The Glory of Polytheism

[JR]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) WhatsApp Email Share Link

Indra was, without a shadow of doubt the most important deva in Rigveda. That was why he was made king of devas in all our subsequent scriptures. When we say "vedic religion" it is not possible, at this point in time, to separate the rigvedic, rig-& yajur-vedic and the rig-yaju-saama vedic times. So, what we can correctly say is that Indra is the Supreme Deva or Devata in Rigveda. By the time the yajurveda came along, Rudra of the rigveda became the same as Siva; so, Rudra=Siva.

Rudra comes out as a happy-go-lucky, howling, boisterous band leader of his followers, the Maruts; he roams about and creates disorder and destruction wherever he goes. Anjaneya story requires another detailed write-up, but suffice to say that when the ordinary human Rama of Valmiki Ramayana was elevated to the status of an avattar of Vishnu and made equal to the Supreme Godhead, Anjaneya was allowed the small promotion of having been born with Siva's blessings.

Rama was not an 'ordinary' human. He was an extraordinary warrior who single-handedly slayed the mighty demons such as Kara, Dhooshana and their entire troop. His single arrow shot through the trees, went past 7 sal trees and many, many miles before falling into the ocean. Upon the touch of his feet, Ahalya attained 'Shaapa Vimochana'. To his order, even the mighty Lord of the oceans obeyed and gave way for Sri Rama to build a bridge upon him. He was blessed by sage Agasthya to being the worthy recipient of the time-immemorial 'Aditya Hridayam'. Rama, with the help from a very simple monkey troop, killed the mighty Ravana and his entire army.

I have noticed you have this habit on throwing mud on Vaishnava deities, sangom ji. I noticed this habit of yours in my thread 'Was Karna good or bad'. You said, our Vaishnava ithihasa 'Mahabharata' was 'invention of a pervert' and that 'Kunti's deeds were written by Vyasa to show easy-way-out to discard illicit offsprings of unwed pregnancies'. You did not like the very mention of the name of Sri Velukkudi Krishnan and said in that thread that because his son is with Muslims, Sri Krishnan is a 'hypocrite'. You also commented stating your own views on the ithihasa and said/asserted they were only right and that I was showing 'intolerance' when I said that's not the way Vyasa muni wrote them. Remember, you might do it because there are majority Shaivites in this forum, I do not know. But, such mud-slinging is not good for your astral-aura, especially at your advanced age. And also remember, it only takes 1 single well-versed Vaishnava to blow out all your arguments to nothing!

Just a friendly reminder.

 

[biswa]

Whether we agree with Sangom ji or not, I think we have to take his general point that the Hindu Pantheon has been shaped and reshaped over time. As such there is no absolute truth in the naming of gods and worship of deities.

This brings me to the other problem with monotheism. If it is true that Vishnu does not appear prominently in the Rig Veda "who was God" before Vishnu? The Muslims also have the same justification problem: if Allah appeared only in 622 CE, "who was God" before Allah.

To me the obvious answer is polytheism. If we believe the continuous existence of the divine, we must have worshipped or referred to the same divinity by many different names throughout history.

 

[rishikesan]

Comparing Hindu religion with other religions, would not be an useful Exercise, because all know that Muslim religion, their customs are diagonally opposite . According to me seers have thousands of years back have analysed threadbare & given us cooked food to eat , At this modern age why should we go back & split the hair for no purpose. Like many Topics in this Forum this also need not be stretched just for fun.
Srinivasan

 

[biswa]

Srinivasan,

If you don't like the topic, feel free to exit the thread. Who is forcing you to be here?

 

[renuka]

Comparing Hindu religion with other religions, would not be an useful Exercise, because all know that Muslim religion, their customs are diagonally opposite . According to me seers have thousands of years back have analysed threadbare & given us cooked food to eat , At this modern age why should we go back & split the hair for no purpose. Like many Topics in this Forum this also need not be stretched just for fun.
Srinivasan

Dear Rishikeshan ji,

Why are you not keen for further discussion?

A Hindu never fears a debate..in the past Acharyas had always faced a debate and it was not all about winning but it was about learning. No one was a loser in anyway.

Only Non Hindus get scared of a debate and discussion becos they are afraid that any deep analysis might shake the foundation of their faith with a Richter of 10 and the devastating Tsunami of emotions might make them launch a Holy war.

We Hindus are peace loving..we do not launch a Dharma Yuddh for no rhyme or reason becos we have depth of knowledge and faith and come whatever we never go berserk.

So by all means any discussion which is within decent limits should not be stopped.

 

[biswa]

This is the classic monotheistic "my way or the highway" approach.

