Do the vedas promote monotheism or pantheism?

[Guest guest]

Jai Shree Krishna

 

My name is dharmesh and I live in the uk.

 

My question is that after indologists and orthodox hindus study sruti scriptures (samhita and upanishad ) why do they come to a pantheism conclusion, whereas Vaishnavas come to a monotheistic conclusion (that krishna or vishnu is

the supreme god)? After all both sides have studied sanskrit which is the language needed to understand vedas then how can they come to two different mutually exclusive conclusions. What are the arguements of the vaishnavas

against orthodox hindus and indologists intrepretation of the vedas?

 

Regards, Dharmesh

[Guest guest]

first of all a vaishnava will think that he's orthodox, not the hindus

 

god is both personal and impersonal, localized and all pervading at the same time

 

and we are god in quality.. because nothing is outside god and we cannot have been built with something different from god

 

but we are also different from god, we know that our control on our existence is near to zero, we are subjected to countless nature's laws

 

so if the universe needs a sustainer (=vishnu) and we know clearly that we are not sustaining anything, but we are subjected to everything, it is necessary that god is different from us and that he's supreme and not subjected by anyone and anything

 

so we are god because we are parts and parcels of god, but we are not god because we are subordinated to Him directly or through His laws

 

and we have never been the supreme and we never will be the supreme, god does not lose his powers, god is not subjected to His illusion, god does not forget

[Guest guest]

vishvatashchakshushruta vishvatomukho vishvato baahuruta vishvataspaat I

sam baahubhyaam dhamati sam patatrairdyaavaabhumi janayandeva ekah II

 

'He who hath eyes on all sides round about him, a mouth on all sides, arms and feet on all sides,

He, the one God, producing earth and heaven, welds them, with his all-spreading arms as wings, together.'

- rig 10.81.3

 

rigved 10.114.5 - suparnam vipraah kavayo vachobhir ekam santam bahudhaa kalpayanti -

 

"The wise in their hymns represent in many ways the fine-winged (God), Who is but one."

 

yaskacharya, the sage of the nirukta, which explains the verses and etymology of the ved, says -

 

maahaatmyaad devataayaah ekah aatmaa bahudhaa stuyate -

 

"Owing to the greatness of the Deity, the one Soul is celebrated in many ways".

 

indram mitram varunamagnimaahuratho divyah sa suparno garutmaan I

ekam sadvipraa bahudhaa vadantyagnim yamam matarishvaanamaahuh II

 

They call Him Indra, Mitra, Varuna, Agni and He is the shining Suparna Garutmaan. The sages describe the One Being (sat) in various ways (ekam sadvipraa bahudhaa vadanti). They call Him Agni, Yama, Matarishvan

 

yo nah pitaa janitaa yo vidhaataa dhaamaani veda bhuvanaani vishvaa I

yo devaanaam naamadhaa eka eva tam samprashnam bhuvanaa yantyanyaa II

 

'Our Father who is our creator and disposer, knows all the worlds and all things existing;

He is one alone, the name-giver of all devas. Him other beings attain (for) He is the only solution for all our interrogations.'

- rig 10.82.3

 

om nadvitiye na tritiiyashchaturtho napyuchyate II

na panchamo na shashthah saptamo naapyuchyate II

naashtamo na navamo dashamo naapyuchyate II

tamidam nigatam sah sa esha eka ekavrideka eva II

 

'He is called neither the second, nor the third, nor yet the fourth. He is called neither the fifth nor the sixth nor yet the seventh. He is called neither the eighth nor the nineth nor yet the tenth. He takes care of all that breathes and all that does not breathe. He has all this conquering power. He is one, one alone and only one.'

- atharva 12.4.19-21

[Guest guest]

Interestingly you dont even have to go the vedas, i have read the commentaries of Gita by ISKCON as well by swamin Chinmayananda. In iskcon whenever Krishna says "ME" they take it as krishna denoting himself, while that in chinmaya's commentary the "ME" is defined as egoless "SELF" and chinmaya portrays krishna as the self realised person using him as an example to explain the "ME" the real self.

