World religions and the Indian pantheon - Lord Brahma has a beard?

I noticed that, in the picture of Lord Brahma that Madhava took of the diorama at the Nimbarka temple in Vrindavan, Lord Brahma has a beard.
My inquiry is about whether or not is it described in the Puranas or elsewhere that Lord Brahma has a beard?
Also, if this is true, then maybe the Christian portrayals of God as having a beard and setting on a throne in heaven might not be that far from the truth?

Next, what do the scholars of this forum think about who the God of the Jews (the Holy Bible) is supposed to be?

I would suspect that the God of the Jews would have been either Brahma, Indra or Shiva, but exactly which one I do not know. I think that the God of the Jews was most likely either Indra or Brahma.

Do any of the learned members here have any opinions about who the God of the Jews (Christians) might have been?

Moses saw God in a burning bush. Maybe the God of the Jews is Agni, the fire God?

I am not a Christian, don't get me wrong. It's just trivia for me, but I am curious what the learned members of this forum might think about who the God of the Jews and Christians might actually be in regards to the Puranic deities.

The other day I was listening to an interesting class on the development of civilizations and the role religions played in it. The development, in particular the roots of the "monotheistic" Christian religion, were very interesting in the light of the thought that their god is one deva or another. The gist of it, summarized below.

The ancient Sumerians and Mesopotamians were polytheistic and syncretistic. In other words, they worshiped many gods, and at times added to their assortment of gods from other, often conquering cultures -- their god of war did a better job, so why not add him in and worship him, too!

The ancient Egypt, where Moses and his folk were entrapped, shared a grand plurality of gods, too. So much so that even the polytheistic Greeks considered them religious on account of the massive selection of gods they worshiped. In the age of the new kingdom (beginning ca. 1700 BCE), some trends of henotheism, ie. the admission of many gods, but the worship of only one, arose. In Egypt, there were also plural myths of creation connected with the diverse gods, all of whom were personally involved in putting the world in place.

Moses, (ca. 1400 BCE) who fled from the bondage of Egypt towards the weakening of the new kingdom, evidently picked up the spirit of the times. The Abrahamic religion then forged a covenant with their god (Exodus 20.2-6):

QUOTE

2] I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery; 3] you shall have no other gods before me. 4] You shall not make for yourself an idol, whether in the form of anything that is in heaven above, or that is on the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. 5] You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I the LORD your God am a jealous God, punishing children for the iniquity of parents, to the third and the fourth generation of those who reject me, 6] but showing steadfast love to the thousandth generation of those who love me and keep my commandments.

This demonstrates rather clearly that the god of Moses did them a favor by helping them out of Egypt towards the promised land of Israel, and in exchange for that, demanded loyalty and allegiance to the exclusion of the other gods.

Come to think of it, the concept of a jealous god is also featured in the Bhagavata in the episode featuring Indra and the cowherd folk of Gokula. There was certainly a jealous god, the god of the heavens, who cast his wrath upon the people for neglecting his worship. We all know what happened to that, as the god of gods happened to be around as a little kid and happened to like the people of Gokula very much.

The nature of the jealous and wrathful god of the Hebrew Scriptures certainly fits the profile, but there is no reason to assume there could not be any number of gods who shared the trait. I personally would not expect any of the big shots of the Indian pantheon to take such a keen interest in a tribe of people in the desert. That would be the market for a minor god, who is out of business elsewhere.

At any rate, clearly it is not the benevolent god of the worlds we are looking at, in the way we have come to know him.

I'll have to look into the beard issue.

Now, as for whether the god whom we can identify from the Hebrew Scriptures is the god of the post-Jesus Christians, that's a whole other matter. Either gods were actually swapped to a more benevolent and loving one, or otherwise the old and wrathful god had a sudden change of heart -- or a change of strategy!

I have often pondered that maybe the God of the Jews was just a minor deity that is not even known in the Puranic lore. I heard before that there are like some 60,000,000 demigods in the heavens, so the God of the Jews could be one of the more obscure demigods that don't even make it in the Vedic traditions.

The second part of this post concerns a Jewish (now Christian) tradition of circumcision.
Is there a form of circumcision in any Hindu religion? I know it is also practiced by some tribal cultures of Africa.

When my son was born, the doctor asked me if I wanted him to be circumcised. Not accepting the practice to be Vaishnava or Vedic, I rejected this for my son.

Many westerners from Christian families did not escape the knife at birth, even though we were not Jewish or even born again Christians.

Somebody please tell me that circumcision is not Vedic or Vaishnava and that I did the right thing for my son.

Also, does the practice of circumcision reveal anything about the cult that the Jewish faith is derived from? Is the circumcision in African tribes borrowed from Christian missionaries? How does a tribe come to adopt circumcision as a right of passage for young men.

QUOTE(Kshamabuddhi @ Aug 28 2005, 03:44 PM)

The second part of this post concerns a Jewish (now Christian) tradition of circumcision.
Is there a form of circumcision in any Hindu religion? I know it is also practiced by some tribal cultures of Africa.

When my son was born, the doctor asked me if I wanted him to be circumcised. Not accepting the practice to be Vaishnava or Vedic, I rejected this for my son.

Many westerners from Christian families did not escape the knife at birth, even though we were not Jewish or even born again Christians.

Somebody please tell me that circumcision is not Vedic or Vaishnava and that I did the right thing for my son.

Also, does the practice of circumcision reveal anything about the cult that the Jewish faith is derived from? Is the circumcision in African tribes borrowed from Christian missionaries? How does a tribe come to adopt circumcision as a right of passage for young men.

Circumcision in the West is often pitched as a hygine issue, and not to get graphic, but the uncircumcised have more 'cleaning' issues than the circumcised. Luckily I had two girls, and never had to confront the issue.

Many african tribes utilized circumcision as a right of passage for young tribe members. The removal of the 'boy' and the making of the 'man'. As such, it is often performed at the time of puberty. While there may be religious trappings, it is a visual sign to the tribe that the boy has moved into manhood. Scarification of the body is often performed as well, with the same goal.

Wikipedia has an interesting article on the history of the practice.

I haven't heard of such in the Indian traditions.

Whatever else circumsion may be, it certainly is a very clear and lasting personal mark of belonging to a particular community. Not much unlike the tapa-mudras, or the branding marks that some Vaishnava-traditions use, branding the symbols of Vishnu on their arms.

QUOTE(Madhava @ Aug 28 2005, 01:51 PM)

The ancient Egypt, where Moses and his folk were entrapped, shared a grand plurality of gods, too. So much so that even the polytheistic Greeks considered them religious on account of the massive selection of gods they worshiped. In the age of the new kingdom (beginning ca. 1700 BCE), some trends of henotheism, ie. the admission of many gods, but the worship of only one, arose. In Egypt, there were also plural myths of creation connected with the diverse gods, all of whom were personally involved in putting the world in place.

One fascinating part of Egyptian religious history revolves around Akhenaten and his flirtation with monotheism. Akhenaten's exclusive worship of the Aten, and subsequent rejection of all other Egyptian gods very nearly destroyed the Egyptian state.

The most known Pharaoh, Tutankhamun was the son of Akhenaten. After his father's death, Tutankhamun began to move Egypt back to the 'old' religion, going so far as to change his birth name 'Tutankhaten' to something a little more inline with the old religion, Tutankhamun.

Reflecting on the suggested origins of the god of Israel and the concept of henotheism, one may wonder: How can it not be that the god of Israel was the one and only original god, as even the entire process of creation is described as his doing in the books of Moses?

I believe, the Egyptian tradition, despite a clear understanding of polytheism, also featured a great number of creation myths featuring different gods as the creators of the world lived in. I'd assume DharmaChakra can confirm this?

Here are tidbits of information on the "monotheistic" period of the Egyptian religion.

QUOTE(Madhava @ Aug 28 2005, 05:27 PM)

I believe, the Egyptian tradition, despite a clear understanding of polytheism, also featured a great number of creation myths featuring different gods as the creators of the world lived in. I'd assume DharmaChakra can confirm this?

Yes, this is true. Let's not forget that 'Egypt' initially was split into two distinct sections, Upper and Lower Egypt with distinct religious & governmental centers. In addition, Egyptian gods would come in and out of fashion based around the ruling Pharaoh, each with their own particular mythology. There is a generic creation myth, involving 8 gods, 4 male/female pairs, coming from the water & creating, but its much more flexable in its acceptance than we tend to think of these things.

Let's not forget, it was not so much a battle of polytheism vs. monotheism. To your average Egyptian, assuming they even knew of the Jews of Israel, JHVH would have been just another god, specific to their tribe or ethnic group.

Religion in Egypt encompased everything. The Pharaoh was divine, destined to take his place amongst the gods. Tutankhamun, so famous to us, was wiped from the Egyptian historical record, his name chiseled out & carved over.

The interesting part of the Amarna period was not so much the worship of the Aten (although the Aten was strange in itself; it wasn't anthropomorphic), but the rejection of the other gods. BTW, Ankhenaten was a bit of a sage-king, not riding out to battle, basically becoming a recluse. He also initiated a new period of art in Egypt, which was one of the great unchangables.

QUOTE(Kshamabuddhi @ Aug 28 2005, 08:44 PM)

Somebody please tell me that circumcision is not Vedic or Vaishnava and that I did the right thing for my son.

Circumcision is not Vedic or Vaishnava, and you did the right thing for your son.

Jehovah is Garbhodakasayi Vishnu, and Allah is Garbhodakasayi Vishnu as well.

The second sentence is something that I'm working on in my own time, but in Islam its a little more complicated when we have to deal with the descriptions of the merits of heaven and such.

QUOTE(Gaurasundara @ Aug 28 2005, 07:56 PM)

Jehovah is Garbhodakasayi Vishnu, and Allah is Garbhodakasayi Vishnu as well.

I'll bite. What's leading you to make these identifications?

Well, in the Bible, I think the Old Testament part, the god says "I am the Alpha and the Omega - the Beggining and the end".
There are references in the Bible that the God of the Bible is the "creator god".
The creator god in the Hindu conception is Brahma. But, it depends on whether or not you are referring to entire mahat-tattva or just this particular universe.
Karanadakshayi Vishnu creates the mahat-tattva, then Garbhodakshayi creates Brahma, then Brahma creates the universal worlds.

"The beggining and the End"? Alpha Omega? Who would that translate to be in the Vedic view?

Jews and Christians think that their God is the absolute "Alpha and Omega" - the be-all and end-all of everything. that does not mean that they have any real religious connection to that absolute God, but that is whom they certainly presume to worship.

QUOTE

Somebody please tell me that circumcision is not Vedic or Vaishnava and that I did the right thing for my son.

Not only is is not Vedic or Vaisnava, there is no medical reason to circumcise and many reasons not to.
Dr William Sears MD PED has some great info, but take it from another dad who did his homework for his son- you did the right thing!
Jai Nitai!

QUOTE(Madhava @ Aug 28 2005, 09:27 PM)

Reflecting on the suggested origins of the god of Israel and the concept of henotheism, one may wonder: How can it not be that the god of Israel was the one and only original god, as even the entire process of creation is described as his doing in the books of Moses?

As I understand it, the Old Testament bible does not speak in its earliest parts of 'God' but of 'Gods' - Elohim (plural). This was later explained away as an affectation, a royal plural. But the direct meaning is clear. In fact the Elohim are said to have different names and identities: God of waters, God of the Hill...

In fact the real originators of Monotheism may have been the Zoroastrians, who also had a strong influence on some parts of the bible. And those Zoroastrians in turn seem to have been reacting to perceived moral laxity of the Devas, especially Indra.

Curiously, the word 'God' is etymologically linked to the sanskrit syllable HOT (via Germanic Gott) as in Agnihotra - ie to Whom the libation is poured out, but this word was only adopted in Northern Europe for the Xtian god. The previous pagan word for the Supreme was Os or Aesir (also plural), ie- Asur, cognate with Zoroastrian Ahura, as in Ahura Mazda... (also Old Norse Asgard, Madhava).

