Guest guest Posted October 12, 2008 Report Share Posted October 12, 2008 Purnamidam.... Agreed from a philosopher's view. But from Historians' view? I am sure about that and needs further discussions. Btw,. the simplest meaning of deity is one who is addressed (by a Rik). Thus, Urvasi and Pururava stand to be deities, though they are not Devas. On the other hand, a Deva has a very wide context. I feel Deva means which occupies a place in Diva or sky. Thus, it can be planets too. Literally, Deva means which shines. Kishore patnaik On Sun, Oct 12, 2008 at 1:37 PM, Sarvesh Tiwari <sarveshtiwari wrote: I completely concur to this. The " unit " and " whole " are seen as one and the same from the perspective of the beholder. Consider the example of river and ocean, both of which we referred to as " sindhu " . From: shankarabharadwajDate: Sat, 11 Oct 2008 23:49:01 -0700 Re: Fwd: gods- Varuna, Indra etc. I disagree Sir. The concept of devata is not arithmetic, in which we say g1+g2+g3... = Suprehe Godhead. Each devata is not a " part " of the supreme, but an aspect of the supreme. In fact each devata is equated to Brahman in different places. This is because devata remains devata, but it is the seeker who sees the devata initially as a subtle being, then as a causal being and finally as not different from Brahman. Thus, the worship of ANY ONE devata, when continued, will lead to the realization of COMPLETE reality, the infinite eternal. If we say worship of one Indra or one Siva or one Vishnu or one Ganapati or one Sakti is not sufficient for realization and liberation, then we have not understood the concept of devata properly. Because that was what seers have shown. kishore patnaik <kishorepatnaik09 Sent: Sunday, October 12, 2008 11:46:20 AM Fwd: gods- Varuna, Indra etc. ---------- Forwarded message ----------Kamlesh Kapur <kamleshk (AT) cox (DOT) net>Sun, Oct 12, 2008 at 8:21 AM gods- Varuna, Indra etc.Kishore patnaik <kishorepatnaik09@ gmail.com> Kishore ji, Please circulate this message among the members of the group. This wrong usage of the word god for Devas has changed and distorted the perception of our Dharma in mainstream foreigners. Our scriptures and all the other texts mention these names as Devas. Devas are not gods. If we assign the English term God to the Supreme Reality- Brahm, then we cannot assign the same term to a finite part of Brahm. A finite part cannot be equal to the Infinite. Brahm or the Divine is defined in our holy texts as infinite, poornam and anantam. Let us drop the use of god for Devas. If the western writers use this mistranslation, at least we should adhere to the categories given in our texts. We need to change our habit of thinking and categorizing and most certainly change our vocabulary referring to key terms. Regards, Kamlesh MSN Technology brings you the latest on gadgets, gizmos and the new hits in the gaming market. Try it now! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 12, 2008 Report Share Posted October 12, 2008 "But from Historians' view? I am sure about that and needs further discussions. "From historian's perspective as I said, the evolution of theology is very pertinent. But devata, is basically mantra murti. And evolution of theology is basically the development of mantra sastra. I can give one example: there is triputi in Sakta - Agni, Aditya and Vayu. This is the triple we find in Veda. This is the same triputi in older Sakta traditions like Candi. In the more recent traditions like Sri Vidya, Vayu is replaced with Soma - the Sri Vidya triputi is Agni-Aditya-Soma. Both hold good for trimurty - because Rudra is both Vayu and Soma. "Btw,. the simplest meaning of deity is one who is addressed (by a Rik). Thus, Urvasi and Pururava stand to be deities, though they are not Devas."Yes. Urvasi etc belong to swarga or deva loka but they are not deities. Deity is one who is worshiped. Deity is devata. "Literally, Deva means which shines. "Exactly. The same origin of the meaning is derived in different contexts. For a devotee, devata is subtle, taijasic - from tejas. One who shines but not in a literal sense. Astronomically, each devata is a star/constellation so this holds anyway. Rudra, Indra etc are all shining objects. In fact devatas and asuras both are "worshiped" in this sense - that both find mention in the stellar context. Indra and Vrtra, Rama and Ravana, Garuda and Snake, the Mahabharata characters like Pandavas, Draupadi, Bhishma... kishore patnaik <kishorepatnaik09 Sent: Sunday, October 12, 2008 1:57:19 PMRe: Fwd: gods- Varuna, Indra etc. Purnamidam.. .. Agreed from a philosopher's view. But from Historians' view? I am sure about that and needs further discussions. Btw,. the simplest meaning of deity is one who is addressed (by a Rik). Thus, Urvasi and Pururava stand to be