Vedic culture and society

[fyodor]

Very basic question:

What do Vedic literature say about:
1. Polytheism
2. Nature worship
3. Atheism/Agnosticsm etc

Is it inline with monism or more inclined towards monotheism?

I can't post any reference right now but here is my understanding after researching about Shastras:

1) The Brahman is the ultimate reality, the all pervading consciousness of the universe. There is no difference between the creator and the creation. Hinduism recognizes that there are several paths to realize the ultimate truth which leads to moksha(freedom from life/birth). One of the paths is bhakti-yoga or devotion to deity. There are many sects in Hinduism which have their own Ishta devta(main god). This is based on the particular proclivities of the individual. There are many gods and godesses in Hinduism because devotion is considered ONE OF THE ways to understand the Brahman and attain moksha. Therefore, Polytheism has always been a characteristic of Hindu society.

2) Believing that every thing in the universe is animated with the the Brahman is an integral principle of Dharma. According to Hinduism, there is no difference between the creator and the creation. The creator expresses themselves through the universe. Therefore, worshiping nature is a logical conclusion of this principle.

3) This is related to point 1. Atheism if you define it as not believing in a particular God is offcourse a part of Hinduism. The Brahma is nirakara(without forms) anyways. But there is a form of atheism which believes that there is no meaning in the world and the ONLY reality is the reality of the world of senses. This line of thinking never took hold in the Indian society.
Charvaka was a famous philosopher who propunded such views but he was thoroughly rejected by the mainstream society.
Hinduism is not a postmodern religion. It doesn't asks you to believe things blindly but it does asserts that there is a greater meaning in life which every one can only experience by themselves. Gurus/worship etc can only help.

“You are neither earth nor air nor fire nor water nor ether. To attain liberation, know yourself as the witnessing consciousness of all these. If you separate yourself from the physical body and rest in consciousness, then this very moment you will be happy, at peace, and free from bondage”.

- Ashtavakra

 

[cannonfodder]

^^^ So this is more inline with monism. But your reply seem to be general understanding about Sanatan Dharma on this forum. I am trying to understand if vedic philosophy allowed all these practices from the very beginning.

If I rephrase the question if the philosophy allowed all practices from the very start(text/oral/traditions) or it was refined in phases. I have started to read Bhagvad gita but its Iskcon copy talks only about Krishna as supreme power atleast in introduction.

 

[IndianHawk]

Very basic question:

What do Vedic literature say about:
1. Polytheism
2. Nature worship
3. Atheism/Agnosticsm etc

Is it inline with monism or more inclined towards monotheism?

I read some vedic history.
Vedic literature has many gods. In rigveda itself indra is mentioned along with Agni , Varun ( who is the controller of universe), so there is polytheism.

Nature worship is there as all these gods are basically manifestation of natural process.
Example indra is related to rain. Agni to fire ( Medium between men and gods).

Atheism is also there as Vedas move from manifest ( sagun) to abstract ( nirgun) .
This abstract knowledge of Vedas is known as Vedanta. Which is collected chiefly in upnishadas. Upnishadas as name suggests are philosophical discussion of teacher/ rishi / muni with their disciples about nature of being , truth etc.

Initial vedas rigveda and samveda and yajurveda are about a very rural society with tribal elements too. The word gram( village) meant a moving herd of cows with people.

In later vedic age agriculture spread and permanent settlement became norm.
It is only after that older gods lost relevance and new gods bramha/ Vishnu / shiva became famous.

Sent from my C103 using Tapatalk

 

[S.A.T.A]

Very basic question:

What do Vedic literature say about:
1. Polytheism
2. Nature worship
3. Atheism/Agnosticsm etc

Is it inline with monism or more inclined towards monotheism?

No straight answer for this. The later Indian Darsanas(schools of philosophy) describe the "Shrutis" as being 'Apaurusheya' (meaning not of human). Scholars have taken this to indicate that early Indian thought may have conceded a 'superhuman' being if not necessarily a God.

Surely enough early vedic hymns are dedicated to 'Indra, Varuna, Vayu and the Ashvinis, however vedic scholars, from Sayanacharya to modern day, are divided whether they are superbeings, superhuman beings or God's.

The Nasadiya sukta of the RgVeda has beguiled scholars because of its cryptic take on the origin of the cosmos. In this hymn, its speculated even gods would not know from thence creation occurred, since they followed occurrence of creation. Scholars often use this to argue that the vedics held the view that creation was not an event, it was the permanent nature of self and if this was true, then vedics would not have required a creator/arbitrator God.

