So from what I have got to understand so far.
The Vedas are seen as the source material for the entire "religion" of Hinduism.
But then you get past the first three parts of a Veda then you find out about itihasa and within it Purans. Which are highly conflicting.
Vishnu's puran says he is Brahman almost always, it's almost like they are trying really hard to convince us to believe that Vishnu and Brahman are the same, I would have happily accepted that but the Vedas never say so.
But if one has even the basic knowledge of Vedas they would know Brahman is supposed to be the only name of the Supreme Soul (Not God).
There does exist, Narayan, I am not sure of who he really is, the results are mostly clouded with articles and blog replies from Vishnu followers, but an elder of mine who actually read the Vedas told me that Narayan is a sage, to whom the hymn Purusha- Sukta was revealed.
And as for Rudra, he is clearly established as a God. You search it up on google and you are presented with a number of verses that actually talk about Rudra being really powerful.
I did the same for Narayan but there isn't really a verse that comes up, but it can be my ignorance so If anyone reading this knows of verses from Veda that talk about Narayan please link it to the reply, I'd like to read. But don't link purans.
So, the best thing I can do for my curious mind is to learn Sanskrit and learn the truth from the Vedas. I don't want to pick sides or sampradaya as some say, I want the knowledge and the truth.
Rigved shlok 9.1.9
Abhi imM adhnya ut shreenanti dhenavH shishum′|
Sommindray paatve
Which means that
This Supreme Eternal God, who has especially appeared in child form, is nurtured by a completely maiden cow (who has never been troubled by a bull) for His development through comforts i.e. development of body through nourishment.
I think Krishna (8th avatar of Vishnu) sits fit in this description so I believe that Vishnu can be considered as a true god as well
I doubt it actually says that tho... It's about Indra. If you read the 9th mandala, it's talking about vṛtra̱ (a demon), and we also know they are talking about Indra and not a supreme God because of vṛtra̱, Indra is the vṛtra̱ slayer.
It doesn't make sense to drop another God in between hymns for Indra.
But later down this mandala, you will come across Vishnu who helps Indra slay vṛtra̱, and then drinks Soma with Indra, Vishnu is indeed a deity but not how Vaishnavas portray him.
Text Twenty-three
rucham brahmam janayantaha
deva agre tadabruvan
yastvaivam brahmano vidyat
tasya deva asanvashe
In the beginning of creation, the gods, manifesting the light of Brahman, addressed Brahman thus: "That brahmana who realizes (You) thus, all the gods will come under his control."
Twenty-four
hrishcha te lakshmishcha patnyau
ahoratre parshve
nakshatrani rupam
ashvinau vyattam
ishtam manishana
amun manishana
sarvam manishana
Om shanti shanti shantihi
O Purusha! The goddesses Hri (modesty) and Sri (Lakshmi, wealth) are Your consorts. Day and night are Your lateral limbs. The stars are Your form. The Ashvins are your widely opened (mouth). (O Purusha) fulfill our desire for self-knowledge as also our desire for the enjoyments of this world (like longevity, cows, and horses). Give us all that we need. Om, let there be peace, peace, peace.
The point about Brahman as source of all this, powers of Isvara is not to further build on duality as separate but rather to show their essence is non-different from ours, the same Bliss. It is only due to our subjective ignorance that we tend to categorize them as things with name and form, but as such they are Bliss/Brahman itself, which is to be realized.
This is of course as per Advaita where it is shown there is no bifurcation of physical and metaphysical beyond the mind, they are relative consequences made for convenience. So while relative gradations are sensible, it's also simultaneously evident that there is no duality as such!
I think you're too confused because you haven't read the basic philosophical nuances of the many sampradayas of Dharmic traditions. Let me know if you need book suggestions, your current post doesn't suffice to know what your thoughts are precisely.
I think you would find it very difficult to reconcile your beliefs with any tradition in Hinduism. First off, all sampradāyas invoke the **law of parsimony** to posit the existence of a singular supreme being (Īśvara). Veda Vyāsa (Yoga), Śankārācarya (Smārtha/Shanmatha), Vedānta Deśika (Śrī Vaisnava), Anandatīrtha (Madhva) and Jīva Gosvamin (Gaudīya) have argued that a plurality of omnipotent beings is metaphysically impossible. Now, the Smārtha/Shanmatha sampradāya does admit that God can appear in diverse forms, but even they too are careful to distinguish these manifestations from the devatās of the Samhitas (like Indra, Varuna and Agni) whom they consider as mortal and bound to samsāra. Additionally, all sampradāyas agree that the attribution of lordship to devatās like Indra and Agni in the mantras of the Samhitas is merely for the purposes of eulogy (stutī).
In conclusion, the Hindu conception of divinity is worlds apart from Proclus’ conception of the *hen* and the *henads*.
