Vedic hinduism vs.puranic hinduism

[Omkara]

* Rudra of the Veda is identified with Shiva, but the identification itself is not from the Veda.

Sorry for the late reply, I just saw your post.


shitikaNTha (the fair-throated one): YV saMhitA
nIlagrIva (the blue-throated one): YV saMhitA; AV-P
mIDhuShaH (bountiful): RV saMhitA; YV saMhitA; Apastamba mantra-prashna
vR^iSha (the bull): RV saMhitA
deva (the god): RV saMhitA; AV-vulgate; tANDya brAhmaNa
pinAkin (the holder of the pinAka bow): AV-vul; AV-P; YV saMhitA; AV-parishiShTha
shiva (the auspicious one): RV saMhitA; YV saMhitA; AV-vul; AV-P; shvetAshavatara
girisha (mountain rover): YV; AV-P
hara (destroyer): maitrAyaNIya saMhitA; shvetAshavatara; AshvalAyana gR^ihyasUtra; bodhAyana mantraprashna; ApastaMba mantraprashna
aghora (benign): YV-maitrAyaNIya; mahAnArAyaNa; AV-parishiShTha
ghora (terrible): YV-maitrAyaNIya; mahAnArAyaNa; AV-parishiShTha
ghoratara (most terrible): YV-maitrAyaNIya; mahAnArAyaNa; AV-parishiShTha
virUpa (many formed): YV-saMhita
purahAriN (destroyer of the 3 cities): as in tripurAntaka brAhmaNa, i.e., YV-taittirIya brAhmaNa
aShTasvarUpin (8 formed): The 8 names come in the shUlagava mantra, e.g. Apastamba mantraprashna; kaushItakI brAhmaNa; shatapata brAhmaNa
pinAkahasta (holder of the pinAka): YV-saMhitA
kR^ittivAsas (clad in hides): YV-saMhitA
bhUtAnAMpati (lord of the beings): as bhUtapati in AV-Vulgate; AV-P; aitareya-brAhmaNa
muNDa (clean shaven): AV-parishiShTha; as in vyuptakesha in YV-saMhitA
kapardin (with knotted locks): RV-saMhitA; YV-saMhitA; AshvalAyana gR^ihyasUtra; AV-parishiShTha
aja (unborn): shvetAshavatara
harikesha (green/yellow haired): YV-saMhitA
pi~Ngala (tawny): mahAnArAyaNopaniShat; AV-parishiShTha (e.g. uchChuShma and goshAnti)
dakSha-makhaghna (destroyer of dakSha’s ritual): alluded in gopatha-brAhmaNa as destroyer of prajApati’s yAga and AV-parishiShTha in graha-saMgraha
bhaga-netrApahArin (destroyer of bhaga’s eyes): gopatha-brAhmaNa
umApati (husband of umA): mahAnArAyaNopaniShat
bhava (all existence): RV-saMhitA; RV-khila; AV-vul; AV-P; YV saMhitA; Apastamba mantra-prashna; kaushItakI brAhmaNa; shatapata brAhmaNa; AV-parishiShTha
kapAlahasta (skull-wielder): as in kapAlin AV-parishiShTha
tryambaka (the three eyed one): RV-saMhitA; YV-saMhitA; YV-brAhmaNa-s; gopatha brAhmaNa; AV-parishiShTha
dhruva (firm): shvetAshavatara
khara-priya/khara-rUpin (with donkeys): equivalent of the gardabhau mentioned in the AV-P
vAmadeva (the beautiful god): mahAnArAyaNopaniShat
mahAdeva (the great god): AV-vul; AV-P; YV saMhitA; kaushItakI brAhmaNa; AV-parishiShTha

[Twilightdance]

Sorry for the late reply, i just saw your post.


