It’s a Miracle
Alka Girdhar July 20, 2003
#12 Posted by Inquirer on July 21, 2003 3:03:19 pm
Here is the view of the Vedas about God:
(b) Vedic Conception of God and Universe
Vedas consist of mantras in Rk – and Atharva – Samhitas. They are religious songs in praise of one or more deities and were intended generally to be sung at the time of offering worship to them. Earliest form of religion consists in the worship of natural powers. In other words early man personifies the powers of Nature, which by virtue of great strength become his gods. These deities are divine only in a qualified sense, for, though called gods, they are necessarily conceived in a human mind and are regarded as being actuated by the same motives and passions as the person that conceives of them. In capsule, the man creates god in his own image.
It is generally true and also applicable to Vedic concepts that the primitive man becomes aware of the regularities in the natural world and tries to fit the totality of his perception in a cause – effect framework. The conception of deities, hence, is a theory of the mankind to make sense out of the observations. In this way a reason is developed for the observations and they are ascribed to the agencies of imagined gods, though the understanding in logical terms is still not there. This is the basis of religious incomprehensibility of world (=universe) of the primitive man.
The Vedas contain three groups of thirty-three gods.
(a) gods of sky, e.g., Mitra and Varuna;
(b) gods of mid-air, e.g., Indra and Maruts; and
(c) gods of earth, e.g., Agni and Soma.
None of these is supposed to be above any other. Unlike Greek mythology, for example, the prevailing type of Vedic gods is one of incomplete personalization. Vedic gods not only maintain cosmic order but also sustain moral codes. Thus they are friendly to the good and inimical to the evil. So, in order to avoid gods’ wrath one should be righteous. Varuna is a clear example. He not only determines the behavior of rivers but keeps a close watch on all personal sins. In the later parts of the Vedas Varuna is overtaken by Indra who is a god of battles. In course of developments, Indra was considered to be not sufficiently moral and had to yield to more ethical gods. In Vedas the worship of gods evolves from childlike communion to hieratic practices but the objective of worship remained steadfast, viz., personal gain. Over a period of Vedic time gods were not beseeched but compelled to grant favors because the required sacrifices were made and actions performed. This is the start of introduction of magical elements in the worship mode. For overall population later Vedic period implied increasing emphasis on ritual. Also, gradually the disenchantment set in about the efficacy of rituals (probably, it was established that no matter how perfectly the rituals were carried out the desired aim could not necessarily be achieved).
Some rishis started looking for the primary cause and moved away from plurality of gods. This led to monotheism but it was approached through henotheism, which means that whichever god you happen to be worshipping should be considered above all others. This “opportunistic monotheism” was abandoned in favor of philosophical monotheism, which implies the common concept that underlies gods with different names (RV I 164.46). The characteristic of creation was isolated as a chief function of gods and the super god was named vishwakarman but it was soon abandoned. Prajapati is another such attribute. Thus one of the Brahmanas (Shat-path Brahmana, V, i., z. 10 and 13 states there are thirty three god and Prajapati is 34th including all.
Monism: The search for godhead was soon recognized to be yielding only partial unity. Monotheism necessarily implied duality. There is a higher conception of unity including nature as well as god and this is monism. It is fully developed in Upanishads, but the Song of Creation in RV, X.129 provides an example of emergence of monism. Fully developed in Upanishads, but the Song of Creation in RVX.129 provides an example of emergence of monism within the Vedic school. In monism God does not transcend nature but is immanent in it. The world does not proceed from God but is itself God.
J. Muir’s translation of RV, X.129:
Then there was neither Aught nor Naught, no air or sky beyond.
What covered all? Where rested all? In watery gulf profound?
Nor death was then, nor deathlessness, nor change
Of night and day.
That one breathed calmly, self-sustained; Not else beyond it lay.
Gloom hid in gloom existed first-one sea eluding view.
That one, a void in chaos wrapt, by inward fervour grew.
Within it first arose desire, the primal germ of mind,
Which nothing with existence links, as searching sages find.
The kindling ray that shot across the dark and drear abyss –
Was it beneath? Or high aloft? What bard can answer this?
There fecundating powers were found; and mighty forces strove –
A self-supporting mass beneath, and energy above.
Who knows, who ever told, from whence this vast creation arose?
No gods had then been born – who can e’er the truth disclose?
