chinu
chinu
Similarly, that's also a good kafi by Baba Bulle Shah, but what relation do this have with the thread. Perhaps, there might be any, but didn't find.
Can you help me please ?
-
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!
Vishnu (Narayana) OR Brahman?
- Thread starter Kalicharan Tuvij
- Start date
Can you help me please ?
Indian Iconoclast
Member
Similarly, that's also a good kafi by Baba Bulle Shah, but what relation do this have with the thread. Perhaps, there might be any, but didn't find.
Can you help me please ?
It has the very same thought of universal humanity and faith in One God to convey as does your footnote:
Indian Iconoclast
Member
मैत्रावरुणिः;3490439 said:
Please do not put words in my mouth and ask me of my reaction after having asked me your above quoted question. I have no answers for you.
Poeticus
| abhyAvartin |
I haven't altered any of your words nor put words in your mouth.
Kalicharan Tuvij
Ästika
I forgive you for feeling ashamed of being Hindu. I too feel it time to time, this is a trait peculiar and particular to Hindus. After all, the term itself is alien to them, imposed on them from outside.
But then, my "Gurudev" resolves all these for me. My "Gurudev" is some villager, illiterate, ignored, right there in some remote place of India where even electricity has not set its feet. Yet I place his opinions on a pedestal higher than even Veda, and certainly higher than the 5-star philosophies about Hindu Dharma.
Believe me, you are in the illustrious company of many Hindu luminaries who have written about even other Vedic Gods, such as Indra Mitra Rudra etc, being real people. This stand is better than being an atheist, isn't it?
No I am not hurt, but am mighty amused seeing every so called "Hindu", "Hindu Apologist", "Hindu Explorer", "Hindu Iconoclast", "Ashamed Hindu" and even the "Anti Hindu" living in his own well of ignorance and feeling all the superiority in the world because that one tiny drop (of second hand wisdom) has filled him upto the brim.
namaste II, I like your views. Before I go further, I will again reiterate the point that it is in fact the "iconoclasts" and "mavericks" who are in a dull majority in Hinduism rather than the mainstreamers (I am, proudly) who are but not even a minority.
So as I recently said to Chinu, after reading one of his more rare but in-depth posts,/ "Welcome to the Mainstream". Yes there is no glory in being a "Hindu jarā hatke".
And as I have emphasised earlier, Christ can be seen as a pillar of Dharma in the West (believe me, they also feel ashamed of it, by wanting to be called "Aryan" and all). So you said that you are a Hindu and still accept Christ as a guru, I say, Christ is a Hindu. Now, tell me, who is more radical? So let us not bring this issue right now, or you can post in that thread (do take time reading before posting) I am talking about.
Now, to the pertinent issue that you have raised. I think it is the most salient contribution in this thread. Yes, the original and the best introduction of "OM" is in the Gāyatri Mantra of the RgVeda that you pointed out. And you are right that OM in this means Brahman (more accurately, Brahmanaspati, see this thread). But certainly not as the "Supreme", for it mentions the other three equally prominent Gods: Bhu (Prithvi), Bhuvah (Antariksha) ans Svah (Dyo/ Heaven). These are the Mighty Four of Sanatana Dharma. Take your time studying that link, I will be waiting for your further contributions.
EDIT: I forgot to mention "Secular Hindu" in that list. I apologise for this grave mistake.
Last edited:
chinu
chinu
Kalicharan Tuvij
Ästika
Please expand on it.मैत्रावरुणिः;3490519 said:
Count for what?
Poeticus
| abhyAvartin |
The thing is, members aren't allowed to engage in debating or arguing in the DIR sections. And, what I have found is that people debate in the HinduDIR the most often - and a majority of the time, they go unreported. But, I usually get the short end of the stick, nonetheless.
In fact, I get the impression over and over again that Hindus don't respect the RigVeda as much as they should. I never really try to force my authentic Vedic views upon any Hindu member of RF. But, I try to make sure that I represent the authentic Vedic Dharma of the RigVeda as persistently and consistently as I can in order to address various misconceptions as to what constitutes as "Vedic" and what does not.
Anyways, coming back to your question about expanding upon what I meant about disagreeing with your post #67: is that Jesus can be a "Hindu", but I will never accept him as such as per the injunctions of the Shruti Rig Veda. His teachings are not Vedic. He can never be considered Vedic. He offered different prayers (a-vrata), he practiced different rites (anya-vrata), and most importantly: he didn't conduct the proper rituals (a-yajavāna). But, it is overall irrelevant to this thread and I am giving this RigVedic perspective only because you wished for me to explain my previous post.
Lastly, I don't want to engage in debate and get reported (not you, but many other people report me on here) so I have to be careful with what I write from now on.
