The Gods of the Vedas.

[Fenrisbane]

Through most of my life, I have been very interested in the ancient faith of my ancestors, the people the modern world knows as the vikings. Unfortunately, we know very little of what they actually believed in. Most historical documents regarding the Germanic faith was written down by Christian scholars centuries after Scandinavia had been Christianized, making a number of details pertaining the old religion rather uncertain.

So what do you do, when you cannot find adequate knowledge in one field? You look for information in related fields. That's when it occured to me that the Sami and the Finnish religions were extremely similar to that of the Scandinavians. Looking further, the Baltic and Slavic people appeared to have similar faiths, heck, even classical Rome and Greece appeared to have had a system of belief that echoed that of the vikings!

Of course, this is not strange at all. Scholars have it that the indo-european religions all originated from one source. And the most prominent indo-european religion is, of course, Sanatana Dharma. It's the only truly alive tradition(s) of ancient Indo-European religion, and thus of interest to someone like me, who wants to know more about the faith of my ancestors.

The similarities between ancient European and ancient Indian religions appear to be strongest when you look at the gods of the Vedas. Unfortunately, I haven't read the Vedic scriptures per se, but I have read about them. I know that the Rig Veda lists a number of deities, many of which strikingly similar to those worshipped in Europe. Thor and Indra in particular share a vast number of similarities. One family of Gods were called "Aesir" ("asar" in modern Swedish) by the vikings, which of course is a cognate to hindu "Asura", although the word "aesir" doesn't refer to demonic beings but rather devas (there must have been a shift somewhere in history, since the good God in Zoroastrianism is called Ahura Mazda).

This also begs for the question; why aren't people worshipping the old Vedic gods anymore? After all, most hindu traditions regard the Vedas as their most holy works, so why are there no temples dedicated to Indra?

[yajvan]

Hari Om
~~~~~~

why aren't people worshipping the old Vedic gods anymore? After all, most hindu traditions regard the Vedas as their most holy works, so why are there no temples dedicated to Indra?

Namaste Fenrisbane,

Let me offer a point of view for your consideration... there is only one, tad ekam¹, That One. Many may call tad ekam Brahman, some wish to call tad ekam Maha Viṣṇu, Śivabhaṭṭāraka, Śrī Devī, and the like.

When we go to a mandir, a temple, there is a form that one may adore. This adoration may be in the form of Viṣṇu, Śiva, Śrī Devī, Rudra, Ganeśa and many others. Yet it is tad ekam.

We are adoring a feature or quality, of the Divine. As tad ekam is wholeness, fullness ( bhuma) there is no thing tad ekam is not. So many rejoice in the various qualities that He expresses Himself as.

Just like an artist... we go look at the different paintings... His or her 'blue period' or Recocco, or Baroque, or Impressionist influence - same arist, just that he chose to express himself differently.

Regarding vedic gods... they are worshiped regularly with yajya-s (you may know this name a pūja). Agni is there with the flame, Indra is invoked and offerings made, etc. Yet again different forms of the Divine.

Indra is there, He is Divine mind, as is Soma, who is the delight of activity of experience that brings joy to Indra, Divine mind.

What is needed is the understanding of how the ṛṣi-s ( rishi-s) chose to talk of the devatā in the Veda-s. That is one reason for HDF , is the communication of this and the discussion.

Each way of looking at Brahman to express this fullness, this infinity is a way of adoring and worshiping That One. The interesting part is you, and I and all that are here on this good earth is an extension of Him, part and parcel... the part is the whole¹.

pranams


words and references

tad ekam तद् एक - tad or that alone + ekam from eka - solitary, single
For more on the part and whole see HDF post: http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?p=24223#post24223
Ref for Veda conversation: http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?t=798

[Fenrisbane]

Haha, isn't it funny, yajvan? Just when you've told me about the nature of Brahman, a Google search led me to find this:


The gaping void of Norse mythology; space as an unimaginable abstraction, without form and void. The formless void that preceded creation, and the abode of the gods during the long night of nonbeing. The prefix "ginn" is found only in conjunction with such words a ginnheilog (the supreme divine essence), ginnregin (the highest gods, superior to the aesir and even the vanir). Ginnungave represents the "most holy sanctuaries" -- the universe. Odin in his loftiest aspect is referred to as ginnarr, connoting the aether or Sanskrit akasa. The verb ginna also means to delude or play a trick on.Source: http://www.experiencefestival.com/ginnungagap

What else could the "Supreme Divine Essence" be, if not Brahman? So Freya, Odin, Thor... they're all manifestations of Ginnheilog, or Brahman. Would that be correct?

EDIT: Something went terribly wrong with the formatting of this post.

[yajvan]

Hari Om
~~~~~



