I've read Satyarth Prakash and my religious notions held for decades were shaken. I need to know answers to the following questions.

  1. If Vedas say God is unborn formless, how were Rama and Krishna born?

  2. In Sundara Kanda of Valmiki Ramayana also, God is said to be formless and infinite, how could Rama in earthly bodily form fulfill these conditions?

  3. In Gita, why importance is given to feeding priests for the dead person's soul, while Vedas are strictly against any such practice. Is Gita in conflict with the Vedas?

  4. Why chanting name of God would bring relief to a person, when Vedas don't support such a practice?

  5. Why giving donation to temple is held as a good practice? Why does God want to be given alms when he alone is the giver of everything?

  • This conversation has been moved to chat. – Keshav Srinivasan Oct 13 '16 at 17:33
  • In some interview one Sanyasi(saint,sadhu) once said-One who is born out of womb(human) is not(or can't be) Param Atma!. – Rickross Oct 14 '16 at 5:19
  • 3
    you have several questions under one question. Suggest you edit this question and ask as 5 different questions. I think you will get better answers if you do this. I am unaware of a Gita verse recommending that you feed priests for a person's soul. Can you give the exact verse number? – Swami Vishwananda Oct 14 '16 at 6:25
  • 1
    I completely agree with the above suggestion by Swami Vishwananda. You should edit your question to separate it into parts, and each part you should ask as a new single question. – brahma jijnasa Oct 16 '16 at 15:31
  • 1
    Use @username to reply to the user. The very first line of Sundara kanda is tato ravana neetayah seetayah shatukarshanah....iyesha padamanveshtum chaarana charite padi. The one you are referring may be written by Tulsidas. The version written by Tulasi das is not a less one but Valmiki Ramayana is considered as authentic. So read valmiki Ramayana for better understanding of Rama. Puranas are given authentication by Veda Vyasa. They say the stories of different kalpas.Why shashwat means formless? – Sarvabhouma Mar 27 '17 at 5:47

It is not possible to reconcile the position of Swami Dayananda Saraswati with regular Hinduism. The reason can be understood from the passage below.

Maharshi Dayanand considers the Samhita (text) of Rig, Yajur, Sama and Atharva as the Vedas. Some scholars, however, believe the Shatpath, AItreya etc. Brahmanas and the Upanishads also as the Vedas. The Brahmana Granthas are commentaries on the Vedas, but do not form a part of the Vedas.

In common parlance the Rigveda, Yajurveda, Samaveda and Atharvaveda are spoken of as the Vedas. The Upanishads and the Brahmanas are separate books written by learned Rishis. They are not the word of God. ....................................

The foregoing arguments and opinions of various Vedic scholars go a long way to establish the view of Maharishi Dayanand, that the Rig, Yajur, Sama, and Atharva Samhitas (texts) alone constitute the Vedas.

Sri Devi Chand in his Introduction to his English translation of Samaveda

Swami Dayanand did not accept Sruti as divine and considered only the Vedic Samhitas as the Vedic revelation. He did not consider the Upanishads and the Puranas as authoritative. Hence in his view popular Hinduism with its belief in Rama, Krishna, 'idol worship' etc is entirely wrong.

|improve this answer|||||
  • He considered Brahmanas, Upanishads as authentic. But Puranas are considered – rastplyr Oct 13 '16 at 15:31
  • He considered Brahmanas, Upanishads as authentic. For there are numerous references to Upanishads, Brahamnas to prove the point being made by him. But Puranas are considered as non-authentic. Still the one doubt which is really a major one is that he is correct in that Vedas say that God is formless (this in fact, multiple Upanishads also say), then how could Rama and Krishna be born? – rastplyr Oct 13 '16 at 15:35
  • 1
    I wrote that he did not consider the Upanishads authoritative and not inauthentic. Rig Veda 10.90.1-2 say ,'A thousand heads hath Purusa, a thousand eyes, a thousand feet .....The Lord of Immortality which waxes greater still by food'. This Purusha which has form is considered to be Saguna Brahman. There are verses in the Upanishads that talk of Brahman with form: "You are the woman, You are the man, You are the boy, (and) You are the girl too. You are the old man tottering with a stick. Taking birth, You have Your faces everywhere. " (Svetasvatara Upanishad 4.3) – Pradip Gangopadhyay Oct 13 '16 at 15:50
  • I think Thousand signifies innumerable which points to the omnipresence of the God. (I've read it somewhere else as well), so this is not a form but is indication of formlessness. In the same passage it is given that He envelops the World from all sides (i.e. He pervades each part of the Creation), and extends beyond in the Ten Directions ( represented by Ten Fingers ). Again saying that He is formless, infinite, – rastplyr Oct 13 '16 at 16:02
  • In the Svetasvatara Upanishad 4.3 it is said that you are IN the man, IN the boy, IN the woman and IN the old man. It is NOT said that you ARE the man, woman, boy and old man. – rastplyr Oct 13 '16 at 16:04

You must log in to answer this question.

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