Val_Baital

Originally posted by Citta Hari:

Val Baital wrote:

 

"The meaning that mainstream religion applies to God is a secondary meaning. Those who worship something outside themselves quite literally do not know what "God" is because they refuse to acknowledge what is already in them."

 

There are two kinds of practitioner of any religion: those who have a socioreligious orientation that focusses on the external forms of their particular brand of faith and its dogma, and those who have an experential orientation to their chosen tradition and who focus on the spirit of the teachings. It is true that those who worship God as exclusively outside themselves don't really know God, having not gotten the direct experience of him within themselves, but such people do not represent the entirety of possibilities available in a given tradition. Those who have direct experience of God within see God everywhere as well, and further, such persons know that God is both immanent and transcendent at the same time.

 

While perhaps the vast majority of Hindus fall into the socioreligious category, I think it's unfair to discount the validity of Hinduism—or any religion—based on the supposition that no one in the formal tradition has any substantial inner experience of their own. Mystics get genuine experience by the help of doctrine—thoughts recorded by other experiencers in an attempt to describe their experience. This is what is known as scripture. Many scriptures these days have been adulterated, some have not. We therefore can't ascertain the real meaning of scripture by study of it alone; we must consult as well those who embody its message.

I suppose you are generally correct in this assessment, but it still isn't for me. Neither are any of the others paradigms provided by mainstream religion. Hinduism and Tantricism have the same problems as all the others. Anyone who doesn't see that is blinded by the insanity of their beliefs. I have no beliefs because I see the outcome of having them, and it's not for me. I'm only interested in breaking the cycle.

I don't believe in any of the predictions of any of the mainstream religions, I don't believe in the circular logic they use to defend their irrational behaviors and morals, and I don't believe that I have to give up anything in order to become more.

I am the only religion I have. I need no defense, because I make no claims to any morality, righteousness, authenticity or pretense of power concerning myself. I simply AM. If I were to suddenly fade out of existence or if my existence were disproven, it wouldn't affect the rest of the world. Unfortunately, it doesn't work that way with hinduism; a lot of people would be devastated if it all turned out to be a big complicated lie, because they've vested their whole identity in it. Faith generally tends to work like that; it's the ultimate dependency infrastructure. Therefore, I am the lowest of the low, and I worship only myself.

You say many scriptures have been adulturated but some have not. Some is not good enough. One truth floating in a bed of twenty lies ruins the entire thesis, especially if the one truth is used to justify and validate the twenty lies. Most people can live with that, but I can't.

If this stuff works for you, great. Just remember, lies are always defended with the greatest exertion, and are always

self-refering. Truth is silent, waiting for all things to seccumb to it's level. All I've seen here is defense and

self-reference. Since I have nothing to defend and nothing more to say, I am withdrawing from this discussion forum.

Originally posted by jndas:

I hope you will realize that it isn't any of our jobs to educate you on the significance and history of the Vetala. So better you educate yourself first.

 

You ask a question, but you have such a preconceived view as to what the answer should be that it is meaningless to reply. You are not interested in what the Puranas say about Vetalas, you are interested in reconfirming your belief system.

 

You have no clue as to who is Shiva, who is Shakti, etc., but you impose those misconceptions onto our answers. They are so numerous that I didn't even point them out. It would be a waste of time. Those who think they know have little chance of learning.

 

The simply answer is go educate yourself first, then there can be communication.

I suppose an apology is in order. I have spent some time considering these things, and have decided to give up my search; the data I've compiled is too conflicting and amorphous for me to come to a conclusion. I've heard three different answers to my inquiry, but have no way of confirming which one is more authentic, or if such a question is even relevant.

I suppose that at this point I have no other choice but to assume that your answer regarding Vetala is the "correct" one.

As for your beliefs, they are yours and you know them best. However, even if I were to commit myself to such beliefs, I know that I would not be fulfilling my personal place and potential. Aghora is the closest thing to where I am at, and even that is too complicated and would require doing things which go against my nature/sacrificing things which I cannot let go of. I apologize for wasting your time.

Originally posted by Gauracandra:

Perhaps demonic possession is voluntary. But so too is drug usage. Still, once a person voluntarily takes drugs, overtime their will weakens, and they become dependent on the drugs. It seems to me that a person may become possessed, and become dependent on the ghostly being and work in a self-destructive manner. In such situations an "intervention" say by an exorcist might be necessary, to help an individual escape a path they might have originally accepted, but which is causing them harm.

