Post 53:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->learn what what each Deva represents<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->The Vedas make clear what the Devas represent - they are Gods, some of whom preside over various faculties (like speech, sight, and the likes) and others are the embodiment of natural phenomena.
For example, Vayu is the God of wind, he represents the wind because he <i>is</i> the wind. Similarly, Surya is the Sun God. Bhavatvaryama is the Deva who presides over sight (vision), Brhaspati over intellect. See Rg Veda X, 121
I don't see why the Devas have to now be re-interpreted as being either the one (faculty, phenomenon) or the other (Gods), when the Vedas make it rather clear that they are both: the Gods presiding over various things in the world as well as the embodiment of those things.
It certainly doesn't make the Vedas any less scientific.
As an additional point, parts of the Puranas concern times before the Vedas. We need not emulate indologists in discarding the Puranas to focus solely on the Vedas in order to understand matters dealt with in both. (In Indology's case, the Puranas are ignored because they are known to be woefully useless when it comes to supporting the AIT. They say the opposite about any migrations - actually, the Vedas are the same, but the Vedas can be doctored or misinterpreted on purpose by Indologists to support their AIT, like Witzel famously did until he was caught red-handed for his embarassing 'error'.)
Of the two, the Vedas, being/dealing with the more 'serious', would be more accurate about many things I think, <i>if</i> there were to be any contradictions between them and the Puranas. But where the two only reinforce each other, as in the matter of the nature of the Devas, there is certainly no necessity to dismiss the Puranas.
On another matter, as I understand, all stars (suns) are Adityas, one of whom is Surya? But someone more knowledgeable might choose to correct me on that.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->learn what what each Deva represents<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->The Vedas make clear what the Devas represent - they are Gods, some of whom preside over various faculties (like speech, sight, and the likes) and others are the embodiment of natural phenomena.
For example, Vayu is the God of wind, he represents the wind because he <i>is</i> the wind. Similarly, Surya is the Sun God. Bhavatvaryama is the Deva who presides over sight (vision), Brhaspati over intellect. See Rg Veda X, 121
I don't see why the Devas have to now be re-interpreted as being either the one (faculty, phenomenon) or the other (Gods), when the Vedas make it rather clear that they are both: the Gods presiding over various things in the world as well as the embodiment of those things.
It certainly doesn't make the Vedas any less scientific.
As an additional point, parts of the Puranas concern times before the Vedas. We need not emulate indologists in discarding the Puranas to focus solely on the Vedas in order to understand matters dealt with in both. (In Indology's case, the Puranas are ignored because they are known to be woefully useless when it comes to supporting the AIT. They say the opposite about any migrations - actually, the Vedas are the same, but the Vedas can be doctored or misinterpreted on purpose by Indologists to support their AIT, like Witzel famously did until he was caught red-handed for his embarassing 'error'.)
Of the two, the Vedas, being/dealing with the more 'serious', would be more accurate about many things I think, <i>if</i> there were to be any contradictions between them and the Puranas. But where the two only reinforce each other, as in the matter of the nature of the Devas, there is certainly no necessity to dismiss the Puranas.
On another matter, as I understand, all stars (suns) are Adityas, one of whom is Surya? But someone more knowledgeable might choose to correct me on that.