Hindu deities=1 God?

[Continuum]

Vishnu was a minor God in Vedas, one of the eight, ten, or twelve adityas, with just five or six hymns in RigVeda. Vishnu assumed importance after being associated with the indigenous Gods, Krishna, Rama, Parashurama, Vamana, Nrisimha, Varaha, Kurma, and Matsya; and at a later time, Buddha.

Anybody who reads Vishnu Sukta with understanding will know this is entirely wrong. Rest of the nonsense you have written is your personal opinion which deserves no answer.

1.154.04 "yasya trI pUrNA madhunA padAnyakSIyamANA svadhayAmadanti |
ya u tridhAtu pRtivImuta dyAmeko dAdhAra bhuvanAni vishvA ||"

Whose three imperishable paces, filled with ambrosia, delight (mankind) with sacred food; who verily ALONE upholds the three elements, and earth and heaven. [The three elements: tr.dha_tu, the aggregate of three elements, earth, water, light: pr.thivyaptejoru_pa dha_tutrayavis'is.t.am; or, the three periods of time, or the three qualities].

1.156.02 yáH puurvyaáya vedháse náviiyase sumájjaanaye víSNave dádaashati
yó jaatám asya maható máhi brávat séd u shrávobhir yújyaM cid abhy àsat

He who presents (offerings) to Vis.n.u, the ancient, the creator, the recent, the self-born; he who celebrates the great birth of that mighty one; he verily possessed of abundance, attains (the station) that is to be sought (by all).

7:40:5
asya devasya mILhuSo vayA viShNoreShasya prabhR^ithe havirbhiH |
vide hi rudro rudriyaM mahitvaM yAsiSTaM vartirashvinAvirAvat.h ||

Asya devasya viShNoH (Of this deva, Vishnu) -- All in shaShThivibhakti. mILhuShaH -- from the dhatu 'mih' which means 'to bestow', 'vayA=' from the root 'vaya' means bandhana, the word 'vayA' meaning 'bandhaka' (one who causes us to be bound), 'prabhR^ite havirbhiH' (by devoted offerings in the sacrifice), vide = lebhe (obtained) hi = indeed, rudro = rudra, rudriyaM mahatvaM = the glory associated with rudra. (this verse proceeds to link the above in reference to Ashvini devataas). Thus, By offerings with extreme devotion (pra-bhR^ithe) to this deva, viShNu, who is very bestowful, rudra obtained the glory that is associated with him (which is to have control of people's ahamkAra).

These verses are enough to show Vishnu's position in Rigveda. Vedic mantras have three levels of meanings besides the literal meaning. It is idiotic to interpret that Vedas do not give importance to Vishnu based on ONLY literal meaning. The following verse from Visvakarma Sukta make it clear, that all names of deities in Vedas belong to one supreme God only ultimately.

10:82:3 yó naH pitaá janitaá yó vidhaataá dhaámaani véda bhúvanaani víshvaa
yó devaánaaM naamadhaá éka evá táM samprashnám bhúvanaa yanty anyaá

Father who made us, he who, as Disposer, knoweth all races and all things existing, Even he alone, the Deities' name-giver (name-bearer),him other beings seek for information.

"naamadhaa" means both name giver and bearer of such names. So ultimately Vedic verses praise this One God ONLY, who is none other than Vishnu. The verses quoted are enough to prove the same.

Itihasas, Puranas, were written by indigenous people or naturalized Aryans (Vedavyasa) and contained old indigenous stories. That is not Vedic Pantheon. Read about the Vedic Pantheon at A Vedic Reader (Excerpts). There are a lot of interpolations in all books. Yajurveda and AtharvaVeda are the later ones.

Now this is your opinion and nothing more. You have not proven there are any interpolations anywhere. What methodology did you use to find interpolations? I do not think you are qualified enough even to understand meaning of mantras in Vedas, let alone find interpolations. Please spare me the western indologists opinion on Vedas.

All you have here is your opinion, while I have clearly shown from Vedic texts that itihaasa, Purana were known to Vedic people. Your claims are proven wrong, unless you prove your stance.

Therefore, I go only by RigVeda.

This is actually a funny statement.

First you reject Purana saying it is not Vedic.

When I quote Vedic verses which recognize Purana and itihaasa, you say it is interpolated without any evidence or that it is post-Vedic and reject part of Vedas.

When I quote Visvakarma Sukta from Rig Veda to show Nasadiya Sukta does not mean what you think it means, you say different sages say different things in Rig Veda implying contradictoy teachings in Rig-Veda.

I mean really why you even need Rig-Veda to follow whatever you want? Reject that too and follow Buddhism openly..

 

[Aupmanyav]

If this is your opinion that Vedas have no consistent message and has contradictory messages then God help Vedas from the like of you. Just like when Vedas use singular Rudra to refer to Shiva and RudrA is used to refer to other gods, similarly when the word devAh is used to refer to all devatAh in Nasadiya Sukta, except the Vedic God referred to in Visvakarma Sukta.

It is self-evident. I pointed Nasadiya Sukta to you. You pointed Vishwakarma Sukta to me. And the opinions in the two differ. Which is natural, since these two suktas were written by different people perhaps in different ages. You see, the problem comes when we consider Vedas to be divine. I do not harbor that illusion. Rudra in Vedas never refers to Shiva, the consort of Parvati, and the father of Ganesha and Kartikeya. It refers to the father of Marutas.

It is advaita that is inconsistent, meaningless and void.

Advaita is never inconsistant even when compared to science. Vedas were books of cow herders praising their Gods and Goddesses, and seeking prosperity for themselves and their people. Advaita is a later development, that is why you find it in Upanishads.

The problem is you claimed Dharma-Vyadha supports your opinion and claimed that Vedic religion also has similar teachings. Now that is misleading.

I said 'dharma' is supreme and I stand by that opinion. It was 'dharma' that put Dharma-Vyadha in SrimadBhagawatham, not any God/Goddess worship.

Even in the question what constitutes us, there is bheda between particular characteristics of "us" and us as a whole. Without bheda no meaningful statement can be made.

'Us' means the whole. What do you mean by 'no meaningful statement can be made'?

When you used the statement "Therefore, Brahman, which constitutes us and all other things in the universe" already bheda is introduced.

The difference exists only at the 'Vyavaharika' level.

The concept of 'Vyavaharika' level etc. (tripartite reality) is clearly plagiarism of followers of Sankara from Nagarjuna school of Buddhism. This is another clear evidence that Sankara and his followers superimposed Buddhist teachings on Vedas.

