Gods? Not Really!

Are we implying that there is no Supreme Power too?

There are numerous instances of Indra committing sins such as lusting for married women, treachery etc  portrayed in the Mahabaratha and since the literature seems to suggest that he was a mortal prone to such temptations but at the same time was of a divine nature, this leads to a very plausible conclusion that Indra and the others of his kind might have been just aliens trying to create “laws” , “kingdoms” and trying to fit in and perpetuate their culture and teachings among the indigenous humans and might have actually had given rise to the various races which exist todays right from negroid to cauccasian due to such integalaxial crossbreeding.

If humans are able to control nature, probably humans could also be called as god. But humans can degrade the nature but cant control it or destroy it. He can drop a bomb on Hiroshima but cant destroy whole earth. He can create artificial rain to some extent but cannot escape from Tsunami or great floods. When Balaraama, Krishnas elder brother went to destroyed earth with his plough and mace, in anger with the fate, krishna said him that even if he is capable of destroying this planet earth he cannot destroy it unless and untill Sri Krishna’s will. that means only with Sri Krishna’s WILL
this multiverse or infinite universe will come into existence and only with Sri Krishna’s WILL this infinite universe will be destroyed leaving behind the
shesh (left over). 

Just because we say that lightning and thunder is because of Indra God, It does not mean that lightning and thunder is Indra. 
“VayuDev” (God who brings wind, typhoon), “VarunDev” (God who brings rain), “AgniDev” (God who is responsible for fire) and various other 
demiGods are only the Positions of the Jeevathma’s of Jeeva who resides in Swarg Planet.  Even Indra is the position of a seat in Swarg planet.

These demiGods have extraordinary power which humans cant understand now, may be in future they may be able to understand how these demiGods control the nature in our planet. The mere truth is that, these demiGods have been assigned with the tasks that will help the planet earth to sustain life. Just for an instance if sun stops its nuclear fusion reaction, or if he coughs or sneezes, it can spell devastating effect here on earth.
Even sun is also considered as demiGod. Now how can we call the mass of Hydrogen and Helium a demiGod? there is a Jeevathma who has a position called SuryaDev in planet Swarg who controls all the stars in our universe. We actually beg the mercy of these demiGods in the Swarg planet when we see the nature.

400 years back man dint knew how to harvest nature and generate electricity, but nature knew how to generate lightning since its beginning.
100 years back man dint knew how to fly, but birds always had it in their genes.

A person with some knowledge will take his 1 feet scale to dip inside the ocean and say happily that the ocean is 1 feet deep.
Another person with some knowledge will take his 10 feet scale to dip inside the ocean and say happily that the ocean is 10 feet deep.

Meaning to say that we humans now have a 1 feet length scale and we are going to measure the depth of the knowledge and technologies
that of demiGods and we find that its just not possible OR we come to a conclusion that there is no god, everything is personification to nature.

I agree to your views. The basic gods in hinduism were the creator, maintainer, and the destroyer. All others are derivatives of the different forms of the creator, maintainer, and the destroyer. I am even inclined to think that the form of Lord Hanuman described in the epics are in order to explain some kind of evolution, and Lord Ganesha is a kind of cloning technology. Those extra ordinary developments are so godly that they are being worshiped as gods.

I know the debate below is a lot old. The debate is senseless. Cmon Vishnu is the supreme and its known to every one and all other facts debated are pretty much basic. I know that someone might have fed him with this theory who is against Hinduism and blamed all of it on BORI saying that even BORI conveys the same. I dont think any institution like BORI might have written anything like what he said and having so many fundamental defects.

Gurudev,

We are going round and round the same points. So I shall summarize what I understand from our discussions.

What we agree on
? Hindu scriptures are much older than currently supposed.
? Ancient technology (and weapons) was more advanced than what they are credited for.
? There is a possibility that the Gods are of ET origin.

What we disagree on
? Interpolations in the scriptures.
Gurudev: They are pretty much static.
Abhilash: They have evolved and changed (ref: BORI)
? Astronomical references in the scriptures.
Gurudev: They can be used as proof for dating.
Abhilash: Cannot be taken at face value if the referenced texts can be proven to be interpolations (ref: BORI).
? The hierarchy and Prominence of Gods in Hinduism.
Gurudev: Same from Vedic times.
Abhilash: Changed heavily as time went by.
? The evidence for various points mentioned above (Technology, ET, etc.)
Gurudev: Takes certain references in the texts as solid evidence.
Abhilash: Needs more solid evidence to ascertain the points.

I agree that for specific points like the Saraswati river you have a strong case. Still I would like to be more convinced. I am particularly interested in the possible ET connections and am looking for concrete evidence in the texts. But I need to filter out elements of myth and imaginations from them. Hence I am wary about interpolations since for sure they will be no use as evidence.

Abhilash

Did you say “”scientists date the Rig Veda to 1500 BCE!””
Oops!! Which scientists?? Max Muller? :)

Read my article on Astronomical Dating of the Vedic ages.
http://hitxp.wordpress.com/2007/10/24/astronomical-dating-of-the-vedic-age/
One doesnt have to be a scientist to date the Vedas. Simple knowledge of astronomy would do to prove beyond doubt that vedas are atleast 6000-8000 years old!!

The saraswati river mentioned in the vedas, did it dry up in 1500 BC?!! What does the geological evidence say? Isnt that evidence science?

Fantasies are not what we are talking about… Fantasies are what these people are claiming unscientifically.. can you please tell me the so called “”scientific basis”” for dating RIgveda to 1500 BC?? Let me assure you, there is none :)

Rig vedic hymns also mention about Sama and Yajur veda. So how scientific is it to say that Rigveda is the oldest? All the vedas are contemporary texts. All these MYTH about 1500 BC, Rig veda being oldest veda, aryan invasion theory, etc are all fabricated things

As for me, I believe what I read.. and I read the actual texts, and have their sources verified from multiple points..
Its not that easy to interpolate texts or words into the sanskrit hymns.. Even altering a single word would change the entire meaning.. sanskrit it NOT english.. context is not independent within words.. its actually easy to “”append”” things than to change existing things or to insert in between..

And more over the priests who are chanting these hymns in temples, why on earth would they change the text or add more text?? For what purpose? These vedic hymns are not rendered as stories. And what is the proof of interpolation? Who did it and when? Even that requires solid scientific evidence and the same negation approach right? :)

As far your original comments are concerned, I am still not clear what you are trying to say. Hinduism has been adding more Gods? Of course yes.. As I have said already in my earlier posts, Hinduism is the only religion where a human being (even animals) are allowed to be promoted to the state of God based on their good deeds and spiritual guidance to people.. Shirdi Sai Baba, Raghavendra Swamy, etc are all modern day examples. event today we have people worshipping Sri Sri Ravishankar etc.. And this goes well with the core vedic philosophy that God is within everyone and everywhere.. the same supreme consciousness..
Now, The Gods I am talking about in this article are the ones like Indra, Varuna etc. They are clearly mentioned as Demi Gods who themselves worshipped Gods like Vishnu, Shiva, Brahma etc.. And these demi gods are also said to have been visiting earth from their planets in their space vehicles.. there are even measurements given about how long is a year in the Gods planets compared to that of earth etc.. Look at the last event in Mahabharatha, where the remaining pandavas travel towards the Himalayas to return to heaven!! Himalayas are definitely not heaven.. What was there in the Himalayas that would take them to heaven? A space ship parked long back when Vyasa and others entered earth??

So it is very much possible that these demigods were aliens who visited earth in the vedic ages.. in fact the original book that I read on this subject was not the “”Chariots of Gods””, but a wonderful kannada book called Mahasamparka, the Great Contact.. which was Mahabhartha rewritten trying to show how every event in Mahabhartha can be more clearly expressed in terms of modern science , space travel etc..

