The Glory of Polytheism

[biswa]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) LinkedIn WhatsApp Email Share Link

I have always wanted to start this controversial topic to understand what is at the heart of Hinduism. Generally speaking Hinduism is considered a polytheistic religion (except for certain sects). However intelligent people all over the world have realized that Hinduism is really monotheism in disguise. There are frequent discussions of Brahman who transcends everything in this universe. Even well known Western atheists like Richard Dawkins have noted that Hinduism presents various images of an elephant headed god, or a 10 armed goddess or a flute playing avatar, just to comfort its believers. Most educated Hindus realize that there is only One.

However I believe the polytheistic exterior of Hinduism has played a very important role in its culture, survival and growth over millennia. It has what has unified vastly disparate stretches of the country across language and geography. Given this background, should we suppress polytheism or should we embrace it?

 

[JR]

As far as I know, polytheism works only for realized yogis. By polytheism, I mean worshipping gods of different sects at the same time, like Sri Vishnu, Ganapathi, Lakshmi, Aiyyappa and Durga at the same time. For real progress, one might choose 1 devata for ishta-devata and practice regular devotion to this ishta. This is what I have learnt from the wise. They say that by concentrating this way, one is able to imbibe in himself, the qualities of that devata better - in the long run. Besides, to me it feels like devatas really like the attitude of 'saranagathi' or 'depend on you and you alone' on the part of the devotee - this could be just my perception. But for realized yogis, I guess it does not matter - for instance Sri Adi Sankara worshipped Sri Vishnu in bhaja govindam, established 108 shakti peetas and sang to Devi in Kanakadhara Stotram, and was otherwise a devotee of Lord Shiva - as he was a smarta. Even Sri Ramakrishna is said to have experimented with different devatas, after his realization, including crossing the boundaries and experiencing the reality as a christian and a muslim. But for those sadhakas for whom spirituality is emerging, belonging to 1 sect and worshiping within its limits might be the key, although I don't see any harm in bowing down to other devatas in temples or honoring say, Ganapathi ji in Vaishnava homes on Ganesh Chaturthi.

 

[biswa]

JR ji, thank you for joining the debate. The vast majority of Hindus do not belong to any sect. They may have a "favorite" ishta devata, but that is a personal choice and may change from generation to generation. So one does not need to be either a Shaiva or a Vaishnava to be a Hindu. Isn't that the beauty of our religion?

 

[prasad1]

I do not know of "wast majority" of hindus.
I personally believe in Advaita philosophy. So to me God is brahman. You should be able to see brahman in everything. I have good deal of difficulty with living gods and avatars. The manifested gods are imperfect.
The avatars and incarnations all have limitations, and can not be the limitless Brahman. I can go (or not) to any place and still be in Brahman. I go to temple and participate in all cultural activities like archana, puja etc. I have no demands or expectations from these activities. I put money in the archana plate and hundi knowing fully well that it is going to upkeep of some body in the temple. I do not try to buy favors from god or god-persons.

Most of the religions of the world wants us to PRAY to god. Basically making humans a beggar. They also put a whole lot of guilt to get their share of your wealth.

 

[கால பைரவன்]

Given this background, should we suppress polytheism or should we embrace it?

The heart of the religion is the sustenance of freedom available to its followers.

So where does the question of "suppressing" arise?

On the other hand, you don't have to embrace polytheism. You can be monotheistic also and be a Hindu.

 

[renuka]

I have always wanted to start this controversial topic to understand what is at the heart of Hinduism. Generally speaking Hinduism is considered a polytheistic religion (except for certain sects). However intelligent people all over the world have realized that Hinduism is really monotheism in disguise. There are frequent discussions of Brahman who transcends everything in this universe. Even well known Western atheists like Richard Dawkins have noted that Hinduism presents various images of an elephant headed god, or a 10 armed goddess or a flute playing avatar, just to comfort its believers. Most educated Hindus realize that there is only One.

However I believe the polytheistic exterior of Hinduism has played a very important role in its culture, survival and growth over millennia. It has what has unified vastly disparate stretches of the country across language and geography. Given this background, should we suppress polytheism or should we embrace it?

In the real sense no one is a Polytheist and no one religion is Polytheistic.

What we call Hinduism today is conglomerate of Matams(Opinions) when looked through the prism of the mind refracts into a spectrum we call Polytheism.

But no one is seeing anything in the light of unification but rather each one is choosing a color to their suiting in the refracted rays.