What is wrong in taking something from Buddhist teachings (if that happened)? After all, he is an avatara of Lord Vishnu. Vedas remained what they were. Did Sankara made any changes in the Vedas or Upanishads?

This means popularity of that deity is not there presently, not that his worship is banned. The very idea of banning worship of Vedic gods is contrary to Hinduism. In yajnas it is not mere formaility, but a requirement as per Vedic injunctions. Otherwise results won't fructify for yajnas.

Indra - Wikipedia

"In post-Vedic texts, Indra is described with more human characteristics and vices than any other Vedic deity. Modern Hindus, also tend to see Indra as minor deity in comparison to others in the Hindu pantheon, such as Shiva, Vishnu, or Devi. A Puranic story illustrating the subjugation of Indra's pride is illustrated in the story of Govardhan hill where Krishna, Avatar or incarnation of Vishnu carried the hill and protected his devotees when Indra, angered by non-worship of him, launched rains over the village."

"Gautama's Curse: Indra tricked Ahalya,the wife of Gautama Maharishi.The affair between Ahalya and Indra was not mutual. Gautama punished Indra with a curse of losing his manliness and Ahalya too was cursed of being invisible to the eyes of everyone."

"Indra and the ants: Vishnu visits Indra's palace in the form of a Brahmin boy; Indra welcomes him in. Vishnu praises Indra's palace, casually adding that no former Indra had succeeded in building such a palace. At first, Indra is amused by the Brahmin boy's claim to know of former Indras. But the amusement turns to horror as the boy tells about Indra's ancestors, about the great cycles of creation and destruction, and even about the infinite number of worlds scattered through the void, each with its own Indra. The boy claims to have seen them all. During the boy's speech, a procession of ants had entered the hall. The boy saw the ants and laughed. Finally humbled, Indra asks the boy why he laughed. The boy reveals that the ants are all former Indras. Another visitor enters the hall. He is Shiva, in the form of a hermit. On his chest lies a circular cluster of hairs, intact at the circumference but with a gap in the middle. Shiva reveals that each of these chest hairs corresponds to the life of one Indra. Each time a hair falls, one Indra dies and another replaces him."

"The 14 Indras: Indra's chair is a rotating one. Indra changes in every 'manavantara'. Here is the list of 14 Indra's of this Kalpa: Yajna (Avatar of Vishnu), Vipaschit, Sushaanti, Shibi, Vibhu, Manojava, Purandara (the present Indra), Bali (to whom Indraship is promised by Lord Vishnu in the next 'manavantara'), Adbhuta, Shanti, Vish, Ritudhaama, Devaspati, Suchi."

You see, the concept of Indra has undergone many changes.

You make an assumption and follow western interpretation which I do not agree and do not find support in Vedic scriptures. You have no answer for already quoted verses from Atharva veda and Taittiriya Aranyaka mentioning Puranas and Brahmanas. This shows Vedic people were already aware of itihaasa, Purana etc. and your claim is false.

I basically follow Lokmanya Bal Gangadhar Tilak, and I see no mention of Itihasas and Puranas in RigVeda. If some Western scholar agrees with that, how does that affect me?

Your simple answer is simply wrong and assumes western Indology is truth.

No problem if that is your view. Mine is that Vedic religion is now a part of Hinduism after the assimilation of Aryans, and has much more that just Vedic religion.

 

[Aupmanyav]

VISNU: "This deity occupies a subordinate position in the RV., being celebrated in only five or six hymns." A Vedic Reader (Excerpts)

"Descriptions of Vishnu as subordinate to Indra are found in only the hymns to Indra, but in a kathenotheistic religion like that of the Rigveda, each god, for a time, is supreme in the mind of the devotee." Vishnu - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Vedic seers were great at 'atishayokti'.

Read about the three strides of Vishnu at Lokamanya Bal Gangadhar Tilak — The Arctic Home in the Vedas — Chapter 10, Matutinal Deities, Page 303. I hope you will find it interesting. Three steps are not unusual. Other deities also traverse the universe in three steps. See it here:

"A comparison with the abodes of other Vedic deities, who are said to traverse the whole universe like Viṣhṇu confirms the same view. One of these deities is Savitri, who in V, 81, 3, is described as measuring the world (rajâṁsi) and in I, 35, 6, we are told “There are three heavens (dyâvaḥ) of Savitri, two of them are near and the third, bearing the brave, is in the world of Yama.” This means that two of Savitṛi’s three abodes are in the upper heaven and one in the nether world or the kingdom of Yama.

The second deity that traverses or measures the universe is Agni (VI, 7, 7). He has three stations, one in samudra or ocean, one in heaven (divi) and one in the waters or apsu (I, 95, 3). His light is spoken of as three-fold (III, 26, 7), he has three heads (I, 146, 1) and three seats, powers or tongues (III, 20, 2; VIII, 39, 8). Now although these three stations do not seem to be always conceived alike, yet one of them at any rate can be clearly identified with the third step of Viṣhṇu; for in X, 1, 3, we are told that the third station of Agni is known only to Viṣhṇu, while in V, 3, 3, Agni, with the upama (last or highest) step of Viṣhṇu, is said to guard the sacred cows. This description agrees well with I, 154, 5 and 6, where swift moving cows and a spring of honey are said to exist in the place where the highest step of Viṣhṇu is planted.

It has been shown above that Agni sometimes represents the sun in the Ṛig-Veda, and that his hiding in the waters and coming out of them as apâm napât or the child of waters is only a different version of the sun sinking below the horizon for a long time and then emerging out of the nether ocean at the end of the long Arctic night. Viṣhṇu is also the same sun under a different name, and the third step of Viṣhṇu and the third or the hidden abode of Agni can, therefore, be easily recognized as identical in character. The third deity that traverses the universe is the Ashvins to whom the epithet parijman or “going round” is applied several times in the Ṛig-Veda (I, 46, 14; I, 117, 6).

The Ashvins are said to have three stations (VIII, 8, 23), and their chariot, which is said to go over both the worlds alike (I, 30, 18), has three wheels one of which is represented as deposited in a cave or a secret place, like the third step of Viṣhṇu, which is beyond the ken of mortals (cf. X, 85, 14-16). This co-incidence between the third stations of the three different world-traversing gods cannot be treated as accidental; and if so, the combined effect of all the passages stated above will be clearly seen to point out to the conclusion that the third or the hidden place, dwelling or abode in each case must be sought for in the nether world, the world of the Pitṛis, of Yama, of waters and darkness."

So ultimately Vedic verses praise this. One God ONLY, who is none other than Vishnu. The verses quoted are enough to prove the same.

