Our Deities and their stories (Deities in different religions!)

April 23, 2009

Namaste Narasimha Garu and friends,

Rajarshi's question was in some aspect similar to one question i was asked about

a month ago. while traveling back to home from office, one person asked me that

what is these stories of our Gods such as Ganapati and his story of being

Shiva's son and cutting of head and replaced by elephant head etc...

Stories of Vishnu and like wise many gods and goddesses. The person told me that

people from other make fun about all these various gods and their *mythological*

events which is recorded in our Shastras.

I wish to ask here a nagging question. what is the truth. for instance, did

Ganapati and shiva's episode actually happen? Stories in Devi Mahatmay are

true?. Episode of Daksh Yagya and Uma's self killing in yagya vedi out of anger

and origin of Shakti pithas are true?

Stories of Indra and other many gods and goddesses are true?

Do they really exist? (Even if at the different plane of existence) or the

people who criticize are right when they say that yours is a full of stories

which are only mythological and you pray those imaginary Gods which are nothing

but characters of Stories of some writer.

I could not answer the question as i was not sure.

Spiritually yours,

Utpal

, " Narasimha P.V.R. Rao " <pvr wrote:

>

> Namaste,

>

> A fantastic question and one that downplays the importance of religion and

rituals in the minds of intelligent and rational people! Hence a very important

question to answer..

>

> To answer it, I will go back to the analogy I gave just a few days back:

>

> /message/1673 (Why rituals)

>

> * * *

>

> The child is taught by parents to say things like " thank you " and " sorry " in

different situations. I compared it to engaging in rituals and repeating mantras

without understanding. I said that the child slowly understands the true meaning

with experience and feels the emotions represented by those words when saying

them. I compared it to a sadhaka experiencing spiritual truths represented by

the rituals as he gains experience and becomes more ready.

>

> Now, think about this. Parents speaking different languages teach different

words to the child. A parent speaking English may teach " I am sorry " . A parent

speaking Hindi may teach " mujhe maaf keejiye " . Another Hindi speaking person may

teach " mujhe maaf karo " . A parent speaking Telugu may teach " nannu

kshaminchandi " . Another Telugu speaking person may teach " nannu kshaminchu " . And

so on. The words are different. But they represent the same thought and emotion.

>

> Actually, at one level, the meaning is slightly different in each case,

depending on the peculiarities and cultural context of the language used. For

example, the English expression has " I " as the subject and one is talking about

how one feels. The Hindi and Telugu expressions have the other person as the

subject and asking him to forgive. The amount of respect shown is different in

different expressions. Thus, the exact meaning is slightly different. Thus,

children speaking different languages may visualize something slightly different

as their understanding of the languages improves. However, these differences are

minor. As one delves deeper, the basic emotions associated with these different

expressions is the same in different languages and one will feel those emotions

with compassion as one masters the language.

>

> Similarly, deities, rituals and mantras used in different religious traditions

may be different, but they may represent the same divine energy and the same

spiritual experiences. Just as the immeidate visualization of an expression in

the mind of a child may change based on cultural context and grammar that one is

exposed to, the immeidate imagination of a deity's gross/external form in the

mind of a sadhaka may change based on the religious paradigms and spirutal

context that one is exposed to. However, these differences are minor. As one

delves deeper, the basic energies and experiences represented by various deities

and rituals are the same in different religious traditions and one will

experience the same spiritual truths as one masters one's path.

>

> No wonder Rigveda says " ekam sat vipraa bahudhaa vadanti " (Truth is One, but

the learned say it differently).

>

> * * *

>

> One language may have a lot of different words for an object with slight

variation whereas another language may have fewer words. As an example, a

language spoken near equator may have a single word for " snow " , " ice " , " dew " ,

" mist " etc, whereas English has so many words. Native language of Alaskans, who

live in snow and ice most of the year, has many more words than English for

slightly different kinds of snow, whereas English calls all of them as " snow " .

>

> Similarly, religious traditions that explored slightly different kinds of the

same divine energy may have personified those energies as different deities. So

some religions may have more deities than some other religions. Some religions

may have a lot of deities for different variations of a similar purpose, whereas

another religion may have only one deity.

>

> * * *

>

> If communication can be internalized and we can communicate with our emotions,

we do not need language and we will all be on the same page always. But we

cannot communicate with our internal emotions and need an external method. So

language is needed. But language can divide.

