[payloansday]

Shri PBKHema,

Its an interesting thing you have written. If you have inferred this from some sources, please could you share them?

Also, there is this debate that

a) Shiva was pre-vedic and Vishnu was Vedic
b) Both Shiva and Vishnu were Vedic
c) Shiva was Vedic and Vishnu was Puranic

But you have mentioned both Shiva and Vishnu as post-vedic dieties. Is there any reason for it?

Also, is it possible that the same Indra lived from the vedic period of even as recent as 700 BC all the way to the puranic period of 300 to about 1500AD ?

Regards.

THE FACT ABOUT INDRA i HAVE GATHERED FROM READING SEVERAL BOOKS ON HINDU mYTHOLOGY, THE PURANAS AND SEEING THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE CULTURE IN A RATIONAL MANNER
Siva was definetely not a Vedic God.THe Rudras were there in the Vedic times and it evolved into Siva.
I feel that prioe to the vedic people there must have been some kind of phalic (linga worship) worship.This was nit liked by the Vedic people.In fact (I do not recollect correctly now who) Indra or one of the Vedic Devas were reerred to as sisira nasyahah meaning destroyer of lingas
The Dhasha Yanja episode itself is to bring Siva into the Vedic fold and give himea shre of the Havir
Vishnu as now we know was not in the Vedas.There is an indirect reference to the Vamana Avataram by the saying he measured the three worlds with his foot steps

[wCYvMKAc]

Thankyou for the info Shri Pbkhema ji.

I too came across info of the destruction of Lingas a very long time back but cannot recollect it was mentioned in which veda or purana.

Possibly there was a section that followed idol worship with abhisekham for lingas and statues; and there was another section that followed the non-idol worship system of havans. Both these sections probably clashed and eventually merged later. So Rudra became merged with Shiva.

But i think Vishnu is mentioned in the vedas, albeit as a minor diety. Let me check.

[Valdoyes]

I remember to have read that initially, in vedas, the word 'pasupathi' and 'rudra' were used at many times. Only later, Vishnu joined his friend Shiva. This point requires deeper study to pinpoint the exact period.

[XGoFivk7]

THE FACT ABOUT INDRA i HAVE GATHERED FROM READING SEVERAL BOOKS ON HINDU mYTHOLOGY, THE PURANAS AND SEEING THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE CULTURE IN A RATIONAL MANNER
Siva was definetely not a Vedic God.THe Rudras were there in the Vedic times and it evolved into Siva.
I feel that prioe to the vedic people there must have been some kind of phalic (linga worship) worship.This was nit liked by the Vedic people.In fact (I do not recollect correctly now who) Indra or one of the Vedic Devas were reerred to as sisira nasyahah meaning destroyer of lingas
The Dhasha Yanja episode itself is to bring Siva into the Vedic fold and give himea shre of the Havir
Vishnu as now we know was not in the Vedas.There is an indirect reference to the Vamana Avataram by the saying he measured the three worlds with his foot steps

I don't think Rudra evolving into Shiva is true. In our tradition, every deity has two aspects - fierce and calm. While Rudra is the fierce aspect, Shiva is the calmer one. From the Krishna-Yajurveda, you chant the Sri Rudram to calm the fierce Rudra. After Rudra is calmed, you chant the Chamakam to appeal to Shiva and ask for boons.

Sri Periavaal says the very investigation into who precedes what and the origin of Vedas into Vedic, pre-vedic and all is a fruitless exercise as the Vedas are "anadi" and "apauresheya". It may all do good to satisfy our scientific temper but should not take precedence over the value that we may gain from the Vedas itself.

[Frannypaync]

Maha Periyavaal's words are final.

[priceyicey]

Dear Anand and Shri Pannvalan ji,

Faith varies from person to person. It can even vary from parent to child. And i suppose so does the definition of a value system.

I do agree with you. But please also take into consideration that there are people to whom such things are a matter of interest, as just a subject. And what may be a fruitless pursuit to one, might just be a matter of interest to another.

Deification of zoomorphic, anthropomorphic, nature elements, and so on has a lot to do with evolution of thought, evolution of society, provides clues to the movement of people, growth of civilization and so on.

If one would like to accept that the vedas are anadi, its perfectly fine. At the same time, if one wants to rely on various data, including scientific, that both humans and languages have a beginning somewhere in the timeline of this universe, then well, they too have a place under the sun.