Lack of requirement for a creator God, the one who was the originator of the moral universe, gets very pronounced during the period of the Darshana shastras(schools of Indian philosophy). Samkya, Nyaya, Vaisesika and later Advaita, argue for greater role for karma(law of action) as the creator and upholder of the moral universe. While schools like Yoga and vishitadvaita allow for a isvara(creator God). Carvakas(Indian material school) although not an orthodox school, does not even concede space for a moral universe and consider it futile to talk about a arbitrator for moral order.

 

[IndianHawk]

No straight answer for this. The later Indian Darsanas(schools of philosophy) describe the "Shrutis" as being 'Apaurusheya' (meaning not of human). Scholars have taken this to indicate that early Indian thought may have conceded a 'superhuman' being if not necessarily a God.

Surely enough early vedic hymns are dedicated to 'Indra, Varuna, Vayu and the Ashvinis, however vedic scholars, from Sayanacharya to modern day, are divided whether they are superbeings, superhuman beings or God's.

The Nasadiya sukta of the RgVeda has beguiled scholars because of its cryptic take on the origin of the cosmos. In this hymn, its speculated even gods would not know from thence creation occurred, since they followed occurrence of creation. Scholars often use this to argue that the vedics held the view that creation was not an event, it was the permanent nature of self and if this was true, then vedics would not have required a creator/arbitrator God.

Lack of requirement for a creator God, the one who was the originator of the moral universe, gets very pronounced during the period of the Darshana shastras(schools of Indian philosophy). Samkya, Nyaya, Vaisesika and later Advaita, argue for greater role for karma(law of action) as the creator and upholder of the moral universe. While schools like Yoga and vishitadvaita allow for a isvara(creator God). Carvakas(Indian material school) although not an orthodox school, does not even concede space for a moral universe and consider it futile to talk about a arbitrator for moral order.

God and humans are not different in vedic thought. Gita itself is an extension of same thought as that of Vedanta.

Krishna says " I will myself bow down to a yogi who is established in bramhan he is me and I am him " .

In modern world J Krishna Murthy is the most clear voice who says the same although he rejects all religions and texts .

As Krishna Murthy says
" this brain is not yours. It may have certain peculiarities but it's consciousness is that of all mankind. It has evolved through time. Through millenniums.
It's not your brain."

Sent from my C103 using Tapatalk

 

[S.A.T.A]

God and humans are not different in vedic thought. Gita itself is an extension of same thought as that of Vedanta.

Krishna says " I will myself bow down to a yogi who is established in bramhan he is me and I am him " .

In modern world J Krishna Murthy is the most clear voice who says the same although he rejects all religions and texts .

As Krishna Murthy says
" this brain is not yours. It may have certain peculiarities but it's consciousness is that of all mankind. It has evolved through time. Through millenniums.
It's not your brain."

Sent from my C103 using Tapatalk

Vedanta, at least the dominant interpretation, leaves very little scope for humans or gods to exist. The fundamental argument of Vedanta is that only 'Brahman' is real and everything else that perceives brahman is illusion.

 

[IndianHawk]

Vedanta, at least the dominant interpretation, leaves very little scope for humans or gods to exist. The fundamental argument of Vedanta is that only 'Brahman' is real and everything else that perceives brahman is illusion.

Exactly it discards all identities. so all is one and one is all.

Sent from my C103 using Tapatalk

 

[fyodor]

^^^ So this is more inline with monism. But your reply seem to be general understanding about Sanatan Dharma on this forum. I am trying to understand if vedic philosophy allowed all these practices from the very beginning.

If I rephrase the question if the philosophy allowed all practices from the very start(text/oral/traditions) or it was refined in phases. I have started to read Bhagvad gita but its Iskcon copy talks only about Krishna as supreme power atleast in introduction.

@S.A.T.A has given a brief introduction to the differences.
Now there are some schools in Hinduism which believes that Brahman and Atman are different things and some who believe that Brahman is the only ultimate reality.

There have been hair splitting discussions on these topics in classical India. The commonality is that their is cycle of life from which one gets freed by following a path(depending on the school).
Vedanta and the primary texts on Vedanta, the Upanishads have the most authentic & intellectual take on this topic. And their view is clear that the Brahman is nirguna and the physical world although a fact is not the complete reality.

On the topic of ISKCON, they are an avaidik cult and although their effort in spreading Hinduism is commendable but they forcefully propagate only the bhakti-yoga cult of Krishna. To each his own but I personally feel that their interpretation of Gita is juvenile and not upto the intellectual standards of classical India. Although some emotional people may like it.

