This nonsense stems due to "reading" Vedas like any other book. There seems to be some confusion even among traditional aasthikas regarding this and I've seen even upanyasarks talking nonsense. However, one must know the proper way of understanding Vedam. Let's take an eg. +
When you use your limbs for doing work, do you say Mr. Hand has lifted an object or Mr. Legs have taken you to a place? No, right? You say my hands and my legs. How come they are "your" hands and legs when they are clearly independent entities? That means you associate your+
limbs with your being. The results of their work is enjoyed by your "Self" and not by the limbs themselves. Similarly, all Devatas are angaas or limbs of the Paramatma. Whatever duties they carry out are under His supervision and their adulation goes to Him ultimately.+
Just like how a CEO represents all employees and each person's achievements directly reflect on the company, a particular Devata say Indra's duty is work delegated by Paramatma and when that goes astray, He takes upon Himself to rectify the same.
Aakaasaat pathitham thoyam yadaagacchathi saagaram sarvadeva namaskara: Kesavam (or Sankaram) prathigacchathi. Just like how different drops of rain ultimately merge into the sea, adulations of all dieties ultimately reaches the One Supreme Brahman.+
That's why when one reads Vedas, one should take the entire Vedic corpus in toto for understanding. Itihaasa puraanaabhyam Vedam samupa Brahmayet. Only with the aid of Itihaasa, Purana and allied subjects can one understand any Vedic injunction. +
This is because Vedas aren't in Sanskrit as is popularly misunderstood. Vedas are Shabda Brahman. The language is entirely construed by swaras, pitch, and notations. Therefore, common language cannot do justice to Vedic verses unless when interpreted with allied subjects.
Finally, it is foolish to think that you have the entire Vedic corpus at your disposal. A great Rishi like Bharadwaja could not finish learning literally mountains of Vedas despite living for hundreds of years, so such extravagance is best avoided.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
@ImPranav_M@GunduHuDuGa That's a good qsn, if not a bit nuanced. Avataras are of many varieties and frankly, most of the classification is only for our understanding and not really binding on Paramatma Himself. We can take several approaches to understanding this. If you go by a Vedantic approach,+
@ImPranav_M@GunduHuDuGa Avatara means that which descends from an exalted state (Taara). Going by Upanishadic observaton of Purnam adham purnam idham, every manifestation of Bhagavan is indeed wholesome. In fact, Avataras usually happen when Iswara is propitiated with certain qualities already+
@ImPranav_M@GunduHuDuGa described in the Vedas by other Devatas. So, in order to please them, He assumes the form that best envisages the said Vaidika tatvam. For example, Varaha and Nrusimha avatars, though they have sthoola prayojanas, also exemplify the Tejovanna tatvam propounded by Upanishads.+
This is 100% right. Deepam should always be lit by the Yajamani irrespective of the woman lighting it or not. In fact, deepam lighting has a lot of esoteric significance that reflects Vedanta rahasyas, which I'll attempt to explain briefly. +
Many people have doubts as to how many wicks a deepam should contain. The question may seem silly but there are is a tatva rahasya to it. In SD, there is no practice or count that goes without reason.
Usually, two wicks are lit on each side of the lamp i.e. 4 wicks per lamp +
Generally, another lamp with a similar 4-wick arrangement is kept adjacent to this making it a total of 8 wicks (4 deepams - each with 2 wicks intertwined).
Put simply, a deepam signifies light that dispels darkness (ignorance/agnaana). So, what is the significance of 8 here?