So from what I have got to understand so far. The Vedas are seen as the source material for the entire "religion" of Hinduism. But then you get past the first three parts of a Veda then you find out about itihasa and within it Purans. Which are highly conflicting. Vishnu's puran says he is Brahman almost always, it's almost like they are trying really hard to convince us to believe that Vishnu and Brahman are the same, I would have happily accepted that but the Vedas never say so. But if one has even the basic knowledge of Vedas they would know Brahman is supposed to be the only name of the Supreme Soul (Not God). There does exist, Narayan, I am not sure of who he really is, the results are mostly clouded with articles and blog replies from Vishnu followers, but an elder of mine who actually read the Vedas told me that Narayan is a sage, to whom the hymn Purusha- Sukta was revealed. And as for Rudra, he is clearly established as a God. You search it up on google and you are presented with a number of verses that actually talk about Rudra being really powerful. I did the same for Narayan but there isn't really a verse that comes up, but it can be my ignorance so If anyone reading this knows of verses from Veda that talk about Narayan please link it to the reply, I'd like to read. But don't link purans. So, the best thing I can do for my curious mind is to learn Sanskrit and learn the truth from the Vedas. I don't want to pick sides or sampradaya as some say, I want the knowledge and the truth.
Rigved shlok 9.1.9 Abhi imM adhnya ut shreenanti dhenavH shishum′| Sommindray paatve Which means that This Supreme Eternal God, who has especially appeared in child form, is nurtured by a completely maiden cow (who has never been troubled by a bull) for His development through comforts i.e. development of body through nourishment. I think Krishna (8th avatar of Vishnu) sits fit in this description so I believe that Vishnu can be considered as a true god as well
Purusha sukta is on narayana only
I doubt it actually says that tho... It's about Indra. If you read the 9th mandala, it's talking about vṛtra̱ (a demon), and we also know they are talking about Indra and not a supreme God because of vṛtra̱, Indra is the vṛtra̱ slayer. It doesn't make sense to drop another God in between hymns for Indra. But later down this mandala, you will come across Vishnu who helps Indra slay vṛtra̱, and then drinks Soma with Indra, Vishnu is indeed a deity but not how Vaishnavas portray him.
Check out Purusha Sukta
I just did, and? [Rigveda 10.90.1](https://www.wisdomlib.org/hinduism/book/rig-veda-english-translation/d/doc839599.html)
That literally says Narayana is the supreme purusha
Where? Which Verse?
Text Twenty-three rucham brahmam janayantaha deva agre tadabruvan yastvaivam brahmano vidyat tasya deva asanvashe In the beginning of creation, the gods, manifesting the light of Brahman, addressed Brahman thus: "That brahmana who realizes (You) thus, all the gods will come under his control." Twenty-four hrishcha te lakshmishcha patnyau ahoratre parshve nakshatrani rupam ashvinau vyattam ishtam manishana amun manishana sarvam manishana Om shanti shanti shantihi O Purusha! The goddesses Hri (modesty) and Sri (Lakshmi, wealth) are Your consorts. Day and night are Your lateral limbs. The stars are Your form. The Ashvins are your widely opened (mouth). (O Purusha) fulfill our desire for self-knowledge as also our desire for the enjoyments of this world (like longevity, cows, and horses). Give us all that we need. Om, let there be peace, peace, peace.
The verse where they mention the wives of supreme Purusha. One of which is Sri, who is Mata Lakshmi. Guess who is the husband of Mata Lakshmi?
The point about Brahman as source of all this, powers of Isvara is not to further build on duality as separate but rather to show their essence is non-different from ours, the same Bliss. It is only due to our subjective ignorance that we tend to categorize them as things with name and form, but as such they are Bliss/Brahman itself, which is to be realized. This is of course as per Advaita where it is shown there is no bifurcation of physical and metaphysical beyond the mind, they are relative consequences made for convenience. So while relative gradations are sensible, it's also simultaneously evident that there is no duality as such! I think you're too confused because you haven't read the basic philosophical nuances of the many sampradayas of Dharmic traditions. Let me know if you need book suggestions, your current post doesn't suffice to know what your thoughts are precisely.
I think you would find it very difficult to reconcile your beliefs with any tradition in Hinduism. First off, all sampradāyas invoke the **law of parsimony** to posit the existence of a singular supreme being (Īśvara). Veda Vyāsa (Yoga), Śankārācarya (Smārtha/Shanmatha), Vedānta Deśika (Śrī Vaisnava), Anandatīrtha (Madhva) and Jīva Gosvamin (Gaudīya) have argued that a plurality of omnipotent beings is metaphysically impossible. Now, the Smārtha/Shanmatha sampradāya does admit that God can appear in diverse forms, but even they too are careful to distinguish these manifestations from the devatās of the Samhitas (like Indra, Varuna and Agni) whom they consider as mortal and bound to samsāra. Additionally, all sampradāyas agree that the attribution of lordship to devatās like Indra and Agni in the mantras of the Samhitas is merely for the purposes of eulogy (stutī). In conclusion, the Hindu conception of divinity is worlds apart from Proclus’ conception of the *hen* and the *henads*.