Not for aethists
-
I'm a little bored with MFC today (duh), so I was reading up some Greek mythology. Pretty amazing to see that there's so much imperfection. Jealousy, Rage, Murder, Deceit, Betrayal..........albeit at a divine level, but they are there nonetheless, that too in ample amounts. The betrayal of Hephaestus by Aphrodite, the punishing of Arachene by Athene, the castration of Uranus by Cronos and many more incidents testify that. It just doesn't feel right. Even many elements of Hindu mythology depict major divine imperfections, and these are not necessarily the acts of the demonic ones, but the acts of "good" Gods. If our Gods are not perfect, then who is? For the Hindu folks in here: In our Mythological texts, I think Rama and Krishna are the only ones who have never been shown to have committed any acts of imperfection. I would have added Yudhishtira to that list, but since he did decide to "sell" Draupadi off to the Kauravas, it's the one single act of his that can be labelled as imperfect, regardless of his intentions. On the other hand, Lord Rama and Sri Krishna, both are regarded as the consummate supremes, with all round perfection.
ASP - AJAX is SEXY. PERIOD.
-
I'm a little bored with MFC today (duh), so I was reading up some Greek mythology. Pretty amazing to see that there's so much imperfection. Jealousy, Rage, Murder, Deceit, Betrayal..........albeit at a divine level, but they are there nonetheless, that too in ample amounts. The betrayal of Hephaestus by Aphrodite, the punishing of Arachene by Athene, the castration of Uranus by Cronos and many more incidents testify that. It just doesn't feel right. Even many elements of Hindu mythology depict major divine imperfections, and these are not necessarily the acts of the demonic ones, but the acts of "good" Gods. If our Gods are not perfect, then who is? For the Hindu folks in here: In our Mythological texts, I think Rama and Krishna are the only ones who have never been shown to have committed any acts of imperfection. I would have added Yudhishtira to that list, but since he did decide to "sell" Draupadi off to the Kauravas, it's the one single act of his that can be labelled as imperfect, regardless of his intentions. On the other hand, Lord Rama and Sri Krishna, both are regarded as the consummate supremes, with all round perfection.
ASP - AJAX is SEXY. PERIOD.
Bulky Fellow wrote:
On the other hand, Lord Rama and Sri Krishna, both are regarded as the consummate supremes, with all round perfection.
Perhaps by Hindu standards it's not imperfection, but Rama insisting that his wife prove to the world that she is pure ( i.e. still 'chaste' after being imprisoned for many months by his arch-enemy) by walking into a flaming funeral pyre that she expected would burn her to a crisp seems a little. . .um. . . idiosyncratic to this westerner. Yes, he knew her genitalia hadn't been rendered 'unclean' by rape, and he knew the fire wouldn't burn her, but he forgot to tell her what he knew, and he let her think he was rejecting her and letting her die in a rather horrible manner. But hey, if that's perfection, who am I to quibble with a god?
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
I'm a little bored with MFC today (duh), so I was reading up some Greek mythology. Pretty amazing to see that there's so much imperfection. Jealousy, Rage, Murder, Deceit, Betrayal..........albeit at a divine level, but they are there nonetheless, that too in ample amounts. The betrayal of Hephaestus by Aphrodite, the punishing of Arachene by Athene, the castration of Uranus by Cronos and many more incidents testify that. It just doesn't feel right. Even many elements of Hindu mythology depict major divine imperfections, and these are not necessarily the acts of the demonic ones, but the acts of "good" Gods. If our Gods are not perfect, then who is? For the Hindu folks in here: In our Mythological texts, I think Rama and Krishna are the only ones who have never been shown to have committed any acts of imperfection. I would have added Yudhishtira to that list, but since he did decide to "sell" Draupadi off to the Kauravas, it's the one single act of his that can be labelled as imperfect, regardless of his intentions. On the other hand, Lord Rama and Sri Krishna, both are regarded as the consummate supremes, with all round perfection.
ASP - AJAX is SEXY. PERIOD.
Bulky Fellow wrote:
On the other hand, Lord Rama and Sri Krishna, both are regarded as the consummate supremes, with all round perfection.
If you could not excuse Yudhishtira without regards to the intentions behind his act, then how do you claim Rama's act of killing Vaali with an arrow by standing concealed to be acceptable and Rama as a consummate supreme?