Now, now, wait. The Hymn is to Vishwakarman. Even if it is one God, where does it say that it is Vishnu? How do you arrive at this conclusion? Why this sectarian jump? Why is it not Rudra?

Now this is your opinion and nothing more. You have not proven there are any interpolations anywhere. What methodology did you use to find interpolations? I do not think you are qualified enough even to understand meaning of mantras in Vedas, let alone find interpolations. Please spare me the western indologists opinion on Vedas.

That is sort of unfortunate. Many Western Indologists have spent their lives in translating Hindu Scriptures and many are engaged in this task even now, much more than what Indians have done in recent times. Do you think that they are all fools or that every one of them is prejudiced against Hindus? Would you like to reject all of them, and accept only those which suit you? Let me tell you, that is not scholarship, that is chavinism.

I mean really why you even need Rig-Veda to follow whatever you want? Reject that too and follow Buddhism openly..

Why should I? I am perfectly satisfied by Hinduism. I have exhausted all my questions and I am at peace with my life and world. I have some basic differences with Buddhism, like that of universal consciousness and Karma. That is why I am not a Buddhist. Though I rever buddha as my second guru after Sankara. He gave me the idea of questioning things through his Kalama Sutta.

 

[Continuum]

It is self-evident. I pointed Nasadiya Sukta to you. You pointed Vishwakarma Sukta to me. And the opinions in the two differ. Which is natural, since these two suktas were written by different people perhaps in different ages. You see, the problem comes when we consider Vedas to be divine. I do not harbor that illusion. Rudra in Vedas never refers to Shiva, the consort of Parvati, and the father of Ganesha and Kartikeya. It refers to the father of Marutas.

That "opinions" differ is your opinion on Vedas. Vedic mantras from Rishis are NOT mere "opinions". They are realized truth. Vedas are NOT called apowrusheya for fun. That Rudra do not refer to Shiva is your opinion again and is irrelevant with respect to Vedas. It is a complete waste of my time refuting your opinions.

Advaita is never inconsistant even when compared to science. Vedas were books of cow herders praising their Gods and Goddesses, and seeking prosperity for themselves and their people. Advaita is a later development, that is why you find it in Upanishads.

Here comes the real color of silly advaitis. You said you go only by Rigveda and now even Rigveda along with entire Vedas is thrust into dustbin as mere cow herders praise.

As I said earlier, neither advaitis nor advaita have any consistency. When I said Upanishads quote Puranas, you rejected it as post-Vedic. When Rig Veda is shown to oppose advaita, Rig Veda is called as merely cow-herders praises.

Advaita is ditto Buddhism and Sankara plagiarized it is already proven. There is NO advaita in Upanishads. There are so many verses which opose advaita clearly and only so called pancha mahavakyas seemingly support advaita. Here too there is too much twisting of words required to prove advaita.

On the other hand, Upanishads in reality proclaim ONE God of Vedas.

I said 'dharma' is supreme and I stand by that opinion. It was 'dharma' that put Dharma-Vyadha in SrimadBhagawatham, not any God/Goddess worship.

Question is what is "dharma"? Is it Vedic dharma or your own "dharma". Main purpose of SrimadBhagavatam is worship of Vishnu, which is the ultimate dharma there.

'Us' means the whole. What do you mean by 'no meaningful statement can be made'?

The difference exists only at the 'Vyavaharika' level.

There are NO tripartite divisions of reality. If there are divisions of relity, that too proves advaita is wrong for it vouches multi-reality, unlike ONE reality.

What is wrong in taking something from Buddhist teachings (if that happened)? After all, he is an avatara of Lord Vishnu. Vedas remained what they were. Did Sankara made any changes in the Vedas or Upanishads?

There is a difference between say, referring to Einstein's work in your research thesis and plagiarizing Einstein's work and calling it your own work.

Many scholars from Saddarshana schools called Sankara as prachhana Bouddha, for wantedly and deceptively imposing Buddhism in Hinduism texts. Had Sankara openly admitted to this, it would be a different case.

Indra - Wikipedia......
You see, the concept of Indra has undergone many changes.

This is due to your ignorance that you do not know what this is. This is why I quoted Visvakarma Sukta to show that all gods came from a Supreme Being. Your quotes prove my point that all gods get their names from that Supreme God. It is like a position or name given to you and me, only in gods' cases their names come with certain extraordinary abilities.

I basically follow Lokmanya Bal Gangadhar Tilak, and I see no mention of Itihasas and Puranas in RigVeda. If some Western scholar agrees with that, how does that affect me?

No problem if that is your view. Mine is that Vedic religion is now a part of Hinduism after the assimilation of Aryans, and has much more that just Vedic religion.

So you do not believe in Vedas, either Rig-Veda or other ones. What is the point for you to use Vedas then? Whom you follow is irrelevant to me. Do not claim Vedas say this or that, if you do not follow Vedas or believe in them.

What is the point is following cow-herder's praises and their teachings if such is your opinion on Vedas?

Sankara will not have any say for his nonsense teachings were it for not fro use of Vedas for propagating his nonsense teachings.

My question is simple. If you advaitis or people like you want to follow whatever you want, why do you keep using Vedas as your vehicle for propaganda? IS this NOT deceptive to fool others? Sankara was deceptive person which the scholars of his time noticed and his followers are also deceptive just like their teacher.

 

[Continuum]

Vedic seers were great at 'atishayokti'.

I thought they were mere cow-herders.

Other deities also traverse the universe in three steps. See it here:

One of these deities is Savitri, who in V, 81, 3, is described as measuring the world (rajâṁsi) and in I, 35, 6,

The question is who is this Savitra? [FONT=Arial,Helvetica]

2.038.09 [/FONT][FONT=Arial,Helvetica]na yasyendro varuNo na mitro vratamaryamaa na minanti rudrah |
nArAtayastamidaM svasti huve devaM savitAraM namobhiH ||

I invite to this place, with reverential salutations, for my good, that divine Savita, whose functions neither Indra, nor Varun.a, nor Mitra nor Aryaman nor Rudra nor the enemies (of the gods), impede.[/FONT]

So let us eliminate who it is NOT, if we are NOT able to find who it is? Let me make it clear, I am NOT interested in your opinions. Inferences should be from logic and interpretations on historical evolution of Vedas is mere personal opinion and not based on hard Science. Hence I am not interested in it.

The above verse clearly shows that it is NOT Rudra (Shiva as per Shathapatha Brahmana), nor Indra, nor Varuna, nor Mitra, nor enemie of God. It is clear that this God has characteristics similar to Visvakarma Sukta God.