And this old word for Supreme is still present in some names:
Oscar (Os-gar)- 'spear of God'
Oswald - 'power of God'.

see etymology online, http://www.etymonline.com/

QUOTE

And this old word for Supreme is still present in some names:
Oscar (Os-gar)- 'spear of God'

How peculiar that my parents chose to name me "Spear of God". That's actually my second name, though commonly used here for addressing me. My first name is Markus, related to Mars, the Roman god of war. I apologize if the influences come across in my posts at times.

QUOTE(Gaurasundara @ Aug 29 2005, 12:56 AM)

Jehovah is Garbhodakasayi Vishnu, and Allah is Garbhodakasayi Vishnu as well.

I have a hard time thinking of the transcendent Vishnu, who isn't even directly involved in the process of creation but delegates it to lesser gods and is just happy emanating stuff into existence, as being involved in micro-managing the issues of the people of Israel. Or demanding sacrifices of the variety recommended in the Old Testament as a means of his worship! Casting plagues on cattle to make a point and other such traits also don't quite fit the profile of Vishnu.

Another theme I've wanted to develop is that of the snake-figure. In the Abrahamic traditions, I believe the snake is widely regarded as representative of evil. (Some references on snakes in the Bible - the conclusion there is peculiar, though.) On the other hand, in the Indic traditions we find snake commonly featured as divine, indeed even as the bed of Vishnu and the divine protector spreading his hooves around Vishnu, curled around Shiva, singing the praises of Vishnu with thousands of heads.

It also interesting to see some auspicious words and names appear in obscure form in these middle-eastern religions.
For example; Abraham is not far from being Brahma.
Omega has OM in it.
There is the Queen of Sheeba (Siva)(Maybe an incarnation of Durga devi?)
There is Ramallah. (containing Rama)
We see Rama appear several times in these middle eastern traditions and countries.
There is a town of Beersheeba in Israel. (Bhira Shiva).

There are several cases of linguisitic parallels to some Vedic words and names.

Trying to sort out these beliefs and their origins might be an impossible task.

There are some scholars who think that the whole Bible is a fabrication.

Well, there's a big difference between having words with similar sounds and any sort of "linguistic parallel." Just because a couple of words sound alike doesn't mean they're cognates or related in any way. They need to have some similarity in meaning, some etymological relationship, some historical ties, in order for there to be a significant chance that the words have some relationship.

Sheba is a place in Arabia, and the etymology of the word has nothing to do with auspiciousness, nor does it have any connection with mythological characters. Omega is a neuter form of a Greek word (megas) meaning "great." There is a linguistic connection between megas and the Sanskrit maha, but I see no evidence for any connection betwee omega and om. There are others here much more qualified than I to discuss these things.

Many devotees have fun with this sort of thing and like to use them to prove that Vedic culture is the origin of all human (a propostion I don't necessarily dispute), but their arguments would not go far with educated folks. Devotees here like to point out similarities between many Hawaiian words and Sanskrit words to show some connection between Hawaiian and ancient Indian cultures. Although some hawaiian cultiral practitioners, including one of my colleagues who teaches Hawaiian culture at our college, claim that Hawaiian comes from Sanskrit, it's hard to find grammatical similarities. Indeed, another colleague, whose PhD in linguisitics specialized in Austronesian (Pacific and Southeast Asian) languages, has opined that it would be a hard case to make. However, I see many connections between cultural values that creat what I consider deeper links between the cultures.

QUOTE(Kshamabuddhi @ Aug 29 2005, 08:19 AM)

It also interesting to see some auspicious words and names appear in obscure form in these middle-eastern religions.
For example; Abraham is not far from being Brahma.
Omega has OM in it.
There is the Queen of Sheeba (Siva)(Maybe an incarnation of Durga devi?)
There is Ramallah. (containing Rama)
We see Rama appear several times in these middle eastern traditions and countries.
There is a town of Beersheeba in Israel. (Bhira Shiva).

There are several cases of linguisitic parallels to some Vedic words and names.

Trying to sort out these beliefs and their origins might be an impossible task.

There are some scholars who think that the whole Bible is a fabrication.

Yea whats also interesting to me Abraham from Ur of chaldees,and Ive heard theres many citys in india that end in URsuch as trichUR,bangalUR,perambUR,gudUR,sURat etc etc.Also deut 28 64 and ezekial 4 15 where else in world but India to you find serving Gods of 'wood and stone' and using cows dung for bread,I see a Levite- Brahmin connection.
Shanthi

In reply to Babhru, I concede that these words and syllables that I am referring to do not particularly have any origin or root in Sanskrit or other Aryan languages.
Mostly what I wanted to portray is that these sounds still have some potency and spiritual effect no matter the linguistic meaning they convey in the mother tongue.

There is the example in the Vaishnava shastra about the Muslim who was being attacked by a wild boar and consequently started screaming "harama, harama" which means "how terrible" in his own language. Even though he was not thinking of Lord Rama, he still got the benefit of chanting the Holy Name.
My point was that no matter what the language, if once prounounces the syllables of the Holy Name somehow, he gets the benefit of chanting the Holy Name.
If I remember correctly, it was even said that the syllables do not necessarily even have to come in order.
I think the story comes out of Chaitanya Caritamrita, but I don't remember exactly where.
I am not trying to make linguistic parallels as much as I am just saying that the combinations of syllables that form the Holy Name of the Lord are always auspicious, no matter what they are intended to mean in any other language.
Even if one says "Shop-a-rama" or "Sale-a-rama", according to the Vaishnava shastra one still gets the benefit of chanting the Holy Name of the Lord.

Sorry if I made too much of your remarks. I guess I was confused by your mention of "lingusitic parallels" and sorting out th origins of beliefs.

QUOTE(Madhava @ Aug 29 2005, 06:00 AM)

Another theme I've wanted to develop is that of the snake-figure. In the Abrahamic traditions, I believe the snake is widely regarded as representative of evil. (Some references on snakes in the Bible - the conclusion there is peculiar, though.) On the other hand, in the Indic traditions we find snake commonly featured as divine, indeed even as the bed of Vishnu and the divine protector spreading his hooves around Vishnu, curled around Shiva, singing the praises of Vishnu with thousands of heads.

perhaps the biblical snake has connection to the Nagas. research the story of Lilith (Talmudic sources) for more. Lilith seems to have been a Naga maiden who took human form on the request of the creator god (Brahma or one of the Prajapatis, most likely) to be Adam's first wife. not willing to fully submit to the will of a mere human, she reverted to her original flying snake (or dragon) form by invoking "God's name". Lilith is an offspring of the great she-dragon of old, perhaps the original archeotype for Satan, or Devil.

and as I stated above, god of the ancient Israelites is most likely one of the Prajapatis, or Lord Brahma. the projections of some devotees in that area fall into wishful thinking category.

QUOTE(Babhru @ Aug 30 2005, 04:53 AM)

Sorry if I made too much of your remarks. I guess I was confused by your mention of "lingusitic parallels" and sorting out th origins of beliefs.

Yeah, I have to be careful with my choice of words whenever there are linguistic scholars around, because my own statements get scrutinized for acuracy.
When I said linguisitc parallels, I simply referring to similar sounding words.
If we get into semantics we find that the words and sounds have no parallels to each other.
I was simpy referring to the morphology of how these sounds have a similiar sound and a similar effect if the word is a name of the Lord - harinama.

QUOTE(Madhava @ Aug 29 2005, 06:00 AM)

Another theme I've wanted to develop is that of the snake-figure. In the Abrahamic traditions, I believe the snake is widely regarded as representative of evil. (Some references on snakes in the Bible - the conclusion there is peculiar, though.) On the other hand, in the Indic traditions we find snake commonly featured as divine, indeed even as the bed of Vishnu and the divine protector spreading his hooves around Vishnu, curled around Shiva, singing the praises of Vishnu with thousands of heads.

I don't know anything about the bible, but it is reletively common in Indological speculation to assert that Sesha was the adaptation of very ancient naga worship into Vaisnavism (as a side note, Dauji in Vraja is specifically cited by scholars as a Vaisnavized Naga-god). I have always liked snakes, and Balaram, personally, and have never been able to connect them with evil even when I was a childhood church-goer.

Some of the das-avatars are also thought to represent this incorperation of tribal animal dieties, as well as other 'sanskritized' Yaksha personalities such as Ganesh and Kuvera that also made their way into the post-Vedic pantheon.

The snake truely is a demonized creature. Pegged by Jung as a symbol of shadow, he also acknowledged their role as carriers of wisdom. They are alien to us, crawling instead of walking - like the worm; yet intelligent, hunting and crafty like 'higher' animals. Snake deities show up in the early Egytpian Pyramid texts and down through their entire 3,000 year history, attesting to the importance of incorporating snakes into a pantheon. Most polytheistic religions have room to encompass multiple facets of the snake. Egypt, for example, had Nehebu-Kau; a snake god that was benign & helpful to the deceased (king), and Denwen, a serpent that could cause the fire that would destroy the gods.

When I think of modern, Christian thinking on the symbolism of the snake, the bluegrass song 'The Little Girl And The Dreadful Snake' comes to mind

The Little Girl and The Dreadful Snake
Bill Monroe

Our darling wandered far away while she was out at play
Lost in the woods she couldn't hear a sound
She was our darling girl the sweetest thing in all the world
We searched for her but she couldn't be found

I heard the screams of our little girl far away
Hurry Daddy there's an awful dreadful snake
I ran as fast as I could through the dark and dreary woods
But I reached our darling girl too late

Oh I began to cry I knew that soon she'd have to die
For the snake was warning me close by
I held her close to my face she said daddy kill that snake
It's getting dark tell mommy goodbye

To all parents I must say don't let your children stray away
They need your love to guide them along
Oh God I pray we'll see our darling girl some day
It seems we still can hear her voice around our home

Not only is the snake the immediate rural danger, but it is also representative of all the sin and temptation our children can get into. On the one hand the snake kills the little girl, but it also seduces her and removes her from the family unit.

That song reminds me of the 'Holy Ghost People', a Christain cult that emerged at the turn of the last century in the Appalachian foothills, in which the churchgoers dance and sing holding poisonous snakes to demonstrate their faith in Jesus, and their protection from evil signified by the snakes. There was a famous, and rare, documentary shot of one of their services in the 1950's. During the documentary one of the parishoners was bitten and died shortly after, apparently from lack of faith.

QUOTE(angrezi @ Aug 30 2005, 05:37 PM)

That song reminds me of the 'Holy Ghost People', a Christain cult that emerged at the turn of the last century in the Appalachian foothills, in which the churchgoers dance and sing holding poisonous snakes to demonstrate their faith in Jesus, and their protection from evil signified by the snakes. There was a famous, and rare, documentary shot of one of their services in the 1950's. During the documentary one of the parishoners was bitten and died shortly after, apparently from lack of faith.

Yes, they were predominantly coal miners, and this aspect of their faith was explained as coming from their nihilistic world view. Turn of the century coal miners didn't exactly have a great future lined up for themselves.

My wife's great-grandmother was a Mathura Brijbasi and used to have a thing about snakes. She fed them milk with flour dumplings ('lauwa') and claimed they would never hurt her. At night there was sometimes a soft knocking on the door - snakes wanting to be fed!

But the reason for all this was a 'sacred black stone' she worshipped, handed down thru generations in the family, which was said to turn 'into a snake' on special days when Nag-puja was performed. Anthropologists might say the snake was a family 'Totem'.

At the same time, it is said that the Jati-deva, the ancestral family God, is Sri Krishna, and the family claims Khatri (Kshatriya) status, and has maintained some unique traditions despite great upheavals over the years.

Fascinating and mysterious.

Did anyone see the small boys out on the Govardhan Parikrama Marg, dressed in turbans, with snakes in baskets, with which they would give 'Nag-darshan' to pilgrims for a rupee. Scared me, they shove them right in your face.

