Does smRiti texts teach "some nonsense."

[satay]

Admin note

Obviously I can close this thread too but I just want to see how far the esteemed knowledgeable members would go... Does anyone have any self control? Lets see...

HDF watches....

[devotee]

Continued from last post :

Common noun or Proper Noun ?? What are the rules and how it proves that NArAyAna is proper noun and other devas like Agni/Vayu etc. names as common noun must be an interesting thing to understand.

Till the above is done, I will clarify here that in the Veda-samhitAs, it is not that the God is NArAyaNa and he is being referred to as Agni or Indra or VAyu or Rudra or Vishvedeva etc.. No, the devata being invoked in that chapter is Agni and it is referred to as the supreme ... or the Indra is the devatA and he is addressed as the supreme etc. Similarly, Vishnu and others.

The main thing is that if you have to describe an elephant, you must see the whole elephant and not that you catch hold of its bushy tail and say, "hey, elephant is like a brush !". This is nothing but blindness. If NArAyana is described at some places in the scriptures as the Supreme, then so is Shiva and so is Indra and so is Agni .... now you come to me catching hold of one book and a few verses from that scripture like holding the tail of the elephant and claim .... "hey, this alone is the truth as it is said in this scripture" ....No, no. It is not done that way. That is not the whole truth ... if that is the Truth then what about verses in other scriptures ... the falsity ? ... we must guard ourselves against this tendency if we want to realise the Truth as It is. It is not prudent to make hard-boiled opinion and become stubborn by reading a little of the whole VAngamaya of Shruti and claim that what has been understood by reading that in isolation is the Truth !

I have nothing more to add to this topic ... so, before this thread becomes a battleground ... I quit this thread here.

OM

[brahma jijnasa]

Namaste ShivaFan

I am a simple person, I do not know anything. I have a question, since I am not understanding this thread, as if some are having a problem back and forth even with each other. My question is, is "Realization of Supreme Brahman" and "Brahman" the same thing?

And is revealing the Supreme, and the Supreme, the Same?

I'm not quite sure what you mean.
Is it "Supreme Brahman" and "Brahman" the same thing?
Yes Supreme Brahman is Brahman, but it depends on the particular tradition of what it includes precisely, what that Brahman is.

I'm not quite sure what you mean by "And is revealing the Supreme, and the Supreme, the Same?"

regards

[Ganeshprasad]

Pranam Satay

Admin note

Obviously I can close this thread too but I just want to see how far the esteemed knowledgeable members would go... Does anyone have any self control? Lets see...

HDF watches....

Thanks, what self control!!

Let it be known I had not asked for any post to be removed, how you moderate this thread is, to state the obvious, up to you.

Certain people have a tendency to bring the worst in others, perhaps without meaning it or perhaps deliberately or both, human tendency!

It seems I will not have a direct answer to a question, does Vyasdev not know sruti?

The statement like (Precisely. They are authoritative only to the extent that they do not contradict shruti. This was never controversial among informed persons. )

I hear the above, all the time, these so call informed people never explain as to why we should fall back on sruti?

Who and at what point this rule was made?

We are told Puranas are meant for general mass of people, most would not have read Vedas in fact they were forbidden to read Vedas and yet we have some how be able to match it with sruti!

Why I keep asking? I can't imagine anyone here think Vyasji does not know sruti.

Jai Shree Krishna

[philosoraptor]

Not just neos, traditional advaitins (including Shankra himself) would obviously not differentiate between a deva and Brahman. Ergo, their interpretation of the Kena would be different from yours - just like you posted a Ramanuja interpretation earlier.

So, I am a little unclear on your question. Are you saying, no one on this forum has access to Shankara's Kena Upanishad Bhashya or are you saying Shankara was wrong? I donated my copy a long time ago or else I could have posted it.

I'm saying that the Upanishad clearly distinguishes between Brahman and other devas, and that it is not an "Abrahamic interpretation" to accept the distinction as real. Even Shankara accepted the distinction between the two, at least in his vyavahArika level of perception. See for example, his comments on vedAnta-sUtra describing the eligibility of devas to meditate on brahman, or his comments on gItA 7.23 among others.

There is of course, a corollary to this point, and that is that "those who live in glass houses should not throw stones." The distinction between brahman and devas is very much a part of the tradition with clear support in shruti. That it does not seem convenient for the genesis of modern, Neo-Hindu, nationalist ideology does not make it "Abrahamic."

[Viraja]

Namaste,

I hope my small contribution here (as a Vaishnava) will not have any serious interference to any discussions.

"Vritra was conquered by Vishnu and Indra together. If Vishnu is really all powerful, why was there any necessity to take the help of Indra."

I browsed the net on the above-mentioned episode and it seems first the devas went to Shiva for assistance in vanquishing the said asura, and then even Shiva went to Vishnu in asking for help.

From https://www.maavaishnodevi.org/vritrasura.aspx:

"Vritra waged a battle against Indra and his forces and managed to give a crushing defeat to him as a result of which Indra had to flee from the battle scene leaving behind his elephant Airawat. Vritrasura then took over Inderlok, forcing Indra to flee to Lord Shankar for help. Shankar along with Brahma went to lord Vishnu to seek his help."

Even in the story of Lord Shiva slaying Tripurasura, it is said, he did 'Avahanaa' of Dasamukha-Mahaganapathi in the tip of his arrow and aimed it at the 3 forts of Tripurasura and thus vanquished him. While Shiva is capable of burning down anyone by opening his 3rd eye, why in this instance he took the assistance of his son Vinayaka to kill Tripurasura?

Pranam.

[philosoraptor]

polytheism is not the issue, it isthe comparativeanalysis and allocating a n ascending.descending order of importancethat has potential disharmony written all over it.

Does the shruti have "potential disharmony written all over it?"

The shatapatha brAhmaNa 14.1.1.5 says:

viShNurdevAnAm shreShTaH | "Vishnu is the best among gods."

And the aitareya brAhmaNa 1.1.1. says:

agnir vai devAnAm avamo viShNuH paramas | tadantareNa sarvA anyA devatA ||

"Agni among the gods has the lowest, Vishnu has the highest place; between them stand all the other deities."

These statements are clear and do not require interpretation. The problem here is that some people motivated by ideological constraints cannot accept these statements as factual.

You have rightly cited Upanishads profusely, but i see Brahman written all over them, although saguna Brahman was very much mentioned, nirguna was more glorified in so far as i see it.

And where do you see that, exactly? Please quote pramANas which explicitly distinguish between a "saguNa" and "nirguNa" brahman. Because so far as I have seen to date, these concepts, as Advaitists use them, are not found in the shruti anywhere. As far as the shrutis are considered, He is nirguNa and still has infinite auspicious qualities, is formless and yet Has form with countless limbs. The puruSha-sukta says:

vaE-dA-ha-maE -tam pu-ru-SHam ma -hA-ntam |
A-di -tya-va-rNam ta-ma-sa -stu pA -raE |
sa-rvA-Ni rU -pA-Ni vi -ci-tya dhI-raH |
nA-mA-ni kRe- tvA a-bhi - va-da-nya-dA-staE ||16||

He is the puruSha who is beyond tamas - not that He is the puruSha only in association with the guNas and not a puruSha when He transcends them.

As my quote from BrahmaSutras above, if one focuses on ones own daivarupa and be able to reach deeper planes of meditation, then it is the highly desirable practice, polytheism is fine. Whereas resorting to comparative analysis to bring down other rupas yields no rewarding outcome.

You are mistaken. Sri Krishna Himself resorts to just this sort of comparative analysis when He says:

antavat tu phalaṁ teṣāṁ tad bhavaty alpa-medhasām |
devān deva-yajo yānti mad-bhaktā yānti mām api || gItA 7.23 ||

"But verily the reward gained by these persons of limited understanding is finite. The worshippers of the gods will go to the gods by My devotees will come to Me."

Again, it just goes to show that the real problem here isn't differentiation between brahman and the devas. The problem is that there are those who refuse to accept it.

Shiva, Vishnu, durga or Brahman are the names we gave them for our sadhana purposes.

There are multiple pramANas describing brahman by names like "viShNu" and "rudra." Please quote the evidence stating that these are merely names given for the purpose of meditation.

Thanks to puranas, we have to deal with the diiscrepancies and the inconsistencies inherent in this system ourselves,

No we don't. All we need to do is accept what is consistent with shruti and reject that which is not consistent with shruti, as vedAntists have been doing for centuries.

what counts in karma siddanta, as you all very well know, is the degree of dharma ingrained in our words and deeds. My analogy with abrahamic faith is mainly from the intolerence angle really (of other sampradayas) not against the dvaita itself . Namaste.

The only intolerance I saw in this thread was the esteemed member who declared all those who disagree with his "all gods are the same God" theory as "Abrahamic." It sounds like you are saying that you find these sorts of remarks acceptable, since they are only directed at those who hold views which do not match your own.

Namaste

[brahma jijnasa]

Namaste devotee

You have liberty to see Agni as a deity assigned with the task of taking sacrifices to God and also have liberty ti worship it as the Supreme. Similarly is the case of Indra and other God/Goddess-forms.

Now, the question of hierarchy among the deities. When you don't consider a particular form and name as the Supreme but the deva then there are different devas assigned with various tasks and then there will be hierarchy ! This has to be understood very clearly and carefully. If one reads Veda samhitA then it becomes very very clear how the same deity can be seen as just a deva and also as the Supreme Brahman.


Somehow, the Hindus in general accept that it is the same Brahman who is worshipped in various forms and names : Ekam sad vipra bahudha vadanti.

Now, it may be difficult for an average person to accept so many supreme Gods ! So, if you are a Vaishnava, Vishnu is Supreme ... if you are a Shaiva, Shiva is supreme ... if you are a devotee of KAli, Goddess KAli is supreme ... if you worship Indra as the Supreme ... Indra is supreme.

for Indra it says :

10.128.7 I adore Indra who is the Creator of the creator of this creation, who is the Lord of the worlds and and who proptect us.

If we identify some verse in the sruti such as Rig Veda is talking about Indra or Brahmā etc in terms of "He is the creator of the world" or "He was in the beginning of the creation", then we should notice that there is also this:

"In the beginning of the creation there was only the Supreme Personality Nārāyaṇa. There was no Brahmā, no Śiva, no water, no fire, no moon, no stars in the sky, no sun." (Mahā Upaniṣad)

"From Nārāyaṇa, Brahmā is born, and from Nārāyaṇa the patriarchs are also born. From Nārāyaṇa, Indra is born, from Nārāyaṇa the eight Vasus are born, from Nārāyaṇa the eleven Rudras are born, from Nārāyaṇa the twelve Ādityas are born." (Nārāyaṇa Upaniṣad)

Now, from the standpoint of whatever philosophy you look at it, advaita or vaishnava this or that, we need to understand these passages so that they have a meaning.
It clearly says that in the beginning "there was no Brahmā, ... no moon, no stars etc" and also it says "Brahmā is born ... Indra is born ... etc" so we have to admit that some entities have not been there in the beginning. Otherwise there would be no sense to say "there was no ... there was no" and "is born ... is born" if we assume they were all there in the beginning.

If we follow the intention of the text, we must admit that entities as Brahmā Indra Vasus ... moon stars sun ... etc are not Nārāyaṇa but are different from Nārāyaṇa and when we come across some scriptural statement that says Brahmā or Indra were at the beginning then obviously that "Brahmā" and "Indra" are not Brahmā and Indra mentioned in the above passages, because above passages clearly say "There was no Brahmā in the beginning" and "Indra is born".
If we do not follow the intention of the text then really anything, even any kind of nonsense we can derive from the passages.

Thus Brahmā and Indra ... were not at the beginning and they are not the creator of the world.

regards

[philosoraptor]

Taking a few verses in isolation of a particular scripture without seeing the complete picture is sure to lead to erroneous interpretation of scriptures. We have to take all scriptures considered as Shruti and see the complete picture.

Pranams. I agree with this. Let us focus on all texts acknowledged to be shruti, and not bring in obscure texts of dubious authority which have not been quoted by pUrvAchAryas.