 

Ofcourse Swami Chinmaya's Gita commentary is one of the best i have ever read.

[Guest guest]

"Interestingly you dont even have to go the vedas"

 

Not necessary but here it is anyway:

 

ya eka ittamushtuhi krshtiinaam vicharshanih I

patirchajne vrshatratuh II

 

O man! Praise God who is One and One only, and who is the Omniscient and Omnipotent Lord of all beings.

 

-Rigveda 6.45.16

 

aapo ha yadbrhatiirvishvamaayangarbham dadhaanaa janayantiiragnim I

tato devaanaam samavartataasurekah kasmai devaaya havisha vidhema II

rig 10.121.7

yashchidaapo mahinaa paryapashyad daksham dadhaana janayantiryajnam II

rig 10.121.8

 

When this vast diffused matter producing an igneous condition and holding in its womb this universe, manifested itself, then He was the One life of all shining objects; He it is to Whom we offer our prayers.

 

He who with His greatness looked on that diffused Matter possessed of heat and energy and producing the cosmos, Who is the Supreme Lord (Adhi Deva) of bright things (devas). He it is to Whom we shall offer our prayers

 

Rigveda 8.1.1 and Sama Veda 342, we find the Vedic injunction -

 

maa chidanyadvi shansata sakhaayo maa rishanyata I

indra mitstotaa vrshanam sachaa sute muhurukthaa cha shansata II

 

O ye friends! Do not glorify any other being than God, so that sorrows and sufferings may not trouble you. Praise Mighty God alone Who is the showerer of all blessings and repeatedly pronounce the sacred hymns together in all your congregations

 

eka eva namasyo vikshvityah II

 

One God alone is to be worshipped by all people. He is worthy of worship.

 

- Atharva 2.2.1

 

eka eva namasyah sushevaah II

 

One God alone who is the Giver of true happiness and bliss is to be worshipped by all.

 

- Atharva 2.2.2

[Guest guest]

if president bush speaks for half an hour, when he says ME after two, five, ten, fifteen minutes, it is clear that he's speaking of president bush

 

"In iskcon whenever Krishna says "ME" they take it as krishna denoting himself"

 

if krsna is saying "ME", why do you want to understand "YOU"? is it logic?

 

of course if you read gita with the idea to find that you are krsna, an exact translation is for you most disturbing..

[Guest guest]

DOnt pick on me, i just gave my opinion on both the different commentaries of BG by 2 different people.I didnt degrade either iskconites or anybody .

[Guest guest]

"i just gave my opinion"

 

and i gave my opinion on your opinion, no problem

[Guest guest]

Dear Saketramji,

 

In Bhagavath Gita Krishna says that "there is none superior than me".

 

what do say by that ? Tell after refering Madavavarus Gita Bhasya instead of some chinamayananda's commentary.

 

/images/graemlins/smile.gif Jai Shri Krishna

/images/graemlins/smile.gif Om Shri Guru Raghavendraya Namaha

/images/graemlins/smile.gif Om Namo Venkatesaya Namaha

[Guest guest]

Say let us go bg and say krsna is THE god , where does one find the description of how he looked like. Is it mentioned somewhere ?

[Guest guest]

Dear Gokul

 

Try to respect elders , he is not "some" chinmayananda. If not for his knowledge, respect him as an elder.If you know tamil "Navadakkam rombo mukyam"

[Guest guest]

for example bhagavat purana 10th canto

 

Say let us go bg and say krsna is THE god

(god is a very generic word... god is also impersonal brahman, paramatma, visva rupa and so on..... krsna is the supreme personality of godhead.... vishnu and vishnu tattvas (avataras) are krsna in a different dress for a specific task

 

monoteheism is not despise for any god's manifestations except one)

[Guest guest]

Guest

 

Who is superset vishnu or krishna ? Iam confused.

[Guest guest]

Is the description of krsna found in vedas ? other than the bagavatha purana u mentioned ?