deities, though they are not Devas. On the other hand, a Deva has a very wide context. I feel Deva means which occupies a place in Diva or sky. Thus, it can be planets too. Literally, Deva means which shines. Kishore patnaik On Sun, Oct 12, 2008 at 1:37 PM, Sarvesh Tiwari <sarveshtiwari@ hotmail.com> wrote: I completely concur to this. The "unit" and "whole" are seen as one and the same from the perspective of the beholder. Consider the example of river and ocean, both of which we referred to as "sindhu". shankarabharadwaj@ Sat, 11 Oct 2008 23:49:01 -0700 Re: Fwd: gods- Varuna, Indra etc. I disagree Sir. The concept of devata is not arithmetic, in which we say g1+g2+g3... = Suprehe Godhead. Each devata is not a "part" of the supreme, but an aspect of the supreme. In fact each devata is equated to Brahman in different places. This is because devata remains devata, but it is the seeker who sees the devata initially as a subtle being, then as a causal being and finally as not different from Brahman. Thus, the worship of ANY ONE devata, when continued, will lead to the realization of COMPLETE reality, the infinite eternal. If we say worship of one Indra or one Siva or one Vishnu or one Ganapati or one Sakti is not sufficient for realization and liberation, then we have not understood the concept of devata properly. Because that was what seers have shown. kishore patnaik <kishorepatnaik09@ gmail.com> Sunday, October 12, 2008 11:46:20 AM Fwd: gods- Varuna, Indra etc. ---------- Forwarded message ----------Kamlesh Kapur <kamleshk (AT) cox (DOT) net>Sun, Oct 12, 2008 at 8:21 AM gods- Varuna, Indra etc.Kishore patnaik <kishorepatnaik09@ gmail.com> Kishore ji, Please circulate this message among the members of the group. This wrong usage of the word god for Devas has changed and distorted the perception of our Dharma in mainstream foreigners. Our scriptures and all the other texts mention these names as Devas. Devas are not gods. If we assign the English term God to the Supreme Reality- Brahm, then we cannot assign the same term to a finite part of Brahm. A finite part cannot be equal to the Infinite. Brahm or the Divine is defined in our holy texts as infinite, poornam and anantam. Let us drop the use of god for Devas. If the western writers use this mistranslation, at least we should adhere to the categories given in our texts. We need to change our habit of thinking and categorizing and most certainly change our vocabulary referring to key terms. Regards, Kamlesh MSN Technology brings you the latest on gadgets, gizmos and the new hits in the gaming market. Try it now! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 13, 2008 Report Share Posted October 13, 2008 Yes, I agree that it is appropriate to refer to the supreme entity of the Vedas, the Upanishads and the Bhagavadgita (that is the entity called “the One”, the “One reality”, “brahman” etc) as God. Using the evidence of the Vedic religious texts, it is possible to strongly argue that out of all the worlds mainstream religions the Vedic/Hindu religion has the purest form of monotheism of them all. In actual fact out of all the authoritative religious texts of the world religions it is only those of Vedic/Hindu religion that provided a logical and coherent theory about the nature of the supreme deity that in the West we call God. Although this is very arguably the case I am not attempting to denigrate the worth of other world religions as when it is all boiled down religion is predominantly about faith and devotion and not intellectualism and logic. Judging from statements made in the Bhagavadgita the overwhelming majority of the world’s population, including Hindus and Western academics, are incapable of having a proper knowledge about the supreme being of the Vedic/Hindu religious texts. If we agree to use the Western term God to designate the supreme entity of the Vedic/Hindu religion then the term gods to describe the devas also appears to be a satisfactory translation to describe them. Bruce Duffy On 12/10/08 6:07 PM, " Sarvesh Tiwari " <sarveshtiwari wrote: I completely concur to this. The " unit " and " whole " are seen as one and the same from the perspective of the beholder. Consider the example of river and ocean, both of which we referred to as " sindhu " . shankarabharadwaj Sat, 11 Oct 2008 23:49:01 -0700 Re: Fwd: gods- Varuna, Indra etc. I disagree Sir. The concept of devata is not arithmetic, in which we say g1+g2+g3... = Suprehe Godhead. Each devata is not a " part " of the supreme, but an aspect of the supreme. In fact each devata is equated to Brahman in different places. This is because devata remains devata, but it is the seeker who sees the devata initially as a subtle being, then as a causal being and finally as not different from Brahman. Thus, the worship of ANY ONE devata, when continued, will lead to the realization of COMPLETE reality, the infinite eternal. If we say worship of one Indra or one Siva or one Vishnu or one Ganapati or one Sakti is not sufficient for realization and liberation, then we have not understood the concept of devata properly. Because that was what seers have shown. kishore patnaik <kishorepatnaik09 Sunday, October 12, 2008 11:46:20 AM Fwd: gods- Varuna, Indra etc. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Kamlesh Kapur <kamleshk (AT) cox (DOT) net <kamleshk > Sun, Oct 12, 2008 at 8:21 AM gods- Varuna, Indra etc. Kishore patnaik <kishorepatnaik09@ gmail.com <kishorepatnaik09 > Kishore ji, Please circulate this message among the members of the group. This wrong usage of the word god for Devas has changed and distorted the perception of our Dharma in mainstream foreigners. Our scriptures and all the other texts mention these names as Devas. Devas are not gods. If we assign the English term God to the Supreme Reality- Brahm, then we cannot assign the same term to a finite part of Brahm. A finite part cannot be equal to the Infinite. Brahm or the Divine is defined in our holy texts as infinite, poornam and anantam. Let us drop the use of god for Devas. If the western writers use this mistranslation, at least we should adhere to the categories given in our texts. We need to change our habit of thinking and categorizing and most certainly change our vocabulary referring to key terms. Regards, Kamlesh MSN Technology brings you the latest on gadgets, gizmos and the new hits in the gaming market. Try it now! <http://computing.in.msn.com/> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 13, 2008 Report Share Posted October 13, 2008 Exactly. God is a category closest (not exactly) to the word Saguna Bhagwan. Kamlesh On Behalf Of Dr. Rabinder K. Koul Sunday, October 12, 2008 11:10 AM Re: Fwd: gods- Varuna, Indra etc. Where as " aham Brahmasmi " implies that what is seen as part/finite, is in fact the whole. That does not translate either the Brahman or the Deva as 'God " . The god is the catagory in the realm of duality, where as the Brahman is not that catagory. Ravindra Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 13, 2008 Report Share Posted October 13, 2008 The non-dula vedic presentation is either Monistic or Monistic theism, and not monotheism. Ravindra , Bruce Duffy <bwduffy wrote: > > Yes, I agree that it is appropriate to refer to the supreme entity of the > Vedas, the Upanishads and the Bhagavadgita (that is the entity called ³the > One², the ³One reality², ³brahman² etc) as God. Using the evidence of the > Vedic religious texts, it is possible to strongly argue that out of all the > worlds mainstream religions the Vedic/Hindu religion has the purest form of > monotheism of them all. In actual fact out of all the authoritative > religious texts of the world religions it is only those of Vedic/Hindu > religion that provided a logical and coherent theory about the nature of the > supreme deity that in the West we call God. Although this is very arguably > the case I am not attempting to denigrate the worth of other world religions > as when it is all boiled down religion is predominantly about faith and > devotion and not intellectualism and logic. Judging from statements made in > the Bhagavadgita the overwhelming majority of the world¹s population, > including Hindus and Western academics, are incapable of having a proper > knowledge about the supreme being of the Vedic/Hindu religious texts. > > If we agree to use the Western term God to designate the supreme entity of > the Vedic/Hindu religion then the term gods to describe the devas also > appears to be a satisfactory translation to describe them. > > Bruce Duffy > > > On 12/10/08 6:07 PM, " Sarvesh Tiwari " <sarveshtiwari wrote: > > > > > > > > I completely concur to this. The " unit " and " whole " are seen as one and the > > same from the perspective of the beholder. Consider the example of river and > > ocean, both of which we referred to as " sindhu " . > > > > > > > > shankarabharadwaj > > Sat, 11 Oct 2008 23:49:01 -0700 > > Re: Fwd: gods- Varuna, Indra etc. > > > > I disagree Sir. The concept of devata is not arithmetic, in which we say > > g1+g2+g3... = Suprehe Godhead. Each devata is not a " part " of the supreme, but > > an aspect of the supreme. In fact each devata is equated to Brahman in > > different places. This is because devata remains devata, but it is the seeker > > who sees the devata initially as a subtle being, then as a causal being and > > finally as not different from Brahman. Thus, the worship of ANY ONE devata, > > when continued, will lead to the realization of COMPLETE reality, the infinite > > eternal. > > > > If we say worship of one Indra or one Siva or one