Nobody can give you wiser advice than yourself. - Cicero .·´¯`·->Rajesh<-·´¯`·. Codeproject.com: Visual C++ MVP
-
I'm a little bored with MFC today (duh), so I was reading up some Greek mythology. Pretty amazing to see that there's so much imperfection. Jealousy, Rage, Murder, Deceit, Betrayal..........albeit at a divine level, but they are there nonetheless, that too in ample amounts. The betrayal of Hephaestus by Aphrodite, the punishing of Arachene by Athene, the castration of Uranus by Cronos and many more incidents testify that. It just doesn't feel right. Even many elements of Hindu mythology depict major divine imperfections, and these are not necessarily the acts of the demonic ones, but the acts of "good" Gods. If our Gods are not perfect, then who is? For the Hindu folks in here: In our Mythological texts, I think Rama and Krishna are the only ones who have never been shown to have committed any acts of imperfection. I would have added Yudhishtira to that list, but since he did decide to "sell" Draupadi off to the Kauravas, it's the one single act of his that can be labelled as imperfect, regardless of his intentions. On the other hand, Lord Rama and Sri Krishna, both are regarded as the consummate supremes, with all round perfection.
ASP - AJAX is SEXY. PERIOD.
This is one of the big distinctions between mono-theistic religions, most notably Christianity, Islam, and Judaism, and the other pre-modern religions - those religions were intended to give meaning and place to HUMAN behavior and the HUMAN experience; to explain our place IN the world. This, distinct from the younger religions, which attempt to give us place in the universe itself, to give meaning far beyond the scope of a single life, and most of all, the heavy emphasis on morality versus mere ethic. This is not something older religions attempted (or in some sense, needed) to do, for the most part. There's a very interesting study of the correlation between the evolution of religion and the development of civilization. They're very much intertwined, as much as many prefer to think of their religion as "the one true way" or some variant, religion is and has only ever been a tool of civilization, ever changing and equally as malleable. Religion has always changed to suit the civilization of which it is part. This does not necessarily invalidate it; few things are as effective a tool for social cohesion. Side question: What is the purpose of your thread's title? You believe atheists cannot participate in a discussion on theology?
It has become appallingly obvious that our technology has exceeded our humanity. - Albert Einstein
-
This is one of the big distinctions between mono-theistic religions, most notably Christianity, Islam, and Judaism, and the other pre-modern religions - those religions were intended to give meaning and place to HUMAN behavior and the HUMAN experience; to explain our place IN the world. This, distinct from the younger religions, which attempt to give us place in the universe itself, to give meaning far beyond the scope of a single life, and most of all, the heavy emphasis on morality versus mere ethic. This is not something older religions attempted (or in some sense, needed) to do, for the most part. There's a very interesting study of the correlation between the evolution of religion and the development of civilization. They're very much intertwined, as much as many prefer to think of their religion as "the one true way" or some variant, religion is and has only ever been a tool of civilization, ever changing and equally as malleable. Religion has always changed to suit the civilization of which it is part. This does not necessarily invalidate it; few things are as effective a tool for social cohesion. Side question: What is the purpose of your thread's title? You believe atheists cannot participate in a discussion on theology?
It has become appallingly obvious that our technology has exceeded our humanity. - Albert Einstein
Patrick S wrote:
There's a very interesting study of the correlation between the evolution of religion and the development of civilization. They're very much intertwined, as much as many prefer to think of their religion as "the one true way" or some variant, religion is and has only ever been a tool of civilization, ever changing and equally as malleable. Religion has always changed to suit the civilization of which it is part. This does not necessarily invalidate it; few things are as effective a tool for social cohesion.
I've pushed this book before on here: check out "Ideas: A history from fire to Freud" by Peter Watson. He discusses all this.
Patrick S wrote:
What is the purpose of your thread's title? You believe atheists cannot participate in a discussion on theology?
Nah. I think he's implying it wouldn't be interesting to an atheist.
-
This is one of the big distinctions between mono-theistic religions, most notably Christianity, Islam, and Judaism, and the other pre-modern religions - those religions were intended to give meaning and place to HUMAN behavior and the HUMAN experience; to explain our place IN the world. This, distinct from the younger religions, which attempt to give us place in the universe itself, to give meaning far beyond the scope of a single life, and most of all, the heavy emphasis on morality versus mere ethic. This is not something older religions attempted (or in some sense, needed) to do, for the most part. There's a very interesting study of the correlation between the evolution of religion and the development of civilization. They're very much intertwined, as much as many prefer to think of their religion as "the one true way" or some variant, religion is and has only ever been a tool of civilization, ever changing and equally as malleable. Religion has always changed to suit the civilization of which it is part. This does not necessarily invalidate it; few things are as effective a tool for social cohesion. Side question: What is the purpose of your thread's title? You believe atheists cannot participate in a discussion on theology?