I see your point, and acknowledge this. Possession can be partial, but through the obligation of debt (or addiction), can become all-pervasive and requiring intervention. However, with demonic possession, it is doubtful that the demoniac has the ability to distinguish and make the willful deecision to have the demon cast the demon out. This is why the Catholic Church has such a hard time with the subject; it is ultimately up to the victim to change. Even the drug addict undergoing therapy has voiced a desire to be free of his addiction. People enacting an intervention without the consent of the addict or demoniac are in a position to be charged for criminal offenses.

This has been amply demonstrated in cases of cult deprogramming in which people have been abducted against their will. Cult deprogramming of this sort is the same as unconsenting cult brainwashing, and therefore criminal. The Church of Scientology sued a cult deprogramming group for kidnapping one it's members in Seattle WA, and they won.

People who invoke demons do so with the full knowledge of potential consequences. Who are we to take that right away from them if they have not asked for assistance? I think that's the biggest question of this whole scenario. When does intervention become tyranny and authoritarianism?

Originally posted by gHari:

If we must do the anthropological thing:

 

The Vedas have been around since the very beginning of the cosmic manifestation, indeed any of the innumerable cosmic manifestations. They are accessible to varying degrees in the hearts of every being, as svatah-siddha-jnana, the self-evident truth of God.

 

This, along with sensory distortions and factional disparities in taste, prejudice, and spiritual advancement, account for the immense variety of trace and formal twisted or watered-down versions of the truth, scattered about the planet and throughout time. This is formally discussed in a brief scholarly treatise of Nonsectarian Religion.

Biblical faiths say the same thing. The Vedas were written by men, therefore what you say is ludicrous. Forces may have existed before us, and our knowledge of them may be self evident (which is what I've been saying all along) but how we define and relate to them is our subjective projection. There is nothing you can say to convince me otherwise. Your scriptural theology does not reflect on my self-evident knowledge of the phenomenon you call God, so I can't believe in it. It's as simple as that.

End of subject.

Originally posted by gHari:

Lots of words, but you start by saying that God comes from within, yet you don't know God. So how can you honestly reach such a conclusion?

 

Everything you outline in this post is

self-refering, ie., circular logic. That in itself disqualifies it's alleged validity.

 

I came here as part of a research project, but this has turned into a discussion on the validity of your religion. Wether or not it is valid in your subjective universe is not my business; I simply wanted to know more about the history of a particular phenomenon (Vetala as it relates to Vampirism lore/belief in the undead), and all I've gotten in return is denial, theological arguments and attempts to divert and convert me. It's been this way since I began making inquiries, over a year ago. No matter how polite and discreet I've been, I get the same stonewalling, misinformation and religious rhetoric. I don't want to know about your taboos or how heretical

you think stone-worshipping villagers are, I just want data.

 

Personally, I'm agnostic, and not interested in converting to any faith. I'm just attempting to map the process that has resulted in vampiric belief systems. Having had a NDE, I have a personal investment in such research, because it helps me to determine what is universal about this experience that has resulted in such beliefs having striking similarites, despite cultural, ethnic and distance barriers. It helps me to understand my own condition and the true nature of it within a SCIENTIFIC perspective.

 

Since you have nothing of worth to offer me, I am withdrawing from this discussion. I don't want to hear about your relative definition of worth in these regards, so don't waste your time.

Originally posted by leyh:

Val_Baital:

 

I hope you are happy and well!

 

Thank you. In regards to everything else you say, it's not my resonsibility to give you a college education in anthropology, psychology, sociology and history. Like everything else philosophical or theological, we came first, not our religions. Everything I've said can be confirmed by the aforementioned studies. The burden of proof is on the skeptic, which in this case is you. I cannot "prove" anything to you, nor can you to I.

 

The Term God comes from the archaic German word "Got", meaning inner fire or inner forge. It was a term used to denote the personal lust for life and the personal creative will; even Gothic Christianity drew from this definition. The term can have collective implications, but only within it's definition of the internal and subjective phenomenon of the will to survive. Only after the Catholic Church rose to power did the term "God" come to mean something exclusively outside of oneself.

 

The meaning that mainstream religion applies to God is a secondary meaning. Those who worship something outside themselves quite literally do not know what "God" is because they refuse to acknowledge what is already in them. Therefore, what you worship is no more God than is the deity of any other mainstream religion; it is merely a contrivance of earlier beliefs.