shitikaNTha (the fair-throated one): YV saMhitA
nIlagrIva (the blue-throated one): YV saMhitA; AV-P
mIDhuShaH (bountiful): RV saMhitA; YV saMhitA; Apastamba mantra-prashna
vR^iSha (the bull): RV saMhitA
deva (the god): RV saMhitA; AV-vulgate; tANDya brAhmaNa
pinAkin (the holder of the pinAka bow): AV-vul; AV-P; YV saMhitA; AV-parishiShTha
shiva (the auspicious one): RV saMhitA; YV saMhitA; AV-vul; AV-P; shvetAshavatara
girisha (mountain rover): YV; AV-P
hara (destroyer): maitrAyaNIya saMhitA; shvetAshavatara; AshvalAyana gR^ihyasUtra; bodhAyana mantraprashna; ApastaMba mantraprashna
aghora (benign): YV-maitrAyaNIya; mahAnArAyaNa; AV-parishiShTha
ghora (terrible): YV-maitrAyaNIya; mahAnArAyaNa; AV-parishiShTha
ghoratara (most terrible): YV-maitrAyaNIya; mahAnArAyaNa; AV-parishiShTha
virUpa (many formed): YV-saMhita
purahAriN (destroyer of the 3 cities): as in tripurAntaka brAhmaNa, i.e., YV-taittirIya brAhmaNa
aShTasvarUpin (8 formed): The 8 names come in the shUlagava mantra, e.g. Apastamba mantraprashna; kaushItakI brAhmaNa; shatapata brAhmaNa
pinAkahasta (holder of the pinAka): YV-saMhitA
kR^ittivAsas (clad in hides): YV-saMhitA
bhUtAnAMpati (lord of the beings): as bhUtapati in AV-Vulgate; AV-P; aitareya-brAhmaNa
muNDa (clean shaven): AV-parishiShTha; as in vyuptakesha in YV-saMhitA
kapardin (with knotted locks): RV-saMhitA; YV-saMhitA; AshvalAyana gR^ihyasUtra; AV-parishiShTha
aja (unborn): shvetAshavatara
harikesha (green/yellow haired): YV-saMhitA
pi~Ngala (tawny): mahAnArAyaNopaniShat; AV-parishiShTha (e.g. uchChuShma and goshAnti)
dakSha-makhaghna (destroyer of dakSha’s ritual): alluded in gopatha-brAhmaNa as destroyer of prajApati’s yAga and AV-parishiShTha in graha-saMgraha
bhaga-netrApahArin (destroyer of bhaga’s eyes): gopatha-brAhmaNa
umApati (husband of umA): mahAnArAyaNopaniShat
bhava (all existence): RV-saMhitA; RV-khila; AV-vul; AV-P; YV saMhitA; Apastamba mantra-prashna; kaushItakI brAhmaNa; shatapata brAhmaNa; AV-parishiShTha
kapAlahasta (skull-wielder): as in kapAlin AV-parishiShTha
tryambaka (the three eyed one): RV-saMhitA; YV-saMhitA; YV-brAhmaNa-s; gopatha brAhmaNa; AV-parishiShTha
dhruva (firm): shvetAshavatara
khara-priya/khara-rUpin (with donkeys): equivalent of the gardabhau mentioned in the AV-P
vAmadeva (the beautiful god): mahAnArAyaNopaniShat
mahAdeva (the great god): AV-vul; AV-P; YV saMhitA; kaushItakI brAhmaNa; AV-parishiShTha

Excellent Proof.

[shiv.somashekhar]

Sorry for the late reply, I just saw your post.

....

Thanks Omkara.

The above references do not have anything on Rudra. Do you have something that shows Rudra = Shiva in the Veda? Also skipping later references such as MahaNarayana, etc.

The reason I ask is, I am not aware of a clear reference to Shiva (as Rudra) in the Veda. This does not mean that no such references exists, just that I am not aware of any.

[Omkara]

Thanks Omkara.

The above references do not have anything on Rudra. Do you have something that shows Rudra = Shiva in the Veda? Also skipping later references such as MahaNarayana, etc.

The reason I ask is, I am not aware of a clear reference to Shiva (as Rudra) in the Veda. This does not mean that no such references exists, just that I am not aware of any.

Is your objection that Rudra is never called Shiva in the vedas? Rudra is called Shiva in the Rig Veda, Atharva Veda and Yajur Veda(Sri Rudram). I had posted those verses on the thread I linked to. Searching a 194-post thread for them is very difficult. Rudra is described as having matted locks, three eyes, blue throat,weilder pf the pinaka bow, living on the mountains,wearer of hides, husband of uma,rider of a bull, destroyer of Tripura, destroyer of Andhaka,etc. This is obviously the same deity described in the puranas as Shiva.

[philosoraptor]

The now defunct Vedic religion was marked by -

1. No idol worship (and hence, no temples)
2. Absence of today's prominent Gods such as Krishna, Shiva*, Ganesha, Lakshmi, Saraswati, etc.
3. Belief in a pitru-loka or an afterlife where people went to heaven based on merit. Ancestor worship was prominent.
4. Belief in reincarnation appears to be missing in the early samhita and also the concept of Moksha.

Re #2 - there are clear references to Lakshmi in Sri Sukta of the Rig Veda and in the Taitirriya Aranyaka of the Krishna Yajur Veda.

Re #4 - Omkar pointed out a very clear reference regarding reincarnation earlier from the RV, if memory serves. Moksha in the sense of a supreme destination is clearly there, especially in puruSha-sukta, thought not mentioned as "moksha," the concept is clearly there.

[Omkara]

stomaM vo adya rudrAya shikvase kShayadvIrAya namasA didiShTana yebhiH shivaH svavAn evayAvabhir divaH siShakti svayashA nikAmabhiH | RV10.92.9 stomaM=a chant (accusative singular); vaH= personal pronoun; adya= today(adverb); rudrAya= rudra (dative singular); shikvase= skilled-one (*ArSha* dative singular); didiShTana= to present; yebhiH= pronoun plural; shivaH= shiva, i.e auspicious (nominative singular) svavAn= good protector (nominative singular) evayAvabhiH=swift-moving (instrumental plural); divaH= sky (ablative singular of dyaus); siShakti= accompanied by; svayashA= evidently famous (nominative singular); nikAmabhiH= eager ones (instrumental plural). dyaus); siShakti= accompanied by; svayashA= evidently famous (nominative singular); nikAmabhiH= eager ones (instrumental plural) singular); nikAmabhiH= eager ones (instrumental plural). Present your chant today that pays obeisance to the rudra, the skillful one, the lord of heroes shiva, the good protector, of great fame, comes from the sky accompanied by those one who are swift and eager