I call this the Rainbow Effect.

A rainbow is a refraction of light into 7 colors..anyone is free to choose their favorite color..but the one who thinks deeper stands back and admires the rainbow as a whole and the more he looks at it he realizes that it disappears right in front of his eyes.

Almost everyone choose one form of worship and he identifies with that including an Advaitin. In the actual act of praying everyone is a Monoist becos its only one form in their mind at that particular time..be it Vishnu or Shiva or Shakti or even a Satanic ritual.

BTW Advaitins feel that they adhere to formless worship but their ideology is Brahman. They havent given it a form in their mind but even an ideology forms a mental impression.So the fact remains that even an Advaitin is still a form worshiper.


A realized individual who has gone beyond the pairs of opposites is capable of seeing everything as One.In fact for him its only One. He does not even divide anything anymore.The word Poly does not exists in his vocabulary.


He has gone beyond the concept of worship and the worshiper.He is just "being"...pure existence.

To sum it up..the rainbow of religion exists as long we choose a color to our liking..the day we stand back and admire the rainbow as a whole..its vanishes right in front of our eyes..finally nothing remains..not even Polytheism or Monoism.

 

[renuka]

Most of the religions of the world wants us to PRAY to god. Basically making humans a beggar. They also put a whole lot of guilt to get their share of your wealth.

Dear Prasad ji,

No one is a beggar.

Those who pray to God asking something or the other are NOT beggars...in fact they are Passive Extortionist.

A beggar has given up his ego.When he says Bhiksham Dehi he accepts what ever that comes.

But 99.99% of humans expect God to give them what they pray for.

They Extort God..they haven't shed their egos. There is no spirit of surrender. Only a beggar can surrender.

 

[krish44]

polytheistic exterior of hinduism has helped in absorbing buddhists , jains in its fold as avathars of God.

this projection of God in multiple ways and avathars has aided it in increasing its appeal to lot more people and helped it withstand the onslaught of other religions.

 

[sarang]

Simply put and nicely put. Sanatana dharma is a broadband spectrum, and accommodates many hues - paramatma to ishta devatas and some atheists as well.

The heart of the religion is the sustenance of freedom available to its followers.

So where does the question of "suppressing" arise?

On the other hand, you don't have to embrace polytheism. You can be monotheistic also and be a Hindu.

 

[vgane]

Polytheism in Hinduism is a blessing! Being monotheistic is an element of Polytheism...We are able to amalgamate various sects into one using the thread of polytheism..It creates a colorful fabric that unites the country as an akhand bharat with all its diversity from Kashmir to Kanyakumari;

 

[Naina_Marbus]

Monotheism versus Polytheism

The single most important reason monotheism prevailed over polytheism in the West and Middle East was because Islam and Christianity (both monotheistic ) — were both proselytizing religions, while polytheistic religions largely did not seek converts. Which means that there is no reason monotheistic religions are innately superior to polytheistic religions.

From a psychological standpoint, there are certain advantages to believing in several gods, rather than in one God. Consider the fact that in our lives we play many roles. At one time you were a child dependent on your parents. Later, you are a young man/woman learning to live on your own. Subsequently you are a parent yourselves. It is psychologically advantageous to have different gods for the different stages of life.

Another reason polytheism might make better psychological sense than monotheism is the fact that different people have different natures. Some are naturally more athletic than others, some are naturally more analytic than others, and some are naturally more emotional than thers. Can one god be the best fit for all of them? That would be like suggesting that one size shoe fits all.

Again, there are many different groups and cliques in any society. Are they all best served by the same god? We are a genetically diverse species with no ideal type. The human nose comes in a billion different shapes and no one shape is the perfect nose. Monotheism induces a tendency to think we should all be alike since there is only one god and he holds all of us to the same standard. Under polytheism, people might more easily recognize that humans are naturally diverse and it is an error to try to force them all to be alike.

Suppose nature really was created by a single deity. If that were true, then it makes much more sense to suppose it were created by a committee of deities than by a single intelligent designer. There is too much contradiction in nature, too much waste, and too much trial and error, for it to have been designed by a single god. Take the case of the eye, for instance: The nerves that gather information from the light receptors are packed in front of the light receptors rather than behind them. Because of that, the nerves interfere to some extent with our ability to see and the brain has to compensate for that disadvantage. Would such a sloppy system most likely have been designed by just one designer, or by a committee of deities arguing over what was the right way to do things and eventually reaching a compromise that suited no one perfectly?