 

When you have educated yourself in a more wholistic view of religion, history and human nature, get back to me. Until then, this discussion is over. There is no excuse for mindless zealotry in this day and age.

Originally posted by gHari:

There are three sources which always tally: scriptures, saints, and gurus. If you want to believe in the Vedas, you must cultivate the association of saints (sadhus) and gurus. The spiritual master (guru) has seen the Truth - only he can impart it.

 

Pick up the Bhagavad-gita As It Is. Follow the process enunciated by Lord Krsna as presented by His pure devotee. Don't study it with a view to kill Krsna. It is a process. If you really want to know that the Vedas are the 'real thing', you will need to travel to the end of the process which culminates in the presence of God. Only He can give you absolute proof.

 

You asked the question; this is the answer. Were you really interested? It will not be your mind that finds God. Your near death experience woke you up; now it's time to wake up your heart. That's all that God wants. Without it, He reserves the right to remain hidden behind all the words.

 

Lord Sri Krsna Caitanya Mahaprabhu can teach you all there is to know about loving God. It is the highest taste you can find on this planet.

Thank you for your patient response. In response to what you proclaim in this quote, Truth comes from within, not from another person showing me his understanding of truth that has been tainted by other people's accounts. Truth is central, not peripheral. This also applies to God. I recognize the essence of truth in the Bhagavad-gita, but I also recognize the words used to cloud that truth. I see the same thing in the bible, for that matter, or any other "scriptural" account I've read. Anyone who writes scriptures has a political agenda, no matter how much they try to convince you otherwise.

Here's an interesting thing: Animism is the recognition that matter is composed of energy (spirit). If matter is spirit, then why are they portrayed as seperate by mainstream religion? Also, why is there the insistence that only Brahmans are Brahman, and not everyone else who acknowledges such a process in their life? After all, that was the original, pre-Vedic concept. Why do only certain people qualify as Avatars if we all embody the same exact process in varying degrees? All existence embodies the principles of devata; we are all an example of the process of entropy exerting influence over energy/matter via the four forces of physics. Even those are illusory, according to string theory. We are all the embodiment of the singularity (the "black hole" theory of infinite compression resulting in infinite implosion/infinite recursion), because according to quantum physics, that is the nature of particulate matter on the most finite level. So how then are we seperate from God, or the "truth", or anything else, if we are all just the continually alternating manifestations of the same energy and data? Lack of awareness does not seperate these functions, or diminish them. The lesser animals are alive, despite their lack of intellect and language that would allow them to define the process of life. A tree still makes a "sound" (sonic vibration) when it falls and there are no animals around to hear it. Wether you know of my existence or not, I still exist. Wether you believe it or not, we both embody a portion of each other on the most intimate and subtle level, and "God" is within you.

The only thing I see in mainstream hinduism is a plot to seperate man from God by convincing him that such a thing is possible; that he is already in some way seperate from the process that resulted in his being. I see no such state of seperation, and no difference between me and any of your Avatars, or me and your gurus. By trying to be absolutely precise in defining varying states of manifestation in relation to each other, you've lost yourself in the semantics due to the creeping in of secondary meanings. The Vedas and other scriptural works are nothing more than a projection of a set of values onto our environment, and you have forgotten to keep that in mind; you have become the slaves of the forms you project, or rather, the forms that have been projected for you by dogmatic hierophants.

I like to use the analogy of a bunch of people in a cave with their backs to a fire, and a man (the guru, Brahman, rishi, etc.) standing behind them making shadow puppets, telling them to fear and never question the

shadow-face they see on the wall. Hinduism isn't your shadow-puppet, it's the puppet of a long line of usurpers bent on making you their slave. They don't want you to turn around and look at the fire that they think they have a monopoly on. Rather than worshipping the fire that could warm your face, you worship the shadow puppet, because you've been tricked into thinking that you chose to, or because you've been dominated into doing so by fear of consequences.

This isn't a case of the closed-minded me not listening to you, it's the closed-minded you who is not listening to me. If my heart wasn't open to God as you put it, I wouldn't be making such eloquent clarifications, because I would have no compassion; no desire to assist you in expanding your parameters. What you know is your reflection on what you've read in a book or been told by a guru. What I know is my internal experience of being, which I then find words to define, in as scientific a manner as possible. When the religious rhetoric doesn't measure up to the scope of my personal experience and the science I use to define it, I cast it aside. Faith in the idea that the world is flat doesn't make it so, no matter how many ancient tomes proclaim it.