>

> Similarly, spiritual truths are internal (like our emotions). In order to

express them and transmit them to others, we need deities, mantras, rituals and

religion. But religion can divide.

>

> One child may say " I am sorry " and another may say another expression meaning

the same thing and they may argue who is right. One may say " my father said this

is correct " and another may say " my mother said this is correct " and they may

fight on who is correct. People fighting over whose religion is superior and

trying to " convert " others are like such children. Unfortunately, my " child and

language " analogy is too mild in this area and the fights between religions have

been far worse than two children arguing about their language. Countless people

have been murdered in the name of religion.

>

> Instead of arguing which expression is correct and finding fault with others,

children learning should focus on the true meaning of what they saying and try

to understand what exactly their expression means and feel the correct emotions

when they say things. Similarly, instead of fighting with others on religion,

one should try to understand one's own religion better and experience the

spiritual truths represented in that religion.

>

> * * *

>

> One may think there is a Christian god, an Islamic god, a Hindu god etc and

they are responsible for respective religions and societies. That is not true.

>

> If one believes that there is a supreme deity (whatever the name you use to

describe) who creates all beings, then one has to realize that Vyasa, Buddha,

Christ, Propher Mohammed and Mahavira were sent to this earth by that same

supreme deity and different religions came into being only because that supreme

deity willed so! Each religion serves a useful purpose at a given place and a

time. When a religion's time is up, it goes.

>

> * * *

>

> Some may say that external forms of deities who personify different aspects of

divine energy running the universe are a creation of the mind. However, they are

not a creation of the current state of mind. Mind has accumulated many layers of

conditioning though many lives. Thus, one may not have ever seen or thought

about or imagined a specific form of a deity in this life, but may have a vision

of that form, on account of conditioning accumulated through many lives. An

example is the boy mentioned in the following message:

>

> /message/761

>

> He had not read about some of the avataras of Vishnu he saw above the fire.

But he saw them and could describe them. This is because those forms represent a

personification of a certain energy and his mind imagined that energy in that

form in a previous life. The memory stayed with the mind (though not

consciously) and it can come back anytime. So, though he did not know about that

form, that form appeared before him.

>

> Swami Vivekananda famously said (paraphrased), " a human being imagines god as

a super human being with many hands and heads. If a buffalo imagines god, it may

imagine god as a super buffalo with many horns " . Though he is right in a sense,

it is misleading too. It may incorrectly trivialize external forms. Though

external forms are a work of the mind, that does not make them unimportant.

>

> Until one learns how to feel sorry and show that feeling, saying " I am sorry "

as a ritual is an important habit. Not teaching a child words because he cannot

anyway understand their correct meaning is wrong. The child should be taught

even if he does not understand. He will understand the true meaning later

Similarly, though the energy represented by a form is more basic than a specific

external form associated with that energy, many people will reach that energy

only by imagining that form and worshipping that form. So, if one's mind tends

to imagine a form, one should imagine the form and worship that form.

>

> Though we say that forms of deities and mystical experiences are a creation of

mind, that is in a vedantic sense, i.e. the entire manifested universe is a

creation of the mind (over many lives). Only Brahman is real and not created by

the mind. Everything else is a creation of the mind over the time. If we say

that a form of a deity or an experience is an imagination of the mind, it does

not mean it is a hallucination. Mind is connected to its field of experience.

Various minds in its field of experience are connected to it. For example, the

experience described in the following message was independently " observed " by

two people. Human mind can imagine things and hallucinate, but two minds

observing the same thing is different from a typical hallucination:

>

> /message/951

>

> Most divine forms and divine experiences chronicled in sacred texts of various

religions have been independently experienced by multiple people.

>

> * * *

>

> When someone looks sad, one person may say " he is sad " . Another person may say

" woh dukhi hai " . Another person may say " vaadu baadha padutunnaadu " . Similarly,

when a divine energy is present in a place, one may perceive the energy as deity

X and another may perceive it as a deity Y. Just as the expression one uses to

describe the feeling one perceives is based on the language one knows, similarly

the form mentioned by one to describe the enegy one perceives depends on the

conditioning of one's mind and the religious tradition one is exposed to.