QUOTE(Kshamabuddhi @ Aug 28 2005, 03:12 PM)

......
I am not a Christian, don't get me wrong. It's just trivia for me, but I am curious what the learned members of this forum might think about who the God of the Jews and Christians might actually be in regards to the Puranic deities.

One does not need to be a "learned member" to know that Yahweh is not an "iconicisable" deity. One does not even need to be a circumsized member to know this.

QUOTE(Talasiga @ Aug 31 2005, 04:02 PM)

One does not need to be a "learned member" to know that Yahweh is not an "iconicisable" deity. One does not even need to be a circumsized member to know this.

Yet he was a deity for whom an altar was to be made, and for whom things were to be sacrificed. Apparently, he was fond of blood and the smell of burnt flesh, as he had animals to be slain and burnt on his altar on a regular basis. Human sacrifice, too, is not a wholly unknown theme. The first seven chapters of Leviticus contain detailed information of the sacrifices, including that where a bull is slain and his blood is sprinkled all across the altar, and it is then burnt. Lev 1:9 specifically states that it produces "an aroma pleasing to the Lord". Lev 3:14-16 describes how all the fat inside the goat is to be scooped out from around the interiors, and "all the fat is the Lord's". Burning and chopping up animals, the removal of their fat and the sprinkling of their blood is a recurring theme in various rites of atonement and worship. Through such ritual slayings, the people of Israel are forgiven.

For a non-iconizable deity, the god of the people of Israel certainly takes a keen interest in all the rest that goes along with idol worship, and shows the traits of someone who's not the only god on the market.

Deuteronomium 13 speaks of the evils of the worship of foreign gods (in later translations, "other" gods), and the worshipers of other gods, "gods that neither you nor your fathers have known", are to be shown no pity and to be stoned to death. The theme of the god who brought the people of Israel away from Egypt, a theme invoked especially at times of calling for loyalty, is a recurring theme. Towards the end of the chapter, it is also recommended that the residents in the towns of such heretics be slain with swords, and the entire town be torched to the ground to remain in ruins forever as the emblem of the fierce wrath of the god of the people of Israel.

QUOTE(Madhava @ Aug 31 2005, 05:22 PM)

QUOTE(Talasiga @ Aug 31 2005, 04:02 PM)

One does not need to be a "learned member" to know that Yahweh is not an "iconicisable" deity. One does not even need to be a circumsized member to know this.

Yet he was a deity for whom an altar was to be made, and for whom things were to be sacrificed. Apparently, he was fond of blood and the smell of burnt flesh, as he had animals to be slain and burnt on his altar on a regular basis. Human sacrifice, too, is not a wholly unknown theme. The first seven chapters of Leviticus contain detailed information of the sacrifices, including that where a bull is slain and his blood is sprinkled all across the altar, and it is then burnt. Lev 1:9 specifically states that it produces "an aroma pleasing to the Lord". Lev 3:14-16 describes how all the fat inside the goat is to be scooped out from around the interiors, and "all the fat is the Lord's". Burning and chopping up animals, the removal of their fat and the sprinkling of their blood is a recurring theme in various rites of atonement and worship. Through such ritual slayings, the people of Israel are forgiven.

For a non-iconizable deity, the god of the people of Israel certainly takes a keen interest in all the rest that goes along with idol worship, and shows the traits of someone who's not the only god on the market.

Deuteronomium 13 speaks of the evils of the worship of foreign gods (in later translations, "other" gods), and the worshipers of other gods, "gods that neither you nor your fathers have known", are to be shown no pity and to be stoned to death. The theme of the god who brought the people of Israel away from Egypt, a theme invoked especially at times of calling for loyalty, is a recurring theme. Towards the end of the chapter, it is also recommended that the residents in the towns of such heretics be slain with swords, and the entire town be torched to the ground to remain in ruins forever as the emblem of the fierce wrath of the god of the people of Israel.

I have perused over these same references before. It certainly is a very bewildering reading for anyone who subscribes to a Vaishnava doctrine of faith.

From these readings, the God of the Bible appears to be a raskshasa or some other sort of tamasic being.
These readings should certainly preclude devotees from being sentimental at all about the Bibilical God who was to be feared.

But, Jesus supposedly brought "love of God' as a superior faith to the "fear of God' in the Old Testament. (Love the Lord thy God with all thy heart and mind). The religion of the Old Testaments was about fear of God.

Chistianity seems to be an improvement over the religion of the Jews and the Old Testament God.

To a Vaishnava, the God of the Old Testament appears to be a demonic, tamasic personality as he enjoys the the smell of burnt flesh and blood.

Indeed, the concept of God taught by Jesus is far superior to the wrathful god of the people of Israel. Hence my doubts on whether Jesus' "fulfilling" the import of the old testament was in reality much more than lip service to the local traditions of the yore, employing elements favorable to the theological theme he wished to educate people in.

Speaking of the varieties of sacrifices, and as we are looking at parallels in the development of religion, let us have a brief look at the concept of animal sacrifice in the Vedic tradition. Would someone more familiar with the theme like to give us a synopsis with references for further reading? For what little I know of them, the sacrifices were far rarer and more elegant in their methodology, some featuring themes of resurrection or upliftment of the sacrificed animal.

Jesus was also never known to encourage or practice the animal sacrifices of the Old Testament. It appears that he never ate meat, except for possibly fishes, as he was said to have made a few fishes turn into a baskets of fishes to feed the crowds.
Some researchers say that the "fishes" were actually like egglant pakoras. They say that he showed them how to slice these vegetables and cook them like pakoras - making a few fishes into many.

As far as eating beef, pork or poultry - there is no references that Jesus ever ate or encouraged the eating of such food. For the most part it appears he ate bread and wine as his staples.
He certainly enver ate at McDonalds or encouraged slaughterhouses.

Despite his saying the had come not to destroy the law, but to fullfill it, it appears he really brought a whole new system of religion about love of God instead of the old fear of God known before him.

QUOTE(Kshamabuddhi @ Aug 31 2005, 02:55 PM)

As far as eating beef, pork or poultry - there is no references that Jesus ever ate or encouraged the eating of such food. For the most part it appears he ate bread and wine as his staples.
He certainly enver ate at McDonalds or encouraged slaughterhouses.

We should be a little careful about this. Its probably better explained through economics; vegetarianism is the lifestyle of the poor in the middle east. Vegetarianism, and the reasons behind it, are not a major tennant of Christ's religion, and I can't think of any major pre-Catholic sects that have emphasized it. Some may have practiced it, but as a major teaching?

QUOTE(DharmaChakra @ Aug 31 2005, 07:26 PM)

QUOTE(Kshamabuddhi @ Aug 31 2005, 02:55 PM)

As far as eating beef, pork or poultry - there is no references that Jesus ever ate or encouraged the eating of such food. For the most part it appears he ate bread and wine as his staples.
He certainly enver ate at McDonalds or encouraged slaughterhouses.

We should be a little careful about this. Its probably better explained through economics; vegetarianism is the lifestyle of the poor in the middle east. Vegetarianism, and the reasons behind it, are not a major tennant of Christ's religion, and I can't think of any major pre-Catholic sects that have emphasized it. Some may have practiced it, but as a major teaching?

I think the tenet of "thought shalt not kill" should be interpreted literally and extended to all forms of life.
I know that modern Christians interpret this to mean "thought shalt not commit murder" - only inclusive of killing humans. I think this is a manipulation that betrays the original meaning of the tenet.
I think with "though shalt not kill", Christ was speaking in a broad sense and not in the narrow interpretation of most so-called Christians.
I think the example of Christ should teach a good lesson - apart from fashionable interpretations of his teachings.

QUOTE

I think the tenet of "thought shalt not kill" should be interpreted literally and extended to all forms of life.
I know that modern Christians interpret this to mean "thought shalt not commit murder" - only inclusive of killing humans. I think this is a manipulation that betrays the original meaning of the tenet.

If you look at the context of the original statements, the ten commandments (of which the relevant one is #6) are spoken to Moses by the god of Israel, who enjoys the scent of burnt animal flesh and has people sprinkling the sacrificial blood on his altar. Some say that the meaining of the original Hebrew word is unambiguously "murder", meaning Thou shalt not murder.

Indeed, the New International Version of Bible translates it as murder both in Exodus 20 and Deuteronomium 5. And, right after god spoke the commandments in the Exodus, he instructed Moses on making an altar where to sacrifice burnt offerings, sheep, goats and cattle.

It is one thing to say how it should be, and another to suggest its original meaning as that which we would like it to be.

QUOTE(Madhava @ Aug 29 2005, 11:00 AM)

I have a hard time thinking of the transcendent Vishnu, who isn't even directly involved in the process of creation but delegates it to lesser gods and is just happy emanating stuff into existence, as being involved in micro-managing the issues of the people of Israel. Or demanding sacrifices of the variety recommended in the Old Testament as a means of his worship! Casting plagues on cattle to make a point and other such traits also don't quite fit the profile of Vishnu.

Sorry for not responding earlier. Is it difficult to understand how the same one God may show His different faces to different peoples at different times? Ekam sat, vipra bahuda vadanti? I personally subscribe to the idea that different religions are meant for people who are at different positions on the spiritual evolutionary scale, and the theology that they follow is reflective of that. There is also the issue of common themes that arise during the study of different religions.

By way of contrast, I have a hard time believing that Jehovah, Allah and Krishna are three different Gods heading up three different religions or so. What happened, they all had a fight and Krishna came out victorious? Was Krishna even victorious in this apparent fight? The Jew and the Muslim may beg to differ.

But yes, as I said earlier, this topic has been an interesting one to me over the years. As far as Jehovah and Allah being Garbhodakasayi Vishnu or not, I would be interested in hearing alternative interpretations of passages in their scriptures that tell of (their conception of) God residing on a large body of water.

Genesis 1.1-2: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters."

And here's something that I wrote for Audarya Forums back in '02 when I was an Iskconite

:

QUOTE

"Narrated Imran bin Husain: The Prophet said, 'There was nothing but Allah, and His Throne was over the water, and He wrote everything in the Book (in the Heaven) and created the heavens and the earth.'
"Then a man shouted, 'O Ibn Husain! Your she-camel has gone away!' So I went away and could not see the she-camel because of the mirage. By Allah, I wished I had left that she-camel (but not that gathering)." [Sahih al-Bukhari 4.414]

EXPLANATION: One may ask why such stories are "narrated". Well, within Islam there are two major sources of shastra, which are the Qur'an and the Hadiths. The Hadiths are the collection of the sayings and doings of the Prophet Muhummad, and each incident is related by an eyewitness. The rationale behind the collection of the Hadiths is to preserve for posterity the example set by the Prophet and is also the Muslim basis for it's Gaudiya parallel, 'mahajano yena gatah sa panthah.'
Next, we can easily see by virtue of clear description that Allah was sitting on His "Throne" over the "water". I believe that this corresponds to Ananta-Sesa and the Garbhodaka Ocean respectively. Finally, readers may be confused by the strange anecdote about the she-camel. The idea is that while Imran bin Husain was listening to the Prophet's lecture, he was alerted that his camel had escaped and he went off in search of it. He then laments that he should have ignored his camel and sat down to hear more about Allah from the Prophet.

We can also lament, because had Imran bin Husain testified to more of the Prophet's commentary, we may have acquired more evidence to suggest the possibility of a "formful" God within Islam.

Conversely, we can study the arguments of Lord Chaitanya with the Pathans, in which He conclusively proved (by quoting the Qur'an) that Allah was of a dark colour and that there are descriptions of karma, jnana and bhakthi within the Qur'an.

So we can easily see that a devout Muslim who follows the rules and regulations of Islam and manages to chant the Shahadha declaration at the time of death may very well get a spiritual body to serve Garbhodakasayi Vishnu or serve Vishnu in one of the Vaikuntha planets. Speaking of which, Srila Prabhupada once related to Hari Sauri das that he had a dream about a planet where pious Muslims go after death.