In short, polytheism is much more psychologically suited to human nature than monotheism.

P.S. This is not meant to be a scholarly analysis.

 

[sarang]

Monotheism and polytheism are alien concepts imported from the west of abrahamic conditioned minds and have no native equivalents either in worship or philosophy. Because our concept of god is quite different from what these words mean or imply.

 

[sangom]

I have always wanted to start this controversial topic to understand what is at the heart of Hinduism. Generally speaking Hinduism is considered a polytheistic religion (except for certain sects). However intelligent people all over the world have realized that Hinduism is really monotheism in disguise. There are frequent discussions of Brahman who transcends everything in this universe. Even well known Western atheists like Richard Dawkins have noted that Hinduism presents various images of an elephant headed god, or a 10 armed goddess or a flute playing avatar, just to comfort its believers. Most educated Hindus realize that there is only One.

However I believe the polytheistic exterior of Hinduism has played a very important role in its culture, survival and growth over millennia. It has what has unified vastly disparate stretches of the country across language and geography. Given this background, should we suppress polytheism or should we embrace it?

Hinduism is a cocktail of various religions or god-belief systems; it is not really "polytheistic".

The three vedas present, apparently, a polytheistic picture. But this polytheism and its only prayer system of fire-sacrifices and soma offerings to different devas or deities, came in for strong criticism from Buddha, Mahavira and many other cults which were existing then. Since there were also ray streaks of thought reflected in the Rigvedic hymns about a single source of power beyond all the panoply of devas, as also statements of the identity of this Supreme Power with the motive power in individual humans, etc., and these are known as 'Abheda Sruti'; there are also statements saying that the two are different (Bheda Sruti), and statements describing the relationship between the two as that of body and the soul (Ghataka Sruti).

Based on the scholastic interpretations, there arose the Advaita, Dvaita and the Visishtadvaita systems.

All through this long period of millennia, the vast majority of the sub-continent's population, belonging to the Shudra category, the outcastes, the tribals, etc., never had anything to do with these main-stream, brahminist religions. But, the three higher castes who alone were authorized to practise the mainstream hinduism, gradually realized, with the passage of time that they would not be able to subsist here unless the belief systems of the outcastes and downtrodden were also absorbed into the vedic (hindu) belief system.

With this agenda, the Pundits created many works which later came to be accepted as scriptures; the puranas, the itihasas etc., thus served as their tools for "engulf & devour" the native systems of belief into the hindu stream. Thus new "Divinities" were created which stood a few steps above the Devas of the Rigveda in their splendour and power. The gods of the lower classes were given new names and incorporated (Siva, Kaali, Murugan, Saastha/Ayyappan, the avataaras like Varaaha, Narasimha, Rama, etc., are examples) or these gods were identified with already existing divinities (Krishna is one good example.) Thus originated the complex polytheism of Hindu religion.

I personally believe only in Advaita, an unknowable supreme power and no specific religion, worshipping mode, prayer, etc., because that unknowable supreme power is not bothered by all such things. (It is like stopping the Earth from rotation and revolution around the sun, by prayers and similar things. Days will follow the nights, and the seasons will come in the same order and go; nobody can change these and people have to learn to live within this grand scheme which was called ऋतम् (ṛtam) in the veda. This is what I believe.

 

[CHANDRU1849]

Hinduism is a cocktail of various religions or god-belief systems; it is not really "polytheistic".

All through this long period of millennia, the vast majority of the sub-continent's population, belonging to the Shudra category, the outcastes, the tribals, etc., never had anything to do with these main-stream, brahminist religions. But, the three higher castes who alone were authorized to practise the mainstream hinduism, gradually realized, with the passage of time that they would not be able to subsist here unless the belief systems of the outcastes and downtrodden were also absorbed into the vedic (hindu) belief system.

With this agenda, the Pundits created many works which later came to be accepted as scriptures; the puranas, the itihasas etc., thus served as their tools for "engulf & devour" the native systems of belief into the hindu stream. Thus new "Divinities" were created which stood a few steps above the Devas of the Rigveda in their splendour and power. The gods of the lower classes were given new names and incorporated (Siva, Kaali, Murugan, Saastha/Ayyappan, the avataaras like Varaaha, Narasimha, Rama, etc., are examples) or these gods were identified with already existing divinities (Krishna is one good example.) Thus originated the complex polytheism of Hindu religion.

