God in Vedas and Upanishads

Re: # 104

``Is it really right or wrong? Who can prove it?``

Only you can prove it. As I said in my previous posts, the answer to this querry is ingrained in our genes. Whenever, a human being (who has no indoctrination to any religion at all)steps into the metaphysics of his being. The first questions that he asks from himself is ``what is the purpose of my existence and who created me?``. No such man would ever ask the question ``what is the purpose of my existence and how many gods would have created me?``. See, even the questions that we ask from ourselves are programmed into our genes.

Re: # 103
Urstruly
I would disagree with you. I feel that in primitive societies where man depended so much on the vagaries and excesses of nature , it would seem natural that there was a deity associated with every phenomenon. A god for harvesting, a god for hunting, a god for rain etc.
Polytheism would seem most natural then. The idea of a single god would come as civilisations came into the picture. Some would evolve to have a chief god, others would realise how complex the world was and distribute this power into a number of gods. Then again it would be necessary to assimilate local beliefs and there would an accomodation of local deities into the picture.
But then again from a metaphysical viewpoint amongst people wholly interested in religious thought , the concept of a single being called God or an existence, the Brahman or whatever you may wish to call it has been extant.
A common person is quite happy praying to his or her personal god. Some religions do not like this. Other religions do not care and see it as metaphor, you pray to a drop that is part of the ocean.
Its a sort of cyclical thing. There is pantheism, then monotheism then pantheism again. Is it really right or wrong? Who can prove it?

#58 Jang

I think your assessment of Islam is correct. Islam establishes one to one relationship between One God and Man. There is no need for iconic references (or awatars if you will). This relationship has to be discreet and not confusing.

My own assessment is that in the old times when human beings were in initial stages of their development they needed icons to concentrate so they invented idols to represent God. Initially, there might have been only one idol for One God but later man created more idols because it is in the nature of man to excess and transgress. Let me explain this. It is said that it is only the human beings who have an ability to visualize themselves as the third person. It is because of this abvility man has worked wonders through imagining his inventions first and then creating them. This is the ability that has made man evolve above the animals. But this evolution was gradual. In the begining man could visualize himself to an extent but it was near impossible for him to visualize his objct of worship. So he created idols, symbols and icons so that he could focus. In the begining God may have Himself permitted man to choose those objects to help concentrate but later as human beings evolved the need for those icons diminished. For example, Allah has made it incumbent upon Muslims to face themselves towards Mecca while praying. But it is just for the purpose of discipline and direction. No Muslim have ever considered the black cube as the object of their worship. But still a central icon was required. On the other hand Man transgressed and not only created more idols than needed, but also made them his gods. This was clearly a transgression and excess.

Re: # 101,swarrier:
A valuable comment. We want the opinions as much as the documented truth, please go right on. Our Muslims have quietened. I do not think we did any thing that could lead to that. So, Islamics and Christians please let us have your opinions/facts etc.

Re: # 100
Some of us who went to Jesuit schools have studied (entirely off our own bat, no coercion here) the Old and New Testaments. So some of us do have some contact with Abrahamic religions. Unless one tends to take the story of creation very literally it is difficult to read anything more into these works than what we Hindus learn from the Ramayana and Mahabharata. In short they are a collection of beliefs perpetuated by stories , you can call them myths with a grain of truth.

The philosophical forms of thought that were discussed in the Upanishads are not present in these Western epics. That process is more akin to Western philosophy though distinct from it. Western philosophy tries to separate the observer from the observed. Indic and I may say eastern philosophies try to unify that.

Western philosophies try to be independent of religious thought. This is a little difficult because one is always prejudiced by ones upbringing. For example the Gods of the Romans and Greeks once very real to those civilisations are categorised as myths by modern Western philosophers. They do not categorise their own Christian doctrines as such. That is because their religion is still alive . However there is nothing to say that the Gods of the Greeks and Romans were any less real than the myth of the virgin birth etc.

I cannot comment about the Koran , not having read it.

I fear I have digressed too far from the subject, so I`ll stop.