>

> I know one person who does Chandi homam. When he finishes the homam, he calls

back the Divine Mother into his heart by showing the fire with his hands and

motioning the hands towards his heart (with eyes closed). When he does it, he

just perceives a nice energy around him and feels peaceful and happy. When he

was doing this oneday, a gentleman was visiting and sitting right behind him.

His eyes were closed and he was meditating. When the above happened, he was

baffled and opened his eyes to see what was going on. He had a vision of a dark

goddess who was jumping towards him along with a big pile of kumkum (vermillion

powder) all around Her. He was overwhelmed by the vision and opened his eyes.

But the person who did homam perceived only some nice energy and no specific

form. Thus, the same energy may be perceived by different people in a different

form. One person may perceive only some energy and another may perceive a

specific form. Yet another may perceive a different form. The exact perception

is based on the conditioning of the mind. But the energy itself is uniform,

though the form is not.

>

> * * *

>

> I have covered various aspects related to this topic. I will stop now.

>

> Best regards,

> Narasimha

>

> Do a Short Homam Yourself: http://www.VedicAstrologer.org/homam

> Do Pitri Tarpanas Yourself: http://www.VedicAstrologer.org/tarpana

> Spirituality:

> Free Jyotish lessons (MP3): http://vedicastro.home.comcast.net

> Free Jyotish software (Windows): http://www.VedicAstrologer.org

> Sri Jagannath Centre (SJC) website: http://www.SriJagannath.org

>

> -

> " rajarshi14 " <rajarshi14

>

> Sunday, April 19, 2009 1:26 AM

> Deities

>

> > Namaste

> >

> > Just a curious thought.

> >

> > We in Hinduism have a certain set of deities. In history we see that every

> > ancient culture had their own set of deities and rituals etc etc.

> >

> > If deities are not universal and rather culture specific, are they a

> > creation of the people? But if they are a creation of the people, how do

> > they have such universal abilities/powers and also their avatarts. We have

> > in Sanatana Dharma many instances of amsa avatars of various deities

> > taking birth.

> >

> > What happens to the deities of a certain culture, once the culture has

> > died and there is no one to worship that deity? And why did not the

> > ancient deities of different cultures protect those cultures from

> > anihilation?

> >

> > Any thoughts on this would be interesting.

> >

> > -Regards

> > Rajarshi

>

April 24, 2009

Namaste Utpalji

I have had the same experiences. Most of our puranic stories are made fun of by others. Well in most of the cases these questions are of malicious intent, those don't bother me much, but at some point someone ask's these questions genuinely.

I tried reading different opinions of different respected saints and I found one explanation in the introuductory chapters on Sri Aurobindo's "Secrets of the Vedas".

He opines indirectly that the Puranas are definitely a toned down version of what used to be the Vedic knowledge. This was made this way for the oridinary people to understand and not leave the folds of Hinduism. The threat then was Buddhism. That is why not only these stories were "made" which were based on deeper spiritual symbolism generated from the Vedas but even the lagugae was modified and made easier. The sanskrit of the Vedas is different from the sanskrit of the puranic age.

The reason Buddism could become such a threat to Hinduism was because the people (priests) had reducded the Vedas to a book of mere rituals. The Vedas are both internal and external, but the priests took over the religion from the sages/mystics and reduced/neglected/forgot the internal and relied solely on the external. That is why Buddha rejected the Vedas.

Infact as per Sri Aurobindo, the comng of Buddha was a wrong step in the cycle of evolution. He is not the next automatic choice after Krishna and that, Kalki will recitify the mistake of Buddha. However, the coming of Buddha was in a reverse way, needed to hasten the overall spiritual evolution of this world by increasing the distance between God and man.

So essentially, the Purans were somewhat like comemrcial Bollywood movies as compared to the Vedas which were the Art films.

My personal take on this: As far as they are able to induce spirituality in an very average ordinary person from a village they are excellent. But at the same time, if a Hindu who is not aware of the comprehensive nature of his own scriptures, a poor, uneducated man, is told that his idols are mere stones and his stories are cock and bull whereas God must be necessarily much beyond all this, the idea of a single God, would be enough reason to make him switch religions. It would sound very logical to him. Infact, this is how it often happens.

Solution: I have no clue. Maybe it is time we need to learn our religion better. And the whole host of Babas and Swamis on television would do well to try and educate their followers about the comprehensive/all inclusive nature of Hinduism instead of mere reciting the stories from teh Puranas.