What waters?

As far as the sacrificial/dietary rules that you later outline can go, I know that there is a passage in Isaiah somewhere where "God" expresses His immense displeasure about burnt offerings and blood, though I'll agree that the tone of that particular passage is more of an anti-hypocrisy line that Jehovah seems to take. In any case, I'm quite happy with the idea that it is one God who shows different faces to different people. The idea that there are many gods who founded the different religions brings up more questions than it does answers, I feel. I think I have more to say but I can't seem to collect my thoughts at this moment.

Yes, let us be careful from trying to fulfill our own agendas. Not that I'm accusing any Vaisnava here of such a thing, but I think it is more conducive to discussing such topics as comparative religion if we put aside our attachments to our own rituals.

Jesus was a great personality, and whether or not he took meat should not detract from his exalted status. I'm sure he ate grain on ekadasi as well. Didn't the Pandavas also eat flesh?

Curse this mind of mine. I cannot even reconcile the differences between one school of gaudiya thought and another. Why do I think then that I shall be able to reoncile all religions as one? And what great personality is he who has!

Yours in Service.

QUOTE(Kshamabuddhi @ Aug 31 2005, 07:26 PM)

I think the example of Christ should teach a good lesson - apart from fashionable interpretations of his teachings.

A good point. Matthew 19:21 Jesus answered, "If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me."

Again, I think the vegetarianism is an outcropping of poverty than any specific doctrine. In fact, St. Paul seems to explicitly reject strict vegetarianism. Here's an excerpt from the Catholic Encyclopedia entry on Abstinence:

QUOTE

According to the vagaries of the Manicheans, Montanists. and Encratites, flesh meat is intrinsically evil and merits the most rigorous kind of prohibition. Keenly sensible of this heterodoxy, the Church of Christ has not based her ordinances enjoining abstinence on any such unwarranted assumption. As the exponent of revelation, the Church knows and teaches that every creature in the visible universe is equally a work of the divine wisdom, power, and goodness, which defy all limitations. This is why the first pages of the inspired text indicate that the Creator "saw all the things that he had made and they were very good" (Gen., i, 31). St. Paul is, if anything, still more explicit in condemning the folly of those sectaries, though they originated after his day. "Now, the Spirit manifestly says that in the last times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to spirits of error, and doctrines of devils . . . forbidding to marry, to abstain from meats which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving by the faithful and by them that know the truth. For, every creature is good, and nothing to be rejected that is received with thanksgiving" (I Tim, iv, 1, 2, 3).

The first three groups mentioned are pre-Catholic sects, i.e., heretics. The fact remains that outside a few ascetic sects, no Christian group advocates vegetarianism, unfortunately. I was suprised to learn that my local Trappist monastery would serve meat to people on retreats. (I'm assuming they use a different kitchen, etc.. but that they wouldn't expect people to be vegetarian for a few days?!?)

While I have no objection to the idea that there is one god who shows different faces to different people at different times, we cannot just assume that everyone worshiped as god at different times and places must therefore be the one god with many faces.

As for the hovering over waters idea, Brahma for one was hovering over waters when he began to create the world. Remember, Vishnu does not directly involve himself in the process of creation, unlike the god of the Hebrew Scriptures. To read a creation myth with a closer correlation to that narrative, read the tenth chapter of the third canto of the Bhagavata.

The gods of Egypt also started with a body of water, of which all began. In their version, also, light was separated from the original body water. In the beginning of the creation myth the deity of sun came forth (according to some versions, from an egg that appeared on the surface of the waters). The sun, or Ra, had four children, who became the earth, the sky and the atmosphere. Clearly Ra is featured in a prajApati-like role, as Brahma is in the version of the Bhagavata.

The concept of original waters also features in the creation myths of the ancient Babylonians, and a good host of others. Naturally, since water was seen as the prevailing element of which earth arises, it is seen as the origin. I believe most cultures that have a creation myth feature water and a deity above.

Are all of these deities Vishnu? Even, when the said deities exhibit peculiar and even gruesome characteristics?

For reading: Creation Myths.

As I said earlier, I think we should be looking at a common notion of God through the link of Zoroastrianism. Early Palestinian communities such as the Jews were probably polytheistic like everyone else. The Old Testament backs this up. It was in contact with the Persians that the notion of a single transcendent super-Deity arose, or so it can be argued (though of course many disagree). This really does place the origin of the philosophical idea of God/Allah - as abstract and beyond human comprehension - somewhere between the Upanishadic Hindus and Zorastrian Persians. Greek Logos is in there somewhere too of course.

My wife had to attend Xtian school and says that she was deeply impressed by the story of Jesus saving Mary Magdalene from stoning. Which other pre-medieval religion has its founder rescuing a despised prostitute? I can't think of one. An admirable example of deep compassion. The medieval North Indian Bhakti movement perhaps was inspired to adopt such a humanistic stance from Sufis who were the bearers of such Judeo-Xtian ethical insights (eg Rumi, then Kabir...)

QUOTE(Madhava @ Aug 31 2005, 10:09 PM)

The concept of original waters also features in the creation myths of the ancient Babylonians, and a good host of others. Naturally, since water was seen as the prevailing element of which earth arises, it is seen as the origin. I believe most cultures that have a creation myth feature water and a deity above.

Water has an almost innate symbolism of dark and low. Water falls down and under. Indeed, most mythologies symbolize the creation of the world as coming from water as the primal source. Genesis continues the account of creation with a strange split: (Genesis 1:6 - 9)
6 And God said, "Let there be an expanse between the waters to separate water from water."
7 So God made the expanse and separated the water under the expanse from the water above it. And it was so.
8 God called the expanse "sky." And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day.
9 And God said, "Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear." And it was so.

Apparently Heaven is actually a swimming pool.

But what are we really saying here? Is this some aspect of the human mind that abstracts the process of creation into the Deity over the water, or the retelling of the same event?(

)

QUOTE(DharmaChakra @ Sep 1 2005, 04:07 AM)

But what are we really saying here? Is this some aspect of the human mind that abstracts the process of creation into the Deity over the water, or the retelling of the same event?

Who's to say it isn't both. Actually, that's the most sensible explanation. The worlds of the adhidaiva, or the cosmos of deities and wonders of creation, and the adhyAtma, or the individual microcosm, are inherently tied together.

In the beginning there was the god reclining on waters of creation, kAraNArnava or the ocean of cause as we call it, of whom the elements of creation emanated. Fragments of this god as we are, such a concept of origins is innate within us, leading people of different cultures develop varieties of myths of creation in accordance with their respective intuitions.

Some would say that they all are retellings of the same event spanning from a common origin and speak of the global Vedic civilization of the yore, but the Bhagavata itself is very clear in the scope of its conception of the world, limited in the south by the salt-water ocean, and in the north by a mountain chain that is the abode of snow, the himAlaya.

QUOTE

But what are we really saying here? Is this some aspect of the human mind that abstracts the process of creation into the Deity over the water, or the retelling of the same event?

I like the idea of some things (stories/forms etc being hardwired into the human organism because of a previous witnessing or because of a cellular imprint/structural situation.
Like a Deity floating on/above/in waters that were there before anything else...
...the earth was void and the spirit of god moved on the waters...

For those who may be interested and are unfamiliar with his work, check out Immanuel Velikovsky's Worlds in Collision. He makes a convincing argument that there was indeed a world cataclysmic event likely triggered by astro-physical conditions in 'pre-history' that resulted in a great innundation of the Earth, and that this event is recorded in many legends of ancient peoples all over the world. Native Americans, semetic peoples, and Hindus all have variations on the theme.

Velikovsky was ridiculed by the scientific establishment for 25 years, even though other scientists were publishing portions of his ideas without giving credit. He also made several hypotheses such as Jupiter giving off radio signals, and Venus being in an incadescent state, which were later proven to be true, to the chagrin of his rivals. Interesting guy.

QUOTE(adiyen @ Aug 31 2005, 05:58 AM)

Did anyone see the small boys out on the Govardhan Parikrama Marg, dressed in turbans, with snakes in baskets, with which they would give 'Nag-darshan' to pilgrims for a rupee. Scared me, they shove them right in your face.

Yes, they de-fang the snakes though. It's still ineed a bit freaky to have a cobra shoved in your face nonetheless. There is a jati of snake handlers in India, I can't remember what they are called.

QUOTE(Madhava @ Sep 1 2005, 01:46 AM)

If you look at the context of the original statements, the ten commandments (of which the relevant one is #6) are spoken to Moses by the god of Israel, who enjoys the scent of burnt animal flesh and has people sprinkling the sacrificial blood on his altar. Some say that the meaining of the original Hebrew word is unambiguously "murder", meaning Thou shalt not murder.

Indeed, the New International Version of Bible translates it as murder both in Exodus 20 and Deuteronomium 5. And, right after god spoke the commandments in the Exodus, he instructed Moses on making an altar where to sacrifice burnt offerings, sheep, goats and cattle.

It is one thing to say how it should be, and another to suggest its original meaning as that which we would like it to be.

However, there were Christain vegetarians long before eastern religion began to influence religionists in the western world.
For example, The Seventh Day Adventists believe in vegetarianism.
There are many vegetarian Christians.

Check out these links.
http://www.christianveg.com/wwje.htm

http://www.animalliberationfront.us/Philos...Vegetarians.htm

http://www.acfnewsource.org/cgi-bin/printer.cgi?404

http://www.jesusveg.com/?c=570

http://www.compassionatespirit.com/christi...rian-dialog.htm

http://www.jewishveg.com/schwartz/revGNAC.htm

etc. etc.

It is not just followers of Eastern religions that believe in strict vegetarianism.

QUOTE(Madhava @ Sep 1 2005, 12:11 AM)

QUOTE(DharmaChakra @ Sep 1 2005, 04:07 AM)

But what are we really saying here? Is this some aspect of the human mind that abstracts the process of creation into the Deity over the water, or the retelling of the same event?

Who's to say it isn't both. Actually, that's the most sensible explanation.

The more cynical (or perhaps Freudian?) could say the simplest explanation would be that we are simply remembering our own birth process, or perhaps metaphorically representing it. First is the water, then the Deity (Ego, us) over the water.

As anyone that has witnessed a birth, human or animal, can attest, it is, err... wet.

You have no idea how wet...

I was amazed

QUOTE(Madhava @ Sep 1 2005, 03:09 AM)

Are all of these deities Vishnu? Even, when the said deities exhibit peculiar and even gruesome characteristics?

Nice points as usual.

But I should say here that I do not consider the Egyptian, Sumerian and other "pre-historical" religions as authentic. I am making reference to the "bona-fide" religions if you will, such as Judaism, Christianity (which is a Jewish offshoot), "Hinduism", Islam, Sikhism and so on. As I mentioned earlier, these systems have common threads running through all of them though they are not as detailed as Hinduism obviously (in the matter of God's personal form and so on).

As far as being gruesome goes, that is the very definition of God showing one of His faces to another people at a different time; why can't He show a fiercer face? By way of contrast, critics from other religions have often made fun of "Hindu" deities in the past and will continue to do so in future. Krishna has been no exception as I'm sure you all know. And aren't there terrible and fearsome figures exhibited in the virat-rUpa? And Nrsinghadeva tearing a demon to pieces with His long nails (SB 7.8.30-31)?

I'm more happy to accept that the God who founded the different religions is One, albeit showing a different feature of His personality and delineating different rules for different peoples in order to suit their specific spiritual temperament. The idea that they may be separate brings up more questions than it does answers, such as where are they now and what are they doing?

Islam in particular hosts a variety of "peculiar and gruesome" characteristics of God (Allah) as well as theological tenets, some of which are supposedly twisted out of interpretation by present-day Islamic fundamentalists and terrorists. Yet we find Mahaprabhu clearly identifying Allah with Krishna.