 

[kkumar29]

I have noticed you have this habit on throwing mud on Vaishnava deities, sangom ji. I noticed this habit of yours in my thread 'Was Karna good or bad'. You said, our Vaishnava ithihasa 'Mahabharata' was 'invention of a pervert' and that 'Kunti's deeds were written by Vyasa to show easy-way-out to discard illicit offsprings of unwed pregnancies'. You did not like the very mention of the name of Sri Velukkudi Krishnan and said in that thread that because his son is with Muslims, Sri Krishnan is a 'hypocrite'. You also commented stating your own views on the ithihasa and said/asserted they were only right and that I was showing 'intolerance' when I said that's not the way Vyasa muni wrote them. Remember, you might do it because there are majority Shaivites in this forum, I do not know. But, such mud-slinging is not good for your astral-aura, especially at your advanced age. And also remember, it only takes 1 single well-versed Vaishnava to blow out all your arguments to nothing!

Just a friendly reminder.

Dear Ms. Jayashree,

I normally don't participate in these discussions.

In the quoted paragraph above you seem to be venting your anger and uttering a veiled threat because Mr. Sangomji did not agree with your views and expressed his own views which were not acceptable to you, in another thread. I have been reading with interest the views Sangomji has been expressing in this forum (with references) for a few years now. Some of his views on historical development of our religion (that we call Hinduism) seem very likely and no one has been able to refute them logically. While there is no necessity for anyone to rebut his arguments, there is definitely no need to shut him out. I for one would like to hear more from him because it provides an alternative view point based on logic and not on faith. I don't agree with everything he writes but his views provoke enough questions in my mind forcing me to go and find more information.

So please let him write his views and if you don't like his writings please ignore them.

I am writing this post (asking you to do/not do something) with the risk of being called a hypocrite because I want Sangomji to keep posting as I find his posts very informative.

I hope you will take this post in the right spirit.

Regards,
K. Kumar

 

[renuka]

But, such mud-slinging is not good for your astral-aura, especially at your advanced age.

Dear JR,

I know this post is directed to another member but I cant help asking you..what has the astral aura got to do with age?

Why is an elder person expected to be without fire and ammunition and be placid just becos one is old.

It is the body that ages..the mind is ageless and the true self is unborn. What has astral aura got to do with any of these?

So why are elder people being "forced" to live within the man made constrains? Is it becos you see death and advanced age as being good friends?

Death can happen to anyone..old or young..we humans always think that death only happens to others and not to us.How are we so sure that anyone of us would even be alive tomorrow?

Some might feel that by being so called good a Vishnu Duta might come to us when we die and those who are so called bad will have a Yama Duta waiting upon them..to me I feel whether its a Yama Duta or a Vishnu Duta..what difference does it make? Death is Death.

No one has come back to tell us for sure where he/she went after death..all we see on death is an asystole.

 

[CHANDRU1849]

This is the classic monotheistic "my way or the highway" approach.

Whose approach.

 

[CHANDRU1849]

I appreciate your reverence to Vaishnavism.

Rama was not an 'ordinary' human. He was an extraordinary warrior who single-handedly slayed the mighty demons such as Kara, Dhooshana and their entire troop. His single arrow shot through the trees, went past 7 sal trees and many, many miles before falling into the ocean.

We have come across lot of extraordinary warriors in history viz., Alexander the Great, Napolean, Chatrapathi Shivaji etc. Roman Emperors thought themselves as Gods – Have you seen the immortal English film Benhur.

I have noticed you have this habit on throwing mud on Vaishnava deities, sangom ji. I noticed this habit of yours in my thread 'Was Karna good or bad'. You said, our Vaishnava ithihasa 'Mahabharata' was 'invention of a pervert' and that 'Kunti's deeds were written by Vyasa to show easy-way-out to discard illicit offsprings of unwed pregnancies'.

Again, I appreciate your sincerity. But, will you accept it is in order when some popular kings, who were Shiva devotees, were shown as demons and killed by Vishnu or his avatar? If you say it is not correct, you are impartial. But, being a Vaishnavite, you won’t. If that is the case, what is the wrong in questioning the validity of such puranas, showing Shiva devotees in poor light, by people like me, who want to give equal respect to all Gods. Please don't throw stones sitting inside a glass house. It may backfire.

But, such mud-slinging is not good for your astral-aura, especially at your advanced age.

Our ancestors might have used age, disease, economic background etc. to sustain such theories. But, Hinduism is definitely not dependent on such factors. It is a well organized religion and contains really good works.

And also remember, it only takes 1 single well-versed Vaishnava to blow out all your arguments to nothing!

Yes. Does it now apply to a well-versed Shaivite to blow out the myths, depicting Shiva devotees as demons?