 

[S.A.T.A]

@IndianHawk @fyodor

While we all agree on the basic premise of vedanta, that brahman is an all pervading reality, unblemished by attributes. However this leaves the query of @gpawar unanswered.

Is the nirguna brahman the creator God? , in the classical sense of theism. After all even the vedantins concede that the brahman allows multiples of phenomenon to exist due to agnana(ignorance). Would this allow to us classify brahman as a theistic and vedanta as theism.

 

[garg_bharat]

Found this and found it interesting:

 

[fyodor]

Found this and found it interesting:

View attachment 35562

I have been following this thread now.
Agniveer in its "reformist" zeal is trying to strip down Hinduism of its roots(rituals, deity worship) and make it an Islam like cult.
They have also been abusing the Shankracharya calling him as a useless person!

Agniveer is also involved in writing softporn on Muslim sexual prowess using love jehad as pretext:
http://agniveer.com/books/aamir-met-anushka/

 

[garg_bharat]

I have been following this thread now.
Agniveer in its "reformist" zeal is trying to strip down Hinduism of its roots(rituals, deity worship) and make it an Islam like cult.
They have also been abusing the Shankracharya calling him as a useless person!

Agniveer is also involved in writing softporn on Muslim sexual prowess using love jehad as pretext:
http://agniveer.com/books/aamir-met-anushka/

See I am not writing a treatise on Agniveer.
Vedic people find stiff resistance within Hinduism is true.

Shankaracharya should focus on removing caste and dowry, two things which are clearly against Veda and against logic.

If Shankaracharya is not doing this, then what is the use???

Rituals, deity worship will eventually go away. As people get educated, people will question their customs. But it is important to lure the young to Veda else they will get lured to Christian and Islam. Statue worship and polytheism are biggest weaknesses of Hinduism.

 

[garg_bharat]

I am a part time social worker. I have seen cases where a family converted to Christianity due to inability to marry girls.

Dowry is a big issue in poor families and lower middle class.

Church's strength is its ability to focus on social causes.

 

[fyodor]

See I am not writing a treatise on Agniveer.
Vedic people find stiff resistance within Hinduism is true.

Shankaracharya should focus on removing caste and dowry, two things which are clearly against Veda and against logic.

If Shankaracharya is not doing this, then what is the use???

Rituals, deity worship will eventually go away. As people get educated, people will question their customs. But it is important to lure the young to Veda else they will get lured to Christian and Islam. Statue worship and polytheism are biggest weaknesses of Hinduism.

This is an erroneous notion to think that deity worship is "outdated". Without this we are just making it easier for them to convert to Islam or Christianity.

By making a-priori assertion that deity worship is wrong and give a "sanitized" version of Hinduism to the masses, we are leaving ourselves defenceless as Islam & Christianity have better claim on those things.
Islam with its alleged egalitarian thinking and simplicity will be more attractive from that POV, don't you think?

Deity worship is not going anywhere. You can replace Hanuman with Marvel Characters but its the same. The void has to be filled, so better fill it with characters like Hanuman who teach about devotion, honesty, integrity & strength.

 

[fyodor]

"if you stare into the abyss, the abyss stares back at you"
- Nietzche

This pretty much sums up Agniveer and other such misguided reformers like Arya Samaj, Brahmo Samaj etc

 

[garg_bharat]

This is an erroneous notion to think that deity worship is "outdated". Without this we are just making it easier for them to convert to Islam or Christianity.

By making a-priori assertion that deity worship is wrong and give a "sanitized" version of Hinduism to the masses, we are leaving ourselves defenceless as Islam & Christianity have better claim on those things.
Islam with its alleged egalitarian thinking and simplicity will be more attractive from that POV, don't you think?

Deity worship is not going anywhere. You can replace Hanuman with Marvel Characters but its the same. The void has to be filled, so better fill it with characters like Hanuman who teach about devotion, honesty, integrity & strength.

We have had this discussion with the Rishi. And he says that opposing idol worship does not help as these practices are deep rooted and won't go away easily.

So we try to develop an intrerest in Veda and Vedic culture instead. This is a slow process.

Vedic system is 100 times better than Islam and Christianity. But there are very few Vedic preachers and no money backing Vedic religion.

We have been able to convert both Muslim and Christian but it is very hush hush.