-Regards

Rajarshi

The upsurge (of consciousness) is Bhairava - Shiva Sutra--- On Fri, 24/4/09, utpal pathak <vedic_pathak wrote:

utpal pathak <vedic_pathak Re: Our Deities and their stories (Deities in different religions!) Date: Friday, 24 April, 2009, 10:02 AM

Namaste Narasimha Garu and friends,Rajarshi's question was in some aspect similar to one question i was asked about a month ago. while traveling back to home from office, one person asked me that what is these stories of our Gods such as Ganapati and his story of being Shiva's son and cutting of head and replaced by elephant head etc...Stories of Vishnu and like wise many gods and goddesses. The person told me that people from other make fun about all these various gods and their *mythological* events which is recorded in our Shastras.I wish to ask here a nagging question. what is the truth. for instance, did Ganapati and shiva's episode actually happen? Stories in Devi Mahatmay are true?. Episode of Daksh Yagya and Uma's self killing in yagya vedi out of anger and origin of Shakti pithas are true?Stories of Indra and other many gods and goddesses are true?Do they really exist? (Even if at the different plane of

existence) or the people who criticize are right when they say that yours is a full of stories which are only mythological and you pray those imaginary Gods which are nothing but characters of Stories of some writer.I could not answer the question as i was not sure.Spiritually yours,Utpal, "Narasimha P.V.R. Rao" <pvr wrote:>> Namaste,> > A fantastic question and one that downplays the importance of religion and rituals in the minds of intelligent and rational people! Hence a very important question to answer..> > To answer it, I will go back to the analogy I gave just a few days back:> > http://groups. / group/vedic- wisdom/message/ 1673 (Why rituals)> > * * *> > The child is taught by parents to say things like "thank you" and "sorry" in different situations. I compared it to engaging in rituals and repeating mantras without understanding. I said that the child slowly understands the true meaning with experience and feels the emotions represented by those words when saying them. I compared it to a sadhaka experiencing spiritual truths represented by the rituals as he gains experience and becomes more ready.> > Now, think about this. Parents speaking different languages teach different words to the child. A parent speaking English may teach "I am sorry". A parent speaking Hindi may teach "mujhe maaf keejiye". Another Hindi speaking person may teach "mujhe maaf karo". A parent speaking Telugu may teach "nannu kshaminchandi" . Another Telugu speaking person

may teach "nannu kshaminchu". And so on. The words are different. But they represent the same thought and emotion.> > Actually, at one level, the meaning is slightly different in each case, depending on the peculiarities and cultural context of the language used. For example, the English expression has "I" as the subject and one is talking about how one feels. The Hindi and Telugu expressions have the other person as the subject and asking him to forgive. The amount of respect shown is different in different expressions. Thus, the exact meaning is slightly different. Thus, children speaking different languages may visualize something slightly different as their understanding of the languages improves. However, these differences are minor. As one delves deeper, the basic emotions associated with these different expressions is the same in different languages and one will feel those emotions with compassion as one masters the

language.> > Similarly, deities, rituals and mantras used in different religious traditions may be different, but they may represent the same divine energy and the same spiritual experiences. Just as the immeidate visualization of an expression in the mind of a child may change based on cultural context and grammar that one is exposed to, the immeidate imagination of a deity's gross/external form in the mind of a sadhaka may change based on the religious paradigms and spirutal context that one is exposed to. However, these differences are minor. As one delves deeper, the basic energies and experiences represented by various deities and rituals are the same in different religious traditions and one will experience the same spiritual truths as one masters one's path.> > No wonder Rigveda says "ekam sat vipraa bahudhaa vadanti" (Truth is One, but the learned say it differently) .> > * * *> > One

language may have a lot of different words for an object with slight variation whereas another language may have fewer words. As an example, a language spoken near equator may have a single word for "snow", "ice", "dew", "mist" etc, whereas English has so many words. Native language of Alaskans, who live in snow and ice most of the year, has many more words than English for slightly different kinds of snow, whereas English calls all of them as "snow".> > Similarly, religious traditions that explored slightly different kinds of the same divine energy may have personified those energies as different deities. So some religions may have more deities than some other religions. Some religions may have a lot of deities for different variations of a similar purpose, whereas another religion may have only one deity.> > * * *> > If communication can be internalized and we can communicate with our emotions, we do not need

