How many gods are there in Hinduism?

[sayso]

I once heard that there are several million gods in the Hindu religion. Is this true and if it is where do they come from? Is there proof of their existence?

[Chris Q]

The origional of this is on my blog (http://western-hindu.org/2009/01/15/one-god-or-many-gods-a-shaiva-perspective/).

One God or many Gods, a Shaiva perspective
Many people think of Hinduism as polytheistic. In fact most Hindus are monotheistic, and Shaivas, fall into this category. How do the other Hindu deities, Vishnu, Ganesha, Krishna, etc. fit into this perspective. Ultimately there is nothing but Shiva. All the other Gods, in fact everything is a creation, emanation, or view of Shiva. The way that the multiplicity of different Gods are viewed.

Vishnu, Brahma and Shiva, (the Trimurti)
Probably the most iconic image in Shaivism is the Nataraja, Shiva as Lord of the Dance. This pictures Shiva in the dance of creation, preservation and destruction. In this form Shiva holds a drum in one hand, representing creation, the fire of destruction in another. One of his right arms is in the Abhayaprada Mudra, a gesture meaning “no fear”, signaling preservation. His fourth arm is held in an elephant trunk like posture, alluding to Ganesha, the removal of obstacles, again showing help and preservation to all people. It is clear from this that Shiva holds the properties of Vishnu and Brahma. In other words Vishnu and Brahma are alternative views of Shiva. Whereas a Vishnava or would see things differently I don’t think it is useful to talk about better or correct views; this is out view as Shaivas and we acknowledge that others may see things differently. Shaivas (and Vishnavas) believe in a good and merciful God, and all will be redeemed so this means there is no need for the type of conflict with other beliefs that we see in Islam and Christianity.

Shakti
Shakti is the feminine power, represented in different aspects as Parvati, Kali, Durga, Uma. Shakti is seen as an emanation of Shiva, and though shown as the wife of Shiva in mythology is actually another aspect of Shiva Himself. The different forms of Shakti correspond to the different forms of Shiva, Kali corresponding to Bhairava, Shiva the annihilator. Just Just as Vishnu can be seen as a different way of viewing Shiva, we can look at Lakshmi and Parvati from the Vishnava tradition as ways of looking at Shakti from a different tradition’s perspective. Within that Shaiva tradition Shakti is sometimes looked at as personal “mother Parvati”, but more usually as the energy of Lord Shiva.

Murugan (Kartikaya) and Ganesha
Ganesha and Murugan (also known as Kartikaya) play a special role in Shaivism. They are created, and therefore not the ultimate godhead like Shiva. They can be viewed in a similar way to the Judeo-Christian archangels. They are great Lords, doing Shiva’s bidding. Due to their high state of development they are constantly aware that they are part of Shiva, and so can be seen as aspects of Shiva.

Shaivas often pray to Ganesha for worldly things, reserving prayers to Shiva for worship and asking for spiritual insight, help and advancement. Thus we might ask Ganesha to help us do our best preparing for and taking an exam, but ask Shiva to help us see our true spiritual nature.

Shiva comprises of the archetype of all human possibilities, so Shiva Parivar the divine family of Shiva, Parvati, Murugan, and Ganesha are an example of the perfect family. Shaivas may pray to Ganesha and Murugan, but this is usually for specific requests and purposes. Worship should be as respect due to Shiva’s greates lords, not worship of the ultimate divine.

Devas and Devis
There are many Devas and Devis, which are beings more advanced than humans but still created beings. These are traditionally said to be lead by Indra, king of the Devas. They are equivalent to the Judao-Christian lower angels. They are generally wise an benevolent servants of Shiva. Shaivas do not worship or call on the Devas and Devis, but would thank one if helped as you would thank a wise and helpful person.
Aum Namah Shivaya

[Trinity]

The origional of this is on my blog (http://western-hindu.org/2009/01/15/one-god-or-many-gods-a-shaiva-perspective/).

One God or many Gods, a Shaiva perspective
Many people think of Hinduism as polytheistic. In fact most Hindus are monotheistic, and Shaivas, fall into this category. How do the other Hindu deities, Vishnu, Ganesha, Krishna, etc. fit into this perspective. Ultimately there is nothing but Shiva. All the other Gods, in fact everything is a creation, emanation, or view of Shiva. The way that the multiplicity of different Gods are viewed.