Haha, isn't it funny, yajvan? Just when you've told me about the nature of Brahman, a Google search led me to find this: Source: http://www.experiencefestival.com/ginnungagap

What else could the "Supreme Divine Essence" be, if not Brahman? So Freya, Odin, Thor... they're all manifestations of Ginnheilog, or Brahman. Would that be correct?

EDIT: Something went terribly wrong with the formatting of this post.

Namaste Fenrisbane
Your google search that brought you here..chance or providence?

Regarding the Divine - yes Brahman¹. Yet many may view Brahman in a different light. That is in a form that one can adore more comfortably or easily by its qualities.

You will note from your studies that Brahman is both nirguna¹ and saguna, yes? Without attributes and with attributes. Yet when I mention fullness (samasta) it is Brahman of both nirguna and saguna.

Yet we find the same quality-dimension of Śiva ( Some may call Rudra or Bhairava). That is, rested in the Absolute (niguna) yet active in the relative field of life saguna via sakti or expressed as Śrī Devī - the energy / creative expression of Śiva. But there are not two , there is always this wholeness. Śiva and Śrī Devī are one - just as light from a flame is not different from the fire, or the heat of fire is not different from the fire itself. Like that there is this fullness that is always there. And in creation there is not Śiva then His creation. Creation occurs within Śiva.

You mention Freya, Odin, Thor as expressions of Brahman. I am not familiar with the Nordic view of existence, so I cannot comment with any degree of confidence. Yet there is nothing outside of Brahman, there is nothing outside of Śiva.

Regarding the formatting of your post. you may want to leave satay, our HDF administrator a personal email on what you expected to occur and did occur with your post. He may be able to assist.

pranams
words and references

Brahman - from bṛh बृह् - to grow, expand, increase; to shine. Some also write vṛh. For more on this definition see HDF post http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?t=1379
samasta समस्त - inherent in or pervading the whole ; the aggregate of all parts

[saidevo]

Namaste Fenrisbane.

Vedic gods are Devas representing divine powers/forces that create and maintain the universe. Devas live in three forms: divine, subtle and physical. Thus, among the chief Vedic gods, Agni stands for heat and light, Indra for the power of the mind, Vayu for the life sustaining energies prANa and air, Surya the Sun God for creative forces, and Varuna for the waters of nourishment.

The Hindu Trinity is identified in the Vedic Gods: Brahma from Prajapati, Vishnu as Vishnu (Vishnu, the all-pervading godhead, RV 1.154) and Rudra as Shiva. As you know, Shiva and Vishnu have the largest number of temples in Hinduism.

Other Vedic gods may not have temples dedicated temples, but they are represented in temples in some form or other. For example, Indira is found in temple sculptures with four arms riding his white elephant Airavatam, Varuna as riding a crocodile, Agni as an old man with a red body, and so on.

In Tamilnadu, South India, there are temples dedicated to Surya and the gods of the nine planets.

As Yajvan has pointed out, almost all Vedic gods--and Rishis--are worshipped by chanting mantras to them in many daily and occasional Hindu rituals: the daily pujas, the daily Sandhya Vandanam of the Brahmins, Veda yajnas and occasions such as a wedding.

Incidentally, for the 'Vedic gods' of Japan, check this article by Subhash Kak, a distinguished Hindu scholar: http://www.ece.lsu.edu/kak/VedicJapan.pdf

A good Website to have an effective introduction to Vedas is:
http://www.vedah.com/

[Fenrisbane]

Okay, just to make sure I've got this right. Brahman is the supreme divine essence, and as such Brahman is everything. Because Brahman is everything, it's also, in a sense, nothing. Just as Newton famously declared that the sum of all forces in the universe is zero, Brahman is the embodiment of balance. Love AND hatred, calm AND fury, joy AND sorrow... Brahman is all of that. This also makes Brahman a bit difficult to worship. That's what devas are for.