Gurudev,

I absolutely agree with you that almost all the translations of Sanskrit texts are superficial or simply misinterpretations. Since I can?t understand Sanskrit, I have no choice but to rely on them. However I don?t just swallow whatever is mentioned in them. I do use my critical brain (most of the times). ;) Anyway I am now in the process of learning Sanskrit. Though it may take long, I will try to reach a point where I myself would be able to understand the texts without translations.
Nevertheless, the books I mostly rely on, as I mentioned before, are from the Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute (BORI). These people are not just any prejudiced western so called Sanskrit scholars. They are indegenous scholars who have spent their whole lives among the texts (they have doctrates and post-doctrates in the subject)! They have tons of experience in the language and texts. They are also often critical about the western authors for their misinterpretations. I have not felt the slightest bias of any kind in their writings. Read their books and you will know the difference. They have unique libraries and more importantly a collections of around 30,000 rare manuscripts (paper and palmleaf), the oldest of which dats back to AD 906! :o
My whole point to your article was that the Gods of Hinduism have come through a long evolutionary process. From all the sources I have come across so far as well as from my personal understanding, I am pretty much sure that Vishnu was not as prominent as Indra in the Rig Veda (As I said this could also be because the Rig Vedas gave importance to the sacrificial aspects and hence did not mention much about Vishnu). You are the first one to mention otherwise. Nonetheless I give due credence to you view point and shall explore further. And just for your information, I am not basing this point on a Google search. ;)
I agree that some people are good at remembering long texts. But there is a possibility that some of them did add or alter texts consciously to reflect their own interests or to incorporate the social requirements during their times. I am sure most of the times their intentions were good ? to provide more elaborations to the mass and to give them good guidance. I repeat ? BORI has the most convincing evidence as of now for this. ;)
Personally, I believe in the possibility that the ancients had more science and technology (and of course, spirituality ? Science and spirituality was one for them) than we give them credit for. I even agree that it is possible they had atomic weapons (from the descriptions in the epics as well as from other archaeological evidences where ruins with high levels of radiations, vitrified glass, etc were found), that possibly there were some extraterrestrial visitations in ancient times (from mythologies, rock paintings, etc of the world). But the problem is that I don?t want to make this a fantasy where people believe anything and everything. I am looking for undisputable scientific proof to establish the aforementioned points, not to look silly while making such claims. There is no way but to go by the negation method. That is why scientists date the Rig Veda to 1500 BCE, even though there are scant evidences that point to a prior date. They need unquestionable proof. Thanks to such scientists, still in this world, we have 2 distinct genres – science and science fiction. :D
One more thing ? about the good and bad things mentioned in the Hindu scriptures. Why do people try to justify / ridicule what is written in them? These texts have come a long way from antiquity and is bound to contain some points which were relevant and absolutely essential during their respective times, which would be unacceptable to the current society. Why don?t we just take the 95% good things and leave out the 5% bad things. Even religious books of the recent religions which came into being relatively recently have several points unacceptable to many people (for proof, ask the women of Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan. Now some may argue that this is not mentioned in their holy book and is a misinterpretation. But you have to agree that there are points that are left to interpretations). Moreover most of the contents of these books were written with the intent of being part of a holy book. Still they have these objectionable points! On the contrary, the ancient Indian epic writers surely didn?t have the intension to make their books, holy books of a religion called Hinduism! As another example, Plato considered slavery to be indispensable. Do we portray him as a villain? It was the norm of the society then. So I think we are wasting our time ridiculing the Hindu scriptures rather than taking advantage of the vast scientific and spiritual knowledge in them.

Abhlash
Also do you mean to say that Oppenheimer was crazy when he said he had read the ACTUAL description of nuclear weapons in Mahabharatha? It is not just an “”exaggerated weapon”” he was referring to, he was referring to the actual description of how a nuclear explosion looks like and how the aftermath of this explosion are like..

Also do you mean to say that when reknown quantum physicits like Bohr, Heisenberg, Schrodinger etc said that they found answers and explanations about the quantum mechanical mysteries in the vedic texts.. were they fools to say so?

Also, do you mean to say that when Einstein said that “”When I read the explanation in Bhagavadgita about how the universe was created, everything else looks superfluous””, do you think he was talking nonsense?

The meaning of vedic texts is not about which God is mentioned in which name how many times.. what has this got to do in any way with what I had written in this article!!

Abhilash
Please dont read the english translations and come to conclusions..
its not as simple as doing a search for the word “”Vishnu”” in the english translation and counting the numbers :)
Vishnu is not the only word that can mean Vishnu in Sanskrit :)

There are hundreds of words in sanskrit which have no equivalent way of expressing its complete meaning in english.. what is the difference between parabrahma and paramatma? How do you define parabrahma in a single word?
Most of these english translations are without any sense.. most of these translators dont even know proper sanskrit, and they come to conclusions about interpolations, dates and what not!!!! Where did they get these dates from??
Just by looking at the description of sun in margashira nakshatra during the vernal equinox in the vedic texts one could have easily concluded that vedas date back to atleast 6000 BC, and these great scholars concluded the date of the vedas to 1500 BC!! What great intelligence!!

And they even concluded that Rigveda was the oldest of all vedas!! They didnt even know that Rigvedic hymns refer to sama veda and yajur veda, for the simple reason that they either hadnt read the hymns like purusha sukta of Rig Veda.. or they thought that they can fool all the people all the time..