Vishnu or one Ganapati or > > one Sakti is not sufficient for realization and liberation, then we have not > > understood the concept of devata properly. Because that was what seers have > > shown. > > > > > > > > > > kishore patnaik <kishorepatnaik09 > > > > Sunday, October 12, 2008 11:46:20 AM > > Fwd: gods- Varuna, Indra etc. > > > > > > > > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > > Kamlesh Kapur <kamleshk (AT) cox (DOT) net <kamleshk > > > Sun, Oct 12, 2008 at 8:21 AM > > gods- Varuna, Indra etc. > > Kishore patnaik <kishorepatnaik09@ gmail.com > > <kishorepatnaik09 > > > > > > > Kishore ji, > > Please circulate this message among the members of the group. This wrong usage > > of the word god for Devas has changed and distorted > > the perception of our Dharma in mainstream foreigners. > > Our scriptures and all the other texts mention these names as Devas. Devas are > > not gods. > > If we assign the English term God to the Supreme Reality- Brahm, then we > > cannot assign the same term to a finite part of Brahm. > > A finite part cannot be equal to the Infinite. Brahm or the Divine is defined > > in our holy texts as infinite, poornam and anantam. > > Let us drop the use of god for Devas. If the western writers use this > > mistranslation, at least we should adhere to the categories given in our > > texts. > > We need to change our habit of thinking and categorizing and most certainly > > change our vocabulary referring to key terms. > > Regards, > > Kamlesh > > > > > > > > > > > > > > MSN Technology brings you the latest on gadgets, gizmos and the new hits in > > the gaming market. Try it now! <http://computing.in.msn.com/> > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 13, 2008 Report Share Posted October 13, 2008 Dear Kamlesh, you have a point about why the word Devas should not be absorbed into the English language. Actually to a certain extent I think this has been happening in the languages of the West since the time of the ‘mind revolution’ of the 1960s. However, for most Western academics the Greek religion is their relative in regards to the character of so called ‘pagan’, ‘polytheistic’ religions and for centuries the many divine beings of the Greek pantheon have been referred to as gods. Although I am not sure a parallel can be drawn between the nature of the divine beings of the Greek pantheon we in the West refer to as the gods and the divine beings of Vedic/Hinduism called devas it has become common practice among Western academics to refer to the divine beings of Vedic/Hinduism using the same term, god/s, that is used to refer to the Greek divine beings. I don’t think the use of the word gods is going to be any more misleading than the word devas in regards to people seeing the Hinduism as being essentially a polytheistic religion. I think an overwhelming majority of Hindus would be happy and spiritually satisfied with the notion that the Vedic/Hindu religion was polytheistic. Bruce On 13/10/08 12:52 PM, " Kamlesh Kapur " <kamleshk wrote: <then the term gods to describe the devas also appears to be a satisfactory translation to describe them. > It is not satisfactory. a.Many gods bring a misleading label for Hinduism –as polytheistic. b. God (Saguna or Nirguna) is omnipotent. Each Deva by itself cannot create life. Sun shines on the Jupitor, however there is no life there. Similarly agni or Indra by themselves cannot create or sustain life. c. Vedic chants refer to all these forces as Devas and not Bhagvans or Ishwaras. d. Each one of the units in a set is not by itself= to whole e. logically, part ids not equal to the whole. f. What is wrong with using the word Devas? English language has absorbed words such as Swami and Pundit and nobody thinks the language has suffered any damage. Devas should be absorbed also in the English dictionary for lack of an equivalent word. < The " unit " and " whole " are seen as one and the same from the perspective of the beholder.> This is a hypothesis. In a world where there is so much misperception about Hindu dharma and so much distortion of the basics of Hindu Dharma because of mistranslation of key terms, our effort should be to create a simple cohesive explanation of Vedic Devas and Vidhata. Kamlesh On Behalf Of Bruce Duffy Sunday, October 12, 2008 10:36 PM Re: Fwd: gods- Varuna, Indra etc. Yes, I agree that it is appropriate to refer to the supreme entity of the Vedas, the Upanishads and the Bhagavadgita (that is the entity called “the One”, the “One reality”, “brahman” etc) as God. Using the evidence of the Vedic religious texts, it is possible to strongly argue that out of all the worlds mainstream religions the Vedic/Hindu religion has the purest form of monotheism of them all. In actual fact out of all the authoritative religious texts of the world religions it is only those of Vedic/Hindu religion that provided a logical and coherent theory about the nature of the supreme deity that in the West we call God. Although this is very arguably the case I am not attempting to denigrate the worth of other world religions as when it is all boiled down religion is predominantly about faith and devotion and not intellectualism and logic. Judging from statements made in the Bhagavadgita the overwhelming majority of the world’s population, including Hindus and Western academics, are incapable of having a proper knowledge about the supreme being of the Vedic/Hindu religious texts. If we agree to use the Western term God to designate the supreme entity of the Vedic/Hindu religion then the term gods to describe the devas also appears to be a satisfactory translation to describe them. Bruce Duffy On 12/10/08 6:07 PM, " Sarvesh Tiwari " <sarveshtiwari wrote: I completely concur to this. The " unit " and " whole " are seen as one and the same from the perspective of the beholder. Consider the example of river and ocean, both of which we referred to as " sindhu " . shankarabharadwaj Sat, 11 Oct 2008 23:49:01 -0700 Re: Fwd: gods- Varuna, Indra etc. I disagree Sir. The concept of devata is not arithmetic, in which we say g1+g2+g3... = Suprehe Godhead. Each devata is not a " part " of the supreme, but an aspect of the supreme. In fact each devata is equated to Brahman in different places. This is because devata remains devata, but it is the seeker who sees the devata initially as a subtle being, then as a causal being and finally as not different from Brahman. Thus, the worship of ANY ONE devata, when continued, will lead to the realization of COMPLETE reality, the infinite eternal. If we say worship of one Indra or one Siva or one Vishnu or one Ganapati or one Sakti is not sufficient for realization and liberation, then we have not understood the concept of devata properly. Because that was what seers have shown. kishore patnaik <kishorepatnaik09 Sunday, October 12, 2008 11:46:20 AM Fwd: gods- Varuna, Indra etc. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Kamlesh Kapur <kamleshk (AT) cox (DOT) net <kamleshk > Sun, Oct 12, 2008 at 8:21 AM gods- Varuna, Indra etc. Kishore patnaik <kishorepatnaik09@ gmail.com <kishorepatnaik09 > Kishore ji, Please circulate this message among the members of the group. This wrong usage of the word god for Devas has changed and distorted the perception of our Dharma in mainstream foreigners. Our scriptures and all the other texts mention these names as Devas. Devas are not gods. If we assign the English term God to the Supreme Reality- Brahm, then we cannot assign the same term to a finite part of Brahm. A finite part cannot be equal to the Infinite. Brahm or the Divine is defined in our holy texts as infinite, poornam and anantam. Let us drop the use of god for Devas. If the western writers use this mistranslation, at least we should adhere to the categories given in our texts. We need to change our habit of thinking and categorizing and most certainly change our vocabulary referring to key terms. Regards, Kamlesh .. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 16, 2008 Report Share Posted October 16, 2008 I don’t think the use of the word gods is going to be any more misleading than the word devas in regards to people seeing the Hinduism as being essentially a polytheistic religion. I think an overwhelming majority of Hindus would be happy and spiritually satisfied with the notion that the Vedic/Hindu religion was polytheistic. Both are assumptions and these are proven wrong. I am a teacher and I teach Hinduism to a very diverse groups- diverse in age, diverse in economic strata and diverse in ethnicity. The moment Devas are retained ( distinct from the Supreme Reality) in the discussion, things, suddenly the audience feels as if the mist is lifted. Majority of Hindus believe in one Supreme reality and when they refer to the Ishtha Devta, they do not use the word Bhagwan nor mean God by using the word Deva. Besides, when we introduce the term gods, we immediately fall into the trap of false gods, demigods and whole warp of it. Truthfully, Varuna is Deva but not Bhagwan. That applies to all the Devas. Regards, Kamlesh On Behalf Of Bruce Duffy Monday, October 13, 2008 11:58 AM Re: Fwd: gods- Varuna, Indra etc. Dear Kamlesh, you have a point about why the word Devas should not be absorbed into the English language. Actually to a certain extent I think this has been happening in the languages of the West since the time of the ‘mind revolution’ of the 1960s. However, for most Western academics the Greek religion is their relative in regards to the character of so called ‘pagan’, ‘polytheistic’ religions and for centuries the many divine beings of the Greek