The second deity that traverses or measures the universe is Agni (VI, 7, 7). (III, 26, 7), he has three heads (I, 146, 1) and three seats, powers or tongues (III, 20, 2; VIII, 39, 8). ...

Satapatha Brahmana Part IV (SBE43): Tenth K<I>n</I><I>d</I>a: X, 6, 1. Sixth Adhyya. First Brhma<I>n</I>a

SB 10:6:1:17 vaiśvānara íti sá eṣò'gnírvaiśvānaro yatpúruṣaḥ sa yó haitámevámagníṃ vaiśvānaram púruṣavidʰam púruṣe'ntaḥ prátiṣṭʰitaṃ vedā́pa punarmr̥tyúṃ jayati sárvamā́yureti ná hāsya bruvāṇáṃ caná vaiśvānaró hinasti

This Agni Vaisvânara is no other than the Purusha; and, verily, whosoever thus knows that Agni Vaisvânara as Purusha-like, as established within the Purusha, repels death, and attains all life; and, verily, Vaisvânara does no harm to him that speaks of him.

The above quote clearly shows, Vaisvanara Agni does NOT refer to ordinary god Agni. It refers to Prieval Purusha, who is identified as Lord of Lakshmi in Purusha Sukta of Taittiriya Aranyaka. (Lakshmischa Hrischa patniyau)

Vaisvanara Agni is the Agni which digests all food in all beings. This is is known to refer to Supreme being in upanishads and anybody who has learnt a little bit of Yajna karyas. I d onot expect you to know this.

for in X, 1, 3, we are told that the third station of Agni is known only to Viṣhṇu, while in V, 3, 3, Agni, with the upama (last or highest) step of Viṣhṇu, is said to guard the sacred cows. This description agrees well with I, 154, 5 and 6, where swift moving cows and a spring of honey are said to exist in the place where the highest step of Viṣhṇu is planted.

[SIZE=+1]

[SIZE=+1]7:99:4 urúM yajñaáya cakrathur ulokáM janáyantaa suúryam uSaásam agním[/SIZE]
Ye (Vishnu) have made spacious room for sacrificing by generating Surya, Dawn, and Agni.

10:90:3 candrámaa mánaso jaatásh cákSoH suúryo ajaayata
múkhaad índrash caagnísh ca praaNaád vaayúr ajaayata

The Moon was gendered from his mind, and from his eye the Sun had birth;
Indra and Agni from his mouth were born, and Vayu from his breath.

[/SIZE]

The above quotes clearly show Vishnu is the creator of Agni as well. Your quotes do not prove anything against it. It is based on half-baked knowledge of your Tilak.

In 7:99 Vishnu is explicitly said to be creator of Agni. In Purusha Sukta again Purusha is said to be creator of Agni. Purusha is known to be Vishnu from taittirya Aranyaka. End of Story.

Now, now, wait. The Hymn is to Vishwakarman. Even if it is one God, where does it say that it is Vishnu? How do you arrive at this conclusion? Why this sectarian jump? Why is it not Rudra?

The use of the words Nabhi and waters are indicative of Vishnu. Besides, in 7:40:5 it is clearly shown that Ashvini devatas get what they want by worship of Vishnu and that Rudra attains his mahitva by worshiping Vishnu.

2:38:9 clearly shows that Rudra is subject to Savitr. So This verse cannot refer to Rudra or Agni or Ashvini devatas.

Whether you call it chauvinism or whatever, Vedas are clear about prime position of Vishnu. By negation of other gods and positively prime position Vishnu occupies from Rig Veda and all Vedic texts it can be safely concluded that Vishnu is the sarvottama which Vedas talk about.

 

[Continuum]

That is sort of unfortunate. Many Western Indologists have spent their lives in translating Hindu Scriptures and many are engaged in this task even now, much more than what Indians have done in recent times.

You must be one ignorant fellow. Read Max Mueller or Sir William Jobnes etc. and their opinion on Vedas. It would clear your nonsense mindset.

Do you think that they are all fools or that every one of them is prejudiced against Hindus?

They are prejudiced by their own writings. Anyone familar with Indologists venom against Hnduism would not even ask such questions.

Would you like to reject all of them, and accept only those which suit you?

Would you accept all of them because they suit you?

Let me tell you, that is not scholarship, that is chavinism.

Let me tell you, you do not know what constitutes scholarship.

Why should I? I am perfectly satisfied by Hinduism.

Didn't you say that Rig Veda was mere praises from cow-herders?

Vedas were books of cow herders praising their Gods and Goddesses, and seeking prosperity for themselves and their people.

I am surprised people like you who cannot even make simple consistent statements talk about scholarship...

 

[Aupmanyav]

They are realized truth.

Our realizations are different. I settled for advaita/atheism, you did for Vaishnavism. Christians and Muslims come to other realizations. Similarly rishis and Upanishads came to different conclusions.

Here comes the real color of silly advaitis. You said you go only by Rigveda and now even Rigveda along with entire Vedas is thrust into dustbin as mere cow herders praise.

What is strange in that? RigVeda is sure that, and that is the real value of RigVeda. It is a book of history, which gives information about Aryans, their original homeland, their wishes, their prayers, social life, astronomy, etc. It is definitely older than 4,000 BC and could have information on even older ages (6,000 BC, when the sun rose in the asterism of Punarvasu on the day of vernal equinox)

As I said earlier, neither advaitis nor advaita have any consistency. When I said Upanishads quote Puranas, you rejected it as post-Vedic. When Rig Veda is shown to oppose advaita, Rig Veda is called as merely cow-herders praises.

RigVeda had an inkling of 'advaita' (Purusha), but the philosophy developed later, probably after interacting with Hindus in India. Purusha Sukta also is in Book 10, which is supposed to be a later addition. .. There are so many verses which oppose advaita clearly and only so called pancha mahavakyas seemingly support advaita. Here too there is too much twisting of words required to prove advaita.[/QUOTE]You agree to the existence of Mahavakyas. Now, who is doing the twisting? The 'dvaitists' or the 'advaitists'? We have different realizations.

On the other hand, Upanishads in reality proclaim ONE God of Vedas.

But Vedas have 33 Gods. Twelve Ādityas, Eleven Rudras, Eight Vasus and Ashwins. At one time there were just 8 Adityas.

Question is what is "dharma"? Is it Vedic dharma or your own "dharma". Main purpose of SrimadBhagavatam is worship of Vishnu, which is the ultimate dharma there.