 

[R.SANKARANARAYANAN IYER]

You look into 2 parts of water-one clear and another muddy;Surya Bimbha is clearly visible in first one and unclear in the second one.For ordinary mortals Idol worship is ideal worship. The different forms suits Ishta devatha concept. Eswara acts as a Conduit light.
In temples an idol is consecrated after the sculptor make it;acharays and pundits invoke;nitya poojas inject POWER into it. GOD'S PRESENCE I VISIBLE DIRECTLY TO GNANIS and INDIRECTLY FOR SINCERE WORSHIPPING MORTALS. The Ahangara aspect is getting vanished upon worhipping/prostrating/shashtanga namaskara etc., Hence Polytheism is glorious and very much essential for Hinduism

 

[sangom]

Rama was not an 'ordinary' human. He was an extraordinary warrior who single-handedly slayed the mighty demons such as Kara, Dhooshana and their entire troop. His single arrow shot through the trees, went past 7 sal trees and many, many miles before falling into the ocean. Upon the touch of his feet, Ahalya attained 'Shaapa Vimochana'. To his order, even the mighty Lord of the oceans obeyed and gave way for Sri Rama to build a bridge upon him. He was blessed by sage Agasthya to being the worthy recipient of the time-immemorial 'Aditya Hridayam'. Rama, with the help from a very simple monkey troop, killed the mighty Ravana and his entire army.

I have noticed you have this habit on throwing mud on Vaishnava deities, sangom ji. I noticed this habit of yours in my thread 'Was Karna good or bad'. You said, our Vaishnava ithihasa 'Mahabharata' was 'invention of a pervert' and that 'Kunti's deeds were written by Vyasa to show easy-way-out to discard illicit offsprings of unwed pregnancies'. You did not like the very mention of the name of Sri Velukkudi Krishnan and said in that thread that because his son is with Muslims, Sri Krishnan is a 'hypocrite'. You also commented stating your own views on the ithihasa and said/asserted they were only right and that I was showing 'intolerance' when I said that's not the way Vyasa muni wrote them. Remember, you might do it because there are majority Shaivites in this forum, I do not know. But, such mud-slinging is not good for your astral-aura, especially at your advanced age. And also remember, it only takes 1 single well-versed Vaishnava to blow out all your arguments to nothing!

Just a friendly reminder.

Smt. Jayasree,

I joined this forum in May 2010 and my views on religion have remained the same ever since. We had an eminent Srivaishnava-turned-atheist professor, residing in the US, and perhaps he was one of the few who could understand and appreciate my standpoint, besides Shri Praveen, owner and moderator of this Forum.

If you have the time, patience and financial resources to go through the archives under General Discussions category, you will find that I had criticized advaita also, because that is what I really think about advaita. Hence, your impression that I am dead set against Vaishnava deities, is only reflective of a very closed mindset which says Vaishnavam, its deities, its scriptures, its credo all are inerrant and glorious and if any one tries even to criticize any of these, woe be unto him, "I shall not tolerate!" Kindly substitute Islam and Allah for Vaishnavam and Nrayana, respectively, and you get the source for all the jihadists in the world today.

Shri Praveen has been kind enough to allow all shades of views on practically any topic because he studied in UK and has seen the world; the only holy cows - which should not at all be criticised in this Forum, as of now - are the Kanchi Seer Chandrasekharendra Saraswathi and Satya Sai Baba; I will therefore suggest you to kindly take up with Shri Praveen to include Vaishnava gods, Vaishnava scriptures, Mahabharata, etc., also in this list of holy cows and nobody will even dare to whisper anything against any of these topics, because we are all here thanks to the courtesy of Shri Praveen and whatever he tells is the final word.

That said, don't you think that Vishnu/Narayana/Krishna etc., (the Vaishnava deities) are also deities/gods for the non-vaishnavas? Being a smartha Iyer myself, I have gone to temples of these deities and had worshipped also. Hence my observations/comments are not aimed at belittling any group. But it is a fact that discussions about the non-vaishnava deities does not arise as often as the vaishnava deities; I can't say why. There was a discussion about Ganapathy one year or so ago and there also I had clearly written my belief that the verse Shuklaambaradharam is not addressed to Ganapathy, which displeased some of our hard-core smaartha friends.

As I wrote to you in the thread "Was Karna good or bad?" you can hold on to whatever religious views you may like, but kindly allow others also to express their views and don't develop a paranoid attitude. If you cannot still compromise, Madam, please tell Shri Praveen to ban me.

 

[sangom]

Dear Ms. Jayashree,

I normally don't participate in these discussions.

