HinduNet
Forums Chat Annouce Calender DigiCards Recommend Remote Invites
Page 1 of 18 1 2 3 ... 17 18 >
Topic Options
Rate This Topic
#70201 - 11/15/05 05:38 PM Lord Vishnu/Narayana is the Supreme God of the vedic literature
Bhakta of God Offline
member
**

Registered: 10/25/04
Posts: 330
Loc: Italy,Europe
Namaste all.
In the past I didn't accept that Lord Vishnu was inferior to Shiva,Durga,Ganesha,etc.I though that they were the same God.But this is not true.
By http://www.srivaishnavan.com/faq_iswara.html
Who exactly is Brahman or Iswara? Is there one single deity, who is supreme?

Where does this last passage, "He is Brahma, He is Siva, He is Indra" occur?

Doesnt this occurs in Maha Narayana Upanishad

You read the passage as "He is Brahma, He is Siva, He is Indra." But some people read it as "He is Brahma, He is Siva, He is Hari, He is Indra."Which is correct?

How do you say that the words "He is Hari" are later interpolation and not correct?

What was the need for this interpolation, at a later stage?

Are these passages in the Vedas also supported by Smritis, Itihasas and Puranas?

In some places in the Vedas, Siva is also called as the supreme deity. How do you explain this contradiction?

Can you give some examples?

So how do you explain the apparent contradiction?

Why can't we take it that the word 'Narayana' (as Paramatma) refers to Siva; instead of saying that the word "Siva" refers to Narayana?

Quote some passages in the Vedas, praising the greatness of Siva.

Why not we say that Brahma, Vishnu and Siva are all equal?

We have got the ancient Tamil works (Sangam literature), which are several thousand years old. What do these mention about the supreme deity?

If Narayana is the supreme deity, why should Rama (His Avatara) worship another deity in Rameswaram, as people say?

Similarly, there are stories that Narayana took the form of a boar (Varaha) and searched the feet of another deity; that Narayana took out his eye and surrendered it to Rudra and got chakra, etc. What do you say about these?

Please tell me something more about Rudra

But Harivamsa says Krishna requested for a child, from Siva. How do you reconcile this?

Does it mean that we cannot give or we should not

At http://www.srivaishnavan.com/ans_iswara.html#16 in the number by 16 to 34 you can find the answers.
Here are some passages from the Vedas which will answer your query. 1) "There was only one Narayana, no Brahma, no Rudra"
2) "From His forehead, the three-eyed person, having Sula is born; the four-faced Brahma is bom."
3) "Brahma is born from Narayana, Rudra is bom from Narayana"
4) "Brahma is Narayana, Siva is Narayana, Indra is Narayana, The directions are Narayana. All things are Narayana"
5) "There is only one Divine Being - Narayana"
6) "Narayana is the inner soul of all beings,"
7) "He crosses the human bondage of samsara and reaches the Paramapada of Vishnu."
8) "Among the Devas, fire (Agni) is the lowest and Vishnu is the highest:
9) "He created Brahma as before and taught him the Vedas."
10) "From the Brahma's forehead, Rudra was born."
11) "The Universe is Narayana."
12) "Narayana is the supreme Brahman. Narayana is the supreme truth or reality. Narayana is the supreme light. Narayana is the supreme atma or Paramatma. Whatever is in this world, seen or heard, all that is pervaded by Narayana, both within and without. He is Brahma. He is Siva. He is Indra."
From these, it will be clear to you who is the supreme deity, who is the Brahman and who is Iswara. There are innumerable such passages in the Vedas.

This passage occurs in Taittiriya Upanishad. This is called Narayana Anuvaka.

Actually it forms part of Taittiriya Upanishad. But some modern people call it by a separate name as Maha Narayana Upanishad.

The Vedic passage should read without the words "He is Hari". The words "He is Hari" are later interpolation; and it is not correct.

The reason is very simple. If you add the words. "He is Hari" in this verse in the Vedas, the metre becomes incorrect. According to Sanskrit grammar, the metre of the verse is correct, only if the words "He is Hari" are not there. Thus it is very clear that the words "He is Hari" are only interpolation, at a much later period.

With the interpolation, it reads as "He is Brahma, He is Siva, He is Hari, He is Indra." This will give an impression that all the three viz., Brahma, Vishnu and Siva are equal, as also Indra. So, perhaps this was the intention of the people who interpolated, that all the Gods should be treated as equals.

Yes. Here they are.
1) Varaha Purana: Narayana is the supreme deity. From Him was born the 4-faced Brahma and from Brahma arose Rudra.
2) Mahabharata: when the Jivatma and matter have gone into dissolution, i.e., during the deluge (pralaya), there is only one remaining and He is Lord Narayana.
3) Mahabharata: There is no being in the world that is eternal or permanent, except Vasudeva.
4) Harivamsa: Siva's words to Narayana; "Brahma is called Ka and I am called Isa. We two were born from your limbs. Therefore, you are called Kesava."
5) Mahabharata: Brahma's words to Siva: "I was born by His grace and you from His anger, in one of the earlier creations."
6) Mahabharata: Brahma, Rudra and Indra together with all other devas and rishis, worshipped the divine Narayana, the greatest of Gods.
7) Ramayana: Rudra sacrificed all things in a great yaga called Sarvamedha and then sacrificed himself also mentally.
8) Ramayana: They knew Vishnu is greater .(than Siva).
9) Mahabharata: These two, Brahma and Rudra, who are the greatest among the devas, are born out of the Lord's grace and anger. They perform the duties of creation and destruction, as ordered by Him.
10) Mahabharata: The devas are under the protection of Rudra. Rudra is under the protection of Brahma. Brahma is under my protection. I do not need the protection of anyone, I am the refuge of all.
11) Vishnupurana: Brahma, Daksha, Rudra, all these are among the attributes of Bhagavan. 12) Mahabharata: The words of Brahma to Rudra:
"He (Narayana) is the inner soul of you, of me and all beings. He sees everything, but cannot be seen by anyone or anywhere."
13) Rudra says in Mantra Raja Pada stotra: All beings are the servants of Paramatma. Therefore, I am also your servant and with this knowledge, I bow to you.
14) Mahabharata: There is no one superior to Narayana, the God of the lotus eyes. There is no God superior to Vishnu.
15) Naradapurana: There is no divine being, higher than Kesava.
16) Mahabharata: He (Vishnu) is the king of all kings. He is the Iswara, He is the father. He is the creator,
17) Mahabharata: Those intelligent people do not worship Brahma or Rudra or any other devas, because the fruit of their worship is limited.
18) Mahabharata: Lord Narayana told the devas:
"This Brahma is your father and mother and grandfather. He will give you boons under instructions from me. Rudra, his younger brother, had his origin from my forehead. Rudra will grant boons to beings under instructions from Brahma."
19) Bhagavad Gita: Krishna says: "Those who do sacrifices to other deities, they also do sacrifice only to Me; but not in the proper manner and according to rules." 20) Ramayana: Brahma, the three-eyed Rudra - cannot save a person from being killed in war, by Rama.
21) Mahabharata: Meditating always of the Lord, Brahma, Rudra and others have not yet realised the Lord's nature.
22) Mahabharata: Mahadeva (Rudra) sacrificed -himself in Sarvamedha yaga and became Devadeva.
23) Mahabharata: He, whom Madhusudana sees at the time of birth, becomes Sattvika - If Brahma or Rudra sees him at the time of birth, he is rilled with Rajoguna and Tamoguna (respectively).
24) Mahabharata: Narayana is Parabrahma. Narayana is Paratattva. He is greater than the greatest. There is none greater than Him.
25) Mahabharata: Siva said: I was bora from His (Narayana's) head - He is the one, fit to be worshipped always - By seeing Him, all other devas can also be deemed to be seen. I (Siva) also worship Him (Narayana) always - All of us, devas, reside in His body.
26) Vyasa: This is the Truth, Truth and Truth. There is no greater deity than Kesava.
27) Harivamsa: Siva said:- Only Hari is to be meditated upon, always. He is to be worshipped always. I (Siva) help in the worship of Hari.
28) Vishnu Purana: The world is born out of Vishnu and rests in Him. He is the world - He resides in all; and all beings reside in Him. Hence He is called Vasudeva. He is the Parabrahma.
29) Varaha Purana: Lord Narayana was at the beginning. From Him was born Brahma.
30) Bhagavata: Brahma said:- I, Brahma, create the world, commanded by Narayana. Siva, controlled by Narayana, destroys the world.
31) Bhagavata: The water from (washing) the feet of Vamana, which was borne on the head, with supreme devotion, by Kailasa vasa, Chandra mouli (Siva)....
32) Bhagavata: Brahma to Vishnu: We - Rudra and others - drink with our 11 senses, the honey in your lotus-like feet. 33) Bhagavata: Rudra to Krishna: You are the highest jyotis. The sky is your navel, agni is your mouth - You are the first purusha. You have no equal or superior. Myself (Rudra), the devas and rishis - all seek refuge in you. You are everything to us. You are our atma and ruler. You have no equal or superior; there is nobody else to be approached for protection. I come to you so that my samsara may be ended. 34) Bhagavata: Rudra to Parvati:- You asked me, when I rose from my yoga on whom I meditated. That person is Bhagavan (Narayana), whose maya, you have just witnessed. He is eternal.
35) Bhagavata: Rudra:- One, ... who loves Bhagavan Vasudeva, goes after a hundred births to the world of Brahma; then he comes to my world. He will then reach the eternal world of Vishnu, as myself, Indra and other devas will do, at the expiration of our authority.
36) Bhagavata: Markandeya to Rudra: I will ask for this boon:- "May my love for Bhagavan (Narayana), for those that regard Him as the highest goal, and for you, remain unshaken." Rudra: "You will be a lover of Bhagavan (Narayana)."
37) Parvati asks Siva: "I want to hear from you this: How do the learned people recite the 1000 names of Vishnu easily? Siva replies: "It is enough, if you say Rama. This is equivalent to all 1000 names of Vishnu. I also enjoy saying the name of Rama." I have quoted above, only very few passages. There are innumerable such passages in smrtis, puranas and itihasas stating that Narayana is the supreme deity.

I have to tell you one thing. Narayana is a proper noun. According to Sanskrit grammar, Narayana can mean only one person. It cannot mean any Other person. But, Siva, Rudra and Sambhu are common nouns. Siva means an auspicious person. Rudra means, one who weeps or one who is dreadful. Sambhu means one who grants happiness and prosperity. So, these are common nouns. So, as common nouns, they can refer to any person, including Narayana; although normally they apply to Siva. This is on the authority of Sanskrit grammar.

We have a word in Sanskrit, called Sarasija. This is a common noun. This means that which comes out from a lake. There are so many flowers, which come out from a lake, i.e., which are there in a lake. But still, by common understanding, Sarasija means only a lotus flower. Similarly, there is a word Pankaja in Sanskrit. This means that which comes out of mud or slush. Again, so many flowers can sprout out of mud or slush. But it is commonly accepted in Sanskrit, that Pankaja refers only to Lotus. So, two of the common nouns, Sarasija and Pankaja, although they can apply to all flowers, are still taken to refer only to Lotus. Similarly, Sambhu, Siva and Rudra are common nouns. So, they can refer to any deity or person, although normally we identify these names with Siva.

We have to apply some logic here. We accept that the Vedas as a whole, are the ultimate authority. There is nothing in the Vedas, which is not authority. So, in a majority of passages, the word Narayana occurs as Paramatma. In some places, the word Siva or Rudra also occurs as Paramatma. Now, we have to be clear on one thing. Narayana, according to Sanskrit grammar, is a proper noun. It cannot refer to any other person. But Siva and Rudra are common nouns. So they can refer to any other person. Since we do not accept any contradiction among the different passages in the Vedas, we say that the words Siva and Rudra also, when they refer to Paramatma, actually mean Narayana, because these are common nouns.

The answer is very simple. Siva is a common noun. It can mean any person and hence it means Narayana in the particular context. But the word Narayana cannot refer to Siva, because Narayana is a proper noun. This is on the authority of Sanskrit grammar; and we have to accept the grammatical position.

There are several passages in the Vedas, which praise the greatness of Brahma; which praise the greatness of Indra; which praise the greatness of Agni or fire. Similarly, many passages in the Vedas also praise the greatness of Siva. But the important thing to see is who is declared as the supreme deity or Paramatma. As I have explained to you so far, it is clear from the Vedas and Puranas and Itihasas, that Narayana is the Supreme deity, the Paramatma.

What you are saying is not supported by the fundamental authority, the Vedas. From the Vedic passages I have given above, you can see that the Vedas speak of only one supreme deity and that supreme deity is Narayana. There is nothing in the Vedas to show that two or three Gods are equal; and that two or three Gods can be considered as supreme deities. Further, as you will see from the quotations given earlier, both Brahma and Rudra themselves accept that they have come out of Narayana, that they are bom out of Narayana. Nowhere in the Vedas, is it stated that two or three Gods are equal; that Brahma, Vishnu and Siva are equal. The Vedas all along say that there is only one supreme deity and that is Narayana.

All these ancient Tamil works also mention that Narayana is the supreme deity.

This version is not authentic. We accept Valmiki Ramayana as the authority. There is no mention at all in Valmiki Ramayana about Rama worshipping any deity in Rameswaram. There is no such mention in the authoritative version of Kamba Ramayana also.

We can only say that these are not found in any ancient, authoritative works. These have not been quoted by Adi Sankara or any of the Acharyas, belonging to the other schools of Vedanta. These have not been mentioned in Sastras, which are accepted as authority.

1) I will give you a quotation from Bhagavata: "The river Ganga is the greatest among all rivers. Narayana is the greatest of all deities. Siva is the greatest of all Vaishnavas. Bhagavata is the greatest of all Puranas." 2) We accept Ahirbudhnya Samhita as one of the respected authorities. Here, Rudra has praised Narasimha in Mantra Raja Pada Stotra. Here, Rudra says as follows: "All the Jivatmas are the servants of you, the Paramatma. So, I am also your servant and worship you." 3) Parvati asks Siva "How can the thousand names of Vishnu be recited easily every day?" Siva replies: "It is enough to say Rama. This is equal to thousand names of Vishnu. I also enjoy Uttering the name Rama."

Varahapurana says, that Rudra requested Narayana as follows: "Please grant me a favour. In one of your avataras, you should also pray to me and ask for somefavour." Narayana agreed and said that in one of His avataras He will ask for a favour, from Rudra. That is why, in Krishna avatara. He requested Rudra for a child, as per the promise given earlier. This has been mentioned in Varahapurana. It will also be clear from the fact that, immediately after granting the favour for a child to Krishna, Rudra says as follows:- "Krishna, out of His simplicity only, came to me for a child. But He is the source of all beings. He is the protector of all. He is the supreme Tattva. He alone gives Moksha." Summing up, it is only because of these things, that Vedavyasa says as follows:-
"This is the truth. This is the truth. Again, this is the truth. I raise my hands and say there is no greater authority than the Vedas. There is no greater deity than Kesava." It is in keeping with this only, that Krishna says in Gita "It is I alone, who is understood from all the Vedas."

No. It does not mean that. They are also highly respectable. We give them proper and utmost respect, like we will give to other respectable persons. Only thing is, on the authority of the Vedas. Narayana is the supreme deity.


Regards,
Orlando.
_________________________
My e-mail is lingabhakta@yahoo.it Feel free to e-mail me!

Top
#70202 - 11/17/05 03:21 AM Re: Lord Vishnu/Narayana is the Supreme God of the vedic literature [Re: Bhakta of God]
yash_mys Offline
stranger

Registered: 11/17/05
Posts: 1
This entire discussion of which god is greater than the other is absolutely useless. Nobody has understood what god exactly is. We all beleive there is a supernatural power out there and all the people in the wordl worship that supernatural power in the forms they perceived it. Devotion to the GOD is bigger than which god is worshipped.

Thanks,
Yash.

Top
#70203 - 11/18/05 08:46 AM Re: Lord Vishnu/Narayana is the Supreme God of the vedic literature [Re: yash_mys]
Bhakta of God Offline
member
**

Registered: 10/25/04
Posts: 330
Loc: Italy,Europe
Namaste all.I wrote "In the past I didn't accept that Lord Vishnu was inferior to Shiva,Durga,Ganesha,etc".I wanted write "In the past I didn't accept that Lord Vishnu was superior to Shiva,Durga,Ganesha,etc".
Dear Yash_mys,please note that there is only one God.Shiva and Brahma are devas (celestial beings).About the "supernatural power",please note that God is a personal entity.He is a trascendental person.Devotion to the true and only GOD is bigger than which being (even if an high being like a deva like Shiva) is worshipped.
However I am talking about the God of the vedic literature.I respect and accept all the religions.As follower of the vedic religion I can't accept that Shiva and Brahma are God.According to vedic literature,only Lord Vishnu is God.You may worship every deva you like but this doesn't mean that you must equate a deva with the Lord.

Regards,
Orlando.
_________________________
My e-mail is lingabhakta@yahoo.it Feel free to e-mail me!

Top
#70204 - 11/19/05 01:53 AM Re: Lord Vishnu/Narayana is the Supreme God of the vedic literature [Re: Bhakta of God]
sarabhanga Offline
friend
**

Registered: 08/02/02
Posts: 894
Loc: India
OM namo Narayana!
There is only one God, but that ultimate deity is beyond description. Any name or image is only an approximation to the unimaginable vastness of that one true conception.
Narayana was conceived as the inseparable twin of Nara (or Purusha) ~ “the Man” and “the Son of Man”. Purusha (the primeval universal Atman) is the ancient fire-priest whose Atmayajna is the cause of Creation; and his very own Self (his own “son” ~ Narayana, the Son of Man) is the “body” offered in this first and ultimate act of Self-sacrifice.
Narayana is commonly identified with Vishnu, and Nara/Purusha is the Prajapati (“Creator”) who is known by various names in different traditions (Savitri, Soma, Agni, Indra, Brahma, Shiva, Vishnu etc.).
Nara and Narayana are one and the same, although one is consumed (and thus “mortal”) and the other untouched and eternal ~ but which one is which? Who is greater, the Father or the Son, the Priest or the Offering? Each shares aspects of the other, and the concepts are practically inseparable.
Narayana, by this very name, implies the existence of another (i.e. Nara) and, even in the cosmic ocean of Pralaya, the Lord is inseparable from His serpent couch (Ananta).
And which is greater, the King or the Kingdom?
Ananta (“Endless”) is like the cosmic Kundalini of Prajapati, the timeless support and foundation for Narayana and His temporal incarnations. And that great Naga is the immortal fragment, the amrit remains or ucchista, of Prajapati’s Self-offering, to which Narayana, who is (periodically) offered into the Yajna of Creation, must inevitably return. Nara remains eternally inert and inactive (in the perfect absorption of Samadhi), while Narayana (as His own Self) is sacrificed to manifest action and repeated incarnation. Nara is known as Brahman, the Paramatman, and Narayana is His own Atman, which is truly non-different from Himself!
Ultimately, Narayana is non-different from Ananta. Narayana is the Soul of the original progenitor, Nara, the prime Creator; and that is just what is figured by the coiled, many headed form of Ananta ~ so the two must necessarily rest together.
Who, however, is the Lord of all Nagas? It is of course the One known as Mahadeva, Lord Shiva (whose name is only adjectival because He is truly beyond any limitation of “proper” naming!).
_________________________
Sarabhanga Giri ~ Ayamatma Brahma

Top
#70205 - 11/21/05 03:39 PM Re: Lord Vishnu/Narayana is the Supreme God of the vedic literature [Re: sarabhanga]
Bhakta of God Offline
member
**

Registered: 10/25/04
Posts: 330
Loc: Italy,Europe
Namaste.
Quote:

OM namo Narayana!
There is only one God, but that ultimate deity is beyond description. Any name or image is only an approximation to the unimaginable vastness of that one true conception.
Narayana was conceived as the inseparable twin of Nara (or Purusha) ~ “the Man” and “the Son of Man”. Purusha (the primeval universal Atman) is the ancient fire-priest whose Atmayajna is the cause of Creation; and his very own Self (his own “son” ~ Narayana, the Son of Man) is the “body” offered in this first and ultimate act of Self-sacrifice.
Narayana is commonly identified with Vishnu, and Nara/Purusha is the Prajapati (“Creator”) who is known by various names in different traditions (Savitri, Soma, Agni, Indra, Brahma, Shiva, Vishnu etc.).
Nara and Narayana are one and the same, although one is consumed (and thus “mortal”) and the other untouched and eternal ~ but which one is which? Who is greater, the Father or the Son, the Priest or the Offering? Each shares aspects of the other, and the concepts are practically inseparable.
Narayana, by this very name, implies the existence of another (i.e. Nara) and, even in the cosmic ocean of Pralaya, the Lord is inseparable from His serpent couch (Ananta).
And which is greater, the King or the Kingdom?
Ananta (“Endless”) is like the cosmic Kundalini of Prajapati, the timeless support and foundation for Narayana and His temporal incarnations. And that great Naga is the immortal fragment, the amrit remains or ucchista, of Prajapati’s Self-offering, to which Narayana, who is (periodically) offered into the Yajna of Creation, must inevitably return. Nara remains eternally inert and inactive (in the perfect absorption of Samadhi), while Narayana (as His own Self) is sacrificed to manifest action and repeated incarnation. Nara is known as Brahman, the Paramatman, and Narayana is His own Atman, which is truly non-different from Himself!
Ultimately, Narayana is non-different from Ananta. Narayana is the Soul of the original progenitor, Nara, the prime Creator; and that is just what is figured by the coiled, many headed form of Ananta ~ so the two must necessarily rest together.
Who, however, is the Lord of all Nagas? It is of course the One known as Mahadeva, Lord Shiva (whose name is only adjectival because He is truly beyond any limitation of “proper” naming!).



Dear Sarabhanga,your first statements are very common.Please read what Siddhanta Sarasvati wrote.By http://vedabase.net/bs/foreword/en
The materialistic demeanor cannot possibly stretch to the transcendental autocrat who is ever inviting the fallen conditioned souls to associate with Him through devotion or eternal serving mood. The phenomenal attractions are often found to tempt sentient beings to enjoy the variegated position which is opposed to undifferenced monism. People are so much apt to indulge in transitory speculations even when they are to educate themselves on a situation beyond their empiric area or experiencing jurisdiction. The esoteric aspect often knocks them to trace out immanence in their outward inspection of transitory and transformable things. This impulse moves them to fix the position of the immanent to an indeterminate impersonal entity, no clue of which could be discerned by moving earth and heaven through their organic senses.