This is all my opinion, based on what I know and have experienced, and that is that. If your opinions differ, then so be it. I'm not saying that you should convert to some other religion; just that you might want to try using examples outside of it's paradigms for inductive comparison, in order to achieve the true synthesis that is knowledge. God and the world does not revolve around India, no more than it revolves around Israel or any other place.

Originally posted by jndas:

You shouldn't. So stop wasting your time discussing what the Vedas and Puranas say. Or at least stop wasting our time.

Fair enough. Good tidings to you.

Originally posted by gHari:

The Vedas and Puranas cannot be placed in time. They are eternal, unborn, and emanante from the breathing of Lord Narayana. That sound may be written down from time to time, but the Vedic wisdom itself has no point of origin, since it exists forever without cause as part and parcel of the Supreme Lord.

 

So nothing predates the Vedas. And if it ain't in the Vedas, it just ain't, period.

 

This is the proper platform from which to view Vedic knowledge; everything else is mere concoction. Like I used to say: Joseph Campbell's expertise is only myth.

Christianity (and Judaism before it) makes similar claims about it's "scriptural" pretense. The Jews ripped off YHVH from the Canaanite "Iahu" (the Serpent of the Abyss), and everything in Christianity is contrived from other religions as well, so much so that it is completely alien to the Jewish world view which spawned it. They turned other people's gods into devils, and their own devil into God. This is a practice they learned on their way out of India. The fact that the Jews originally came from India is established fact; Hebrew is a dialect of ancient Aramaic, which branched off from Sanskrit. There are still towns in India with names that were previously thought to be of Hebrew origin, but are Dravidian or Sanskrit in origin. Even their archnemesis Satan comes from proto-Sanskrit.

Like Judaism and Christianity, your brand of religion uses the same circular logic to defend itself, and denies earlier examples of religious thought upon which it's concepts and principles are based. For example, the term "chatan" is an alternate spelling of satan. Satan is a monodeistic concept which predates the concept of Brahma. As an example of the subversion I spoke of, it has been turned into a name for a type of demon in general, with the spelling slightly altered so as to distort the original meaning and mislead people from identifying the source; a typical trick of the Brahmans in their attempts to bury the indigenous cultures/beliefs and program new generations with contrived paradigms (gee, kind of like Vetala being turned from a god into a race of malevolent spirits). The mainstream hindu portrayal of Aghora is the same as the Christian portrayal of Satanism, but like Satanism coming before biblical hogwash, Tantra came before Vedism. Before Tantricism came ancestor veneration and animism. Hinduism is a gold veneer over a copper veneer over an iron core. Iron is more useful than gold.

If this is the Age of Kali and perversion and travesty are the mainstream, then that makes hinduism a perversion of pre-Kali Yuga beliefs, just like Judaism and Christianity (all three were established as dominant paradigms in the first 5,000 years of the Kali Yuga - doesn't that tell you something about their true nature?). Your religion speaks of the 10,000 good years in this Yuga, but fails to explain that it will only come when people put aside what is now considered mainstream and return to simpler ways. It's why people like me are digging up buried elements of your past; my descendants must have examples to show them that the way of the world as told by "scriptures" is not truly the way of the world. God is the devil, and the devil is God. History proves this.

If Columbus didn't really discover America and Satan isn't really the Jewish devil, then why should I believe that the Vedas and Puranas are the real thing?

Originally posted by jndas:

Shiva has three primary sons, Ganesh, Subrahmanya, and Ayyappa. As a progenitor he has many created beings, which include all the bhutas, etc., but they are not his sons. (Refer Srimad Bhagavatam second canto for more information.)

 

Lord Shiva is accompanied by bhutas, vetalas, etc. (He is "bhutanatha".) Thus in some forms of worship, one first appeases the spirits accompanying him. The same is the case in Kali puja.

 

As far as the village worship of Vetalas in stones, it is the generic worship of local spirits. The worshippers may claim they are worshipping a more powerful personality, but thats just because no one wants to say I am worshiping a door man or something.

 

I never said anything about you being a Vetala. Vetala is one of 400,000 species of higher human life forms described in the Puranas. You are free to believe or not believe.

Thank you for the additional information; I will read the canto you refer to.

It still doesn't make sense to me: If Parvati was a human woman who achieved devi status by marrying Siva, and she gave birth to Bhairava and Vetala as well as Ganesha and his brothers as a result of copulating with Siva, wouldn't that then at the very least make Vetala a singular entity, and more properly an avatar (or at the very least an aspect) of Siva? You said Siva has three primary sons; doesn't this imply that he has other "masculine" offspring - other sons? How does a father disowning his own flesh make them not his sons?

I understand that your sect might portray Vetala as a race of demonic beings in the present day, and that in some sense this might have validity in respect to your own beliefs, but isn't that a twisting and degeneration of an earlier myth for the purposes of sectarian condescenscion? The etymology of the name betrays such a circumstance: Vetala literally means "weaver in Tala". Paraphrase that and you get weaver of apparitions, weaver of manifestations, and to paraphrase it into romantic English, King of ghosts. It speaks of a process by which a spirit may become an apparition, and in general, the process of utilizing such apparitions for magical purposes. A "god" can be thought of as a concept or process by which one may facilitate manifestation. A possessing spirit is not the weaver; not the "King" (process) which sends it into the corpse. I can deduce by the etymology of the word (which has pre-Sanskrit Dravidian origins) that comparatively speaking, Vetala is "Satan", and the ghosts are the "demons" which he sends to manifest the spells of the magician. The etymology of Vetal would indicate that the earliest usage of such a name was to denote a god of magicians, ghosts and Vampires.

I also know that every hindu sect which is devoted to one specific deity concept places that Deva or Devi higher than all others, and even goes so far as to use scriptures placing that deity on top to justify their dogma. Shaivites think Siva is the highest, Brahmans think Brahma is the highest, Vaishnavas place Vishnu as highest, Bhairava devotees think Bhairava is the highest, etc. They all use "scriptural" examples which place their god in a superior position to other aspects of devata. Couldn't that then be an explanation for why I see a Deva in Vetala, and you see a host of malevolent spirits?

Judaism did a similar thing when it placed it's own monotheistic concept above all other gods, and started calling those other gods "fallen angels". If those other gods (such as Lucifer, Satan, Baal-Zebuth, etc.) prexisted the Hebrew Yahweh (a contrivance of the Canaanite "Iahu"), then doesn't that make Judaism a travesty of earlier beliefs, dsigned to divide and conquer other cultures by way of ridicule? What makes your brand of religious cosmology any different? Ancestor worship is the oldest religion and animism the oldest spiritual belief. Anything which demonizes and subjugates those beliefs is a TRAVESTY. The idea that one must first offer food to some higher mediator before it can be utilized by one's ancestors is an example of this; it's the same as Catholics praying to saints who will then pray to God on one's behalf, or who will then pray for one's ancestors who are waiting in purgatory. It remove people one more step away from the actual process of communion with the divine, thereby disempowering them. As for demonizing ghosts as being "lost souls" in order to justify cremation, that's just plain sick.

Vetal (weaver in the earth) was being worshipped before Siva; animist deities always come before theological doctrines. Siva was around before Brahma, and so was Satan (sat + tan = the ALL; the entire process of creation/maintenance/destruction. Entropy is the highest "God"). Satan came before YHVH; and look what the Jews did to Satan to boost their false god Yahweh above all else. Like any anthropologist who has studied this particular subject, I theorize that Vetal came before Siva, came before the Vedas and Puranas, and before all the men calling themselves "Brahmana" and "Aryavansa". I theorize that Vetal was being worshipped before Tantra even had a name, and before Vedic religion was even conceptualized.

So who's more right; the Siva worshipper or the Bhairava worshipper? If it's the same god, and Vetala is just one more personalized expression of that concept, then what does it matter? If you are human and tribals in Decca are human, then what gives you the right to subjugate their concept of deity (which is fundamentally the same as yours, and probably much older) to the level of "doorman"? Are they untouchables to you? I thought hinduism didn't really promote caste systems...

This will make for a very interesting debate, if you are up to the challenge. Perhaps we can both learn something from this. I guess the real question in all this is, "who stole what icon from who?"

Originally posted by Gauracandra:

Is anyone familiar with this term? I've read a little bit about it and it certainly is a unique notion of God. Basically as I understand it, God is always in the process of becoming God. It is not that He is incomplete, but that He is continually growing. At the same time God is limited in a fashion by time and space. God is the sum total of everything in the universe, but more than just that. Sort of a synergistic effect where 2+2=5 (the 5 being God, the 2+2 being the parts and parcels of God). I think the idea is that there are all sorts of processes occuring in the world, and on a combined basis all of these processes move forward through time within the universe. The super-accumulation of all of these processes is God. So in this sense there is a unique relationship between God and the rest of the universe. Both are tied one to the other.