[Sahasranama]

Western academics love to compartmentalise Hinduism, but no actual Hindu compartmentalises their religion in this manner. Saying that the puranic Shiva is not the same as the Vedic or that reincarnation is a later development because it appears in one part of the Veda and not the other is all dry academic arm chair speculation. Hindus look at the Vedas, Itihasas and Puranas as one integrated whole, not as a conglomeration of disjunct pieces of unrelated material. Indological theories are not based on actual evidence from textual and traditional records, but on the imagination of incompetent pseudo scholars.

[Sahasranama]

stomaM vo adya rudrAya shikvase kShayadvIrAya namasA didiShTana yebhiH shivaH svavAn evayAvabhir divaH siShakti svayashA nikAmabhiH | RV10.92.9 stomaM=a chant (accusative singular); vaH= personal pronoun; adya= today(adverb); rudrAya= rudra (dative singular); shikvase= skilled-one (*ArSha* dative singular); didiShTana= to present; yebhiH= pronoun plural; shivaH= shiva, i.e auspicious (nominative singular) svavAn= good protector (nominative singular) evayAvabhiH=swift-moving (instrumental plural); divaH= sky (ablative singular of dyaus); siShakti= accompanied by; svayashA= evidently famous (nominative singular); nikAmabhiH= eager ones (instrumental plural). dyaus); siShakti= accompanied by; svayashA= evidently famous (nominative singular); nikAmabhiH= eager ones (instrumental plural) singular); nikAmabhiH= eager ones (instrumental plural). Present your chant today that pays obeisance to the rudra, the skillful one, the lord of heroes shiva, the good protector, of great fame, comes from the sky accompanied by those one who are swift and eager

Because this verse talks about Shiva, circular logic dictates that it must be a later addition to the Rig Veda. Please exclude this verse and provide evidence from only Rig Veda Mandala 3 hymn 20-23.

[shiv.somashekhar]

Thanks for the references. I need some time to look them over.

[savithru]

Western academics love to compartmentalise Hinduism, but no actual Hindu compartmentalises their religion in this manner. Saying that the puranic Shiva is not the same as the Vedic or that reincarnation is a later development because it appears in one part of the Veda and not the other is all dry academic arm chair speculation. Hindus look at the Vedas, Itihasas and Puranas as one integrated whole, not as a conglomeration of disjunct pieces of unrelated material. Indological theories are not based on actual evidence from textual and traditional records, but on the imagination of incompetent pseudo scholars.

Will there be an end to it? I am really annoyed with western academic people who assert that advaita is atheistic and some hold this wrong view that the vedic people were barbarians and somehow they intellectualized their religion and only accept the Upanishads and reject the Vedic gods. They don't understand that there is one single coherent thought from the time of Vedas up until the time of Upanishads. The Upanishads are not the end of the Vedas, they are the ending message of the Vedas. The Upanishads should be understood in the context of the Vedas.

They are so deluded that they persist that its me who is misinterpreting Advaita and I am not able to defend my own religion.

Such a view is not good scholarship or archeology but merely cultural imperialism. The Western Vedic scholars did in the intellectual spehere what the British army did in the political realm discredit, divide and conquer the Hindus. In short, the compelling reasons for the Aryan invasion theory were neither literary nor archeological but political and religious that is to say, not scholarship but prejudice. Such prejudice may not have been intentional but deep-seated political and religious views easily cloud and blur our thinking.

It is unfortunate that this this approach has not been questioned more, particularly by Hindus. Even though Indian Vedic scholars like Dayananda saraswati, Bal Gangadhar Tilak and Arobindo rejected it, most Hindus today passively accept it. They allow Western, generally Christian, scholars to interpret their history for them and quite naturally Hinduism is kept in a reduced role. Many Hindus still accept, read or even honor the translations of the 'Vedas' done by such Christian missionary scholars as Max Muller, Griffith, MonierWilliams and H. H. Wilson. Would modern Christians accept an interpretation of the Bible or Biblical history done by Hindus aimed at converting them to Hinduism? Universities in India also use the Western history books and Western Vedic translations that propound such views that denigrate their own culture and country.

The modern Western academic world is sensitive to critisms of cultural and social biases. For scholars to take a stand against this biased interpretation of the 'Vedas' would indeed cause a reexamination of many of these historical ideas that can not stand objective scrutiny. But if Hindu scholars are silent or passively accept the misinterpretation of their own culture, it will undoubtly continue, but they will have no one to blame but themselves. It is not an issue to be taken lightly, because how a culture is defined historically creates the perspective from which it is viewed in the modern social and intellectual context. Tolerance is not in allowing a false view of one's own culture and religion to be propagated without question. That is merely self-betrayal.

- David Frawley

I think we need to bring an end to this, tolerance of ignorance is not what this world needs at this present age and time. We should make a stage for religious scholars to speak out and create awareness among people.