Indra, Agni, VAyu etc. have been extolled as the Supreme in the Vedas. However, they have also been described as devas for performing a particular job by the Brahman. Now, if they themselves are Supreme then they can't be subordinated and put to different jobs by anyone. A very pertinent example is Vishnu. Vishnu has been seen as the supreme at many places in the Vedas and the Upanishads. However, the same Vishnu has been described as the son of Aditi who is just like any other deva. Now, the Vishnu, if he is unborn, how can be a son of Aditi ? Vritra was conquered by Vishnu and Indra together. If Vishnu is really all powerful, why was there any necessity to take the help of Indra.

Devas are NOT described as Supreme in the Vedas. They are described as created beings in the shruti.

bRihadAraNyaka upaniShad:

II-i-20: As a spider moves along the thread (it produces), and as from a fire tiny sparks fly in all directions, so from this Self emanate all organs, all worlds, all gods and all beings. Its secret name (Upanishad) is 'the Truth of Truth'. The vital force is truth, and It is the Truth of that.

These devas attained their position through sacrifice as mentioned in the mahAnArAyaNa upaniShad:

LXXVIII-10: Others devoted to the Vedic religion say that sacrifice is the means of liberation. Verily gods have attained heaven by their own prior deeds of sacrifice. Therefore seekers of the highest good delight in the performance of sacrifice.

Note that brahman is always brahman, and does not attain His position via sacrifice, in contrast to the devas. Note also that brahman is without origin/cause/birth, while the devas have their origin in Him. Two things with different properties cannot be the same. This is elementary logic 101.

When brahman is addressed by names like indra, agni, or vAyu, such references have to be understood to refer to brahman, and not the subordinate devas commonly known by those names. It is illogical to assert that something is supreme and not supreme at the same time. Thus, context must be used to determine who the referent is. Is it brahman being referred to as indra, or is it the deva indra whose victory was won by brahman as in the kena upaniShad? Names like "indra" and "agni" are not proper nouns, denote specific attributes, and can apply either to the deva who bears them or to the brahman who has all the attributes. "indra" for example means "Lord" in a generic sense and is by no means specific to deva-rAja.

Vishnu being the son of Aditi is no more compromising to His supremacy than being son of Yashoda (as Krishna) or son of Kausalyaa (as Raama). Factually He has no mother or father except when, for the purpose of lIlA, he selects an exalted soul to act in this function. There is no need to invoke complicated, illogical paradigms of interpretation to assert that someone can be supreme and not supreme at the same time. Vishnu is always supreme even when He chooses to appear otherwise.

Vishnu did not need Indra's help to deal with Vritra. But because Indra's enmity with Vritra was aroused when the former killed the latter's brother Vishvaruupa, it was only fitting that Indra deal with Vritra himself. This is mentioned in bhAgavata purANa, 6th skandhya, 9th adhyAya.

How do we solve this puzzle ?

We have forgotten that in the Vedas, the Devas are supposed to be assigned to a particular task and also shown as the supreme in different places. This is because, the same Brahman projects these deities and these deities are Brahman alone.

Members may note the circular logic being employed above. How do we know devas are brahman? Because devas are brahman.

In reality, there is no puzzle. "Indra" when spoken of as a deva is not the same as "Indra" spoken of as a supreme being. The logic that "both are called Indra, therefore they must be the same being," is silly. Would you argue that anyone whose name is Ganesh must be the son of Shiva? Seriously?

If we remember PraSna Upanishad : PrANa is created by PrajApati with his tapasyA. However, just a few verses after, PrANa has been described as the PrajApati Himself.

This is because brahman is the indweller (antaryAmin) of all other entities, conscious and unconscious. See chAndogya upaniShad:

VI-viii-7: 'That Being which is this subtle essence (cause), even That all this world has for its self. That is the true. That is the Atman. That thou art, O Svetaketu.' 'Revered sir, please explain it further to me'. 'So be it, dear boy', said (the father).

As such, He can be referred to by the names of any body within which He dwells, in the same way that you refer to a human being by name given to his body. Factually, the name "Ganesh Prasad" refers to a body composed of inert matter which has no life of its own, yet you address someone as "Ganesh Prasad" and expect a response? Why? Do dead bodies respond to questions? No. Obviously, you are referring to the jIva within the body known as "Ganesh Prasad." In the same way, "prANa" can refer to the vital air, or it can refer to the deity indwelling within the vital air. This is why the shruti can speak of it as a created entity and a supreme entity.