Again these are my opinions. They could be wrong.

Re: # 99, sanjay:
That is too much of a good thing. I do not recommend to go that far.

Hindus have been too self-centered. From ancient times the Hindu travellers rarely documented anything in the parts of the world that was not Hindu. As a matter of fact a Hindu was supposed to have been polluted when he went outside India. This arises partly out of the Brahmanical concept of superiority and partly because of the lack of education for the masses.

Modern(ized) Hindus have to correct this. The easiest and positive way to start this is to finance through Hindu resources the study of other faiths and translate literatures in non-Indian languages into Hindi. Develop study curricula that would broaden Hindus` understanding of the essential elements of a religion in contrast with the rituals that have been and currently overemphasized. Furthermore, the activities that increase inclusivity have to be emphasized and supported. These would include the interactions between higher and lower castes within Hindus.

#98 INQUIRER

I agree with you 100%. I think all HIndus require an injection of Islam and its philosphy. It will help them in understanding their religion better.

Re: # 96, bharath:
Our surprise at the data like that presented by Bhatty shows that Hindus have been negligent about learning about the second major religion of our country. In contrast Muslims have done lot of work on Hinduism and non-Islamic aspects of India. I admire them for it. It is high time we stop neglecting Muslims and take active and positive interest in their culture.

Re: # 94

I was trying to explain to Rizwan that one cannot look at a completely different thought form and appreciate it if one comes to the table with other ideas. A clean slate is necessary. This is not an Abrahamic religion. That is like me trying to analyse Islam or christianity with my dose of skepticism.

That is one of the problems I also have with western academics who sometimes dabble with Hinduism and bring Freudian theories to analyse myths etc, and make pronouncements. I do not agree with that especially since some of Freud`s ideas are being debated anyway. In that way we should promote Jung because he was influenced a lot by Indic thoughts.

The last sentence made me think that we should promote Jang also. -)

Re: # 90
I didn`t know you were the author!

I don`t know anything about Zarina Bhatty....that article was a news item
at indiacause.com. It was an eye opener for me too.

Re: # 58, jang:
What you are really saying is that if you agree with the arbitrary premises of Koran then you have nothing to disagree with. Please see ajeet #40.
I have answered rizy and urstruly.

Rizwan, #35; Vedic Gods have to grant you Moksha which is predicated upon your Karma Sangraha.

#37, swarrier;#38, bharath: thanks for defending my write-up in my absence. I am sorry that both of you got frustrated but I invite you to continue to contribute to this thread. bharath, please let me know what part of the article is becoming difficult to understand. I tried to write precisely and some times we need to be on the same page for the definitions.

#40, ajeet: GREAT CAPSULE! EVERYONE SHOULD PAY ATTENTION TO IT!!!

#44, sanjay: There is no polytheism in Hinduism. All different names and images ascribed to God are different ways of describing the monotheistic God. All are respectable. No doubt there is some henotheism as defined in the article. Note also the distinction made in the article about Greek polytheism and Hindu representation of various aspects of One God.

Re: # 92
Who is blaming Muslims? Please clarify.

Beisdes, for your info more than seventy five percent of Chowkies are Muslims. You are a new comer to Chowk.

Your point about the neglect of Hinduism by Hindus is valid, though.

Hindus not only have to learn about Hinduism but also about Islam and interact with Muslims in a measured and rational manner.

INQUIRER

There is no point in blaming if Muslims dont understand our religion or find it a bit comical.

Its our fault. While others go in detail to explain their religion and its philosphy to others, we Hindus have never cared for it. Just see the amount of material available on the web about Islam and compare that with Hinduism.

We need to tell the world about true meanings of our religion. Its our duty.

#33, urstruly:
Little that know about you and the fact that you are an enthusiastic Muslim impels me to appreciate your trying to think through the issues. So I will interact with you.