language and we will all be on the same page always. But we cannot communicate with our internal emotions and need an external method. So language is needed. But language can divide.> > Similarly, spiritual truths are internal (like our emotions). In order to express them and transmit them to others, we need deities, mantras, rituals and religion. But religion can divide.> > One child may say "I am sorry" and another may say another expression meaning the same thing and they may argue who is right. One may say "my father said this is correct" and another may say "my mother said this is correct" and they may fight on who is correct. People fighting over whose religion is superior and trying to "convert" others are like such children. Unfortunately, my "child and language" analogy is too mild in this area and the fights between religions have been far worse than two children arguing about their language. Countless people have

been murdered in the name of religion.> > Instead of arguing which expression is correct and finding fault with others, children learning should focus on the true meaning of what they saying and try to understand what exactly their expression means and feel the correct emotions when they say things. Similarly, instead of fighting with others on religion, one should try to understand one's own religion better and experience the spiritual truths represented in that religion.> > * * *> > One may think there is a Christian god, an Islamic god, a Hindu god etc and they are responsible for respective religions and societies. That is not true.> > If one believes that there is a supreme deity (whatever the name you use to describe) who creates all beings, then one has to realize that Vyasa, Buddha, Christ, Propher Mohammed and Mahavira were sent to this earth by that same supreme deity and different

religions came into being only because that supreme deity willed so! Each religion serves a useful purpose at a given place and a time. When a religion's time is up, it goes.> > * * *> > Some may say that external forms of deities who personify different aspects of divine energy running the universe are a creation of the mind. However, they are not a creation of the current state of mind. Mind has accumulated many layers of conditioning though many lives. Thus, one may not have ever seen or thought about or imagined a specific form of a deity in this life, but may have a vision of that form, on account of conditioning accumulated through many lives. An example is the boy mentioned in the following message:> > http://groups. / group/vedic- wisdom/message/ 761> > He had not read about some of the

avataras of Vishnu he saw above the fire. But he saw them and could describe them. This is because those forms represent a personification of a certain energy and his mind imagined that energy in that form in a previous life. The memory stayed with the mind (though not consciously) and it can come back anytime. So, though he did not know about that form, that form appeared before him.> > Swami Vivekananda famously said (paraphrased) , "a human being imagines god as a super human being with many hands and heads. If a buffalo imagines god, it may imagine god as a super buffalo with many horns". Though he is right in a sense, it is misleading too. It may incorrectly trivialize external forms. Though external forms are a work of the mind, that does not make them unimportant.> > Until one learns how to feel sorry and show that feeling, saying "I am sorry" as a ritual is an important habit. Not teaching a child words because he

cannot anyway understand their correct meaning is wrong. The child should be taught even if he does not understand. He will understand the true meaning later Similarly, though the energy represented by a form is more basic than a specific external form associated with that energy, many people will reach that energy only by imagining that form and worshipping that form. So, if one's mind tends to imagine a form, one should imagine the form and worship that form.> > Though we say that forms of deities and mystical experiences are a creation of mind, that is in a vedantic sense, i.e. the entire manifested universe is a creation of the mind (over many lives). Only Brahman is real and not created by the mind. Everything else is a creation of the mind over the time. If we say that a form of a deity or an experience is an imagination of the mind, it does not mean it is a hallucination. Mind is connected to its field of experience. Various minds

in its field of experience are connected to it. For example, the experience described in the following message was independently "observed" by two people. Human mind can imagine things and hallucinate, but two minds observing the same thing is different from a typical hallucination:> > http://groups. / group/vedic- wisdom/message/ 951> > Most divine forms and divine experiences chronicled in sacred texts of various religions have been independently experienced by multiple people.> > * * *> > When someone looks sad, one person may say "he is sad". Another person may say "woh dukhi hai". Another person may say "vaadu baadha padutunnaadu" . Similarly, when a divine energy is present in a place, one may perceive the energy as deity X and another may perceive it as a deity Y. Just as the expression

one uses to describe the feeling one perceives is based on the language one knows, similarly the form mentioned by one to describe the enegy one perceives depends on the conditioning of one's mind and the religious tradition one is exposed to.> > I know one person who does Chandi homam. When he finishes the homam, he calls back the Divine Mother into his heart by showing the fire with his hands and motioning the hands towards his heart (with eyes closed). When he does it, he just perceives a nice energy around him and feels peaceful and happy. When he was doing this oneday, a gentleman was visiting and sitting right behind him. His eyes were closed and he was meditating. When the above happened, he was baffled and opened his eyes to see what was going on. He had a vision of a dark goddess who was jumping towards him along with a big pile of kumkum (vermillion powder) all around Her. He was overwhelmed by the vision and opened his eyes. But