Who knows someday in future there may be deification of various genes...

Regards.

[osteoftex]

I too agree that there must be a beginning for everything. But, 'anadi' here means 'no one really knows where and when it really started'.

Hence, no useful purpose will be served in researching things like these, as they will be only meaningless pursuits.

It is like this.

A person kept on digging a well, expecting water. But, even after going very deep, he could not find water.

Then only he realised that he could have stopped the pursuit and instead gone to some other location, for starting the same work afresh.

Thus he wasted much of his precious time and resources.

[MortgFinsJohnQ]

There is an other story of a similar kind but different message i came across in a story book for children.

A man wanted to dig for water. He dug very deep for a few days and then gave up thinking there is no water there.

He went to an other location and dug there, found no water and moved on again, and yet again and again to other locations.

A monk passed by. He asked the man what he was doing. The man replied he was digging for water in so many places for more than two years but has not yet found water.

The monk replied "You wasted your time and energy by digging in different areas for limited periods of time. If you have had stayed at one location and dug at the same place for all this time, you would have surely found water".

For some researching to find fruit is the goal. For some just the pursuit is the goal.

Some seek a destination in life. For some, the journey of life itself is the destination.

Its all about just the love of learning.

[JediReturns84]

Maha Periavaal gives extensive explanations as to why it is pointless to investigate the origin or source of Vedas or gods. The 4 Vedas and the Upanishads are known as the "Sruti" that which was heard or seen and not created. That is why it is called Anadi or timeless because their sounds are constantly etched in space and which can never be destroyed. There is no need to determine if the Vedas preceded the Paramatman or the other way around because the Vedas are known as the breath of the Paramatman. Though the universe is created and destroyed many times the sound of the Vedas is never destroyed as it is constantly in space. The various rishis through the strength of their tapas realized these Vedas like a flash or a intuition. That is why they are called "mantradrashtas" and not "mantrakartas". Same reason why the Vedas are called "Sruti" - seen, realized and apauresheya (ie) divine and not man-made. In contrast the Puranas, Dharmashastras are called "Smiriti" or man-made.

The Maha Periavaal says beautifully, the Puranas enforce through stories what is said in the Vedas. For ex, Taitrio Upanishad says "Satyam Vadha" (speak the truth always) exemplified by stories from Harichandra. It also says "Dharmam chara" (Follow Dharma) exemplified by Yudhistira in Mahabharata. The Puranas are supposed to be taking place in each creation with slight variations. He says this கால ஆராய்ச்சி is not right in our religion as even the rishis of lore were not the creators of the Vedas. The Vedas itself was a oral tradition just before the advent of the kali. Everything is attributed to the Paramatma who resides in us as well.

For detailed explanations please read "Deivathin Kural" - 2nd part under the chapters "Vedas" and "Puranas"

[zlopikanikanz]

THE FACT ABOUT INDRA i HAVE GATHERED FROM READING SEVERAL BOOKS ON HINDU mYTHOLOGY, THE PURANAS AND SEEING THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE CULTURE IN A RATIONAL MANNER
Siva was definetely not a Vedic God.THe Rudras were there in the Vedic times and it evolved into Siva.
I feel that prioe to the vedic people there must have been some kind of phalic (linga worship) worship.This was nit liked by the Vedic people.In fact (I do not recollect correctly now who) Indra or one of the Vedic Devas were reerred to as sisira nasyahah meaning destroyer of lingas
The Dhasha Yanja episode itself is to bring Siva into the Vedic fold and give himea shre of the Havir
Vishnu as now we know was not in the Vedas.There is an indirect reference to the Vamana Avataram by the saying he measured the three worlds with his foot steps

Shri Pbkhema Ji,

This article on wiki says Vishnu is mentioned 93 times in the vedas: Vishnu - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The three strides of Vaman Purana, it seems, also appears in Vishnu Sukta of the Rig, as mentioned in the wiki article on Vishnu.

It also seems that Rudra became synonymous with Shiva during the time of the itihaasas. And looks like the period of itihasas (period when ramayana was written) predated that of the atharva: Indian epic poetry - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Interesting indeed.

And more interesting is that Rudra is described as the father of the storm gods, Maruts in the Rig: Shiva - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (i must go find for that verse in the rig).

