• 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!

New Deities

Aupmanyav

Be your own guru
tadaikṣata, tatsṛṣṭvā tadevānuprāviśat.
Tad ikshata: who desired, Tat srishtva: who created, Tad eva anuprāviśat: who verily entered.

तमिद गर्भं परथमं दध्र आपो यत्र देवाःसमगछन्त विश्वे l
अजस्य नाभावध्येकमर्पितंयस्मिन विश्वानि भुवनानि तस्थुः ll
tamid gharbhaṃ prathamaṃ dadhra āpo yatra devāḥsamaghachanta viśve l
ajasya nābhāvadhyekamarpitaṃyasmin viśvāni bhuvanāni tasthuḥ ll
(RV 10.82.6)
The waters, they received that germ primeval wherein the Gods were gathered all together.
It rested set upon the Unborn's navel, that One wherein abide all things existing.

What proves that the 'Unborn' is Vishnu? Perhaps the 'unborn' was Rudra.
 
Last edited:

kalyan

Aspiring Sri VaishNava
Shiva is not Rudra. And Rudra is not son of Brahma. Rudra is an (Swayambhuh) Aryan God, and Shiva is a (Swayambhuh) Dravidian God. In India, they merged, just like the Dravidian Gods Krishna, Rama, Parashurama, Vamana, Nrisimha, Varaha, Kurma and Matsya merged with Vishnu. But there are many views.
no offense but ...lol.....10 lols..
 

Aupmanyav

Be your own guru
no offense but ...lol.....10 lols..
You are welcome. :)

The celestial gods (in Vedas) are Dyaus, Varuna, Mitra, Surya, Savitr, Pusan, the Asvins, and the goddesses Usas (Dawns) and Ratri (Night). A Vedic Reader (Excerpts)

Dyaus/Dyava (Sky) and Prithivi (Earth) were the first deities and parents of all Gods of Indo-Aryans. By Mandala 10, Aryans had nearly forgotten them.

(I could have corrected the Sanskrit rendering and the English transliteration at places, but I skip it because it will take a long time. Sorry for that.)

पर दयावा यज्ञैः पर्थिवी नमोभिः सबाध ईळे बर्हतीयजत्रे l
ते चिद धि पूर्वे कवयो गर्णन्तः पुरो मही दधिरे देवपुत्रे ll
पर पूर्वजे पितरा नव्यसीभिर्गीर्भिः कर्णुध्वं सदने रतस्य l
आ नो दयावाप्र्थिवी दैव्येन जनेन यातं महि वां वरूथम ll RV 7.53.1-2

pra dyāvā yajñaiḥ pṛthivī namobhiḥ sabādha īḷe bṛhatīyajatre l
te cid dhi pūrve kavayo ghṛṇantaḥ puro mahī dadhire devaputre ll
pra pūrvaje pitarā navyasībhirghīrbhiḥ kṛṇudhvaṃ sadane ṛtasya l
ā no dyāvāpṛthivī daivyena janena yātaṃ mahi vāṃ varūtham ll

AS priest with solemn rites and adorations I worship Heaven and Earth, the High and Holy.
To them, great Parents of the Gods, have sages of ancient time, singing, assigned precedence.
With newest hymns set in the seat of Order, those the Two Parents, born before all others,
Come, Heaven and Earth, with the Celestial People, hither to us, for strong is your protection.

स तू नो अग्निर नयतु परजानन्न अछा रत्नं देवभक्तं यद अस्य l
धिया यद विश्वे अम्र्ता अक्र्ण्वन दयौष पिता जनिता सत्यम उक्षन ll RV 4.1.10

sa tū no aghnir nayatu prajānann achā ratnaṃ devabhaktaṃ yad asya l
dhiyā yad viśve amṛtā akṛṇvan dyauṣ pitā janitā satyam ukṣan ll

Let Agni -for he knows the way- conduct us to all that he enjoys of God-sent riches,
What all the Immortals have prepared with wisdom, Dyaus, Sire, Begetter, raining down true blessings.

पर दयावा यज्ञैः पर्थिवी रताव्र्धा मही सतुषे विदथेषु परचेतसा l
देवेभिर्ये देवपुत्रे सुदंससेत्था धिया वार्याणि परभूषतः ll RV 1.159.1

pra dyāvā yajñaiḥ pṛthivī ṛtāvṛdhā mahī stuṣe vidatheṣu pracetasā l
devebhirye devaputre sudaṃsasetthā dhiyā vāryāṇi prabhūṣataḥ ll

I PRAISE with sacrifices mighty Heaven and Earth at festivals, the wise, the Strengtheners of Law.
Who, having Gods for progeny, conjoined with Gods, through wonder-working wisdom bring forth choicest boons.

