• 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
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.
Because India has 289 hymns dedicated to Indra while Vishnu has just 6. Indra was in competition with indigenous Gods for supremacy, Vishnu was not. Remember the Govardhana story? How Indra tried to impose himself on the people of Vraja! But they had a more powerful deity in Krishna to help them. Indra was accused of sexual misdemeanor, his body was marked by a thousand vulvas, he was emasculated (lost his testicals) and his worship was banned. The indigenous did a thorough job on Indra. There are (I think) no temples of Indra in India. There were so many Aryan Gods who lost nearly completely (except their invocation when 'yajnas' are performed). There are no temples to Soma (123 hymns), Ashwins (56), Varuna (46), Maruts (38), Mitra (28), Ushas (21), etc.

fad58de7366495db4650cfefac2fcd61_1401793493.jpg

When Lord Indra was cursed for lust!
 
Last edited:

Stormcry

Well-Known Member
. There are no temples to Soma (123 hymns), Ashwins (56), Varuna (46), Maruts (38), Mitra (28), Ushas (21), etc.

There was no time when these gods were worshipped in temples. Neither I know any saint in the whole history who attained moksha through these gods.

However man will solely worship Indra through Yagya-s if he wants to ascend to heaven. That's what Krishna said in Gitaa.

Those gods are invoked during Yagya-s or any other religious ceremony. The fruit gained by them is temporary. Krishna explains this in Gitaa. Those gods are manifestations of Rajas Ahamkara that is created during creation of the universe. They're eternal all knowing supreme, this is misconception.
 
Last edited:

Stormcry

Well-Known Member
Whatever the writer of Gita says, I will not refute Vedas.
It's just your perception that there would be refutation if both are accepted. Perception can be right or wrong. But there are so many evident things around us that your perception is more likely to be wrong. :)
 

Aupmanyav

Be your own guru
You will need to do a lot of refuting to prove that the Vedic Gods (including Vishnu) were not all knowing and supreme and it is just Krishna who is so:

8. Like lions they roar, the wise Maruts, they are handsome like gazelles 1, the all-knowing. By night 2 with their spotted deer (rain-clouds) and with their spears (lightnings) they rouse the companions together, they whose ire through strength is like the ire of serpents.
10. All-knowing, surrounded with wealth, endowed with powers, singers 1, men of endless prowess armed with strong rings 2, they, the archers, have taken the arrow in their fists.
Vedic Hymns, Part I (SBE32): Vedic Hymns: I, 64. To the Maruts (the Storm-gods)
 
Last edited:

Stormcry

Well-Known Member
You will need to do a lot of refuting to prove that the Vedic Gods (including Vishnu) were not all knowing and supreme and it is just Krishna who is so:

8. Like lions they roar, the wise Maruts, they are handsome like gazelles 1, the all-knowing. By night 2 with their spotted deer (rain-clouds) and with their spears (lightnings) they rouse the companions together, they whose ire through strength is like the ire of serpents.
10. All-knowing, surrounded with wealth, endowed with powers, singers 1, men of endless prowess armed with strong rings 2, they, the archers, have taken the arrow in their fists.
Vedic Hymns, Part I (SBE32): Vedic Hymns: I, 64. To the Maruts (the Storm-gods)

Okay! I accept they are all-knowing. Anyway Is Maruta's or any other god's abode is mentioned as highest supreme abode? And how any god becomes supreme if all gods are mentioned as supreme?
 
Last edited:

Stormcry

Well-Known Member
Where in the Vedas it is mentioned that Indra is the supreme god?
Certainly there are some verses. But Indra doesn't necessarily mean Indra god, king of heaven. It also means parabrahman, supreme god. Adi shankara interprets Indra as Brahman by citing vedic verse in Upanishada bhashya.
 

Aupmanyav

Be your own guru
Okay! I accept they are all-knowing. Anyway Is Maruta's or any other god's abode is mentioned as highest supreme abode? And how any god becomes supreme if all gods are mentioned as supreme?
That is what I should be asking you. How do you intend to rank the Gods. What do you mean by highest abode? How many feet, how many kilometers or miles, how many light-years? Where are their abodes (other than in our hearts). All this business of ranking the Gods is a sham. Like in the Vedas, all Gods are supreme when one sings their praises.
Certainly there are some verses. But Indra doesn't necessarily mean Indra god, king of heaven. It also means parabrahman, supreme god. Adi shankara interprets Indra as Brahman by citing vedic verse in Upanishada bhashya.
Sankara and Buddha were heads of their religious orders. They may have said many things for the benefit of people. Unlike them I am not under any constraint and I reserve the right to differ.
 

Chakra

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
That is what I should be asking you. How do you intend to rank the Gods. What do you mean by highest abode? How many feet, how many kilometers or miles, how many light-years? Where are their abodes (other than in our hearts). All this business of ranking the Gods is a sham. Like in the Vedas, all Gods are supreme when one sings their praises.
Will all due respect, does Adi Shankara's opinion count for you or nah?
 

Aupmanyav

Be your own guru
:) It does, very much so, also that of Buddha. They are my gurus. But as I said above (in my edit which you may not have seen before writing your post), I reserve the right to differ. Pupils can differ from their gurus, no? Like Yajnavalkya?
 
Last edited:

Chakra

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
:) It does, very much so, also that of Buddha. They are my gurus. But as I said above (in my edit which you may not have seen before writing your post), I reserve the right to differ. Pupils can differ from their gurus, no? Like Yajnavalkya?
You do. Well said.

So on what basis did you reject the views of all authentic Vedantins from the past 1000 years and accept the view of indologists? Should we create a new thread for this?
 

Chakra

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Actually, if you don't mind, could you start the thread? You could lay out your thesis so then I and others can go refute it. I'm sure you have other references from Veda?

And also, is this going to be a RigVeda only thing?
 

spiritualhitchhiker

neti, neti, neti
Certainly there are some verses. But Indra doesn't necessarily mean Indra god, king of heaven. It also means parabrahman, supreme god. Adi shankara interprets Indra as Brahman by citing vedic verse in Upanishada bhashya.

Adi Shankaracharya also says Vishnu is the supreme GOD. So which is the real one? Could Indra's be corruption by others? Is there anything actually in the Vedas themselves?
 

Aupmanyav

Be your own guru
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.
So on what basis did you reject the views of all authentic Vedantins from the past 1000 years and accept the view of indologists?
Indologists do not have a Vishnu, Shiva or Shakti bias. They report what they find in our scriptures. I too accept or reject things according to what evidence comes to me from scriptures or from science. Now over to Same-Faith Forum. ;)
 

kalyan

Aspiring Sri VaishNava
Indra the word itself is limited. Indra means the ones who control the indriyas.
I won't disrespect Indra but he is one of the mini god employed by Sri Krushna. Indra is not a person , it is a post based on Karma just like the CM/PM post after few years/kalpas, that Indra will be gone and next one comes, just like Brahma and Rudra........All are bound by Karmic bondage called 'Karma Bandhanam' in sanskrit.

Maha bali has imprisoned everyone even the Indra but how his yagnas fulfilled as direct Maha Vishnu came begging ? Has anyone wondered....He did not worship the Indra/Agni/Varuna in the Yagnas, he knows by the grace of his guru Shukracharya that the inner controller of everyone is Srimannarayana........This is called 'Aparyavasana vritti' in Sampradayam.,one does not think he is a body and not indriyas, not manas, not buddhi , Jiva itself is controlled by Srimannarayana, so whatever is done it is done for the ultimate benefactor Srimannarayana only.

Sri Krushna BhagawadGita is the essence of what Vedas said, as some other poster pointed out they cannot differ in any sense.

Sri Krushna is the only supreme. Worship of any other mini god gives only partial results that wash away with time, father can only be one and that is nArayaNa.......In this context I will post a little bit info on the power of 'nArayaNa mantram' and why the known acharyas won't offer any mantram other than 'Astakshari'.

In the katha upanishad, Yama Dharma Raja wonders why so many people are visiting his place when one if chants 'nArayaNa' imagining Maha Vishnu even once , he will never enter NARAKA!

Astakshari Maha mantram is the entire essence of Vedas. It is given by Narayana to Nara at Badrinath where the Narayana appeared in 2 forms, one is Nara and the other Narayana, one taking the position of acharya and the second is shishya, it is said the power of Astakshari when received from a proper acharya lineage comes from Badrinath due to chanting by Nara-Narayana.

naarayaNa , 'ra' is agnibheejam and which can destroy the sins when uttered. 'ra' means something that is destructible('nas' in sanskrit actually means going into a state where we cannot see it ) 'na+ra' is something which is not at all destroyed. 'n'+'aa' +ra means groups of groups of entire things in the universe. Nothing is destroyed in the universe, only it changes form and name. 'Ayana' is the supporter. So naarayaNa means the ones who is inside and outside everything and supports them as a whole. In everything it exists. Narayana and Vishnu are the same as Sriyapathi is called Narayana and Narayana tattvam is Vishnu.

.nArayaNa is the most powerful word in the entire sanskrit and vedic literature...Many of the pandits tried to interpret it differently or tried to improve it and say it differently but failed because the way the nArayaNa word is formed there cannot be any syntax violations..If they give the meaning something differently, the grammatical syntax fails.

A word becomes a mantra when the 'Ommm' and 'Namaha' words are appended as prefix and suffix. Namaha can come in middle too

For example :

The rAma word although very powerful does not come close to nArayaNa because rAma just explains about one attribute of paramaatma..The ability to make others happy(ramaNam), the rAma mantram is called avyapaka mantram

Mantrams fall into 2 categories,

1. Vyapaka mantram (which explain vyapti or the spread of tattvam) which are most powerful as these explain how that supreme has spread, this is most important thing as only if the supreme is spread everywhere we can be assured that it protects anyone from anywhere, god is not someone who sits in heaven/hell and passes judgements unlike other religions...Beauty of Sanatana Dharma

2. Avyapaka mantrams(which are formed basis on the work, guna or attribute, or due to aakaram(form))

Vyapaka mantrams are only 3 in the entire vedic literature

Om vishnave namaha
Om Namo bhagavathe vasudevaya
Om namo Narayanaaya

Out of these 3, om vishnave namaha explains the supreme brahma is present in everything but does not explain what it does by being in everything, same with vasudeva, vasudeva explains that which is spread and \which illuminates...also for these mantrams when they are born or seen by some rishi they appeared as 'vishnu' or 'vasudeva' and om and namaha had to be appended. But narayana mantram appears directly with om and namaha in the middle. That makes the mantram more powerful in terms of sabdham (sound) and also artham (meaning)

nArayAna mantram explains why the tattvam has spread in all things, what it does by spreading, how it does that and it is the complete complete mantram.

There is much indepth meaning for the word nArayaNa, we have to visit dravida vedantam for the indepth meaning of the word nArayaNa given by Pillai Lokacharya Swamy while explain astadasa rahasyas

Its called Tirumantram.

i am a sinner of the highest sort (paapaatma)
adiyen Ramanuja Daasa
adiyen Chinna Jeeyar Swamy Daasa
 
Last edited:
Top