It has become appallingly obvious that our technology has exceeded our humanity. - Albert Einstein
Patrick S wrote:
Side question: What is the purpose of your thread's title? You believe atheists cannot participate in a discussion on theology?
Especially poly-theology, where Gods are more inclined to be created in Man's image, rather than in the image of all that we are not, which seems to play a role in mono-theism.
-
This is one of the big distinctions between mono-theistic religions, most notably Christianity, Islam, and Judaism, and the other pre-modern religions - those religions were intended to give meaning and place to HUMAN behavior and the HUMAN experience; to explain our place IN the world. This, distinct from the younger religions, which attempt to give us place in the universe itself, to give meaning far beyond the scope of a single life, and most of all, the heavy emphasis on morality versus mere ethic. This is not something older religions attempted (or in some sense, needed) to do, for the most part. There's a very interesting study of the correlation between the evolution of religion and the development of civilization. They're very much intertwined, as much as many prefer to think of their religion as "the one true way" or some variant, religion is and has only ever been a tool of civilization, ever changing and equally as malleable. Religion has always changed to suit the civilization of which it is part. This does not necessarily invalidate it; few things are as effective a tool for social cohesion. Side question: What is the purpose of your thread's title? You believe atheists cannot participate in a discussion on theology?
It has become appallingly obvious that our technology has exceeded our humanity. - Albert Einstein
Patrick S wrote:
Side question: What is the purpose of your thread's title? You believe atheists cannot participate in a discussion on theology?
Of course they can, but every argument they participate in tends to end up in that one conclusion: that we, the believers, are full of shit and we cannot reason for what we believe in. It starts out like "Ok I believe you somewhat", after a while "You've gotta be kidding me", and finally "When was the last dose of crack bub?". So, that's that.
ASP - AJAX is SEXY. PERIOD.
-
Bulky Fellow wrote:
On the other hand, Lord Rama and Sri Krishna, both are regarded as the consummate supremes, with all round perfection.
Perhaps by Hindu standards it's not imperfection, but Rama insisting that his wife prove to the world that she is pure ( i.e. still 'chaste' after being imprisoned for many months by his arch-enemy) by walking into a flaming funeral pyre that she expected would burn her to a crisp seems a little. . .um. . . idiosyncratic to this westerner. Yes, he knew her genitalia hadn't been rendered 'unclean' by rape, and he knew the fire wouldn't burn her, but he forgot to tell her what he knew, and he let her think he was rejecting her and letting her die in a rather horrible manner. But hey, if that's perfection, who am I to quibble with a god?
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Oakman wrote:
Perhaps by Hindu standards it's not imperfection, but Rama insisting that his wife prove to the world that she is pure ( i.e. still 'chaste' after being imprisoned for many months by his arch-enemy) by walking into a flaming funeral pyre that she expected would burn her to a crisp seems a little. . .um. . . idiosyncratic to this westerne
I too thought this act was inappropriate(Oh Rama, great one, forgive me for this blatant audacity to judge you, for I am a mere human trapped in this illusory world, capable of sins, but none that cannot by cleaned with your brilliant radiance and unmatched glory). But there's an explanation. (From Wikipedia): At the great shock and sorrow of the watchers, Sita walks into the flames. But to their greater shock and wonder, she is completely unharmed. Instead, she glows radiantly from the centre of the pyre. Immediately Rama runs to Sita and embraces her. He had never doubted her purity for a second, but, as he explains to a dazzled Sita, the people of the world would not have accepted or honoured her as a queen or a woman if she had not passed this Agni pariksha before the eyes of millions, where Agni would destroy the impure and sinful, but not touch the pure and innocent. Although there are other schools of thought, I strongly believe in this one. Why? While I'm afraid of sounding like an imbecile, I'll still say "because I choose to". These days I'm tending to believe in the good. :-O
ASP - AJAX is SEXY. PERIOD.