The lines of this booklet will surely help such puzzled souls in their march towards the personality of the immanent lying beyond their sensuous gaze of inspection. The very first stanza of this publication will revolutionize their reserved ideas when the nomenclature of the Absolute is put before them as "Kṛṣṇa." The speculative mind would show a tendency of offering some other attributive name to designate the unknown object. They will prefer to brand Him by their experience as the "creator of this universe", "the entity beyond phenomena" — far off the reference of any object of nature and void of all transformation. So they will urge that the very fountainhead should have no conceivable designation except to show a direction of the invisible, and inaudible untouchable, nonfragrant and unperceivable object. But they will not desist from contemplating on the object with their poor fund of experience. The interested enquirer will be found to hanker after the records left by erudite savants to incompatible hallucinative views of savage demonstration. In comparing the different names offered by different thoughts of mankind, a particular judge would decide in favor of some nomenclature which will suit best his limited and specific whims. The slave mentality of an individual will no doubt offer invective assertions to the rest who will be appealing to him for a revelation of his decision.


Please read the following verses:
rcah samani chandamsi puranam yajusa saha
ucchistaj-jajnire sarve divi deva divi-sritah
"The Rg, Sama, Yajur and Atharva became manifest from the Lord, along with the Puranas and all the Devas residing in the heavens." (Atharva Veda 11.7.24)

"Indeed, Rg, Yajur, Sama and Atharva are the names of the four Vedas. The Itihasas and Puranas are the fifth Veda." (Kauthumiya Chandogya Upanisad 7.1.4)

asya mahato bhutasya nihsvasitam etad yad rg-vedo yajur-vedah sama
vedo’tharvangirasa itihasah puranam ityadina
"O Maitreya, the Rg, Yajur, Sama and Atharva Vedas as well as the Itihasas and the Puranas all manifest from the breathing of the Lord." (Madhyandina-sruti, Brhad-aranyaka Upanisad 2.4.10)

In Matsya Purana (53.8-9) the Lord states

kalenagrahanam matva puranasya dvijottamah
vyasa-rupam aham krtva samharami yuge yuge

"O best of the brahmanas, understanding that the Purana would gradually become forgotten, in every yuga I appear in the form of Vyasa and condense it."

By reading these verses,one may understand that the vedic literature is not mithology at all.What does the vedic literature talk about?

vede ramayane caiva purane bharate tatha
adav-ante ca madhye ca harih sarvatra giyate
"In the Vedas, the Ramayana, Puranas and Mahabharata, from the very beginning to the end, as well as within the middle, only Hari, the Supreme Personality of Godhead, is explained."

About your stories on Nara and Narayana...thay are from a tamasic purana,isn'it?

Matsya Purana (53.65, 68-69) states –
pancangam ca puranam syad akhyanam itarat smrtam
sattvikesu ca kalpesu mahatmyam adhikam hareh

rajasesu ca mahatmyam adhikam brahmano viduh
tadvad agnes ca mahatmyam tamasesu sivasya ca

sankirnesu sarasvatyah pitrnam ca nigadyate
" A Purana consists of five elements, as opposed to an Akhyana.The sattvika Puranas glorify Hari; the rajasika Puranas glorify Brahma, and the tamasika Puranas glorify Siva and Agni. Puranas dealing with mixed modes of nature glorify Sarasvati and the fore-fathers."

The divisions of the eighteen Puranas is defined by Lord Shiva to Uma in the Padma Purana (Uttara Khanda 236.18-21):
vaisnavanam naradiyam ca tatha bhagavatam subham
garudam ca tatha padmam varaham subha-darsane
sattvikani puranani vijneyani subhani vai
brahmandam brahma-vaivarta markandeyam tathaiva ca

bhavisyam vamanam brahmam rajasani nibodha me
matsyam kaurmam tatha laingam saivam skandam tathaiva ca

agneyam ca sad etani tamasani nibodha me

" O beautiful lady, one should know that the Visnu, Naradiya, Bhagavata, Garuda, Padma and Varaha are all in the mode of goodness. The Brahmanda, Brahma-vaivarta, Markandeya, Bhavisya, Vamana and Brahma are in the mode of passion. The Matsya, Kurma, Linga, Siva, Skanda and Agni are in the mode of ignorance."

Padma Purana states:
sattvika moksa-dah proktah: "The sattvika Puranas give salvation."

I will continue this post tomorrow.

Regards,
Orlando.




Edited by Bhakta of God (11/21/05 03:59 PM)
_________________________
My e-mail is lingabhakta@yahoo.it Feel free to e-mail me!

Top
#70206 - 11/24/05 10:11 PM Re: Lord Vishnu/Narayana is the Supreme God of the vedic literature [Re: Bhakta of God]
sarabhanga Offline
friend
**

Registered: 08/02/02
Posts: 894
Loc: India
Namaste Orlando
I was musing on the traditionally twin nature of Narayana, and the surpassing greatness of That which exists in perfect Yoga, beyond even such primary distinctions.
Perhaps most anciently, there is Aditya (the Sun) and Atman (the “golden man” in the heart of Aditya) ~ the Sun and the “Sun of the Sun”, as it were, the “Light of Lights”;
Indra (Mahendra) and Vishnu (Upendra);
Ananta (Vasuki) and Narayana (Vasudeva);
Nara (Purusha ~ the Man) and Narayana (the “Son of Man” or “Light of Man”);
Prajapati and his Atma-Yajna (“Vishnu is the Sacrifice”) ~ like Daksha and Vamana (!);
also Arjuna and Krishna; Rama and Hanuman; Hanuman and Rama.
_________________________
Sarabhanga Giri ~ Ayamatma Brahma

Top
#70207 - 11/25/05 03:46 PM Re: Lord Vishnu/Narayana is the Supreme God of the vedic literature [Re: sarabhanga]
Bhakta of God Offline
member
**

Registered: 10/25/04
Posts: 330
Loc: Italy,Europe
Namaste Sarabhanga.
I forgetted that I musted continue the post!
First I wrote:
Matsya Purana (53.65, 68-69) states –

pancangam ca puranam syad akhyanam itarat smrtam
sattvikesu ca kalpesu mahatmyam adhikam hareh

rajasesu ca mahatmyam adhikam brahmano viduh
tadvad agnes ca mahatmyam tamasesu sivasya ca

sankirnesu sarasvatyah pitrnam ca nigadyate

" A Purana consists of five elements, as opposed to an Akhyana. 6 The sattvika Puranas glorify Hari; the rajasika Puranas glorify Brahma, and the tamasika Puranas glorify Siva and Agni. Puranas dealing with mixed modes of nature glorify Sarasvati and the fore-fathers." 7

The divisions of the eighteen Puranas is defined by Lord Siva to Uma in the Padma Purana (Uttara Khanda 236.18-21):

vaisnavanam naradiyam ca tatha bhagavatam subham
garudam ca tatha padmam varaham subha-darsane

sattvikani puranani vijneyani subhani vai
brahmandam brahma-vaivarta markandeyam tathaiva ca

bhavisyam vamanam brahmam rajasani nibodha me
matsyam kaurmam tatha laingam saivam skandam tathaiva ca

agneyam ca sad etani tamasani nibodha me


" O beautiful lady, one should know that the Visnu, Naradiya, Bhagavata, Garuda, Padma and Varaha are all in the mode of goodness. The Brahmanda, Brahma-vaivarta, Markandeya, Bhavisya, Vamana and Brahma are in the mode of passion. The Matsya, Kurma, Linga, Siva, Skanda and Agni are in the mode of ignorance."

Padma Purana states-sattvika moksa-dah proktah: "The sattvika Puranas give salvation."

By http://www.gosai.com/dvaita/madhvacarya/srimad-bhagavatam.html
Sri Krsna has clearly expressed in Bhagavad-gita that goodness is superior to passion and ignorance. 8 Similarly, Sri Suta Gosvami explains in the Bhagavata (1.2.24) that "Passion is better than ignorance because it can lead to realization of the Absolute Truth."9 In this verse Suta speaks about which type of worship produces the ultimate benefit, and his conclusion is that one can only achieve the best result by worshipping Lord Visnu. The sattvika Puranas recommend the worship of Visnu / Krsna, whereas the rajasika and tamasika Puranas advocate the worship of minor deities and therefore do not lead the aspirant towards the Absolute Truth.

It is noteworthy that the sattvika Puranas commence with a questioner inquiring from a learned speaker about the nature of the Absolute. The speaker’s answers are clear, direct and unambiguous, leaving no room for misinterpretation. However, in the tamasika and rajasika Puranas questions are put to the speaker which do not pertain to the Absolute Truth. For example, in the Linga Purana the sages request Suta to speak about the glories of the Lingam form of Lord Siva. We may conclude from this that although Sri Suta Gosvami is learned in transcendental subject matters and expert in explaining them, the questions by the sages here restrict him from speaking on it. All rajasika and tamasika Puranas contain this characteristic defect and therefore are not reliable sources of transcendental knowledge.


By http://www.srivaishnavan.com/faq_vedas.html
36.How many Puranas are there?
37.Please tell me the Puranas that fall in these three groups.
38.How do yor accept these as authorities or Pramana?


By http://www.srivaishnavan.com/ans_vedas.html
36.There are 18 Puranas. These are sub-divided into three sets or groups. The first set of six Puranas are authoritative, sacred. These are called Sattvika Puranas. The second set of six Puranas are of medium quality, i.e. the whole thing cannot be accepted as true. These are called Rajasa Puranas. The third set of six puranas cannot be taken as perfectly valid. Only some portions of them, which are not opposed to Vedas, can be taken as authoritative. These are called Tamasa Puranas.
37. 1. The first set of six Puranas which are most sacred (Sattvika Puranas) are as follows: Vishnu Purana Bhagavatam Narada Purana Padma Purana Varaha Purana Garuda Purana 2. The second set of six Puranas, which are not wholly authoritative, (Rajasa Puranas) are: Vamana Purana Brahma Purana Markandeya Purana Bhaavishya Purana Brahmanda Purana Brahma Vaivarta Purana 3. The last set of six Puranas, which are not very authoritative (Tamasa Puranas) are: Matsya Purana Kurma Purana Agni Purana Linga Purana Siva Purana Skanda Purana.
38.The basic rule is that the Vedas are the Ultimate authority or Pramana. So, in the Puranas, whichever does not conflict or contradict the Veda, can be taken as authority.


I respect very much Lord Shiva.He is the greatest devote of Lord Vishnu.

Regards,
Orlando.
_________________________
My e-mail is lingabhakta@yahoo.it Feel free to e-mail me!

Top
#70208 - 11/29/05 07:27 PM Re: Lord Vishnu/Narayana is the Supreme God of the vedic literature [Re: Bhakta of God]
natyanyaki Offline
wanderer
***

Registered: 10/25/03
Posts: 39
All the Gods and Goddesses are one!
I don't think Lord Vishnu would apreciate being called more powerful than his sister, or brother-in-law.
There's a Tamil saying that basically translates to "Shiva and Vishnu are one, those who argue the supremity of one god or other, has dirt for brains."
I'd write the saying, but I don't remember the exact words.

Top
#70209 - 11/30/05 03:07 PM Re: Lord Vishnu/Narayana is the Supreme God of the vedic literature [Re: natyanyaki]
Bhakta of God Offline
member
**

Registered: 10/25/04
Posts: 330
Loc: Italy,Europe
Namaste.
Dear Natyanyaki,please note that Lord Shiva is not God.He is a deva or celestial being.No one can prevent you from worship a deva you like,but this does not mean that you must equate every high being with the Lord.
Shiva is a great bhakta of Sriman NarayaNA.I am sure he himself DOES NOT RELISH being considered anywhere near the Supreme Lord.
Lord Vishnu and Lord Shiva are not the same entity.A vaishnava is a vaishnava and shaivite is a shavite.
I think I quoted enough pramanas about the supremacy of Lord Narayana.
By http://www.srivaishnavan.com/faq_doctrine.html
1.What is an authority (Pramana)?
2.What are the authorities or sources (pramana) for understanding things?
3.Can you describe this further?
9.What exactly is Sabda?


By http://www.srivaishnavan.com/ans_doctrine.html#1
1.An authority is something from which we learn truths. We consider the Vedas, as the basic authority We also use logic and arguments to arrive at the truths, in addition to learning from the Vedas.
Such things from which we learn the truths or arrive at the truths, are called authority (pramana).
2.These are three in number, and are as follows:-

1. What we understand directly by our senses, like what we see with our eyes or what we hear with our ears. This is called Pratyaksha.

2. Inference or logic (Anumana) - That is, by seeing or understanding a thing, we logically infer something else, although it is not actually seen by us. For example, if we see smoke coming, we infer there is fire. So this is called one of the sources of knowledge (anumana).

3. Sabda (or sound). We accept the Vedas, Smritis, Itihasas, Puranas as authority (So long as they do not contradict the Vedas).

It is from these that generally the various systems of philosophy are developed by logical deductions and arguments.
3.A detailed description or discussion of these will be difficult to understand. I will only briefly indicate the nature of each of these.

Talking of the first source, i.e. perception by senses, we have to be careful that our perception is correct and it is not wrong. For example, seeing is correct and it is not wrong. For example, seeing a rope from a distance, we may mistake it for a serpent. This is wrong perception. Similarly, in hot summer, on a tar road, seeing from a distance, you may think that there is water. This again is wrong perception. We have to guard against such wrong perceptions.
9.As you know, Sabda means sound. Sound evolves or develops into words, and then sentences. The Vedas are accpted as the basic authority. Along with this, we also accept the Brahma Sutra And Bhagavad Gita as authorities.

We also accept the Itihasas (Ramayana and Mahabharata), the Purana, the Smritis and the Vaishnava Agamas as authorities.

However, there is one improtant condition and that is, that anything in these works, which are Not in tune with the Vedas or which are conrtradictory to Vedas, are not accepted as authority.


Please read again,very carefully,this post from the beginning.
If you wish,please read even http://www.srivaishnavan.com/faq.html
You will find very interesting things.

OM NAMO NARAYANAYA
OM SRI MAHALAKSHMIAY NAMAH
OM SRIMATHE RAMANUJAYA NAMAH
OM SRIMATHE VEDANTA DESIKAYA NAMAH

Regards,
Orlando.
_________________________
My e-mail is lingabhakta@yahoo.it Feel free to e-mail me!

Top
#70210 - 11/30/05 05:44 PM Re: Lord Vishnu/Narayana is the Supreme God of the vedic literature [Re: Bhakta of God]
Sudarshan Rangaswamy Offline
member
**

Registered: 09/02/05
Posts: 341
Anyone can talk according to their sentiments and wishful thinking- people are requested to go through the literature establishing the supremacy of Lord Vishnu. It has been established on no uncertain terms...

Though Vishnu happens to be just one name of the Brahman, only the "being" represented by the name Narayana represents the identity relation with the Brahman. Shiva can be considered as Narayana amsa, and part of him. Part cannot be equal to the whole. Shiva is not infinite.

The difference is Shiva does not represent the complete Brahman like Narayana. It is no wonder that all synonyms representing infinite belong only to Vishnu - as in the Vishnu Saharsranama- Vishvam, Vishnu, Vasudeva etc.

Other Gods and Goddesses represent various degrees of amsa of Narayana.
_________________________
SrImAn venkatanAthAryaH kavitArkika kesarI | vedAntAcArya-varyo me sannidhattAm sadA hRdi ||

Top
#70211 - 11/30/05 05:52 PM Re: Lord Vishnu/Narayana is the Supreme God of the vedic literature [Re: natyanyaki]
Sudarshan Rangaswamy Offline
member
**

Registered: 09/02/05
Posts: 341
Quote:

All the Gods and Goddesses are one!
I don't think Lord Vishnu would apreciate being called more powerful than his sister, or brother-in-law.
There's a Tamil saying that basically translates to "Shiva and Vishnu are one, those who argue the supremity of one god or other, has dirt for brains."
I'd write the saying, but I don't remember the exact words.




Popular Tamil Sayings do not become the truth...please show some proof for your tall claim- "All the Gods and Goddesses are one!"

There is enough scriptural evidence to show that Brahma sprang from Vishnu, and Shiva sprang from Brahma - thus making Narayana the primordial cause of all and hence the supreme being. And much more!
_________________________
SrImAn venkatanAthAryaH kavitArkika kesarI | vedAntAcArya-varyo me sannidhattAm sadA hRdi ||

Top
#70212 - 11/30/05 11:49 PM Re: Lord Vishnu/Narayana is the Supreme God of the vedic literature [Re: Bhakta of God]
sarabhanga Offline
friend
**

Registered: 08/02/02
Posts: 894
Loc: India
Namaste

The name Narayana has been variously explained, although most simply derived:
nArAyaNa = nArAya (to or for man) + Na (knowledge, certainty, a gift)
nArAyaNa (knowledge for man, certainty for man, a gift to man)

“The Atman is IN the Aditya”

Narayana implies the existence of Nara
Narayana is Atman as the individual soul of Nara
Narayana is IN Nara

That which is in This is Narayana (i.e. Atman)

Even in Pralaya, Narayana is IN the vortex of Ananta ~ the “golden man” in the heart of Eternity

That which is beyond any duality of This or That (i.e. Paramatman) is also beyond any particular name; and in Samadhi, there is no possible distinction between Narayana and Shiva

When Shiva worships Narayana He is in absolute communion with His own Self
_________________________
Sarabhanga Giri ~ Ayamatma Brahma

Top
#70213 - 12/01/05 12:33 PM Re: Lord Vishnu/Narayana is the Supreme God of the vedic literature [Re: Sudarshan Rangaswamy]
ELEGANTLY WASTED Offline
initiate
***

Registered: 09/14/04
Posts: 107
Quote:

The difference is Shiva does not represent the complete Brahman like Narayana




and

Quote:

Shiva can be considered as Narayana amsa, and part of him




Aren't the two statements contradictory? If Shiva is an amsa of Narayana, then must not Shiva be Narayana Himself? How can you separate an object from its aspects? They are both one and the same, aren't they? You don't say a chair is red but different from its redness. So if you consider Shiva an aspect of Vishnu, it is tantamount to considering Shiva and Vishnu as one and the same person. And that's blasphemy.

Top
#70214 - 12/01/05 01:49 PM Re: Lord Vishnu/Narayana is the Supreme God of the vedic literature [Re: ELEGANTLY WASTED]
Sudarshan Rangaswamy Offline
member
**

Registered: 09/02/05
Posts: 341
Quote:


Aren't the two statements contradictory? If Shiva is an amsa of Narayana, then must not Shiva be Narayana Himself?





Oh man! Suppose my human body represents Vishnu and let us say Shiva is a cell in it. How does the cell become the body? Yes, Shiva is Narayana in substance - causalty, but not in identity. Vishnu has no dependencies and has no cause of origin- Shiva's existance is dependent on Vishnu.

Quote:


How can you separate an object from its aspects? They are both one and the same, aren't they? You don't say a chair is red but different from its redness. So if you consider Shiva an aspect of Vishnu, it is tantamount to considering Shiva and Vishnu as one and the same person. And that's blasphemy.




The relationship as explained above is not between chair and its color, it is like body and its part. If I chop off my nails, I continue to live. Shiva is like that.

There is no reciprocal dependence in this body-part analogy. The part has no existance outside the body, while the body has an existance independent existance outside the part.

Narayana is svatantra, or independent of any dependencies, but shiva is a paratantra, depending on Narayana for existance.
_________________________
SrImAn venkatanAthAryaH kavitArkika kesarI | vedAntAcArya-varyo me sannidhattAm sadA hRdi ||

Top
#70215 - 12/02/05 12:10 AM Re: Lord Vishnu/Narayana is the Supreme God of the vedic literature [Re: sarabhanga]
sarabhanga Offline
friend
**

Registered: 08/02/02
Posts: 894
Loc: India
Brahman, as the one self-existent Spirit, is beyond the specification of gender, and thus treated as neuter ~ and the nominative form is brahma.

Creation involves the personification of this ineffable Absolute, and the “inner person” of the Brahman is treated as masculine ~ nominative form brahmA.

Narayana is that little man, Vamana, whose miraculous action is disproportionately Vast.
Narayana is the Brahma (m.) that is latent in Brahma (n.)
Narayana is the bRh that is implicit in the name of Brahma.

The verb bRh or bRMh means to grow, to expand, to increase, to evolve, to speak, to pray, to roar, to shine; and examining the various forms that arise directly from this magical word, some important terms are revealed:

The participle bRMhan (cf. brahman) indicates “expanding”, “roaring”, “shining”, etc.. The second person imperative bRMha (cf. brahma) declares “grow!”, “expand!”, “evolve!”, “roar!”, “shine!”. The first person imperative bRMhANi (cf. brahmANI ~ the first dawn) expresses the desire for creative action ~ “I must shine!”, or “let me shine!”, “let me grow!”, etc.. In addition, the imperfect tense provides abRMham (cf. Abraham) meaning “I radiated”, “I illumined”, “I spoke” etc..

Narayana, the “Son of Man”, is thus identical with bRMha, the creative “Word of God” and the primal command to “Let there be Light”. And notice that bRMha also means “Roar!”, so that Narayana and Rudra are clearly cognate conceptions.
_________________________
Sarabhanga Giri ~ Ayamatma Brahma

Top
#70216 - 12/02/05 01:11 AM Re: Lord Vishnu/Narayana is the Supreme God of the vedic literature [Re: Sudarshan Rangaswamy]
sarabhanga Offline
friend
**

Registered: 08/02/02
Posts: 894
Loc: India
Sarvam Khalvidam Brahma

All this is verily Brahma

All Gods are verily One God!
_________________________
Sarabhanga Giri ~ Ayamatma Brahma

Top
#70217 - 12/02/05 09:20 AM Re: Lord Vishnu/Narayana is the Supreme God of the vedic literature [Re: Bhakta of God]
sarabhanga Offline
friend
**

Registered: 08/02/02
Posts: 894
Loc: India
The Rigveda describes the Divine Reality as Agni; while the Agnirahasya of the Satapathabrahmana and Agnicayana of the Taittriyabrahmana are meditations on Agni in one’s own Self as the Purusha. The Rigveda’s Purushasukta announces Purusha as the cause of the universe and the means for attaining liberation. The various Gods are all merged into the Purusha, who is known in the Yajurveda as the Prajapati; and He is comprehended under terms such as Ekam Sat, Prana, Atman, and Brahman. The whole universe is concieved on the analogy of a human, and the unity of all existence as Atman is emphasized; and finally, the conception of Purusha, Brahman, and Atman, becomes identical. The Narayana Anuvaka of the Mahanarayana Upanishad is a meditation on the Divinity that is to be worshipped in one’s own heart, and it is in a sense supplementary to the Purushasukta.

agnireva mahat ekAksharaM brahma
_________________________
Sarabhanga Giri ~ Ayamatma Brahma

Top
#70218 - 12/02/05 11:10 AM Re: Lord Vishnu/Narayana is the Supreme God of the vedic literature [Re: Sudarshan Rangaswamy]
ELEGANTLY WASTED Offline
initiate
***

Registered: 09/14/04
Posts: 107
Quote:

it is like body and its part. If I chop off my nails, I continue to live




What's the "I" that continues to live after the nails are chopped off?

Top
#70219 - 12/02/05 01:52 PM Re: Lord Vishnu/Narayana is the Supreme God of the vedic literature [Re: ELEGANTLY WASTED]
Sudarshan Rangaswamy Offline
member
**

Registered: 09/02/05
Posts: 341
Quote:

What's the "I" that continues to live after the nails are chopped off?




The Brahman - Narayana!
_________________________
SrImAn venkatanAthAryaH kavitArkika kesarI | vedAntAcArya-varyo me sannidhattAm sadA hRdi ||

Top
#70220 - 12/02/05 02:03 PM Re: Lord Vishnu/Narayana is the Supreme God of the vedic literature [Re: Sudarshan Rangaswamy]
ELEGANTLY WASTED Offline
initiate
***

Registered: 09/14/04
Posts: 107
Quote:

What's the "I" that continues to live after the nails are chopped off?



The Brahman - Narayana!




So you claim to be Narayana? That's soooo un-Vaishnav.

Top
#70221 - 12/02/05 02:09 PM Re: Lord Vishnu/Narayana is the Supreme God of the vedic literature [Re: sarabhanga]
Sudarshan Rangaswamy Offline
member
**

Registered: 09/02/05
Posts: 341
Quote:

<center>Sarvam Khalvidam Brahma

All this is verily Brahma

All Gods are verily One God!</center>




Not necessarily. It just means Everything is Brahman in essence, need not be in equality.

You have to examine such "identity" passages along with passages that glorify Narayana to be the supreme being. When there are conflicting passages, you have perform reconciliation. When we do this mahAvAkyAs do not stand in their literal meanings. All identity passages can only be interpretated in the body-part relationship or in a dualistic way. Else they contradict all passages that glorify Narayana as the supreme.

For example, take the Brahma Sutra verse:

4.4.17 - Jagadvyaparavarjam prakaranadasannihitattvaccha

This clearly rules out the power of cosmic functions from a liberated soul - which effectly rules out that the individual soul is identical with the Brahman. If they were the same, they wont have the same powers?

The advaitic interpretation of the Phala Adhyaya is wrong and far fetched. The Individual soul does not have the powers of creation/destruction etc - and hence has to be different(or non identical) from the Brahman.
_________________________
SrImAn venkatanAthAryaH kavitArkika kesarI | vedAntAcArya-varyo me sannidhattAm sadA hRdi ||

Top
#70222 - 12/02/05 02:13 PM Re: Lord Vishnu/Narayana is the Supreme God of the vedic literature [Re: ELEGANTLY WASTED]
Sudarshan Rangaswamy Offline
member
**

Registered: 09/02/05
Posts: 341
Quote:


So you claim to be Narayana? That's soooo un-Vaishnav.




I think you misunderstood me. I was answering with respect to the analogy in which Vishnu was the body and Shiva was the nail. I never said I become identical to Narayana.
_________________________
SrImAn venkatanAthAryaH kavitArkika kesarI | vedAntAcArya-varyo me sannidhattAm sadA hRdi ||

Top
#70223 - 12/02/05 02:19 PM Re: Lord Vishnu/Narayana is the Supreme God of the vedic literature [Re: Sudarshan Rangaswamy]
ELEGANTLY WASTED Offline
initiate
***

Registered: 09/14/04
Posts: 107
I was only referring to the analogy, not to Vishnu and Siva. As per that analogy, you said you'd continue after the nails are chopped off. What is the 'you' that will continue?

Top
#70224 - 12/02/05 06:37 PM Re: Lord Vishnu/Narayana is the Supreme God of the vedic literature [Re: ELEGANTLY WASTED]
Sudarshan Rangaswamy Offline
member
**

Registered: 09/02/05
Posts: 341
My life, of course! I dont die, when my nails are chopped off. That is what the relationship of others with Narayana is. He is not dependent on anything for existance, while the rest of the devas and souls are dependent.
_________________________
SrImAn venkatanAthAryaH kavitArkika kesarI | vedAntAcArya-varyo me sannidhattAm sadA hRdi ||

Top
#70225 - 12/03/05 04:02 AM Re: Lord Vishnu/Narayana is the Supreme God of the vedic literature [Re: Sudarshan Rangaswamy]
sarabhanga Offline
friend
**

Registered: 08/02/02
Posts: 894
Loc: India
Namaste

Why should ALL statements of identity with Brahman be reconciled ONLY with passages that glorify Narayana? Why not reconcile such statements (including those regarding Narayana) with the many that identify other Gods (such as Agni, or Rudra, or Shiva) as the Supreme Being?

The Brahman is Akshara (Imperishable) and Ananta (Endless); and when Infinity is divided, every part remains Infinite! Nirguna Brahman is entirely beyond division; and, as soon as any part is distinguished from the whole then we cease to be considering Nirguna Brahman.

The divided (and divisive) Narayana presented in this thread may be equated with Saguna Brahman, but NOT with Nirguna Brahman.

“The liberated Jivatman is identical with Brahman in all but the ability to create, sustain, and destroy, the whole Universe.” However, when the Jiva is cognized as identical with the Brahman, then it ceases to be an individual Jivatman, having no identity or will apart from that of the Ishvara. The Sutra is dealing with released souls that have attained Brahmaloka through the worship of Saguna Brahman.

Singularity can be interpreted through the lens of Dualism, although Singularity can only be known through Monism.
_________________________
Sarabhanga Giri ~ Ayamatma Brahma

Top
#70226 - 12/03/05 07:50 AM Re: Lord Vishnu/Narayana is the Supreme God of the vedic literature [Re: sarabhanga]
Sudarshan Rangaswamy Offline
member
**

Registered: 09/02/05
Posts: 341
Namaste.

Quote:


The Brahman is Akshara (Imperishable) and Ananta (Endless); and when Infinity is divided, every part remains Infinite! Nirguna Brahman is entirely beyond division; and, as soon as any part is distinguished from the whole then we cease to be considering Nirguna Brahman.

The divided (and divisive) Narayana presented in this thread may be equated with Saguna Brahman, but NOT with Nirguna Brahman.





But which verses in the vedanta sutras speaks of two kinds of Brahman? There is simply no reason to assume that these two Brahman's exist. If it had been the case, it would have laid out in very clear terms in the sutras at the outset.

Narayana has been equated to Brahman in the vedas - defined as the cause of all causes. Vishnu's abode has been mentioned as the parama padam ( the highest abode) and certainly cannot be Brahma Loka of the Saguna Brahman.

Saguna Brahman, if at all makes any sense, it has to be Hiranyagrabha. In Bhagavad Gita, Bhagavan Krishna states in very clear terms there is nothing whatseover higher to him, and everything rests upon him. How is it characteristic of a lower Saguna Brahman, which is subservient to the Nirguna Brahman?



Quote:


“The liberated Jivatman is identical with Brahman in all but the ability to create, sustain, and destroy, the whole Universe.” However, when the Jiva is cognized as identical with the Brahman, then it ceases to be an individual Jivatman, having no identity or will apart from that of the Ishvara. The Sutra is dealing with released souls that have attained Brahmaloka through the worship of Saguna Brahman.

Singularity can be interpreted through the lens of Dualism, although Singularity can only be known through Monism.




As above, there are no indications of two kinds of Brahman in the vedanta sutras - Nirguna and Saguna. There is only one Brahman, who is Saguna.( and has gunas beyond human comprehension, and hence Nirguna)

I hope you would have have seen the last sutra - Anavrittih sabdadanavrittih sabdat.

How much justice is the advatic interpretation doing to this final passsage - that mentions that a liberated soul never enters bondage again?

There can be no doubt that the vedanta sutras has to mention about the absolute liberation in its climax . ( and not the relative liberation in the Brahma Loka)

The vedanta sutras is all about a text that clarifes the highest goal of human life - the Brahman, and it is a disappointing thing if it concludes with the attainment of Brahma Loka, an infinitely inferior state of existance to the true liberation , ie the attainment of Vaikunta.

Narayana is not just Saguna Brahman - show evidence.
_________________________
SrImAn venkatanAthAryaH kavitArkika kesarI | vedAntAcArya-varyo me sannidhattAm sadA hRdi ||

Top
#70227 - 12/03/05 02:57 PM Re: Lord Vishnu/Narayana is the Supreme God of the vedic literature [Re: Sudarshan Rangaswamy]
ELEGANTLY WASTED Offline
initiate
***

Registered: 09/14/04
Posts: 107
As per your analogy, whole=Life and part=Nails. In other words, the "whole" object called "Life" is made up of certain "parts" called nails. Is that it?

Top
#70228 - 12/03/05 05:37 PM Re: Lord Vishnu/Narayana is the Supreme God of the vedic literature [Re: ELEGANTLY WASTED]
Sudarshan Rangaswamy Offline
member
**

Registered: 09/02/05
Posts: 341
I think you are not getting my point.

I gave the nail example just to show that the Lord's dependency on any other entity is like body to the mail - absolutely none. You can put any other body part in the place in there - like eyes, nose or ear, but such a relationship will mean Bhagavan needs them for his existance.

The nail example is just to show that Bhagavan is not dependent on anything for his survival, just like nothing will happen to me if I cut my nails.

The usual example used is ocean-wave or ocean-water bubble, ocean-ripple, instead of body-part, where there is more homegenity.
_________________________
SrImAn venkatanAthAryaH kavitArkika kesarI | vedAntAcArya-varyo me sannidhattAm sadA hRdi ||

Top
#70229 - 12/04/05 05:58 AM Re: Lord Vishnu/Narayana is the Supreme God of the vedic literature [Re: Sudarshan Rangaswamy]
ELEGANTLY WASTED Offline
initiate
***

Registered: 09/14/04
Posts: 107
In the ocean-wave analogy, are you trying to say that the ocean does not depend upon the wave for its existence? What then is the ocean, if not waves?

Top
#70230 - 12/04/05 04:11 PM Re: Lord Vishnu/Narayana is the Supreme God of the vedic literature [Re: ELEGANTLY WASTED]
openSky Offline
initiate

Registered: 10/07/04
Posts: 185
On a calm day, when there are no waves, the ocean is still there. Ocean is "still" ocean if not waves.

Top
#70231 - 12/05/05 01:51 AM Re: Lord Vishnu/Narayana is the Supreme God of the vedic literature [Re: Sudarshan Rangaswamy]
sarabhanga Offline
friend
**

Registered: 08/02/02
Posts: 894
Loc: India
The Sutras do not explicitly mention Nirguna Brahma, but then the Sutras are very concise and nothing that can be logically assumed or otherwise inferred is mentioned explicitly. For example, if nothing is assumed, then Sutra 4.4.17 reads something like: “Except the powers of creation, on account of the subject matter, and not being mentioned.”

Divinities other than Narayana-Vishnu have been equated with Brahman in the Vedas and also defined as the cause of all causes.

Om Bhuh, Om Bhuvah, Om Svah, Om Manah, Om Janah, Om Tapah, Om Satyam.

7. Bhu-loka ~ the earth;

6. Bhuvar-loka ~ the sky, the space between the earth and sun, inhabited by Munis, Siddhas, etc., the realm of intelligence;

5. Svar-loka or Indra-loka ~ heaven, above the sun or between it and the polar star, the realm of bliss;

4. Mahar-loka ~ a region above the polar star and inhabited by Bhrigu and other saints who survive the destruction of the 3 lower worlds, the middle region;

3. Janar-loka ~ inhabited by Brahma’s son Sanat-kumara etc., the place of re-births and causes;

2. Tapar-loka ~ inhabited by deified Vairagins, the mansion of the blessed, the realm of light;

1. Satya-loka or Brahma-loka ~ the abode of truth, the abode of Brahma, translation to which exempts from rebirth.

0. Nirguna Brahman is Brahman with no strings attached, absolutely unconditioned and impersonal, beyond multiplication or division, without any quality, peculiarity, or attribute, beyond any of the senses, beyond space and time, proximity or remoteness, virtue or demerit.

Nirguna Brahman cannot be considered to exist in any particular Loka, and
Nirguna Brahman cannot be numbered or named.
_________________________
Sarabhanga Giri ~ Ayamatma Brahma

Top
#70232 - 12/05/05 10:13 AM Re: Lord Vishnu/Narayana is the Supreme God of the vedic literature [Re: openSky]
ELEGANTLY WASTED Offline
initiate
***

Registered: 09/14/04
Posts: 107
Quote:

Ocean is "still" ocean if not waves.




To know whether ocean is "still" ocean and not waves, we have to know what you mean by *ocean* and *wave*. Will you be kind enough to define both these terms, or the analogy will make no sense whatsoever? Thanks.

Top
#70233 - 12/05/05 10:27 AM Re: Lord Vishnu/Narayana is the Supreme God of the vedic literature [Re: sarabhanga]
ELEGANTLY WASTED Offline
initiate
***

Registered: 09/14/04
Posts: 107
An object can only exist by virtue of its attributes. No attributes, no object. An attributeless object is an oxymoron. If an object didn't have atributes, you wouldn't be able to perceive the object in the first place. Suppose you perceive the object and do not grasp the attributes, it means you are UNABLE to grasp the attributes, it doesn't mean that that particular object has no attributes. Suppose you don't recognize taste, it doesn't mean apples lose their quality of taste, just that you fail to perceive that quality.

Likewise, if you say brahman is nirguna, it means brahman has no attributes. And that's tantamount to saying Brahman doesn't exist (atheism), because without attributes no object can exist, attributes ARE the object. So what nirguna brahman actually means is, brahman has qualities which you cannot perceive (as in the case of apple), that doesn't make brahman itself attributeless, just as your failure to perceive taste doesn't make apples tasteless.

Top
#70234 - 12/05/05 11:29 AM Re: Lord Vishnu/Narayana is the Supreme God of the vedic literature [Re: ELEGANTLY WASTED]
Sudarshan Rangaswamy Offline
member
**

Registered: 09/02/05
Posts: 341
Quote:

Quote:

Ocean is "still" ocean if not waves.




To know whether ocean is "still" ocean and not waves, we have to know what you mean by *ocean* and *wave*. Will you be kind enough to define both these terms, or the analogy will make no sense whatsoever? Thanks.




The ocean in this case can be defined as the entire mass of water from the ocean bed. The wave is a forward movement on the surface, say on the action of wind of gravitational pull of the moon.

Even if there is no "wind" or "gravity" there will be ocean, but there wont be any wave. Brahman has no dependencies.
_________________________
SrImAn venkatanAthAryaH kavitArkika kesarI | vedAntAcArya-varyo me sannidhattAm sadA hRdi ||

Top
#70235 - 12/05/05 12:17 PM Re: Lord Vishnu/Narayana is the Supreme God of the vedic literature [Re: sarabhanga]
Sudarshan Rangaswamy Offline
member
**

Registered: 09/02/05
Posts: 341
So are you mentioning that the world of Vishnu, described as Vaikunta and as the paramam padam and glorified as the highest state of salvation - is just an inferior world to the Nirguna Nrahman? There is no evidence for that. What else do you mean by paramam padam?

Narayana has been defined to be the uncaused cause of all in very clear terms in the scripture.(including the cause of Brahma and Shiva). See MahaNarayana Upanishad. This can be found all over Mahabaratha, Bhagavata for instance.


I do not object to your concept of Nirguna Brahman, nor to your explanation of the various worlds( which you might observe does not mention Vaikunta), and my point is.

1. Vishnu or Narayana is the Nirguna Brahman.
2. Nirguna Brahman does not means Brahman without attributes, but rather Brahman beyond attributes ( sattva, rajo and tamo gunas)

Vaikunta, or the world of Vishnu is the highest state of salvation. You are wrong if you think that I consider this to be a spatial or material world. Vishnu is the Nirguna Brahman you are referring to, but "Nirguna" does not mean devoid of all attributes, but just means attributes beyond material gunas.

I understand that this doctrine of "All Gods are one" stands on the premise of monism and non duality, but vedanta sutras clearly dont support a view. First of Shankara bhasya breaks rules of interpretation as followed in the mimAsmsa, and detaches verses where it is not supposed to be, which he is called to defend in some places and where he does not even care to explain in many places. Vedanta Sutra is called a sutra because there are strict rules in interpreating sutras, which are broken at will by advaitin commentratories without caring a bit. And dont hide under the label that the sutras are ambiguos. Yes, they are ambiguos when veiwed superficially but they cannot be interpreted in whatever way you want.


You might want to refer Shankara's interpretation that is desperate to prove absolute monism and non dualty by stating that the soul has vyavahaArika truth, while yet the whole adhikarana(even in his words) is considered to be the description of the truly released soul for which no vyavahara exists - this makes it self contradictory .( 4.1.1-13).

Nirguna Brahman cannot be "nirguna". Brahman has atleast one attribute called "Brahmatvam", isn't it?

The word Brahman, is derived as brhatvAt cha BrihmaNatvAt, which means big(infinite) and growing, which clealy show the Brahman has qualities from its very derivation.
_________________________
SrImAn venkatanAthAryaH kavitArkika kesarI | vedAntAcArya-varyo me sannidhattAm sadA hRdi ||

Top
#70236 - 12/05/05 04:29 PM Re: Lord Vishnu/Narayana is the Supreme God of the vedic literature [Re: Sudarshan Rangaswamy]
openSky Offline
initiate

Registered: 10/07/04
Posts: 185
Quote:

Nirguna Brahman cannot be "nirguna". Brahman has atleast one attribute called "Brahmatvam", isn't it?

The word Brahman, is derived as brhatvAt cha BrihmaNatvAt, which means big(infinite) and growing, which clealy show the Brahman has qualities from its very derivation.



The words and symbols are only attempts to scratch the surface of that which is not describable. We could call Nirgun Brahman is like a still ocean, but then one could go on endlessly arguing that “still” and “ocean” are also attributes attempting to convey the attribute-less. That would be missing the intent and content over the syntax.

I think these metaphors are only for orientating us towards the stillness and perhaps only in silence we come closest to the reality that these words (Brahman/Vishnu/Shiva) attempt to describe.


Top
#70237 - 12/05/05 04:43 PM Re: Lord Vishnu/Narayana is the Supreme God of the vedic literature [Re: Sudarshan Rangaswamy]
ELEGANTLY WASTED Offline
initiate
***

Registered: 09/14/04
Posts: 107
Excellent. Just two more questions:

*What is the ocean made of?
*What is the wave made of?

Top
#70238 - 12/05/05 04:58 PM Re: Lord Vishnu/Narayana is the Supreme God of the vedic literature [Re: ELEGANTLY WASTED]
openSky Offline
initiate

Registered: 10/07/04
Posts: 185
I think Sudarshan has been sufficiently explaining the ocean and wave metaphor, but I will repeat some of it.

Wave: All that is visible and perceived in form. It signifies our worldly existence and experience. It is frenzied and fleeting like a wave.

Ocean: Waves arise out of ocean. Our existence comes out that vast reality, the Brahman as we call it here. Ocean (Brahman) and the wave (our existence) are connected and one. The later is only an expression of the former. Waves as well as ocean are essentially made of the same entity, the water. Hence sages have said “Sarvam Khaluidam Brhahman” It is all Brahman.

Further when the wave (your worldly existence) subsides, the ocean (Brahman, the ultimate reality) still exists. In other words…just as ocean will not vanish because there are no waves today, Brahman will not cease to exist because worldly existence has vanished.

Hope that helps…

Top
#70239 - 12/06/05 01:22 AM Re: Lord Vishnu/Narayana is the Supreme God of the vedic literature [Re: ELEGANTLY WASTED]
sarabhanga Offline
friend
**

Registered: 08/02/02
Posts: 894
Loc: India
Namaste EW

The “ocean” is the whole, and the “waves” are its particular qualities or component parts.
Only when the whole is absolutely without any division or parts is it entirely whole.
If the waves are removed, then ocean alone remains.
If the ocean is removed, then there can be no waves.
When the different parts are removed, then the intrinsic nature of pure ocean is revealed.

Nirguna Brahman is beyond any question of existence or non-existence.
Before the “big bang” that created the universe (including time, space, and ALL other attributes), a primal singularity can be inferred to “exist”, with absolutely no attributes and yet with all possible attributes latent within itself. Nirguna Brahman is such an “object” that “exists” by virtue of its potential (but non-existent) attributes. It is not a matter of skill in perception. When the ocean is absolutely still, without any possibility of perceiving waves since they are completely absent, it can surely be said that the ocean is waveless. An earth-bound mind that only knows the ocean by virtue of its waves is likely to consider that the ocean is now non-existent!

Nirguna Brahman is essentially a theistic Shunya.
_________________________
Sarabhanga Giri ~ Ayamatma Brahma

Top
#70240 - 12/06/05 07:31 AM Re: Lord Vishnu/Narayana is the Supreme God of the vedic literature [Re: Sudarshan Rangaswamy]
sarabhanga Offline
friend
**

Registered: 08/02/02
Posts: 894
Loc: India
Namaste Sudarshan,

Vaikuntha is a name for both Indra and Vishnu, who dwell together in Vaikuntha-loka or Indra-loka. Vaikuntha has been described as situated in the northern ocean, and Indraloka as between the sun and the north star (i.e. in the northern “ocean”). Vaikunthaloka and Indraloka are both synonymous with Svarloka (i.e. “heaven”).

Paramapada is the highest state or position, and Brahman is Paramapadatmavat (“whose essence is the highest of all states”).

The “seven worlds” should not be viewed as stairway of seven (or eight) consecutively “higher” stages. There is a fundamental ascending sequence of three worlds ~ Bhuloka (earth), Bhuvarloka (sky), and Svarloka (heaven) ~ with the three “upper” worlds as a subtle overlay or background.

3. Bhuloka (or Mrityuloka) and Janarloka.
2. Bhuvarloka (the realm of winds and air) and Taparloka (the realm of rays and light).
1. Svarloka (Indraloka, the realm of Gods) and Satyaloka (Brahmaloka, the realm of God).
0. The immortals of Maharloka share their eternity in subtle communion with the indestructible Nirguna Brahman.