 

I have read that the Mormon God is a God of a form of process theology. He exists in a materially bound state, within space and time, and continually grows and learns. In one sense such a God, is not God in a traditional way. He is more like a highly evolved human - like a Superman.

 

I might not be explaining it correctly, but if anyone has some insight into this theological view of God I'd be interested.

 

Gauracandra

What you're describing isn't really theology (doctrine of creation, God as seperate from his creation which is the Universe and it's beings) but a form of deism (emanation doctrine). The belief you describe is the belief held by the Church of Religious Science; that God is the ALL, and since the ALL is the sum of it's parts, God is continuously becoming, experiencing and dying, ad infinitum. I guess you could think of "God" as the consciousness generated by an infinite number of brains, each acting as single neurons in the larger brain of the life collective.

The Mormons come close to this, but they still consider God to be a personal being seperate from his creation, and therefore have a doctrine of theology. Theology allows for moral prohibitions, which they are quite fond of. Deism is amoral, prefering survival ethics as a basis for compassion and cooperation. Deism is also the basic doctrine of Traditional Satanism. Theism is Right Hand Path, and Deism is generally considered Left Hand Path. Unlike theism, deism allows for a belief in personal godhood, ghosts as immortal spiritual beings, Vampires as superhuman evolution, etc.

When you say Process theology, are you refering to process in general, or the theology of the Process church?

Originally posted by Avinash:

Are Indians trying to hide something from Americans, under some pretense of manipulation?

 

So, according to you, whenever Indians do something, they always keep Americans in mind.

I posed a Socratic question, not a statement of opinion in this matter. As for wether or not I believe that, I've noticed that there deos seem to be an atmosphere of distrust and intentional misinformation when speaking to foreignors about their personal culture and beliefs. I had that problem awhile back when researching German folklore and mythology: everyone in Gemany knows who "Falada" is in reference to German folktales, but not one of them would give me a straight answer. I happened upon the English translation of the tale of Falada in a book a number of years later, all on my own. The only thing I got from the Germans I spoke to was laughter and tall stories leading me in the wrong direction. It's not even that important of a story; they did it out of cruelty and spite for people who aren't like themselves. The tale of Falada is something they tell their kids in kindergarden.

So far, I've seen two contradictory descriptions of Vetala; one based in scriptural and anthropological reference, and one based in what sounds like superstitious folklore coming from hindus. But then again, I guess it's like asking a Christian about the Canaanite origins of YHVH, or the pre-Vedic origins of Satan; the only thing they know is the propaganda of their own religion concerning such things.

You know, I'm glad I didn't persue anthropology as a profession; it's like asking a brick wall to describe the process of how it's bricks were made, or the name of the mason who assembled them.

Originally posted by jndas:

A vetala is a species of life, much like a bhuta, yaksha, etc. The flaw in your search is you are assuming it refers to a deity or demigod, but it doesn't.

 

It's something like asking which God is the fish. Fish is a species of life, it isn't a god.

 

Worship of bhutas, pishachas, yakshas, mohinis, vetalas, etc., are for various purposes. But they are not worship of God or a supreme being. It's more like worship of the local politician to get your zoning permit cleared.

Thank you for answering. I've heard this answer before.

So then when the Kalika Purana describes Vetala as a son of Parvati/brother of Bhairava, it's not a reference to a deva, in the same manner as Bhairava or Ganesha? I don't understand this. I also know that Vetala can roughly be translated as "weaver in tala", which has creative/deific implications (the one who weaves ghosts into the living). I've also read stuff describing Vetala as the lord of Vitala (2nd loka of tala, the place where the hungry ghosts dwell), lord of spirits, King of ghosts, etc., implying a singular personal concept. I've also read about how villagers have a stone outside their village in which Vetala dwells; this is in some cases described as a single entity seperate from other "Vetalas", whereas in other instances, it's described more like posssession of a multitude of idols by the spirit of the Deva or Devi that those idols represent (i.e., the spirit of Christ occupying all crucifixes). I've also read descriptions of a festival involving Bhairava puja in which offerings of flesh are first sacrificed to Vetala, and in such instances, Vetala is described as a personal concept, in the same manner that all devata are decribed (in this case, as a different aspect of Bhairava, much the way Bhairava is described as an aspect of Siva). Am I to believe that each individual Christian is possessed by a different spirit, all of which call themselves "Jesus Christ" as some sort of species designation, or that one hindu's Brahma is different from another hindu's Brahma; that Brahma is a reference to a species?