-
I'm a little bored with MFC today (duh), so I was reading up some Greek mythology. Pretty amazing to see that there's so much imperfection. Jealousy, Rage, Murder, Deceit, Betrayal..........albeit at a divine level, but they are there nonetheless, that too in ample amounts. The betrayal of Hephaestus by Aphrodite, the punishing of Arachene by Athene, the castration of Uranus by Cronos and many more incidents testify that. It just doesn't feel right. Even many elements of Hindu mythology depict major divine imperfections, and these are not necessarily the acts of the demonic ones, but the acts of "good" Gods. If our Gods are not perfect, then who is? For the Hindu folks in here: In our Mythological texts, I think Rama and Krishna are the only ones who have never been shown to have committed any acts of imperfection. I would have added Yudhishtira to that list, but since he did decide to "sell" Draupadi off to the Kauravas, it's the one single act of his that can be labelled as imperfect, regardless of his intentions. On the other hand, Lord Rama and Sri Krishna, both are regarded as the consummate supremes, with all round perfection.
ASP - AJAX is SEXY. PERIOD.
Bump/Adder........whatever it's called here: Come to think of it, Aphrodite is the goddess of love, born out of the foam. Her son cupid infects hearts with love. But then why would the goddess of love would also be associated with betrayal? Why did she betray Hephaestus and seek the company of Ares and Adonis? Now, an aethist would say because Aphrodite is a man made figment of imagination. Great, all sorted out. But if believers seek an explanation, then what is it? This is what confuses me. If I believe things like a polytheist does, then there's a long way to go before establishing grounds on "who's good and who's not so good". Or should I just accept blindly that divine faults are not faults at all?
ASP - AJAX is SEXY. PERIOD.
-
Bulky Fellow wrote:
On the other hand, Lord Rama and Sri Krishna, both are regarded as the consummate supremes, with all round perfection.
If you could not excuse Yudhishtira without regards to the intentions behind his act, then how do you claim Rama's act of killing Vaali with an arrow by standing concealed to be acceptable and Rama as a consummate supreme?
Nobody can give you wiser advice than yourself. - Cicero .·´¯`·->Rajesh<-·´¯`·. Codeproject.com: Visual C++ MVP
That's a controversial topic. Just like "Ashathwama Hatha.........iti Gaja" by Yudhisthira from the Mahabharat, there's too much controversy regarding whether Rama was actually concealed or not. But Yudhisthira's selling of Draupadi did not have any controversies around it. Unanimously agreed upon.
ASP - AJAX is SEXY. PERIOD.
-
That's a controversial topic. Just like "Ashathwama Hatha.........iti Gaja" by Yudhisthira from the Mahabharat, there's too much controversy regarding whether Rama was actually concealed or not. But Yudhisthira's selling of Draupadi did not have any controversies around it. Unanimously agreed upon.
ASP - AJAX is SEXY. PERIOD.
No, that ain't controversial. Rama had to kill Vaali from a concealed place. That's because Vaali had been blessed to get half the powers of any opponent who comes on his front.
Nobody can give you wiser advice than yourself. - Cicero .·´¯`·->Rajesh<-·´¯`·. Codeproject.com: Visual C++ MVP
-
No, that ain't controversial. Rama had to kill Vaali from a concealed place. That's because Vaali had been blessed to get half the powers of any opponent who comes on his front.
Nobody can give you wiser advice than yourself. - Cicero .·´¯`·->Rajesh<-·´¯`·. Codeproject.com: Visual C++ MVP
-
I don't get you though. Are you taking that writeup in that page as a source to support your view? I am from Tamil Nadu itself, had been to Nagercoil and the temple too. Not necessarily that I should see it on an internet map.
Nobody can give you wiser advice than yourself. - Cicero .·´¯`·->Rajesh<-·´¯`·. Codeproject.com: Visual C++ MVP
-
I don't get you though. Are you taking that writeup in that page as a source to support your view? I am from Tamil Nadu itself, had been to Nagercoil and the temple too. Not necessarily that I should see it on an internet map.
Nobody can give you wiser advice than yourself. - Cicero .·´¯`·->Rajesh<-·´¯`·. Codeproject.com: Visual C++ MVP
No no, see I'm not trying to find excuses to support Rama and stand against Yudhishthira. What I'm trying to say is that Rama's act can be questioned, whereas the act of Yudhishthira cannot be questioned. Besides, would you not agree that Rama's act was in favour of Dharma whereas Yudhishthira's act was not? PS: Nice to know you're from Tamil Nadu. I'd fallen in love with Kodaikanal when I visited the place. Is it still the same, or has the refined ways of the highly cultured Indian citizens managed to turn it into a litterbox like Darjeeling?
