Jump to content
IndiaDivine.org

Vetala info

Rate this topic


Val_Baital

Recommended Posts

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?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seems this Vetala fella is eluding you. Perhaps he is the demigod who bestows good manners?

 

Some secrets are not imparted to the faithless, for such knowledge only becomes like a diamond mounted on the head of a cobra.

 

I doubt this is of such importance though. I have never heard of Vetala. If I absolutely needed to know, as it seems your life depends on it, I would approach a wider Hindu audience in the soc.religion.hindu newsgroup. Most folks here are mainstream Vaishnavas. Vaishnavas don't worship demigods, any more than Christians worship archangels; we are strictly monotheistic.

 

It is your good fortune to have somehow come here. Don't travel all the way to mystical India, only to lie on the beach for a tan.

 

gHari

 

------------------

Gary Stevason

Seeking the Kingdom of God <font color="#f7f7f7">

 

[This message has been edited by gHari (edited 02-06-2002).]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?"

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Val_Baital:

 

I hope you are happy and well! Posted Image

 

Anyone who writes scriptures has a political agenda, no matter how much they try to convince you otherwise.

How would you know this? Maybe you should back up this rather sweeping statement with hard evidence.

 

I see no such state of seperation, and no difference between me and any of your Avatars, or me and your gurus.

 

As a child, Krsna could hold Govardhana Hill for seven days and nights to save the residents of Braja.Can you do that? If the answer is "no" (which I'm almost certainly it is,unless you happen to be Krsna posting on this forum with an assumed name)then how can you assert that there is no difference between you and God?

 

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.

 

Do you have any evidence to substantiate this?

 

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.

That is just so cynical and also reveals your lack of understanding as to the nature of a real guru.A real guru is a friend of all living entities,and certainly not the puppet-master that you so cynically imagine.I don't know if you are familiar with the life and mission of His Divine Grace A.C Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada (1896-1977),the Founder-acaryaof the International Society for Krishna Consciouness.Srila Prabhupada travelled to America alone in 1965 with very little money and endured two heart attacks on the ocean voyage.He travelled to America,not to make Americans cringe in fear or to be blind believers.He went there to preach out of love and concern for the whole human society,and such love and concern is present in all bona-fide gurus.

 

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.

Are you familiar with the concept of bhakti-yoga? It involves the worship of God,out of love and devotion, not fear of consequences.Srila Prabhupada once said:""We do not serve Krsna for any benefit. And even if there is no benefit, still we serve." This perfectly captures the spirit of bhakti-yoga.

 

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.

Eloquent clarifications have to be substantiated with evidence to be of value.Can you present any evidence that all scriptures are written with a political agenda,that you are non-different from God or that the Vedas are "nothing more than a projection of a set of values onto our environment"?

 

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.

In the Srimad Bhagavatam,it is stated:

 

"A conditioned soul is hampered by four defects: he is sure to commit mistakes, he is sure to become illusioned, he has a tendency to cheat others, and his senses are imperfect. Consequently we have to take direction from liberated persons." (Srimad-Bhagavatam Canto 4: Chapter Eighteen, Text 5)

 

You may not accept the authority of the Srimad Bhagavatam,but the question arises:Are you completely free from those four defects?If not,then your internal experience cannot be said to be perfect.We who are imperfect cannot hope to perfectly understand what is beyond our senses unless it through the descending process of revelation by a higher authority.

 

I hope my choice of words have not offended you.

 

 

 

 

[This message has been edited by leyh (edited 02-08-2002).]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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? The infatuation with intellect and ego will keep you there forever, unless and until you can find someone who knows, who can free your heart from your mind's clutch. You have to accept God as something very puny, if you really think you will fit Him into that bucket of synapses. He is far beyond concepts and syllogisms.

 

Who knows you better? Me or you? Listen to God and His friends who know Him. It is indeed stated that the self-evident truth about God (svatah-siddha-jnana) is an inherent part of the soul, that God resides in the heart.

 

Using a map, a guide, and a car to find Zyktim, Kansas will prove infinitely more efficient than walking about randomly in Canada. Similarly, accepting the assistance of gurus, saints and scripture will expedite the inner journey, pointing out the path and the perils, and helping to remove the stumbling blocks in your way, readying you to be worthy of meeting your goal. In the Bhagavad-gita, Krsna tells the sincere seeker that one can spend millions of lifetimes speculating about Him, yet still never know Him.

 

You and I don't have that long. We have both seen death; life is real for us now. I jumped in with full heart, in gentle deperation, in innocent faith. Now I can say to you, without the slightest doubt, that this is the real thing, that for which your heart of hearts aches constantly.