So which answer is the correct one; the one you give me, or the one I am led to believe by what I have read elsewhere? Is it possible that both definitions are correct in a relative way, that Vetala is both a personal embodiment of Deva and a catch all phrase for possessing spirits in general, depending on which tradition you follow? I can call myself a King, but that doesn't necessarily make it so in the real world. Do you understand what I'm saying?

A good example of what I'm talking about is the "Satan" phenomenon: it starts as a name specifying a deific concept, then it comes to generally mean "the enemy" in Hebrew, then it becomes a personal demigod in Christianty, and in today's society, it takes on a secular, literary meaning as a metaphor for a person or thing which opposes you. In other words, it's been relegated to a catch-all phrase by people who do not have a belief in the Christian concept of Satan. Am I supposed to believe that the same chronology of events DIDN'T occur in regards to Vetala? Parvati was a human woman, but she became Devi by marrying Siva. If Vetala was one of her sons, doesn't that make him a specific being with human origins, and a personal embodiment of Deva?

I don't understand this. There's a story about how Bhairava cut off Brahma's head or some such thing as being the reason for Kalikas to carry around a Brahman's skull and beg for alms, but there's no stories describing the activities of his brother Vetala, and why present day devotees carry on in a particular manner of worship? If Vetala is not a deva, then why is he mentioned as the brother of Bhairava, born of the same mother? Why is Vetala even mentioned in the personal sense in such a text? I don't understand all this doubletalk or the reasoning behind it.

I came back from the dead after getting hit by a car; I'm missing a portion of my brain, but my I.Q. is significantly higher now. So does that make me a Vetala? Am I a "King of ghosts", and the son of Parvati and Siva? I'm trying to identify the force or being who sent me back into my flesh; not the symptom which I have become. It seems that Vetala represents the cause of my condition, but you're telling me that I'M Vetala, and that everyone like me is "a Vetala". This makes no sense. I've never read anything which would authenticate your supposition that Vetala is a reference to an entire race of beings. This sounds to me more like a superstitious degeneration of actual scriptural reference. Please show me an Englich translation of some scriptural reference which authenticates such a belief.

Originally posted by Shashi:

Just like some people become taken over by demons for a short time, do you think it can happen that the higher spiritual entity may take posessesion of some persons sometimes?

In any case, possession is voluntary. If the people in the show claimed to be oppressed by the demons and wanted free of them, and then acted as if they had something inside them during the rites, it's pure charlatanism and confabulation. The Catholic Church defines authentic demonic possession as a person willfully allowing a demon to enter them and internally control/manipulate them. Demonic obsession is defined as a demon externally manipulating a person against their knowing will (assuming that they are conscious of such manipulations). The church does not officially condone or promote exorcism of the demonically possessed, because that would be interfering with the free will of the demoniac; they are possessed because they choose to be. Those dmonically obsessed can pray for deliverance/protection, as exorcism would be unnecessary in such cases; exorcism is only used to cast demons out of a person or place, not prevent them from tempting the weakminded.

As for other beings possessing the willing, this is a common facet of most religions. Giving one's life to Jesus Christ is a form of divine possession, as is being moved by the Holy Spirit, speaking in tongues, etc. Therianthropy is another example (i.e., werewolves being possessed by wolf spirits, living Vampires being possessed by bat spirits, etc.). Pseudochristian propagandists try to make it out to be something obligatory and against a person's will, but that's not the case; a person converting from Satanism to Christianity does not have to undergo exorcism to drive out any demons, and demons are not in a position to possess practicing Christians.

According to Christian doctrine, a demon canot enter a person without their consent, and a demon cannot enter a place where the Holy Spirit is indwelling; i.e., a practicing Christian or a church in which they congregate.

The idea that one can be possessed by malevolent spirits against one's will is borrowed from eastern religions and has no real place in Christianity. The media comes up with docudramas of this sort for the purpose of scaring peole with false propaganda, and creating an atmosphere of confabulation. Based on the principle that people imitate art, more or less. More money in the pockets of charlatans posing as "exorcists", and more sensationalism for reporters to investigate.

