Jump to content
IndiaDivine.org
Sign in to follow this  
Val_Baital

Vetala info

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

Originally posted by jndas:

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Val Baital wrote:

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Citta Hari:

Val Baital wrote:

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whether you believe in your own views (a personal religion), or some other main stream religion makes no difference. You still have beliefs and faith. This discussion has already occurred here before under another thread sometime ago. Usually those who don't believe in God (atheists) like to claim they are free from belief, but in reality they simply hold a contrary belief in God. Whatever flaws one perceives in belief in God are equally present in beliefs against God.

 

Ultimately it is a matter of where one deposits one's faith, in one's own sensual and mental experience or in the experience of others whom one identifies as having a higher dimension of experience. Both rely on faith, as even one's own experience is influenced by one's inherent defects, interpretations and mistakes.

 

It should be noted that while professing to believe in nothing (which is logically impossible and therefore already flawed) you are looking into other ancient traditions to confirm your preconceived views (i.e. your own personal beliefs), so much so that when an answer diverges from your view, you question the validity of the answer. That is another form of blind belief, as you are only willing to see what confirms your own view.

 

The main flaw of your approach is you think religion or spirituality is an academic process for everyone, whereas for some it is one of direct experience. You accuse them of blindly following, yet you have no idea what they have or have not experienced, the higher levels of consciousness and existence. You make a claim to have had a near death experience. A foolish person will simply reply that you are blindly believing in your near death experience. But the fact is you have directly experienced it, so where is the question of blindly believing? The same is the case for some followers of mystical paths such as Hinduism. Many people have direct divine experiences, thus your claims that everyone else is just blindly following is ludicrous.

 

Again, it should be noted that while you claim to believe in nothing, in fact you have listed a number of your beliefs in these threads. You beleive God is the devil and the devil is God. You think this is a unique concept, but how is it any different from Christianity or any other world religion. You have simply chosen a different object of worship, and you like to convince your mind that you are somehow objective, whereas others rely on blind faith.

 

And what is the loss if your faith turns out to be wrong? You think there is no loss, but the reality is you wasted your life on lies, pursuing an imaginary world view which exists only in your mind. Of course if you yourself are worthless, then you may conclude that there is no loss. But for those who know the inner potential of the soul, that which exists beyond the mechanisms of the body, they can see that such a loss is great.

 

[This message has been edited by jndas (edited 02-10-2002).]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey Val_Baital,

Why not just chant:

Hare Krsna Hare Krsna Krsna Krsna Hare Hare

Hare Rama Hare Rama Rama Rama Hare Hare

each day and see what happens?

 

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

shab.

 

[This message has been edited by bhaktashab (edited 02-11-2002).]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Received this reply from a friend. Also, I seem to remember the word `vetala` in a book I have on the goddess Kali Devi. Will try to find it later.

 

 

What about Vetala? And why is it that no one can tell me which Indian god has the bat as it's symbol?

 

The bat is a zootype that refers to reversion of the senses, it is referring to a process associated with viparita karani. It hangs upside down in its yogic "sleep" of satiation, gorged upon the vital fluid of its victims. There are close similarities between the Afro-Egyptian rites of Shaitan (Satan) celebrated in Sumer and Akkad and the later Indian rites of Kali. The bat is symbolic of a methodology that both employ. The retroversion of the senses make the leap backwards through a time space void possible. The process is the act of viparita maithuna (Skt) a form of magical union involving the total reversion of the flow of consciousness from objective experience to subjective awareness, and beyond both to pure undifferentiated Consciousness. In English literature there is a passing allusion to the Cult that practices it in his novel Batwing but is of no practical value. Rohmer was a member of the Golden Dawn, a British magical organization founded upon a connection with an Eastern authority which explains his even familiarity with the cults associated with the symbology. The Hebrew word MIM refers to Chaldean word LShOIRM associated with the symbology of the cult, means daemonibus hirsutus (to the hairy deities) or Serau mentioned by Herodotus. These were types of Set as gods of generation, perhaps this will give her some clue as to the identity of her sought after deity. You may post this to her if you wish. I will read the rest of what she wrote when I have the opportunity and see if theres anything else that I know that might be of help.

 

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

Radhe Radhe always Radhe!

 

amanpeter@hotmail.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We are all the embodiment of the singularity (the "black hole" theory of infinite compression resulting in infinite implosion/infinite recursion)

 

Perhaps you are talking about big-bang theory. I, personally, don't believe that big bang was the very beginning.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am sure that Gauracandra ji will like what I am going to type. Posted Image

 

Big bang is a point of singularity and, at singularity, all the currently known laws of Physics break down. Therefore, we can not know what happened before big bang. Because of this, many scientists assume our universe to have started from big bang. But, it does not mean that there was nothing before big bang. Some say that it is foolish to ask what was before big bang, because there was no "before". It is foolish to ask this question provided there was really no "before". But, is there any evidence to show that there was no "before"? There is no such evidence. Just because, the current laws of Physics can not tell us what happened before big bang, does not mean that there was no "before".