pantheon have been referred to as gods. Although I am not sure a parallel can be drawn between the nature of the divine beings of the Greek pantheon we in the West refer to as the gods and the divine beings of Vedic/Hinduism called devas it has become common practice among Western academics to refer to the divine beings of Vedic/Hinduism using the same term, god/s, that is used to refer to the Greek divine beings. I don’t think the use of the word gods is going to be any more misleading than the word devas in regards to people seeing the Hinduism as being essentially a polytheistic religion. I think an overwhelming majority of Hindus would be happy and spiritually satisfied with the notion that the Vedic/Hindu religion was polytheistic. Bruce On 13/10/08 12:52 PM, " Kamlesh Kapur " <kamleshk wrote: <then the term gods to describe the devas also appears to be a satisfactory translation to describe them. > It is not satisfactory. a.Many gods bring a misleading label for Hinduism –as polytheistic. b. God (Saguna or Nirguna) is omnipotent. Each Deva by itself cannot create life. Sun shines on the Jupitor, however there is no life there. Similarly agni or Indra by themselves cannot create or sustain life. c. Vedic chants refer to all these forces as Devas and not Bhagvans or Ishwaras. d. Each one of the units in a set is not by itself= to whole e. logically, part ids not equal to the whole. f. What is wrong with using the word Devas? English language has absorbed words such as Swami and Pundit and nobody thinks the language has suffered any damage. Devas should be absorbed also in the English dictionary for lack of an equivalent word. < The " unit " and " whole " are seen as one and the same from the perspective of the beholder.> This is a hypothesis. In a world where there is so much misperception about Hindu dharma and so much distortion of the basics of Hindu Dharma because of mistranslation of key terms, our effort should be to create a simple cohesive explanation of Vedic Devas and Vidhata. Kamlesh On Behalf Of Bruce Duffy Sunday, October 12, 2008 10:36 PM Re: Fwd: gods- Varuna, Indra etc. Yes, I agree that it is appropriate to refer to the supreme entity of the Vedas, the Upanishads and the Bhagavadgita (that is the entity called “the One”, the “One reality”, “brahman” etc) as God. Using the evidence of the Vedic religious texts, it is possible to strongly argue that out of all the worlds mainstream religions the Vedic/Hindu religion has the purest form of monotheism of them all. In actual fact out of all the authoritative religious texts of the world religions it is only those of Vedic/Hindu religion that provided a logical and coherent theory about the nature of the supreme deity that in the West we call God. Although this is very arguably the case I am not attempting to denigrate the worth of other world religions as when it is all boiled down religion is predominantly about faith and devotion and not intellectualism and logic. Judging from statements made in the Bhagavadgita the overwhelming majority of the world’s population, including Hindus and Western academics, are incapable of having a proper knowledge about the supreme being of the Vedic/Hindu religious texts. If we agree to use the Western term God to designate the supreme entity of the Vedic/Hindu religion then the term gods to describe the devas also appears to be a satisfactory translation to describe them. Bruce Duffy On 12/10/08 6:07 PM, " Sarvesh Tiwari " <sarveshtiwari wrote: I completely concur to this. The " unit " and " whole " are seen as one and the same from the perspective of the beholder. Consider the example of river and ocean, both of which we referred to as " sindhu " . shankarabharadwaj Sat, 11 Oct 2008 23:49:01 -0700 Re: Fwd: gods- Varuna, Indra etc. I disagree Sir. The concept of devata is not arithmetic, in which we say g1+g2+g3... = Suprehe Godhead. Each devata is not a " part " of the supreme, but an aspect of the supreme. In fact each devata is equated to Brahman in different places. This is because devata remains devata, but it is the seeker who sees the devata initially as a subtle being, then as a causal being and finally as not different from Brahman. Thus, the worship of ANY ONE devata, when continued, will lead to the realization of COMPLETE reality, the infinite eternal. If we say worship of one Indra or one Siva or one Vishnu or one Ganapati or one Sakti is not sufficient for realization and liberation, then we have not understood the concept of devata properly. Because that was what seers have shown. kishore patnaik <kishorepatnaik09 Sunday, October 12, 2008 11:46:20 AM Fwd: gods- Varuna, Indra etc. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Kamlesh Kapur <kamleshk (AT) cox (DOT) net <kamleshk > Sun, Oct 12, 2008 at 8:21 AM gods- Varuna, Indra etc. Kishore patnaik <kishorepatnaik09@ gmail.com <kishorepatnaik09 > Kishore ji, Please circulate this message among the members of the group. This wrong usage of the word god for Devas has changed and distorted the perception of our Dharma in mainstream foreigners. Our scriptures and all the other texts mention these names as Devas. Devas are not gods. If we assign the English term God to the Supreme Reality- Brahm, then we cannot assign the same term to a finite part of Brahm. A finite part cannot be equal to the Infinite. Brahm or the Divine is defined in our holy texts as infinite, poornam and anantam. Let us drop the use of god for Devas. If the western writers use this mistranslation, at least we should adhere to the categories given in our texts. We need to change our habit of thinking and categorizing and most certainly change our vocabulary referring to key terms. Regards, Kamlesh .. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 17, 2008 Report Share Posted October 17, 2008 >Majority of Hindus ... do not use the word Bhagwan nor mean God >by using the word Deva... Truthfully, Varuna is Deva but not >Bhagwan. That applies to all the Devas. Kamlesh-Ji, it is interesting that you have not come across common Hindus using terms like 'sUrya bhagawAna', 'kR^iShNa bhagawAna', 'shaMkara bhagawAna', even "guru bhagawAna", and in femanine gender "saraswatI bhagawatI" etc!! At least from popular stand point, a devotee's iShTa-deva is a percievable saguNa, some times sakAra, manifest of the complete absolute bramha. Here is a streak I recognize in this discussion when you say 'truthfully'. Are we trying to say that there is just one "true" viewpoint that is the "authentic" view point, and other mata-s carry inauthentic viewpoint? Please do acknowledge that Hindu as a practice is a diversity of often differing viewpoints, including how to approach devinity, with 1, 0, or multiple deva-s (cognate with "theo"). Best Regards Voice your opinion on the burning issues of the day. Discuss, debate with the world. Logon to message boards on MSN. Try it! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 21, 2008 Report Share Posted October 21, 2008 Tiwari ji, Sorry, I did not get back to you earlier. My comments are under your points. Regards, Kamlesh On Behalf Of Sarvesh Tiwari Friday, October 17, 2008 2:09 AM RE: Fwd: gods- Varuna, Indra etc. >Majority of Hindus ... do not use the word Bhagwan nor mean God >by using the word Deva... Truthfully, Varuna is Deva but not >Bhagwan. That applies to all the Devas. Kamlesh-Ji, it is interesting that you have not come across common Hindus using terms like 'sUrya bhagawAna', 'kR^iShNa bhagawAna', 'shaMkara bhagawAna', even " guru bhagawAna " , and in femanine gender " saraswatI bhagawatI " etc!! Yes, I have not only heard the common use of the word Bhagwan for Devas. I have myself used a few times. That however is not the point. The textual reference wherever made in the Vedic and post Vedic literature points to Devas as finite manifestations of the Absolute which is mentioned as Brahman and Vidhata. Here is a dialogue between Yajnavalkya and his disciple: “Yes,” said he, “but just how many gods are there, Yajnavalkya?” “Thirty-three.” …“Yes,” said he, “but just how many gods are there, Yajnavalkya?” “One…” Brhadaranyaka Upanishad III, IX, I Thirty three are Devas, so are parents, teachers etc. At least from popular stand point, a devotee's iShTa-deva is a percievable saguNa, some times sakAra, manifest of the complete absolute bramha. Not contesting the popular stand point. I am simply trying to have the conceptual aspects clear in our mind first and then in the mind of the next generation. So that we do not translate Devas as gods. One major issue about the textbooks’ portrayal of Hindu dharma revolves around the translation of the word Deva as god. Here is a streak I recognize in this discussion when you say 'truthfully'. Are we trying to say that there is just one " true " viewpoint that is the " authentic " view point, and other mata-s carry inauthentic viewpoint? Please do acknowledge that Hindu as a practice is a diversity of often differing viewpoints, including how to approach devinity, with 1, 0, or multiple deva-s (cognate with " theo " ). The word truthfully withdrawn. This was only a way of stressing the point made in the Vedic chants- worshipping each Deva as an entity separate and yet a part of the total. Best Regards Voice your opinion on the burning issues of the day. Discuss, debate with the world. Logon to message boards on MSN. Try it! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 22, 2008 Report Share Posted October 22, 2008 Dear Kamlesh Ji, I dont think we have any disagreement, the way I see it. We can not escape bringing in the history of evolution of Hindu family of religious thought in the subject. If we are talking about the post-vedic / vedAntik period of thought, then yes, deva-s of veda had become subservient to a supreme bramha. Further later, when sectarian texts such as typical vaiShNava purANa-s like bhAgavata were developed, we see their version of supreme bramha (that is viShNu) superceding all deva-s, literally defeating them. (That is how they have recorded viShNu in kR^iShNa-avatAra 'defeating' indra, and in rAma-avatAra 'defeating' varuNa). Same can be said, although to a reduced degree for shaiva texts, and to a great deal more in sectarian bauddha texts such as guhya-tantra (where bodhisattva-s trample upon the vedic gods, kidnap their consorts, reduce them all to the submission to buddha-shAsana, and say that there is no supreme bramha). So those are the viewpoints of 'theology' (if i may be allowed to use that word), however from the view point of a devotee, especially in bhakti-path, iShTa is a nothing but supreme bramha manifested. Thus you have mIrA sing, 'mere to giridhara-gopAla dUsarO na koyI'. [to me, supreme lord is gopAla who holds the mountain on his palm, and none else] and sUradAsa say that bramha is none but, 'soyI nandajI ko pUta kahAvata, so kautuka dekhau morI mAyI'. [the same bramha is now calling himself son of nanda, O Mother, what a great astonishment!] And tulasIdAsa, in the same line of thought, has umA say that, 'prabhu je muni paramAratha-bAdI, kahahi rama kahu bramha anAdI,' [Lord, those sages who are speakers of only paramArtha, they say rama is nothing other than beginningless bramha Himself]. Therefore, the reality is the same, but depends upon the perspective from which you approach that reality. For a philosopher, bramha and deva are distinct, bramha a supreme, all-pervading, begiining-and-end-less nirguNa rirAkAra entity, while deva-s only its multiple aspects in specific forms, attributes, and functions. However for a sAdhaka, especially of upAsana & bhakti path, his iShTa deva is nothing but bramha manifest and in supreme in his own entire right. I see no contradiction. And I see no reason to object to using word "bhagawAna" for deva-s too. Best,Sarvesh Tiwari From: kamleshkDate: Tue, 21 Oct 2008 11:03:02 -0400RE: Fwd: gods- Varuna, Indra etc. Tiwari ji, Sorry, I did not get back to you earlier. My comments are under your points. Regards, Kamlesh On Behalf Of Sarvesh TiwariFriday, October 17, 2008 2:09 AM Subject: RE: Fwd: gods- Varuna, Indra etc. >Majority of Hindus ... do not use the word Bhagwan nor mean God >by using the word Deva... Truthfully, Varuna is Deva but not >Bhagwan. That applies to all the Devas. Kamlesh-Ji, it is interesting that you have not come across common Hindus using terms like 'sUrya bhagawAna', 'kR^iShNa bhagawAna', 'shaMkara bhagawAna', even 'guru bhagawAna', and in femanine gender 'saraswatI bhagawatI' etc!! Yes, I have not only heard the common use of the word Bhagwan for Devas. I have myself used a few times. That however is not the point. The textual reference wherever made in the Vedic and post Vedic literature points to Devas as finite manifestations of the Absolute which is mentioned as Brahman and Vidhata. Here is a dialogue between Yajnavalkya and his disciple: “Yes,” said he, “but just how many gods are there, Yajnavalkya?” “Thirty-three.” …“Yes,” said he, “but just how many gods are there, Yajnavalkya?” “One…” Brhadaranyaka Upanishad III, IX, I Thirty three are Devas, so are parents, teachers etc. At least from popular stand point, a devotee's iShTa-deva is a percievable saguNa, some times sakAra, manifest of the complete absolute bramha. Not contesting the popular stand point. I am simply trying to have the conceptual aspects clear in our mind first and then in the mind of the next generation. So that we do not translate Devas as gods. One major issue about the textbooks’ portrayal of Hindu dharma revolves around the translation of the word Deva as god. Here is a streak I recognize in this discussion when you say 'truthfully'. Are we trying to say that there is just one 'true' viewpoint that is the 'authentic' view point, and other mata-s carry inauthentic viewpoint? Please do acknowledge that Hindu as a practice is a diversity of often differing viewpoints, including how to approach devinity, with 1, 0, or multiple deva-s (cognate with 'theo'). The word truthfully withdrawn. This was only a way of stressing the point made in the Vedic chants- worshipping each Deva as an entity separate and yet a part of the total. Best Regards Voice your opinion on the burning issues of the day. Discuss, debate with the world. Logon to message boards on MSN. Try it! Watch useful tips on recipes, fitness, yoga and fashion only on MSN videos. Try it! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.