In the commonly understood three-world cosmology, “heaven” (a.k.a. Svarloka, Indraloka, Satyaloka, Brahmaloka, or Vaikunthaloka) is ranked as number one ~ the “paramam padam”.

Saguna Brahma is the immediate cause of Trimurti, and I have already noted that the highest abstraction of Narayana may be equated with Saguna Brahma.

Nirguna Brahma is certainly the highest philosophical abstraction or ultimate Truth; however, according to the “Uttama Satya” (ultimate Truth) of Shri Gaudapada’s Ajativada (doctrine of Non-origination), Nirguna Brahma cannot actually be the cause of anything!

Guna means “a single thread or strand of a cord or twine”, “string or thread”, “rope”, “a garland”, “a bow-string”, “the string of a musical instrument” , “a multiplier”, “a subdivision, species, or kind”, “a secondary element”, “a subordinate or unessential part of any action”, “an auxiliary act”, “a side-dish”, “the secondary or less immediate object of an action”, “a quality, peculiarity, attribute, or property”, “an ingredient or constituent of Prakriti”, “the number three”, “an epithet”, “good quality”, “virtue”, “merit”, “excellence”, “an organ of sense”.

All Gunas may be reduced to the three essential categories of Sattva, Rajas, and Tamas (which indicate much more than the trivial classes of “goodness”, “passion”, and “ignorance”), but there is another more comprehensive list of 24 principal Gunas, including:
Rupa ~ shape and colour,
Rasa ~ savour,
Gandha ~ odour,
Sparsha ~ tangibility,
Samkhya ~ number,
Parimana ~ dimension,
Prithaktva ~ severalty,
Samyoga ~ conjunction,
Vibhaga ~ disjunction,
Paratva ~ remoteness,
Aparatva ~ proximity,
Gurutva ~ weight,
Dravatva ~ fluidity,
Sneha ~ viscidity,
Shabda ~ sound,
Buddhi or Jnana ~ understanding or knowledge,
Sukha ~ pleasure,
Duhkha ~ pain,
Iccha ~ desire,
Dvesha ~ aversion,
Prayatna ~ effort,
Dharma ~ merit or virtue,
Adharma ~ demerit, and
Amskara ~ the self-reproductive quality.

Saguna means “together with a string or cord”, “furnished with particular attributes or properties”, “having qualities”, or “qualified”; and
Nirguna means “having no cord or string”, “devoid of all qualities or properties”, or “having no epithet”.

“Twofold are the forms of Brahman, Kala (with parts) and Akala (without parts); one should worship Kala as Brahman” ~ Maitrayani Samhita.

Kala is Saguna Brahma, who should be worshipped; and
Akala is Nirguna Brahma, who is beyond any normal means of worship and only realized in Samadhi.

The Ultimate Truth, according to Shri Shankaracarya, is One Changeless Differenceless Actionless Uncharacterizable Impersonal Spirit, or Nirguna Brahma.
When qualified by the inexplicable Maya, this Brahman appears as One Personal God or Ishvara endowed with infinite power and wisdom and capable of self-manifestation in infinite ways and forms in space and time, or Saguna Brahma (the Mayika appearance of Nirguna Brahma).

Saguna Brahma may be worshipped in diverse holy names and forms, although Moksha consists in transcending Saguna Brahma and realizing the absolute non-dual reality of Nirguna Brahma.

The Nirgunabrahmatattva of Shankara is very close to the Shunyatattva of the Buddhists. Existence (Satta) for the Buddha is a phenomenal existence with practical efficiency, and Shunya is non-existence or Absolute Void. For Shankara, however, Existence is an eternal infinite noumenal existence (the non-existence of which, at any time, is inconceivable); and Nirguna Brahma, the Eternal Infinite Background of all spatio-temporal existences, is Absolute Existence.

Ishvara Narayana is Saguna Brahma; and Nirguna Brahma is Sadashiva.

Nirguna Brahma is Rudra-Shiva, the unnamed Ganapati; and Saguna Brahma is the Host of Rudras or Ganas (cf. Gunas).

Om namo Narayana! Hara Hara Mahadeva!
_________________________
Sarabhanga Giri ~ Ayamatma Brahma

Top
#70241 - 12/06/05 08:31 AM Re: Lord Vishnu/Narayana is the Supreme God of the vedic literature [Re: openSky]
Sudarshan Rangaswamy Offline
member
**

Registered: 09/02/05
Posts: 341
Quote:


The words and symbols are only attempts to scratch the surface of that which is not describable. We could call Nirgun Brahman is like a still ocean, but then one could go on endlessly arguing that “still” and “ocean” are also attributes attempting to convey the attribute-less. That would be missing the intent and content over the syntax.

I think these metaphors are only for orientating us towards the stillness and perhaps only in silence we come closest to the reality that these words (Brahman/Vishnu/Shiva) attempt to describe.






Namaste Opensky.

My point is- is Brahman "nirguna" alone?

We ascribe to the Bhagavan, infinitely many qualities, some of which are comprehensible to us - like his power, glory, love etc. And infinitely other qualities which we cannot grasp in our state of avidya. So as long as there is one quality we can understand, is it appropriate to call Bhagavan as nirguna?

Do you agree that God has the qualities of power, love etc? Or deny these? If so, why call him nirguna?


_________________________
SrImAn venkatanAthAryaH kavitArkika kesarI | vedAntAcArya-varyo me sannidhattAm sadA hRdi ||

Top
#70242 - 12/06/05 09:17 AM Re: Lord Vishnu/Narayana is the Supreme God of the vedic literature [Re: ELEGANTLY WASTED]
Sudarshan Rangaswamy Offline
member
**

Registered: 09/02/05
Posts: 341
Namaste EW.

Quote:


*What is the ocean made of?
*What is the wave made of?




A simple answer would be the ocean is made of shudda sattva, or pure sattvic consciouness. The wave is a combination of sattva, rajo and tamo gunas. I think this is not the perfect representation though..



This is how we view reality in Vishsitadvaita if we want to get a bit deeper...

There are two basic categories - dravya(Matter) and Adravya.(Non matter)

Dravya is classified into Jada and Ajada.

Jada is classified into Prakriti and kAla
Prakriti is classified into 24 tattvas.
kAla into three - past,present and future.

Ajada is of two kinds - parAk and pratyak
pratyak into two - jIva and Isvara
Isvara into five - para, vyUha, viBava,antaryAmi,archa
jIva into three - baddha, mukta, nitya

parAk into two - nitya vibhUti and dharmabhUta Jnana.

adravya is classifed into six.( as in tarka)
_________________________
SrImAn venkatanAthAryaH kavitArkika kesarI | vedAntAcArya-varyo me sannidhattAm sadA hRdi ||

Top
#70243 - 12/06/05 10:43 AM Re: Lord Vishnu/Narayana is the Supreme God of the vedic literature [Re: Sudarshan Rangaswamy]
openSky Offline
initiate

Registered: 10/07/04
Posts: 185
In a literal sense, I agree with you. But I think the word nirguna is “coined” to convey indescribable and even subtler than… say love as we perceive it. But then one can say that “nurguna-ness” itself is an attribute. So, there is no end to it. I think in this case the drift and direction suggested by the word is more valuable than its literal sense.

Top
#70244 - 12/06/05 11:08 AM Re: Lord Vishnu/Narayana is the Supreme God of the vedic literature [Re: sarabhanga]
openSky Offline
initiate

Registered: 10/07/04
Posts: 185
Quote:

3. Bhuloka (or Mrityuloka) and Janarloka.
2. Bhuvarloka (the realm of winds and air) and Taparloka (the realm of rays and light).
1. Svarloka (Indraloka, the realm of Gods) and Satyaloka (Brahmaloka, the realm of God).
0. The immortals of Maharloka share their eternity in subtle communion with the indestructible Nirguna Brahman




I think the most significant aspect of this description is the countdown. The act of untying from labels/gunas is what leads to the ground zero of reality.

Top
#70245 - 12/06/05 02:39 PM Re: Lord Vishnu/Narayana is the Supreme God of the vedic literature [Re: sarabhanga]
Sudarshan Rangaswamy Offline
member
**

Registered: 09/02/05
Posts: 341
Namaste Sarabangaji!

Quote:


Vaikuntha is a name for both Indra and Vishnu, who dwell together in Vaikuntha-loka or Indra-loka. Vaikuntha has been described as situated in the northern ocean, and Indraloka as between the sun and the north star (i.e. in the northern “ocean”). Vaikunthaloka and Indraloka are both synonymous with Svarloka (i.e. “heaven”).





But there is absolutely no scriptural evidence in favour of this. Where does it state that IndraLoka and Vaikunta are the same?

Take this, for eg:

agnirvai devaanamavamo viShNuH paramaH |

Agni is the lowest of all deities and Vishnu is the highest. (aitareya braahmaNa 1.1.1)

If Agni and Indra and Vishnu were the same Gods, what does this verse represent?


atha puruSho ha vai naaraayaNo 'kaamayata prajaa sR^ijeyeti |
naaraayaNaat praaNo jaayate manaH sarvendriyaaNi cha kha.m vaayur jyotir aapaH pR^ithivii vishvasya dhaariNii |
naaraayaNaad brahmaa jaayate |
naaraayaNaad rudro jaayate |
naaraayaNaad indro jaayate |
naaraayaNat prajaapatiH prajaayate |
naaraayaNaad dvadashaadityaa rudraa vasavaH sarvaaNi chandaa.msi naaraayaNaad eva samutpadyante naaraayaNat pravartante naaraayaNe praliiyante |
etad R^ig-vedo-shiro 'dhiite || naaraayaNopaniShad 1 ||

Naaraayana is the Supreme Personality of Godhead. He desired, "I shall create children." From Naaraayana the life breath, mind, all the senses, either, air, fire, water, and earth, which maintains the universe, were born. From Naaraayana Brahmaa was born. From Naaraayana Shiva was born. From Naaraayana Indra was born. From Naaraayana Prajaapati was born. From Naaraayana the twelve Adityas, the Rudras, the Vasus, and all the Vedic hymns were born. From Naaraayana they were manifested. Into Naaraayana they again enter. This is the crown of the R^ig Veda (nArAayaNopaniShad 1).

There are an unusually high number of scriptural verses from mutually accepted authorities which prove that nArAyaNa is the supreme Godhead.


Quote:


The “seven worlds” should not be viewed as stairway of seven (or eight) consecutively “higher” stages. There is a fundamental ascending sequence of three worlds ~ Bhuloka (earth), Bhuvarloka (sky), and Svarloka (heaven) ~ with the three “upper” worlds as a subtle overlay or background.


3. Bhuloka (or Mrityuloka) and Janarloka.
2. Bhuvarloka (the realm of winds and air) and Taparloka (the realm of rays and light).
1. Svarloka (Indraloka, the realm of Gods) and Satyaloka (Brahmaloka, the realm of God).
0. The immortals of Maharloka share their eternity in subtle communion with the indestructible Nirguna Brahman.





I hope you do know that none of these worlds represent salvation or mukti.

abrahma-bhuvanal lokah punar avartino 'rjuna
mam upetya tu kaunteya punar janma na vidyate (Bhagavad Gita 8.16)

From the highest world of Brahma down to the lowest, all are places of misery wherein repeated birth and death take place. But one who attains to My abode, O son of Kunti, never takes birth again.

So it must be clear to you, the abode of Krishna is certainly higher than the SatyaLoka, which is not an abode of muktas. All the seven worlds, are places of return, while Krishna's abode ( Vaikunta) is beyond the samsAra. Can you prove otherwise?


Quote:


In the commonly understood three-world cosmology, “heaven” (a.k.a. Svarloka, Indraloka, Satyaloka, Brahmaloka, or Vaikunthaloka) is ranked as number one ~ the “paramam padam”.





I am sorry about that, BG 8.16 explictly rules out such a possibility. It dismisses all worlds upto the Satya Lokam as material worlds of return. Vaikunta alone is eternal and hence called the parama padam. Vaikunta is not Suvarloka, there are no evidences for that.

Quote:


Saguna Brahma is the immediate cause of Trimurti, and I have already noted that the highest abstraction of Narayana may be equated with Saguna Brahma.





Nope, there are no pramAnas to the effect. Please provide a single scriptural verse in support of your concept of the trimUrti. On the other hand, there is very clear evidence is favour of Brahma arising out of nArAyaNa, and Shiva out of Brahma, as given from the nArAyaNa Upanishad.



Quote:


The Nirgunabrahmatattva of Shankara is very close to the Shunyatattva of the Buddhists. Existence (Satta) for the Buddha is a phenomenal existence with practical efficiency, and Shunya is non-existence or Absolute Void. For Shankara, however, Existence is an eternal infinite noumenal existence (the non-existence of which, at any time, is inconceivable); and Nirguna Brahma, the Eternal Infinite Background of all spatio-temporal existences, is Absolute Existence.





This is why Vaishnavites reject advaita, because Shunyata is not what is advocated by the vedas. Rejecting Buddhism for its doctrine of Shunyata and re-establishing a modified Shunyata using Badaryana's work by flouting mimAmsa is not so appropriate isn't it? Vedanta Sutras affirm all the magnificence of Brahman, and not his Shunyata. Nirguna Brahman is nothing but disguised Shunyata- and in effect denial of God. That is why we reject it. Where does Bhagavan support anything near Shunyata in his 700 verses of wisdom?

_________________________
SrImAn venkatanAthAryaH kavitArkika kesarI | vedAntAcArya-varyo me sannidhattAm sadA hRdi ||

Top
#70246 - 12/07/05 04:11 PM Re: Lord Vishnu/Narayana is the Supreme God of the vedic literature [Re: sarabhanga]
seva Offline
veteran
**

Registered: 05/26/03
Posts: 1111
Loc: Toronto (Canada)
Sarabhanga,

Quote:

Nirguna Brahman is essentially a theistic Shunya




Nirguna Brahman is no Shunya (fore-runner of zero and meaning the 'total nothingness').

Brahman (even the Nirguna) is not any kind of nothingness. Your metaphor of Nirguna Brahman as the ocean with absolutely no waves or any other disturbance, manifestation and perceptible quality is a lot closer to the reality.

- Seva


Top
#70247 - 12/07/05 08:29 PM Re: Lord Vishnu/Narayana is the Supreme God of the vedic literature [Re: seva]
Sudarshan Rangaswamy Offline
member
**

Registered: 09/02/05
Posts: 341
Seva,

Quote:



Nirguna Brahman is no Shunya (fore-runner of zero and meaning the 'total nothingness').

Brahman (even the Nirguna) is not any kind of nothingness. Your metaphor of Nirguna Brahman as the ocean with absolutely no waves or any other disturbance, manifestation and perceptible quality is a lot closer to the reality.





Indeed, Brahman is nowhere near Shunyata - it is the fullness of experience. I have seen lots of Hindus trying to integrate Buddhistic nihilism and the Brahman of the vedanta(especially the advaitins), but I really dont see them as comparable entities. Brahman has a significant personal character too, why else do Hindus accept avatara, which is a consciouss and full embodiment of the divine?

How do you compare voidness and a Brahman who takes an avatar for mankind? No way! We have to say that Buddhists completely missed out on the personal aspect of God( to some extent, the advatins too). Buddhism is incomplete vedanta at best, perhaps the final goal of Buddhism is a stage below self realization, where the perception is anAtman. But why they missed out on God - Zen Buddhism is supposed to be a type of Jnana Yoga. It is surprising that Buddhism is essentially atheistic.
_________________________
SrImAn venkatanAthAryaH kavitArkika kesarI | vedAntAcArya-varyo me sannidhattAm sadA hRdi ||

Top
#70248 - 12/07/05 09:35 PM Re: Lord Vishnu/Narayana is the Supreme God of the vedic literature [Re: Sudarshan Rangaswamy]
seva Offline
veteran
**

Registered: 05/26/03
Posts: 1111
Loc: Toronto (Canada)
Sudarshan,

Brahman is real, and as Nirguna (Sat chit anand) and Saguna (Om tat sat).

Regarding the point on Buddhism, it also has similarities to the Samkhya (with the twenty-sixth tattwa or principle of Samkhya related to God being absent in the Buddhism). Prkrti (with twenty-four tattwas according to the Samkhya) is the dominant force in Samkhya and Buddhism. Purusa or soul (twenty-fifth tattwa in the Samkhya) is common to both Samkhya and buddhism.

- seva

Top
#70249 - 12/08/05 10:38 AM Re: Lord Vishnu/Narayana is the Supreme God of the vedic literature [Re: Sudarshan Rangaswamy]
sarabhanga Offline
friend
**

Registered: 08/02/02
Posts: 894
Loc: India
Namaste

Kuntha means “blunt”, “dull”, “stupid”, “indolent”, “lazy”, or “foolish”. And Vaikuntha (or Vikuntha) can mean “very blunt”, “very foolish”, etc.; or it can mean the very opposite ~ i.e. “sharp”, “keen”, “penetrating”, or “irresistible”.

In the Rigveda, Vaikuntha and Pancajanya refer to Indra. Later, in the Epics and Puranas, Vaikuntha was revealed as Vishnu’s abode, and Pancajanya as His conch-shell ~ i.e. Vishnu dwells within Indra, and Indra is Vishnu’s “caller”. Vishnu is the mystical “Word” of God Indra, the creative “Brih” that is Brahma’s command. Vishnu is the “stupefying and deluding”, or “penetrating and irresistible”, power of Indra. Vishnu and Maya Shakti are one and the same (the “deluding, confusing, and illusive”, Mohini); and Vishnu’s Shri is only Indra’s Shaci. In addition, Vaikuntha and Indraloka have both been identified with the “northern ocean”. The vedic Vishnu was a cunning homunculus magician who assisted Indra in deluding the Asuras in order to win their wealth. And Vishnu, as Vamana, stopped His miraculous Tripadavikrama on the “third step” (i.e. Svarloka or Indraloka).

Quote:

Satya-loka or Brahma-loka ~ translation to which exempts from rebirth … although Moksha consists in transcending Saguna Brahma and realizing the absolute non-dual reality of Nirguna Brahma.



There is no mortal return for the departed Jivatman from Satyaloka, nor from Maharloka.

Narayana rests exalted in the heart of all men, in the heart of Indra, and at the very heart of Brahma. Narayana (as indicated by its patronymic nature) always exists in relation to another. Narayana is always associated with Nara ~ as the ultimate One of Dvaita.

Pure Advaita, however, is NEVER “one of two” and is always beyond any notion of Subject and Object. Advaita Nirguna Brahma is Akala and cannot be worshipped!

Narayana is God in Man and God in Heaven. Narayana is Atman and Brahman. And of course Narayana merges with Nirguna Brahma in Samadhi ~ but then so do ALL names!

You claim that Nirguna Brahma is a denial of God, and yet you insist that Narayana is Nirguna Brahma!

Quote:

The Nirgunabrahmatattva of Shankara is very close [but certainly NOT identical] to the Shunyatattva of the Buddhists … Shunya is non-existence or Absolute Void … Nirguna Brahma is Absolute Existence.



_________________________
Sarabhanga Giri ~ Ayamatma Brahma

Top
#70250 - 12/08/05 12:13 PM Re: Lord Vishnu/Narayana is the Supreme God of the vedic literature [Re: seva]
sarabhanga Offline
friend
**

Registered: 08/02/02
Posts: 894
Loc: India
Namaste Seva

By “theistic Shunya” I intended “divinized Void” rather than “void of Divinity”.

Quote:

The Nirgunabrahmatattva of Shankara is very close [but certainly NOT identical] to the Shunyatattva of the Buddhists … Shunya is non-existence or Absolute Void … Nirguna Brahma is Absolute Existence.



The Ultimate Truth is Nirguna Brahma; and the Nirguna Brahma is Absolute Existence.
Existence is equated with Consciousness (“I think, therefore I am”); and the Absolute Consciousness is “experienced” as Absolute Bliss.
_________________________
Sarabhanga Giri ~ Ayamatma Brahma

Top
#70251 - 12/08/05 03:59 PM Re: Lord Vishnu/Narayana is the Supreme God of the vedic literature [Re: sarabhanga]
Sudarshan Rangaswamy Offline
member
**

Registered: 09/02/05
Posts: 341
Quote:



You claim that Nirguna Brahma is a denial of God, and yet you insist that Narayana is Nirguna Brahma!





I never said Narayana is Nirguna Brahman, in your sense, that is absence of gunas. Nirguna simply means transcending the gunas - not theistic Shunya.

Vaikunta stands for "not obstructed". The rest of your comments comparing Vishnu and Indra are good imagination - but dont sell.

It is the vedas that proclaim that Vishnu is the highest God, there are many threads on this forum that demonstate that - not the cunning magician. Indra is just a puppet dancing to the tune of Narayana - nothing more. Read how Indra fares in the face of Krishna in Srimad Bhagavatam- equals indeed! Anyone can go on and on - without any pramANAs. Never heard anyone equating Indra with Vishnu before.:)

BTW, do you think that Bhagavan is a realized Atman or Saguna Brahmn or the paramatman? And where does Bhagavan preach this so called Theistic Shunya? Advaita finds no place in Bhagavad Gita, unless you wish to see that white in black. Would you care to demonstrate advaita in Bhagavad Gita - the most sacred scripture of Hindus?
_________________________
SrImAn venkatanAthAryaH kavitArkika kesarI | vedAntAcArya-varyo me sannidhattAm sadA hRdi ||

Top
#70252 - 12/08/05 06:42 PM Re: Lord Vishnu/Narayana is the Supreme God of the vedic literature [Re: sarabhanga]
satay Offline
helper
***

Registered: 02/02/05
Posts: 439
Namaste Sarabhanga, Seva and Sudharsan,

Sorry to barge in your conversation but I am curious, what is the position of Bhagwan Shiva from advaitic point of view? Is Shiva and Narayana one and the same i.e. Ishwara?
How does one reconcile the "Vishnu is supreme" of Bhagvatam and "Shiva is the ultimate reality" of Shiva Mahapurna? Or should one even wonder about these differences at all since it is the Bhakti that matters the most according to Bhagwan Krishna?

satay

Top
#70253 - 12/08/05 06:55 PM Re: Lord Vishnu/Narayana is the Supreme God of the vedic literature [Re: satay]
seva Offline
veteran
**

Registered: 05/26/03
Posts: 1111
Loc: Toronto (Canada)
Namaste Satay,

According purely to the Srutis (Vedas -- Rik, Yajur and Sama; and the Upanisads, including the Gita-Upanisad) they all represent the different aspects of one Brahman.