Vishnu, Brahma and Shiva, (the Trimurti)
Probably the most iconic image in Shaivism is the Nataraja, Shiva as Lord of the Dance. This pictures Shiva in the dance of creation, preservation and destruction. In this form Shiva holds a drum in one hand, representing creation, the fire of destruction in another. One of his right arms is in the Abhayaprada Mudra, a gesture meaning “no fear”, signaling preservation. His fourth arm is held in an elephant trunk like posture, alluding to Ganesha, the removal of obstacles, again showing help and preservation to all people. It is clear from this that Shiva holds the properties of Vishnu and Brahma. In other words Vishnu and Brahma are alternative views of Shiva. Whereas a Vishnava or would see things differently I don’t think it is useful to talk about better or correct views; this is out view as Shaivas and we acknowledge that others may see things differently. Shaivas (and Vishnavas) believe in a good and merciful God, and all will be redeemed so this means there is no need for the type of conflict with other beliefs that we see in Islam and Christianity.

Shakti
Shakti is the feminine power, represented in different aspects as Parvati, Kali, Durga, Uma. Shakti is seen as an emanation of Shiva, and though shown as the wife of Shiva in mythology is actually another aspect of Shiva Himself. The different forms of Shakti correspond to the different forms of Shiva, Kali corresponding to Bhairava, Shiva the annihilator. Just Just as Vishnu can be seen as a different way of viewing Shiva, we can look at Lakshmi and Parvati from the Vishnava tradition as ways of looking at Shakti from a different tradition’s perspective. Within that Shaiva tradition Shakti is sometimes looked at as personal “mother Parvati”, but more usually as the energy of Lord Shiva.

Murugan (Kartikaya) and Ganesha
Ganesha and Murugan (also known as Kartikaya) play a special role in Shaivism. They are created, and therefore not the ultimate godhead like Shiva. They can be viewed in a similar way to the Judeo-Christian archangels. They are great Lords, doing Shiva’s bidding. Due to their high state of development they are constantly aware that they are part of Shiva, and so can be seen as aspects of Shiva.

Shaivas often pray to Ganesha for worldly things, reserving prayers to Shiva for worship and asking for spiritual insight, help and advancement. Thus we might ask Ganesha to help us do our best preparing for and taking an exam, but ask Shiva to help us see our true spiritual nature.

Shiva comprises of the archetype of all human possibilities, so Shiva Parivar the divine family of Shiva, Parvati, Murugan, and Ganesha are an example of the perfect family. Shaivas may pray to Ganesha and Murugan, but this is usually for specific requests and purposes. Worship should be as respect due to Shiva’s greates lords, not worship of the ultimate divine.

Devas and Devis
There are many Devas and Devis, which are beings more advanced than humans but still created beings. These are traditionally said to be lead by Indra, king of the Devas. They are equivalent to the Judao-Christian lower angels. They are generally wise an benevolent servants of Shiva. Shaivas do not worship or call on the Devas and Devis, but would thank one if helped as you would thank a wise and helpful person.
Aum Namah Shivaya

I am not an expert but I think there is one sole God. All the others are manifestations of this sole God. Anybody can correct me if I am wrong. :)

Trinity

[sayso]

Thanks for your answer Chris! It only took three months for someone to answer my question. :D

[sayso]

Chris,
Would you say that the definition below is an accurate description of Hinduism? Or maybe I should ask you what do see that you would say is not correct?



In its most simple definition, Hinduism may be defined as the religious beliefs and practices common to India. Defining Hinduism in a more precise manner is difficult because of its wide number of practices and teachings. To illustrate this, here are selected definitions from authoritative sources. Hinduism is:


The Way of the majority of the people of India, a Way that is a combination of religious belief, rites, customs, and daily practices, many of which appear overtly secular but in most cases have religious origins and sanctions. Hinduism is noted as being the only one of the major beliefs that cannot be defined, for any definition is inadequate, contradictory, and incomplete. (1) (http://www.apologeticsindex.org/h09.html#note1)
The name used in the West to designate the traditional socioreligious structure of the Indian people. As a religion based on mythology, it has neither a founder (as do Buddhism, Islam, and Christianity), nor a fixed canon. Myriad local cults and traditions of worship or belief can be distinguished. (2) (http://www.apologeticsindex.org/h09.html#note2)
The variety of religious beliefs and practices making up the majority tradition of the Indian subcontinent. (3) (http://www.apologeticsindex.org/h09.html#note3)
... a complex product of [the] amalgamation of various cults and beliefs within a common social framework [e.g. the caste system]. (4) (http://www.apologeticsindex.org/h09.html#note4)
In spite of its diversity, Hinduism reveals a number of common themes. Some of these include pantheism (the belief that all is God, God is all), polytheism (a belief in many lesser gods), and a reliance upon occult ritual and practices. Hinduism originated from a body of conflicting and contradictory literature called the Vedas (ca. 1500-1200 B.C.). Hindus claim that this body of literature was supernaturally revealed by the Hindu gods. Thus, these basic religious texts "make a special claim to be divine in their origin" (5) (http://www.apologeticsindex.org/h09.html#note5) The four Vedas are the Rigveda, Samaveda, Yajuraveda, and the Artharvaveda. They are divided into two parts: the "work" portion (basically poytheistic ritual) and the "knowledge" portion (philosophical speculation). This latter portion comprises what is called the Upanishads or Vedanta: "Since they brought to a close each of the four Vedas, the Upanishads came to be spoken of often as the Vendanta - the anta or end of the Vedas" (6) (http://www.apologeticsindex.org/h09.html#note6) The Vedas are mostly a collection of ritualistic hymns to various Hindu gods. The Rigveda comprises the foremost collection of these hymns. The Yajurveda is a collection of various mantras (http://www.apologeticsindex.org/m00.html#mantra), or special words used to evoke occult power. The Samaveda combines verses from the Rigveda to melodic chants. The Artharvaveda is basically a collection of occult spell, incantations, and hymns. (7) (http://www.apologeticsindex.org/h09.html#note7) The Vedas are really the "Bible" of Hinduism. They can be divided into the Samhitas, Brahmanas, Aranyakas, and Upanishads.
(...) Only 108 Upanishads remain and, of these, ten are of central importance. They are the tsa, kena, katha, prasma, mundaka, mandukya, chandogya, brhandaranyaka, aitareya, and taittirya. As for as the Upanishads themsevles are concerned, "[T]heir variety of thought has allowed considerable la***ude in their interpretation, so that scriptural orthodox has not led to a single viewpoint. Thus, Hindu metaphysicians range in their adherance from ... theism to atheism." (8) (http://www.apologeticsindex.org/h09.html#note8)

footnotes


Edward Rice, Eastern Definitions, Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1978. p.166-167
Ingrid Fisher-Schribners, et.al., The Encyclopedia of Eastern Philosophy and Religion, Boston, MA: Shambhala, 1989. p.130
Keith Crim, ed., Abingdon Dictionary of Living Religions, Nashville, TN: Abingdon, 1981. p.306
S.G.F. Brandon, ed., Dictionary of Comparative Religion, NY: Charles Shribner's Sons, 1970. p330
Swami Prabhavananda and Frederick Manchester, The Spiritual Heritage of India, New York: Doubleday & Company, 1964. p3.
ibid. p.21
"Vedas," Encyclopedia Britannica 15th ed. vol. 10, Micropedia. p.375
"Indian Philosophy," in Paul Edwards, editor-in-chief, Encyclopedia of Philosophy, vol. 4, New York: Collier Macmillian, 1973. p.155

http://www.apologeticsindex.org/graphics/uparrow.gif (http://www.apologeticsindex.org/h09.html#top)

[Chris Q]

Chris,
Would you say that the definition below is an accurate description of Hinduism? Or maybe I should ask you what do see that you would say is not correct?


OK, I'll give it a go. Don't take what I say as definitive, I am still learning. I don't think I will say anything incorrect, but I could well miss things or alternative ways of looking at things.



The name used in the West to designate the traditional socioreligious structure of the Indian people. As a religion based on mythology, it has neither a founder (as do Buddhism, Islam, and Christianity), nor a fixed canon. Myriad local cults and traditions of worship or belief can be distinguished. (2) (http://www.apologeticsindex.org/h09.html#note2)

I would not use the word cult. Tradition, or school are better ways of describing the various groups.