Hanuman puja without understanding character of Hanuman does not help. Ram puja without understanding the character of Ram does not help. Idol worship can build a society but cannot protect that society.

 

[garg_bharat]

Now women are getting their share legally but in ancient days 'Dowry' is women share of property/money at time of marriage else entire property defacto goes to Son.


So,u want to remove CORE of Hindu culture with your stupid notion??

No f* God exist but only Hinduism give me feel that if god exist then that is ME,at-least i can worship my self as god unlike abrahamic death cults non- existent sky daddy.

Creator&creation are not different both are one&same.

You claim you really know what happened in ancient India??

Dowry has been there only for some 2000 years. No ancient text has mention of dowry. I challenge you to give me a single mantra from Veda in support of dowry.

Some stuff has been put in Ramayan in the time of Raja Bhoj who corrupted both Ramayan and Mahabharat.

If you want to worship yourself - go ahead. If that comforts you.

 

[Haldiram]

^^^ So this is more inline with monism. But your reply seem to be general understanding about Sanatan Dharma on this forum. I am trying to understand if vedic philosophy allowed all these practices from the very beginning.

If I rephrase the question if the philosophy allowed all practices from the very start(text/oral/traditions) or it was refined in phases. I have started to read Bhagvad gita but its Iskcon copy talks only about Krishna as supreme power atleast in introduction.

There was a modulation in Hindu practices in the Puranic era. The Vedic gods were elemental gods (Indra, Varuna..), the ritual practices were one of fire sacrifices towards the rain god and the wind god. The havan was supposedly a portal to the divine world, so there was a bifurcation between the creator and created. This is not the Monism (Shankacharya's Advaita Vedanta) that we now know. That 'Aham Brahmasmi' came with the start of the Puranic era, when spiritual gods started taking primacy (and Pashupati-naath became Shiva). The description of Krishna lifting the Govardhan mountain to shield the people from the rage of rain god Indra was a trope for a 'change of guard' from elemental gods to spiritual gods (i.e a shift in the intellectual outlook of how the rishis of that time viewed the concept of god).

We didn't have a codified Hindu lifestyle. It has always remained dynamic depending on which template one is using to interpret it. Vedic lifestyle was different from Puranic lifestyle, which was completely different from Chanakya's template of how a Hindu should live. Chanakya prescribes that marriages should be among people of equal financial standing, and how the girl's inheritance should be passed on/divided, how much inheritance the girl should bring from her home (stree-dhan) and how that stree-dhan has to be treated in case of a divorce. Chanakya's work is not a 'religious text' in the classic sense, but it gives insights into a working model of how Hindus lived practically. If one gets too classical about it then we also had Gandharva vivaha and Rakshas vivaha (forced marriage through abduction) which were also a part of the template as per the classic texts.

 

[HariPrasad-1]

Sanjay Jagdish Sharma: I have house and am planning to construct hawan kundh, please guide me from where do I get details of construction hawan kundh as per rules so that no mistake occurs. Further I want to consult for my horoscope is there any good astrologer available with Ved Mandir who can help me solve my problem through horoscope.

There is a Kashi vishwanath temple in Baroda. In the temple, a big "Yagna shala " is there and Brahmins there are highly qualified. You can take guidance if them. I too may construct a yagna shala in my house which I have planned.
Actually there are different types of Yagnas. Shape shall depend on the purpose of yagna. Ahuti and method of yagna shall also depend on its purpose. Satvik yagna shall have Tulsi sticks, Til, cow dung as the samidh material and ahutis are given using Thumb, second and third figure. If Yagba is tantrik, Yagna kund may be triangle. Ahuti Shall be Sarsav oil, sindur etc.

 

[HariPrasad-1]

Sanjay Jagdish Sharma: I have house and am planning to construct hawan kund, please guide me from where do I get details of construction hawan kundh as per rules so that no mistake occurs. Further I want to consult for my horoscope is there any good astrologer available with Ved Mandir who can help me solve my problem through horoscope.

There is a Kashi vishwanath temple in Baroda. In the temple, a big "Yagna shala " is there and Brahmins there are highly qualified. You can take guidance if them. I too may construct a yagna shala in my house which I have planned.
Actually there are different types of Yagnas. Shape shall depend on the purpose of yagna. Ahuti and method of yagna shall also depend on its purpose. Satvik yagna shall have Tulsi sticks, Til, cow dung as the samidh material and ahutis are given using Thumb, second and third figure. If Yagba is tantrik, Yagna kund may be triangle. Ahuti Shall be Sarsav oil, sindur etc.