the person who did homam perceived only some nice energy and no specific form. Thus, the same energy may be perceived by different people in a different form. One person may perceive only some energy and another may perceive a specific form. Yet another may perceive a different form. The exact perception is based on the conditioning of the mind. But the energy itself is uniform, though the form is not.> > * * *> > I have covered various aspects related to this topic. I will stop now.> > Best regards,> Narasimha> ------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- -> Do a Short Homam Yourself: http://www.VedicAst rologer.org/ homam> Do Pitri Tarpanas Yourself: http://www.VedicAst rologer.org/ tarpana>

Spirituality: http://groups. / group/vedic- wisdom> Free Jyotish lessons (MP3): http://vedicastro. home.comcast. net> Free Jyotish software (Windows): http://www.VedicAst rologer.org> Sri Jagannath Centre (SJC) website: http://www.SriJagan nath.org> ------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- - > > - > "rajarshi14" <rajarshi14@ ...>> <@ .

com>> Sunday, April 19, 2009 1:26 AM> Deities> > > Namaste> >> > Just a curious thought.> >> > We in Hinduism have a certain set of deities. In history we see that every > > ancient culture had their own set of deities and rituals etc etc.> >> > If deities are not universal and rather culture specific, are they a > > creation of the people? But if they are a creation of the people, how do > > they have such universal abilities/powers and also their avatarts. We have > > in Sanatana Dharma many instances of amsa avatars of various deities > > taking birth.> >> > What happens to the deities of a certain culture, once the culture has > > died and there is no one to worship that deity? And why did not the > > ancient deities of different

cultures protect those cultures from > > anihilation?> >> > Any thoughts on this would be interesting.> >> > -Regards> > Rajarshi>

Bollywood news, movie reviews, film trailers and more!

April 24, 2009

Namaste Rajarshi,

you have given a popular opinion but we need to now go beyond that and find out

some truth for our own understanding. Harsh truth is that we ourselves are in a

complete doubt of the 'Madeup stories' or otherwise of the so called narrations.

(Such as some one called Shiva is one of our great God - Paarvati is his

spouse- Ganesha & Kartikeya are their Sons and so on and so forth).

>This was made this way for the oridinary people to understand and >not leave

the folds of Hinduism. The threat then was Buddhism. That >is why not only these

stories were " made "

if the above phrase means that they are all stories and were MADE to counter

some threat, then we are for many geneartions building our faith upon false

ground.

> Solution: I have no clue. Maybe it is time we need to learn our >religion

better. And the whole host of Babas and Swamis on >television would do well to

try and educate their followers about >the comprehensive/all inclusive nature of

Hinduism instead of mere >reciting the stories from teh Puranas.

No need to depend upon any Babas and swamis. first all of us need to understand

the truth ourselves. if even spiritual teachers themselves are not sure of these

answers, how they'll pass on the knowledge and what quality.

Main question to all: Is the Story of Ganapati & Shiva is true?

or should wait for Ganapati himself in the hope that at one fine day he dicides

to grant me Darshna during one of the Homam time and tells me the truth himself

Sach kya hai - is it ITIHAAS or MYTHOLOGY (Just like Fantom and Herry potter)

Best Regards,

Utpal

, rajarshi nandy <rajarshi14 wrote:

>

> Namaste Utpalji

>

> I have had the same experiences. Most of our puranic stories are made fun of

by others.

>

> Well in most of the cases these questions are of malicious intent, those don't

bother me much, but at some point someone ask's these questions genuinely.

>

> I tried reading different opinions of different respected saints and I found

one explanation in the introuductory chapters on Sri Aurobindo's " Secrets of the

Vedas " .

>

> He opines indirectly that the Puranas are definitely a toned down version of

what used to be the Vedic knowledge. This was made this way for the oridinary

people to understand and not leave the folds of Hinduism. The threat then was

Buddhism. That is why not only these stories were " made " which were based on

deeper spiritual symbolism generated from the Vedas but even the lagugae was

modified and made easier. The sanskrit of the Vedas is different from the

sanskrit of the puranic age.