It's a shame that Mahaprabhu never met any Jews or Christians; it would have been interesting to hear His views on Jehovah and Jesus.

(P.S. I'm aware that I'm not dealing with this subject as well as I should. I apologise for my thoughts being in a mess.)

Some historians of religion theorize that some of the images on the Harrapan seals may depict a proto-Siva.

QUOTE(Kshamabuddhi @ Aug 28 2005, 03:44 PM)

The second part of this post concerns a Jewish (now Christian) tradition of circumcision.
Is there a form of circumcision in any Hindu religion?

The question of circumcision among the Dravidians in India was raised yesterday on an Internet list. The only response so far referred to this article:

SHAHIDULLAH, Muhammad: "The custom of circumcision among the Dravidians", JASB N.S. 17, 1921, 263f.

Here is some relevant material in regards to the subject at hand.
It comes from this web page.
http://www.geocities.com/ebionite23/page67.html

QUOTE

THE MANDEAN SCRIPTURES ARE A KEY TO THE ORIGINS OF CHRISTIANITY:
The Mandeans show a name of Deity to be Yahya, which is Yaya,
which is a recognized name of Shiva.
Jesus' names Isa and Yeshua--Isa is recognized by Tibetans, some Hindus, and Muslims--
are both derived from Isa, the name of Shiva.
Look up Mandean on the net,
and feast on scriptures, a number of them on Nazarene sites
which show very clearly the Hindu and vegetarian origins of Judaism, Christianity and Islam.
Following is one such site:
http://www.essene.com/B%27nai-Amen/vjohn10.htm

The Mandean Scriptures, to my knowledge are all Copyrighted,
and None is yet Public Domain.

1. The Deity Yahya is seen in the "Mandean Scriptures of John the Baptizer." The name Yaya
is a name of Shiva, as can be seen on numerous Hindu sites dealing with Shiva (Siva). One
site containing the Mandean scriptures of the Baptist is:

http://www.essene.com/B%27nai-Amen/vjohn10.htm

2. The name Yohana is comprised of Yo, the equivalent of Jah in ancient Hebrew, and Hana,
which is interchangeable in ancient Hebrew with Chana.

3. El Chana or El Kana is one of the names of God in ancient Hebrew.

4. Hana or Chana is the source of the Jewish holiday Chanukah, which was named after El
Chana.

5. The name Kana is a form of Kannan, the Tamil Hindu name for Krishna. Consult Hindu
sources or Michael Jordan's Encyclopedia of Gods for verification.

6. Kannan is also the source of the name Canaan, the promised land of milk and honey,
favorite foods of Hindus since the Vedas. For more information on Kannan click:

Canaan, the Promised Land of Milk and Honey, was named after Kannan,
The Tamil Hindu Name for Krishna. After the Carnivorous Cult Overthrew the Vegetarians worshipping Asherah (Asura among the Hindus), they Changed the Scriptures to portray Canaan as a land to be Conquered, not as a Sanctuary.

7. Cainan and Kanneh was also the name of Deity to the Ethiopians. The late prophets make it
clear that in the earliest history of Judaism, the Jews, Egyptians, Ethiopians and other nations
all believed in the same Way. In other words, the Sabean, Vaishnava, Sakti Way of the Hindus
was universal, not only in the East but in the Western hemisphere. See other pages on my site.

8. The name Yaya was known to the ancient indigenous people in the western hemisphere as
can be discerned by the archaeological digs studied on Viewzone.com. This site contains
essays documenting that Hindus migrated from India during times of famine and flood to the
lands now associated with the Old and New Testament and Koran. This information has been
suppressed for obvious reasons. Orthodox Jews, Christians and Muslims wish their religions to
be regarded as originally inspired by God, and not as heresies against the Hindu beliefs which
existed universally in the ancient world.

9. The name of one of the Mandean Scriptures "Haran Gawaitha," contains Hara, the name of Shiva as the destroyer. Hara is a name prevalent in Old Testament history and scriptures as well. Haran was Abraham's home for many years. See page:

Shiva in the Pillar of Fire in the Hindu Lingam Purana
Is the same God in the Pillar of Fire that guides Moses.
Sabaoth, meaning the Lord as a Man of War, comes from Saba, a Name of Shiva.
Shiva as the Destroyer and as Hara is Pervasive in the Old Testament.

10. Rabbi Ram is the name of one of the people in the "Haran Gawaitha." The fact is that the names Ram and Ramah were used to name people and locations since the earliest days of Judaism, which is itself a clear indication of Judaism's origins. Ram is regarded as an incarnation of Vishnu or Krishna. He is also the main protagonist in the Ramayana, the Hindu epic. His bride Sita was raised to an earth mother status much as Ceres was among the Greeks. Sita means grain in ancient Hebrew.

QUOTE(adiyen @ Sep 1 2005, 03:07 AM)

My wife had to attend Xtian school and says that she was deeply impressed by the story of Jesus saving Mary Magdalene from stoning. Which other pre-medieval religion has its founder rescuing a despised prostitute? I can't think of one. An admirable example of deep compassion.

While it is nice that your wife was inspired by the compassion of Jesus, it took Mary Magdalene 600 years during the time of Pope Gregory to finally become a prostitute.

QUOTE(Kshamabuddhi @ Sep 6 2005, 05:52 PM)

Here is some relevant material in regards to the subject at hand.
It comes from this web page.
http://www.geocities.com/ebionite23/page67.html

You need to be careful with your sources, Kshamabuddhi.

QUOTE(Elpis @ Sep 9 2005, 11:04 AM)

QUOTE(Kshamabuddhi @ Sep 6 2005, 05:52 PM)

Here is some relevant material in regards to the subject at hand.
It comes from this web page.
http://www.geocities.com/ebionite23/page67.html

You need to be careful with your sources, Kshamabuddhi.

Although is there not some kind of beauty in this stream of consciousness etymology?

QUOTE

El Chana, El Kana, Chanukah, Kana is a form of Kannan, the Tamil Hindu name for Krishna, Kannan is also the source of the name Canaan, the promised land of milk and honey, favorite foods of Hindus since the Vedas, Cainan and Kanneh was also the name of Deity to the Ethiopians

The words in that article also have a clear etymological connection to "canon", referring to a body of sacred literature (the Vedas) as well as to cannons that were used in the wars of Mahabharata. It is also evidence of Vedic presence among the Native American cultures, they used to sail on canoes, kana:wa being the original word. Canada is also related, proof of the once global Vedic culture. Yes, and Dzingis Khan, or however you spell the name, was actually a devotee of Krishna, the prefix indicates how he considered Krishna to be the ultimate reality, "Thing-is-Kaana".

Also, "kana" is Finnish for "chicken", "kanna" is the imperative form of "to carry", and "kanto", meaning the stump of a tree, has a clear connection with the word "canto" that refers to a section in a book belonging to "canon", and did I mention that "kanto" is what's left after you chop down a tree and make paper for printing cantos of canon? Also the local name of Finland, Suomi, is derived from Swami, and Scandinavia with its Vikings was the center of the worship of Skanda, the son of Shiva (Skanda-Nabha, the navel of Skanda).

I could do this for living, I wonder if there are any vacancies in Oxford.

The metaphysical truth of these reasoning processes is reality is whatever we believe it to be so yes, this is the highest truth(s)... many many tall mountain peaks. What appears to be contradictory is only Schrodinger's cat being both alive and dead simultaneously. Its all true... its all good.

QUOTE(Elpis @ Sep 9 2005, 05:04 AM)

QUOTE(Kshamabuddhi @ Sep 6 2005, 05:52 PM)

Here is some relevant material in regards to the subject at hand.
It comes from this web page.
http://www.geocities.com/ebionite23/page67.html

You need to be careful with your sources, Kshamabuddhi.

Ditto! The mere fact that something is posted on the Web is no indication that there's any substance at all there. I have to caution my students about this incessantly. If, for example, you want to know about the dangers of the chemical dihydrogen monoxide, check out www.dhmo.org, then get back to me to report what you understand about this threat to life and the environment.

QUOTE(Elpis @ Sep 9 2005, 03:04 PM)

QUOTE(Kshamabuddhi @ Sep 6 2005, 05:52 PM)

Here is some relevant material in regards to the subject at hand.
It comes from this web page.
http://www.geocities.com/ebionite23/page67.html

You need to be careful with your sources, Kshamabuddhi.

Whoaaa..... there Elvis! (Doesn't Elpis come from the name Elvis?)

Hey fellas, I didn't post that with endorsements or acknowledgements.
It was just some stuff I found on a Yahoo search.
It's just there for you all to either tear apart or validate according to your own best knowledge.
I certainly do not necessarily believe or accept the theories being proposed by the author of that material.
It was just something that I thought would stir discussion and hopefully lead to some genuine research about the histories and origins of the Jewish and Christian faiths.
Personally, I can't find much of anything transcendental about the Jewish or Christian faiths. I am just befuddled as to how these religions ever came into being and if there are any Vedic or Hindu origins, heresies or influences behind these religions.
I am certainly not sentimental about either of these faiths and I could care less if the conclusion is that they are both human inventions manufactured out of political or sociological foundations.

QUOTE

Whoaaa..... there Elvis! (Doesn't Elpis come from the name Elvis?)

Elpis was a daimoness of hope locked in a jar by Zeus along with a host of others, the only one to stay behind when Pandora opened this proverbial box. Elvis is possibly a variant of Alvis, an all-knowing dwarf in old Norse folklore, who was supposed to marry Thor's daughter. Curious enough, both Zeus and Thor are gods of sky and thunder.

Which leads us to another interesting issue: The Indic pantheon and the old polytheistic religions. While many have worked on matching the parallels, few have considered the reasons in theological terms.

The middle east and south Asia are very much connected, being on the same continent with ancient trade routes and geographical proximity.
If we believe the Maha Bharata and it's history of Bharata-varsha, then we would have to assume that at least 5000 years ago the Vedic culture and Aryan influences could have easily reached as far at the middle east and the Mediterranean - even to where we now refer to as Greece and Rome and even into Europe.
I just find it highly likely that some Aryan or Vedic religions and culture could have spread, even if in a distorted or heretical form, to the middle east and the Land of the Jews. Jewish priests were very sophisticated, even if in a perverse or bizarre form.
We are not talking about another continent here or another hemisphere. We are talking about a part of the world that historically, according the Maha-Bharata, was very close to Vedic civilization.
I just find it very likely that the Jewish religion is at least a form of heresy of some Hindu or Vedic religion, if not a diluted, modified remnant of some Hindu or Vedic culture.
The rituals, the rites and the sacrifices are too pompous and grandiose to have been just pulled in out of thin air by some fellas with an overactive imagination.
user posted image

QUOTE(Madhava @ Sep 9 2005, 05:17 PM)

Elvis is possibly a variant of Alvis, an all-knowing dwarf in old Norse folklore, who was supposed to marry Thor's daughter.

Correct. It is the same name, al-vis, meaning all-wise.

QUOTE

Which leads us to another interesting issue: The Indic pantheon and the old polytheistic religions. While many have worked on matching the parallels, few have considered the reasons in theological terms.

Is there a need to bring in theology?

QUOTE(Elpis @ Sep 10 2005, 12:18 AM)

Is there a need to bring in theology?

I would imagine so. Many a believer would probably not be fond of an animistic theory explaining why similar gods have been worshiped in diverse cultures across the world, as that would undermine the existence of the said gods as essentially products of human projection. The "remnants of a global culture" seems to be a popular suggestion, but it doesn't do much in the way of explaining the development of the said religious systems -- it assumes a situation with pre-existing beliefs that diminish, it doesn't account for their birth and evolution.

My grand theory of everything isn't quite there yet. If you have something in the way of cross-cultural exchanges you'd like to share, by all means, feel free to. While Romans and Greeks are an obvious couple, I am not very familiar with the ties to the Norse pantheon, what to speak of the Indic equivalent we are best familiar with.