Dharma is what sustains the society. My dharma is not Vedic dharma now (it may have been of my forefathers. Remember, I am a Vasishtha, in the line of Upamanyu, son of Vyaghrapada). We willingly merged into Hinduism. Now Hinduism is my dharma. I hardly know Apam Napat or Twastr (I know them academically but not in a religious sense). As for SrimadBhagawat, that is not the only Purana. Skanda Purana asks for worship of Shiva, and Markandeya Purana asks for the worship of Devi.

There are NO tripartite divisions of reality.

Sure, as an advaitist, I agree with that. Only you bring in Vishnu in opposition to other deities.

There is a difference between say, referring to Einstein's work in your research thesis and plagiarizing Einstein's work and calling it your own work.

Buddhism is just a part of Hinduism. If I get an inspiration from Goswami Tulasi Das, would it be plagiarism? He is mine.

Many scholars from Saddarshana schools called Sankara as prachhana Bouddha, for wantedly and deceptively imposing Buddhism in Hinduism texts. Had Sankara openly admitted to this, it would be a different case.

By accepting the existence of Brahman, Sankara differed from Buddhism.

Your quotes prove my point that all gods get their names from that Supreme God. It is like a position or name given to you and me, only in gods' cases their names come with certain extraordinary abilities.

You too are naming your Supreme God Vishnu. Others may name it as Shiva. That is how problems begin. You should use the neutral word Brahman.

So you do not believe in Vedas, either Rig-Veda or other ones. What is the point for you to use Vedas then? Whom you follow is irrelevant to me. Do not claim Vedas say this or that, if you do not follow Vedas or believe in them.

I do believe in Vedas, but as the Source of Aryan history and not as a divine book. The hymns were composed by people whose names and genealogy is known. I am, of course, not going to light garhastyagni, and I do not think that you too do that.

What is the point is following cow-herder's praises and their teachings if such is your opinion on Vedas?

As I said, they are the only source of Aryan history in the world in written form, so they are important.

Sankara will not have any say for his nonsense teachings were it for not from use of Vedas for propagating his nonsense teachings.

I am a Hindu, and I am obliged to respect all views of Hindus and not contest them. 'Vipra bahudha vadanti'. I respect Vaishnava views also, though they are not mine. You would be transgressing the this basic premise of Hinduism if you do not respect Advaita as a part of Hindu philosophy.

My question is simple. If you advaitis or people like you want to follow whatever you want, why do you keep using Vedas as your vehicle for propaganda? IS this NOT deceptive to fool others? Sankara was deceptive person which the scholars of his time noticed and his followers are also deceptive just like their teacher.

What propaganda? I have only described the development of my views. It is very unfortunate that you talk of one of the greatest Hindu philosophers in this way.

 

[Aupmanyav]

I thought they were mere cow-herders.

What is wrong in being a cow-herder? That is why we have gotras. That is why they prayed for increase in their live-stock and sought succor against cattle thieves. Vedic Sanskrit was their natural language and they were good at its use.

The question is who is this Savitra?

"Around, on both sides thou encompassest the night: yea, thou, O God, art Mitra through thy righteous laws.
5 Over all generation thou art Lord alone: Pūṣan art thou, O God, in all thy goings-forth."
Book 5, Hymn 81, Verse 4 and 5.

Vedic 'atishayokti' at work here. Savitar, like Vishvakarman, is not Vishnu. Why otherwise, they would dedicate 6 hymns to Vishnu, 11 hymns to Savitar, and 2 to Vishvakarman with different names. That would be a stretch. "In the Vedic period the term (Vishvakarman) first appeared as an epithet of Indra, Surya, and Agni." Vishvakarman - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Here is about Savitar:

"This god is celebrated in eleven entire hymns and in many detached stanzas as well. He is preeminently a golden deity: the epithets golden-eyed, golden-handed, and golden-tongued are peculiar to him. His car and its pole are golden. It is drawn by two or more brown, white-footed horses. He has mighty golden splendor which he diffuses, illuminating heaven, earth, and air. He raises aloft his strong golden arms, with which be arouses and blesses all beings, and which extend to the ends of the earth. He moves in his golden car, seeing all creatures, on a downward and an upward path.

Shining with the rays of the sun, yellow-haired, Savitr raises up his light continually from the east. His ancient paths in the air are dustless and easy to traverse, and on them he protects his worshipers; for he conveys the departed spirit to where the righteous dwell. He removes evil dreams, and makes men sinless; he drives away demons and sorcerers. He observes fixed laws; the waters and the wind are subject to him. The other gods follow his lead; and no being can resist his will.

In one stanza (iii. 62, 10) he is besought to stimulate the thoughts of worshippers who desire to think of the glory of god Savitr. This is the celebrated Savitri stanza which has been a morning prayer in India for more than three thousand years. Savitr is often distinguished from Surya (vii. 63), as when he is said to shine with the rays of the Sun, to impel the sun, or to declare men sinless to the sun. But in other passages it is hardly possible to keep the two deities apart. Savitr is connected with the evening as well as the morning; for at his command night comes and he brings all beings to rest.

The word Savitr is derived from the root su to stimulate, which is constantly and almost exclusively used with it in such a way as to form a perpetual play on the name of the god. In nearly half its occurrences the name is accompanied by devá god, when it means the 'Stimulator god'. He was thus originally a solar deity in the capacity of the great stimulator of life and motion in the world."
A Vedic Reader (Excerpts)

The above quote clearly shows, Vaisvanara Agni does NOT refer to ordinary god Agni. It refers to Primeval Purusha, who is identified as Lord of Lakshmi in Purusha Sukta of Taittiriya Aranyaka. (Lakshmischa Hrischa patniyau)

The use of the words Nabhi and waters are indicative of Vishnu. Besides, in 7:40:5 it is clearly shown that Ashvini devatas get what they want by worship of Vishnu and that Rudra attains his mahitva by worshiping Vishnu.

Don't throw the Aranyakas, Brahmanas, and Puranas at me. I do not count them against RigVeda. Does RigVeda mention Vishnu as the husband of Lakshmi? Purusha Sukta does not talk about Vishnu. Just one word (nabhi) in a hymn dedicated to Vishvakarman, a separate God, does not prove that it is Vishnu. I rever all Hindu Gods and Goddesses as my heritage including Lord Vishnu, Rama and Krishna. I am hugely pained at your exclusivist stance like the Christians and the Muslims. That is not the Hindu way.