>

> The reason Buddism could become such a threat to Hinduism was because the

people (priests) had reducded the Vedas to a book of mere rituals. The Vedas are

both internal and external, but the priests took over the religion from the

sages/mystics and reduced/neglected/forgot the internal and relied solely on the

external. That is why Buddha rejected the Vedas.

> Infact as per Sri Aurobindo, the comng of Buddha was a wrong step in the cycle

of evolution. He is not the next automatic choice after Krishna and that, Kalki

will recitify the mistake of Buddha. However, the coming of Buddha was in a

reverse way, needed to hasten the overall spiritual evolution of this world by

increasing the distance between God and man.

>

> So essentially, the Purans were somewhat like comemrcial Bollywood movies as

compared to the Vedas which were the Art films.

>

> My personal take on this: As far as they are able to induce spirituality in an

very average ordinary person from a village they are excellent. But at the same

time, if a Hindu who is not aware of the comprehensive nature of his own

scriptures, a poor, uneducated man, is told that his idols are mere stones and

his stories are cock and bull whereas God must be necessarily much beyond all

this, the idea of a single God, would be enough reason to make him switch

religions. It would sound very logical to him. Infact, this is how it often

happens.

>

> Solution: I have no clue. Maybe it is time we need to learn our religion

better. And the whole host of Babas and Swamis on television would do well to

try and educate their followers about the comprehensive/all inclusive nature of

Hinduism instead of mere reciting the stories from teh Puranas.

>

> -Regards

> Rajarshi

>

> The upsurge (of consciousness) is Bhairava - Shiva Sutra

>

> --- On Fri, 24/4/09, utpal pathak <vedic_pathak wrote:

>

> utpal pathak <vedic_pathak

> Re: Our Deities and their stories (Deities in

different religions!)

>

> Friday, 24 April, 2009, 10:02 AM

>

Namaste Narasimha Garu and friends,

>

> Rajarshi's question was in some aspect similar to one question i was asked

about a month ago. while traveling back to home from office, one person asked me

that what is these stories of our Gods such as Ganapati and his story of being

Shiva's son and cutting of head and replaced by elephant head etc...

> Stories of Vishnu and like wise many gods and goddesses. The person told me

that people from other make fun about all these various gods and their

*mythological* events which is recorded in our Shastras.

>

> I wish to ask here a nagging question. what is the truth. for instance, did

Ganapati and shiva's episode actually happen? Stories in Devi Mahatmay are

true?. Episode of Daksh Yagya and Uma's self killing in yagya vedi out of anger

and origin of Shakti pithas are true?

>

> Stories of Indra and other many gods and goddesses are true?

>

> Do they really exist? (Even if at the different plane of existence) or the

people who criticize are right when they say that yours is a full of stories

which are only mythological and you pray those imaginary Gods which are nothing

but characters of Stories of some writer.

>

> I could not answer the question as i was not sure.

>

> Spiritually yours,

>

> Utpal

>

> , " Narasimha P.V.R. Rao " <pvr@> wrote:

> >

> > Namaste,

> >

> > A fantastic question and one that downplays the importance of religion and

rituals in the minds of intelligent and rational people! Hence a very important

question to answer..

> >

> > To answer it, I will go back to the analogy I gave just a few days back:

> >

> > http://groups. / group/vedic- wisdom/message/ 1673 (Why rituals)

> >

> > * * *

> >

> > The child is taught by parents to say things like " thank you " and " sorry " in

different situations. I compared it to engaging in rituals and repeating mantras

without understanding. I said that the child slowly understands the true meaning

with experience and feels the emotions represented by those words when saying

them. I compared it to a sadhaka experiencing spiritual truths represented by

the rituals as he gains experience and becomes more ready.

> >

> > Now, think about this. Parents speaking different languages teach different

words to the child. A parent speaking English may teach " I am sorry " . A parent

speaking Hindi may teach " mujhe maaf keejiye " . Another Hindi speaking person may

teach " mujhe maaf karo " . A parent speaking Telugu may teach " nannu

kshaminchandi " . Another Telugu speaking person may teach " nannu kshaminchu " .

And so on. The words are different. But they represent the same thought and

emotion.

> >

> > Actually, at one level, the meaning is slightly different in each case,