram cha mathva jushtasthathastenaamrutavamethi" means that the Jeevaatman who comprehends and does Bhakthi that he is different from Brahman, who rules him, becomes blessed by the Brahman's grace and by this knowledge of Bhedam (difference between Jeevaatman and Brahman), attains liberation (Moksha). This sruthi not only confirms the difference between the Jeevaatman and the Paramaatman (Brahman) but also stresses that the "Tatva-iGnyaana" (Knowledge about the reality of chit, achit and Iswara that are different from one another) is a means for attaining liberation.
    "Bhoktha Bhogyam Prerithaaram cha mathva sarvam proktham trividham brahma ethat" means "Bhotha" is Jeevaatman (Chit) who enjoys the results of his own karma. Bhogyam is Achit that is enjoyed by the Jeevaatman according to his own karma. Preritha denotes Iswara who controls all the Chit and Achit entities. Further "cha mathva sarvam proktham trividham brahma ethat" in this verse confirms that the Brahman has the Chit and Achit as his modes/forms and he is with his own unique reality. Therefore the Veda has clearly ascertained the reality of three different entities namely chit, achit and Iswara.
    "Nithyo Nithyaanaam chethanas chethanaanaam Eko bhahuunaam yo vidadhaathi kaamaan" clearly states that among the innumerable eternally existing Atmans, an Atman is eternally existing who is distinguished from all the Atmans as he grants and fulfills the wishes of all the other Atmans. Amoung the inumerable Atmans who have knowledge, there exist an Atman who is having knowledge who is distinguished from all the Atmans as he grants and fulfills the wishes of all the other Atmans. Here the Veda has clearly declared that the Iswara is different from the Jeevaatmans as it says "That One Atman who is different from all other Atmans because of his unparalleled and unsurpassed supreme qualities that are unique to him"
    "Pradhaana Kshetragjnya pathir guNesha:" means that Iswara is the Lord is of Achit and Chit and Iswara is with divine qualities namely Power, Strength, Lordship, Firmness, Knowledge and Glory which are beyond the reach of all words and sense organs.

    Ghataka Sruti (The Conclusion)
    "Ya: Pruthviyaam tishtan prutviyaa antharo yam pruthvii na veda yasya pruthvii sareeram" is in the Kaanva Shaaka of Bruhadaaranyaka Upanishad in Veda. It declares that the "Brahman is in the earth, entered inside it, who is not known by the earth and has the earth as his body/mode and controls the earth as Antaryaami" The Brahman is untouched by the impurities of the earth as he is the soul of it.
    "Ya: Aatmani tishtan aatmano antharo yam aatmaa na veda yasya aatmaa sareeram" is in the Maadyanthina Shaaka of the same Uupanishad in Veda. It declares that the "Brahman is in the Jeevaatman, entered inside it, who is not known by the Jeevaatman and has the Jeevaatman as his body/mode and controls the Jeevaatman as Antaryaami" The Brahman is untouched by the impurities of the Jeevaatman as he is the soul of it.

    THE FINAL CONCLUSION OF GHATAKA SHRUTI:
    "iDvaa suparNaa sayujaa sakhaayaa samaanam vruksham pareshasvajaathe - tayoranya: pipalam swaadvathyanasnan anyoo abhichaakaseethi"
    This is in MuNdakopanishad of Veda. It says that "Two birds having some attributes similar to each other are friends and are seated in a branch of one tree. Of these two birds, one bird eats the fruits of the tree, which are ripe. On the other hand the other bird does not eat the fruits and as such shines extraordinarily" From this verse, it is made clear by the Veda that both the Jeevaatman and the Paramaatman (Brahman-Vishnu) are present in the same body. The Jeevaatman enjoys and experiences the results of his karma (actions). On the other hand the Brahman just witnesses it and being untouched by such impurities shines with his natural greatness which is immeasurable. The Veda has ascertained that the Jeevaatman and the Paramaatman are always present together inseparably and also categorically ascertained the differences between the Jeevaatman and the Paramaatman.
    Thus the Ghataka Sruti does the synthesis of all the Bheda and Abheda sruties and establishes that the Brahman is the soul of all chit and achit entities and the entire chit and achit entities are resting on Brahman that is what Krishna saying in Bhagavad Gita:

    Bhagavad Gita 9.4: By Me, in My unmanifested form, this entire universe is pervaded. All beings are in Me, but I am not in them.
    Bhagavad Gita 9.5: And yet everything that is created does not rest in Me. Behold My mystic opulence! Although I am the maintainer of all living entities and although I am everywhere, I am not a part of this cosmic manifestation, for My Self is the very source of creation.

    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.
     
    Last edited: Aug 21, 2012
  15. Surya Deva

    Surya Deva New Member

    Messages:
    2,572
    Like I said I do not do faith. I look at evidence and I reason and come to my own conclusions. There is plenty of evidence to show that the Vedas evolved over time in the internal evidence itself, showing clearly show the evolution from polytheistic to montheistic and ultimately monistic thought in the Upanishads.

    The 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.

    Similarly, though I would not go as far as to say it is fact, but it is highly likely based on the preponderance of evidence the Bhagvad Gita is a composition which has been later added to the Mahabharata. The following are the reasons for this

    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.
    2) There are definite passages in the Bhagvad Gita which are directly taken from other Upanishads, such as Katha Upanishad.
    3) There are similar dialogues found throughout Vedic literature stating the same things
    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.
    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.

    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.
     
    Last edited: Aug 20, 2012
  16. Surya Deva

    Surya Deva New Member

    Messages:
    2,572
    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.
     
  17. Haridas

    Haridas Humble servant of Kṛṣṇa

    Messages:
    22
    Dear Surya Deva,
    You said that Indra and Agni is declared supreme but do show some evindence from Vedas. You clearly contradict these verses from Vedas:

    agnirvai devanamavamo vishnuh paramah tadantara sarva devatah
    "Agni is the lowest and Vishnu is the highest among devas. All other gods occupy positions that are in between." (Aitareya Brahmana 1.1.1)

    Taittiriya Samhita 5.5.1:
    aniravamo devatAnAM viShNuH paramaH
    "Vishnu is Supreme among the devatas."

    "Then we shall expound the Mahopanishad. They say Narayana was alone. There were not Brahma, Shiva, Waters, Fire and Soma, Heaven and Earth, Stars, Sun and Moon. He could not be happy" (Maha Upanishad I-1-4)

    "Narayana desired to create people. Because of this thought, Soul (prana) rose from him. Mind and all body parts, sky, air, light, water and the earth which can carry all these created beings took their form. From Narayana, Brahma was born. From Narayana, Rudra (Shiva) was born. From Narayana, Indra was born .From Narayana those people who rule these human beings were born. From Narayana, the twelve suns, eleven Rudras, Eight Vasus and all those meters (for writing) were born. All these function because of Narayana. All these end in Narayana. Thus is read, the Upanishads of Rig Veda."(Narayana Upanishad)

    In the Moksha-dharma Krishna also says,
    prajapatim ca rudram capy
    aham eva srijami vai
    tau hi mam na vijanito
    mama maya-vimohitau
    “The patriarchs, Shiva and others are created by Me, though they do not know that they are created by Me because they are deluded by My illusory energy.”

    Aranyopanisad 5th mantra it is said:
    tad visnoh paramam padam sada pasyanti surayah
    diviva caksur atatam visnor yat paramam padam
    "The wise continuously see the highest form of Visnu. This supreme form, perceived with spiritual eyes, is Krsna."