ASP - AJAX is SEXY. PERIOD.
-
Patrick S wrote:
Side question: What is the purpose of your thread's title? You believe atheists cannot participate in a discussion on theology?
Of course they can, but every argument they participate in tends to end up in that one conclusion: that we, the believers, are full of shit and we cannot reason for what we believe in. It starts out like "Ok I believe you somewhat", after a while "You've gotta be kidding me", and finally "When was the last dose of crack bub?". So, that's that.
ASP - AJAX is SEXY. PERIOD.
Bulky Fellow wrote:
Of course they can, but every argument they participate in tends to end up in that one conclusion: that we, the believers, are full of sh*t and we cannot reason for what we believe in.
But that's like accusing a Jew of not accepting Jesus as Lord and Savior :). It's the entire distinction. I myself was religious (Christian bent - I grew up in the southeast USA) until I looked into it more, and in how I really related to it. I find the topic itself wildly interesting, as religious thinking is up there with counting and war as cross-societal, cross-cultural, cross-age pursuits that don't have a seat in biology itself like eating/sleeping/screwing do. I've just come to the conclusion that it, like counting and war, are utterly human endeavors. That doesn't make a discussion of mono- and polytheism any less interesting :) I was under the impression, however, that Hinduism (or at least some major sects) were really monotheism with a polytheistic veneer. Is not Brahma (sp?), the godhead, supposed to be the supreme Hindu being, from which the entire universe and all its inhabitants are are emanated? Isn't that comparable at least to God and his plethora of Angels and Saints, at least in some Christian sects?
-- Russell Morris Morbo: "WINDMILLS DO NOT WORK THAT WAY!"
-
I'm a little bored with MFC today (duh), so I was reading up some Greek mythology. Pretty amazing to see that there's so much imperfection. Jealousy, Rage, Murder, Deceit, Betrayal..........albeit at a divine level, but they are there nonetheless, that too in ample amounts. The betrayal of Hephaestus by Aphrodite, the punishing of Arachene by Athene, the castration of Uranus by Cronos and many more incidents testify that. It just doesn't feel right. Even many elements of Hindu mythology depict major divine imperfections, and these are not necessarily the acts of the demonic ones, but the acts of "good" Gods. If our Gods are not perfect, then who is? For the Hindu folks in here: In our Mythological texts, I think Rama and Krishna are the only ones who have never been shown to have committed any acts of imperfection. I would have added Yudhishtira to that list, but since he did decide to "sell" Draupadi off to the Kauravas, it's the one single act of his that can be labelled as imperfect, regardless of his intentions. On the other hand, Lord Rama and Sri Krishna, both are regarded as the consummate supremes, with all round perfection.
ASP - AJAX is SEXY. PERIOD.
-
Oakman wrote:
Perhaps by Hindu standards it's not imperfection, but Rama insisting that his wife prove to the world that she is pure ( i.e. still 'chaste' after being imprisoned for many months by his arch-enemy) by walking into a flaming funeral pyre that she expected would burn her to a crisp seems a little. . .um. . . idiosyncratic to this westerne
I too thought this act was inappropriate(Oh Rama, great one, forgive me for this blatant audacity to judge you, for I am a mere human trapped in this illusory world, capable of sins, but none that cannot by cleaned with your brilliant radiance and unmatched glory). But there's an explanation. (From Wikipedia): At the great shock and sorrow of the watchers, Sita walks into the flames. But to their greater shock and wonder, she is completely unharmed. Instead, she glows radiantly from the centre of the pyre. Immediately Rama runs to Sita and embraces her. He had never doubted her purity for a second, but, as he explains to a dazzled Sita, the people of the world would not have accepted or honoured her as a queen or a woman if she had not passed this Agni pariksha before the eyes of millions, where Agni would destroy the impure and sinful, but not touch the pure and innocent. Although there are other schools of thought, I strongly believe in this one. Why? While I'm afraid of sounding like an imbecile, I'll still say "because I choose to". These days I'm tending to believe in the good. :-O
ASP - AJAX is SEXY. PERIOD.
