Indianpatriot1
BANNED
- Joined
- Jul 22, 2013
- Messages
- 549
- Reaction score
- 0
what if this Shiva who is also called rudra is different than rudra mentioned in rigveda which came first, if it was so simple as you say, researchers would have had no difficulty in concluding that rudra mentioned in rigveda is in deed Shiva.it's not about belief but about finding out what is what, there are many theories at present, as a believer you are free to stick to the version you think is more possible, I am mearlly pointing out that there are many theories and descriptions about the matter.
they are not some fake road side scholars, they know what their job, religion is not an issue when it comes to research and study.you don't need their certificate similarly they don't need your's.
Axel Michaels asserts that
Rudra was called Shiva for the first
time in the Śvetāśvatara Upanishad.
Please dont mind but let me ask you if you are a Hindu.Because if you are a non believer, we need not discuss it further.
And who is this Alex Michel to interpret the scriptures of Hinduism? What is his expertise? Are the vedas to be translated like a novel? Are they like a common prostitute whom everyone claims to know intimately? Will he assign any value to Bible's interpretation by a Hindu Pundit?
Vedas are not books of history, they are timeless divine words.
And instead of making all this Wikipedic efforts, it is better if you listen to the Rudram.
Om Namah Shivaya.