Originally posted by Pita das:

if you go into www.google.com and type bhairava there are many sites to source this info

I tried that, and although there are a few peripheral references to Vetala in relation to Bhairava veneration, there are no pictures of Vetala to be found, and no description of any scriptural stories of Vetala. I'm looking for some confirmation of who Vetala is and what he represents in relation to other deity concepts and in relation to humanity. What is the story of Vetala, and what is to be learned from such examples? Is Vetala just another aspect of Siva like Bhairava is, and if so, what are the characteristics and attributes? Knowing a person's name is not enough to understand their history or function; there has to be a story. The same applies to a deity. I know about Bhairava devotees, their skulls and beggar lifestyle and what Bhairava represents to them, but I don't know half as much about Vetala; I only know the name and who he's related to in scriptural reference. Why is there a complete lack of access to any stories about Vetala? Are Indians trying to hide something from Americans, under some pretense of manipulation? If I wanted political headspin and religious brainwashing, I'd turn on the t.v. and watch televangelists and political campaign debates. Why are you all so hush-hush about Vetala? Is Vetala the Hindu version of the Christian Satan?

I'm not interested in folkloric descriptions invented by westerners in support of vampiric or superstitious speculations regarding Indian tribals. I want to know what Vetala represents in scriptures so I can determine what the moral of such stories is. Reading the Baital Pachisi isn't going to tell me who Vetala is/what he represents.

I need answers from somebody, and I need them now. I'm not going to find them on a webpage, so someone needs to open up. If sites like this are devoted to spreading greater understanding of Indian culture and religion, then why are there only a few deities listed? What about the thousands of other demi-gods that Indians worship? What about Vetala? And why is it that no one can tell me which Indian god has the bat as it's symbol? Would that be Vetala, or some other Deva/Devi? What is Vetala's animal form or symbol? Why can't I get any straight answers?

My perspective is an anthropological one; I'm not interested in worshipping your gods in heaven or your demons in the underworld. I just want a more complete history so I can place it all into an educated perspective. Trying to sell us sugar when we want meat isn't a good formula for foreign relations. If I wanted to buy a trained bird in the marketplace to let go free, I'd go to Thailand.

I'm not in the mood to learn Sanskrit just so I can read a few obscure texts, or moving there and becoming a citezen so I can hang out with the tribals who worship Vetala. I just want a straight answer from someone.

Originally posted by Gauracandra:

In 360 B.C. Plato, the ancient Greek philosopher, put down into writing the oldest known written account of the ancient civilization of Atlantis. The story is told in two texts by Plato named ‘Timeaus’ and ‘Critias’. According to Plato, the story of Atlantis is true, and the conversation he recorded between Socrates, Hermocrates, Timeaus and Critias, details the ancient civilization of Atlantis, said to have flourished 9000 years before his time. The story originally was told by an Egyptian priest to Solon, and from Solon it was passed on to Dropides, from Dropides it went to Critias I, who then related it to Critias II (grandson of Critias I).

 

I have often thought that there was a link between the ancient Greek civilization and the Vedic civilization. The following are some details from Timeaus and Critias of the Greek view of the world and the civilization of Atlantis that bear a striking similarity to Vedic concepts. The quotes from these texts have been edited for brevity.

 

Timeaus speaks principally on the ideal social order, and the make up of the universe. It also details how the story of Atlantis was passed down. You will note several similarities to the Vedic view. First, the ideal social order creates classes by on occupation of priest, military, laborer, and agriculturalist. Second, the creation of the universe is comprised of earth, water, fire, and air. Third, in the description of Atlantis, the Egyptian priests mentions that many deluges occur in periodic intervals, and as such force civilization to begin again. The idea of cyclical partial and total devastation and rebirth of civilization are common in Vedic scriptures.

 

Critias speaks mainly on the physical structure of Atlantis, its architecture, fields etc…. It appears that it was destroyed through the centuries as only a portion remains, and ends in mid-sentence.

 

Gauracandra

Here is a link to an interesting site that considers a different take on where and what "Atlantis" really was:

http://www.angelfire.com/realm/oam/

According to this account, the true story of Atlantis is recorded in a volume of books written by the Frisians, a Scandinavian people pre-existing the Teutonic tribes. The English translation of these books is at the site. Interesting reading.

Hi,

I'm trying to find as much info as possible on Vetala worship and devotion. I know that Vetala is portrayed in the Puranas as a son of Parvati, but such references are brief. I have also heard speculations that Vetala

pre-existed Siva, as a facet of

pre-Vedic ancestor veneration. I'm interested in finding out if this is valid.

I'm also interested in seeing pictures of Vetala and Bhairava statues. I've read articles which mentioned pictures of them, but the pictures weren't included in the articles. Can anyone help me with any of this?