My next question comes from a statement someone said a while back. I think ti was Vinayaka and Jainarayan(sorry for mentioning your names if you didn't want me to) added to it with his cute story of the drowning man(thank you for that). the idea of if there are too many deities on a shrine which is God? I think Vinayaka said if a grandchild asks who is God he can look at Shiva and say "He is". So now I wonder if I do add more tot he shrine how does one make sure not to get to "convoluted"? to have the many deities but still have that one special whom to you is God?
sorry I know these question may sound silly to you but in terms of Hindus practice I am an equivalent to a child (2 years is a short time) asking why and how, to question you may have answered years ago. So bare with me?
Namaste,
But, don't you think the question "Who is God?" shows the problem of today regarding Hinduism?
For example: in Ancient Greece, no one would really ask, "who is God?"...nor would anyone ask such a question in Ancient Rome. And, I doubt someone would ask such a question in Vedic India (really Ancient India).
If a very young child from my family were to ask me "but, MV, who is God? there are so many murtis here in your altar"....
I would answer saying "there is no 'god'...there are Gods..."
The mere notion of plurality and multiplicity isn't the sign of a backward conception - polytheism is very intricate and highly complex; polytheism expounds upon a heightened and evolved consciousness....
A normal mind would have no problem sticking with one; but an evolved consciousness could never stick to just one "god" - it would be too contradictory and even too one-dimensional.
It takes more thinking power to come up with more "Gods" than it does with "one god".
Monotheism, to me (in my opinion), is like simple mathematics. Polytheism, to me (in my opinion), is like Calculus - Calculus expounds upon the notion of an evolved consciousness, more brainpower, more thought processing is involved.
If the Rig Vedic Seers/Priests were monotheists, they would have stopped at "ekam sat" (even though that verse isn't attributed to what many falsely believe as the "One True God"); there would have been no need to construct reveled hymns to other deities.
Many will purport (without scriptural evidence) that
"Oh, MV, you are being too weird: all these deities are just metaphors and blah blah blah". Really guys; just metaphors? Why are you guys taking an easy way out and not even traversing upon the intricate evolved consciousness expressed in the Shri Vedas? - is something I would ask them. The Shri Rig Veda even has a word for those types of "manipulators" - they are referred to as the "withholders".
The biggest hindrance to the revival of Vedic religion in India is the Arya Samaj. Probably you have heard of them and probably you have not. But, there goal is to spread the false lie that the Vedas (and especially Shri Rig Veda) talk about a One True God.
If the Seers/Rishis/Priests of Vedic India were alive today, they would curse these ruffians and profaners of the holy (which would be the "withholders") into oblivion for manipulating the Vedic religion.
Coming back on track: I would reply to someone who asked me "who is god" after looking at my altar with the simple answer of "there is no god, there are only Gods".
I don't care, call me a heathen, call me a kafir, call me even an anārya and avrata (Sanskrit for non-Arya; for someone who doesn't heed the fire rites; which would be ironic since I would be the only person who would actually be heeding to the Vrata ideals - conduction of fire rites).
I am Vedic as they come.
If Hindus have a problem of me not believing in their "One True God", so be it. I have no problem with what and how they worship. Just don't call me wrong, otherwise I will go Rig Vedic on those people and make them believe that the Rig Veda isn't even Hindu. Who do they think they are? Last time I checked, Hindus don't force their religion and sectarian ideas on other people, especially not other Hindus.
In my opinion, I believe that certain Hindus get very sensitive when other Hindus practice polytheism; they either see it as an attack to their own Hindu foundation or they see my way of Hinduism as a corruption. But, how in the world could it be a corruption? If I applied their logic, it would be logical for me to say that their monotheism is the actual corruption - making Lord Shri Indra as a demigod, making Lord Shri Varuna a demigod who gets defeated by a human incarnation, etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. (By the way, I love Lord Shri Ram - so don't get me wrong). In essence, it is these Hindu monotheists that have turned Vedicism upside down. It is them who have went away from the path of the sacrificial fire and the consumption of Soma.
They purport that their way of Hinduism is the truth; and that my way of Hinduism is wrong and evil (there words, not mine). Well, if they have the audacity to say that, then it is fair for me to state that "true Hinduism" died out around 500 BCE when the Buddha was born and was completely made obsolete by 200 BCE during the time of the newly converted Buddhist Emperor Ashoka.
The "Hinduism" that revived itself around 200 AD was a mixture of Jainism, Buddhism, and Vedicism.
But, when I lay these points to the Hindu monotheists, they call me even more names. Well, what did they expect? Cotton candy and Twix candy bars???
They can't expect to insult and not receive discontent in the end.
future son/daughter of mine: "Father, who is god?"
me: "there is no god, there are Gods....with an "s"..."
M.V.
ps - This was not addressed to anyone here on RF.