``ideology that promotes the concept of eternal perpetuation of life, absolutely eliminates the need for a God/Creator altogether.``
****In Hinduism there is no perpetuation of life. Only the soul is immortal. In Vedanta, God is Self. You see, the Vedanta asks you to grow up.****

``The need for a mutiplicity of gods is even further out of question. The question for evolution of man -physically and mentally- also becomes absurd.``
****Like it is said in the article the Vedic multiplicity of gods is just a primitive way to understand Nature. The question of physical evolution does not arise at all, though you could say in philosophical terms that according to Hindu Faith by being ``good`` in this life you would evolve into higher forms in the next life.****

``Even more depressing is the godless idelogy that promotes that that there is nothing more to life than our chemical structure. As it disintegrates it disintegrates completely. So in other words a wierd combination of chemicals can be called as life but in disintegrated form the same chemicals have no meaning.``
****True. That is why ALL religions seek to provide consolation and diversion from the stark reality. There are some who are mature enough to take the truth others seek assistance of various delusions.****

``humanists claim that they can and they are good without God? but even a cursory look would tell that all the good that they claim as theirs, has been given to us by God. ``
****You are welcome to subscribe to this consoling assumption if you want, but please do NOT impose on others who either do not need it or consider it absurd.****

#34, Rizwan:
I assume that the absence of your response implies that you are satisfid with my responses to you. However, it is worthwhile to respond to a couple of points here.

``I have to admitt that Islam has most substance and original thougth, it contains more philosophical depth; due to the reason that it solves age old quandry of humans about their understanding of their creator. Islam guides a human being towards clear recognization of God as much as that at the highest form one can be absorbed in God.``
****First sentence is an arbitrary assumption. You are welcome to it though. But would you explain what you mean by absorption in God of ``highest form?``

``can present some rational argument about ``if there was ever a unified concept of God after the original founder of Hinudism left this world``. Or if Hinduism in its present form is capable of explaining ``purpose of life`` and how to recongnize the ture God.``
****You need to study Balkand of Tulsidas Ramayan as published by Geeta Press. It clearly spells out, for the people of average abilities, what you are asking for. If you want I can give you specific areas in the Balkand.****

``They claim that God can express himself only in that language, and that also only in India, and that also some thousands year ago. As if God is now dumb and can not speak, can not speak anyother language except sansakrat, as if that imaginative God of thiers is not able to communicate in another language. ``
****Your statement above is applicable a hundred percent to Islam/Arabic. The Hindu Scriptures are in Sanskrit, Avadhi, Braj as well as Kharii Bolii. You need to inform yourself. As for acceptance of a variety of approaches to God, Sanskrit says:``Eko satya `, vipra bahudha vadanti.`` That is, God is one but different people describe him differently. ****

``Is anbody have any idea what is the concept of God as presented by this article? as presented by Vedas or upnashids? an idea which is not self contradictory. Please share with us.``
****YOU NEED TO SPEND SOME MENTAL ENERGY TO READ WHAT IS WRITTEN IN THE ARTICLE. WHAT YOU ASK IS CLEARLY ADDRESSED BY ME. IF YOU SEE ANY CONTRADICTION, POINT IT OUT.****

By the way, I read Tahir Ahmad`s article on Hinduism. It is an interesting, though rudimentary, effort to understand Hinduism. You should have summarized the important points from there instead of regurgitating the whole article. Then again, I do not know if you have read it.

#31, bharath:

A very informative article. Thanks. Its truth is announced by the absence of any contradiction of the statements by any Muslim at the Chowk. This shows that a caste system is not a unique characteristic of Hinduism. As a matter of fact a caste system is a positive way of accomodating the populational differences and it is far superior to the corresponding West Asian, Mongolian, and European systems of exterminating anyone that did not look/think like the conqueror of the instant. History is full of that behavior in all the areas cited above.

Hinduism has received a lot of bad publicity because of the fact that in contrast with Europeans, the sientific/industrial enlightenment did not reach India due to foreign rulers and the successful Hindu caste system had become too ossified. West Asia is still replete with those ideas and Mongolia has just become insignificant.

It would be nice if you could present some information on Zarina Bhatty so that one can have an opinion on her objectivity level.