QUOTE(Madhava @ Sep 10 2005, 12:29 AM)

QUOTE(Elpis @ Sep 10 2005, 12:18 AM)

Is there a need to bring in theology?

I would imagine so. Many a believer would probably not be fond of an animistic theory explaining why similar gods have been worshiped in diverse cultures across the world, as that would undermine the existence of the said gods as essentially products of human projection. The "remnants of a global culture" seems to be a popular suggestion, but it doesn't do much in the way of explaining the development of the said religious systems -- it assumes a situation with pre-existing beliefs that diminish, it doesn't account for their birth and evolution.

My grand theory of everything isn't quite there yet. If you have something in the way of cross-cultural exchanges you'd like to share, by all means, feel free to. While Romans and Greeks are an obvious couple, I am not very familiar with the ties to the Norse pantheon, what to speak of the Indic equivalent we are best familiar with.

I think the theology of most all the major world religions have a very common theme; the belief in one supreme God who is creator and controller of the universe. In this way, they are all very "theologically" similar. According to some, there were polytheistic backgrounds to what eventually became the monotheistic religion of the Jews and the Christians. The Greeks were polytheistic and so the Romans, until Christianity spread afar.

Theology can, for the most part, be divided into this polytheisitic and monotheistic divisions. Nowadays, most of the polytheistic traditions are limited to tribal cultures in primitive parts of the world.

I think the common denominator of monotheism should be stressed amongst these different religions and that the brotherhood of monotheists should be encouraged all around the world.

When a Jew or a Christian prays in their heart with the conception that they are offering this prayer and this worship to the ONE supreme God, then surely the Paramatma will accept that, even if the worshipper does not accept Paramatma.
We are all his babes and children and he his very tolerant, patient and merciful.

So, as far as theological comparisons are concerned, I would say that the Vaishnava, the Christian, the Jew and the Muslim are all on the same page of monotheism, though their methods of worship and conception of God might be somewhat different, based upon their cultural and religious customs.

If you want to get into doctrine, details and systems of worship, then that is something else altogether. But, as far as theology is concerned, I think all monotheists have a lot in common.

isvara parama krishna

That is the Vaishnava theology.

isvara parama yahweh

That is the Christian theology.

The theology is the same, just the name is different.

Bingo!

And just for reference, I've just discovered a Qur`anic verse for the "God on the water" idea. This nice site offers three different translations:

YUSUFALI: "He it is Who created the heavens and the earth in six Days - and His Throne was over the waters - that He might try you, which of you is best in conduct. But if thou wert to say to them, "Ye shall indeed be raised up after death", the Unbelievers would be sure to say, "This is nothing but obvious sorcery!""

PICKTHAL: "And He it is Who created the heavens and the earth in six Days - and His Throne was upon the water - that He might try you, which of you is best in conduct. Yet if thou (O Muhammad) sayest: Lo! ye will be raised again after death! those who disbelieve will surely say: This is naught but mere magic.

SHAKIR: "And He it is Who created the heavens and the earth in six periods -- and His dominion (extends) on the water -- that He might manifest to you, which of you is best in action, and if you say, surely you shall be raised up after death, those who disbelieve would certainly say: This is nothing but clear magic."

(Qur`an 11.7)

This is a great development for me. Previously I was relying on the Hadiths, and now I've found the appropriate verse in the Qur`an. I personally favour the Pickthall translation on the whole, as it is the least fundamentalist of the other two versions that I have.

I caution you all to avoid the pitfall of making the facts fit the theory, and after all it is just a theory that India is the original home of the Aryan people and culture. All archeological evidence to date points to the steppes of central Asia, which is part of Russia. As far as pre-Roman empire Europe, how much is there in the way of any written records and other artifacts on religious ideas and practices in that region? How many Viking runes, for example, were carved into stone for posterity?

As far as the natural progression that caused modern day Christianity in its various sects to diverge from its Judaic roots, that is an interesting bit of history. What I would be curious to know is where and when the kosher dietary laws were abandoned by those early Christians who were primarily from the Jewish community. Also, how gradual was the process by which Hebrew holidays and rituals were supplanted by the ones we find in Christianity today? Was it a clean break or one that took decades or centuries to occur?

QUOTE(Mina @ Sep 11 2005, 11:30 AM)

I caution you all to avoid the pitfall of making the facts fit the theory, and after all it is just a theory that India is the original home of the Aryan people and culture. All archeological evidence to date points to the steppes of central Asia, which is part of Russia. As far as pre-Roman empire Europe, how much is there in the way of any written records and other artifacts on religious ideas and practices in that region? How many Viking runes, for example, were carved into stone for posterity?

As far as the natural progression that caused modern day Christianity in its various sects to diverge from its Judaic roots, that is an interesting bit of history. What I would be curious to know is where and when the kosher dietary laws were abandoned by those early Christians who were primarily from the Jewish community. Also, how gradual was the process by which Hebrew holidays and rituals were supplanted by the ones we find in Christianity today? Was it a clean break or one that took decades or centuries to occur?

I caution you to avoid the pitfall of making archeological evidence superior to the traditional sources of knowledge in India.

QUOTE(Gaurasundara @ Sep 11 2005, 12:51 AM)

Bingo!

And just for reference, I've just discovered a Qur`anic verse for the "God on the water" idea. This nice site offers three different translations:

YUSUFALI: "He it is Who created the heavens and the earth in six Days - and His Throne was over the waters - that He might try you, which of you is best in conduct. But if thou wert to say to them, "Ye shall indeed be raised up after death", the Unbelievers would be sure to say, "This is nothing but obvious sorcery!""

PICKTHAL: "And He it is Who created the heavens and the earth in six Days - and His Throne was upon the water - that He might try you, which of you is best in conduct. Yet if thou (O Muhammad) sayest: Lo! ye will be raised again after death! those who disbelieve will surely say: This is naught but mere magic.

SHAKIR: "And He it is Who created the heavens and the earth in six periods -- and His dominion (extends) on the water -- that He might manifest to you, which of you is best in action, and if you say, surely you shall be raised up after death, those who disbelieve would certainly say: This is nothing but clear magic."

(Qur`an 11.7)

This is a great development for me. Previously I was relying on the Hadiths, and now I've found the appropriate verse in the Qur`an. I personally favour the Pickthall translation on the whole, as it is the least fundamentalist of the other two versions that I have.

Glad you got past the Hadith!

Does all this mean that any 'God of the Waters' or whose Dominion is the waters is Sri Mahavishnu?

Uranus actually fits in well there too:
"Uranus: the god of Heaven, husband of Gaia, the Earth, from L. Uranus, from Gk. Ouranos lit. "heaven," in Gk. cosmology, the god who personifies the heavens, father of the titans. Cf. Urania, name of the Muse of astronomy, from Gk. Ourania, fem. of ouranios, lit. "heavenly."
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search...searchmode=none

But wait a minute, isn't Uranus the same as Varuna? The names are even almost identical. Is Varuna also Mahavishnu then too? Just as Acharya Madhava's Vedabhasya reportedly says? But is there then any distinction we can make between a Demigod whose dominion is Water (Indic or other) and the Supreme?

Seems to me that what at first appears a simplification ends in greater complexity: how did the Greeks end up with a Uranus who is God of Heaven (Mahavishnu) and husband of the Earth (Lakshmi/Sita) while Hindus have Varuna, the same person with the same name, who is comparatively just a regional magistrate? How did the Greeks end up with a more advanced idea, the one you're looking for, than the Hindus themselves? Yes its a conundrum.

By the way, most scholars believe that the Zorastrian Ahura Mazda is also Uranus and that older references to Varuna in the Vedas indicate that He was once the Supreme Deity - the Zorastrians appear to have split from Vedic Hindus over their elevation of Devas headed by Indra over the ancient Supreme Uranus [ie Mahavishnu]. Were the Zorastrians right then and the Vedic followers of Devas wrong?

The Judaic God is abstract, formless. That is the point of the aversion to representation. The ancient Jews knew Greek mythology very well. They even wrote in Greek at the time of Jesus (who may have spoken Greek too). They were certain that YHWH was nothing like the Greek gods with bodies and personalities. They also delved into Plato's ideas to elaborate this notion of a God beyond human understanding (NeoPlatonic Logos).

QUOTE(adiyen @ Sep 13 2005, 09:25 AM)

But wait a minute, isn't Uranus the same as Varuna? The names are even almost identical. Is Varuna also Mahavishnu then too? Just as Acharya Madhava's Vedabhasya reportedly says? But is there then any distinction we can make between a Demigod whose dominion is Water (Indic or other) and the Supreme?

Varuna is the patron god of the Sindhis, and is more popularly known as 'Jhoolelal' among them. Jhoolelal is indeed the 'lord of the sea' and he is depicted as such in the many pictures of him. His vehicle is a fish. In some pockets of Sindhis, Jhoolelal is identified with Krishna and as an avatar by virtue of Gita 4.7-8. I don't believe in this personally, just noting it for its interest. I'd be interested to see the quote from Acharya Madhva if you have it, please.

QUOTE

How did the Greeks end up with a more advanced idea, the one you're looking for, than the Hindus themselves? Yes its a conundrum.

I'm not altogether sure about Uranus as I haven't brushed up on my Greek mythology since high school, but I was under the impression that it was Zeus who was supreme?

Also, I have a problem counting the Greek mythology as a "bona fide" world religion. Since I made those earlier comments in the context of Islam, I'd say that it wouldn't it possible that those Qur`anic verses describe Varuna/Jhoolelal because throughout the entire 'siddhanta' of Islam the concept of 'Tawhid' is made clear. 'Tawhid' is a term that requires much description, but in simple terms it refers to the One, Supreme, Single Lord.

QUOTE

By the way, most scholars believe that the Zorastrian Ahura Mazda is also Uranus

I'm interested in your comments about Zoroastrianism. Would you have a copy of the Zend-Avesta by any chance?

QUOTE

and that older references to Varuna in the Vedas indicate that He was once the Supreme Deity - the Zorastrians appear to have split from Vedic Hindus over their elevation of Devas headed by Indra over the ancient Supreme Uranus [ie Mahavishnu]. Were the Zorastrians right then and the Vedic followers of Devas wrong?

This is true in as far as Vedic exegesis is concerned, or at least the exegeses that I am familiar with. I was under the impression that Indra was revered as the 'supreme' and Vishnu was referred to as 'Upendra', a younger Indra. And in later development we find Vishnu somhow acquiring the status of 'Supreme'. Most interesting. In other exegeses I have heard that Agni was also revered as the Supreme, as far as Shaivism is concerned.

QUOTE

The Judaic God is abstract, formless.

Hmm, I'm not so sure. There is a passage in Ezekiel that describes His appearance to be like "that of a man". I can find it for you if you like. This is a very interesting topic.

QUOTE(Gaurasundara @ Sep 13 2005, 07:37 PM)

QUOTE

The Judaic God is abstract, formless.

Hmm, I'm not so sure. There is a passage in Ezekiel that describes His appearance to be like "that of a man". I can find it for you if you like. This is a very interesting topic.

Just a brief comment: Reading the Tanakh alone does not enable you to understand Judaism. This is a common mistake. You will need to study the Talmud, the Rabbinical commentaries, etc. to understand. They will teach how the text of the Tanakh was understood and this is what defines Judaism, not the literal meaning of the words of the Tanakh.

Taking this passage by itself does not necessarily prove anything about present-day Judaism.

QUOTE(Madhava @ Sep 9 2005, 08:29 PM)

QUOTE(Elpis @ Sep 10 2005, 12:18 AM)

Is there a need to bring in theology?

I would imagine so. Many a believer would probably not be fond of an animistic theory explaining why similar gods have been worshiped in diverse cultures across the world, as that would undermine the existence of the said gods as essentially products of human projection. The "remnants of a global culture" seems to be a popular suggestion, but it doesn't do much in the way of explaining the development of the said religious systems -- it assumes a situation with pre-existing beliefs that diminish, it doesn't account for their birth and evolution.