In the quoted paragraph above you seem to be venting your anger and uttering a veiled threat because Mr. Sangomji did not agree with your views and expressed his own views which were not acceptable to you, in another thread. I have been reading with interest the views Sangomji has been expressing in this forum (with references) for a few years now. Some of his views on historical development of our religion (that we call Hinduism) seem very likely and no one has been able to refute them logically. While there is no necessity for anyone to rebut his arguments, there is definitely no need to shut him out. I for one would like to hear more from him because it provides an alternative view point based on logic and not on faith. I don't agree with everything he writes but his views provoke enough questions in my mind forcing me to go and find more information.

So please let him write his views and if you don't like his writings please ignore them.

I am writing this post (asking you to do/not do something) with the risk of being called a hypocrite because I want Sangomji to keep posting as I find his posts very informative.

I hope you will take this post in the right spirit.

Regards,
K. Kumar

Dear Shri Kumar,

I thank you very much for your above post, mainly because I was seriously thinking of quitting this forum (just as Shri Nara did) after posting my reply to Smt. Jayashree's observations. While I differ with her in my views, I can understand her position. And, as an old man, who is "overstaying" in this world perhaps (as per another member - who is elder to me in age - reminded me recently), perhaps I should not be this active in the Forum except as a conformist. Your post has been timely in that it has shown that my "non-conformist" views are liked by at least some people.

Let me assure you (and others also) that I have read a large number of books online, thanks to google and I am writing my views only on the basis of the inputs I so gathered. I do not treat any shade of view as "unreadable" but form my own deductions and conclusions.

Once again, my sincere thanks to you.

 

[sarang]

It is our and your fortune that non conformism is restricted to hindus and brahmins. Life may not be so rosy and unforgiving in other lands and faiths.

 

[Vaagmi]

Smt. Jayasree,.................
Shri Praveen has been kind enough to allow all shades of views on practically any topic because he studied in UK and has seen the world; the only holy cows - which should not at all be criticised in this Forum, as of now - are the Kanchi Seer Chandrasekharendra Saraswathi and Satya Sai Baba; I will therefore suggest you to kindly take up with Shri Praveen to include Vaishnava gods, Vaishnava scriptures, Mahabharata, etc., also in this list of holy cows and nobody will even dare to whisper anything against any of these topics, because we are all here thanks to the courtesy of Shri Praveen and whatever he tells is the final word.......................

Dear Sri Sangom Sir,

You have mentioned only two holy cows. You have left out the third-the holiest of the holy cows viz smarthaism here. And you know this following episode that happened here:

A member A in this forum was engaged in a conversation with a smartha member B who was glorifying the ecclesiastical splendour of smarthas. The member A asks the smartha member B how come that the panchayatana pooja that he was doing is not polytheism and so worshipping of multiple Gods for multiple favours. Member B went and complained to moderator that his religious sentiments had been grievously hurt. The moderator promptly came in and asked member A to delete his posts voluntarily. The member A refused as it was only an argument he was engaged in and there was no offence any were evident in his posts to hurt any religious sentiments. He (A) quit refusing to eat crow.

So the holiest of holy cows here is smarthaism and that should also not be touched any member. LOL.

 

[JR]

Smt. Jayasree,

I joined this forum in May 2010 and my views on religion have remained the same ever since. We had an eminent Srivaishnava-turned-atheist professor, residing in the US, and perhaps he was one of the few who could understand and appreciate my standpoint, besides Shri Praveen, owner and moderator of this Forum.

If you have the time, patience and financial resources to go through the archives under General Discussions category, you will find that I had criticized advaita also, because that is what I really think about advaita. Hence, your impression that I am dead set against Vaishnava deities, is only reflective of a very closed mindset which says Vaishnavam, its deities, its scriptures, its credo all are inerrant and glorious and if any one tries even to criticize any of these, woe be unto him, "I shall not tolerate!" Kindly substitute Islam and Allah for Vaishnavam and Nrayana, respectively, and you get the source for all the jihadists in the world today.

Shri Praveen has been kind enough to allow all shades of views on practically any topic because he studied in UK and has seen the world; the only holy cows - which should not at all be criticised in this Forum, as of now - are the Kanchi Seer Chandrasekharendra Saraswathi and Satya Sai Baba; I will therefore suggest you to kindly take up with Shri Praveen to include Vaishnava gods, Vaishnava scriptures, Mahabharata, etc., also in this list of holy cows and nobody will even dare to whisper anything against any of these topics, because we are all here thanks to the courtesy of Shri Praveen and whatever he tells is the final word.