Whether you call it chauvinism or whatever, Vedas are clear about prime position of Vishnu. By negation of other gods and positively prime position Vishnu occupies from Rig Veda and all Vedic texts it can be safely concluded that Vishnu is the sarvottama which Vedas talk about.

This is against all scholarly readings. Vishnu remains a minor God of RigVeda with just 6 hymns dedicated to him, in contrast to 289 for Indra, 218 for Agni, and 123 for Soma (including one written by my progenitor, Upamanyu). They were the major Gods of RigVeda.
Rigvedic deities - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (Deities by prominence)

 

[Aupmanyav]

You must be one ignorant fellow. Read Max Mueller or Sir William Jobnes etc. and their opinion on Vedas.

I do not need to read anybody's opinion. RigVeda is available to me at sacred-texts.com.

William Jones said this: "The Sanscrit language, whatever be its antiquity, is of a wonderful structure; more perfect than the Greek, more copious than the Latin, and more exquisitely refined than either, yet bearing to both of them a stronger affinity, both in the roots of verbs and the forms of grammar, than could possibly have been produced by accident; so strong indeed, that no philologer could examine them all three, without believing them to have sprung from some common source, which, perhaps, no longer exists; there is a similar reason, though not quite so forcible, for supposing that both the Gothic and the Celtic, though blended with a very different idiom, had the same origin with the Sanscrit; and the old Persian might be added to the same family." And I wholly approve of this.

They are prejudiced by their own writings. Anyone familar with Indologists venom against Hnduism would not even ask such questions.

I can easily spot prejudices. Do you find any venom in the above paragraph? At the moment I am seeing huge prejudices which you are shouting at me.

Would you accept all of them because they suit you?

No. I do not accept that there was any war between Aryans and the indigenous people. There is no record of that. The only war that RigVeda mentions is the Dasarajna war, which was between and Indian king and his adversaries many of whom were from outside India. The dasas mentioned in RigVeda are what Aryans supposed to be the demons of darkness during the two-month long Arctic night (Ati-Ratra, a usage still prevelent among Hindus), who they thought had imprisoned the sun. Indra was supposed to vanquish these dasas and dasyus and bring back the sun. Indra and his mount were fed with Soma, so that he could do so. That was the Ashvamedha yajna, a ratri-kratu, night-sacrifice, since it happened during the Arctic night.

Didn't you say that Rig Veda was mere praises from cow-herders?

Yes, so what. RigVeda is a historical record for me. Hinduism is something different. It depends on RigVeda only marginally. Now my heroes are Shiva, Vishnu, Ganesha, Kartikeya, Hanuman, and Durga, the indigenous Hindu Gods and Goddesses (except for Vishnu, who, as I said, gained prominenece by amalgamation with Rama, Krishna, Nrisimha, Varaha, Vamana, etc.

I am surprised people like you who cannot even make simple consistent statements talk about scholarship...

"Vedas were books of cow herders praising their Gods and Goddesses, and seeking prosperity for themselves and their people." I still stand by my statement.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Continuum, you do not seem to believe on what is historical. Do you also believe in 'vimanas' and 'brahmastras' (mythological aeroplanes and atom bombs)?

 

[Continuum]

Our realizations are different. I settled for advaita/atheism, you did for Vaishnavism. Christians and Muslims come to other realizations. Similarly rishis and Upanishads came to different conclusions.

So you agree that Rishis through Vedas and Upanishads came t odifferent conclusion than you. So why you advaita people need Vedas for that?

What is strange in that? RigVeda is sure that, and that is the real value of RigVeda. It is a book of history, which gives information about Aryans, their original homeland, their wishes, their prayers, social life, astronomy, etc. It is definitely older than 4,000 BC and could have information on even older ages (6,000 BC, when the sun rose in the asterism of Punarvasu on the day of vernal equinox)

What has this got to do with your claim that Vedas are mere cow herder's praises?

RigVeda had an inkling of 'advaita' (Purusha), but the philosophy developed later, probably after interacting with Hindus in India. Purusha Sukta also is in Book 10, which is supposed to be a later addition.

No...there is no inklin of 'advaita' anywhere in Vedas. This is all you interpretation..The very fact that Rig Veda talks about everything else (bheda) coming from Purusha is itself an evidence of theistic thought process and remotely 'advaita'. The fact is Upanishads condemn 'advaita' and 'atheism' as evil.

You agree to the existence of Mahavakyas. Now, who is doing the twisting? The 'dvaitists' or the 'advaitists'? We have different realizations.

I did NOT agree to existence of so called pancha- 'mahavakyas'. Do you understand the words "so called pancha mahavakyas". I do not agree only they are mahavakyas. Entire Vedas are truth, not just miniscule 5 verses picked out of context and twisted to be interpreted as implying advaita. Such a twisted interpretation is nothing more than a deception.

But Vedas have 33 Gods. Twelve Ādityas, Eleven Rudras, Eight Vasus and Ashwins. At one time there were just 8 Adityas.

Well that only proves advaita is wrong. These are called tatva devatas, o important ones. Perhaps you know what Upanishads say and finally say ther is only one God, starting from 33. This is theism, not 'advaita'. This means this One God controls all other gods absolutely.

Dharma is what sustains the society. My dharma is not Vedic dharma now (it may have been of my forefathers. Remember, I am a Vasishtha, in the line of Upamanyu, son of Vyaghrapada). We willingly merged into Hinduism. Now Hinduism is my dharma. I hardly know Apam Napat or Twastr (I know them academically but not in a religious sense). As for SrimadBhagawat, that is not the only Purana. Skanda Purana asks for worship of Shiva, and Markandeya Purana asks for the worship of Devi.

There is nothing wrong in worshiping anya devatA in language of Bhagavad Gita. However, there is Taratamya among devatA and this does not change. In Mahabharatha, Krishna Himself Arjuna and others to worship Shiva and says it is necessary. Why? Here comes the concept of tatva abhimani devatA and dependence of all those lower in taratamya to particular devatA. Without Vedas Hinduism is just an empty shell.

Sure, as an advaitist, I agree with that. Only you bring in Vishnu in opposition to other deities.

Either you did not understand my words or you are twisting it into something else. Vishnu is the supreme God.

By tripartitie division of reality I deny vyavaharika satta, pratibhāsika satta and paramarthika satta, all copied and plagiarized from Nagarjuna school of Buddhism.

Buddhism is just a part of Hinduism. If I get an inspiration from Goswami Tulasi Das, would it be plagiarism? He is mine.

Using inspiration from say Quantum mechanics and superimposing it on Einstein's work and claiming Einstein originally found quantum principles is plain wrong. They are two different theories.