My understanding of your above statement is as follows:

1.

 

[CHANDRU1849]

Hinduism is a cocktail of various religions or god-belief systems; it is not really "polytheistic".

All through this long period of millennia, the vast majority of the sub-continent's population, belonging to the Shudra category, the outcastes, the tribals, etc., never had anything to do with these main-stream, brahminist religions. But, the three higher castes who alone were authorized to practise the mainstream hinduism, gradually realized, with the passage of time that they would not be able to subsist here unless the belief systems of the outcastes and downtrodden were also absorbed into the vedic (hindu) belief system.

With this agenda, the Pundits created many works which later came to be accepted as scriptures; the puranas, the itihasas etc., thus served as their tools for "engulf & devour" the native systems of belief into the hindu stream. Thus new "Divinities" were created which stood a few steps above the Devas of the Rigveda in their splendour and power. The gods of the lower classes were given new names and incorporated (Siva, Kaali, Murugan, Saastha/Ayyappan, the avataaras like Varaaha, Narasimha, Rama, etc., are examples) or these gods were identified with already existing divinities (Krishna is one good example.) Thus originated the complex polytheism of Hindu religion.

My understanding of your statement is as follows:

1. Vedic Religion is Brahmin centric.
2. The God in Vedic Religion has no form or image but Krishna was known but not under the avatar concept.
3. The Gods worshipped by NBs were given different names and included.
4. The concept of Avatars was not known in Vedic Religion.
5. There were also other Gods in Vedic Religion but names not known.
6. The Puranas Ramanayanam and Mahabharatham were later day creation.
7. No information about Vishnu

When Krishna was known in Vedic Religion, why was he brought in the Avatar concept under Vishnu?

There is also another theory.

It is believed that during Adi Sankar’s time, there were five major forms of worship viz., Pasupathy Madham, Kowmaram, Saktham, Ganapathyam and Vaishnavam and the deities involved are Shiva, Muruga, Sakthi, Ganesha and Narayana respectively, and Adi Sankara tried to amalgamate these five different worships into one.

However, four forms viz. Pasupathy Madham, Kowmaram, Saktham and Ganapathyam settled in Shiva Temple and Vaishnavam went separate. However, all the five are interlinked thru relationships and puranas to make people accept and worship under the common religious name Hindu.

Is it correct?

 

[rishikesan]

# 8'9 & 10 above three of you have given the realistic situation prevailing among Brahmins & we all practice in our real life Almost all of us of the present Tamil Brahmins do carryout divinely matters as per our conscience, keeping in mind the tradition , and at least followCustoms of our respective families. I tend to appeal to my colleagues not to discuss such topics beyond a certain point so that all can understand the views of Veterans without much confusion, & take all relevant advices & practice in their own way.

Sincerely,
Rishikesan/ Srinivasan

 

[biswa]

Good discussion!

To the modern, educated, rationalist monotheism seems to be easier to defend. For example some forum members have actually questioned: "Do you think your elephant headed god is sitting around listening to your prayers? Do you think you can have a different god for every kind of issue?"

However implicit in this questioning is the assumption that "my god" transcends all these. But that is also the fundamental weakness of monotheism. How can one say whether Allah is superior to Vishnu or Vishnu is superior to Yhwh or Yhwh is superior to the Holy Father? Hence proponents of Christianity, Judaism and Islam end up saying that the "God of the Old Testament" is all the same. But does not that make the Abrahamic religions polytheistic, since they all use different names?

 

[renuka]

However implicit in this questioning is the assumption that "my god" transcends all these. But that is also the fundamental weakness of monotheism. How can one say whether Allah is superior to Vishnu or Vishnu is superior to Yhwh or Yhwh is superior to the Holy Father?

In such situations we can say 'Forgive them for they know not"

 

[renuka]

Dear Biswa ji,

I have a question for you.

1)Hindus have the concept One Spouse for each person..if the Hindu marriage lasts very long based on the Eka Patni/Pati (Monogamy)ideology why is so hard for a Hindu to subscribe to Monotheism?


Now I will come to the Paradox..Certain religions that are purely Monotheistic advocate Polygamy and Religions that are Polytheistic advocate Monogamy.

What could be the reason?

 

[biswa]

Don't think Hinduism really subscribes to monogamy. It is a relatively recent Western concept.

Most great men of Hindu legends were polygamists including the Pandavas and even Krishna and Indra. Most kings and probably most well-to-do men routinely had multiple wives and concubines.