We all know how dear is held, "Gayatri" mantra by the Hindus. This Gayatri which has been accepted as a mantra dedicated to Brahman is actually devoted to SavitA i.e. Sun God and not NArAyaNa.

False. The gAyatrI mantra is in fact a meditation on nArAyaNa, as this mantra (which is chanted at the end of sandhya-vandanam) states:

dhyeya sadA savitr maNDala madhyavartI
nArAyaNaH sarasijAsana sanniviSTaH
keyUravAn makara kuNDalavAn kirITI
hArI hiraNmaya vapuH dhrta zaGkha cakraH

"One should meditate on the form of Lord NArAyaNa situated in the sun globe. He is seated on a lotus, with golden bracelets, crown, shark earrings; he is golden in complexion, and holds the shankha and chakra in his hands."

Specifically, it is nArAyaNa as the indwelling controller of savitA (sun-god) who in turn is the indwelling controller of the sun globe. The gAyatrI-mantra is clearly a prayer to a supreme deity, and the sun-god who was forced by Kunti's mantra to appear before her and give her a son is clearly not a supreme deity.

Other shAstras confirm that nArAyaNa can be worshiped as the sun. For example, viShNu purANa 3.5.14-20:

Yájnawalkya, who was perfect in ascetic practices, addressed himself strenuously to the sun, being anxious to recover possession of the texts of the Yajush. "Glory to the sun," he exclaimed, "the gate of liberation, the fountain of bright radiance, the triple source of splendour, as the Rig, the Yajur, and the Sáma Vedas. Glory to him, who, as fire and the moon, is one with the cause of the universe: to the sun, that is charged with radiant heat, and with the Sushumna ray (by which the moon is fed with light): to him who is one with the notion of time, and all its divisions of hours, minutes, and seconds: to him who is to be meditated upon as the visible form of Vishńu, as the impersonation of the mystic Om: to him who nourishes the troops of the gods, having filled the moon with his rays; who feeds the Pitris with nectar and ambrosia, and who nourishes mankind with rain; who pours down or absorbs the waters in the time of the rains, of cold, and of heat. Glory be to Brahmá, the sun, in the form of the three seasons: he who alone is the dispeller of the darkness of this earth, of which he is the sovereign lord: to the god who is clad in the raiment of purity be adoration. Glory to the sun, until whose rising man is incapable of devout acts, and water does not purify, and touched by whose rays the world is fitted for religious rites: to him who is the centre and source of purification. Glory to Savitrí, to Súrya, to Bháskara, to Vivaswat, to Áditya, to the first-born of gods or demons. I adore the eye of the universe, borne in a golden car, whose banners scatter ambrosia."

And the shruti also confirms brahman's representation as the sun. For example, paramAtmA-sukta of yajur-veda quoted in mahAnArAyaNa upaniShad:

1. The universe arose from Visvakarman through water, earth, fire and other elements. He excelled Aditya, Indra and other gods. The sun called Tvasta rises in the morning embodying His brilliance. In the beginning of creation the mortal world enveloped in gloom received its divine brilliance from the sun shining in the glory of Paramatman.
2. I know this Great Person who is beyond ignorance and darkness and whose splendour is comparable to that of the sun. Knowing Him thus in this life itself, one transcends death. There is no other path leading to the attainment of liberation.
3. The sun who is the Lord of creatures moves about in the space between heaven and earth causing day and night. Although He is unborn, being the Self of all, He manifests Himself as the manifold universe. Wise men realize the source of the universe, the all-pervading Paramatman. Prajapati, the first patriarchs, sought the position, which Marichi and other sages attained.
4. Salutation to the resplendent Sun-God who is the son of Para-Brahman, who shines for the benefit of gods, who is invoked as the beneficent leader of the gods, and who was born as the eldest among the gods.


Note here how the creator of the universe (brahman, here referred to as Vishvakarman) is described as excelling Aditya (the sun-god), who rises in the morning embodying His brilliance (i.e. gets His attribute of luminosity from that brahman). Then brahman's splendor is compared to the sun. Then brahman as Lord of all creatures is addressed as the sun, and finally obeisances to the sun-god as the progeny of parabrahman! It is not the same sun-god being described throughout! It is sun-god, then the parama puruSha as the sun-god's antaryAmin, and then finally again the sun-god himself who is addressed in succession.

Why meditate on brahman aka nArAyaNa specifically as the indwelling controller of sUrya-deva, who is himself the indwelling controller of the sun globe? Because of the meditation - He is beyond darkness and illumines the entire world by His effulgence. The sun also illumines the world by its effulgence. Factually, the sun represents a tiny spark of the Lord's total glories. Yet, one has to meditate on His attributes somehow, so the shrutis prescribe meditating on Him as the indwelling controller of the deva controlling the sun. Note that the meditation is not on the sun-globe, which is nothing more than inert matter, but the sun-god's self's Self, with the sun as its extension or body.

The key is the bhaava of the seeker. He has freedom to see Shiva as a deity assigned a certain task of annihilation and he also has liberty to see Shiva as the Supreme. You have liberty to see Agni as a deity assigned with the task of taking sacrifices to God and also have liberty ti worship it as the Supreme. Similarly is the case of Indra and other God/Goddess-forms. It is like position of an electron in the electron-cloud which is affected by the presence of observer.

This is refuted by bhagavad-gItA:

ye ’py anya-devatā-bhaktā yajante śraddhayānvitāḥ |
te ’pi mām eva kaunteya yajanty avidhi-pūrvakam || gItA 9.23 ||
ahaṁ hi sarva-yajñānāṁ bhoktā ca prabhur eva ca |
na tu mām abhijānanti tattvenātaś cyavanti te || gItA 9.24 ||
yānti deva-vratā devān pitṝn yānti pitṛ-vratāḥ |
bhūtāni yānti bhūtejyā yānti mad-yājino ’pi mām || gItA 9.25 ||

Even those who, endowed with faith are devoted to other gods, they worship Me alone, O Kaunteya, in an indirect manner. For, I alone am the enjoyer and the only Lord of all sacrifices. They do no recognize Me in My true nature; hence they fall. Devotees of the gods go to the gods. The ancestor worshippers go to the manes; the worshippers of bhUta-s go to them; and those who worship Me come to Me.


This cannot be more clear. You have "freedom" to worship anya-devas, but failing to recognize that the fruits of anya-deva worship are bestowed by nArAyaNa alone, and that nArAyaNa is the only true enjoyer of all yagna (not the devas, who are merely intermediaries), you will fall down. Those who worship the devas go the worlds of the devas, in contrast to those who worship nArAyaNa who go to Him. Hence, the devas are different from nArAyaNa.

Note again that worship of other forms of nArAyaNa like rAma, kRiShNa, narasimha, etc is NEVER said to be "avidhi-pUrvakam" (without proper knowledge). Only anya-devata worship is characterized in this way. Hence, anya-devatas are not other forms of nArAyaNa; they are intermedaries who act as representatives of nArAyaNa in sacrifice.

Now, the question of hierarchy among the deities. When you don't consider a particular form and name as the Supreme but the deva then there are different devas assigned with various tasks and then there will be hierarchy ! This has to be understood very clearly and carefully. If one reads Veda samhitA then it becomes very very clear how the same deity can be seen as just a deva and also as the Supreme Brahman. It is also reflected in 108 Upanishads.

This is unintelligible. There is no "hierarchy" among the names and forms of the Lord. There is hierarchy amongst the devas. This is objectively stated in shrutis quoted previously, and it will not go away merely because it is not consistent with your sectarian views.

I must clarify here why I said in one place that those who try to prove the superiority of one God-form above another are better fit for Abrahimic religions.

a) First of all, it was not directed at anyone on this forum. This statement was made due to these reasons :

AbrAhmic religions are very much bogged down with this question : Who is the True God /False God ? There have been strict actions recommended in their scriptures for people who worship "false" god(s).

Somehow, the Hindus in general accept that it is the same Brahman who is worshipped in various forms and names : Ekam sad vipra bahudha vadanti.

b) I have no issues if someone says, "NArAyana" is supreme ... it is ok as Shstras say so. But when you start saying that "Lord Shiva is a demi-god and not supreme" you are violating many Shruti texts. Shastras also say that "Shiva is Supreme".

The only thing worse than uttering an ugly remark is rationalizing it.

Fact: no one here has employed wording like "false god," etc. Devotee's remarks are a strawman.

Fact: Devotee is misquoting the Rig Veda. The "ekam sat" mantra merely states that brahman is known by various names. It does not state that all devas are different forms of brahman.

Fact: Brahman is referred to by names of devas who are clearly different from Him. There is no "but he is Supreme also!" This is wishy-washy and illogical. The Supreme Lord is one without a second. Period.

It seems to me, that the reason some people hurl insults, such as comparing those whom they disagree with to Abrahamics, is because their own views on Hinduism do not stand up to polite scrutiny. Why come to terms with the contradictory nature of one's own opinions, when you can just villify those who disagree as "Abrahamics?" Insults like these are the tool of the insecure and the uninformed.

Now, it may be difficult for an average person to accept so many supreme Gods ! So, if you are a Vaishnava, Vishnu is Supreme ... if you are a Shaiva, Shiva is supreme ... if you are a devotee of KAli, Goddess KAli is supreme ... if you worship Indra as the Supreme ... Indra is supreme.

This of course, is the hallmark belief of Neo-Hinduism.

There is no fight. Why to be so much angry/hurt/stubborn/combative over this issue ? Please choose any path that suits you .... but please don't ridicule others who choose paths different from you.

So, devotee, why do you ridicule those who choose paths different from you as "Abrahamic?" This is pretty hypocritical, don't you think?

Common noun or Proper Noun ?? What are the rules and how it proves that NArAyAna is proper noun and other devas like Agni/Vayu etc. names as common noun must be an interesting thing to understand.

According to pANinI's aShTAdhyAyi, certain names containing Na-kArA when following certain consonants must be understood as proper nouns. The name "nArAyaNa" is one such word which fits this description. Note that "nArAyaNa" is a proper noun according to pANinI's rules, while "nArAyana" is not. Another example is "sUrpaNakha." While the name "sUpranakha" can refer to anyone having long nails, the name "sUrpaNakha" refers only to the sister of rAvaNa. Similarly, "nArAyana" could (in theory) refer to any deity with the attributes donated by the word, but "nArAyaNa" (as it is found in shruti) can refer only to one entity, namely, the husband of Sri.

I certainly hope you are not going to disagree with pANinI.

Till the above is done, I will clarify here that in the Veda-samhitAs, it is not that the God is NArAyaNa and he is being referred to as Agni or Indra or VAyu or Rudra or Vishvedeva etc.. No, the devata being invoked in that chapter is Agni and it is referred to as the supreme ... or the Indra is the devatA and he is addressed as the supreme etc. Similarly, Vishnu and others.

Incorrect and illogical, for reasons already mentioned. There is only One Supreme Being according to shruti, and addressing dependent entities as Supreme contradicts that principle.

The main thing is that if you have to describe an elephant, you must see the whole elephant and not that you catch hold of its bushy tail and say, "hey, elephant is like a brush !". This is nothing but blindness. If NArAyana is described at some places in the scriptures as the Supreme, then so is Shiva and so is Indra and so is Agni ....

Again, you are just not grasping the point. nArAyaNa is always described in the shruti as a Supreme Deity. Always.

Names like "Agni" and "Indra" do not always refer to a supreme deity.

A being cannot be supreme and not supreme at the same time. Indra being described as supreme in one place is not the same as the non-supreme Indra in another place.

The idea of addressing various devas in succession each as supreme, i.e. "henotheism," is a theory fabricated by Western Indologists. Of course, if you believe Western Indologists, you are more than welcome to do so. Just recognize the fact that it is an illogical theory.

Your comments attacking AchAryas who accept the straightforward meaning of shruti involving deva-tAratamya, is just one more indicator of the phenomenon of Hindus at war with their own culture.

pranams,

[philosoraptor]

The specific sUtra is aShTAdhyAyi 8.4.3:

pUrvapadAt saMj~nAyAm agaH

This pada is all about the n --> N substitution and in the contexts in which it occurs. Here, pANinI states that in a word containing "n" preceded by another word with either "r" or "Sh" but not containing "g," the "n" becomes a "N" provided that the derivate denotes a name /saMj~na.