That said, don't you think that Vishnu/Narayana/Krishna etc., (the Vaishnava deities) are also deities/gods for the non-vaishnavas? Being a smartha Iyer myself, I have gone to temples of these deities and had worshipped also. Hence my observations/comments are not aimed at belittling any group. But it is a fact that discussions about the non-vaishnava deities does not arise as often as the vaishnava deities; I can't say why. There was a discussion about Ganapathy one year or so ago and there also I had clearly written my belief that the verse Shuklaambaradharam is not addressed to Ganapathy, which displeased some of our hard-core smaartha friends.

As I wrote to you in the thread "Was Karna good or bad?" you can hold on to whatever religious views you may like, but kindly allow others also to express their views and don't develop a paranoid attitude. If you cannot still compromise, Madam, please tell Shri Praveen to ban me.

Dear Sir,

No, I am not at all into thinking that you should be banned, and I won't do such a thing even if I had the power to do so. But, you might know, spirituality is like a young sapling that needs a lot of attention, time and devotion to grow. So be it Vaishnava, or Smarta or Shaiva, we should all be mindful of each others' spirituality and never let it get diminished by questioning of accepted Itihasas and other standards of works. There is no point in promoting 'atheism' in such a good forum as this!

It may of consequence to let you know that while I observed you and quite some others defending a view 'against Mahabharata', I have yet to come across a Vaishnava in this forum who does the same to Shaiva scriptures or deities. There are also incidences in Shaiva scriptures wherein Sri Vishnu is shown inferior such as in 'Arunachala Mahima' wherein Vishnu and Brahma could not see the head and feet of Shiva when he stood as a flame and it was showing how Shiva is superior to Vishnu. As a counter-argument to the accusations on Mahabharata, nobody criticized these in return! Some knowledgeable Vaishnava can, in essence, bring out a debate with these stories as a retaliation, is it not! Somehow I don't notice Vaishnavas doing that!

So anyway what I stated is not at all to challenge your kind self, I observed you demonstrate exemplary knowledge and within the short time I have been a member here, have grown tremendous respect for you for the same! So having given an explanation for what I meant to say earlier, I now say that I find your respectful and thoughtful message very, very pleasing to receive. So given these qualities in you, I am now given to believe you truly did not mean any harm! A very happy Deepavali to you and your family!

Sincere regards,

Jayashree

 

[sangom]

It is our and your fortune that non conformism is restricted to hindus and brahmins. Life may not be so rosy and unforgiving in other lands and faiths.

You are very right. And that is why I remain a hindu, because I feel this is the most inclusive religion.

 

[sangom]

Dear Sri Sangom Sir,

You have mentioned only two holy cows. You have left out the third-the holiest of the holy cows viz smarthaism here. And you know this following episode that happened here:

A member A in this forum was engaged in a conversation with a smartha member B who was glorifying the ecclesiastical splendour of smarthas. The member A asks the smartha member B how come that the panchayatana pooja that he was doing is not polytheism and so worshipping of multiple Gods for multiple favours. Member B went and complained to moderator that his religious sentiments had been grievously hurt. The moderator promptly came in and asked member A to delete his posts voluntarily. The member A refused as it was only an argument he was engaged in and there was no offence any were evident in his posts to hurt any religious sentiments. He (A) quit refusing to eat crow.

So the holiest of holy cows here is smarthaism and that should also not be touched any member. LOL.

Shri Vaagmi sir,

I was not logging in for some time due to my health problems. Most probably this incident which you refer to might have happened during that period unless you are referring to an old case in which one of our most active and acerbic - writing member quit in a huff; I honestly forget his monicker now.

I should also mention that there is one "unmentionable" person in this Forum and since it is unmentionable, it (his name) cannot be written! If my memory is correct Shri Nara, a dear friend of mine, quit over some similar tiff about the Mr. Unmentionable, am I correct?

In any case, the panchaayatana pooja is nothing but polytheistic worship, even if some one were to hold that he sees the same god in all the five idols. My curiosity has been, and still is, how and why Adishankara closed his eyes towards the dualistic, polytheistic worship followed by most of his followers; or, is it that we failed to grasp the advaita philosophy and so are continuing our old methods of worship? I don't know.

 

[JR]

Again, I appreciate your sincerity. But, will you accept it is in order when some popular kings, who were Shiva devotees, were shown as demons and killed by Vishnu or his avatar? If you say it is not correct, you are impartial. But, being a Vaishnavite, you won’t. If that is the case, what is the wrong in questioning the validity of such puranas, showing Shiva devotees in poor light, by people like me, who want to give equal respect to all Gods. Please don't throw stones sitting inside a glass house. It may backfire.