Whence sprang this world, and whether framed by hand divine or no –
Its Lord in heaven alone can tell, if even he can show
(b) Vedic Conception of God and Universe
Vedas consist of mantras in Rk – and Atharva – Samhitas. They are religious songs in praise of one or more deities and were intended generally to be sung at the time of offering worship to them. Earliest form of religion consists in the worship of natural powers. In other words early man personifies the powers of Nature, which by virtue of great strength become his gods. These deities are divine only in a qualified sense, for, though called gods, they are necessarily conceived in a human mind and are regarded as being actuated by the same motives and passions as the person that conceives of them. In capsule, the man creates god in his own image.
It is generally true and also applicable to Vedic concepts that the primitive man becomes aware of the regularities in the natural world and tries to fit the totality of his perception in a cause – effect framework. The conception of deities, hence, is a theory of the mankind to make sense out of the observations. In this way a reason is developed for the observations and they are ascribed to the agencies of imagined gods, though the understanding in logical terms is still not there. This is the basis of religious incomprehensibility of world (=universe) of the primitive man.
The Vedas contain three groups of thirty-three gods.
(a) gods of sky, e.g., Mitra and Varuna;
(b) gods of mid-air, e.g., Indra and Maruts; and
(c) gods of earth, e.g., Agni and Soma.
None of these is supposed to be above any other. Unlike Greek mythology, for example, the prevailing type of Vedic gods is one of incomplete personalization. Vedic gods not only maintain cosmic order but also sustain moral codes. Thus they are friendly to the good and inimical to the evil. So, in order to avoid gods’ wrath one should be righteous. Varuna is a clear example. He not only determines the behavior of rivers but keeps a close watch on all personal sins. In the later parts of the Vedas Varuna is overtaken by Indra who is a god of battles. In course of developments, Indra was considered to be not sufficiently moral and had to yield to more ethical gods. In Vedas the worship of gods evolves from childlike communion to hieratic practices but the objective of worship remained steadfast, viz., personal gain. Over a period of Vedic time gods were not beseeched but compelled to grant favors because the required sacrifices were made and actions performed. This is the start of introduction of magical elements in the worship mode. For overall population later Vedic period implied increasing emphasis on ritual. Also, gradually the disenchantment set in about the efficacy of rituals (probably, it was established that no matter how perfectly the rituals were carried out the desired aim could not necessarily be achieved).
Some rishis started looking for the primary cause and moved away from plurality of gods. This led to monotheism but it was approached through henotheism, which means that whichever god you happen to be worshipping should be considered above all others. This “opportunistic monotheism” was abandoned in favor of philosophical monotheism, which implies the common concept that underlies gods with different names (RV I 164.46). The characteristic of creation was isolated as a chief function of gods and the super god was named vishwakarman but it was soon abandoned. Prajapati is another such attribute. Thus one of the Brahmanas (Shat-path Brahmana, V, i., z. 10 and 13 states there are thirty three god and Prajapati is 34th including all.
Monism: The search for godhead was soon recognized to be yielding only partial unity. Monotheism necessarily implied duality. There is a higher conception of unity including nature as well as god and this is monism. It is fully developed in Upanishads, but the Song of Creation in RV, X.129 provides an example of emergence of monism. Fully developed in Upanishads, but the Song of Creation in RVX.129 provides an example of emergence of monism within the Vedic school. In monism God does not transcend nature but is immanent in it. The world does not proceed from God but is itself God.
J. Muir’s translation of RV, X.129:
Then there was neither Aught nor Naught, no air or sky beyond.
What covered all? Where rested all? In watery gulf profound?
Nor death was then, nor deathlessness, nor change
Of night and day.
That one breathed calmly, self-sustained; Not else beyond it lay.
Gloom hid in gloom existed first-one sea eluding view.
That one, a void in chaos wrapt, by inward fervour grew.
Within it first arose desire, the primal germ of mind,
Which nothing with existence links, as searching sages find.
The kindling ray that shot across the dark and drear abyss –
Was it beneath? Or high aloft? What bard can answer this?
There fecundating powers were found; and mighty forces strove –
A self-supporting mass beneath, and energy above.
Who knows, who ever told, from whence this vast creation arose?
No gods had then been born – who can e’er the truth disclose?
Whence sprang this world, and whether framed by hand divine or no –
Its Lord in heaven alone can tell, if even he can show
reply to this interact
write a new interact
add to favorites
flag objectionable content
#11 Posted by SameerJB on July 21, 2003 12:58:01 pm
Miracles prove nothing whether having rational and scientific basis of chance happening/ probabilities, having a reason such as capillary action, result of random processes or creation of human mind or myths. With zillions of leaves rotting every year, the probability of rotting producing few crossing lines is astounding. The probability of appearing cross is astounding as well as having outline of facial appearance. Somewhere in there a simple fraud can easily be created. I can easily use some volatile oxidant to accelerate rotting/ oxidation of a leave along the desired lines and curves and then present it as a miracle. The pirs in Pakistan do tricks all the time to keep mureeds` faith in them.