When we adress devas, we are adressing certain aspects of Brahman. Freya, whom I'd identify with Shakti or Durga, is the aspect of feminine strength, fertility and sensuality. Thor, whom I'd identify with Indra, is the aspect of masculine strength, courage and willpower. To the human mind, this makes more sense than worshipping something that is all and nothing all rolled into one. Because that which lacks certain features makes the remaining ones more prominent, and therefore has a more defined personality.

... yes?

[saidevo]

Namaste Fenrisbane.

You have got most of the points right, in my reasoning.



Okay, just to make sure I've got this right. Brahman is the supreme divine essence, and as such Brahman is everything. Because Brahman is everything, it's also, in a sense, nothing.


Brahman IS NOT nothing if the expression nothing means 'void, nonexistence, zero, worthless'. Brahman IS nothing if the expression nothing means 'no thing'.

We get into this state of no-thing-ness when in deep sleep, which is devoid of any thought or feeling. But deep sleep is full of peace and bliss, and the feeling of having attained them manifests when the waking state sets in.



Just as Newton famously declared that the sum of all forces in the universe is zero, Brahman is the embodiment of balance. Love AND hatred, calm AND fury, joy AND sorrow... Brahman is all of that.


The sum total of all forces in the universe might be mathematically zero, but in reality they balance out into One Cosmic Consciousness, which is Brahman. This is the reason Einstein said that the Universe appears as the thought of a Supreme Being.

The mathematical zero is an interesting concept discovered by ancient Indians: it sums up all the numbers on either side (positive, negative), up to infinity! In other words, the conceptual positive and negative infinities merge into the single-digit, mathematical zero. The zero here indicates absence rather than non-existence of the numbers.

The word 'zero' originates from the Sanskrit word 'shUnya' meaning 'empty, void' (denoting absense of something). 'shUnya' became the Arabic word 'safIra', the Venetian-Italian word 'zefiro', and ultimately the modern English word. Zero is also known as 'pUjyam' in Sanskrit, something worthy of reverence.

If Brahman is the white screen of substratum behind the moving, colorful, intellectual and emotional world of the film that plays over it, the sum total of the film is the white screen, which is hardly nothingness. White is not a color--it is actually colorless because all colors merge to form it. White is self-illuminating because all colors merge to brighten it up, instead of their lighting up the separate attributes of the illusory film world projected over the white screen.

Just as white is colorless, that is, without the attributes of color, Brahman is 'nirguNa'; IT has no attributes of any kind. Brahman has another manifest form, however. In this form HE with attributes, and is called the 'saguNa' Brahman. It is from this SaguNa Brahman, the Trinity and other gods manifest.

That brings up the question, what is black then? We call a dead star in space a black hole, not a white whole, though all light is absorbed by its gravity that no light can escape its surface. Black in manifestation is the absence of colors, attributes, thoughts, feelings. The state of deep sleep seems like a blackout of consciousness to the sleeper only when the person comes out of it. While the person is inside it, he/she enjoys the peace and bliss, though not conscious of it at that time.

It is only the human soul (JIva) as the manifest ego is full of love and hatred, calm and fury, joy and sorrow. It is wrong to say that Brahman, the Self behind the soul, is all these attributes. Just as the moving world of the film does not stain or affect the underlying white screen, the thoughts and emotions of the ego does not affect the Self, which is Brahman.



This also makes Brahman a bit difficult to worship. That's what devas are for.


Brahman is not worshipped, only meditated. We do not worship our Self, only meditate to realize it and actualize the state of peace and bliss in all the states of our existence (waking, dreaming, sleeping).



When we adress devas, we are adressing certain aspects of Brahman. Freya, whom I'd identify with Shakti or Durga, is the aspect of feminine strength, fertility and sensuality. Thor, whom I'd identify with Indra, is the aspect of masculine strength, courage and willpower.


When we adress devas, we are adressing certain aspects of SaguNa or manifest Brahman.



To the human mind, this makes more sense than worshipping something that is all and nothing all rolled into one.


Absolutely.



Because that which lacks certain features makes the remaining ones more prominent, and therefore has a more defined personality.


Just like the moving personalities of the film on the colorless screen. Self is not colored, only ego is colored and becomes the personality of a human.

[yajvan]

Hari Oṁ
~~~~~~



Okay, just to make sure I've got this right. Brahman is the supreme divine essence, and as such Brahman is everything. Because Brahman is everything, it's also, in a sense, nothing.

Namaste Fenrisgane,
A reasonable question. I think saidevo's post was excellent and provided the information for you.
Now, if you wish to study this 'everything and no-thing' idea, the Chāndogya Upaniṣad Chapt 6 does an excellent job.

It is a conversation after Śvetaketu returns from formal training at the gurukulam. His father then inquires ' did your master at the gurukulam teach you of that which the unheard becomes heard? ' Śvetaketu's father, Aruṇi, asks ( and answers) several more questions and uses clay, gold and steel as examples. He then notes that Śvetaketu has been taught the Veda-s as a book, but not the essense of the Veda, Brahman.

Hence Aruṇi then begins the teaching of what is sat and what is a-sat i.e. is is Reality and non-Reality , existence and non-existence.
In this teaching, Aruṇi answers the question you are asking in a delightful, yet profound way: How can existence of all of creation emerge from nothing? From here he takes his son though the review of Brahman.

There are other Upaniṣads that also offer a similar discussion of Reality, yet the Chāndogya Upaniṣad is one of my favorites. And the best translation with commentary I hve been delighted to read again and again is Chāndogya Upaniṣad, Translation and Commentary by
Svāmi Muni Narayana Prasad.

pranams

[Gotam]

Namaste Fenrisbane and Saidevo,

Fenrisbane, one of the things that initially fueled my interest in Sanatana Dharma was ancient Greek mythology and the Greek mystery cults, as well as the fact that Nietzsche´s criticism of Christian dualism (dvaita), which is central in his philosophy, owed very much to the fact that he was a professor in classical (Greek) philology (besides, Nietzsche was a pupil of Schopenhauer who was perhaps the first Westerner to praise Hinduism, and even extremely frequently). But my ancestors worshipped the Greek Gods with their Germanic names, like yours. Without the churches and their (mainly past, but even still present) intolerance, we might have developed Sanatana Dharma in Europe as the Hindus did in India, with or without a Christian touch to it.

Saidevo, I wish I knew any foreign culture as well as you know Western culture, you seem to know more about "us" than we do ourselves, so you probably know the following verses, but reading your post made me feel like quoting them:

"Life, like a dome of many-colored glass,
Stains the white radiance of eternity."
Percy Bysshe Shelley (1792-1822)

There are many similar verses in the work of Goethe, and what your write somehow echoes his colour theory or "Farbenlehre". I wonder whether Shelley and Goethe had it from Indian sources, or used these images without knowing they were also used in India - unless you have just invented your metaphors?

Since renaissance, knowledge of antiquity has ever grown in the West, and the better we understand it, the closer it brings us to our Indo-European origins. Western science made a giant leap in renaissance (antiquity being an Indo-European influence), and I think many of us find Hindu culture partly easy to understand and very reasonable because in yoga, for instance, it shares many aspects with scientific research (to say nothing of scientific discoveries made by yogis thousands of years before the West developed the material instruments to make them too).

Christian dogmatism until recently opposed the development of science. In that respect it is more difficult for us to understand than Hinduism. Perhaps we are becoming similar again.

[saidevo]

Namaste Gotam.



Saidevo, I wish I knew any foreign culture as well as you know Western culture, you seem to know more about "us" than we do ourselves, so you probably know the following verses, but reading your post made me feel like quoting them:

"Life, like a dome of many-colored glass,
Stains the white radiance of eternity."
Percy Bysshe Shelley (1792-1822)


I am afraid this is a digression from the subject, but anyway: My 'knowledge' about the western culture is only from books, movies and the media; I have no personal interaction with a westerner, though I did my graduation in a Jesuit college where the 'fathers and brothers' chose to remain beyond personal interaction from the Hindu students. Some of the Christians who took Hindu-related subjects such as the Tamil language made subtle fun of our ways of life, though. In the village primary and high school I was educated, some of our teachers were converted Christians who made open fun of Brahminical language and culture, which sometimes embarrassed me as I was a Brahmin though it was not personal. It was us the Brahmin students (not me though in college) who took the top ranks in the schools and colleges. There were quite a number of us in the Jesuit college which declared a holiday for the 'AvaNi avittam' (annual holy thread changing ceremony), specific to Brahmins!

Interestingly, the two lines that precede your quote of Shelley have more to speak of his understanding of the divine unity of life. Here is the quote of the four lines:

The One remains, the many change
Heaven's light forever shines, earth's shadows fly
Life like a dome of many-coloured glass
Stains the white radiance of Eternity.

Kanchi Paramacharya valued these lines to be an Advaitic saying, check:
http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?p=10682&highlight=shelley#post10682



There are many similar verses in the work of Goethe, and what your write somehow echoes his colour theory or "Farbenlehre". I wonder whether Shelley and Goethe had it from Indian sources, or used these images without knowing they were also used in India - unless you have just invented your metaphors?


I haven't heard of "Farbenlehre" until I checked it now after you mentioned it. I think Goethe's theory of subjectivity of the mind in the interpretation of colors and his ideas of boundary and turbidity are valid points. Sanatana Dharma appreciates the value of color and sound in life and rituals. Some of our rituals might seem 'gaudy and noisy' to some westerners, but as a Hindu sage observed, Hinduism originated in the forests teeming with the colors and sounds of life, unlike the western religions that originated in the sands of the desert. Perhaps we can discuss the various religious, spiritual and scientific views and theories of color in a separate thread.

[Adhvagat]

Bump.

[Arjuni]

Namasté, all,

Pietro, anything involving "Vedas" and "gods" is like a big blinking sign that says, "Yo, Indraneela, over here!" So, speak, oh reviver of topic! You've got my attention, at least. :D

It seems that there are two different, but related, points raised by the original writer:

1. The relationship he suspects - and rightly - between the Vedic Devas and other similar Gods of various Indo-European faiths, which piqued his interest while he was looking for information on Viking practices. I believe this topic has surfaced in other HDF posts; one that I remember clearly is a thread (http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?t=6633) discussing Wiccans who worship Hindu deities. What are your thoughts here?

To this statement - One family of Gods were called "Aesir" ("asar" in modern Swedish) by the vikings, which of course is a cognate to hindu "Asura", although the word "aesir" doesn't refer to demonic beings but rather devas -
I'll add that asura did not originally mean demon; it's translated in Rig Veda more as "divine spirit" and appears in reference at least two Devas, going from memory.

and will add to this - (there must have been a shift somewhere in history, since the good God in Zoroastrianism is called Ahura Mazda) -
- that there is a scholarly idea extant that Ahura Mazda developed from no less than Mitra-Varuṇa (and, further, that Indra's appearance in the Zoroastrian pantheon as an archdemon is suggestive of a 'rivalry' between Indra and Varuṇa worshippers). That idea is full of problems, but certainly there were indeed many shifts through history...

2. The second point is an interesting one. While Yajvan reminds us beautifully that there is only one, tad ekam, That One, the OP's question still remains: With the Vedas at the basis of Sanātana Dharma, why are the texts still revered but the deities themselves not actively worshipped? Why are there no temples dedicated to Indra, Varuṇa, Mitra, or others? This question becomes a little more complex when we consider that there are a few Vedic Devas who are honoured by modern Hindus by way of temple worship, puja, etc.; Sarasvatī and Sūrya come instantly to mind.

The answers so far have addressed ideas like the essential oneness of the Devas, the representation of some of these beings inside temples to others, etc., but I think some aspects of the original question still remain. Now, the question is one I've pondered for months, and I could probably write a long, rambling novel-sized response at this point. Tell me what you think, so that I don't end up prattling on and on? :)

Indraneela
===
Oṁ Indrāya Namaḥ.
Oṁ Namaḥ Śivāya.