Dear Sir,

They were demons alright. They took to Shiva worship ONLY because Shiva is easily pleased and gives out extremely powerful boons and thus they prayed to him to get these boons. Ravana is infact a gatekeeper of Vaikuntha and a worshiper of Sri Vishnu. He took the demonic avatara so as to redeem himself from the curse of the sanatkumaras to otherwise undergo 7 lifetimes on earth, should they choose to be devoted to Sri Vishnu. So there is no point here in claiming that our Vaishnava ithihasas are wrong because the demons were devotees of Shiva. Besides, there are many true devotees of Shiva such as Appar, Sundarar, Sambandar, Manicckavachagar, the 63 Nayanmars, Avvaiyar, Karaikal Ammaiyar and so forth which no Vaishnava scripture says anything wrong about! It is only those have rakshasa tendencies who having gotten the boons from Shiva, tormented everyone on earth, that our Vaishnava scriptures talk about, and there is nothing wrong in that!

Regards,

 

[mskmoorthy]

Probably the link below was the one mentioned in http://www.tamilbrahmins.com/general-discussions/19874-glory-polytheism-4.html#post266947

http://www.tamilbrahmins.com/general-discussions/11296-smartas-eclectic-hindus-6.html#post184959

 

[sangom]

Dear Sir,

No, I am not at all into thinking that you should be banned, and I won't do such a thing even if I had the power to do so. But, you might know, spirituality is like a young sapling that needs a lot of attention, time and devotion to grow. So be it Vaishnava, or Smarta or Shaiva, we should all be mindful of each others' spirituality and never let it get diminished by questioning of accepted Itihasas and other standards of works. There is no point in promoting 'atheism' in such a good forum as this!

It may of consequence to let you know that while I observed you and quite some others defending a view 'against Mahabharata', I have yet to come across a Vaishnava in this forum who does the same to Shaiva scriptures or deities. There are also incidences in Shaiva scriptures wherein Sri Vishnu is shown inferior such as in 'Arunachala Mahima' wherein Vishnu and Brahma could not see the head and feet of Shiva when he stood as a flame and it was showing how Shiva is superior to Vishnu. As a counter-argument to the accusations on Mahabharata, nobody criticized these in return! Some knowledgeable Vaishnava can, in essence, bring out a debate with these stories as a retaliation, is it not! Somehow I don't notice Vaishnavas doing that!

So anyway what I stated is not at all to challenge your kind self, I observed you demonstrate exemplary knowledge and within the short time I have been a member here, have grown tremendous respect for you for the same! So having given an explanation for what I meant to say earlier, I now say that I find your respectful and thoughtful message very, very pleasing to receive. So given these qualities in you, I am now given to believe you truly did not mean any harm! A very happy Deepavali to you and your family!

Sincere regards,

Jayashree

Smt. Jayasree,

I feel I will be not be incorrect in assuming that I may be of your father's age (My eldest son is 50 years old.). I have been an ordinary, run-of-the-mill smartha for almost 60 years of my life, when, after retirement and because of my interest in our hindu religion I started reading whatever books I could get hold of relating to this topic. Luckily, my son got for me a table-top PC back in 2000 and since google books could be read without much hassle then, I had the opportunity to read several books by several authors and view points. It was as a result of such reading that I came to know that there are many loopholes in our religion, but (viewing from an ordinary smaartha iyer's pov) we have been bringing up our successive generations by not showing them the week points but trying to build a grandiose structure with carefully ferreted out crumbs. Even the advaita of Shankara does not seem to have been truthfully followed.

If you go back to our archives and verify, you will find that my very first post was about Purushasooktam where the Shudra alone is depicted as "born from the feet of the (sacrificial) Purusha, whereas Braahmanas, Kshatriyas and Vaishyas "form" (aaseet, in Sanskrit), or "make up" (krtaH) giving a subtle indication that while the three upper castes, per se, form or make up the divine Purusha, the shudras were born and so remain unattached to that divine Purusha. The brahmins of old therefore held the view that intrinsically the three upper castes were different and at a higher level as compared to the Shudras. This very first post was non-conformist - both to the Vaishnavas and Smarthas, because both accept the Purushasookta as kind of gospel - and promptly two of my friends (one has quit permanently while the other is a very infrequent visitor nowadays) questioned my source. That, I think, will sum up from where I come, as they say nowadays!

I respectfully beg to differ from your idea that "spirituality is like a young sapling that needs a lot of attention, time and devotion to grow". If spirituality, whatever it may mean, is to be grown or reared up under 'hothouse' conditions, then it will only end up as sham religiosity. I am not at all familiar with Vaishnava lore, but my impression is that none of the alwars or other great devotees were people who were brought up in the above way. Even if you look outside Vaishnavam, Purandaradasa, Kannappa Nayanar and Ramana Maharshi of recent times show a very different story; that is, spirituality is different from strict conformism to any one religion/schism or group, but it is something inborn and flowers spontaneously at the right time and circumstances. Hence, for grown-up people, like us, who desire to enrich their spirituality by not even going near anything contrary to what they have prejudged as the correct spirituality, the only course open is to avoid interaction with different people, and to join some monastery or hermitage of people with identical religious leanings, I feel.