"Hinduism is a monotheistic religion with one God (Brahman) assuming many forms and names. Brahman, as Nirguna, has no attributes (is formless and unmanifested), whereas as Saguna (or Iswara) is manifested and with attributes. People use many different names for God." Ref.:

http://www.geocities.com/lamberdar/brahman.html

"The Srutis (originally in Sanskrit) represent the primary (basic) and important literature in Hinduism. Srutis comprise the Vedas (Rig, Yajur and Sam) and the Upanisads (including the Bhagvad Gita). Unfortunately, the usually philosophical Sruti was often not followed by public who preferred to devote more time and effort on somewhat easy to understand Puranas and Smritis." Ref.:

http://www.geocities.com/lamberdar/misconceptions.html

- Seva

Top
#70254 - 12/09/05 05:57 AM Re: Lord Vishnu/Narayana is the Supreme God of the vedic literature [Re: Sudarshan Rangaswamy]
sarabhanga Offline
friend
**

Registered: 08/02/02
Posts: 894
Loc: India
vaikuNTha, vaikuNTa, or vaikunta?

kuNTha = “blunt”, “dull”, “stupid”, “indolent”, “lazy”, or “foolish”
kuNTa = “mutilation” or “burning”
kunta = “a lance”, “an insect”, or “passion”

vaikuNTha is “penetrating” and “stupefying”, and Narayana is “very lazy” (indeed He sleeps deeply and is thus “stupid”) in vaikuNTha. vaikuNTa is “indestructible” and “undivided” (and perhaps “very hot”). vaikunta is “extreme passion” and “without passion” (and probably also “without annoying insects”!).

“Not obstructed” is equivalent with “penetrating”, so I assume that you accept the first spelling and derivation.

RV I: 6: 2 names Indra as Hari.
RV V: 32: 11 names Indra as Pancajanya (cf. Vishnu’s conch)
RV X: 47-50 is addressed to Vaikuntha Indra (cf. Vishnu’s abode).

Do you think it is mere coincidence that both Vishnu’s abode and one of His primary sacred weapons share names that have long been associated with Indra?

Do you think that Vishnu’s famous Mohini Rupa is a trivial myth that tells us nothing important about His nature?

And, considering that Indra’s vehicle is the white elephant (Airavata), are the white elephants commonly associated with Shri Lakshmi only there for decoration?

How can Indrani or Shaci be distinguished from Shri Lakshmi?

Shri Krishna has imitated many of Indra’s mythic exploits on another mythological stage (e.g. infant Krishna vs. monstress Putana, and infant Indra vs. monstress Kushava). Indra’s demon killing is inherited by all of Vishnu’s Avataras, and indeed Vishnu is Indra’s mythological heir. Indra fetched Soma with an eagle, and Vishnu fetched Amrita as Garuda. Indra wins cattle, while Krishna tends them. Vishnu’s Cakra is only Indra’s Vajra transformed. In the Rigveda, Indra assumes the forms of all things in the universe, as the prototype of Krishna’s Vishvarupadarshana. In the Mahabharata, Arjuna and Krishna are reincarnations of Indra and Vishnu.

The Tandya Mahabrahmana links Vishnu with Indra in sharing the divided strength of the Asura Vritra (Indra took two parts and Vishnu took one part, after receiving the whole offering on Indra’s behalf). And in the Mahabharata account of Vritra’s slaying, Vishnu enters Indra’s thunderbolt before it is hurled into Vritra’s yawning mouth.

If this is a discussion of the “Vishnu of vedic literature”: Indra is the chief God of the Rigveda, and more than a quarter of its hymns are addressed to Him; whereas Vishnu is a minor God, with only five whole hymns addressed to Him. Indra and Vishnu are both Adityas, with Indra as the ruling God and Vishnu as the incipient Divinity. In the Brahmanas, Vishnu is seen as the rising power, with Indra’s power declining, although still nominally the King of Heaven. In the Epics and Puranas, Vishnu is emphasized at Indra’s expense.
_________________________
Sarabhanga Giri ~ Ayamatma Brahma

Top
#70255 - 12/09/05 09:02 AM Re: Lord Vishnu/Narayana is the Supreme God of the vedic literature [Re: sarabhanga]
sarabhanga Offline
friend
**

Registered: 08/02/02
Posts: 894
Loc: India
Out of interest, and for perspective, here is a Sanskrit-English dictionary definition of Vishnu.

viSNu is the “All-pervader” or “Worker” (in the later mythology regarded as the “Preserver”). Although Vishnu comes second in the Trimurti, he is identified with the Supreme Deity by his worshippers. In the Vedic period, however, he is not placed in the foremost rank, although he is frequently invoked with other gods (especially with Indra, whom he assists in killing Vritra and with whom he drinks the Soma juice ~ cf. his later names Indranuja and Upendra). As distinguished from the other Vedic deities, he is a personification of the Light and of the Sun, especially in his striding over the heavens as Vamana, whose three paces have been explained as denoting the threefold manifestations of Light, in the form of Fire, Lightning, and the Sun, or as designating the three daily stations of the sun in his rising, culminating, and setting. Vishnu does not appear to have been included at first among the Adityas, although in later times he is accorded the foremost place among them. In the Brahmanas he is identified with Sacrifice, and in one described as a Dwarf. In the Mahabharata and Ramayana he rises to the supremacy, which in some places he now enjoys as the most popular deity of modern Hindu worship. The great rivalry between him and Shiva is not fully developed till the period of the Puranas. The distinguishing feature in the character of the Post-vedic Vishnu is his condescending to become incarnate in a portion of his essence on ten principal occasions, to deliver mankind from certain great dangers ~ some of the Puranas make 22 incarnations, or even 24, instead of ten. The Vaishnavas regard Vishnu as the Supreme Being, and often identify him with Narayana, the personified Purusha or primeval living Spirit, and described as moving on the waters, reclining on Shesha, the serpent of Infinity, while the god Brahma emerges from a lotus growing from his navel. The wives of Vishnu are Aditi and Sinivali, and later Lakshmi or Shri, and even Sarasvati. His son is Kamadeva, the god of Love, and his paradise is called Vaikuntha. He is usually represented with a peculiar mark on his breast called Shrivatsa, and as holding a conch-shell called Pancajanya, a quoit-like missile-weapon called Sudarshana, a club called Kaumodaki, and a lotus. He has also a bow called Sharnga, and a sword called Nandaka, and his vehicle is Garuda. He has a jewel on his wrist called Syamantaka, another on his breast called Kaustubha , and the river Ganges is said to issue from his foot. The demons slain by him in his character of “Preserver from evil”, or by Krishna as identified with him, are Madhu, Dhenuka, Canura, Yamala, and Arjuna, Kalanemi, Hayagriva, Shakata, Arishta, Kaitabha, Kamsa, Keshin, Mura, Shalva, Mainda, Dvivida, Rahu, Hiranyakashipu, Bana, Kaliya, Naraka, and Bali. He is worshipped under a thousand names, which are all enumerated in the Mahabharata. Vishnu is a name for Agni, and for the Vasudevata; and Vishnu is Shuddha.
_________________________
Sarabhanga Giri ~ Ayamatma Brahma

Top
#70256 - 12/09/05 03:17 PM Re: Lord Vishnu/Narayana is the Supreme God of the vedic literature [Re: sarabhanga]
openSky Offline
initiate

Registered: 10/07/04
Posts: 185
Just curious about "the Adityas".... suns?
what is to be implied and inferred by this term?

Top
#70257 - 12/09/05 06:57 PM Re: Lord Vishnu/Narayana is the Supreme God of the vedic literature [Re: sarabhanga]
Sudarshan Rangaswamy Offline
member
**

Registered: 09/02/05
Posts: 341
But all this is absolutely no rigour.

Vishnu sarvottama was first established by Srimad Ramanuja in his vedArtasangraha and srI bAshya.

Sri Madvacharya followed it up with a completely different approach of establishing the same.

Leter Vaishnavites have provided completely water tight proof for Vishnu sarvottama.

And since you guys are advaitins, please read even what Sri Shankara has to say regarding this--and read his commentary on the Bhagavad Gita 9.23:

Whatever a man may sacrifice to other gods, O son of Kunti, is really meant for Me alone, but it is offered without true understanding.

Even Shankara has no hesitation in claiming here that Bhagavan himself is the recipient of all offerings, in the list of other Gods, he specifically lists Shiva, Indra etc.(read his commentary)

I wonder why advaitins want to dispute this point when Shankara himself concedes the supremacy of Vishnu. I am not keen on a discussion, because this has been established beyond refutation and all you need is to look up the Vaishnavite literature.

~Sudarshan~
_________________________
SrImAn venkatanAthAryaH kavitArkika kesarI | vedAntAcArya-varyo me sannidhattAm sadA hRdi ||

Top
#70258 - 12/09/05 07:09 PM Re: Lord Vishnu/Narayana is the Supreme God of the vedic literature [Re: satay]
Sudarshan Rangaswamy Offline
member
**

Registered: 09/02/05
Posts: 341
Namaste Satay,

The vedas, upanishads,Bhagavatam, Ramayana, Mahabaratha all point to the sarvottama of Vishnu. Shiva Purana may claim otherwise, but it has been classifed as a tAmasic purANa by all vedantic traditions, including advaita, because many purANAs state that explicitly. So no beating about the bush.

Indra, Shiva and such synonyms, wherever they are found in the vedas or the Upanishads, and claim them to be the supreme, it actually refers to Vishnu only. This is stated very clearly in the vedas. You might want to read how Ramanujacharya or Madhvacharya derive the supremacy of Vishnu beyond doubt.

Advaita claims that Vishnu and Shiva are the same, based on its faulty premise of non dualty(which has no basis in Bhagavad Gita or the Brahmasutras) and not based on any scriptural evidence. Even Shankara has clearly conceded the supremacy of Krishna in many places. I would like to see someone proving advaita from Bhagavad Gita here.
_________________________
SrImAn venkatanAthAryaH kavitArkika kesarI | vedAntAcArya-varyo me sannidhattAm sadA hRdi ||

Top
#70259 - 12/10/05 01:19 AM Re: Lord Vishnu/Narayana is the Supreme God of the vedic literature [Re: Sudarshan Rangaswamy]
sarabhanga Offline
friend
**

Registered: 08/02/02
Posts: 894
Loc: India
The previous “dictionary definition” of Vishnu was intended as a general survey of accepted meanings and associations and not as any kind of rigorous proof!

I do consider, however, that an ancient and intimate connexion has been sufficiently proved to exist between Indra and Vishnu. And the nature of their relationship is further explained when it is understood that Indra and Vishnu were later reborn as Arjuna and Krishna.

Narayana-Vishnu is the shining little “golden man” in the heart of all gods, heros, and men ~ the personified “spark of life” in all living beings.

It should also be clear that Vishnu is Mohin and intimately associated with Maya, and as such must be taken as Saguna Brahma.

The Brahmanas repeatedly state that “Vishnu is Yajna” and “Yajna is Vishnu”, and it is in the dualistic context of Yajna (“worship or devotion”, “prayer or praise”, “offering, oblation, or sacrifice”) that the Aitareya Brahmana defines Agni as the lowest and Vishnu as the highest.

Yajna conjures the entire pantheon of Saguna Brahma, from Agni up to Vishnu.
Yajna (and thus Vishnu) is Kala, whereas Nirguna Brahma is Akala.
Only when Yajna is viewed as a whole (i.e. when the sacrifice is complete) is Nirguna Brahma approached ~ when the aim is achieved and the oblation is entirely consumed, and all action ceases ~ when all that remains is only ash and good fortune.

viSNu is derived from viS, which as a verb indicates means “to be active”, “to act”, “to work”, “to do”, “to be quick”, “to run or flow”, “to serve”, “to have done with”, “to overcome, subdue, or rule”, “to be contained in”, “to clothe”, “to be busy”, “to consume or eat”, “to separate or disjoin”; and which as a noun indicates “pervasion”, or “faeces, impure excretion, or dirt”. The connotations of viSNu are therefore as “action”, “the worker” (cf. Vishvakarma), “the runner” (cf. the Ashvins), “the servant”, “the ruler” (cf. Indra), “the eater” (cf. Agni), “one who separates” (cf. Brahma), or “one who clothes or cloaks” (cf. Maya), “the all pervading one”, “the all excreting one”, or “the dirt giver” (cf. the creation of Madhu and Kaitava).

Nirguna Brahma is NOT active, and thus only Vishnu as “the all clothing” or as “the all pervading” come close to naming the rarefied conception of pure Advaita. Both terms are perhaps more appropriate to Maya (cf. Vishnu as Mohini) ~ and note that pervasion implies the existence of dimension (i.e. Time or Space), which has no relevance to Nirguna Brahma.

All pervading Vishnu is Agni as pure creative Light and, like Narayana, the term is quite fitting to the creative Word or Light of God, the “Brih” or Pranava ~ i.e. AUM. Whereas Nirguna Brahma is the moment of extremity, when the Anusvara of AUM disappears into Auspicious silence.

Shiva Shiva Shiva
_________________________
Sarabhanga Giri ~ Ayamatma Brahma

Top
#70260 - 12/10/05 03:35 AM Re: Lord Vishnu/Narayana is the Supreme God of the vedic literature [Re: openSky]
sarabhanga Offline
friend
**

Registered: 08/02/02
Posts: 894
Loc: India
Namaste Opensky

Aditya (or Aditeya) means “belonging to or coming from Aditi” or “son of Aditi”.
a-diti means “having nothing to give” or “destitution”; or “not tied, free, boundless, unbroken, entire, unimpaired, or happy”; or “freedom or security”; or “boundlessness, immensity, inexhaustible abundance, unimpaired condition, perfection, or creative power”. Aditi is one of the most ancient of the Indian goddesses; and, as “Infinity” or the “Eternal and Infinite Expanse”, is often mentioned in the Rigveda. Aditi is known as the daughter of Daksha and wife of Kashyapa, and the mother of the Adityas, and of the Gods generally. Aditi is “a cow”, “milk”, “the earth”, or “speech”. And aditi (from ad) is “the devourer” or “death”.

There are seven Adityas in the Rigveda, and the chief is Varuna ~ with Mitra, Aryaman, Bhaga, Daksha, Amsha, and Surya or Savitri. And in the Brahmanas there are twelve Adityas, as representing the Sun in the twelve months of the year. Aditya is also a general term for God (especially Surya and the solar deities). As a name of Vishnu, Aditya is particularly applied to his Vamana or dwarf Avatara (as the son of Kashyapa and Aditi).

The Adityas (as the “sons” of anything) clearly exist in Dvaita (Duality) and can only represent Saguna Brahma.

Aditi, however, is an excellent candidate for the vedic source of Nirguna Brahma!
_________________________
Sarabhanga Giri ~ Ayamatma Brahma

Top
#70261 - 12/10/05 12:29 PM Re: Lord Vishnu/Narayana is the Supreme God of the vedic literature [Re: sarabhanga]
openSky Offline
initiate

Registered: 10/07/04
Posts: 185
Makes sense why surya is referred as aditya. Anyway, so Aditi can be seen as Nirgun brahman while adityas the gods as personified/manifested sagun brahman.


Top
#70262 - 12/11/05 11:22 AM Re: Lord Vishnu/Narayana is the Supreme God of the vedic literature [Re: openSky]
sarabhanga Offline
friend
**

Registered: 08/02/02
Posts: 894
Loc: India
Boundless Aditi is conceived as the point in the eastern sky where the sun and light are born. Aditi (the heaven mother) is anciently connected with Niririti (the earth mother). Despite “having nothing to give”, the Rigveda describes Aditi as granting happiness, well-being, gifts, longevity, protection, absolution, and deliverance. Aditi, as the Mother of the solar Adityas, disappears after the Rigveda, although she persists as a mother goddess in the Epics and Puranas, where she is the wife of Kashyapa. In the Rigveda, Aditi is closely associated with Dyaus (the sky father), although she is self-sufficient in procreation; and Daksha is mentioned as both her father and her son.

dakSa means “able, fit, adroit, expert, clever, dexterous, industrious, intelligent, strong, heightening or strengthening the intellectual faculties (cf. Soma), passable, suitable, or right (as opposed to left)”, and indicates “ability, fitness, mental power, talent, strength of will, energy, or disposition (sometimes particularly an evil disposition)” or “a lover”, “a cock”, or “fire”.

Daksha is known either as Shiva’s bull or as one of the Prajapatis, and is either Aja (“the unborn”) or born from Brahma’s right thumb; or he is the son of Pracetas. And Daksha is said to be the father of sometimes 8, sometimes 24, or 44, or 50, or or 60, daughters by Prasuti. Twenty-seven of these daughters became wives of the Moon (cf. 27 Nakshatras); and 8 or 13, or perhaps 17, became the wives of Kashyapa, and by him they became the mothers of gods, demons, men, and animals; while 10 daughters were married to Dharma. Daksha performed a great Yajna to obtain a son, but he omitted (with the disapproval of Dadhica) to invite Shiva, who ordered Virabhadra to spoil the sacrifice. Daksha has been identified with Vishnu, and named among the Vishvedevas, and as a Law-giver, and as one of the 5 Kanyakubja Brahmans (from whom the Bengali Brahmans are said to have arisen). And Daksha (f.) is “the earth”.

Aditi is either unborn (i.e. existing from all eternity, the first uncreated being) and giving rise to Daksha, or she is born from Daksha (who is himself unborn).

Now, was Infinity born from pure Energy, or from the sheer strength of Will inherent in pure Intelligence, or from the industry of some adroit Craft (i.e. as the product of priestly ingenuity); or was all of this born from a pre-existing and original boundless and unbroken, happy Expanse?

The Father and the Son are effectively identical, just as Nara and Narayana, so perhaps the question is actually resolved through the twin appellation “Naranarayana”, which appears frequently in the Mahabharata (and often as an epithet of Krishna).

_________________________
Sarabhanga Giri ~ Ayamatma Brahma

Top
#70263 - 12/11/05 12:07 PM Re: Lord Vishnu/Narayana is the Supreme God of the vedic literature [Re: sarabhanga]
openSky Offline
initiate

Registered: 10/07/04
Posts: 185
Interesting thoughts on NaraNarayana. Perhaps the cause and effect are one and not isolated as a thought insists it to be.

Top
#70264 - 12/11/05 07:02 PM Re: vedic literature? [Re: Bhakta of God]
Atanu Banerjee Offline
member
**

Registered: 05/30/04
Posts: 388
***************
Namaste.
Dear Natyanyaki,please note that Lord Shiva is not God.
*************************


Dear Bhakta Ji please note, Bhagavan and Purusha of thousand eyes and hands of Veda Samhitas:

Shri Rudram 1.10

pramuJNcha dhanvanastvamubhayorArtniyorjyAm.h |
yAshcha te hasta ishhavaH parA tA bhagavo vapa ||

(Shri Rudram: anuvAka 1; Rik 10)

bhagavo - O Bhagavan



O Bhagavan (God) Rudra! You are endowed with great lordship and worship (by others). Untie the bow string from the two ends of Your bow. Abandon the arrows in Your hand.



Shri Rudram 1.9

namo astu nIlagrIvAya sahasrAxAya mIDhushhe |
atho ye asya sattvAno .ahaM tebhyo .akaraM namaH ||

(Shri Rudram: anuvAka 1; Rik 9)


May my salutations be to the blue-throated, He who has a thousand eyes and who showers/fulfills (all desires of His devotees) as Parjanya. Also, I bow to His followers, the pramatha- gaNas


Shri Rudram 1.11

avatatya dhanustvaM sahasrAxa shateshhudhe |
nishIrya shalyAnAM mukhA shivo naH sumanA bhava ||

O Rudra who are the thousand-eyed One and the Bearer of a hundred arrow-quivers! Having loosened Your bow-string and having degraded (made blunt) the tips of Your arrows, become benevolent and peaceful towards us.


Please don’t insult the Veda Samhitas. Before sahasranamas of Puranas read Veda Samhita and find all names in Rudram. Which is original and which is derivative need not be said.



************
1) "There was only one Narayana, no Brahma, no Rudra"
******************

The following is the actual text and there is no Rudra in the original text.


athaato mahopanishhada.n vyaakhyaasyamastadaahureko ha vai naaraayaNa
aasiinna brahmaa neshaano naapo naagniishhomau neme dyaavaapR^ithivii



*******************
3) "Brahma is born from Narayana, Rudra is bom from Narayana"
**********************

Again the actual text is:

'Narayanat Ekadasha Rudro Jayate'


Ekadasha Rudro (Rudras) are not Rudra, who is the progenitor Maruts and Rudras in Rig Veda. Please see below.


RV HYMN LXIV. Maruts.

2 They spring to birth, the lofty Ones, the Bulls of Heaven, divine, THE CHILDREN OF RUDRA, ---

3 YOUNG RUDRAS, demon-slayers, never growing old, they have waxed, even as mountains, irresistible. They make all beings tremble with their mighty strength, even the very strongest, both of earth and heaven.
------
12 THE PROGENY OF RUDRA WE INVOKE WITH PRAYER, ------




And unfortunately the same Maha Narayana Upanishad states:

yo devaanaaM prathamaM purastaadvishvaadhiko rudro maharshhiH .
hiraNyagarbhaM pashyata jaayamaana{\m+} sa no devaH
shubhayaasmR^ityaa sa.nyunaktu .. 12..
yasmaatpara.n naaparamasti ki~nchit yasmaannaaNiiyo na jyaayo.asti
kashchit.h .
vR^iksha iva stabdho divi tishhThatyekastenedaM puurNaM purushheNa
sarvam.h .. 13..

yo vedaadau svaraH prokto vedaante cha pratishhThitaH .
tasya prakR^itiliinasya yaH paraH sa maheshvaraH .. 17..

XII-12: May He, the Lord, join us with beneficial remembrance – He who is superior to all, who has been revealed in the Vedas, who is the Supreme Seer and who sees Hiranyagarbha being born, who is the first among the gods and who is born before all the rest.
XII-13: Other than whom there is nothing higher, nothing minuter, nothing greater, by that Purusha – the One who stands still like a tree established in heaven – all this is filled.


XII-17: He is the Supreme Lord Mahesvarah who transcends the syllable Om which is uttered at the commencement of the recital of the Vedas, which is well established in the Upanishads and which is dissolved in the primal cause during contemplation.


chaturvi.nsho.anuvaakaH .

sarvo vai rudrastasmai rudraaya namo astu . purushho vai rudraH
sanmaho namo namaH .
vishvaM bhuutaM bhuvana.n chitraM bahudhaa jaata.n jaayamaana.n cha
yat.h .
sarvo hyeshha rudrastasmai rudraaya namo astu .. 1..