... a complex product of [the] amalgamation of various cults and beliefs within a common social framework [e.g. the caste system]. (4) (http://www.apologeticsindex.org/h09.html#note4)


The caste system as commonly thought of in the West is not integral to Hinduism. Though the Varnas were used to classify people this was by nature and not by birth. I have written more about this on my blog (http://western-hindu.org/2008/01/27/the-caste-system/).


In spite of its diversity, Hinduism reveals a number of common themes. Some of these include pantheism (the belief that all is God, God is all), polytheism (a belief in many lesser gods), and a reliance upon occult ritual and practices.

Well, I think most of that is wrong. Hinduism is generally panentheistic, not pantheistic, God is in creation but is more than creation. The relience in occult rituals and practices is very much a minority thing, most Hindus do not practice occultism and certainly don't rely on it. Almost all schools teach the basics as Bhakti (devotion), Jnana (Knowledge), and Karma (Action) yoga, sometimes with Hathra yoga (exercises and postures). Very few practice tantra (occultism)

As you will have seen in my previous post Hinduism is not polytheistic, the lesser Gods are created Gods, akin to angels and archangels.


Hinduism originated from a body of conflicting and contradictory literature called the Vedas (ca. 1500-1200 B.C.). Hindus claim that this body of literature was supernaturally revealed by the Hindu gods. Thus, these basic religious texts "make a special claim to be divine in their origin" (5) (http://www.apologeticsindex.org/h09.html#note5) The four Vedas are the Rigveda, Samaveda, Yajuraveda, and the Artharvaveda.

I do not see them as contradictory.


They are divided into two parts: the "work" portion (basically poytheistic ritual) and the "knowledge" portion (philosophical speculation). This latter portion comprises what is called the Upanishads or Vedanta: "Since they brought to a close each of the four Vedas, the Upanishads came to be spoken of often as the Vendanta - the anta or end of the Vedas" [/qote]

I have not seen this division. The normal division is into four parts

Samhitas - Mantras and Songs of Praise
Brahmanas - Services and rituals
Aranykas - The meanings behind the services and rituals
Upanishads - the philosophy


[QUOTE=sayso;5155]
(6) (http://www.apologeticsindex.org/h09.html#note6) The Vedas are mostly a collection of ritualistic hymns to various Hindu gods. The Rigveda comprises the foremost collection of these hymns. The Yajurveda is a collection of various mantras (http://www.apologeticsindex.org/m00.html#mantra), or special words used to evoke occult power. The Samaveda combines verses from the Rigveda to melodic chants. The Artharvaveda is basically a collection of occult spell, incantations, and hymns.

I have not studied this, but I believe that the meanings are symbolic rather than occult.


]
(8) (http://www.apologeticsindex.org/h09.html#note7"(7)[/URL] The Vedas are really the "Bible" of Hinduism. They can be divided into the Samhitas, Brahmanas, Aranyakas, and Upanishads.
(...) Only 108 Upanishads remain and, of these, ten are of central importance. They are the tsa, kena, katha, prasma, mundaka, mandukya, chandogya, brhandaranyaka, aitareya, and taittirya. As for as the Upanishads themsevles are concerned, "[T]heir variety of thought has allowed considerable la***ude in their interpretation, so that scriptural orthodox has not led to a single viewpoint. Thus, Hindu metaphysicians range in their adherance from ... theism to atheism." [URL="http://www.apologeticsindex.org/h09.html#note8)

I think that unless you take the broad definition of Hinduism to include Buddhism you would be hard pressed to find an atheist Hindu today. Historically there was an atheist school, the cavarka but this is no longer in existance.

Also, as far as being the Bible of Hinduism, I can see why that would be said but the Agamas are probably of more concern to most schools. The agamas are not universally recognised however, Shaivas follow the Shiva Agamas, Vishnava the Vishnava agamas and so on.

[Trinity]

If my memory is good.

Buddhism had preceded Hinduism. Hinduism expanded at the expense of Buddhism
Judaism had preceded Christianity. Christianity expanded at the expense of Judaism.

New traditions are always rooting in the oldest soil (compost) and into something else.

Trinity

[Chris Q]

If my memory is good.

Buddhism had preceded Hinduism.
Judaism had preceded Christianity.

New traditions are always rooting in the oldest soil and into something else.