[Guest guest]

they're the same person

 

with krsna you know the intimacy of the supreme personality of godhead, with vishnu you know a more official aspect

 

as a king (vishnu) that when comes home behaves as a common human and he's maybe subordinate to wife, chastized by father and mother and so on, treated as a friend from friends (krsna)

 

a person is known better in intimacy, so we consider krsna the supreme personality, but it is mostly a tecnical distinction

[Guest guest]

Dear Saketramji,

 

Why are you not referring Madvarus precious works ? Why are you going for others works ?

 

Dont you believe the teachings of "Sri Madhvacharya" ? Dont u believe his philosophy ? Dont u believe "Hari (krishna) as sarvottama ?

 

I didnt have any intention in insulting "Mr. Chinmayananda". Maybe the wording could have appeared to you like that.

 

God Krishna has given you a precious gift by making you born as Madhva. so please utilise it.

 

/images/graemlins/smile.gif Jai Shri Krishna.

/images/graemlins/smile.gif Om Shri Dhoopa Theerthaya Namaha

/images/graemlins/smile.gif Om Shri Guru Raghavendraya Namaha

/images/graemlins/smile.gif Om Namo Venkatesaya Namaha

[Guest guest]

Gokul

 

Accepting things as it is without questioning them is submission. That is Islam .But if you question the concepts and get clarified your faith is more stronger. Iam in the process of learning all the aspects both dwaitam and advaitam to get the understanding of what each one is saying.

 

Both the concepts cannot be absolutely wrong or absolutely true. Search leads to truth.

[Guest guest]

if you are in the process of learning them, you cannot know if both are true or false or if only one's true

 

so first search, then decide what's truth, not before

[Guest guest]

Guest

 

Iam not as enlightened as you to know what you want and then search for it. In order to even know what i want i need to search. May be enlightened souls like you can help me

[Guest guest]

He is not "Mr. Chinmayananda". He is Swami Chinmayananda.

 

There is a subtle difference.

 

And Swami Chinmayananda's commentary on Gita is well suited for modern times, and it is easy to understand.

 

I consider Subrahmanya Bharati and Swami Chinmayananda's translations as the best ones. My friend also has read Gita Rahasya of Tilak, and he says thats also good.

 

And you should also read the Upanishadic translations of Swami Chinmayananda ,especially Taiitriya Upanishad and Brihad Aranyaka Upanishad, and expecially Brigu Valli, for realising the self and Siksha valli ( I think, i am not sure) that shows how students ( or brahmacharis) shud behave.

[Guest guest]

Mr Guest

 

Who ever you are ? Iam happy you have read swami chinmaya's books.His commentaries are amazing.

[Guest guest]

Yaagaavaarayinum Naakakka, Kavakkal sokappar sollizhukku pattu.

 

What a wonderful Kural.

[Guest guest]

I still remember, the days, when we as students were depressed, and my physics prof, suddenly said "Worry not about the results. Just do your work as a duty. Your duty is to study now. Everything else will be taken care by the god. I am not telling this as a teacher, I am just telling what is given in the Gita. So read gita for half an hour a day" and created interest in Gita.

Then my physics prof suggested to read the commentaries by swamiji, and he took us to a lecture on gita by the swamiji himself in madras..... those unforgettable days....

I bought the three volume set ( 1-6, 7-12, 13-18 chapters) of swamiji, and that was one of the best investments I ever made.

In addition to gita, swamiji has made commentaries on the upanishads, and he takes the reader thru the book like a lecture. he knows what questions the reader might have while reading, and gives answer. the approach is simply great. His Vishnu Sahasranama translation, Bhaja Govindam translations are a master piece.

 

Then my math prof suggested to read the traslation in tamil by subrahmanya bharati, and he demolishes the concpets of atheists like a mighty bulldozer. The only problem is it is in tamil, so might not have had a wide acceptance.

 

[Guest guest]

if, as said previously, chinamaya nanda translates SELF when krsna say ME, his value as translator and spiritual guide is not too much

[Guest guest]

jai shree krishna

 

hi thanks for your explanation of acintya bheda bheda tattva but it wasn't related to my question.

 

ys dharmesh