XXIV-1: All this verily is Rudra. To Rudra who is such we offer our salutation. We salute again and again that Being, Rudra, who alone is the light and the Soul of creatures. The material universe the created beings and whatever there is manifoldly and profusely created in the past and in the present in the form of the world, all that is indeed this Rudra. Salutations be to Rudra who is such.


************
5) "There is only one Divine Being - Narayana"
************


***************
6) "Narayana is the inner soul of all beings,"

**************


And Rudra is soul of Gods

Yajur Veda: iv. 5. 9.

a ----------.
p Homage to you, sparkling hearts of the gods



***********************
12) "Narayana is the supreme Brahman. Narayana is the supreme truth or reality. Narayana is the supreme light. Narayana is the supreme atma or Paramatma. Whatever is in this world, seen or heard, all that is pervaded by Narayana, both within and without.
****************


Yes. It is clear that Narayana is pure consciousness (pragnya) of Nara. Whatever is seen or heard is pervaded by Him.


But Shiva Mahesvarah is param of Param – indescribable:

Svet. Up,

4.18 yadaa.atamastaanna divaa na raatriH
na sannachaasachchhiva eva kevalaH .
tadaxara.n tat.h saviturvareNyaM
praGYaa cha tasmaat.h prasR^itaa puraaNii .. 18

4.18. When the light has risen, there is no day, no night, neither existence nor non-existence; Siva (the blessed) alone is there. That is the eternal, the adorable light of Savitri, - and the ancient praGYaa proceeded thence.

6.7 tamiishvaraaNaaM paramaM maheshvara.n
ta.n devataanaaM parama.n cha daivatam.h .
patiM patiinaaM paramaM parastaad.h\-
vidaama devaM bhuvaneshamiiDyam.h .. 7..


6.7 WE WILL KNOW THIS MIGHTIEST ONE WHO IS FAR ABOVE ALL THE MIGHTY – THIS SUMMIT OF THE GODS AND THEIR GODHEAD, KING OF KINGS AND LORD OF LORDS, WHO TOWERETH HIGH ABOVE ALL SUMMIT AND GREATNESSES. LET US LEARN OF GOD FOR HE IS THIS UNIVERSES' MASTER AND ALL SHALL ADORE HIM.




Yes, If paramam parastad (beyond param) is called mahesvara and if Siva alone remains when all else is dissolved by neti neti then it is Siva alone and no one else.


Very simple. Rest is all illusion --- Janitaa Soma – born of Lord's energy, as below.



Sama Veda 19 Soma Pavamana

1. Father of holy hymns, Soma flows onward, the father of the earth, father of heaven.
Father of Agni, Surya's generator, the father who begat Indra and Vishnu.



Vishnu is born of Soma. Whereas:

shvetAshvatara upaniShad

eko hi rudro na dvitIyAya tasthu- rya imAn lokAnIshata IshanIbhiH |


Rudro is the seer of the consciousness and is beyond consciousness and beyond description.


Mandukya Upanishad

12. The fourth (Turiya) is that which has no elements, which cannot be spoken of, into which the world is resolved, shivo advaitam. Thus the syllable aum is the very self. He who knows it thus enters the self with his self.





Top
#70265 - 12/11/05 07:27 PM Re: vedic literature surely [Re: Atanu Banerjee]
Atanu Banerjee Offline
member
**

Registered: 05/30/04
Posts: 388
Ayamatma Brahma
Prajanam Brahma


Pragnya of the third state (M of AUM) is the Lord of all, but shivo (neither a being nor a non-being) is Turiya and Turiyatta.


6.7 tamiishvaraaNaaM paramaM maheshvara.n
ta.n devataanaaM parama.n cha daivatam.h .
patiM patiinaaM paramaM parastaad.h\-
vidaama devaM bhuvaneshamiiDyam.h .. 7..


6.7 WE WILL KNOW THIS MIGHTIEST ONE WHO IS FAR ABOVE ALL THE MIGHTY – THIS SUMMIT OF THE GODS AND THEIR GODHEAD, KING OF KINGS AND LORD OF LORDS, WHO TOWERETH HIGH ABOVE ALL SUMMIT AND GREATNESSES. LET US LEARN OF GOD FOR HE IS THIS UNIVERSES' MASTER AND ALL SHALL ADORE HIM.


Om Namah Sivayya


Top
#70266 - 12/11/05 07:54 PM Re: vedic literature surely [Re: Atanu Banerjee]
Sudarshan Rangaswamy Offline
member
**

Registered: 09/02/05
Posts: 341
All the verses you have quoted use the common synonyms of Shiva - but you are perhaps unaware of how Vishnu Sarvottama is established.

Shiva, Hara, Rudra etc are common names of Shiva, but are by no means applicable only to Shiva, but also to Vishnu.

For eg, Shiva just means auspicious, which is easily applicable to Vishnu, as Vishnu is also called Mukunda, the bestower of salvation. Similarly, all other references to Shiva point to Vishnu only and not to Shiva.

SInce we have many shruti verses porclaiming the suprenmeacy of both Shiva and Vishnu, and also clear refererences to Brahma being born out of Narayana and Shiva out of Brahman, all these contradictions cannot be simultaneously true.

Only Vishnu or Shiva can be the supreme, not both since we have a clear reference to Shiva coming out of Narayana, ie Shiva is created while Narayana is not.

All names of Shiva are easily applicable to Vishnu as you need to only look at the Sahasranama. Hence wherver Brahman is under reference and a synonym of Shiva is used, it refers only to Narayana and not Shiva, because it contradicts many passages.

Now, an objection maybe raised as to it all names of Vishnu can be replaced by Shiva. Yes, they can be, and Shiva can be proved to be the supreme. But, the word Narayana, by the grammatical rules of Panini( due to NakarAnta in nArAyaNa) can refer only to Vishnu as it is not a common name, but a specific name. Hence, nArAyaNa can refer only to Vishnu and never Shiva. This is the basic approach of Srimad Ramanuja, using chAgapashu nYAYa of pUrva mImamsa.

Sri Madhva's approach is different.

There is virtually no use in quoting Sveta Up. because it refers only to Narayana wherver it refers to Shiva, Hara etc, else it contradicts all verses glorifying Narayana( which can never be referred to Shiva).

Appayya Dikshita tried his best to establish Shiva Sarvottama, but gave up....so none of you are ever going to establish it by using the scriptural references. It just does not stand scrutiny.

Please go through the Vaishnavite literature and check for yourself, the logical devices used to establish that Narayana is the Brahman in no uncertain terms. There is no point in quoting some verses out of context, without learning about the huge literature that goes into establishing Vishnu sarvottama.
_________________________
SrImAn venkatanAthAryaH kavitArkika kesarI | vedAntAcArya-varyo me sannidhattAm sadA hRdi ||

Top
#70267 - 12/12/05 03:27 AM Re: Lord Vishnu/Narayana is the Supreme God of the vedic literature [Re: openSky]
sarabhanga Offline
friend
**

Registered: 08/02/02
Posts: 894
Loc: India
And what of Aditi’s consort Kashyapa?

kashyapa (kashya-pa) is said to mean “having black teeth”.

kashyapa (from kaccha-pa ~ “keeping or inhabiting a marsh”) means “a tortoise” (cf. Kurma), “a fish” (cf. Mina or Matsya), or “a deer” (cf. Prajapati).

kashya or kasya derives from kash (“to go or move”, “to sound”, or “to strike, punish, hurt, or kill”) or from kas (“to go or move”, or “to beam or shine”), or kaS (“to rub, scratch, scrape, or itch”, or “to rub with a touchstone”, or “to injure, hurt, destroy, or kill”, and indicates “moving, beaming, shining, or sounding”, “striking or punishing”, “deserving the whip”, “a horse’s flank”, or “a spiritous liquor”.

kaSya indicates “rubbing, scratching, etc.” (cf. Parvati’s creation of Ganesha) or “testing (as with touchstone ~ a black stone used to test the purity of metals)”.

kasya is also the genitive of the pronoun ka (“of who” or “whose”).

And pa indicates “drinking” or “guarding, protecting, or ruling”.

kashyapa or kasyapa is therefore “Movement, Light, or Sound” (or the Lord of those characteristics) ~ the “Moving or Shining One”; and Kashyapa is “Soma Drinking” (cf. Daksha, as the heightened mental skill and creative ability gained from Soma, and Keshin).

kaSyapa is “Lord of the Touchstone” (cf. Shiva) or the “Judge of Truth” (cf. Yama).

kasyapa or kAsyapa is the “Lord of Ka” or the guardian of an indefinite “Who”.

ka is a name of Prajapati, of Brahman, of Daksha, of Vishnu, of Yama, and of Garuda; and Ka represents “the soul Tattvas”, “a comet”, “the sun, fire, splendour, light, or air”, “a peacock”, “the body”, “time, wealth, or sound” or “a king. And kam (n.) is “happiness, joy, or pleasure”, “water”, or “the head, hair, or a head of hair”.

kasyapa is thus the “Lord of Prajapati” or “Lord of Brahman” etc., (i.e. the “Lord of Lords”), or the “Lord of the Sun” (cf. Atman) or “Lord of Fire” (cf. Agni), the “Lord of Splendour”, “Lord of Light” (cf. Atman or Brahman), or “Lord of Air” (cf. Vayu), or “Lord of the Body” (cf. Sharva), “Lord of Time” (cf. Mahakala), or “Lord of Riches” (cf. Kubera); or likewise, the “Lord of Happiness” (cf. Shiva), “Lord of Pleasure” (cf. Kama), or “Lord of Water” (cf. Varuna, Indra, or Narayana), or the “Lord of the Head” (cf. Brahma or Kapila) or “Lord of the Hair” (cf. Keshin and Shiva).

kakSa (from kaS) is a “lurking-place or hiding place”, “a wood or forest (often the lair of wild beasts)”, “the interior of a forest”, or “an inner recess”, or “grass or a spreading creeper”, or “the side or flank”, “sin”, “a gate”, or “a buffalo”. And kakSA is “the armpit (as the most concealed part of the human body )” or “region of the girth or hip”, “a girdle, zone, or belt”, “the orbit of a planet”, “the periphery or circumference”, “balance, equality, similarity, resemblance, emulation, rivalry”, or “an object of emulation”.

kakSApa (cf. kashyapa and kasyapa) would thus be the “Hidden Lord” (cf. Nara-Narayana) or “Lord of the Forest” (cf. Vanaspati, Agni, Rudra, or Krishna), the “Inner Lord” or “Guardian of the innermost Place” (cf. Ishvara, Narayana, Vishnu, Krishna, Bhairava, Rudra, etc.), the “Guardian or Lord of the Periphery or Orbit” (cf. Bhairava or Ganesha) or “the Guardian or Lord of Balance or Equality” (cf. Rudra or Shiva, or Brahman).

kashA or kaSA indicates “a whip” (also as kasA), “a rein or bridle”, “whipping or flogging”, “a string or rope”, “a face, mouth, or quality”.

kasha is “a rodent animal”, or “a whip or thong”.

kaSa or kasa indicates “rubbing or scraping”, “a touchstone or assay”.

kAsha is “the becoming visible, or appearance”, or “Kusha grass”.

kAsh “to shine or be brilliant”, “to have an agreeable appearance, or to see clearly or survey”.

kAshya is the “Ruler of Kashi” (cf. Shiva), or “spiritous liquor” (cf. Soma).

kashapa is “Lord of the Rodent” (cf. Ganesha).

kashapa, kaSapa, kashApa, and kaSApa, indicate the “Lord of the Whip” or “Holder of the Reins” (cf. Krishna) or “Guardian of the Rays” (cf. all Adityas).

kAshapa is the “Lord of Appearance” and “Lord of the Kusha grass” (cf. Prajapati, Rudra, and Brahma).

kAsapa is the “Lord of Touchstone” (cf. Shiva), or “Guardian of Quality” or “Witness” (cf. Ishvara, Rudra, or Brahma), or “the Examiner or Investigator” (cf. the Rishis).

kAshyapa is the “Shining Lord” (cf. Agni, Aditya, Atma, Indra, Brahma, etc.), the “Lord of Soma” or the “Supreme Lord of Kashi” (Mahadeva!).

kashyapa is known as a class of divine beings associated with Prajapati, or as a class of semidivine genii connected with or regulating the course of the sun, or as an ancient sage or Rishi (one of the 7 Rishis). He was the husband of Aditi and twelve other daughters of Daksha, and by Aditi he was father of the Adityas (who are called kAshyapeya) and of Vivasvat (“the shining one”) and of Vishnu in his Vamana Avatara. By his other twelve wives, he was the father of demons, nagas, reptiles, birds, and all kinds of living things. From the prominent part ascribed to him in creation, he is called Prajapati; and he is the priest of Parashurama and Ramacandra.

The father and son of Aditi is Daksha, and Kaksha (Kakshapa, Kashapa, Kasapa, Kasyapa, Kashyapa) is her consort.

kashyapa may easily equated with Daksha (as Naranarayana);
kaSyapa, however, as “Lord of the Touchstone” can only be Lord Shiva; and each formation ( kashyapa, kasyapa, and kaSyapa) can be understood as the “One who Injures”, the “Striker, Punisher, Destroyer, or Killer” ~ in which capacity Rudra Shiva thoroughly spoiled Daksha’s Yajna.

Kashyapa (Kaksha) and Daksha are equally the Prajapati or Brahman, and Kashyapa may equally be considered as Rudra-Shiva or as Naranarayana-Vishnu. And in Kashyapa, Vishnu and Shiva meet as equal rivals ~ and remember that Kaksha indicates “balance, equality, similarity, resemblance, emulation, and rivalry”!

Putting aside the disagreement between Vaishnava and Shaiva perspectives, Aditi’s ancient “family” relationships were merged into one mysterious generative principle (Prajapati or Brahma) long ago.

The consort of Aditi is Daksha/Kashyapa Prajapati; and the Mahabharata [XII: 184: 13] clearly distinguishes Prajapati and Brahman (n.): “Religion characterized by detachment is the eternal Brahman, and that characterized by attachment (propagated by) Prajapati”. So that ANY claim to be the true Prajapati (as the Creator, the Daksha or Kashyapa, the shining Ishvara or supreme Narayana) is ONLY a claim to be the true image of Saguna Brahma!
_________________________
Sarabhanga Giri ~ Ayamatma Brahma

Top
#70268 - 12/12/05 02:00 PM Re: vedic literature surely [Re: Sudarshan Rangaswamy]
Atanu Banerjee Offline
member
**

Registered: 05/30/04
Posts: 388
********but you are perhaps unaware of how Vishnu Sarvottama is established.*************

You work from gross human angle and perspective without any idea of atma, which is one without a second. There is no need, absolutely no need, to establish supremacy of that infinite thing.

The mere effort to establish supremacy indicates that there are comparable others. And this is ridiculous. It is my experience that whereever Vaisnavas try to describe Lord they cannot do anything but denigrate others, as if Lord's greatness depends upon comparison. It is puerile. This itself indicates doubt and insecurity. Mere shouting or voluminous writing of trash does not change the truth. When there is need to shout of Supremacy of a diety, it is not the jnana of diety but is simply an ego belief. Sages established in jnana do not have any doubts that all are names, but the one eko is indescribable. The only proof of that indescribable, who is the support of consciousness, is to know that by become that. And that is not possible for pandit vaisnavas, whose minds are full of comparisons and concepts.

A sage on the other hand has no doubt whatsoever, and knows that one cannot compare and scale the infinite being. He is beyond mind and grammar. Mind comes back from him. He is always immersed in the Self, like advocated in Gita and other scriptures.

If you ever read Mandyuka Upanishad, then you would know (there is doubt though), that in the third stage of Pragnya (M of AUM), all beings are dissolved. Beyond that, in the silence, is the param dhama of Vishnu.And there is that indescribable eko.

When shruti says: "eko hi rudro dvitiya na tastu" , it is clear that there is no second. Now if you say that this is not Rudra but Narayana(as is the foolish argument of all vaisnavas), it really does not change anything since then:
"eko hi rudro dvitiya na tastu" and "eko hi Narayana dvitiya na tastu" means the same thing.

If I say item A is only there. And another says item B is alone there. Then items A and B are same, or it just that some percieve A and others percieve B for the same item.


And this is absolutely correct.

But Shiva is the seer of consciousness that Narayana is, and so the following shruti.

6.7 tamiishvaraaNaaM paramaM maheshvara.n
ta.n devataanaaM parama.n cha daivatam.h .
patiM patiinaaM paramaM parastaad.h\-
vidaama devaM bhuvaneshamiiDyam.h .. 7..


6.7 WE WILL KNOW THIS MIGHTIEST ONE WHO IS FAR ABOVE ALL THE MIGHTY – THIS SUMMIT OF THE GODS AND THEIR GODHEAD, KING OF KINGS AND LORD OF LORDS, WHO TOWERETH HIGH ABOVE ALL SUMMIT AND GREATNESSES. LET US LEARN OF GOD FOR HE IS THIS UNIVERSES' MASTER AND ALL SHALL ADORE HIM.



No one else is ever called tamiishvaraaNaaM paramaM maheshvara.n
ta.n devataanaaM parama.n cha daivatam.h .
patiM patiinaaM paramaM parastaad.h\-
vidaama devaM bhuvaneshamiiDyam.

And obviously you and poreceptors have not read Vedas with an open mind. They have read it to find proof for their preferences. Else, this simple verse would indicate what all there is to indicate.

YV iv. 4. 9.

(Thou art) Prajapati with Soma in mind; ----- Indra at the oblation-holder; Aditi when put in place; Visnu when being taken down; ------- Rudra when offered; ------ Dyaus when arrived at completion.

Om Namah Sivayya


I have written a lot but not at all for the purpose of contesting but on account of pleasure that I get just by writing of him.

Om Namah Sivayya




Top
#70269 - 12/12/05 02:34 PM Re: Amazing [Re: Sudarshan Rangaswamy]
Atanu Banerjee Offline
member
**

Registered: 05/30/04
Posts: 388
*********Vaikunta stands for "not obstructed". The rest of your comments comparing Vishnu and Indra are good imagination - but dont sell.**************

This reply was given by Shri Ranga to Shri Sarbhanga. It is really amazing that how confident one becomes by not knowing anything.

There are atleast a dozen verses on 'Indra Vaikunta' in Rig Veda. And actually, Vishnu is known to laud and sing praises of Indra in Rig Veda.

That Visnu is the Maya Sakti of God, used first for delusion and then for destroying the three bodies and liberating, is obvious to some individualised Chit and not to some other individualised Chits. It is the only grade in ONE ATMA and this grade alone is the universe.


OM OM OM

Top
#70270 - 12/12/05 02:46 PM Re: Lord Vishnu/Narayana is the Supreme God of the vedic literature [Re: sarabhanga]
openSky Offline
initiate

Registered: 10/07/04
Posts: 185
Your post on multiple patterns of the word Kashyap is quite significant in conveying as how every name and form of the God can be a different tilt of the same supreme entity. But I think intellectual thought conjures up an elusive division and hierarchy among them.

Top
#70271 - 12/12/05 03:59 PM Re: May I request one samhita verse? [Re: Sudarshan Rangaswamy]
Atanu Banerjee Offline
member
**

Registered: 05/30/04
Posts: 388
************
Nope, there are no pramAnas to the effect. Please provide a single scriptural verse in support of your concept of the trimUrti. On the other hand, there is very clear evidence is favour of Brahma arising out of nArAyaNa, and Shiva out of Brahma, as given from the nArAyaNa Upanishad.
************************

This is another reply of Shri Rangaswamy to Shri Sarbhanga.


Actually, there is no Upanishad called nArAyaNa Upanishad. This is a recent creation. But even if we consider this as a valid Upanishad, the following is the actual text:

-----Out of Naraayana arises the Brahma, the deity who is the creator of all beings; and also the Indra, who is the ruler of all Devas. Out of Him comes Prajaapati, the deity who originates and controls the people, as well as the twelve Aadityaas, eleven Rudraas and eight Vasus. ----


In Maha Upanishad and Mahanarayan Upanishad: The verse is “Narayaan ekadasha Rudraa jayate”. It is true since Rudra is the progenitor of Maruts/Rudras, as I have shown above with citations from Rig Veda.


Moreover, I have seen some bhaktas repeatedly claiming that Rudra was born of sin in the womb of Ushas from Brahma’s seed (apparently as per Satpatha Brahmana). It is very instructive to find the exoteric worshippers denigrating without understanding the nuances of scriptures. Such people are everywhere in every religion who only know God exoterically. When one knows God to be the ONE BREATHING INSIDE AND WHO IS the SAME IN EVERYONE, such hatred filled concepts wear off.

As to the repeated claim of Rudra’s birth from the womb of Ushas, the following verse will help illumine.


RV10.061.05 (Rudra), the benefactor of man, whose eager, virile energy was developed, drew it back when disseminated (for the generation of offfspring); again the irresistible (Rudra) concentrates (the energy) which was communicated to his maiden daughter.


RV 10.061.06 When the deed was done in mid-heaven in the proximity of the father working his will, and the daughter coming together, they let the seed fall slightly; it was poured upon the high place of sacrifice.

RV 10.061.07 When the father united with the daughter, then associating with the earth, he sprinkled it with the effusion; then the thoughtful gods begot Brahma; they fabricated the lord of the hearth (of sacrifice); the defender of sacred rites


SHIVA RUDRA IS EKO AND HE IS VISVA RUPA, HE IS THE FATHER, CREATOR OF USHAS, IMPREGNATOR, AND THE BORN SON AS WELL.


Brahma is a mental concept of Devas and so is Brahmanspati. There is none other than one EKO RUDRA, who in the “A” state of AUM is the seer of variety. He alone dreams (U) and He alone is Pragnya (M). He as all pervading Visnu takes these three steps but He is the highest state of Visnu, which sages meditate on.


How pathetic and hollow Rangaswamis claim that Shiva is born of Brahma is, can be gauged by this verse of Rig Veda, where Rudra himself is impregnator of Ushas, his own creation.



Knowing this verse of Rig Veda one can understand the Svet Upanishad as below:

yo devaanaaM prabhavashchodbhavashcha
vishvaadhipo rudro maharshhiH .
hiraNyagarbha.n janayaamaasa puurva.n
sa no buddhyaa shubhayaa sa.nyunaktu .. 3.4..

3.4. He, the creator and supporter of the gods, Rudra, the great seer, the lord of all, he who formerly gave birth to Hiranyagarbha, may he endow us with good thoughts.

And this same verse is in Mahanarayana Upanishad, where after stating that Rudra is the seer of Hirayanagarbha’s birth, it states that there is none higher than this purusha.

