What is supernatural depends on what is natural. In the context of Newtonian physics instantaneous action at a distance is natural. With Einstein's special relativity, the instantaneous action at a distance is supernatural.
One should distinguish supernatural from super-human. Certainly the Vedic devas were superhuman in that they had powers ordinary humans did not have. Were they supernatural? Well, as per the story, by the power of his tapasya, the Rishi Vishwamitra created the southern skies, the antipodes. (Vishwamitra had promised the disgraced king Trisanku that he would get to heaven. So when Indra barred Trisanku, Vishwamitra extended the heavens.) So these powers were not seen to be supernatural, only superhuman, and humans, by dint of effort, could achieve these powers. The power of tapasya accrued to both what we would call morally good (such as the rishis) as well as what we could call morally bad (such as the asuras and rakshasas) and thus, like nuclear power, was morally neutral, not granted by gods and simply a part of nature. In fact, there are many stories of the devas feeling threatened by someone or other's tapasya.
I'd say that for most part, the ancient Hindus did not attribute supernatural powers to their gods, only superhuman powers. When Lord Rama ordered the ocean to make a passage to Sri Lanka, the Ocean deva pleaded with him, that he (the ocean) could not go against his fundamental nature; that all he could do was that if Rama built a causeway, he could refrain from washing it away. If Hindus were Biblically inclined, the sea would have parted, as it did for Moses, a miracle.
A case of bad physics, no doubt, with the ancient Hindus; and no doubt what was seen as natural back then should now be understood to be supernatural; but those who want to find a religion within a Hindu belief in the supernatural, will have to think quite a bit about that.
One should distinguish supernatural from super-human. Certainly the Vedic devas were superhuman in that they had powers ordinary humans did not have. Were they supernatural? Well, as per the story, by the power of his tapasya, the Rishi Vishwamitra created the southern skies, the antipodes. (Vishwamitra had promised the disgraced king Trisanku that he would get to heaven. So when Indra barred Trisanku, Vishwamitra extended the heavens.) So these powers were not seen to be supernatural, only superhuman, and humans, by dint of effort, could achieve these powers. The power of tapasya accrued to both what we would call morally good (such as the rishis) as well as what we could call morally bad (such as the asuras and rakshasas) and thus, like nuclear power, was morally neutral, not granted by gods and simply a part of nature. In fact, there are many stories of the devas feeling threatened by someone or other's tapasya.
I'd say that for most part, the ancient Hindus did not attribute supernatural powers to their gods, only superhuman powers. When Lord Rama ordered the ocean to make a passage to Sri Lanka, the Ocean deva pleaded with him, that he (the ocean) could not go against his fundamental nature; that all he could do was that if Rama built a causeway, he could refrain from washing it away. If Hindus were Biblically inclined, the sea would have parted, as it did for Moses, a miracle.
A case of bad physics, no doubt, with the ancient Hindus; and no doubt what was seen as natural back then should now be understood to be supernatural; but those who want to find a religion within a Hindu belief in the supernatural, will have to think quite a bit about that.
Logging you in...
dwc · 637 weeks ago
http://xyz4000.wordpress.com/2011/03/17/the-absen...
<a href= http://xyz4000.wordpress.com/2011/03/17/the-absen...
>The absence of super natural entities in Indian traditions
CIP · 637 weeks ago
Aswin · 636 weeks ago
=> This statement would be inconsistent with with the story of the river Yamuna parting and making way for Vasudeva during Krishna's birth, then.
macgupta 81p · 636 weeks ago
(50) Because of Indra's constant showers was of the deep waters of Yamarâja's younger sister, the Yamunâ, the surface foaming of the forceful waves but the whirling, agitated, fierce stream gave way just like the ocean had before the Husband of Sîtâ.
How are we to interpret this?
macgupta 81p · 636 weeks ago
vasudeva, fond of his son, quickly carried the boy to the house of yashodA in the night.
Unknown to yashodA, he kept the boy with her and carried the girl to devakI's bed.
Thus the two new-born babies were exchanged. vasudeva was terrified but satisfied. He went out of the house.
macgupta 81p · 636 weeks ago
http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/db/bk04ch23.htm
25-27. While Vâsudeva was thus anxiously pondering over, the Heaven Voice clearly said thus :-- “O Vâsudeva! Quickly go to Gokula with the child. The keepers and guards I have made dead asleep by My Mâyâ. The eight very strong doors are now lying wide open. You better free yourself from your chains and take this child, keep it in the house of Nanda and bring Yoga Mâyâ from there and come back here.”
28-29. Thus hearing the Heavenly Voice, he cast his glance at the doors and found them all wide open. O King! Very quickly then he took the child and stepped out of the prison, quite unnoticed by the guards and watchmen. Going to the banks of the Jumnâ he found there the daughter of Kalindi, flowing with great force and became anxious.
30-31. But the river Jumnâ instantaneously turned out to be easily fordable just knee deep; then Vâsudeva, guided by Yoga Mâyâ, crossed the Jumnâ and betaking to an unfrequented road arrived at Gokul at dead of night. There, at the doorway of the house of Nanda, he began to see the cows, buffaloes, the wealth and property of Nanda.
Aswin · 636 weeks ago
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yamuna
When Vasudeva, carrying Krishna in a basket, reaches the river Yamuna, on the extremely turbulent, rainy night of Krishna's birth, Yamuna is said to have parted to make way for Vasudeva. Krishna and the Gopi's also used to play on the banks of Yamunaji as children.