Let me give you some other examples:
Agni.. many of these translators equate it to fire.. and say that vedas are about fire worshipping!! the agni mentioned on the other hand in vedas is predominantly the “”energy that powers the self””! and these people without knowing the actual sanskrit, explain these vedic hymns in terms of physical fire!
Agni is not just the above two definitions either.. nor is sankrit a language where you learn the meanings of the words.. in sanskrit same words mean different things depending on the context.. sanskrit also being spiritual in nature contains many words which have no equivalent words in modern english.. it takes paragraphs to explain each of those words.. and the translators just use one single word which they think (or want?) to be true!!

Also the science of the vedas contains many words which are to describe things that are not yet discovered in the modern science, and these translators end up interpreting these words to match the nearest thing that they know, instead of trying to elaborate on what these words are trying to mean in the context!!

So please dont conclude things based on translations.. most of them are 100% junk stuff.. any person who knows good sanskrit will tell you this.. even ancient Indians much later after the vedic period have written volumes of text in sanskrit itself (called Bhashyas) in an attempt to describe just small parts of these vedic hymns.. and here we have these translators rewriting entire vedas in medium sized english books! For me it looks like a mere joke.

Just to give you another example:
The often claimed rig vedic hymn saying that vedas support sati is
??? ??????????? ??????????????? ??????? ????????? |
???????.??????? ??????? ? ??????? ????????????? || (10.18.7)
Ask any sanskrit scholar, nowhere does this hymn mention about a widow! It actually talks about just married women! The part which is blamed to be talking about sati in this verse does not mention about widows nor about sati. It actually says ??first let the dames go up to where he lieth?. It is the tradition of where the woman first enters her husband?s house with her right leg in.
Prejudiced sanskrit translators have twisted the word ?yonim agre? (foremost) into ?yomiagne? (which means fire) and some people refer to this nonsense version of yomiagne! No where does the original rigveda says yomiagne in this verse! It is ?yonim agre?. And where is a reference to a widow in this verse? It is about a just married woman.

If people have enough patience to read the very next hymn in Rigveda i.e 10.18.8, it is about widows. Here it is
???????? ??????? ??????? ??????????? ??? ??? |
???????????? ????????????? ???????????????? ??????? || (10.18.8)
It says ?Rise, come unto the world of life, O woman ? come, he is lifeless by whose side thou liest. Wifehood with this thy husband was thy portion, who took thy hand and wooed thee as a lover?. Where is sati here? Does it make any sense if 10.18.7 had talked about sati??

So, dont go by the translations and conclude things and spread false knowledge.. read these texts on your own, try to understand them..

About the ability of people to remember things.. go to any temples where generations have been practising priesthood.. just record for one hour the vedic hymns the priest has been chanting.. you are underestimating the power of human memory.. and also over estimating the intelligence of people today by thinking that they can easily comprehend the contents of vedic texts just by reading few transaltions!

Talking about vedic texts without knowing sanskrit and without reading and understanding the vedas in sanskrit, is like trying to play carnatic music without knowing the ragas :)

Gurudev,
Yes I have read the Rig veda, albeit, the English translation since I cant read Sanskrit. What I wanted to point out was that Vishnu is mentioned much fewer times than other Gods like Indra. I didn?t know the exact number. I should have checked. Sorry. However, I hold my point that Indra was more prominent in the Rig veda. He is mentioned over a 1000 times compared to 93 times of Vishnu! Even though Vishnu is mentioned 93 times, he is really celebrated only in 5 or 6 hymns! (Source: http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/vedaread.htm).
The epithets Indranuja and Upendra ARE clear indications of Indra?s superiority; at least in the Rig veda (There is a possibility that Rig Veda does not reflect the popular religion during those times). Anuja is YOUNGER brother and Upa does mean subordinate, even in any contemporary language derived from Sanskrit. This is further emphasised by the fact that Vishnu is not even mentioned in one of the oldest upanishads – Chhandogya. Only in the later Upanishads is Vishnu mentioned with all prominence. The rig vedic hymns where vishnu is mentioned as the supreme God could be a later interpolation! In short, Vishnu as the preserver is not mentioned in the Rig Veda. In it, he is considered to be the manifestation of solar energy. His role as the preserver was established by other texts like the Puranas, which came into existence much later. If you still disagree, please show me some source (in English) that shows in Rig Veda, Vishnu had the prominence he has currently.
Now for the proof about interpolations. We are really over-estimating the calibre of ancient people if we think that they can propagate big texts like the vedas for centuries without any alterations. There HAS been a lot of alterations and additions by different people at different times to most of the texts. How do I know? Well… If you have some time, try to read the publications from Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute. Rather than going by the current versions of the epics and deriving fantastic conclusions from it, they rely on the most ancient manuscripts and statistical techniques to derive at who wrote what and when, especially the Ramayan and the Mahabharat. They have proved beyond doubt (almost) many thing like there were 4 -5 major redactors for both the epics, the original Jaya was written by Vyasa and Vaishampayana wrote the Bharatha and later redactors aided its evolution to Mahabharath, in the original Ramayan, Valmiki does compare Rama to Indra and Lakshman to Vishnu (later comparisons are? you guessed it? interpolations?:). ), etc. I have not come across any other solid evidence to deny their findings yet. Read the REAL scientific studies, and might change your opinion about me writing ?junk stuff left and right?. :D