My grand theory of everything isn't quite there yet. If you have something in the way of cross-cultural exchanges you'd like to share, by all means, feel free to. While Romans and Greeks are an obvious couple, I am not very familiar with the ties to the Norse pantheon, what to speak of the Indic equivalent we are best familiar with.

This is a general comment. I am not saying that it applies to you or anyone else here.

My main problem with most people who seek the big answer is that they tend to always focus on the mystery. Take Egypt. There are amazing things in Egypt, no doubt, but still the popular writers infuse too much mystery. Or Atlantis. How do you go about finding out about Atlantis? One would start with reading all the classical sources that speak about Atlantis, consulting the commentaries on Plato, etc. But I see none of the writers on Atlantis doing this. They jump right into how they had lasers, were the source of ancient Egypt, etc. Too much fancy. Sure, it is hard work to chew your way through volumes of Greek and Latin--it is much easier to let my mind run wild--but that chewing is essential for knowledge and proper understanding.

I would respect them much more if they would also sit down and read original sources, sources that detail how much grain was donated by so-and-so to an Egyptian temple, day after day for years. I have done that, read Akkadian sources giving the price of dates at the end of each month. Not all that exciting, but a very real part of what Mesopotamia was like. Do I see any of these popular writers doing this? No. They jump right into what is exciting, infusing elements that is not there in the process. I would like to see them do more reading of original sources, the basis for our knowledge of the past.

Take India. Too many people are talking about how ancient and wonderful India was. Sure. But give India the credit that India is due rather than infusing alien elements. Rather than all these speculations about the big theory of everything, I would rather see these people engaged in actually reading the ancient sources, going through the millions of manuscripts that came out of India. I am doing this work and I could use some help. Much more constructive and ultimately giving more knowledge than all these big theories.

Anyway, my point is just that it is more constructive to work with what we have rather than making up theories without having studied the original languages, without having tried to really understand the context, etc.

Sorry for not phrasing this more coherently.

A good point Elips, and one people should keep in mind. Unfortunately, things like grain donations or brewery production quotas don't sell books; Atlantians battling Lemurians with lasers and UFOs do.

For those interested, Prof. Erik Hornung wrote a quite amusing book on the impact of the 'idea' of Egypt on the western occultic movements. The Secret Lore of Egypt (and its impact on the West) Not as in-depth as I would have liked, but funny, very very funny.

QUOTE

What I would be curious to know is where and when the kosher dietary laws were abandoned by those early Christians who were primarily from the Jewish community.

The opening salvos of the dietary war were fired by the followers of the apostles like James, Peter and John. When one of these bona fide apostles met (with their entire church as was the custom) with those following the "apostle" Paul (Paul never walked with the living Jesus, no-one could vouch for his vision on the road to Damascus save him etc) for the breaking of bread (love feast), the followers of the apostles would be horrified by the food and practices(or lack thereof) of the Paulists as the former were all good Jews or converts to Judaism as a prerequisite to following Jesus and the Paulists were primarily Syrians, Greeks and freedmen of various nationality and totally unconcerned with the laws of Moishe (Moses).
The return fire was Paul himself in his letters to the Collosians/Ephesians and esp the Romans.
It is all there in the new testament.
Interesting that the only person never to meet Jesus in the flesh is responsible for the entire Christology and salvation theology.
Jay Radhe!

It has been suggested somewhere that some of the books of the Old Testament, like Proverbs and Psalms appear to be remnants of some Upanishads - perhaps retold and respoken in another language and losing it's original quality in the translation.

Any of the learned members here see any similarities?

That is my whole curiosity about the origins of the Jewish faith, that if it has some even remote or distant relationship with any Vedic origins.

QUOTE(DharmaChakra @ Sep 13 2005, 09:21 PM)

A good point Elips, and one people should keep in mind. Unfortunately, things like grain donations or brewery production quotas don't sell books; Atlantians battling Lemurians with lasers and UFOs do.

And because there is this exclusive focus on the mystery and glory, people come up with strange ideas, such as that everybody was very spiritual and evolved in the past, etc.

I am pretty open-minded and do listen to what people have to say. However, I am finding myself having less and less patience with dilettantes who has not done the basic work, but has big theories derived from secondary sources only.

Let us take an example. On this website, we read that one ratio derived from AryabhaTa's parameters is, to the best of the owner of the website's knowledge, "the earliest known recorded astronomic ratio with such incredible accuracy." It is also brought up that the ratio could be "derived from an ancient Vedic source." Now, where does this come from and where is the evidence to back it up?

Also, it is stated that AryabhaTa's "sources remain obscure." Well, I recently wrote an entry on AryabhaTa for an encyclopedia of ancient Greek scientists. The editors wanted entries on Indian authors influenced by the Greek scientific tradition, AryabhaTa being one of them. I wrote there that the PaitAmahasiddhAnta (preserved in the ViSNudharmottarapurANa), the founding text of the Indian astronomical school known as the brAhmapakSa, was among AryabhaTa's sources. This is no secret and there is no reason that the owner of the website should not know this. But, unfortunately, he gives no reference whatsoever to AryabhaTa model on the website. He only lists parameters.

The main problem, of course, is that the owner of the website does not seem to know what he is talking about. How can you single out a ratio like that and compare it to modern values? It is not meaningful. Each of the numbers in AryabhaTa's system has to be assessed with respect to the model employed. We cannot just pick a few numbers out and go, "Wow!" No, we need to assess the entire model: the lunar model, the solar model, etc. If the owner of the website had bothered doing this, gone carefully through AryabhaTa's system and trying to understand how it works, things might have looked differently to him.

It is a shame when people do not do their homework.

QUOTE(Kshamabuddhi @ Sep 14 2005, 08:10 PM)

It has been suggested somewhere that some of the books of the Old Testament, like Proverbs and Psalms appear to be remnants of some Upanishads - perhaps retold and respoken in another language and losing it's original quality in the translation.

Any of the learned members here see any similarities?

While there may be real historical parallels between the Abrahamic religions and the Indian tradition, I doubt this is one of them. If one text says, "Ohey, and think of God!", and another says something equally generic, that doesn't a connection make. If someone has actually found significant parallels instea of freak occurences, that would be interesting to have a look at.

Also, one thing to consider is that some of the texts of the old testament predate some of the later Indic texts.

QUOTE(Elpis @ Sep 15 2005, 02:33 PM)

Let us take an example. On this website, we read that one ratio derived from AryabhaTa's parameters is, to the best of the owner of the website's knowledge, "the earliest known recorded astronomic ratio with such incredible accuracy."

Actually, I'm more than a little impressed with the degree of precision those ancients had!
Thats 8 decimal places in 1600AD!

Yes, yes, I understand where this is really coming from.. I just find it amusing that he would hold out to that kind of precision for the timeframes...

And this is why I insist that we, as modern Vaishnavas, not base our faith on this very unsteady footing, but look rather to the essentiel elements of our philosophy and establish their universal religious meaning. Religious meaning, like all other things, not even science, does not start at some point in history, but has a long, evolving history.

Here is a web site that may offer a lot of answers

www.equalsouls.org

When you make a study of Islamic theology, it becomes abundantly clear that 'Allah' is the very same 'Yahweh' who spoke to the Jews (and by later extension, the Christians). This is because throughout the Qur`an one will often find passages akin to "I told this previously to the Jews, but they did not listen and have perverted My message" and similar. Throughout Islam there is a lot of mention of Jews and Christians and the ways in which they have deivated. IMO, it appears to me that the Qur`an acts as an "update" and perhaps finalisation of the revelations that were given previously to the Jews. This is apparent to anyone who makes a cursory study into Islam, that Allah is the same Jehovah.

And then when we find Mahaprabhu insinuating that Allah is none other than Krishna it becomes clear that the same God is being referred to.

That may be a roundabout and "unscientific" logic but it works for me. I find that I much prefer spiritual truth over pedantic investigations, generally speaking. Devotion works by a different logic, the devotee does not care about technical differences and details, he simply wants to see his Beloved in all His forms and yet have a special preference for his favourite.

Faith is the foundation of everything. If we turn to too much reason and intellectualism, I think that it may be possible to make the conclusion that God does not exist. This is what happens with atheists; they cannot see God and therefore He doesn't exist. Or at best, God is an "It", a formless abstract metaphor.

QUOTE(DharmaChakra @ Sep 15 2005, 03:47 PM)

Actually, I'm more than a little impressed with the degree of precision those ancients had!

Please do not misunderstand me, DharmaChakra. I am impressed with the ancients as well. Otherwise, I would not be doing what I am doing.

However, the question of accuracy or precision is a somewhat misplaced one. It is what everybody always asks: "Is it accurate?" But, nothing is accurate and one should be careful with comparing two different systems so easily. It is necessary to evaluate the numbers as part of the whole system, not independently.

QUOTE(Gaurasundara @ Sep 15 2005, 06:47 PM)

When you make a study of Islamic theology, it becomes abundantly clear that 'Allah' is the very same 'Yahweh' who spoke to the Jews (and by later extension, the Christians).

From a study of Islamic theology, of course. It is the view of the Muslims that it is the same god, just as the Christians believe that the god of the old testament is the same as the god in the new testament. But, what do you think that the Jews think of this claim?

QUOTE(Elpis @ Sep 15 2005, 11:28 PM)

QUOTE(DharmaChakra @ Sep 15 2005, 03:47 PM)

Actually, I'm more than a little impressed with the degree of precision those ancients had!

Please do not misunderstand me, DharmaChakra. I am impressed with the ancients as well. Otherwise, I would not be doing what I am doing.

However, the question of accuracy or precision is a somewhat misplaced one. It is what everybody always asks: "Is it accurate?" But, nothing is accurate and one should be careful with comparing two different systems so easily. It is necessary to evaluate the numbers as part of the whole system, not independently.

Err... my sarcasm didn't come across very well. One pet peeve of mine is an ignorance of the scientific measurement capability of certain 'ancient' people when ascribing scientific achievments to them. Getting back to the 'mystic' past, people love to roll out the 'precision' of the great pyramids as evidence of the sophistication of the Egyptians. They used standard tricks such as leveling with water that, when done carefully, can yield very precise results, but the idea that they had the ability to measure down to the thousand or ten thousandth decimal place is simply ridiculous. Of course, its these tricks that help give the air of mysticism; 'They could build the pyramid, and its only off level by 3 inches over acres! We could only do this with lasers, so they must have been geniuses!' etc...

NB: I know on this site the numbers are coming from ratios... but again, implying that 6 or 8 decimal places was significant to someone in 1600 BC...

QUOTE(DharmaChakra @ Sep 16 2005, 06:29 AM)

Err... my sarcasm didn't come across very well.

Don't mind me. I am foreign and do not always get it.

QUOTE

One pet peeve of mine is an ignorance of the scientific measurement capability of certain 'ancient' people when ascribing scientific achievments to them. Getting back to the 'mystic' past, people love to roll out the 'precision' of the great pyramids as evidence of the sophistication of the Egyptians. They used standard tricks such as leveling with water that, when done carefully, can yield very precise results, but the idea that they had the ability to measure down to the thousand or ten thousandth decimal place is simply ridiculous. Of course, its these tricks that help give the air of mysticism; 'They could build the pyramid, and its only off level by 3 inches over acres! We could only do this with lasers, so they must have been geniuses!' etc...

And then the ball starts rolling and suddenly there is an ancient Vedic connection, etc.

Well, they knew how to scientifically measure atom time didn't they?

Have you ever built one of those things, Elpis?

QUOTE(Madhava @ Sep 16 2005, 08:58 AM)

Well, they knew how to scientifically measure atom time didn't they?

Have you ever built one of those things, Elpis?

It involves several potatoes, a vat of beer & a couple time/space transmogrifing diodes, but once you round those up, piece of cake.