    In the GopAla-tApani Upanishad (Pürva 2.8) it is stated:
    eko vazI sarva-gaH kRSNa IDyaH
    eko ’pi san bahudhA yo ’vabhAti
    Sri KRSNa is the all-pervasive, non-dual para-brahma who controls everything. He is the only worshipable object for all the devatAs, for mankind, and for all other life-forms.
    Although He is one, through His acintya-zakti He manifests many forms and performs many varieties of lilAs.

    These are just as few verses. Tell me if you want to know more.

    Seems like you need to understand the whole purpose of why Krishna spoke the Bhagavad Gita to Arjuna. Come back after you understand.

    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.

    Ya you are right and the Gita should because if it didn't then it wouldn't be Vedic.
    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:
    sarva-dharman parityajya
    mam ekam saranam vraja
    aham tvam sarva-papebhyo
    moksayisyami ma sucah
    Abandon all varieties of religion and just surrender unto Me. I shall deliver you from all sinful reactions. Do not fear.

    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.
    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:
    Sankara only identifies God (isvara) as Visnu, rather than as any other deity. In his Gita commentary (13.2), isvara is identified with Visnu: isvarasya visnoh.

    sa-hetukasya saṁsārasyātyantoparamātmakam
    paraṁ niśreyasaṁ gītā-śāstrasyoktaṁ prayojanam
    sac-cid-ānanda-rūpaṁ tat pūrṇaṁ viṣṇoḥ paraṁ padam
    [Shankara said that] the purpose of the Gita is to attain the supreme good, which is defined as the complete cessation of saṁsāra*and its causes. That goal is known as the supreme abode of Vishnu, the form of eternal life, consciousness and bliss. (Sankaracarya's Gita Bhashya 2-3)

    One thing I really concluded from your posts: opinions... opinions...opinions....If you are gonna continue with opinions then I will not continue any longer. I am not a guy that believes in the limited intelligence of any human being over the eternal Vedic literatures which you identify as mythical.
     
    Last edited: Aug 21, 2012
  18. Haridas

    Haridas Humble servant of Kṛṣṇa

    Messages:
    22
    Sure, here it is:
    Nithyo Nithyaanaam chethanas chethanaanaam Eko bhahuunaam yo vidadhaathi kaamaan comes from Katha Upanishad 2.2.9.

    Bhoktha Bhogyam Prerithaaram cha mathva sarvam proktham trividham brahma ethat comes from Shvetashvatara Upanishad 1.12

    Pradhaana Kshetragjnya pathir guNesha from Shvetashvatara Upanishad 6.16

    Prutak Aatmaanam Preritaaram cha mathva jushtasthathastenaamrutavamethi from Shvetashvatara Upanishad 1.6
     
  19. Haridas

    Haridas Humble servant of Kṛṣṇa

    Messages:
    22
    Also Surya Deva watch this video it will do some help:
    youtube.com/watch?v=Ud1oEFfOrbQ
     
  20. Surya Deva

    Surya Deva New Member

    Messages:
    2,572
    Nah, sorry, eternal sage that lives for thousands of years, also edited the Vedas and the Puranas, tells the elephant god to transcribe a great story of wars between the Bharata clans and also knows about the great discourse given by the supreme lord himself in a battlefield while the two sides politely waited for the discourse to end before they started slaughtering each other is obviously mythology. It sounds ludicrous, because it is likely is.
    I will never believe in such things without evidence, for I do not want to insult my intelligence.

    You are making assumptions. I never said I only believe what I see. I believe only what is supported with hard evidence and is reasonable. I believe in atoms, because they are supported by tons of hard empirical evidence. I believe in blackholes for the same reason. I believe in the battle of Hastings, because it is documented extensively by historians. I even have fairly good reason to believe the Mahabharata war did take place and the historical Krishna existed. But I don't believe in mythological histories like baby Hanuman flew up and swallowed the sun, as much as I don't believe in the tooth fairy or Santa Clause.

    It is probably better we not have this discussion. You are a man of faith and I am a man of reason. However, I will get back to you on the Upanishad references you have given :)
     
Verification:
Draft saved Draft deleted