4

Is the god of mlecchas a ghosts or any rakshasa? Or is the mleccha god a myth? Please answer from scriptures. What are the qualities of mleccha?

The mlecchas tell Hindu gods are ghost, do Hindu scriptures tells mleccha gods are rakshasa or myth?

10
  • Gabriel is evil in the Bhavishya Purana (and almost certainly Kali). Whoever says he will be called the son of God, clearly invoking similarities to Christ, is suspicious, although not quite sure how evil from slightly dark to maniacal he is. Nov 22, 2021 at 19:25
  • A side note the Holy Ghost appears in both the Old Testament (although not by name) and the New Testament and behaves exactly like a demon. He is the only part of the Chrisitan Trinity I'm sure exists. Nov 22, 2021 at 19:27
  • Sir bhavishya Purana as interpolations . Nov 23, 2021 at 4:20
  • I Want scripture reference Nov 23, 2021 at 4:20
  • I have nothing against people criticising scripture, but the criticisms of the Bhavishya Purana make no sense e.g. it being retrospective when the prophecies are definitely about the future from even today. Nov 23, 2021 at 12:21

2 Answers 2

2

Gabriel is evil according to the Bhavishya Purana, which means Allah doesn't exist, is a metaphor, or a powerless figurehead for the angels in the Quran (which actually fits with the Quran surprisingly well, especially the last two).

Gabriel is called Pisacha (possibly actually Paiśācha in Sanskrit but the translators are simplifying which often happens with the taddhita affix "a"). You can tell it means him, because Muhammad is said to be involved in the work of Pisacha/Paiśācha singular, which makes no sense as something to say if it refers to Muhammad/Muhammed/Mohammed or followers of Islam, but makes a lot of sense for Gabriel.

There that resident, the great illusionist Mahaamada (Muhammad) who was involved in the works of “Pisacha" (ghastly works of a ghost)

As a side note, Muhammad is clearly supernatural, staying alive into the far future where the main story takes place, but cannot be fully evil, as Muhammad is a servant of Shiva, but remember a lot of Asuras are and there are no fully evil characters in Hinduism (even Kali, who is almost certainly the same as Gabriel).

She made herself to sacrifice her life infront of him. Seeing her, and being pleased, he visited the temple of Marusthalesvara (the lord of desert) which consist of a Linga of Mahadeva (lord Shiva) and started to worship the lord with Sanskrit words. Being pleased with his servant, Lord Shiva appeared and said: - “The woman named Svarnavatee had kidnapped that Krishnaamsa who is staunch Aryan culture follower and very much gallant. Therefore, my servant, please do come with me in the place named “Mayurnagara"

2

Until the classical/Medieval period, only nearby foreigners were written about and most of those religions no longer exist, or only exist in very small pockets where they have already been heavily influenced by Hinduism.

Despite other answers, this is written:

Those who are versed in the Vedas, who are drinkers of Soma and are purified of sin, pray for the heavenly goal by worshipping Me through sacrifices. Having reached the place (world) of the king of gods, which is the result of righteousness, they enjoy in heaven the divine pleasure of gods.

After having enjoyed that vast heavenly world, they enter into the human world on the exhaustion of their merit. Thus, those who follow the rites and duties prescribed in the three Vedas, and are desirous of pleasures, attain the state of going and returning.

Those persons who, becoming non-different from Me and meditative, worship Me everywhere, for them, who are ever attached (to Me), I arrange for securing what they lack and preserving what they have.

Even those who, being devoted to other deities and endowed with faith, worship (them), they also, O son of Kunti, worship Me alone (though) following the wrong method.

I indeed am the enjoyer as also the Lord of all sacrifices; but they do not know Me in reality. Therefore, they fall [back into Samsara].

Votaries [bhaktis] of the gods [Devas] reach the gods; the votaries of the manes [deceased ancestors] go to the manes; the worshippers of the Beings [literally "things which have come to exist (in the world of experiential reality)" later interpreted as "ghosts, demons, imps, goblins", etc] reach the Beings; and those who worship Me reach Me. — Śrī́mad Bhagavad Gītā Brackets "[]" added by me.