QUOTE(Madhava @ Sep 16 2005, 08:58 AM)

Well, they knew how to scientifically measure atom time didn't they?

How else would they have gotten those vimAnas up and flying?

QUOTE(DharmaChakra @ Sep 16 2005, 09:29 AM)

It involves several potatoes, a vat of beer & a couple time/space transmogrifing diodes, but once you round those up, piece of cake.

It is best if the potatoes are slightly green. And it is literally a piece of cake, a potato cake that can be eaten after the experiment.

It seems that, outiside of the Vedic, Vaishnava and Hindu religions, there are only about four religions with a well organized and intellectually advanced canon and doctrine.

(1) Judaism
(2) Buddhism
(3) Islam
(4) Christianity

When a religion has a well-organized, intellectially advanced canon and doctrine, it becomes intriguing if not bewildering to try and understand the roots and origins of such religions or faiths.

What amazes me is when I see a religion with a well organized canon and doctrine and I wonder how and what brought this doctrine into being.

Now, the Islamic faith appears to be a reactionary doctrine of an irate Arab, who felt the need to write an Arab response to Christianity.
Buddhism is basically a Chinese take on the teachings of the Buddha from India.
Christianity is the doctrine formulated by the disciples of Jesus.

Judaism, is somewhat of a mystery to me.
What were the catalysts and inspirations of those that formulated this religion, if indeed it was not directly inspired and delineated directly by an incarnation of Godhead?

QUOTE(Kshamabuddhi @ Sep 16 2005, 08:56 PM)

Now, the Islamic faith appears to be a reactionary doctrine of an irate Arab, who felt the need to write an Arab response to Christianity.

I see true religion (and science and art and...) as the cry of humankind for its maker, for shelter, for meaning. History is a bad judge of that cry and humans often cannot maintain their own cry without it being tarnished even within the span of their own life. Can you see any beauty in this cry?

QUOTE(Kshamabuddhi @ Sep 17 2005, 01:56 AM)

Judaism, is somewhat of a mystery to me. What were the catalysts and inspirations of those that formulated this religion, if indeed it was not directly inspired and delineated directly by an incarnation of Godhead?

I know that comics are no authority, but I once read a huge three-part comic version of the entire Bible that was recommended to me by my local vicar. It really seemed to me as if the whole story was about the Jewish struggle to enter and maintain the "Promised Land". Obviously when I read the Bible itself, I didn't get that impression because of all the "distractions" with Psalms, Proverbs and so on, but it seemed simplified to me when the actual story was condensed into a continuous narrative and presented in a comic format.

The struggles of King David, Saul, Solomon, all the prophets and so on, seemed to defend and protect the Promised Land. It's funny how such a story seemed to be very much like a dispute over land which is unfortunately much the same in present-day politics in the Middle East region.

"I caution you to avoid the pitfall of making archeological evidence superior to the traditional sources of knowledge in India."

I finally got Sparky Photon, who also goes by many other aliases, to respond to me on this site. I have to say, I liked the Sparky Photon screen name very much.

Well, Ksamabuddhi Das, I can't tell whether you are being sarcastic or serious with this retort of yours. My own view is that knowledge is knowledge is knowledge, and evidence is evidence is evidence, irrespective of the source. Superiority is meaningful when it comes to something like superior might. The ancient Romans displayed such superiority in their many conquests over enemies that far outnumbered them on the battlefield.

If you want to make a case for one source of knowledge or one piece of evidence being superior to another source of knowledge or piece of evidence, then by all means take this opportunity to back up your claim.

So I think I figured it out...

The reason Lord Brahma has a beard here is because this is a picture of him when he was in deep meditation on how to create the universe, so naturally he didn't have time to shave.

As for "traditional" versus "scholarly", "empirical" and what have you.

Discussing the ten common pramanas, Jiva Goswami notes that both aitihya, or traditional knowledge, and pratyakSa, or perception, are fallible methods of acquiring knowledge.

Sense perception is problematic for many reasons. Courts of law in America no longer consider uncorroborated eyewitness testimony to be conclusive on its own, due to the fallibilty of the witnesses themselves, let alone the fallibility of their perceptions. Empirical evidence that does not meet the test of repeatability by independent researchers is not worth much. Anecdotal evidence is too often considered to be sufficient.

As far as accurately reconstructing history, that is a futile endeavor. The best we can hope for is a reasonable approximation of the past. Not all events get recorded, and those that are recorded are recorded by persons that are hardly infallible, except for perhaps some rare cases. Unless someone possesses the siddhi that allows them to see the past, present and future, then they are simply out of luck.

I see the problem with Hinduism in general is a preoccupation with the past and not enough focus on the present. It probably was not always the case, but we can see that it is in that state today.

Is this what you mean?
user posted image

I think this is for the most part the prevailing wisdom of the theory of Aryan origins.

It is well described on this web page:

http://www.mithraism.erudition.net/origins/indo-ira.htm

Does anyone see any discrepancies in this presentation of Aryan origins?

Why are Aryan origins attributed to a peoples and a place that spoke a language that is not of Sanskrit base?
Wasn't the original Aryan culture Sanskrit based?
Maybe the original Aryans migrated to the north Asia/Easterm Europe and then made a return invasion to the Indian sub-continent at a later date?

As far as Aryan influnces on the Semites it is said here:

QUOTE

The westward movement of the western group of Aryans can be observed to have reached the Semitic lands by the 18th century B.C.E.

Anyway, some food for thought.

I have a hard time accepting outside sources as evidence of the original Aryan origins.
I think the Sanskrit based cultures are a better indicator of Aryan origins - and the Old Persian sister of Sanskrit.

Another thought; these so-called original Aryans don't appear to have been followers of the Vedas or knowers of Sanskrit.
Sanskrit and Vedic scriptures appear to show origins in and around Persia and the Indus valley.
How can these "original" Aryans be true Aryans if they are not followers of the Vedas or knowers of Sanskrit?
Farther back in this thread we found some criticism and remarks about "linguistic parallels" over like sounding words from different languages that have no true linguistic parallel other than the words sound similar.
Maybe these so-called "original Aryans" simply called themselves Aryans but had no true Aryan culture as followers of the Vedas?
Maybe "Aryan" in their language meant "blue-eyed, blonde-haired", but really had no true meaning as followers of the Vedas?
Maybe Hitler wasn't the first person to abuse and misrepresent the name of Aryan?

QUOTE(Mina @ Sep 17 2005, 12:53 PM)

"I caution you to avoid the pitfall of making archeological evidence superior to the traditional sources of knowledge in India."

I finally got Sparky Photon, who also goes by many other aliases, to respond to me on this site. I have to say, I liked the Sparky Photon screen name very much.

Well, Ksamabuddhi Das, I can't tell whether you are being sarcastic or serious with this retort of yours. My own view is that knowledge is knowledge is knowledge, and evidence is evidence is evidence, irrespective of the source. Superiority is meaningful when it comes to something like superior might. The ancient Romans displayed such superiority in their many conquests over enemies that far outnumbered them on the battlefield.

If you want to make a case for one source of knowledge or one piece of evidence being superior to another source of knowledge or piece of evidence, then by all means take this opportunity to back up your claim.

Ok, how about this.
The Ramayan, Valmiki, brahmanas, Sanskrit and followers of the Vedas dated to be at least 7500 to 9000 years BC, in South India.
Rama's excursion to Sri Lanka?

If we accept the Vaishnava authority, then we have to accept that Aryans, knowers of Sanskrit and followers of Vedic culture existed in South India several thousand years before the "Aryans" invaded India from the north.

There are many references to incarnations of Godhead appearing in India amongst Vedic society many thousand and even millions of years before the "Aryans" invaded India.

Do we accept these Vedic scriptures or modern acadamics on Aryan origins?

Judaism, is somewhat of a mystery to me.
What were the catalysts and inspirations of those that formulated this religion, if indeed it was not directly inspired and delineated directly by an incarnation of Godhead?

Please look at the website I posted before www.equalsouls.org it will show you many links between Judasim and vedic culture

As far as European languages not being derived from Sanskrit, there is not much evidence for that theory. The whole group of languages including ancient Sansrit, Greek and Latin are called the Indo-European group.

QUOTE(Mina @ Sep 18 2005, 08:12 PM)

As far as European languages not being derived from Sanskrit, there is not much evidence for that theory. The whole group of languages including ancient Sansrit, Greek and Latin are called the Indo-European group.

I agree, but most of the modern proponents of Aryan origins seem to say that Sanskrit evolved after these "Aryans" invaded India from the north. Most usually they reject the presumption that Sanskrit is the mother of Latin, Greek etc.
According to some of them, they say that Sanskrit came after some of these other languages, citing it's origins around the Indus valley after the "Aryan" invasion of the Indian subcontinent.
They do not accept Ramayan, Mahabharata etc. as histories, but as mythology with no historical authenticity according to Hindu beliefs and astrological calculations.
They say that the Aryans lived in and around the Steppes of modern Ukraine about 2000 BC and then started the migration towards Persia and India.
What about the Vaishnava histories of Bharata-varsha 5000 years ago when Krishna appeared amongst the Yadu Dynasty in India? There were no Aryans in India at that time?(before 2000 BC)

Sometimes, I wonder if these modern theories aren't just an effort of caucasion people to try and prove that THEY are descendents of the Aryans and that the brown people of India were just primitive tribal cultures till whitey arrived on the scene and gave them "Aryan" influence?

QUOTE(Kshamabuddhi @ Aug 31 2005, 06:29 PM)

.............
To a Vaishnava, the God of the Old Testament appears to be a demonic, tamasic personality as he enjoys the the smell of burnt flesh and blood.

How, pray tell, does such a Vaishnava view the exalted psalms of David sung to such a Lord?

Hmmm?

I think the Puranic version of events was that Parasurama wiped out all the Ksatriya Kings of the Aryan cultures, except for the ones that fled India and scattered to such northen regions.
It has been said that the caucasians of Europe would thus be the descendents of these Ksatriya kings and their subjects.

In other words, the Vedic version of events is quite the reverse of what modern academics and archaeoligists propose as Aryan origins.

But, then again, can we expect them to believe that a warrior of Hindu legend could move at the speed of mind and behead thousands of Ksatriya kings several times over?

Surely, nobody can believe this Hindu mythology?
For them, Krishna is just a myth as well.

Maybe some of these "Aryans" that fled Parasurama made a return about 2000 BC?

The problem I see is that these "Aryans" were Aryans in name only and there is no evidence that they were followers of the Vedas or knowers of Sanskrit. Maybe when they fled India, the only thing they kept from Vedic culture was the name "Aryan".

"They called themselves Aryan"

That doesn't prove much of anything.
A name does not an Aryan make.

QUOTE

How, pray tell, does such a Vaishnava view the exalted psalms of David sung to such a Lord?

What exalted Psalms were you wondering about, Dada?
I could not resist including some highlights from them.
perhaps the 63rd? "...those who seek my life will come to ruin...they will be handed over to the sword and jackals will feast on their flesh..."
66th? "...holocausts of burnt fat calves will I offer you...and burnt offerings of rams and oxen..."
68th? "... you will wash your feet in their (your enemies) blood, oh Lord... your dogs shall lap it up..."
A very exalted position?

QUOTE(lbcVisnudas @ Sep 19 2005, 06:31 AM)

What exalted Psalms were you wondering about, Dada?
I could not resist including some highlights from them.
perhaps the 63rd? "...those who seek my life will come to ruin...they will be handed over to the sword and jackals will feast on their flesh..."
66th? "...holocausts of burnt fat calves will I offer you...and burnt offerings of rams and oxen..."
68th? "... you will wash your feet in their (your enemies) blood, oh Lord... your dogs shall lap it up..."
A very exalted position?

Try Psalm 108 - one of many.
Not everything in the Bible is tainted with animal sacrifice references. It is the same with the Vedas. And gold in a stool stack is still gold - so it is said, even by Vaishnavs.