Trinity

Buddhism was founded by Gautama Buddha (563 BCE to 483 BCE). Hinduism has no founder, and is much older. Archaeological evidence puts it to at least the iron Age, and we believe it is much older

[Trinity]

Buddhism was founded by Gautama Buddha (563 BCE to 483 BCE). Hinduism has no founder, and is much older. Archaeological evidence puts it to at least the iron Age, and we believe it is much older

Yes, you are right. I was referring to the clash between the two religions. Around 400-450 B.C.. There was a time the Buddhism was geopolitically dominant in Asia.

Trinity

[bhuvana-mohan dasa]

I think that unless you take the broad definition of Hinduism to include Buddhism you would be hard pressed to find an atheist Hindu today.

....and to that i would add, friend Chris, that the strict monists (whose numbers are infinitessimal and entirely non-representative of Hindus (considered as a single Faith or body, and yet many in the Western world take many of their illogical philosophical premises along with those premises' real and necessary conclusions, (e.g., Brahman must be subject to experiencing delusion , if all is ultimately illusory, otherwise that Illusion would be without an experiencer) as being representative of Hindu belief. This is so chiefly because (in my own personal view) it was this particular group of philosophers (the monists, or Advaita Vedantins) that impacted most deeply upon Western intellectuals during the late nineteenth century through the present, with an aggressive missionary effort here in the West spearheaded by Swami Vivekananda (who is held in high esteem by many ,while they remain clueless as to the perforations in the logic behind what it is that he actually taught- a reasonable conclusion following from Vivekananda's premises being that Brahman (or God) is somehow imperfect.

ys,
bmd.

[Chris Q]

....and to that i would add, friend Chris, that the strict monists (whose numbers are infinitessimal and entirely non-representative of Hindus (considered as a single Faith or body, and yet many in the Western world take many of their illogical philosophical premises along with those premises' real and necessary conclusions, (e.g., Brahman must be subject to experiencing delusion , if all is ultimately illusory, otherwise that Illusion would be without an experiencer) as being representative of Hindu belief. This is so chiefly because (in my own personal view) it was this particular group of philosophers (the monists, or Advaita Vedantins) that impacted most deeply upon Western intellectuals during the late nineteenth century through the present, with an aggressive missionary effort here in the West spearheaded by Swami Vivekananda (who is held in high esteem by many ,while they remain clueless as to the perforations in the logic behind what it is that he actually taught- a reasonable conclusion following from Vivekananda's premises being that Brahman (or God) is somehow imperfect.

ys,
bmd.

I find it hard to understand how Advaita Vedanta is even theistic. If the Brahman is an impersonal force then what's the difference between saying that there is an all-pervasive force in everything and saying that everything is made of atoms? In a way I see impersonalists as closer to Buddhism than to main stream Hinduism. However we should bear in mind that even though it is not the recommended path it is recognised as a path - if a long one. Those who look for an ultimate impersonal reality, while keeping to the established dharma will spiritually progress and find God; but maybe after many lifetimes.

I think that Vivekananda and the Ramakrishnan mission have had both good and bad affects on the perception of Hinduism in the West. Vivekenanda did a lot to get Hinduism seen as an established religion, and a tradition with a rich philosophy. As you say though the down side is that he also gave the impression that his philosophy was Hindu philosophy, and not a very minor branch.

[bhuvana-mohan dasa]

I find it hard to understand how Advaita Vedanta is even theistic.

It isn't........hence, Srila Prabhupada's repeated criticism of monistic impersonalism as being "atheistic" is not such a harsh and baseless charge, after all..... :)....

ys,
bmd.

[Scripturefocus]

Buddhism was founded by Gautama Buddha (563 BCE to 483 BCE). Hinduism has no founder, and is much older. Archaeological evidence puts it to at least the iron Age, and we believe it is much older

Hinduism, similarly to Native American mythology, had its genesis with the stories told by shamans, around the camp fires. The shamans related accounts of super heroes to tribal members to explain the sun, rain, agriculture, the phases of the moon, thunder, life and death. When writing finally developed, the myths were put into writing, embellished, and made more formal. Primitive stone objects of worship were replaced by more stylish forms of the gods and priesthoods developed to carry on the myths and give the myths a visual focus. There is no formal founder of Hinduism, since it grew from the needs of a primitive people to understand their environment and the meaning of life. Many paleo societies developed similar myths which later developed into more formal religions - for instance, Shinto in Japan or native animistic belief systems and ancestor worship as found in China and Tibet.

[bhuvana-mohan dasa]

Hinduism, similarly to Native American mythology, had its genesis with the stories told by shamans, around the camp fires.

Your source, please?

ys,
bmd.

[Scripturefocus]

Your source, please?

ys,
bmd.

Study anthropology. It's a logical deduction.

It's a heck of a lot saner than believing in humanoid bridge building monkeys.

[bhuvana-mohan dasa]

Study anthropology. It's a logical deduction.

It's a heck of a lot saner than believing in humanoid bridge building monkeys.

As i susoected- a seat-of-the-pants assertion that one would try and dignify by a near desperate appeal to relatively new and inconclusive social sciences (as opposed to providing careful and non-emotive documentation).

ys,
bmd.

[bhuvana-mohan dasa]

Study anthropology. It's a logical deduction.

It's a heck of a lot saner than believing in humanoid bridge building monkeys.

Is your argument from anthropology or from the scriptures? (....or do you arbitrarily mix and match between the two if one set of conclusions of either supports a viewpoint which you happen to favor) ?

If from the scriptures, would you similarly suggest that all who believe that snakes can be made to talk, or God speak through a mule are themselves holders of a belief other than what you would characterize as "sane"?

ys,
bmd.

[Chris Q]

Is your argument from anthropology or from the scriptures? (....or do you arbitrarily mix and match between the two if one set of conclusions of either supports a viewpoint which you happen to favor) ?

If from the scriptures, would you similarly suggest that all who believe that snakes can be made to talk, or God speak through a mule are themselves holders of a belief other than what you would characterize as "sane"?

ys,
bmd.

Also if you take anthropology as your gospel you will end up concluding that all religions are memes, and end up posting on the Atheism board.

[Scripturefocus]

Also if you take anthropology as your gospel you will end up concluding that all religions are memes, and end up posting on the Atheism board.


Actually, Hinduism has no history of actual beings called Shiva, Vishnu, Krishna, etc. These are mythological beings contrived by animistic religious leaders in pre-historical times.

Jesus Christ, on the other hand, is an historical personage. So was Mohammed, and actually, so was Buddha, not to mention the Bab and Baha'ullah. Hinduism lacks such authentication.

You cannot authenticate as historical the Thunder Twins or Corn Maiden of Native American religions, because they are myths.

What I don't understand is why you handn't figured this out yourself before hooking up with it. Hinduism is a prehistorical myth-based belief system.

Several different strains of cultural myths generated today's Hindu mythology. This might help you understand what I'm saying:

http://www.pantheon.org/areas/mythology/asia/hindu/hindu_mythology.html

On the other hand, Jesus was an historical, verifiable Person, not a myth created by invaders of Palestine or the Romans.

Historical analysis tells us that there was a Palestine inhabited by Jews and ruled by the Roman Empire at the time of Christ. Historical records tell us that Jesus did live in 1 AD in Palestine, did teach, die, and rise again (from Biblical accounts). Extra-biblical information substantiates the reality of Jesus Christ.

You need to come to Jesus, for He actually existed and will save you if you but ask.

[bhuvana-mohan dasa]

Actually, Hinduism has no history of actual beings called Shiva, Vishnu, Krishna, etc. These are mythological beings contrived by animistic religious leaders in pre-historical times.

The same has been said of Judaism and its "reaction formation" {Christianity}-- (in the eyes of many, some of whom undoubtedly think similarly in regard to all expressions of Hinduism).

You have drawn a categorical assertion from your own understanding of a secularly contrived social "science", among the known conclusions of which is that Man is necessarily evolved from lesser life forms (including monkeys {imagine that!:D}).....

Do you believe that men evolved from monkeys, also? Or do you not rather lend a literal interpretation to the Biblical account of man's placement here on earth (which anthropology discredits)?

Religions (like yours, and mine as well) which require Faith make for "strange bedfellows" with secular sciences that will only admit of immediately observable data.

ys,
bmd.

[bhuvana-mohan dasa]

[B]
[B][COLOR="DarkRed"]"Hare Krishna
International Society of Krishna Consciousness (ISKCON)

Hare Krishna is the most distinguishable cult of the Seventies thanks to the obligatory shaved head and pigtails of male members, chanting and singing and dancing in the big Western cities with saffron robes to the music of cymbals, drums and harmoniums......

The "devotees" are the most pitiful people...