I am repeating these verses again:


yo devaanaaM prathamaM purastaadvishvaadhiko rudro maharshhiH .
hiraNyagarbhaM pashyata jaayamaana{\m+} sa no devaH
shubhayaasmR^ityaa sa.nyunaktu .. 12..
yasmaatpara.n naaparamasti ki~nchit yasmaannaaNiiyo na jyaayo.asti
kashchit.h .
vR^iksha iva stabdho divi tishhThatyekastenedaM puurNaM purushheNa
sarvam.h .. 13..

yo vedaadau svaraH prokto vedaante cha pratishhThitaH .
tasya prakR^itiliinasya yaH paraH sa maheshvaraH .. 17..

XII-12: May He, the Lord, join us with beneficial remembrance – He who is superior to all, who has been revealed in the Vedas, who is the Supreme Seer and who sees Hiranyagarbha being born, who is the first among the gods and who is born before all the rest.
XII-13: Other than whom there is nothing higher, nothing minuter, nothing greater, by that Purusha – the One who stands still like a tree established in heaven – all this is filled.


XII-17: He is the Supreme Lord Mahesvarah who transcends the syllable Om which is uttered at the commencement of the recital of the Vedas, which is well established in the Upanishads and which is dissolved in the primal cause during contemplation.

chaturvi.nsho.anuvaakaH .

sarvo vai rudrastasmai rudraaya namo astu . purushho vai rudraH
sanmaho namo namaH .
vishvaM bhuutaM bhuvana.n chitraM bahudhaa jaata.n jaayamaana.n cha
yat.h .
sarvo hyeshha rudrastasmai rudraaya namo astu .. 1..



XXIV-1: All this verily is Rudra. To Rudra who is such we offer our salutation. We salute again and again that Being, Rudra, who alone is the light and the Soul of creatures. The material universe the created beings and whatever there is manifoldly and profusely created in the past and in the present in the form of the world, all that is indeed this Rudra. Salutations be to Rudra who is such.

After all this upanishad is called Mahanarayana Upanishad and not Narayana Upanishad; Narayana is the Purusha on waters (consciousness) and when the VIRAT PURUSHA performs Tapas, the Mahesvara – the sarva Maha narayana, who is sarva and eko becomes manifest.

This is how, Narayana is himself Mahesvara, but Mahesvara is the real strength of Narayana -- the eternal jyoti rupa Sambhu.

And such is the assertion in Upanishad after Upanishad.

As Shri Sarbhanga has correctly pointed out that Narayana is the atma in Nara. Truly, on supreme tapas, on supreme meditation, on dissolution of ego, the param Parastad Mahesvara is born, though He is eternally the indweller -- Girishanta.



And I have seen point by point how hollow every one concept of Rangaswamy et al is. But who is to correct whom? It is all in the ONE CONSCIOUSNESS as per the will of EKO.


But


6.7 tamiishvaraaNaaM paramaM maheshvara.n
ta.n devataanaaM parama.n cha daivatam.h .
patiM patiinaaM paramaM parastaad.h\-
vidaama devaM bhuvaneshamiiDyam.h .. 7..


6.7 WE WILL KNOW THIS MIGHTIEST ONE WHO IS FAR ABOVE ALL THE MIGHTY – THIS SUMMIT OF THE GODS AND THEIR GODHEAD, KING OF KINGS AND LORD OF LORDS, WHO TOWERETH HIGH ABOVE ALL SUMMIT AND GREATNESSES. LET US LEARN OF GOD FOR HE IS THIS UNIVERSES' MASTER AND ALL SHALL ADORE HIM.

Om Namah Sivayya


May I request just one shruti verse mentioning paramam parastad?

Else I request you to please study the Nasadiya Sukta of Rig Veda dispassionately.



Top
#70272 - 12/12/05 05:16 PM Re: Amazing [Re: Atanu Banerjee]
Sudarshan Rangaswamy Offline
member
**

Registered: 09/02/05
Posts: 341
Quote:


This reply was given by Shri Ranga to Shri Sarbhanga. It is really amazing that how confident one becomes by not knowing anything.





Indeed, it is true in case of most people who posted here. Have you ever even read any literature proving the Vishnu Sarvottama?


Quote:


There are atleast a dozen verses on 'Indra Vaikunta' in Rig Veda. And actually, Vishnu is known to laud and sing praises of Indra in Rig Veda.





Bhagavan is known to sing the praise of his Bhaktas. There are many scriptural verses that say that the whole of vedas speak only about the supremacy of Vishnu. You are perhaps unaware that these arguments were never refuted. You can still keep repeating what you like.


Quote:


That Visnu is the Maya Sakti of God, used first for delusion and then for destroying the three bodies and liberating, is obvious to some individualised Chit and not to some other individualised Chits. It is the only grade in ONE ATMA and this grade alone is the universe.





No proof for this, unless you turn a blind eye to scriptural verses that contradict this.
_________________________
SrImAn venkatanAthAryaH kavitArkika kesarI | vedAntAcArya-varyo me sannidhattAm sadA hRdi ||

Top
#70273 - 12/12/05 05:42 PM Re: Amazing [Re: Sudarshan Rangaswamy]
Atanu Banerjee Offline
member
**

Registered: 05/30/04
Posts: 388
Namaskar Ji,

*********Indeed, it is true in case of most people who posted here. Have you ever even read any literature proving the Vishnu Sarvottama? **************


Yes, I have read some. And understood nothing, having very low order of intellect myself. I only know that a sage Narayana wrote Purusha Sukta in Rig Veda. Then in Uttara Anuvukas mysteriously HE becomes the "not nara not" (Neti-Neti?) . Then two wives are added to purusha and Purusha becomes Vishnu.Then utttara anuvuaka is cited as the proof of samhita stating the supremacy of Narayana and Visnu by showing two wives. Then Puranas and itihasa are cited as validity of the samhitas. Personally, I feel this is Maya.


I was just joking.

Namoh Vasudevayya Namoh Namoh.

But this is how That which is called Bhagavan in Vedas is termed full of sin by some -- without applying wisdom, mind, and faith and solely based on personal preferences.

********Bhagavan is known to sing the praise of his Bhaktas. **************

I sing Bhagawan's praise. So, He too is my Bhakta. Well, why do not you apply this principle equally?


***********
No proof for this, unless you turn a blind eye to scriptural verses that contradict this.
*************

Yes, actually Maya is non-existent. Very nice, we agree.


Om Namo Sivayya

Top
#70274 - 12/12/05 05:59 PM Re: vedic literature surely [Re: Atanu Banerjee]
Sudarshan Rangaswamy Offline
member
**

Registered: 09/02/05
Posts: 341
Quote:


You work from gross human angle and perspective without any idea of atma, which is one without a second. There is no need, absolutely no need, to establish supremacy of that infinite thing.





But you are an enlighted seer who knows the atma, eh?

Quote:


The mere effort to establish supremacy indicates that there are comparable others. And this is ridiculous. It is my experience that whereever Vaisnavas try to describe Lord they cannot do anything but denigrate others, as if Lord's greatness depends upon comparison. It is puerile. This itself indicates doubt and insecurity. Mere shouting or voluminous writing of trash does not change the truth. When there is need to shout of Supremacy of a diety, it is not the jnana of diety but is simply an ego belief. Sages established in jnana do not have any doubts that all are names, but the one eko is indescribable. The only proof of that indescribable, who is the support of consciousness, is to know that by become that. And that is not possible for pandit vaisnavas, whose minds are full of comparisons and concepts.





Where have anybody been denigrated here? I called Shiva as an amsa of Narayana, which should be the case with Vishsitadvaita Philosophy. There is no point in showing emotions here - truth does not change that way. No Vaishnava ever shouted - that is the way of advaitins. It is sheer logic and scriptural evidence and we are not afraid to speak the truth. If you cannot refute, you resort to shouting, and putting the blame on others.

Quote:


A sage on the other hand has no doubt whatsoever, and knows that one cannot compare and scale the infinite being. He is beyond mind and grammar. Mind comes back from him. He is always immersed in the Self, like advocated in Gita and other scriptures.





But the very Gita does not speak about advaita anywhere. It is your imagination. Bhagavan clearly says that he is the supreme, and the cause of everything and is the highest goal of life.


Quote:


If you ever read Mandyuka Upanishad, then you would know (there is doubt though), that in the third stage of Pragnya (M of AUM), all beings are dissolved. Beyond that, in the silence, is the param dhama of Vishnu.And there is that indescribable eko.





These are your own interpretations. You know Vishistadvaita never negates this aikya in anyway, but it does refute absolute monism and non dualty of advaita.

Quote:


When shruti says: "eko hi rudro dvitiya na tastu" , it is clear that there is no second. Now if you say that this is not Rudra but Narayana(as is the foolish argument of all vaisnavas), it really does not change anything since then:
"eko hi rudro dvitiya na tastu" and "eko hi Narayana dvitiya na tastu" means the same thing.





But you do not realize that Rudra is not a specific name of Shiva - it has a specific meaning "one who causes others to shed tear", and has other meanings, it has no affinity to Shiva in particular. Infact Rudra is a name given to Vishnu in Vishnu Sahasranama. Vaishnavite proof proceeds by proving that the primary referrent of all names of Brahman whether Shiva or Rudra or whatever is Narayana, if there is a conflict or contradiction. You choose to call others as foolish without even having basic knowlege of what I am talking about.

Quote:


If I say item A is only there. And another says item B is alone there. Then items A and B are same, or it just that some percieve A and others percieve B for the same item.





That is not valid outside the scope of advaita.


Quote:


And this is absolutely correct.

But Shiva is the seer of consciousness that Narayana is, and so the following shruti.

6.7 tamiishvaraaNaaM paramaM maheshvara.n
ta.n devataanaaM parama.n cha daivatam.h .
patiM patiinaaM paramaM parastaad.h\-
vidaama devaM bhuvaneshamiiDyam.h .. 7..


6.7 WE WILL KNOW THIS MIGHTIEST ONE WHO IS FAR ABOVE ALL THE MIGHTY – THIS SUMMIT OF THE GODS AND THEIR GODHEAD, KING OF KINGS AND LORD OF LORDS, WHO TOWERETH HIGH ABOVE ALL SUMMIT AND GREATNESSES. LET US LEARN OF GOD FOR HE IS THIS UNIVERSES' MASTER AND ALL SHALL ADORE HIM.



No one else is ever called tamiishvaraaNaaM paramaM maheshvara.n
ta.n devataanaaM parama.n cha daivatam.h .
patiM patiinaaM paramaM parastaad.h\-
vidaama devaM bhuvaneshamiiDyam.





See above, our interpretations are different, always for resolving conflciting verses. For advaitins, there is no issue....all mutually contradicting verses are no problems, and see identity everywhere.


Quote:


And obviously you and poreceptors have not read Vedas with an open mind. They have read it to find proof for their preferences. Else, this simple verse would indicate what all there is to indicate.





No verse has been skipped by Vaishnavites in providing their proof - it is always interpreting properly. The interpretation always assumes that Brahman is Narayana( which cannot be refuted in anyway you want), and wherever there are references to Shiva or Indra or anyname that refers to Brahman, it is interpreted as Narayana - because all these names are applicable to Narayana, the supreme of all. By the way, I dont see any point here because your preceptors were never able to question the logic. They never saw the need because they thought they were also Narayana.

Quote:


I have written a lot but not at all for the purpose of contesting but on account of pleasure that I get just by writing of him.





No problems with that. I derive a lot of pleasure by glorifying the Lord as well...hope you will atleast take an effort to see how this is derived and not jump into hasty conclusins about Vaishnavites being adamant on this issue. We do have strong reasons to beleive in this claim because it has considerable evidence. On the other hand, Shiva sarvottama cannot be established using any commonly scriptures, and whoever tried in the past was comprehensively refuted.

Of all major Brahmasutras Bhashyas, you might note that most of them are biased towards Vishnu. Only a very few of them lean towards Shiva and can be easily thrashed.
_________________________
SrImAn venkatanAthAryaH kavitArkika kesarI | vedAntAcArya-varyo me sannidhattAm sadA hRdi ||

Top
#70275 - 12/12/05 07:14 PM Re: vedic literature surely [Re: Sudarshan Rangaswamy]
Atanu Banerjee Offline
member
**

Registered: 05/30/04
Posts: 388
Namaskar my friend


********But you are an enlighted seer who knows the atma, eh?************

Not Really. But there is one difference. When scriptures say "Man is in the image of God", some take image of man as that image and impose that on God (two legs and two hands etc. occupying a limited space etc.). You are more inclined to this since you (led by preceptors) believe that Purusha means man.

Whereas, God is unlimited and so the reality of man (nara) must also be unlimited (narayana). My preceptors taught that Purusha means one who is Purva Ushas. I believe that. Shape and name and form have no role here. Scriptures say that knowing this meditate. So, I am meditating. But like you I am not above preferences. Often I get involved foolishly in puerile discussions -- and try to thrash as you say below.


********Only a very few of them lean towards Shiva and can be easily thrashed.************

Thrash man thrash.

tamiishvaraaNaaM paramaM maheshvara.n
ta.n devataanaaM parama.n cha daivatam.h .
patiM patiinaaM paramaM parastaad.h\-
vidaama devaM bhuvaneshamiiDyam.h .. 7..


Om Namah Vasudevayya Namah.


*****But the very Gita does not speak about advaita anywhere.********

I thought you were discussing Narayana? How Advaita came in?

You know this is called sticking to primitive values. You are conditioned to react in two ways. Thrash Shiva (though acting polite) and thrash advaita.


Though of course shruti says: shivo advaitam. Eko Rudro, etc. etc.

And though Lord Krishna says:

9. 11 Avajaananti maam moodhaah maanusheem tanumaashritam;
Param bhaavamajaananto mama bhootamaheshwaram.


9.11. Fools disregard Me, clad in human form, not knowing My higher Being as the great Lord of (all) beings.


10.3 Yo maamajamanaadim cha vetti lokamaheshwaram;
Asammoodhah sa martyeshu sarvapaapaih pramuchyate.


10.3. He who knows Me as unborn and beginningless, as the great Lord (maheshwaram), he, among mortals, is undeluded; he is liberated from all sins.


And then in the 13th chapter He says:

13.17. And undivided, yet He exists as if divided in beings; He is to be known as the supporter of beings; He devours and He generates also.



13.23 Upadrashtaanumantaa cha bhartaa bhoktaa maheshwarah;
Paramaatmeti chaapyukto dehe’smin purushah parah.


13.23. The spirit in the body is called mahesvara, the Great Lord, the spectator, the admonisher, the sustainer, the enjoyer, and also the Paramatma, the highest soul.


Sarvendriyagunaabhaasam sarvendriyavivarjitam;
Asaktam sarvabhricchaiva nirgunam gunabhoktru cha.

15. Shining by the functions of all the senses, yet without the senses; unattached, yet supporting all; devoid of qualities, yet their experiencer,

Anaaditwaan nirgunatwaat paramaatmaayam avyayah;
Shareerastho’pi kaunteya na karoti na lipyate.

32. Being without beginning and devoid of qualities, the Supreme Self, imperishable, though dwelling in the body, O Arjuna, neither acts nor is tainted!

And then in the 18th chapter:

Sarvabhooteshu yenaikam bhaavamavyayameekshate;
Avibhaktam vibhakteshu tajjnaanam viddhi saattwikam.

20. That by which one sees the one indestructible Reality in all beings, not separate in all the separate beings—know thou that knowledge to be Sattwic (pure).

Prithaktwena tu yajjnaanam naanaabhaavaan prithagvidhaan;
Vetti sarveshu bhooteshu tajjnaanam viddhi raajasam.

21. But that knowledge which sees in all beings various entities of distinct kinds as different from one another—know thou that knowledge to be Rajasic (passionate).

Yattu kritsnavadekasmin kaarye saktamahaitukam;
Atattwaarthavadalpam cha tattaamasamudaahritam.

22. But that which clings to one single effect as if it were the whole, without reason, without foundation in Truth, and trivial—that is declared to be Tamasic (dark).


Lord says, my reality is unborn mahesvarah, which is the indwelling soul in all, which appears divided but is ONE, which is param atma, param purusha and nirgunam.

Then he describes three kinds of knowldge. And as per me your kind of knowledge is both Rajasic (about 40 %) and Tamasic (about 60%). My calculations of course. Yours may differ.

Om Namah Vasudevaya namah


What more should one say? I could not thrash you even if I tried. I in you and I in me are same and one. But the results of 'I am this' thoughts are diffrent.


And you know the effect. Some love all. Though they love Shiva as their soul mate or as their very being, but they equally love Krishna and Ranga.

On the other hand, there are some, like Ranga, who spend their life time to try to thrash.

Om Namah Sivayya





Top
#70276 - 12/12/05 07:38 PM Re: Assumption surely [Re: Sudarshan Rangaswamy]
Atanu Banerjee Offline
member
**

Registered: 05/30/04
Posts: 388
********No verse has been skipped by Vaishnavites in providing their proof - it is always interpreting properly. The interpretation always assumes that Brahman is Narayana************

That is correct. Vaishnava interpretation always assume Narayana is supreme. You have said it.



Top
#70277 - 12/13/05 09:53 AM An oral examination of Kashyapa [Re: openSky]
sarabhanga Offline
friend
**

Registered: 08/02/02
Posts: 894
Loc: India
How can the commonly quoted phrase “having black teeth” be applied to kashyapa?

The idea apparently comes from a commentary on the Katyayana Srautasutra [X: 2: 35], although I have been unable to determine any simple derivation from Sanskrit for this particular meaning.

A touchstone was anciently used to test the purity of precious metals, especially gold, and the glittering objects that trace a shining path across the smooth dark expanse of the kaSa are proved to be true.

When the actual form of such a testing device is considered, however, kaSyapa as the “Lord of Touchstone” can surely be described as “having black teeth”!


touchstone



Attachments
60161-touchstone.jpg (292 downloads)

_________________________
Sarabhanga Giri ~ Ayamatma Brahma

Top
#70278 - 12/13/05 02:20 PM Re: vedic literature surely [Re: Sudarshan Rangaswamy]
rajsand Offline
member
****

Registered: 09/08/01
Posts: 302
namo namaH,

Just to settle the dust a bit, could you please comment on the following (from shruti of course):

AUM tat brahma.
AUM tat vaayuH.
AUM tadaatma.
AUM tat satyam.
AUM tat sarvam.
AUM tat purornamaH
antashcarati bhutteshhu guhaayaam vishvamuurtishhu.
tvam yaj~natvam vashhaTkaaratvam indrastvam rudrastvam vishhNustvam prajaapapathiH.
tvam tadaapa aapo jyotiiraso.amR^itam brahma. bhuurbhuvassuvaraom.

an oh, it is chanted regularly, say, during mantrapushhpa in temples.

Could you enlighten the ignorant readers like me by providing the translation of the above? and pointing out whether it anywhere refers to naaraayaNaparam.

Best wishes,
_________________________
aa no bhadraaH kratavo yantu vishvataH
(Let noble thought come to us from entire Universe -- veda)

Rajagopal S. Iyer

Top
#70279 - 12/14/05 11:11 PM Re: vedic literature surely [Re: Sudarshan Rangaswamy]
DurgaDas Offline
initiate
*

Registered: 12/14/05
Posts: 139
Namaste Sudarshana.

I think you know me from the Christian Forums site. I am the same DurgaDas there, and enjoy your posts there. Now, coming to the point - I personally see very little difference betweeen Vishishtadvaita and advaita and let us walk through some of the points.

1. Vishnu as supreme God - say this in whatever way or form you want, advaitins personally dont have any objections. Because there are no standards for comparsion in advaita. If it is Vishnu you want to worship, take your cake. Some advaitins may object that Vishnu is just Saguna Brahman, but I personally hold that Saguna and Nirguna aspects of the Brahman are two sides of the same coin, and hence do not differentitae between them.

2. Material Causalty - both Vishistadvaita and advaita have Brahman as the material cause of the world. Now, the wway we put this on paper is slightly different, with advaita saying - "All this is Brahman", while Vishishtadvita saying "All this is in Brahman and pervaded by Brahman". Technically, I have no objectios to this view as well. It just seems to be one of the logical things beyond human logic - no need to really debate on this issue.

3. Nirguna Brahman - Now the most serious objection from Vaishnavites against advaita is that they dont like their Brahman being called nirguna. And some of the advaitins on these forums have not helped in this matter, by making statements similar to Shunyavada and atheism. Well, let us concede that Nirguna just means beyond gunas comprehensible to man, and there we are.

Advaitins dont object to the Brahman qualified by any number of attributes like love, power, beauty or whatever. We just say that these are not attributes, but rather Brahman itself. Love, Bliss etc are not attributes, but Brahman itself.

This part is viewed by Vaishnavites as some kind of personal insult, because it reduces Brahman to some kind of static energy or a "non being". Personally, I dont see any problem with taking God as a being as well. All I want to say is that God is not a being in the sense of humans, who percieve dualty and hence cannot be considered as a being in the strict sense.

For me, Brahman with attributes or Nirguna Brahman is not a big issue, it is a pure semantics and logic. Just resulting from people having a lot of leisure time to debate.

4. Identity with Brahman: This is another objection against advaita, used by Vishsitadvatins. While Visihistadvaitins themselves concede that the individual soul enjoys equal bliss and knowledge as the Brahman, they still cant accept that the soul has powers of creation, destruction etc.

While advaita itself does not differentiate between the soul and God, it has always remained a puzzle for me, if advaita referred to an absolute identity or something like in Vishistadvaita. Partly because, the teachings of various advaitin teachers like RK, Ramana or Jiddhu remain different in some sense. Infact, if we consider the fact that the soul is beginningless and also endless, there is sure possibility of jivas which exist without percieving identity for ever. Could Visishtadvaita be addressing this category of souls?

Given this fact, my view would be that some souls will end up in a state of eternal separation of identity from the Brahman, while some souls completely merge into the Brahman - validating both advaita and Vishistadvaita. Just my point of view.

5. Mayavada - I personally think this is just a logical device used by advaitins to explain our existance, and I do concede that the world is real. It is hard to come up with a good explanation for avidya given that everything is Brahman, and I beleive mayavada is just a logical explanation and need not address the fundamentals which are beyond human perception.

Sudarshana, what do you think of this? Is it just that advaita and Vishitadvaita are just about the same, with different semantics? Of course, I am not going to consider dvaita in this equation, as such a reconciliation seems impossible with dvaita.