Hence by nature we are polygamists and polytheists!

 

[renuka]

Don't think Hinduism really subscribes to monogamy. It is a relatively recent Western concept.

Most great men of Hindu legends were polygamists including the Pandavas and even Krishna and Indra. Most kings and probably most well-to-do men routinely had multiple wives and concubines.

Hence by nature we are polygamists and polytheists!

Wonderful reply..so polyism of anykind should NOT be suppressed!

 

[sangom]

My understanding of your statement is as follows:

1. Vedic Religion is Brahmin centric.
2. The God in Vedic Religion has no form or image but Krishna was known but not under the avatar concept.
3. The Gods worshipped by NBs were given different names and included.
4. The concept of Avatars was not known in Vedic Religion.
5. There were also other Gods in Vedic Religion but names not known.
6. The Puranas Ramanayanam and Mahabharatham were later day creation.
7. No information about Vishnu

1. Yes; not only the vedic religion, but almost the entire hindu belief system or religion, is a creation mostly of brahmins.
3 & 4. Yes.
5. No, the names of all the devas known to the vedic people appear in the vedas; there was no anonymous or nameless deva in the vedas.
6. Yes, very much.
7. No. Vishnu comes as a sidekick of Indra in the rigveda. Compared to Indra, Vishnu fades into insignificance, in the Rigveda.

2. Krishna, the sanskrit word has been used in the entire rigveda once or twice only, and that too not as a name of any god or deity but in its sense of dark, invisible etc. In addition, Rigveda Mandala 8, Sookta 74 is credited with the rishi (who, by convention, is supposed to be the composer of that Sookta) आङ्गिरसः कृष्णः (āṅgirasaḥ kṛṣṇaḥ).

In Chandogyopanishad III . 17 . 6, there is a statement as follows:

Ghora Aangirasa, after having imparted this to Krishna, the son of Devaki, said to him, "One should, at the time of death, take shelter under these three —"Thou art imperishable, Thou art unchangeable and Thou art the subtle Praana"! After listening to this he became thirstless...."

It will be seen that Krishna was not a deva in the vedic times.

When Krishna was known in Vedic Religion, why was he brought in the Avatar concept under Vishnu?

In the south (Dravida country of those times) there was this concept of a god or Superman named மாயோன் (māyoṉ, lit. the dark one). This māyoṉ was one among the divinities they worshipped; some other godheads in the Dravidian worship system were called கொற்றவை, முருகன் (koṟṟavai, murukaṉ), etc. At some later period, when the people of the vedic religion came into contact with these people from the south, all these godheads māyoṉ, koṟṟavai, murukaṉ, etc., were included into the vedic people's divinities with names Krishna, Durga, Skanda respectively. Durga was equated with the sife of Siva, Siva himself having been established as another name for the rigvedic Rudra; Skanda was made into the son of the new member Siva and a somewhat implausible story was made out to establish this father-son relationship and a purana, by name Skanda Purana was composed in order to establish the "seat" for this godhead in the mainstream hindu pantheon. The puranas uniformly elevate their central godhead to the Most Supreme godhead status; all other gods are depicted as subservient to this central character. So, in skanda purana, Skanda or subrahmanya is the most exalted lord of all the other gods, including Siva who is shown as getting taught by skanda!

In the case of the Dravidian godhead māyoṉ, he was identified as Krishna of old. But there was a certain cult known as Vaasudevas who worshipped a certain Vasudeva. From Uttaraadhyayana Sutra, a Jain work, we see that this Vasudeva was also called Kesava; further, Panini's writings show that there was one Vasudeva Krishna who had an elder brother Samrakshana whose other names were Baladeva, Rauhineya and Rama. Since the cult of Vasudeva Kesava was already there, it was the most opportune way to identify māyoṉ with Krishna or Vasudeva Kesava, and accordingly bring into existence, legends, puranas, itihaasas etc., in order to establish this newly created Krishna. But the question remained of connecting this newly admitted member Krishna into the original vedic pantheon, and this was solved by elevating the rigvedic vishnu above Indra and others, but equal to Rudra-Siva, and making this Krishna into an avataara; linkage techniques employed in the case of koṟṟavai, murukaṉ would not have been effective in this case because the Vasudeva cult flourished in North India itself and its cult followers would not have tolerated such kind of linkages.

There is also another theory.