Last edited:
Kalicharan Tuvij
Ästika
MV-ji
Thank you for bringing out that point. Because this is the genuine Hindu position on that issue, and what I said is for myself and my personal opinion only. So it is I who is at fault here, and certainly not you. What I write here is ultimately my pov, whereas no one can claim to be wide and deep enough to represent Dharma in its entirety and originality. So thank you for pointing out to me my mistake.
Now, let us revert to the topic.
Cheer up!!:yes:
p.s.: I feel sorry for those who have reported you. And hell yeah, RgVeda is the best.
Thank you for bringing out that point. Because this is the genuine Hindu position on that issue, and what I said is for myself and my personal opinion only. So it is I who is at fault here, and certainly not you. What I write here is ultimately my pov, whereas no one can claim to be wide and deep enough to represent Dharma in its entirety and originality. So thank you for pointing out to me my mistake.
Now, let us revert to the topic.
Cheer up!!:yes:
p.s.: I feel sorry for those who have reported you. And hell yeah, RgVeda is the best.
Kalicharan Tuvij
Ästika
This is succinct, yet, definitive of Vishnu-ji. No Sanskrit, no quoting, no mantra- some plain English.मैत्रावरुणिः;3490542 said:
Thank you.
Poeticus
| abhyAvartin |
No, no. Thank you.
Kalicharan Tuvij
Ästika
OK MV,
Tell me this one.
What do you think of Brahmanaspati? If I said He is called Brahman in the post-Vedic?
Tell me this one.
What do you think of Brahmanaspati? If I said He is called Brahman in the post-Vedic?
Poeticus
| abhyAvartin |
Well, first of all: the RigVedic word, "Brahmanaspati" means the Lord of Prayer in the RigVedic Sanskrit; in other words, the divine agent that officiates the Yajna.
But, it is in the post-Vedo-Rig-Vedic that we see for the first time a vivid transition differing from the Old-Indic meaning. This divine agent that officiates the Yajna becomes a mere agent to be speculated upon; in fact, the word becomes an epithet of the Upanishadic "BrahmAn".
This transition is highlighted in the Mundakopanishad where the RigVedic Gods are labelled as inferior along with the whole RigVedic Corpus itself as well as the rest of the remaining auxiliary, primal Vedas and their respective canon that are "recited by barking dogs" (I kid you not).
Anyways, for those that don't understand what Kalicharan or I mean by Vedic and by Sanskrit definitions of the word, "brahma", please review the following:
"Brahma" means prayer in (Rig) Vedic. But, Sanskrit-wise, "brahma" becomes something quite else in meaning and application, almost ending up in a perverted dichotomy: the Supreme that is seen and that is unseen. The former, RigVedic application is rigid and in-line with rationality, while the latter is Rahasyavid.
Last edited:
Kalicharan Tuvij
Ästika
Indeed, this discussion is in the most interesting phase here.
Brahmanaspati, i.e., "master of prayer", is also very often called "Vācaspati" in the Veda. "Vācaspati" again means, "Lord of Speech". You may remember sometime ago some misguided monotheists used verses regarding "ViSvakarman" (Form of Brahmanaspati when He creative). In the ViSvakarman Hymns, he is also extolled as Vācaspati.
Yet He is not the supreme. Brahmanaspati is specifically said to be "in the company of the other Three Mighty Ones" (I will give you the verse if need be). And this is where I believe Gāyatri Mantra comes handy, by specifically pointing out who the other Three are.
One more important point: Brahmanaspati is also usually called "Father", and as you pointed out, in the very definition of Vishnu-ji he is Father. So are the both same. Firstly, no, simply because Veda will not waste time and energy in giving two distinct names, proper nouns, to the same deity.
Why, Rudra is also very often "Father" in the Veda. Who else? Of course Daksha, who is said to be the Father of all Devas in the Veda. So who is the real Father?
Brahmanaspati is. Because, as the Gāyatri Mantra points out, Brahmanaspati is as much a God as the presiding Deity of Father's Realm, also named "OM" later.
Angirasa Rsis were the first one, the first Fathers, to have discovered this realm.
Brahmanaspati, i.e., "master of prayer", is also very often called "Vācaspati" in the Veda. "Vācaspati" again means, "Lord of Speech". You may remember sometime ago some misguided monotheists used verses regarding "ViSvakarman" (Form of Brahmanaspati when He creative). In the ViSvakarman Hymns, he is also extolled as Vācaspati.
Yet He is not the supreme. Brahmanaspati is specifically said to be "in the company of the other Three Mighty Ones" (I will give you the verse if need be). And this is where I believe Gāyatri Mantra comes handy, by specifically pointing out who the other Three are.
One more important point: Brahmanaspati is also usually called "Father", and as you pointed out, in the very definition of Vishnu-ji he is Father. So are the both same. Firstly, no, simply because Veda will not waste time and energy in giving two distinct names, proper nouns, to the same deity.
Why, Rudra is also very often "Father" in the Veda. Who else? Of course Daksha, who is said to be the Father of all Devas in the Veda. So who is the real Father?
Brahmanaspati is. Because, as the Gāyatri Mantra points out, Brahmanaspati is as much a God as the presiding Deity of Father's Realm, also named "OM" later.
Angirasa Rsis were the first one, the first Fathers, to have discovered this realm.
Poeticus
| abhyAvartin |
Yes, I remember the misconstruing of the verses from various hymns dedicated to Vishvakarma. In fact, I made it sure to provide the Seer/Rishi of that specific hymn, and 'lo! behold! The Rishi was of the Vishvakarma Gotra, haha. That should be sufficient enough to let people know that it was the Rishi's Ishta-Devata being praised (through Rcha-s).
Also, regarding who receives the "Father" epithet - it would be only just to mention that Soma is referred to as the "God of the Gods" in the latter Mandala-s. Meaning, He too is a "Father".
But, more importantly, both of us should give the proper credit to Vāta (Vāyu). As per Shruti, he too is "Father":
10.186.02a utá vāta pitā́si na
10.186.02b utá bhrā́totá naḥ sákhā
"Vāta/Vāyu (Wind), you are to us a Father
And a brother, and our friend..."
And, it is good you brought up Angirasa. He, himself, is the Fire on many occasions - even his name tells of this same truth.
Regarding the Gayatri Mantra (which derives its name from being composed in the Gayatri Chanda/meter), Savitur can be seen as one of the most high as well. This is the intricate nature of the Adityas: all of them, in my opinion.
Do you remember the quote applied to Varuna regarding his inviolable law? "adabdhāni varuNasya vratāni" = inviolable are the laws of Varuna. In other words, if all the laws are of the seen and unseen realms, they all are subject to Varuna as per Shruti.
Also, regarding who receives the "Father" epithet - it would be only just to mention that Soma is referred to as the "God of the Gods" in the latter Mandala-s. Meaning, He too is a "Father".
But, more importantly, both of us should give the proper credit to Vāta (Vāyu). As per Shruti, he too is "Father":
10.186.02a utá vāta pitā́si na
10.186.02b utá bhrā́totá naḥ sákhā
"Vāta/Vāyu (Wind), you are to us a Father
And a brother, and our friend..."
And, it is good you brought up Angirasa. He, himself, is the Fire on many occasions - even his name tells of this same truth.
Regarding the Gayatri Mantra (which derives its name from being composed in the Gayatri Chanda/meter), Savitur can be seen as one of the most high as well. This is the intricate nature of the Adityas: all of them, in my opinion.
Do you remember the quote applied to Varuna regarding his inviolable law? "adabdhāni varuNasya vratāni" = inviolable are the laws of Varuna. In other words, if all the laws are of the seen and unseen realms, they all are subject to Varuna as per Shruti.
Kalicharan Tuvij
Ästika
HaHa!
Really, MV-ji what you say is utterly true!
Out of the Mighty Four: Bhu (Prithvi), Bhuvah (Antariksha), Svah (Dyo) and OM (Samudra), indeed, Prithvi and Antariksha are usually the "Mothers" and Svah and OM are usually the "Fathers". So Brahmanaspati is Father, as well as Soma is, who is the presiding Deity of Svah.
Really, it took two Vedicists to bring out this truth, clear and loud.
Listen O Hindus of the world!
p.s.: leave it at that MV, this Father Mother is not sexy enough for them. I think they have slept off by now, vināS kāle viprīt buddhi. See what they do when they wake up.
Really, MV-ji what you say is utterly true!
Out of the Mighty Four: Bhu (Prithvi), Bhuvah (Antariksha), Svah (Dyo) and OM (Samudra), indeed, Prithvi and Antariksha are usually the "Mothers" and Svah and OM are usually the "Fathers". So Brahmanaspati is Father, as well as Soma is, who is the presiding Deity of Svah.
Really, it took two Vedicists to bring out this truth, clear and loud.
Listen O Hindus of the world!
p.s.: leave it at that MV, this Father Mother is not sexy enough for them. I think they have slept off by now, vināS kāle viprīt buddhi. See what they do when they wake up.
Last edited:
Poeticus
| abhyAvartin |
Don't worry, hehe. We will continue this discourse tomorrow early morning - roughly around the same time.
Kalicharan Tuvij
Ästika
btw I wanted to say, the little guy is really cuuuuuuute...