It would be plagiarism if you do not explicitly recognize the original founder. In this case, Sankara deceptively denied using Buddhism, although he taught Buddhism.

By accepting the existence of Brahman, Sankara differed from Buddhism.

This is where Sankara's deceptive introduction of Buddhism into Vedic texts become apparent. Sankara's Nirguna Brahman is ditto Buddha's anatma. Both deny svabhava or any guna be it for anatma or for Nirguna Brahman, state of single reality in nirvana.

You too are naming your Supreme God Vishnu. Others may name it as Shiva. That is how problems begin. You should use the neutral word Brahman.

I name it according to Rig Veda, where I have already clearly shown that Shiva or Rudra is NOT Vedic God. Individual opinions are NOT important to me.

Certain names in Vedas are NOT given to anya devatA and ONLY Vedic God carries it for Himself.

I do believe in Vedas, but as the Source of Aryan history and not as a divine book. The hymns were composed by people whose names and genealogy is known. I am, of course, not going to light garhastyagni, and I do not think that you too do that.As I said, they are the only source of Aryan history in the world in written form, so they are important.

Certain practices in Vedas are NOT allowed without proper initiation and without having proper yogyata. This does NOT mean we can just get rid of Vedic teachings and substitute or own. If Vedas are NOT important for you as a divine book, then what use is the history from vedas to you beyond say academic interest. Why should you need Vedas at all for your religious beliefs?

I am a Hindu, and I am obliged to respect all views of Hindus and not contest them. 'Vipra bahudha vadanti'.

I thought you do not believe in Vedas as divine revelation. Why should a historical out of context statement like 'Vipra bahudha vadanti' matter to you? Where does this verse says respect all non-Vedic religious beliefs? Did you NOT claim Hinduism is more than mere Vedas? If that is the case, why do you use Vedas to elicit respect for a non-Vedic religion? Here is the meaning of the verse.

[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]1.164.46 [/FONT][FONT=Arial,Helvetica][SIZE=+1] índram mitráM váruNam agním aahur átho divyáH sá suparNó garútmaan
[/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Arial,Helvetica][SIZE=+1]ékaM sád vípraa bahudhaá vadanty agníM yamám maataríshvaanam aahuH

[/SIZE]They have styled Him Indra, Mitra, Varun.a, Agni, and he is the celestial, well-winged Garutmat, for learned priests call One independent ever-existing Lord by many names as they speak of Agni, Yama, Ma_taris'van.

[/FONT][FONT=Arial,Helvetica][SIZE=+1]ékaM means Unique (not like any other being) independent ([/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Arial,Helvetica][SIZE=+1][FONT=Arial,Helvetica][SIZE=+1]Sarva Svatantra[/FONT]) Ruler or Lord

sád[/SIZE][/SIZE][/FONT] means who is ever-existing.

Verse does not say anything about respecting non-Vedic religions. The fact is Vedas teach about condemning wrong teachings. This is why Buddhism was opposed tooth and nail with debates by scholars of Saddarshana schools as they did against advaita as well.

I respect Vaishnava views also, though they are not mine. You would be transgressing the this basic premise of Hinduism if you do not respect Advaita as a part of Hindu philosophy.What propaganda? I have only described the development of my views. It is very unfortunate that you talk of one of the greatest Hindu philosophers in this way.

What constitutes respect? Calling Vedic Rishis who revealed Vedas to us as mere cowherders is respect for you? Calling Apowrusheya Vedas AS MERE cowherder's praises and implying Vedic truths as mere historical events are respect for you????

What is really unfortunate is people with no yogyata like yourself calling Vedas and Rishis in such a manner, while demanding others to respect a philosophy and a man who called entire Vedas as illusion and mithya, while selectively misinterpreting 5 out of context Vedic verses for deceptively propagating his veiled Buddhist philosophy..

 

[Continuum]

What is wrong in being a cow-herder? That is why we have gotras. That is why they prayed for increase in their live-stock and sought succor against cattle thieves. Vedic Sanskrit was their natural language and they were good at its use.

May be you have no memory of what you said...Let me recollect your memory for you.

When I showed RigVeda does not support advaita with clear evidence, you claimed that RigVeda are mere cowherder's praises while advaita is alater development, implying somehow later advaita developers are more advanced than mere cowherser's of Rigveda. If there is nothing wrong in being cowherders in this respect, your previous statement on Rigveda with respect to advaita argument has no meaning.

Advaitis always dance a lot.

"Around, on both sides thou encompassest the night: yea, thou, O God, art Mitra through thy righteous laws.
5 Over all generation thou art Lord alone: Pūṣan art thou, O God, in all thy goings-forth."
Book 5, Hymn 81, Verse 4 and 5.

This doe NOT prove anything....

[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]2.038.09 [/FONT][FONT=Arial,Helvetica]na yasyendro varuNo na mitro vratamaryamaa na minanti rudrah |
nArAtayastamidaM svasti huve devaM savitAraM namobhiH ||

I invite to this place, with reverential salutations, for my good, that divine Savita, whose functions neither Indra, nor Varun.a, nor Mitra nor Aryaman nor Rudra nor the enemies (of the gods), impede.[/FONT]

This verse which I quoted earlier, shows Savitr is NOT Mitra. When 5:81:4-5 says Savitra in Mitra through His righteous Laws, it means He is the immanent power behinf Mitra, Pusan etc.

Vedic 'atishayokti' at work here.

The point is how is the mantras are to be interpreted.

Savitar, like Vishvakarman, is not Vishnu. Why otherwise, they would dedicate 6 hymns to Vishnu, 11 hymns to Savitar, and 2 to Vishvakarman with different names. That would be a stretch. "In the Vedic period the term (Vishvakarman) first appeared as an epithet of Indra, Surya, and Agni." Vishvakarman - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Here is about Savitar:

Reasons for that are..

1. Vedic mantras have at the least three levels of meanings.
2. In mukhya artha they praise simultaneously devatA and/or physical phenomenon.
3. In paramamukhyartha the mantras praise the ONE Vedic God as evidenced from Vishvakarma Sukta and ekam sad vipra bahuda vadanti verses.
4. There are some verses which have only parama mukhyartha which can be known through the words used.

I have already shown that Vishnu is creator of many devatA and the one who gives power to other devatA (like Rudra, ashwini devatA etc.) There is NOT one verse which you have shown where Vishnu is created and shown to be dependent. So safely Vishnu is the Vedic God. You have failed.

In one stanza (iii. 62, 10) he is besought to stimulate the thoughts of worshippers who desire to think of the glory of god Savitr....