We can better understand other deities by looking at the history of use of that name (as the qualities of deities change over time with folklore) as well as the etymology of the name itself. The name Allah is a reference to the divine as the Almighty: not just the source of all power in the Universe, but necessary for anything to occur at all. This can be equated to Śakti.

"Allah" is related to one of the two halves of the name of the Hebrew deity, YHVH Elohim. The YHVH portion of the name is related to existence & being. Not just svayambhū (self-existing, self-generated), but the root of all existence upon which all other existing things depend (though usually in the sense of creation, unless specifically stated to mean in the sense of preservation). YHVH is the Hebrew conception of the ground of being, like Śiva.

Thus, YHVH Elohim is rooted in the same conception as thee seemingly-dual Saguṇa Brahman: The seat of existence and the seat of action, and the source of all things which have either existence or occurrence, which is all things (as anything else doesn't exist).

However, the Hebrews lived in a different time, in a different place, surrounded by different foreigners, so they were given the mārgas appropriate for them. Unfortunately, the metaphysical similarities between ancient Hebrew and ancient Vedic are so far buried under centuries of tradition, that most people don't even notice them. Meaning, that even modern believers of YHVH Elohim aren't even practicing their own mārgas correctly. Most Christians don't even know his name. If you read the words of Yeshua bar Yosef (modernly called Jesus) you will easily recognize that he has attained mokṣa and attempts to teach others. Unfortunately, if you read Paulos, which is much of the New Testament, then you can see that his message is different to Yeshua's. Paulos wanted to build a church around the Yeshua-bhakti and Yeshua himself never suggested such. Instead he redirected all praise to YHVH Elohim, who he called "father," because he understood that Saguṇa Bhraman is the source of us all.

Such understanding can only be attained from reading foreigner's source material in the original language, just as we do with Sanskrit. So, ipso facto the question is not answerable based on texts prior 500~600 CE. As for post-classical texts, I'll let others answer as these are not important enough to my practice for me to be well-educated on them.


As for the answer regarding Gabriel, it only seems to take the Islamic perspective (which is post-classical) despite the concept of a celestial entity called Gabriel (gaḇrīʾḗl) having existed centuries earlier. It should also be noted that Piśāca (as with other such terms) originally referred to a local tribe of humans that the Vedic peoples fought with. As such, many groups of foreigners have been called Piśāca. The people who are originally referred to as having spoken a Piśāca language are thought to be the Nuristani and or speakers of Dardic languages.


See Also: "To attain moksha, must you be born as a Hindu?"

9
  • "...The name Allah is a reference to the divine as the Almighty: not just the source of all power in the Universe, but necessary for anything to occur at all. This can be equated to Śakti..." Don't end up writing just anything.
    – TheLittleNaruto
    Aug 13, 2023 at 4:40
  • 2
    "اللّٰه: Ultimately from Proto-Semitic *ʔil-. The Semitic root ʾlh (Arabic ʾilāh, Aramaic ʾAlāh, ʾElāh, Hebrew ʾelōah) may be ʾl with a parasitic h, and ʾl may be an abbreviated form of ʾlh. In Ugaritic the plural form meaning "gods" is ʾilhm, equivalent to Hebrew ʾelōhîm "powers"." I bothered to write an answer and have sources. People who disagree can downvote without bothering to research. 😔 Even worse, they mark the whole answer as wrong because of one tiny part. Please don't confuse premise & conclusion. Aug 20, 2023 at 21:57
  • 2
    @TheLittleNaruto Ah, so it's okay for others to make hostilities against people of other faiths, but wrong for me to show the unity of Universal Truth. The divine is in all things—ALL. We should be building bridges with others, not fences. Divisiveness is not divine/sattvic, but discernment is. I only wrote what I wrote, because other answers made hostility against other religions without any basis. Yet, when I point out the parallels, you denounce this without basis. I'll let others judge the merits of this. Aug 21, 2023 at 4:47
  • 2
    Where is the ad hominem? @TheLittleNaruto Aug 21, 2023 at 5:24
  • 1
    I'm very confused. To anyone who feels personally attacked, please know that's not my intention. I think there has been a misunderstanding in communication. I'd appreciate it being pointed out, so I don't mistakenly give that impression in future. Aug 23, 2023 at 7:41

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .