1

Do Vedas say that God is unique? How many Gods are there acc. to Vedas? What are his characteristics by which one says that God is unique?

DirghaChintayanti
  • 3,274
  • 17
  • 43
user3628911
  • 11
  • 1

1 Answers1

2

Qualities of "God" are described in dRg dRzya viVeka by Sankaracharya

asti bhAti priyaM rUpaM nAma chetyaMshapaJNchakam.h |AdyatrayaM brahmarUpaM jagadrUpaM tato dvayam.h || 20 ||

Everything has five factors: 1) Existence, 2) Consciousness3) Bliss, 4) Name, and 5) Form. Of these, the first three are of the nature of Brahman and the last two (Name and Form) belong to the world.

khaMvAyvagnijalorvIshhu devatiryaN^.h narAdishhu |abhinnAssachchidAnandAH bhidyete rUpanAmanI || 21 ||

In the elements, space, air, fire, water, and earth, in Gods,animals, and humans, (and other things in the world) what isnon-different (constant, unchanging) are Existence, Consciousness,and Bliss. What are different (among all these things) are theName and Form aspects.

Note 1: sat-chit-ananda is synonymous with asti-bhati-priyam, the latter being the corresponding "cognizable attributes" of the former. This is nirguna brahman.

Further, bhagavan is explained as follows:

it is described by Parāśara Muni that

aiśvaryasya samagrasya vīryasya yaśasaḥ śriyaḥ jñāna-vairāgyayoś caiva ṣaṇṇāṁ bhagam itīṅganā (Viṣṇu Purāṇa 6.5.47)

Bhagavān means who possesses these six opulences in full: all riches, all strength, all influence, all wisdom, all beauty, all renunciation.

These are the qualities of saguna brahman.

Note 2: Here aiswarya has been given a rather limited translation. In this context, the quality of being "Ishwara" i.e., lord and master (of all things - material and spiritual) is aishwaryam.

As for the question on how many gods do we have according to the vedas, someone who has read the vedas must answer. The upanishads, which are the concluding portions of the vedas, severally propound one nirguna brahman .

  • You are quite welcome. But the reminder is unnecessary. @LakshmiNarayanan –  Apr 22 '18 at 05:36
  • I thanked you for your answer as well as tried to make a general observation to the layperson reading this answer that it is not a default view but emulates advaita. Apologies if it seemed like a reminder. – DirghaChintayanti Apr 22 '18 at 06:42
  • @LakshmiNarayanan I understood your intent. My submission is that only those perspectives that are drawn from specialised philosophies - need be called out as such. Advaita is not a specialised or derivative philosophy. –  Apr 22 '18 at 07:08
  • In my opinion, when one takes a holistic interpretation of the Vedas then advaita can be construed as specialised/derivative. Nevertheless, pointing out that an answer is from advaita perspective is acceptable given no such disclaimers occurs in the answer (when the question doesn't obviously preclude other perspectives) - It helps people understand that there are various viewpoints and that this is just one of them. – DirghaChintayanti Apr 22 '18 at 08:18
  • What would you say the quote from Vishnu Purana is about? @LakshmiNarayanan –  Apr 22 '18 at 12:52
  • Everything after Note 1 is fine, what led me to make my comment is the stuff till that. – DirghaChintayanti Apr 22 '18 at 13:17
  • @LakshmiNarayanan I asked about whether it is about saguna or nirguna. Regardless - what aligns with your belief is fine everything else is not ?! If you understood the two references, the latter (Vishnu Purana) speaks of gunas and attributes - vIra, yasas etc. To say that saguna is all-encompassing when the previous lists the qualities of BOTH saguna and nirguna and that the subset needs no qualification but the superset does is looking at everything backwards. –  Apr 22 '18 at 17:37
  • I am merely pointing out what your answer is to the lay reader - no need to get hostile. The implication that name and form is primarily of world and not of brahman first is essentially an advaita perspective, I have merely pointed it out. FYI The former reference (dRg dRzya viVeka) is definitively an advaita interpretative text. Also, the part regarding saguna brahman is from smriti, and quoted as such, will not be supporting advaita view but the whole setup could lead a reader to believe otherwise. – DirghaChintayanti Apr 23 '18 at 00:47
  • Yes drig drishya viveka is an advaitic explanation of shaastra. The part regarding saguna brahman is purana not smriti. Puranas do talk of saguna but support advaita view. To say otherwise, is a legitimate viewpoint but limited wrt the entire knowledge given forth by the hindu vaangmaya. The two quotations are quite clear and if the reader is capable of drawing connections between the two, they are free to do so. All said and done, there was/is no need for the extra qualification to my answer. @LakshmiNarayanan –  Apr 23 '18 at 02:07
  • picking certain verses and calling them Mahavakyas whilst ignoring the rest of Sruti is a valid approach? Most definitely not! Regardless, that's a discussion I don't intend to get into here. Comments can be used to inform the reader about the nature of the question/answer. Whether it is extra or not is for the readers to mull over as well. – DirghaChintayanti Apr 23 '18 at 06:27
  • "Comments can be used to inform the reader about the nature of the question/answer." - not when they are intended to bias the reader or push an agenda. As for the rest of your discourse about the mahavakyas, perhaps you are learned enough to comment on them; I am not. Namaste @lakshminarayana –  Apr 24 '18 at 17:08
  • So removing bias is now the same as creating bias! Feel free to ignore my comment. – DirghaChintayanti Apr 24 '18 at 22:04