So it looks like Rudra and Shiva (as the one associated with Parvati, Ganesha, Karthikeya) are likely to be two different entities.

Regards.

[ZesePreodaNed]

I have no problems about researching. My only worry is arriving to wrong conclusions based on faulty research especially in relation to Vedas. The clues for a lot of research in Vedas is in the Vedas itself and not outside it. The Maha Periavaal gives lot of answers by unraveling the Vedas itself to lay people like me. There is an entire chapter devoted to how the various sthala puranas are inter related. What he says may not be scientifically provable. But his logic and tarkha shastra is irrefutable. Just reading one chapter of these books set you thinking very hard. I personally have blind faith for the simple reason, I think, that he has no axe to grind. All he was doing was trying to make Hindus especially brahmins realize the beauty of their faith and scriptures. Nothing more.

[JohnMaltczevitch]

Dear Anand,

I admire and respect your faith and respect for Sri Mahaperiaval.

Apart from the explanations given by Mahaperiaval, there are others as well.

What may be right interpretation to one need not necessarily mean the end of it all to the other.

Am very well aware that 'science' cannot be applied to these matters.

I just hope the likes of me is free to explore and discuss things on this thread.

Thankyou.

[ChicasCams]

Without relying on western sources like Wikipedia or any celebrated historians from outside the country, why shall we not believe the words of our own historians and other scholars? Don't we trust our own people or do we think that the premise, methodology and conclusion of them are all wrong?

If it is so, does it not show that we nurture some sort of prejudice against our own
countrymen, howsoever great they are?

[metropropuskruww]

Without relying on western sources like Wikipedia or any celebrated historians from outside the country, why shall we not believe the words of our own historians and other scholars? Don't we trust our own people or do we think that the premise, methodology and conclusion of them are all wrong?

If it is so, does it not show that we nurture some sort of prejudice against our own
countrymen, howsoever great they are?

Wiki is obviously not the best source. But it helps when an article provides the exact verses of the scripture, for a reader to look up on his / her own.

There are many Indian indologists as well as western ones. One need not choose which author to "trust". By doing so, we might become like the muslims to whom the words of Muhammad are final and must be defended at any cost, no matter how erroneous they might be to the 'others' (kafirs).

Its better to leave the author aside and simply deal with the subject matter. Each time one comes across new info, obviously the old pattern of thinking changes - and if that happens, it means one has allowed his mind to be open to change. Otherwise like an unopen parachute, the mind might simply have to fall to the ground with no hope of surviving. Without taking off the ground, the mind might just get bored or feel like still stagnant waters with no movement like a breeding place for mosquitoes.

[forebirdo]

Dear Pannvalan.

Respectfully sir, what is wrong in quoting Wikipedia? Most of the topics about India, Hinduism and such there are authored by Indians and argued and settled by Indians.

Again, I do not understand your aversion to scholorship by western folks. Because of the educational system in the west research in Indology is very much supported. In India, while such research is going on, I don't come across it much in an easy way.

While seeking truth, I usually look in to the content, not at tan author's nationality first.

Regards,
KRS

Without relying on western sources like Wikipedia or any celebrated historians from outside the country, why shall we not believe the words of our own historians and other scholars? Don't we trust our own people or do we think that the premise, methodology and conclusion of them are all wrong?

If it is so, does it not show that we nurture some sort of prejudice against our own
countrymen, howsoever great they are?

[GustavM]

I never said that wikipedia shall not be referred to. In fact, it is very useful and I myself take its help, many a time.

Similarly, I do not say all that western is not authentic or cannot be relied upon. I only suggested an eclectic approach be adopted. Instead of quoting from exotic sources alone, references to indigenous research studies will make the write-up more neutral and increase its credentials.

A good and successful researcher always does this and leaves the judgement or inferences to the wisdom of the readers. Whatever suits one, may be taken as valid and more acceptable by the person concerned.

This is what I emphasize.

[autoloanexpert]

A good and successful researcher always does this and leaves the judgement or inferences to the wisdom of the readers. Whatever suits one, may be taken as valid and more acceptable by the person concerned.

This is what I emphasize.

Sir, again am not sure its about picking and choosing things as it 'suits' one.

There is no place for an individual's choice, preference or convenience when any point of research, scientific or historical, is to be validated by proper data.

One cannot expect to see or accept only select works of select historians because that is what one wants to see, and ignore other works with equal or more depth of info. For an overall picture, all sources must be looked into. In case emotions are involved, they need not be accepted. But there is nothing wrong in mentioning them.

[inmeirulez]

Dear Anand,

I admire and respect your faith and respect for Sri Mahaperiaval.

Apart from the explanations given by Mahaperiaval, there are others as well.

What may be right interpretation to one need not necessarily mean the end of it all to the other.

Am very well aware that 'science' cannot be applied to these matters.

I just hope the likes of me is free to explore and discuss things on this thread.

Thankyou.

I agree with you, madam. I have high regard for Mahaperiyaval and have read the 7 volumes of Deivathin Kural many times over. But that does not prevent me from probing into the scriptures. I do not claim to have mastered the subject but I have made some sort of study into the topic and the findings have been described in my book "Vedaneriyum Saivathuraiyum'. I will be giving excerpts from it as and when occasion arises.
Now on 'linga worship in vedas'. (sorry, you will have to resort to transliteration software, as I am short of time now.)

வேதத்தில் வரும் சிசினதேவர்கள் [ரிக் 7.21.5, 10.99.3]என்ற சொல்லுக்குக் குறி வழிபாடு செய்வோர் எனப் பொருள் கொண்டு, சில ஆங்கிலேயர்கள், இது சிவலிங்க வழிபாடு செய்யும் தென்னாட்டவரைக் குறிக்கிறது என்றும் இவர்களை வேதம் இகழ்வதால் இது ஆரிய திராவிடப் பூசல் என்றும் கூறினர். ஏழு நூற்றாண்டுகளுக்கு முன், ஆரிய திராவிடப் பிரச்னைகள் தோன்றாத காலத்தில் எழுதப்பட்ட ஸாயணர் உரையில் சிசின தேவர் என்பதற்குப் பால் நுகர்ச்சியில் வரம்பு கடந்த நாட்டம் உடையவர் என்று தான் பொருள் கூறப் பட்டுள்ளது. ஸாயணரை விடக் காலத்தால் முந்திய யாஸ்கர் என்பவர் எழுதிய நிருக்தத்தின் (அரும்பத உரை நூல்) அடிப்படையில் அமைந்ததாகவும் வேதத்தின் மொத்தக் கருத்துக்கு இயைந்ததாகவும் உள்ளது இது. கிரிபித் என்னும் ஆங்கிலேய மொழிபெயர்ப்பாளர் ஸாயணர் கருத்தையே ஏற்கிறார். இம்மொழிபெயர்ப்பே பெரும்பான்மையோரால் ஏற்கப்படுவது. எனவே சிசின தேவர் என்னும் சொல்லுக்கு சிவ வழிபாடு செய்வோர் எனப் பொருள் கூறியது ஆங்கில அரசாங்கத்தின் பிரித்தாளும் கொள்கையைக் காட்டுகிறது.

லிங்கம் என்ற வடசொல்லுக்கு அடையாளம் என்பதே முதற்பொருள். சிவன் என்ற பெயரை இறைவன் என்ற பொருளில் முதன் முதலாகப் பயன் படுத்தும் வேதப் பகுதியான ஸ்வேதாஸ்வதார உபநிடதம், சிவனுக்கு உருவமில்லை, ஆனால் பாமர மக்கள் வழிபட ஏதேனும் அடையாளம் வேண்டி இருக்கிறது என்று கூறுமிடத்தில், அடையாளம் என்ற பொருளில் லிங்கம் என்ற சொல்லைப் பயன்படுத்துகிறது. அது இன்றைய லிங்க வடிவைக் குறிப்பிடவில்லை. [The origin and early history of Saivism – C.V.Narayana Iyer p 48]

[topcasinobonua]

Wow Great explanation Vikrama ji... I too thought of like that only. This thread started somewhere and goes somewhere to rely whether wikipedia is good source or bad deviating from indra. Anyhow, thanks for your clarification about chichina devas.

Pranams

[CedssypeEdids]

Further to my earlier post in Adityahridayam in the Naamavali Sun is called as Sisiranasanah
I do not know about the Wikepedia.I have gone thru the translation of Rg veda several times.Vishnu to my memory is mentioned 3 or 4 times and in all the Rks only the three strides are referred to