Vishnu had no prominence in vedic age?? Who said so?? Have you ever read the vedas??

Please dont comment without knowing what you are talking about.

Vishnu is there every where in the vedas. In Rigveda alone Vishnu is mentioned 93 times, not 3 or 4 times as you said.

He is also described as Indr?nuja and Upendra, and they refer to Vishnu being the brother of Indra, not subordinate as you said. In the vedic stories Indra goes to Vishnu everytime there is a problem to him, like for instance the killing of Vritaasura by Vishnu mentioned in the vedas where Indra pleads to Vishnu for help. Will anybody go to his subordinate pleading for help?

The Vedas say that every sentence, name, word,syllable and sound denote Vishnu. He is described as the parabrahma – the one from who Brahma himself is born. Vishnu is described as Aagamoditaha – the root of all creation, as Adhokshaja, as Narayana, as Jagathkartha, as Trivikrama, as the Purusha in the Purushasukta, etc

In fact vedas clearly say “”Om tad vishnoh paramam padam sadaa pashyanti surayaha”” meaning “”All the suras (i.e. the gods) look always toward the feet of Lord Vishnu””

In Ramayana, Valmiki equates Lakshmana to Aadi Shesha (the divine serpent) and Rama to Vishnu (who reclines on Adi shesha)

Dont write junk stuff left and right.

I am afraid you guys are taking a 2 dimensional view of Indian religious history. Not seeing the depth. For instance, Vishnu had no prominence in the Vedic age. He is mentioned in the Rig veda only 3 or 4 times. He was described as Upendra- a subordinate of Indra. In fact even in the Ramayan, Valmiki compares Rama to Indra and Lakshman to Vishnu, clearly showing that Indra was a more central figure earlier. Vishnu gathered significance during the period of 3rd century BCE to 5th century CE, due to the emergence of Vishnavism to counter the prevalence of Buddhism. Ganesha also was a later addition to the panel of Gods. Ganesha appeared in his classic form as a clearly-recognizable deity with well-defined iconographic attributes in the early 4th to 5th centuries. Hinduism, in its present stage has come through a long evolutionary process.

GD .. “”Hari Anant .. Hari Katha Anantha”” .. He is some one that cannot be defined .. He is saakaar .. he is niraakaar .. He is sagun . he is nirgun .. We all can speculate .. but he is some one that can do anything .. can get into any form .. He can perform any leela .. I think he can be logical and at the same time illogical .. in fact, he is above all logics .. above our imaginations…

if beliefs/religion can bind people under one roof…
the purpose is solved…

there should be something, that people should be afraid of…
there should be something, that people should look upto and learn from…..

Hinduism taught you to live your life…
what and when to do… it doesnt enforce anything on you…
if something is enforced by the religion, its just misinterpreted…

Gurudev any thoughts on below…
Vedic religion (taken from wikipedia)
The Vedas, the earliest comprehensive literature, contain mantras for pleasing the devas to obtain blessings. The Rig Veda, the earliest of the four, enumerates 33 devas, which in later Hinduism became exaggerated to 330 million, likely because the same Sanskrit word means “”ten million”” and “”class, group””, i.e. “”33 types of divine manifestations””.

Also, Lord Ganesha had this elephant head…and there are stories about it…what is the exact truth…is anything mentioned in Vedas about it?

Thanks in advance :)