देवी देवेभिर यजते यजत्रैर अमिनती तस्थतुर उक्षमाणे l
रतावरी अद्रुहा देवपुत्रे यज्ञस्य नेत्री शुचयद्भिर अर्कैः ll RV 4.56.2

devī devebhir yajate yajatrair aminatī tasthatur ukṣamāṇe l
ṛtāvarī adruhā devaputre yajñasya netrī śucayadbhir arkaiḥ ll

The Goddesses with Gods, holy with holy, the Two stand pouring out their rain, exhaustless:
Faithful and guileless, having Gods for children, leaders of sacrifice with shining splendours.

ऊर्जं नो दयौश्च पर्थिवी च पिन्वतां पिता माता विश्वविदा सुदंससा l
संरराणे रोदसी विश्वशम्भुवा सनिं वाजं रयिमस्मे समिन्वताम ll RV 6.70.6

ūrjaṃ no dyauśca pṛthivī ca pinvatāṃ pitā mātā viśvavidā sudaṃsasā l
saṃrarāṇe rodasī viśvaśambhuvā saniṃ vājaṃ rayimasme saminvatām ll

May Heaven and Earth make food swell plenteously for us, all-knowing Father, Mother, wondrous in their works.
Pouring out bounties, may, in union, both the Worlds, all beneficial, send us gain, and power, and wealth.

Dyaus Pitr is the same as Greek Zeus Pater or the later Latin Ju piter (who was equated with the brightest planet in the sky, Jupiter). Same with Hindus who called it Brahaspati. This is because both Greeks and Indo-Iranians were Aryans, the former being the Western branch and the latter the Eastern branch.
 
Last edited:

spiritualhitchhiker

neti, neti, neti
Shiva is not Rudra. And Rudra is not son of Brahma. Rudra is an (Swayambhuh) Aryan God, and Shiva is a (Swayambhuh) Dravidian God. In India, they merged, just like the Dravidian Gods Krishna, Rama, Parashurama, Vamana, Nrisimha, Varaha, Kurma and Matsya merged with Vishnu. But there are many views.

Aryans and Dravidians are myths.
 

Aupmanyav

Be your own guru
IMHO, they are not. Alexander met the Ariani (Aryans) in Herat. The five tribes, 'Pancha-Janas' of Aryans who came to India were Yadu, Puru, Druhyu, Turvasu, and Anu. Gujaratis, Maharashtrians, Telegus, Kannadas and Tamils are mentioned in Hindu books as 'Pancha-Dravidas'.

"Alexander deprived the Ariani of them, and established there settlements of his own. But Seleucus Nicator gave them to Sandrocottus in consequence of a marriage contract, and received in return five hundred elephants." - Strabo 15.2.9

The Greek term "Arachosia" corresponds to the Aryan land of Harauti (Zoroastrian Harahvaiti, Vedic Saraswati) which was around modern-day Helmand. The Arachosian capital or metropolis was called Alexandria or Alexandropolis and lay in what is today Kandahar in Afghanistan. Arachosia was a part of the region of ancient Ariana. "Arachosia" was named after the name of a river that runs through it, in Greek Arachōtós, today known as the Arghandab, a left bank tributary of the Helmand.

Isidorus of Charax in his 1st century CE "Parthian stations" itinerary described an "Alexandropolis, the metropolis of Arachosia", which he said was still Greek even at such a late time:

"Beyond is Arachosia. And the Parthians call this White India; there are the city of Biyt and the city of Pharsana and the city of Chorochoad and the city of Demetrias; then Alexandropolis, the metropolis of Arachosia; it is Greek, and by it flows the river Arachotus. As far as this place the land is under the rule of the Parthians."

The theory of Croatian origin traces the origin of the Croats to today's Afghanistan, more precisely in the area of Arachosia. This connection was at first drawn due to the similarity of Croatian (Croatia - Croatian: Hrvatska, Croats - Croatian: Hrvati / Čakavian dialect: Harvati / Kajkavian dialect: Horvati) and Arachosian name, but other researches indicate that there are also linguistic, cultural, agrobiological and genetic ties. Since Croatia became an independent state in 1991, the Iranian theory gained more popularity, and many scientific papers and books have been published.
Arachosia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ariana was a general geographical term used by some Greek and Roman authors of the ancient period for a district of wide extent between Central Asia and the Indus River, comprehending the eastern provinces of the Achaemenid Empire that covered the entirety of modern day Afghanistan, and parts of Iran, Pakistan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan.