There is a little twist to the story. The incarnation of Lord Rama on Earth was to slay the wicked Ravana and reinstate the Dharma (the righteousness) on the Earth. When the forest life began for Lord Rama and Sita, the Lord of Fire (Agni) actually helped them by swapping the real Sita with a shadow of Her. So actually, when Sita walked into the flames and came out, it is believed that the shadow went in and real Sita came out. Check this out: www.ramanuja.org/sv/bhakti/archives/may98/0040.html[^]
Vasudevan Deepak Kumar Personal Homepage
Tech Gossips
A pessimist sees only the dark side of the clouds, and mopes; a philosopher sees both sides, and shrugs; an optimist doesn't see the clouds at all - he's walking on them. --Leonard Louis Levinson -
Bulky Fellow wrote:
Of course they can, but every argument they participate in tends to end up in that one conclusion: that we, the believers, are full of sh*t and we cannot reason for what we believe in.
But that's like accusing a Jew of not accepting Jesus as Lord and Savior :). It's the entire distinction. I myself was religious (Christian bent - I grew up in the southeast USA) until I looked into it more, and in how I really related to it. I find the topic itself wildly interesting, as religious thinking is up there with counting and war as cross-societal, cross-cultural, cross-age pursuits that don't have a seat in biology itself like eating/sleeping/screwing do. I've just come to the conclusion that it, like counting and war, are utterly human endeavors. That doesn't make a discussion of mono- and polytheism any less interesting :) I was under the impression, however, that Hinduism (or at least some major sects) were really monotheism with a polytheistic veneer. Is not Brahma (sp?), the godhead, supposed to be the supreme Hindu being, from which the entire universe and all its inhabitants are are emanated? Isn't that comparable at least to God and his plethora of Angels and Saints, at least in some Christian sects?
-- Russell Morris Morbo: "WINDMILLS DO NOT WORK THAT WAY!"
Russell Morris wrote:
Is not Brahma (sp?), the godhead, supposed to be the supreme Hindu being, from which the entire universe and all its inhabitants are are emanated? Isn't that comparable at least to God and his plethora of Angels and Saints, at least in some Christian sects?
That is (was) also my impression.
-
Bump/Adder........whatever it's called here: Come to think of it, Aphrodite is the goddess of love, born out of the foam. Her son cupid infects hearts with love. But then why would the goddess of love would also be associated with betrayal? Why did she betray Hephaestus and seek the company of Ares and Adonis? Now, an aethist would say because Aphrodite is a man made figment of imagination. Great, all sorted out. But if believers seek an explanation, then what is it? This is what confuses me. If I believe things like a polytheist does, then there's a long way to go before establishing grounds on "who's good and who's not so good". Or should I just accept blindly that divine faults are not faults at all?
ASP - AJAX is SEXY. PERIOD.
-
Bulky Fellow wrote:
Of course they can, but every argument they participate in tends to end up in that one conclusion: that we, the believers, are full of sh*t and we cannot reason for what we believe in.
But that's like accusing a Jew of not accepting Jesus as Lord and Savior :). It's the entire distinction. I myself was religious (Christian bent - I grew up in the southeast USA) until I looked into it more, and in how I really related to it. I find the topic itself wildly interesting, as religious thinking is up there with counting and war as cross-societal, cross-cultural, cross-age pursuits that don't have a seat in biology itself like eating/sleeping/screwing do. I've just come to the conclusion that it, like counting and war, are utterly human endeavors. That doesn't make a discussion of mono- and polytheism any less interesting :) I was under the impression, however, that Hinduism (or at least some major sects) were really monotheism with a polytheistic veneer. Is not Brahma (sp?), the godhead, supposed to be the supreme Hindu being, from which the entire universe and all its inhabitants are are emanated? Isn't that comparable at least to God and his plethora of Angels and Saints, at least in some Christian sects?
-- Russell Morris Morbo: "WINDMILLS DO NOT WORK THAT WAY!"
Russell Morris wrote:
Is not Brahma (sp?), the godhead, supposed to be the supreme Hindu being, from which the entire universe and all its inhabitants are are emanated?
It's certainly not Brahma. I think you are thinking of Vishnu. The Dash Avatars were incarnations of Vishnu. However, Krishna says in the Gita he is supreme. That's somewhat confusing. But I try not to think about it too much. :)
Cheers, Vikram.
"The weak can never forgive. Forgiveness is the attribute of the strong." - Mahatma Gandhi.