Having said that, I have nothing to criticize Vishnu about because he is as much a smaartha deity as Vaishnava. Vishnu is also a vedic deva, but Rama and Krishna are not vedic deities; they are puranic/itihaasic creations.(Till about 50 years ago no smaartha Vaadhyaar would do any Homam (havan) for Rama, Krishna, Hanumaan, Dattaatreya, Murugan, Parvathy, etc., because all these are outside the purview of the vedic pantheon. It might have changed lately but I am not aware of the situation at present. Sudarsana homam was in vogue even in the olden days and when I asked my jyotisha guru who hailed from a vaadhyaar family and was well-versed in vaideekam also, he said that it (sudarsana homam) is partly Taantric and although the mantra has words like "krishnaaya, govindaaya, gopeejanavallabhaaya", subsequently it changes to "paraaya....etc." and ends up as "hum phat brahmane paramjyotishe swaahaa!" and thus the swaaha is addressed to brahmane paramjyotishe (the super resplendence of the brahman) and not to the krishnaaya etc. I felt it was not a very logically satisfying reply, but being very much elder and my guru, I did not want to put more questions.
There is a Chandikaa Homam and Chandi or Chandikaa is also a non-vedic goddess. I do not know the mantras employed in it nor the exact deity which is created by the aavaahana in that.) Therefore, unlike the vedic pantheon for whom we don't know the earlier history (Rigveda and its pantheon is the very starting point for our hinduism.) we have enough evidence to show that these puraanic deities are all later additions to the pantheon. Naturally, the circumstances and timing of admission of such new godheads comes up very often in this forum, because many people are unaware of the basic principles or history of our religion. Just as Rama, Krishna get discussed, we can have discussions about the inclusion of Murugan, Sivan, Parvathy, Durga, Saastha (Ayyappan); even the serpent worship can be discussed. But somebody has to raise the topic and someone knowledgeable (we had one lady member who was very well versed, but unfortunately she was made to quit.) to answer these doubts.

In my humble view our religion will thrive and prosper only if we allow much fresh air into it and permit our coming generations to question, get answers and practice those which they are convinced about. After all, in the KatHOpanishad, Nachiketa questions the action of his father, and although he fails to get an ultimate answer from Yama himself, we get a good Upanishad!

Finally, I will suggest to you two Tamil books:

இந்து மதம் எங்கே போகிறது?

சடங்குகளின் கதை!

Both are by Agnihotram Ramanuja Thathachariar. You will most probably not like the contents of the books but a careful reading will show to you that healthy questioning of religion or beliefs is not alien to Vaishnavas and this nonagenarian scholar and that too a Thaathaachariar by lineage does such questioning, though in a subtle way. He covers both smaarthas and Vaishnavas.

 

[sangom]

Probably the link below was the one mentioned in http://www.tamilbrahmins.com/general-discussions/19874-glory-polytheism-4.html#post266947

http://www.tamilbrahmins.com/general-discussions/11296-smartas-eclectic-hindus-6.html#post184959

Thank you, Shri mskmoorthy sir. Now I recollect. Incidentally I wish Smt. Jayasree reads my post #57 there. I hope it gives some evidence to prove that I am not against either smaarthas or Vaishnavas; I am only against the "untenables" in religion.

 

[JR]

Dear Sangom ji,

I agree with majority of what you say. However, I beg to differ from the comment "If spirituality, whatever it may mean, is to be grown or reared up under 'hothouse' conditions, then it will only end up as sham religiosity" -- please see, believing in Valmiki's Ramayana and Vedavyasa's Mahabharata are not 'sham religiosity', but the 'foundation of Vaishnavism'. There is a difference between the 2. For example, if someone were to believe in Manusmriti which I heard to lay foundation for many beliefs unsuitable for present age, then that would tantamount to 'sham religiosity'. But not ithihasas that were given to the Vaishnava community (and the entire mankind) for their benefit and upliftment by those accepted as seers and sages of the yore! Because if we question these accepted standards of work, and continue our questioning mode exclusively into each and every accepted work, we would only become atheists and not a 'thiest who questions' like your kind self believes!

There have been various categorizations of puranas and ithihasas, some are termed 'Sattwika puranas' and some others 'Rajasic' and some 'Tamasic' and there is varying amounts of trust and belief vested upon those. Some puranas are totally termed 'Bogus'. So while we are at our own jurisdiction to believe or disbelieve stories from such puranas, we are not at a liberty to question those coming from good, sattwic puranas for they have been approved to be 'correct'! Besides, ithihasas such as Vyasa Bhagawan's Mahabharata are 'Smriti' and thus it is one of the foundational stones for Hinduism.

We do not question shrutis (sattwic puranas) and smritis (ithihasa including Mahabharata), for then we lose our entire foundation and Hinduism would crumble!

But perpectives differ and I leave it at that, at this point. The only message that I would stick to, is that we should be mindful of the sensitivities of the other sect/other party and not ridicule their time-accepted standards of work such as the ithihasas and puranas. If even saying this is wrong, I have really nothing to add.

Thank you very much for pointing me to those works, I will read them when I get a chance, and I am eager to look into post #57 here next .

Sincerely,

 

[sangom]

Sir,

To put it in a nut shell:

1. During Rig Veda period, Indra was supreme.
2. During Yajur Veda period, Rudra became Shiva.
3. Sama Veda relates to Shiva.

But how and when Vishnu entered the episode and totally sidelined Indra, took the centre stage and created a situation whereby Indra lost his prime position. What is the reason of Vishnu's elevation, who, per your statement, occupied a minor position in Rig Veda, and who made that elevation and why?

Shri Chandru,

Please see about Vedic and Puraanic deities in my post addressed to Smt. Jayashree, here.

I may be becoming repetitive, but let me say that Vishnu was a rigvedic deity just as Indra or Rudra was. So, Vishnu did not have to "enter" from the outside. When the Vaishnava cult attained a large following and also spread into the northern parts of India (Kashmir alone remained a strong Saivism region.) side by side, the non-vedic or Puraanic godheads Rama and Krishna were transformed into avataaras of Vishnu. While the non-vedic Siva could be made into another form of Rudra, and Parvathy, Murugan, Ganapathy, Saasthaa, etc., could be linked to Siva through a family chart sort of mechanism, there must have existed some difficulties in doing a similar thing in the case of Vishnu; I can't say what it could have been.

The creation of the "Trinity" idea also happened subsequent to the vedic period and Vishnu was given the protector's portfolio while Siva got the destruction portfolio. Hence some smart intellect could have invented the idea of avataara. In Saivism, Lord Siva comes down in various disguises to play His "leelas" among the mortals. Hence, instead of disguise, in the case of Vishnu, someone could have thought of avataara, (lit. avatruu = to descend) mechanism. (Some Christian sources might say that Jehovah coming down as Jesus might have inspired the hindus, but I think chronology may not fit in well.)

The original Valmiki Ramayana depicts Rama merely as a human prince; scholars say that the Baalakaanda and Ayodhyaa Kaandaa, as also Uttara Kaanda were later additions to Valmiki's original work. Curiously the first poetic work in Manipravaalam (i.e., Tamil and Malayalam) known as Raamacharitham also starts from aaranyakaandam only! After adding the two initial kaandas (baala- & ayodhya-) the Adhyaatma Raamaayana was composed depicting Rama as a divine incarnation. This Adhyaatma Ramayana became a canonical work for the Vaishnavas and in time, it was translated into many regional languages. Rama worship flourished as a result.

As regards Krishna, the Mahabharata depicts him more as a prince than as a divine character. But Bhagavatam (which scholars say, must have been composed in the 14th. century A.D. and some scholars even conclude that it was Vopadeva, brother of Jayadeva, who composed the Bhagavata) and Harivamsam clearly make him an avataara. But Krishna/Vasudeva cult was known in the north from very early times and so Vaishnavism spread very easily after Krishna was made into an avataara.

This is roughly how we can say Rama and Krishna became the mainstream deities of hinduism. As to the timing, or the when question, no clear cut answer is possible at least for a lay person like myself. Krishna defeats Indra in the Bhagavatha (the raising of the Govardhana) and that looks like an indirect indication of the disappearance of Indra worship by some groups of people in favour of Krishna worship.

 

[sangom]

< Clipped >

But perpectives differ and I leave it at that, at this point. The only message that I would stick to, is that we should be mindful of the sensitivities of the other sect/other party and not ridicule their time-accepted standards of work such as the ithihasas and puranas. If even saying this is wrong, I have really nothing to add.

< Clipped >

Sincerely,

Smt. Jayashree,

I get the impression that any criticism of the itihaasas is "ridiculing" those works, in your vocabulary. But there are works of criticism by eminent scholars on both Ramayana and Mahabharata. The books which I referred
to here are good examples.

If what you want is that nobody should criticise, then there is an easy way out; start your thread under the section "Religion" instead of under 'Geneal Discussions'. No one will comment on any topic there and only "ayes" will go on congratulating and backslapping one another. That may be the ideal place for you.