The Greek term Arianē is based upon an Iranian word found in Avestan, Airiianəm Vaēǰō, the name of the Iranian peoples' mother country). The modern name Iran represents a different form of the ancient name Ariana and implies that Iran is "the" Ariana itself - a word of Old Iranian origin - a view supported by the traditions of the country .. The Greeks also referred to Haroyum/Haraiva (Herat) as 'Aria', which is one of the many provinces found in Ariana.

The names Ariana and Aria, and many other ancient titles of which Aria is a component element, are connected with the Sanskrit term Arya-, the Avestan term Airya-, and the Old Persian term Ariya-, ..
Ariana - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"During the period of the Achaemenid Empire (ca. 550-330 BC), the surrounding district was known as Haraiva (in Old Persian), and in classical sources the region was correspondingly known as Aria (Areia). In the Zoroastrian Avesta, the district is mentioned as Haroiva. The name of the district and its main town is derived from that of the chief river of the region, the Hari River (Zoroastrian - Haroyu, Old Iranian Haryrud, "Silken Water", Sanskrit - Sarayu), which traverses the district and passes some 5 km south of modern Herāt. .. Herodotus described Herat as the bread-basket of Central Asia.
Herat - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Afghanistan_region_during_500_BC.jpg
170px-Ruins_of_old_Kandahar_Citadel_in_1881.jpg
200px-PtolemyCentralAsia.jpg

Old Kandahar - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, Ptolemy's map of Area (Herat)
 
Last edited:

spiritualhitchhiker

neti, neti, neti
And you think that proves Aryans and Dravidians as two distinct people? How?

I told you before 'Dravida' is a description of the place, not ethnicity.
 

Aupmanyav

Be your own guru
And where is that place?
However, I was hugely surprised to find an Arian Shahr in Khorasan near Iran-Pakistan border, 186 miles West-South-West of Herat. Here is the Google World image (Click on the image to get it in original size):

Arian Shahr.jpg

The trilingual inscription erected by Shapur's command gives us a more clear description. The languages used are Parthian, Middle Persian and Greek. In Greek the inscription says: "ego ... tou Arianon ethnous despotes eimi" which translates to "I am the king of the Aryans". In the Middle Persian Shapour says: "I am the Lord of the EranShahr" and in Parthian he says: "I am the Lord of AryanShahr".
Aryan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Shapur I, also known as Shapur I the Great, was the second shahanshah (king of kings) of the Sasanian Empire. The dates of his reign are commonly given as AD 240/42 – 270/72.
 
Last edited:

Aupmanyav

Be your own guru
Just wondering, but this is the entire Yajur Veda right?
I am a RigVeda expert and not a Yajurveda expert, Sort of Aupmanyav RigVedi. :)

More information about Iranshahr: Before 1935 the city was called Pahrah (Persian: پهره‎), also spelt Poora, Poorah, and Pura. .. Bampur, where the ancient Bampur fort is located, is nearby. .. The old citadel of Bampur, on a hill about 100 feet (30 m) high 3 miles (4.8 km) north of the river, fell into ruins.

Qal‘eh-ye Nāşerī, Iranshahr; Bampur fort
250px-Ghaleh_naseri.jpg
Bampur_Parthian_Fort1_small.jpg

My question: Is Bampur really Vamapur, the city on the left (of the river)? The river flows East to West. So, coming from Iran side it will actually be Vamapur since it is situated North of the river.
 
Last edited:

Kirran

Premium Member
so who do you say is Brahman ?

There is no one figure who is Brahman, as it depends who you ask :)

Brahman is just That, any faces and personages we refer to Brahman as are just our own minds complexifying things.

It does to many people and I am with them if that floats their boat. 'Vipra bahudha vadanti'.

Fair enough :) It is helpful to many people, and so is good, by my reckoning. Thanks for the gentle reminder Aup-ji.

The theory of anthropomorphism doesn't apply because it is not an imaginary personification of brahman. As long as the vedas are accepted as pramāṇa, that brahman is a personality and is the cause of janmādi require no other construct. Else, there is no explaining tadaikṣata, tatsṛṣṭvā tadevānu prāviśat.

Well, I believe and interpret differently. I believe that Brahman is ultimately Impersonal and Attributeless. Saguna Brahman, at various levels, comes from the interactions of our minds and That. So I think a personification is imaginary.

Shiva-advaita became popular no earlier than 15-16 century, borrowing many ideas from vīra-śaivism propagated in the north by the likes of Abhinavagupta, glimpses of which philosophy can be also seen in Soundarya Lahiri ascribed to Śri Śaṅkara. In the south, it is mostly due to efforts of Appayya Dīkṣhita (16 century) that śivādvaita gained popular currency among the smārtas.

So would it lie within the Vedantic tradition, or outside?
 

Chakra

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Yes, for Vedantins, Shaivism is nonvedantic. Srikanta's bhashya is plagiarism of Ramanuja bhashya. Appayya Dik****ar was the only other Shaiva Vedantin but besides VA and T, even Advaitins condemned his views.
 

तत्त्वप्रह्व

स्वभावस्थं निरावेशम्
What proves that the 'Unborn' is Vishnu?
Āptavākya.
Perhaps the 'unborn' was Rudra.
Śruti, smṛiti, and jñāna-parampara prove otherwise.
Which are the three rivers and where do they join?
Drāviḍa is derived from the saṃskṛitam word dramiḷa - refers to the peninsular region of the south. Also the origin of the word Tamiḷ.
The translations of the Rg mantras reminds me of
uta tvaḥ paśyan na dadarśa vācam | uta tvaḥ śṛṇvan n śṛṇotyenāṃ ||
uta tvasmai tanvaṃ visasre jāyeva patye | uśatīḥ suvāsāḥ... rg|10|7|4

W.r.t. the so called Aryan devas, the very mantra of ekam sadviprā (rg 1|164|6) undermines the position of multiplicity of devas conveying unambiguously that indra, mitra... agni, yama, mātariśva are all different epithets that viprās use to refer to that One Truth. All schools of vedānta accept the vedas to be eternal. So after mahāpraḷaya, they convey nothing but the svadhayā tadekaṃ of nāsadīya whose abode is the great sea. On sṛṣṭi these epithets can be 'given names' of various devatas, but the original nāmadhā remains the same.

Now irrespective of the authenticity of AMT/AIT, the literary translations of these indologists cannot be considered pramāṇa, for the simple reason that they are not āptavākyas nor do they possess the qualification of a ṛṣi. For pop-culture/neo-hinduism as you'd say - "whatever floats their boat".

Well, I believe and interpret differently. I believe that Brahman is ultimately Impersonal and Attributeless. Saguna Brahman, at various levels, comes from the interactions of our minds and That. So I think a personification is imaginary.
That's OK, OM Shanti Shanti Shantih.
There is a logical fallacy in the above statement, but the śāṇti pāṭha has been invoked!

नारायणायेतिसमर्पयामि ।
 

Aupmanyav

Be your own guru
RV 1.164.6
अचिकित्वाञ्चिकितुषश्चिदत्र कवीन पर्छामि विद्मने न विद्वान l
वि यस्तस्तम्भ षळ इमा रजांस्यजस्य रूपे किमपि सविदेकम ll
acikitvāñcikituṣaścidatra kavīn pṛchāmi vidmane na vidvān l
vi yastastambha ṣaḷ imā rajāṃsyajasya rūpe kimapi savidekam ll

I ask, unknowing, those who know, the sages, as one all ignorant for sake of knowledge,
What was that ONE who in the Unborn's image hath established and fixed firm these worlds' six regions?

Tattva, it is a question and not a statement/answer. There were different views. Some thought there was only one, others invoked Agni to bring the Gods thither.

RV 1.1.2.2
स देवानेह वक्षति ll
sa devāneha vakṣati ll
He shall bring hitherward the Gods.
 

Chakra

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Shiva is not Rudra. And Rudra is not son of Brahma. Rudra is an (Swayambhuh) Aryan God, and Shiva is a (Swayambhuh) Dravidian God. In India, they merged, just like the Dravidian Gods Krishna, Rama, Parashurama, Vamana, Nrisimha, Varaha, Kurma and Matsya merged with Vishnu. But there are many views.
Just a question, but according to your theory, why did Krishna/Rama/Narasimha etc (the supreme Gods of the Puranas, Mahabharata, Ramayana, other Smritis etc) not merge with Indra (the so called supreme God of the RigVeda)?

I'm just wondering because the indologists believe that Vishnu was a mere solar deity, while Indra was the supreme god of the Rig Veda.
 

shivsomashekhar

Well-Known Member
Just a question, but according to your theory, why did Krishna/Rama/Narasimha etc (the supreme Gods of the Puranas, Mahabharata, Ramayana, other Smritis etc) not merge with Indra (the so called supreme God of the RigVeda)?

I'm just wondering because the indologists believe that Vishnu was a mere solar deity, while Indra was the supreme god of the Rig Veda.

Possibly because the consolidation happened much later - by which time, Indra had lost his prominence. There is strong evidence that the Buddha was not "avatarized" until the 4/5th Century AD. It is possible that in similar fashion, other older, prominent Gods/personalities were avatarized too.

Attempts to avatarize Gurus/personalities continues to this day. Some work, some don't.
 
Top