 

Even though the big-bang theory is accepted by majority, already, we have started seeing some chinks in its armour. One of them is that some galaxies have been found which are older than the calculated age of our universe according to this theory! How can a part of universe be older than the universe itself?

 

This shows that a single big bang was not responsible for everything that we see now. Personally, I find Quasi Steady State (QSS) theory more accurate than big bang. Now scientists have started considering this theory seriously. But, as always happens, it will take time before it can replace big bang theory. According to QSS theory, there were not one but many big bangs, some together, some at different times. It is possible that, now also, some big bang is happening somewhere and some big bang will happen sometime in future. An analogy is given of a sea. Many bubbles form and get destroyed in the sea. When a bubble is created, then we can not say that the sea was created. The sea existed before that. When a bubble is destroyed, we can not say that the sea has been destroyed. The sea continues to exist after that.

 

Corrected some spelling mistakes.

 

[This message has been edited by Avinash (edited 02-12-2002).]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting Avinash. Several months back on the Discovery channel (I think), it featured some astronomers who were trying to figure out a problem. Apparently they had dated the universe to 15 billion years, but they found stars in the universe which were older. That is the child was older than the parents (stars older than the universe). I'm wondering does this QSS help explain this?

 

Gauracandra

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm wondering does this QSS help explain this?

 

Yes, QSS can explain it quite well. Assume that Earth formed because of some big bang and some star also formed because of some big bang. These two big bangs took plaace at different times. Then, it is quite possible that the start is older than the big bang because of which the Earth formed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Assume that Earth formed because of some big bang and some star also formed because of some big bang.

 

Here we are talking different galaxies ("universes" as translated in the Bhagavatam)? Each universe-galaxy has its own big bang?

 

I can't remember if I ever did resolve whether the Srimad Bhagavatam was referring to innumerable galaxies generated from Mahavishnu or whether it was innumerable cosmic worlds, each with many galaxies. Prior to reading it, I had always accepted the definition of "universe" to be the same as "cosmic world" (all energy/matter existing - the mahat-tattva), or so thought the scientific world in the sixties.

 

Excerpts from "Vedic Cosmology and Modern Astronomy" by Dr. Richard Thompson (Sadputa das):

The Vedic literature describes the material cosmos as an unlimited ocean situated within a small part of the unlimited spiritual world. Within this ocean there are innumerable universes, or brahmANDas, which can be compared to spherical bubbles of foam grouped in clusters. Each of these universal globes consists of a series of spherical coverings and an inner, inhabited portion.

-------

Q: There are places in the SrImad-BhAgavatam where it is said that the coverings of the universe begin with water. Since this is clear water, and the farther coverings are transparent, it should be possible for us to see the suns of other universes. Couldn't these be the stars we see in the sky at night?

A: In SB 5.21.11p, SrIla PrabhupAda says, "The Western theory that all luminaries in the sky are different suns is not confirmed in the Vedic literature. Nor can we assume that these luminaries are the suns of other universes, for each universe is covered by various layers of material elements, and therefore although the universes are clustered together, we cannot see from one universe to another. In other words, whatever we see is within this one universe."

In Section 6.d it is shown that the coverings of the universe are listed four times in the BhAgavatam as beginning with earth. We suggest that when SrIla PrabhupAda mentions water or fire first, he is giving a partial list of the coverings.

-------

Traditionally, the geometrical framework has been three-dimensional Euclidian geometry, and thus the universe has been assumed to extend uniformly to infinity in all directions. In recent years, however, Einstein introduced four-dimensional non-Euclidian geometries, in which space can curve back on itself in a manner analogous to the curved surface of a sphere. This allowed people to formulate models of the universe in which the total volume of space is finite but there are no boundaries, and in which conditions are still essentially the same everywhere.

In Vedic cosmology the material world is not assumed to be of the same nature in all places, and space is not postulated as an absolute background within which all phenomena take place. Rather, material space, or ether, is generated at a certain phase in the process of creation, and this takes place only in certain bounded domains, called brahmANDas. SrIla PrabhupAda has spoken of these domains as universes and thus given a new meaning to this English word.

As we have described in Chapter 2, the Vedic literature takes the Supreme Personality of Godhead to be the ultimate source of all manifestations, and it maintains that the universes are generated by the transformation of the Lord's external energy. In the process of creation, the material elements are generated in the following order: mahat-tattva, false ego, mind, intelligence, sound, ether, touch, air, form, fire, taste, water, odor, and earth (SB 3.26.23–44).

Here the term mahat-tattva refers to the manifest form of KRSNa's total material energy, which is produced from pradhAna, the unmanifest or undifferentiated form of that energy (SB 3.26.10 and 17–20). The mahat-tattva is the source of the false ego, a material energy that serves to cover the true self-awareness of the conditioned living beings. The false ego operates in three modes, called goodness, passion, and ignorance, and thereby generates mind, intelligence, and subtle sound. Here, sound (zabda-tanmAtra) refers not to a vibration within gross matter but to a subtle energy that generates the gross material elements and vibrates within the element of false ego in ignorance. Ether, the first element produced from this energy, is the source of the subsequent elements in our list.

When the Vedic ether is mentioned, the objection will often be raised that the idea of an ether was banished from physics by Einstein's theory of relativity. This objection refers to the classical "luminiferous ether," which was shown by the Michelson-Morley experiment to be stationary with respect to the earth (see Section 6.a). This conception of the ether was indeed rejected by Einstein, but he simply replaced it with another conception. In fact, Einstein said, "According to the general theory of relativity, space without ether is unthinkable; for in such space there would not only be no propagation of light, but also no possibility of existence for standards of space and time" (CH, pp. 53–54).

According to the Third Canto of SrImad-BhAgavatam, ether is the basic fabric of material space. Since air, fire, water, and earth are produced from ether, these gross material elements can be regarded as transformations of space. It is interesting to note that such ideas have been recently contemplated by modern physicists. For example, the theory of geometrodynamics created by the physicist John Wheeler is an attempt to define all matter in terms of perturbations in the fabric of space. Also, the scientists working on quantum mechanical versions of general relativity are all trying, in effect, to show how the fabric of space can be derived from some kind of wave motion (or quantum wave function). This can be compared with the Vedic idea that ether is generated from subtle sound.

It is also interesting to note that in the Vedic process of creation, the sequential unfolding of the elements from ether involves an alternation of gross material substances and modes of sense perception (tanmAtras). Thus, according to the Vedic conception, the properties of matter are intimately tied together with the processes of sense perception occurring in conscious living entities. This aspect of matter is completely disregarded in modern physics, although there is some recognition by quantum theorists such as Eugene Wigner that a complete theory of matter must take into account the existence of a conscious observer (WG).

========

Q: To my knowledge, SrIla PrabhupAda never hinted at explanations of other dimensions; he always seemed to emphasize accepting it as it is written. If these ideas are right, why didn't SrIla PrabhupAda save us a lot of trouble by bringing them out years ago?

A: The Vedic literature does not explicitly refer to the concept of higher-dimensional space, as far as I am aware. This idea is borrowed from modern mathematics. However, the Vedic literature does refer implicitly to higher-dimensional space, and therefore it is justifiable to use this idea to clarify the Vedic description of the universe.

For example, in the description of Lord BrahmA's visit to KRSNa in DvArakA, it is stated that millions of BrahmAs from other universes came to visit KRSNa. However, each BrahmA remained within his own jurisdiction, and apart from our BrahmA, each thought he was alone with KRSNa. Thus KRSNa was in many universes at once, and our BrahmA could also simultaneously see different BrahmAs visiting KRSNa in all of these universes. This is impossible in three dimensions; it illustrates the implicit higher-dimensional nature of the Vedic conception of space (see Chapter 2).

<font color="#dedfdf">

 

[This message has been edited by gHari (edited 02-13-2002).]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

 

there is no vedic 'satan', although the concept has roots

in vedic thought.

 

the iranian vedic culture at a certain point was changed

by zoroastar.

 

until then the iranian vedic culture and religion

was almost identical to India.

 

Zoroastar changed the tales of the deva's battling the asuras, he changed the story of a battle between percieved

warriors of virtue of the iranian vedic people 'the asura's' into the personified force of Good,personifying the story

in the vedas of the iranian asuras or ahuras into

the God Ahura-mazda, and their enemy the Indian Deva's,or daeva's were personified into Ahriman.

 

the indian vedic religion had the deva's as good,and the asuras as bad,the opposite of the iranian vedic religion.

 

Zoroaster changed all that personifying those forces.

 

As the persian empire grew it's religion influenced

different people, mithraism an offshoot became very popular especially among romans.

 

The concept of satan or the devil,coming from daeva or deva,

comes from the persian religions,which heavily influenced the middle eastern religions.

 

to say that vetala was pre aryan, is pure speculation,

there is no pre aryan document of any type in existence,that can be proven to be pre aryan in india.

 

the idea that all religions are created by humans and evolve by human hand changing to accomodate the current

leaders,borrowing from here and there changing an earlier god into a devil or vice versa is not supported by actual evidence.

 

although clearly something like this has happened with the

previous persian examples.

 

The vedic religion cannot be shown to have been influenced by any previous dogma, there is no such dogma in existence

that anyone is aware of, do you have such a document ?

 

to state that vetala was an earlier god,is pure speculation, without any evidence to back it up.

 

The many different types of religion in the world can be seen by many as man made, but the original vedic religion

so far has been resistent to that philosophy in so far

as no previous influence has been actually found,

if you find some you will be famous.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
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...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...