 

One needs qualifications to see even the President, and even then we can't just walk up to him and say, "Waz up!" There is qualification to be met. There are protocols, procedures, respects to be observed. Therefore we become humble; gradually accept the help of gurus, saints and scripture; gradually somehow become qualified, and then gradually and suddenly God reveals Himself. Just like in the book - a grown-ups' fairy tale, living happily ever after. Hare Krsna.

 

<font color=blue>REFERENCES TO THE SELF-EVIDENT TRUTH

 

From A GARLAND OF VAISNAVA TRUTHS

Third Chapter

HE IS KNOWABLE BY ALL THE VEDAS

 

Q. How can one know the truth of the Lord (Bhagavat-tattva)?

A. This can be known by the soul's knowledge of the self-evident truth (svatah-siddha-jnana).

 

Q. What is self-evident truth?

A. There are two types of knowledge (jnana): <UL> 1) self-evident (svatah-siddha), and

2) that which depends on the senses (indriya-paratantra).

Self-evident knowledge is the natural truth that is inherently a feature of the pure spirit soul's original form. It is eternal, just as the totality of the divinely conscious realm is also eternal. This self-evident knowledge is called veda or amnaya. This veda, in the form of pure knowledge (siddha-jnana-rupa) has incarnated in the material world in the shape of Rk, Sama, Yajuh and Atharva, along with the conditioned souls (baddhadivas); this alone is the self-evident knowledge (svatah-siddha jnana).

 

Whatever knowledge that ordinary souls can gather through the use of their material senses is only the second type of knowledge, or indriya-paratantra (dependent on the senses).

 

Q. Can anyone know the Bhagavat-tattva (the truth of the Lord) by indriya-paratantra jnana (sensual knowledge)?

A. No. Bhagavan, the Supreme Personality of Godhead, is beyond the scope of all the material senses. For this reason, He is known as Adhoksaja. The senses, as well as all the material conceptions gathered from the sense perceptions, always remain very far away from the Bhagavat-tattva, the truth of the Lord.

 

Q. If Bhagavan is attainable through self-evident knowledge (svatah-siddha-jnana), then we should be able to attain Him by whatever svatah-siddha-jnana that we presently have. What then is the need to study the Vedic scriptures?

A. The Veda is present in every pure spirit soul's existence in the form of svatah siddha-jnana. According to the different levels of different souls in the materially conditioned state, this Veda will spontaneously manifest itself to one person, or may remain veiled to someone else.

 

Therefore, to help reawaken the forgetful conditioned souls to the eternally self-evident truths, the Veda has also incarnated in the form of written books which may be studied, recited and heard.

 

Q. We have heard that Bhagavan is perceivable only through bhakti (devotional service). If this is true, then how can we say that He is perceivable by jnana, even svatah-siddha-jnana?

A. That which is called svatah-siddha-jnana is another name for bhakti. When speaking of topics related to the supreme truth (para tattva), some call it jnana and some call it bhakti.

 

Q. Then why is jnana condemned in the devotional scriptures (bhakti-sastras)?

A. The devotional scriptures express a great reverence for svatah-siddha-jnana; indeed, they state that other than this purely self-evident spiritual knowledge, there is no auspicious welfare. The types of jnana that are condemned in the bhakti sastras are:<UL> 1) indriya-paratantra-jnana (knowledge based on sense perception) and

2) nirvisesa-jnana (impersonal non-distinct knowledge), the latter of which is merely an absence of the former.

Q. All the Vedic scriptures speak of<UL>1) karma (fruitive activities),

2) jnana (speculative knowledge) and

3) bhakti (devotional service).

A. By examining the statements of all the Vedas collectively, it is seen that they are all in complete agreement that other than Bhagavan, there is nothing but nothing else worth knowing. All the karma (fruitive activities) mentioned in the Vedas ultimately lead to Bhagavan. When jnana (speculative knowledge) fructifies into its pure condition, then one gives up all dualities that arise from both visesa-jnana and nirvisesa-jnana. One then aims for Bhagavan. The process of Bhakti (devotional service) naturally cultivates a direct relationship with Bhagavan; therefore the Lord can be known by all the Vedas.

 

</font>

 

------------------

Gary Stevason

Seeking the Kingdom of God

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Originally posted by leyh:

Val_Baital:

 

I hope you are happy and well! Posted Image

 

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Vampires, eh? Guess all this God crap was pretty boring by comparison, but like they say, "If you haven't room in your living room for an elephant, don't make friends with an elephant trainer."

 

It takes a real man to face the real world; only one in a million can venture beyond the tiny cozy world of the mind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When you have educated yourself in a more wholistic view of religion, history and human nature, get back to me.

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.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...