.......seeing a few shaved heads and some clothing associated with Vaisnav temple worship in the following video series from ISKCON ,Dallas (where my non-ISKCON wife and {similarly non-ISKCON} two daughters attended just last Sunday.....{with some mild words of encouragement from me...(:D)).....:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aa9sI4n-4mE&feature=PlayList&p=CAF770B326537694&playnext=1&index=8

Scripturefocus, your research would seem to show itself a tad inaccurate (and stale......:D)....

ys,
bmd.

[Scripturefocus]

.......seeing a few shaved heads and some clothing associated with Vaisnav temple worship in the following video series from ISKCON ,Dallas (where my non-ISKCON wife and {similarly non-ISKCON} two daughters attended just last Sunday.....{with some mild words of encouragement from me...(:D)).....:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aa9sI4n-4mE&feature=PlayList&p=CAF770B326537694&playnext=1&index=8

Scripturefocus, your research would seem to show itself a tad inaccurate (and stale......:D)....

ys,
bmd.

You think everybody's research is inaccurate - that is, when you have nothing to respond with except denials. What about Sankara's statement that the Hindu gods and goddesses you profess to be actual living en***ies are simply myths, and that the Gita nowhere commands the self-hypnotic Hare Krishna chant to be used in worshipping whatever god or goddess you are seeking out this morning.

Funny, I was able to bring up that site on Krishna. Try again: http://www.religion-cults.com/Cults/Eastern/E-CULTS.htm

And you don't like that second site because it tells you the truth?

I sincerely hope your wife and daughters who are not in the cult were as disgusted with that repe***ive, idolatrous chanting you linked us to as I was. It is nothing but idolatry of the rankest sort. Even Hindus see it as aberrant.

After watching that link bhu put up, we need to remember that Jesus is greater than any demonic idolatry. In fact, here is how one Coptic Orthodox priest drives out the demonic minions of Satan by the power of the cross and Jesus' Name.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hl6TEqL3mmw&feature=related

[bhuvana-mohan dasa]

You think everybody's research is inaccurate - that is, when you have nothing to respond with except denials. What about Sankara's statement that the Hindu gods and goddesses you profess to be actual living en***ies are simply myths, and that the Gita nowhere commands the self-hypnotic Hare Krishna chant to be used in worshipping whatever god or goddess you are seeking out this morning.

Funny, I was able to bring up that site on Krishna. Try again: http://www.religion-cults.com/Cults/Eastern/E-CULTS.htm

And you don't like that second site because it tells you the truth?

I sincerely hope your wife and daughters who are not in the cult were as disgusted with that repe***ive, idolatrous chanting you linked us to as I was. It is nothing but idolatry of the rankest sort. Even Hindus see it as aberrant.

:)......Hare Krishna........................................... ..............:).........

ys,
bmd.

[Scripturefocus]

:)......Hare Krishna........................................... ..............:).........

ys,
bmd.

Krishna is myth, bmd. You need to come to Jesus Christ of Nazareth. He actually walked the earth, died and rose again. Why put your faith in plaster statues whe Jesus is the real deal?

[Scripturefocus]

:)......Hare Krishna........................................... ..............:).........

ys,
bmd.

By the way folks, the ISKCON cult uses "Hare Krishna" as a though stopping mechanism, designed to keep devotees from actually using their brains. You can see a good example right here.

[sunofmysoul]

By the way folks, the ISKCON cult uses "Hare Krishna" as a though stopping mechanism, designed to keep devotees from actually using their brains. You can see a good example right here.

hmmm I am looking.....:o i see no...brainless devotees....
in fact...I believe the chanting of the Holy Names, is rather similar to meditation, and its purpose and focus is to take your mind off oneself..and ones circumstances, and concentrate only on Him who is both the creator of oneself and circumstances....

[bhuvana-mohan dasa]

By the way folks, the ISKCON cult uses "Hare Krishna" as a though stopping mechanism, designed to keep devotees from actually using their brains. You can see a good example right here.

Actually, SF, i used Hare Krishna as words of greeting to you (and also to remind myself that i am here to answer questions respectfully and to disabuse minds, rather than to be emotive and retaliatory)......and btw, your allusion to a now somewhat archaic conclusion of "pop psychology" in this post (the late Margaret Singer and the "deprogramming" craze having been soundly discredited several years ago by no less than the American Psychological Association) is quite reminiscent of your modus operandi on CARM. Apparently you seem to believe that boldness of type and font color adjustment somehow add something to the "authority" with which you pretend to speak, and i assure you that they do-
over-compensation for not defending your positions by careful documentation of primary sources.

Hare Krishna.
ys,
bmd.

[jennieblue22]

I once heard that there are several million gods in the Hindu religion. Is this true and if it is where do they come from? Is there proof of their existence?

There is only one God in Hinduism. Hinduism is a monotheistic religion.

[jennieblue22]

Krishna is myth, bmd. You need to come to Jesus Christ of Nazareth. He actually walked the earth, died and rose again. Why put your faith in plaster statues whe Jesus is the real deal?
How do you know that? Perhaps Krishna's divinity is based largely on faith, but there is in fact sufficient secular evidence to indicate that MANY of the stories told about Krishna/Vishnu do indeed contain much truth. and Hindus don't place faith in "plaster statues" but in God. Furthermore, there is extremely limited evidence about the events said to have happened in Jesus's lifetime, and the only supporting details about Jesus having "died and rose again" comes from the Bible - an entirely faith-based source.

[jennieblue22]

Study anthropology. It's a logical deduction.
The same could be said about Christianity and every other religion. Those so-called "logical" conclusions have driven many to atheism.

[jennieblue22]

By the way folks, the ISKCON cult uses "Hare Krishna" as a though stopping mechanism, designed to keep devotees from actually using their brains. You can see a good example right here.
I'd hardly call a short prayer or chanting of the name of God as a "thought stopping mechanism", but rather consider it as a "faith building mechanism".

[bhuvana-mohan dasa]

I'd hardly call a short prayer or chanting of the name of God as a "thought stopping mechanism", but rather consider it as a "faith building mechanism".

Notice the brash, bold print, jennie? This person is someone we both know well.....;)....

ys,
bmd.

[asdf]

Notice the brash, bold print, jennie? This person is someone we both know well.....;)....

ys,
bmd.

Ah, perhaps you should try another response from someone we know well...

'NWRT'

:p

[bhuvana-mohan dasa]

Ah, perhaps you should try another response from someone we know well...

'NWRT'

:p

Yeah, actually he (was) here, too....:D.....

ys.

[jennieblue22]

You think everybody's research is inaccurate - that is, when you have nothing to respond with except denials. What about Sankara's statement that the Hindu gods and goddesses you profess to be actual living en***ies are simply myths, and that the Gita nowhere commands the self-hypnotic Hare Krishna chant to be used in worshipping whatever god or goddess you are seeking out this morning.

Funny, I was able to bring up that site on Krishna. Try again: http://www.religion-cults.com/Cults/Eastern/E-CULTS.htm

And you don't like that second site because it tells you the truth?
Lies do not equal "the truth". The website is full of complete nonsense. Don't believe me? Do your research using legitimate websites about Hinduism and related organizations such as ISKCON. It is not wrong to dislike a website that lies.


I sincerely hope your wife and daughters who are not in the cult were as disgusted with that repe***ive, idolatrous chanting you linked us to as I was. It is nothing but idolatry of the rankest sort. Even Hindus see it as aberrant.So now you equate "prayer" with "idolatry"? That makes no sense at all. And NO Hindus see chanting of the Holy Names as "aberrant" - it's actually an established spiritual practice, called "japa", that is meant to bring one closer to God, focusing on Him more closely.


After watching that link bhu put up, we need to remember that Jesus is greater than any demonic idolatry. There's no "demonic idolatry" in sincere prayer to God.

[jennieblue22]

Notice the brash, bold print, jennie? This person is someone we both know well.....;)....

ys,
bmd.
Ah, yes. I do recognize it very well.

[jennieblue22]

hmmm I am looking.....:o i see no...brainless devotees....
in fact...I believe the chanting of the Holy Names, is rather similar to meditation, and its purpose and focus is to take your mind off oneself..and ones circumstances, and concentrate only on Him who is both the creator of oneself and circumstances....
Yes, I do agree with you, SOMS.

[jennieblue22]

By the way folks, the ISKCON cult uses "Hare Krishna" as a though stopping mechanism, designed to keep devotees from actually using their brains. You can see a good example right here.
By the way, did you ever know that "Hare Krishna" is a common greeting in India and among Hindus?