I recall once seeing a live performance by a well known Bharatnatyam dancer. She spreaded a plain white sheet on the stage floor. Then she spread a layer of copying papers (carbon papers) above it and coveref it with another plain white sheet with absolutely no outline drawings. She performed one of her dance, removed the copying paper from the lower sheet and pressing of her feet during dancing and moving had created a perfect figure of Ganesha. She did not present it as a miracle but a skill perfected by practice. But such skills can be used into cheating and making people believe in miracles.
I recall once seeing a live performance by a well known Bharatnatyam dancer. She spreaded a plain white sheet on the stage floor. Then she spread a layer of copying papers (carbon papers) above it and coveref it with another plain white sheet with absolutely no outline drawings. She performed one of her dance, removed the copying paper from the lower sheet and pressing of her feet during dancing and moving had created a perfect figure of Ganesha. She did not present it as a miracle but a skill perfected by practice. But such skills can be used into cheating and making people believe in miracles.
#10 Posted by Inquirer on July 21, 2003 10:05:48 am
Good questions; can be discussed in different ways but let us what ancient Hindu conceptions are. The following is a three part answer:
(a) Introduction to Indian Philosophical thought
Indian philosophical thought can be generally divided in two divergent currents. One having its source in the Vedas and the other independent of it. The prevailing spirit of the Vedic richas is optimistic, however, a note of sadness in them can often be found, e.g., RV I, 124.2, the song addressed to goddess of dawn, Ushas:
“Obeying the behests of Gods, but wasting away the lives of mortals, Ushas has shown forth – the last of many former dawns and the first of those that are yet to come.”
The second current commences, as a distillation of Vedas though references to the stream of thought are present in later Vedic richas. It appears as critical and negative approach but evolves a constructive side of great consequence to Indian History. Broadly speaking, it is realistic and pessimistic.
These two currents are not, however, mutually exclusive. The shared elements (consisting of the aim of life and the path to achieve it) of the two schools of thought are:
(i) Aim: It is defined in religious philosophy, i.e., religion and philosophy are not sundered from each other; in the last resort, their purpose is the same, viz., a seeking for the central meaning of existence. Religion may stand for anything ranging from a sum of scruples, which impede the free use of our faculties to the yearning of the human spirit for union with God. The distinctive mark of religion is that it serves to further the right living. The goal of the religion for an ancient Indian was Moksha not just intellectual conviction. The conception of Moksha varies from system to system in Indian Philosophy but it marks, according to all, the culmination of a philosophic culture.
Philosophy in India originated under the pressure of a practical need arising from the presence of moral and physical evil in life. The objective is how to remove this evil. The idea of Moksha, however, is not related to the end of the world it can be achieved in this life. Even though a distant ideal it was achievable. This is the idea of a ‘jivan-mukta.’
(ii) Path to achieve the aim: Renunciation – the path to moksha.
The discipline in Vedic and Upanishadic traditions varies but the ascetic spirit is the under-lying idea in both. The primary difference is the following: while the Vedic system promotes progressive renunciation, the Upanishadic system holds the possibility of instantaneous turning away from the world whatever may be the circumstances. Vedic system propounds ashram theory: brahmacharya, householder, hermit to ascetic. For the Upanishadic “any moment of disillusionment about the world” is enough for renouncing the world. This renunciation was formalized by Gita in the “principle of detachment and the motive of self-love which is involved in striving for reward hereafter was eliminated by Gita with its teaching of disinterested action.”
In summary, the two elements common to Vedic and Upanishadic traditions are: Moksha as the final ideal and the ascetic spirit of discipline as the means to achieve it.
(a) Introduction to Indian Philosophical thought
Indian philosophical thought can be generally divided in two divergent currents. One having its source in the Vedas and the other independent of it. The prevailing spirit of the Vedic richas is optimistic, however, a note of sadness in them can often be found, e.g., RV I, 124.2, the song addressed to goddess of dawn, Ushas:
“Obeying the behests of Gods, but wasting away the lives of mortals, Ushas has shown forth – the last of many former dawns and the first of those that are yet to come.”
The second current commences, as a distillation of Vedas though references to the stream of thought are present in later Vedic richas. It appears as critical and negative approach but evolves a constructive side of great consequence to Indian History. Broadly speaking, it is realistic and pessimistic.