Gayatri mantra is meant for worship of Surya Narayana, ie Narayana who is antaryami of Surya.

Don't throw the Aranyakas, Brahmanas, and Puranas at me. I do not count them against RigVeda.

This is funny to me...You uncritically accept a mletcha's words (from wiki, wilson and mueller) than works of Rishis and throw them at me and you have the bnerve to tell me not to throw part of Vedas at you. That says a lot about you.

Does RigVeda mention Vishnu as the husband of Lakshmi? Purusha Sukta does not talk about Vishnu.

Didnt you claim that Rigveda verses are atishayokti'? This means poetry is never gives direct meaning and are written in hidden language. Why would you expect explicit verses for the same?

Without Puranas, Brahmanas, Aranyakas etc. you would not know what vedic verses talk about. Purusha Sukta does talk about Vishnu ONLY and it is NOT only present in Rigveda. They are present in Aranyakas and other Vedas as well.

The very fact that Taittiriya Aranyaka mentions Purusha as Lord of Lakshmi is clear indication of Vishnu. Anybody aware of temple traditions will know that chanting of Purusha Sukta is meant ONLY for Vishnu and NOT for any other deity. Even if you take historical viewpoint on Aranyakas there is a clear tradition that Purusha Sukta is meant for Vishnu. It is more likely that Vedic Rishis who revealed mantras, Brahmanas and Aranyakas were more aware of the meaning of mantras than you or your mletcha authors. What evidence you have for NOT referring to Vishnu, except your disagreement without any argument in your favor?

Just one word (nabhi) in a hymn dedicated to Vishvakarman, a separate God, does not prove that it is Vishnu. I rever all Hindu Gods and Goddesses as my heritage including Lord Vishnu, Rama and Krishna. I am hugely pained at your exclusivist stance like the Christians and the Muslims. That is not the Hindu way.

It ain't just one word 'Nabhi' (ajásya naábhaav). I have already shown many verses where Vishnu is said to be explicitly to be creator of certain gods and as the one who is worshiped even by Rudra alias Shiva for gaining power. I have shown verses where Vishnu is called as unborn, ancient and ever young etc. Putting everything together, along with words like 'Nabhi' (ajásya naábhaav) and as one who is in the waters in Vishwakarma, it can be concluded it is Vishnu. No other god in Rig Veda fits these characteristics.

This is against all scholarly readings. Vishnu remains a minor God of RigVeda with just 6 hymns dedicated to him, in contrast to 289 for Indra, 218 for Agni, and 123 for Soma (including one written by my progenitor, Upamanyu). They were the major Gods of RigVeda.
Rigvedic deities - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (Deities by prominence)

You are just repeating the same nonsense..Scholarship is not your or your mletcha's monopoly or your copyright. Just because some mletcha can quote some poor Vedic mantra translations and put together ambiguous arguments in his favor based on their assumed historical events imposed on Vedas, it does not constitute a scholarship.

 

[Continuum]

I do not need to read anybody's opinion. RigVeda is available to me at sacred-texts.com.

In that case why do you quote from william jones, tilak etc. to prove your point? This means you do not have a opinion of your own.

William Jones said this: "The Sanscrit language, whatever be its antiquity, is of a wonderful structure; ... family." And I wholly approve of this.

You do not need to read anybody's opinion, but you need to read William Jones opinion and approve his opinion? That is typical advaita mindset...they cannot never make consistent statements.

I can easily spot prejudices. Do you find any venom in the above paragraph? At the moment I am seeing huge prejudices which you are shouting at me.

While William Jones may have admired certain things in Vedas, he is responsible for the creation of racist theories of AIT based on comparative linguistics. Those who followed him like Max Mueller were ardent bashers of Vedas and all of them were/are Christian missionaries with very few exceptions. My statements on you were on your belief system and quoting Vedas for your belief.

No. I do not accept that there was any war between Aryans and the indigenous people. There is no record of that. The only war that RigVeda mentions i...."Vedas were books of cow herders praising their Gods and Goddesses, and seeking prosperity for themselves and their people." I still stand by my statement.

I do not care what your belief system is? My argument with you is whether advaita is approved by Vedas. Stick to this...I do not want your opinion on Vedas.

 

[Continuum]

Continuum, you do not seem to believe on what is historical. Do you also believe in 'vimanas' and 'brahmastras' (mythological aeroplanes and atom bombs)?

How do you know what is historical? According to you not believing in Atindriya (with the exception of improbable/impossible advaita Brahman) is historical..... If such is your myopic point of view, I pity you...At the least Vimanas and brahamastras are a logical possibility...it is not a logically impossible entity like advaita Brahman...

 

[dhanabal]

it's true srimurugan.org/gallery.html

 

[Heart&Mind]

Hello!

Recently a Hindu friend of mine told me that Hinduism is actually monotheistic, and that all of the deities are parts of the one true god. Could any of you please elaborate on this for me?

It really depends on the Sampraday (school) and individual Hindu who answers this question.

Some schools are strictly monotheistic, some monistic, others soft polytheistic (like what you described above), some hard polytheistic, and others Henotheistic (which, I think, is the dominant view).

Personally, I think in the west, Hindus go for the "they all represent one God" statement as to not be labeled as "pagan" or "superstitious" by western society.

 

[DavidMcCann]

Personally, I think in the west, Hindus go for the "they all represent one God" statement as to not be labeled as "pagan" or "superstitious" by western society.

In the 19th century, apart from a few recalcitrant positivists, western philosophy was dominated by absolute idealism. At that time westerners started to take an interest in Hinduism, and naturally exclaimed "Look, Śaṁkara's just like Hegel and Bradley!". Meanwhile, Indians getting a western education were probably impressed by the fact that something like Advaita was all the rage in Europe and the USA. But I wonder what ordinary Hindus, who've never stopped to consider philosophy, would make of being told that they are really identical to the God they worship. Not much, I suspect. Personally, I'm for Madhva, and he defined the gods a liberated souls, not as aspects of Brahman.

 

[Aupmanyav]

The ordinary Hindu is a through and through polytheist.

 

[wil]

I've met many an extra-ordinary Hindus then...

(Muslims say the same about Christians due to the Trinity)

 

[DavidMcCann]

There's always a balance to strike when deciding the "real" beliefs of a religion. On the one hand, one might say that any Hindu met in Maryland is "extra-ordinary" compared to one living in an Indian village, in that they have had the experience of growing up in an alien society. On the other hand, one might ask who would give the best account of Christianity: a priest with a degree in theology or any worshiper plucked out of the pew?