It is believed that during Adi Sankar’s time, there were five major forms of worship viz., Pasupathy Madham, Kowmaram, Saktham, Ganapathyam and Vaishnavam and the deities involved are Shiva, Muruga, Sakthi, Ganesha and Narayana respectively, and Adi Sankara tried to amalgamate these five different worships into one.

However, four forms viz. Pasupathy Madham, Kowmaram, Saktham and Ganapathyam settled in Shiva Temple and Vaishnavam went separate. However, all the five are interlinked thru relationships and puranas to make people accept and worship under the common religious name Hindu.

Is it correct?

By the time of Adishankara, the influence of the Taantrik system of worship had permeated into the hindu religion, to a great extent and because Buddhism had been flourishing for some centuries, inviting some of the best brahmins also into it, the growth of the Tantra-based Vajrayaana Buddhism (Tibetan Buddhism) etc., had given rise to cults or groups worshipping one or another godhead, employing the Tantrik methods. As a result of this six groups, viz., शाक्त, कौमार, गाणापत्य, सौर, शैव वैष्णव (śākta, kaumāra, gāṇāpatya, saura, śaiva vaiṣṇava) became notorious and employed means like human sacrifices, unrestricted sexual union, and many such methods which became anti-social. Adishankara is credited with "taming" such cults but, instead of destroying them, he tried to change them into saatvic worship and absotbed them into the mainstream hindu religion of his times.

 

[CHANDRU1849]

Thank you for your wonderful reply.

7. No. Vishnu comes as a sidekick of Indra in the rigveda. Compared to Indra, Vishnu fades into insignificance, in the Rigveda.

Then, Indra was the supreme God in Vedic Religion.

Durga was equated with the sife of Siva, Siva himself having been established as another name for the rigvedic Rudra

So, Rudra was there in Vedic Religion. But who was Rudra? Some people say Anjaneya was the reincarnation of Siva. Then the link is : Rudra > Siva > Anjaneya.

 

[sangom]

Thank you for your wonderful reply.



Then, Indra was the supreme God in Vedic Religion.



So, Rudra was there in Vedic Religion. But who was Rudra? Some people say Anjaneya was the reincarnation of Siva. Then the link is : Rudra > Siva > Anjaneya.

Indra was, without a shadow of doubt the most important deva in Rigveda. That was why he was made king of devas in all our subsequent scriptures. When we say "vedic religion" it is not possible, at this point in time, to separate the rigvedic, rig-& yajur-vedic and the rig-yaju-saama vedic times. So, what we can correctly say is that Indra is the Supreme Deva or Devata in Rigveda. By the time the yajurveda came along, Rudra of the rigveda became the same as Siva; so, Rudra=Siva.

Rudra comes out as a happy-go-lucky, howling, boisterous band leader of his followers, the Maruts; he roams about and creates disorder and destruction wherever he goes. Anjaneya story requires another detailed write-up, but suffice to say that when the ordinary human Rama of Valmiki Ramayana was elevated to the status of an avattar of Vishnu and made equal to the Supreme Godhead, Anjaneya was allowed the small promotion of having been born with Siva's blessings.

 

[CHANDRU1849]

Indra was, without a shadow of doubt the most important deva in Rigveda. That was why he was made king of devas in all our subsequent scriptures. When we say "vedic religion" it is not possible, at this point in time, to separate the rigvedic, rig-& yajur-vedic and the rig-yaju-saama vedic times. So, what we can correctly say is that Indra is the Supreme Deva or Devata in Rigveda. By the time the yajurveda came along, Rudra of the rigveda became the same as Siva; so, Rudra=Siva.

Rudra comes out as a happy-go-lucky, howling, boisterous band leader of his followers, the Maruts; he roams about and creates disorder and destruction wherever he goes. Anjaneya story requires another detailed write-up, but suffice to say that when the ordinary human Rama of Valmiki Ramayana was elevated to the status of an avattar of Vishnu and made equal to the Supreme Godhead, Anjaneya was allowed the small promotion of having been born with Siva's blessings.

Sir,

To put it in a nut shell:

1. During Rig Veda period, Indra was supreme.
2. During Yajur Veda period, Rudra became Shiva.
3. Sama Veda relates to Shiva.

But how and when Vishnu entered the episode and totally sidelined Indra, took the centre stage and created a situation whereby Indra lost his prime position. What is the reason of Vishnu's elevation, who, per your statement, occupied a minor position in Rig Veda, and who made that elevation and why?