These two currents are not, however, mutually exclusive. The shared elements (consisting of the aim of life and the path to achieve it) of the two schools of thought are:
(i) Aim: It is defined in religious philosophy, i.e., religion and philosophy are not sundered from each other; in the last resort, their purpose is the same, viz., a seeking for the central meaning of existence. Religion may stand for anything ranging from a sum of scruples, which impede the free use of our faculties to the yearning of the human spirit for union with God. The distinctive mark of religion is that it serves to further the right living. The goal of the religion for an ancient Indian was Moksha not just intellectual conviction. The conception of Moksha varies from system to system in Indian Philosophy but it marks, according to all, the culmination of a philosophic culture.
Philosophy in India originated under the pressure of a practical need arising from the presence of moral and physical evil in life. The objective is how to remove this evil. The idea of Moksha, however, is not related to the end of the world it can be achieved in this life. Even though a distant ideal it was achievable. This is the idea of a ‘jivan-mukta.’
(ii) Path to achieve the aim: Renunciation – the path to moksha.
The discipline in Vedic and Upanishadic traditions varies but the ascetic spirit is the under-lying idea in both. The primary difference is the following: while the Vedic system promotes progressive renunciation, the Upanishadic system holds the possibility of instantaneous turning away from the world whatever may be the circumstances. Vedic system propounds ashram theory: brahmacharya, householder, hermit to ascetic. For the Upanishadic “any moment of disillusionment about the world” is enough for renouncing the world. This renunciation was formalized by Gita in the “principle of detachment and the motive of self-love which is involved in striving for reward hereafter was eliminated by Gita with its teaching of disinterested action.”
In summary, the two elements common to Vedic and Upanishadic traditions are: Moksha as the final ideal and the ascetic spirit of discipline as the means to achieve it.
#9 Posted by tahmed32 on July 21, 2003 8:23:35 am
and then there was the indonesian woman in the 1980`s who created a stir because her fetus was heard reciting holy verses while still in the womb
and the fish they caught off karachi whose skin markings read ``Allah`` in arabic
and then there are these fish in pakistan that eat from national funds and then actually fly (just like flying fish in the sea) all the way to Mekkah, where this unholy intake is magically blessed and thus fully digested
(these fish include many Very Very Important Fish, or VVIF, like nawaz sharif). What a miracle !!
Then we have some fat slugs with beards that actually seem to walk on their bellies while repeating holy verses inbetween halwa-smelling burps
Truly a miracle!!
Allah must be red with embarassment at these strange fish he has created.
and the fish they caught off karachi whose skin markings read ``Allah`` in arabic
and then there are these fish in pakistan that eat from national funds and then actually fly (just like flying fish in the sea) all the way to Mekkah, where this unholy intake is magically blessed and thus fully digested
(these fish include many Very Very Important Fish, or VVIF, like nawaz sharif). What a miracle !!
Then we have some fat slugs with beards that actually seem to walk on their bellies while repeating holy verses inbetween halwa-smelling burps
Truly a miracle!!
Allah must be red with embarassment at these strange fish he has created.
#8 Posted by meet_taimoor on July 21, 2003 8:23:35 am
A good one Alka! I do believe there are miracles happening in daily life but if a ``miracle`` is ``reported`` especially through an email ending up in my junk mail folder, it raises doubts in my mind. So I would too be waiting for the day when I experience one of it, apart from the everyday miracles happening. I truly believe that this world is a miracle in itself. Very good one.
#7 Posted by Areen on July 21, 2003 6:19:23 am
Reminded me of Altaf Hussain`s (Pir of Muhajirs, MQM) face appearing on a crutan leaf and flocks of ppl running to A`abad to see the MIRACLE..................and one unknown buzurg appearing during his (Altaf`s) Umrah, praying for him and his movement and disappearing.....miracles do happen but sorry not like these
#6 Posted by cipram on July 21, 2003 6:19:23 am
=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts
view this users filtered interacts
#5 Posted by nazarhayatkhan on July 21, 2003 6:19:23 am
Vary true, balanced and appropriate.
Human fascination with the supernatural and the unknown is age old. And it keeps coming out in different forms.
#3 Posted by Essensaur on July 20, 2003 8:04:17 pm
Welcome to Chowk, Alka.
Your article reminds me of a funny real life story associated with the milk-sipping Ganesha. I was watching the evening news on one of the local channels in Metropolitan Detroit area. The news anchor happened to be a black gentleman, who covered the story about how the Hindus were making a beeline for the few temples in the area, to watch their ``elephant god`` drink milk. He maintained the decorum he needed to keep, but his cynicism was obvious in his smile, and he followed up with a wisecrack about the upcoming football game between the Cowboys (the top team of the season) and the local Detroit Lions (arguably the worst team around).
``Weelll...`` he drawled. ``The Lions would surely need a miracle to win tonight.`` He winked, and left no doubt as to what he thought the result of the game was going to be.
I did not watch the next newscast starring this news anchor. Nor did I watch the football game. But I know the result of that game. The Lions ended up causing the upset of the season, and won the game. I don`t think they prayed to the Elephant God, but they got their miracle nevertheless.
Your article reminds me of a funny real life story associated with the milk-sipping Ganesha. I was watching the evening news on one of the local channels in Metropolitan Detroit area. The news anchor happened to be a black gentleman, who covered the story about how the Hindus were making a beeline for the few temples in the area, to watch their ``elephant god`` drink milk. He maintained the decorum he needed to keep, but his cynicism was obvious in his smile, and he followed up with a wisecrack about the upcoming football game between the Cowboys (the top team of the season) and the local Detroit Lions (arguably the worst team around).
``Weelll...`` he drawled. ``The Lions would surely need a miracle to win tonight.`` He winked, and left no doubt as to what he thought the result of the game was going to be.
I did not watch the next newscast starring this news anchor. Nor did I watch the football game. But I know the result of that game. The Lions ended up causing the upset of the season, and won the game. I don`t think they prayed to the Elephant God, but they got their miracle nevertheless.
#2 Posted by ZeeshanMahmud on July 20, 2003 6:44:35 pm
Miracle is just a word we give to wishes that are unlikely to materialise and events that border on the impossible of our rationalised minds.
And of course they happen every day.
I am reminded of this amazing sequence in Ingmar Bergman`s Seventh Seal where Max Von Sydow pleads why God must hide behind symbols and unclear signs.
Y`know it really doesn`t matter in the bigger scheme of things if anybody keeps the faith or rejects the indifferent or invisible or madeup God.
The cynics call it ``losers need something to believe in to get through their lives`` and the optimists are content with the obscurity behind which God dwells.
Your word against mine, my word against yours.
It`s all a perfect balance if you look closely.
God would smile.
And of course they happen every day.
I am reminded of this amazing sequence in Ingmar Bergman`s Seventh Seal where Max Von Sydow pleads why God must hide behind symbols and unclear signs.
Y`know it really doesn`t matter in the bigger scheme of things if anybody keeps the faith or rejects the indifferent or invisible or madeup God.
The cynics call it ``losers need something to believe in to get through their lives`` and the optimists are content with the obscurity behind which God dwells.
Your word against mine, my word against yours.
It`s all a perfect balance if you look closely.
God would smile.
#1 Posted by harimau on July 20, 2003 5:34:24 pm
The author wrote, ``Now, the surprising element about these miracle stories is that it is a Muslim who discovers Allah in a brinjal and not a Hindu. It is a Christian whose chapatti is blessed by Lord Jesus. And although, I doubt it that any Muslim or a Christian tried to feed Lord Ganesha as for that they would need to be involved in a ritual involving an ‘idol’. But if they had tried at all, would they have got the same results?``
It is not confined just to the subcontinent. In Boston, crowds are flocking to a hospital to look at a window where condensation has formed the image of the Madonna (Mary, not the pop singer. I am sure the crowds would be larger if it were the image of Elvis Presley.)
And there are people who discover negative messages too, not just positive ones. Don`t you remember that if you hold a coke bottle to a mirror, it reads, `No Allah, No Mohammad`?
It is not confined just to the subcontinent. In Boston, crowds are flocking to a hospital to look at a window where condensation has formed the image of the Madonna (Mary, not the pop singer. I am sure the crowds would be larger if it were the image of Elvis Presley.)
And there are people who discover negative messages too, not just positive ones. Don`t you remember that if you hold a coke bottle to a mirror, it reads, `No Allah, No Mohammad`?
Interact Index
Latest Interacts
- _arjun30: #48 Posted by... ‘Dustbin of history’ or
- _arjun30: #51 Posted by... ‘Dustbin of history’ or
- Urstruly: It came as a... Terrorism Accused: Is Legal
- chaltahai: BJ, it wasn't fear... Terrorism Accused: Is Legal
- pinku: badi sharafat se baat-cheet... ‘Dustbin of history’ or
- tahmed32: BJ2: writes "A great... Terrorism Accused: Is Legal
- tahmed32: #59 maybe india can... ‘Dustbin of history’ or
- dost_mittar: hamidm:#58: Going by his lota... ‘Dustbin of history’ or