Top
#70280 - 12/14/05 11:35 PM Re: vedic literature surely [Re: Atanu Banerjee]
DurgaDas Offline
initiate
*

Registered: 12/14/05
Posts: 139
Namaste Atanu,

I think it is rather futile to argue a case for Shiva given the strong bias of scripture towards Vaishnavism. Even the great Appaya Dikshita conceded this fact, and marked it with "Nathvam bAdhathe", saying the Na in narayaNa was the crucial blow into establishing his doctrine. Partial quotations do not prove Shaivism in anyway.

For some reason, rishis have given a way to establish the supremacy of Narayaaa in an unambiguos way. Perhaps it is more suitable for Kali Yuga. We have to concede that as God's will, so to speak.

As for adviata's case:

1. I do not see advaita in Bhagavad Gita when I read it with an open mind.

2. Brahmasutras are also clearly dualistic.

3. Upanishads certainly have multiple doctrines in them, and surely has support for advaita.

It has been assumed that the scriptures are perfectly coherent and all of them espouse the same idea. But I disagree with this view. Isn't it possible for different sages to perceive truth in different ways? I am sure all realizations are possible at different stages - dvaitic, vishishtadvatic and advaitic. If this is true, how could we expect our scriptures to convey a uniform doctrine?

While logicians would disagree, ultimately logic has no place in personal experiences of truth. Unfortunately, Hindus are wasting too much time on debating, rather than on self realization. Only practice leads one to truth - not debating or idle talk.

Top
#70281 - 12/15/05 11:05 AM Aditi and the woodcutter [Re: sarabhanga]
sarabhanga Offline
friend
**

Registered: 08/02/02
Posts: 894
Loc: India
Aditi is the infinite dark expanse, and Kashyapa is her Lord and the motivation or compelling force, the unseen alchemist, who drives the action which plays out on her frame, which is the testing ground where souls are proved, i.e. the plane of Existence.

This Kashyapa is the same Dark Lord who holds the reins on Kurukshetra (the field of action), and in his face (etched on his all-engulfing dentition) is seen both the movement of celestial worlds and the testing of Arjuna (“the shining one”).

This Kashyapa is the same Dantin (tusked or elephantine) Ganapati (Lord of the numerous ranks and classes) or Gunapati (Lord of the various qualities), and the same Rudra who cries out for names ~ the discriminating Lord of separation, division, and plurality, and the Lord of limits and boundaries ~ the all achieving Vishvakarma himself, who is the architect of creation.

The happy, boundless, unbroken perfection of Aditi is akin to the virgin forested Earth Mother, whose abundance is inexhaustible. She is entirely free and unattached, without any particular place and thus “destitute”, without any effort or artifice and thus “having nothing to give”.

The creative act occurs deep within the forest, in her most secret interior recess or Kaksha, when skilful artisan Daksha, the axe-wielding, hair-splitting, wood-turning Takshana (carpenter), without notice appears and immediately begins chiselling away. And thus creation is necessarily mortal and inherently destructive, when viewed from the state of original perfection.

Daksha Prajapati is both lurking Kakshapa and brilliant Takshapa.

At the precise moment of deflowering, the virgin maiden disappears, and creation unfolds in the womb of the mother and wife.

The famous image of Dakshina Kali is in truth Takshana Kali, the dark woodcutter who moves on the motionless expanse of auspicious eternity. And here, the vast corpus of Shiva is the original Aditi refigured; and wild Kali, defining reality with her clever cleaver, is the artful Daksha or Kashyapa, the black-toothed spirit-drinking alchemist hermit of old, who conjures a shining manifestation from the secret heart of primeval darkness!

Shiva-Shakti in eternal Maithuna is an equivalent of Nara-Narayana in eternal Samadhi.

Sadashiva, forever the universal ascetic, unmoved and with all Shakti inherent but unexpressed and entirely non-differentiated from his own Self, is an image of Nirguna Brahma. And Naranarayana Krishna is also such an image. And both can only be truly known in Samadhi, when all language fails and normal logic dissolves in the unbounded dimensionless and relationless world of pure Singularity.


Attachments
60193-Taksan_Kali.jpg (319 downloads)

_________________________
Sarabhanga Giri ~ Ayamatma Brahma

Top
#70282 - 12/15/05 11:14 AM Re: Aditi and the woodcutter [Re: sarabhanga]
sarabhanga Offline
friend
**

Registered: 08/02/02
Posts: 894
Loc: India

Taksan Kali

_________________________
Sarabhanga Giri ~ Ayamatma Brahma

Top
#70283 - 12/15/05 05:23 PM Re: Lord Vishnu/Narayana is the Supreme God of the vedic literature [Re: Bhakta of God]
DurgaDas Offline
initiate
*

Registered: 12/14/05
Posts: 139
Quote:

Please note that Lord Shiva is not God.He is a deva or celestial being.No one can prevent you from worship a deva you like,but this does not mean that you must equate every high being with the Lord.





Oh Yeah! Dear - what do you mean by deva? Even Vishnu is mentioned to be a deva.

Quote:


Shiva is a great bhakta of Sriman NarayaNA.I am sure he himself DOES NOT RELISH being considered anywhere near the Supreme Lord.





Oh Yeah!

Quote:


Lord Vishnu and Lord Shiva are not the same entity.A vaishnava is a vaishnava and shaivite is a shavite.





Do you know that a Bhagavata is supposed to consider himself inferior to a worm? Is this a competition?


Top
#70284 - 12/15/05 05:31 PM Re: Amazing [Re: Atanu Banerjee]
DurgaDas Offline
initiate
*

Registered: 12/14/05
Posts: 139
Quote:

*********Vaikunta stands for "not obstructed". The rest of your comments comparing Vishnu and Indra are good imagination - but dont sell.**************

This reply was given by Shri Ranga to Shri Sarbhanga. It is really amazing that how confident one becomes by not knowing anything.

There are atleast a dozen verses on 'Indra Vaikunta' in Rig Veda. And actually, Vishnu is known to laud and sing praises of Indra in Rig Veda.

That Visnu is the Maya Sakti of God, used first for delusion and then for destroying the three bodies and liberating, is obvious to some individualised Chit and not to some other individualised Chits. It is the only grade in ONE ATMA and this grade alone is the universe.


OM OM OM




Dear Atanu,

Even Sri Shankara says that the Vishnu in these contexts do not refer to Narayana, but to the Aditya named Vishnu, which is not Narayana. There are no verses belittling Narayana anywhere in shruti when understood properly - that is how the schools of Vaishnavism have their place.

Top
#70285 - 12/15/05 06:20 PM Re: vedic literature surely [Re: DurgaDas]
Atanu Banerjee Offline
member
**

Registered: 05/30/04
Posts: 388
********I do not see advaita in Bhagavad Gita when I read it with an open mind.***********

Read Gita again and again.

See all in me and me in all, cannot happen by any other means.


*************
Isn't it possible for different sages to perceive truth in different ways?
************

Perceptions do not make up the truth, which is EKO.

*******
ultimately logic has no place in personal experiences of truth
***********

Ill logic has no place. One can try to see the truth through mind and Vak -- that is illogical. Knowing that Lord is beyond mind and Vak, one can meditate on the EKO Atma. That is logic.

**********
I think it is rather futile to argue a case for Shiva given the strong bias of scripture towards Vaishnavism. ***********

It is your thinking. Shiva is beyond param (not what I think but what scriptures say).

Top
#70286 - 12/15/05 06:35 PM Re: Amazing [Re: DurgaDas]
Atanu Banerjee Offline
member
**

Registered: 05/30/04
Posts: 388
Namaskar,

***********
There are no verses belittling Narayana anywhere in shruti when understood properly - that is how the schools of Vaishnavism have their place.
*************

Who said there was? And have I myself belittled Narayana, who is paramatma?

But that does not leave any ground to belittle Shiva who is param parastad.

Top
#70287 - 12/16/05 08:20 AM Re: vedic literature surely [Re: Atanu Banerjee]
DurgaDas Offline
initiate
*

Registered: 12/14/05
Posts: 139
Quote:

********I do not see advaita in Bhagavad Gita when I read it with an open mind.***********

Read Gita again and again.


See all in me and me in all, cannot happen by any other means.






Which verse are you referring here?

I hope you realize that it is subject to interpretation - and there are advaitic and non advaitic interpretations for every verse. The question is in getting convinced which is the consistant philosophy advocated by the Gita.

Though I am an advaitin, I concede that pure advaita is a far fetched interpretation of the Gita. You can get away by explaining away the verses, but you need to read with an open mind for that. If you assume advaita, you can find it in the Gita for sure, but what conclusion does one arrive at if he reads Gita without prior knowledge of Philosophy? Does one come to the conclusion of advaita? I am afraid, I dont.


Take, for instance:

maya tatam idam sarvam
jagad avyakta-murtina
mat-sthani sarva-bhutani
na caham tesv avasthitah ( 9.4)

By Me, in My unmanifested form, this entire universe is pervaded. All beings are in Me, but I am not in them(or abide in them).

There are many other verses that dont look advaitic unless you apply interpolations. I can give you my list if you want. An unbiased reader will come to the conclusion that Krishna is the way and truth, and greater than anything else. Is there an unambiguos verse in the Gita that says Arjuna will become the Brahman - which one? And also, you need to consider the possibility of "part of Brahman" suggested by Vishistadvaita, and "similar to Brahman" suggested by Dvaita, in such cases.

I personally did not feel that advaita was not consistant across the Gita, though you can pick up selective verses showing advaitic content.


Quote:



*************
Isn't it possible for different sages to perceive truth in different ways?
************

Perceptions do not make up the truth, which is EKO.





Different perceptions are certainly possible, that is why we have different gradees of rishis like Raja Rishi, Maha Rishi, Brahma Rishi etc. They are not the same level of jnanis. Each is to be taken seriously and not dismissed as untruth.


Quote:


**********
I think it is rather futile to argue a case for Shiva given the strong bias of scripture towards Vaishnavism. ***********

It is your thinking. Shiva is beyond param (not what I think but what scriptures say).





But this is your imagination. Here we are not talking of truth of Shiva, but rather scriptural references in proving this claim unambiguosly.

There were mainly two works that attempted to prove the supremacy of Shiva - that of Appayya Dikshita and that of Srikanta. Both these works do not stand closer investigation. If you know of any standard work of an ancient authority that defends the supremacy of Shiva, I would be glad to go through it. (There is no point in quoting isolated verses from vedas as mentioned earlier as even Appayya Dikshita did not do that knowing well that falls to contradictions in the scripture)

Of course, I accept Lord Shiva as para tattva, all I said is that there are not very clear scriptural evidences, and no one has produced literature to demonstate this. If you know of any work that does that, I will be glad to read that.

Top
#70288 - 12/16/05 08:57 AM Re: Amazing [Re: Atanu Banerjee]
DurgaDas Offline
initiate
*

Registered: 12/14/05
Posts: 139
Quote:

Namaskar,

***********
There are no verses belittling Narayana anywhere in shruti when understood properly - that is how the schools of Vaishnavism have their place.
*************

Who said there was? And have I myself belittled Narayana, who is paramatma?

But that does not leave any ground to belittle Shiva who is param parastad.




You referred to some verses which said that Indra was praised by Vishnu, but I indicated that even Sri Shankara does not take this Vishnu to be Narayana, but an Aditya named Vishnu.(who is a deva). Even in Bhagavad Gita, Krishna paramatma says that he is Vishnu of the Adityas.

Regarding belittling of Shiva, we have to understand what is meant by belittling.

For us advaitins, there is usually no reason to make comparisons. Because Nirguna Brahman is beyond Vishnu and Shiva, and such names and forms. Even when comparing Saguna Brahman's, Sri Shankara gives the highest ranking to Krishna without ambuguity. In his commentary on 6.47, Sri Shankara explictly states that a Yogi immersed in Krishna is superior to that of Rudra. What have you made out of that? I personally think this Rudra in this context is not Shiva, though some people will disagree with me. But one cannot help observing that even Sri Shankara is more biased towards Krishna than any other diety. So should we really make hue and cry about the view of Vaishnavites?


In Vaishnava Theology, Shiva is either considered an amsa pf Krishna, or as a great Bhakti of Krishna. Since, they are not advaitins, there is room for comparison. They compiled extesnive literature in defence of their philosophy.

Similarly, in pure Shaivism, Vishnu is considered the purusha shakti of Shiva, and not equal to Shiva. Shaivism finds in place in Shaiva Puranas which are not accepted as authorities by vedantins, and as as advaitin you should know that even adviata holds the same view on Shaiva Puranas.

I do not differentaite between Shiva or Vishnu. However, I have no objections in people holding different opinions on this matter. Shiva as a great Bhakta of Vishnu is a great respect shown to Shiva in my opinion. Similarly, viewing Vishnu as the primary energy of Shiva, is also an opinion I respect.

Individual dieites have been higlighted in some schools so that followers may develop a special devotion towards a specific aspect of Brahman. It is very highly effective in Yogic mediattion. However, Vaishnavites and Shaivites loose sight of this goal, and spend more time in praising their dieities over others, and putting down others.

As long as somebody does not call Shiva as a devil or something like that, I am happy with that view. Viewing Shiva as either the Brahman, or as Vishnu or as an amsa of Vishnu or as his great bhakta are equally respectable views on Shiva and no point in imposing our personal beleif on others.

Top
#70289 - 12/16/05 09:25 AM Re: the Supreme God [Re: satay]
sarabhanga Offline
friend
**

Registered: 08/02/02
Posts: 894
Loc: India
Namaste Satay,

Bhagavat as “the adorable one” must be Kala or Saguna Brahma. Bhagavat as “the divine one” may apply to any deity, Kala or Akala, Saguna or Nirguna Brahma. And Bhagavat is “like a dispenser or womb”, which holds good fortune and happiness.

Shiva is “the auspicious one” “in whom all things lie”, especially good fortune and happiness, and may be Kala or Akala, Saguna or Nirguna Brahma. And so, Bhagavat and Shiva are entirely synonymous.

Krishna as “blackness or darkness” may be Kala or Akala, Saguna or Nirguna Brahma. Narayana as “the son of man” must be Kala or Saguna Brahma. Vishnu as the “All-pervader”,“Worker”, or “Preserver” must be Kala or Saguna Brahma. And Krishna as an Avatar of Vishnu must also be Kala or Saguna Brahma. Krishnau (Krishna and Arjuna as one) or Naranarayana, however, may be Akala or Nirguna Brahma.

Ishvara as “God” may apply to any deity, Kala or Akala, Saguna or Nirguna Brahma. Ishvara as Shiva or Rudra may be Kala or Akala, Saguna or Nirguna Brahma. Ishvara as “able to do” or “capable of action” must be Kala or Saguna Brahma. Ishvara as the master, lord, prince, king, or husband, implies duality and must also be Kala or Saguna Brahma. And Ishvara as “the Supreme Being”, the supreme soul or Atman, is Akala or Nirguna Brahma.

The Shaiva Advaitin knows Shiva as the Akala Bhagavat Nirguna Brahma, loosely called Ishvara. The Dasanami Sannyasin knows Narayana as the Kala Bhagavat Saguna Brahma, properly called Ishvara. And my own Gurus know the personal Ishvara as Gurudeva Datta, who is but an Avatar or Rudra of Shiva.

Impersonal Nirguna Brahma is Rudra or Shiva, the Mahadeva; whereas the personal Saguna Brahma is both Narayana and Dattatreya (i.e. Vishnu), with Narayana’s duality and Dattatreya’s trinity resolved to pure Advaita (the ultimate Yoga of Nirguna Brahma) in Rudra or Shiva alone.

Hara is Nirguna Brahma; and Hari is Saguna Brahma.
_________________________
Sarabhanga Giri ~ Ayamatma Brahma

Top
#70290 - 12/16/05 12:06 PM Re: vedic literature surely [Re: Atanu Banerjee]
ELEGANTLY WASTED Offline
initiate
***

Registered: 09/14/04
Posts: 107
Quote:

See all in me and me in all




That's not advaita. He didn't say, "See all as me, and me as all." Then you can establish identity. He says, "See me in all." So dualism is maintained between Himself and the world which is in Him.

Top
#70291 - 12/16/05 04:36 PM Re: Lord Vishnu/Narayana is the Supreme God of the vedic literature [Re: DurgaDas]
Bhakta of God Offline
member
**

Registered: 10/25/04
Posts: 330
Loc: Italy,Europe
Namaste DurgaDas.
This is not competition.I just did mean that worship God and worship a celestial being aren't the same thing!
_________________________
My e-mail is lingabhakta@yahoo.it Feel free to e-mail me!

Top
#70292 - 12/16/05 05:10 PM Re: Amazing [Re: DurgaDas]
Atanu Banerjee Offline
member
**

Registered: 05/30/04
Posts: 388
******For us advaitins, there is usually no reason to make comparisons. Because Nirguna Brahman is beyond Vishnu and Shiva, and such names and forms.**********

After reading the above, I am surprised. A Brahma knower does not admit a second beside Brahman, which is Self (Atma, from which the I awareness in you springs), but on one hand you speak of advaita and nirguna Brahman and on the other hand you speak of many dieties -- exactly like those who create competition among dieties. These competitions are in the mind which at immature stage picks up a hero who can bash others.

All these posts are like that only. When I meditate on AUM and beyond, I know what Shivam is. It is not the diety with trishula or it is not Vishnu with gada. But I know that this indescribale being is the source of Pragnya of rhe third state (who is the Lord of all). And this indescribable being is called shivo -- the benign and auspicious (Mandyuka Upanishad).


In another post you have cited:

The blessed Lord said:

adityanam aham vishnur
jyotisham ravir amsuman
maricir marutam asmi
nakshatranam aham sasi

One must know what Aham is. Yes, the worshippable dieties are creation of one Aham. But there is a substratum of Aham.

Aham is that which has sphurana from Pragnya, but the Turiya is beyond Pragnya.

This Self is Brahman. Ayamatma brahma. Shivo Shivo.

Top
#70293 - 12/16/05 05:28 PM Re: Lord Vishnu/Narayana is the Supreme God of the vedic literature [Re: DurgaDas]
Atanu Banerjee Offline
member
**

Registered: 05/30/04
Posts: 388
Mahanarayana Upanishad

ekavi.nsho.anuvaakaH .

iishaanaH sarvavidyaanaamiishvaraH sarvabhuutaanaaM
brahmaadhipatirbrahmaNo.adhipatirbrahmaa shivo me astu sadaashivom.h


XXI-1: May the Supreme Lord who is the ruler of all knowledge, controller of all created beings, the preserver of the Vedas and the one overlord of Hiranyagarbha, be auspicious to me. I am the Sadasiva described thus and denoted by Pranava.


Instead of citing voluminous stories, if someone could come up with another Param Prastad, the equality-inequality debate may continue.

Svet. U.

6.7 tamiishvaraaNaaM paramaM maheshvara.n
ta.n devataanaaM parama.n cha daivatam.h .
patiM patiinaaM paramaM parastaad.h\-
vidaama devaM bhuvaneshamiiDyam.h .. 7..


6.7 WE WILL KNOW THIS MIGHTIEST ONE WHO IS FAR ABOVE ALL THE MIGHTY – THIS SUMMIT OF THE GODS AND THEIR GODHEAD, KING OF KINGS AND LORD OF LORDS, WHO TOWERETH HIGH ABOVE ALL SUMMIT AND GREATNESSES. LET US LEARN OF GOD FOR HE IS THIS UNIVERSES' MASTER AND ALL SHALL ADORE HIM.


Top
#70294 - 12/16/05 06:25 PM Re: vedic literature surely [Re: Atanu Banerjee]
Sudarshan Rangaswamy Offline
member
**

Registered: 09/02/05
Posts: 341
Namaskar Atanu,

Let us cool down a bit. Probably you have no need to show any anger just because we have different beleifs. You can expect no Vaishnavite to have a beleif in advaita, simply because our schools do not preach that.


Quote:


Not Really. But there is one difference. When scriptures say "Man is in the image of God", some take image of man as that image and impose that on God (two

legs and two hands etc. occupying a limited space etc.). You are more inclined to this since you (led by preceptors) believe that Purusha means man.

Whereas, God is unlimited and so the reality of man (nara) must also be unlimited (narayana). My preceptors taught that Purusha means one who is Purva Ushas.

I believe that. Shape and name and form have no role here. Scriptures say that knowing this meditate. So, I am meditating. But like you I am not above

preferences. Often I get involved foolishly in puerile discussions -- and try to thrash as you say below.





I do not beleive in shape and form. Do you think that I beleive Lord Vishnu to be having a shape? How is that compatible with his "all pervasiveness"? Vishnu is simply beleived to be everything, the indweller of all - the Brahman.

Since we are not advatins, anything other than Brahman( Vishnu) cannot be equal to Vishnu in every aspect. We beleive Shiva to be sarvanja ( all knowing), but equating Shiva with Vishnu is inadmissible in any school of Vaishnavism. It is narrow minded of you think that all discussions are puerile and for thrashing. Do you expect me to subscribe to advaita to be considered as a "good fellow"? Perhaps you might praise me if I say that Lord Vishnu and Lord Shiva are one, and I am also Vishnu? I consider this blasphemy - and would go against the teaching of my Acharya and the vedas.

Advaitins may think that all is One - Jesus, Allah, Buddha, Krishna. We dont. We simply dont, just for making others happy.



Quote:


I thought you were discussing Narayana? How Advaita came in?

You know this is called sticking to primitive values. You are conditioned to react in two ways. Thrash Shiva (though acting polite) and thrash advaita.





Oh My dear, advaita equates Shiva and Vishnu solely because of advaitic beleif, and not because it has scriptural validity. Why dont you read the works of your own Shankaracharya--he places Vishnu above Shiva in Saguna form of Brahman. Is that not enough evidence for you?


I never thrashed Shiva, and I request you show my post that thrashed Shiva. I called Shiva an amsa of Vishnu, which is just the beleif of my school. If you have objections, you should examine the scriptural and logical basis on which my school holds this position, and refute it, and not indulge in slandering my name here. ( that is indecent in a debate)

Quote:


What more should one say? I could not thrash you even if I tried. I in you and I in me are same and one. But the results of 'I am this' thoughts are

diffrent.


And you know the effect. Some love all. Though they love Shiva as their soul mate or as their very being, but they equally love Krishna and Ranga.

On the other hand, there are some, like Ranga, who spend their life time to try to thrash.





How good you are trying to play the nice guy. I never started this thread, and I came into the discussion very late, only when I saw some plain unsubstantiated statements like this.

Quote:


All the Gods and Goddesses are one!





I do not hate anyone. That is very stupid of you to think like that. That does not mean I accept advaita or Shaivism - both of them are not vedic in my opinion. Even on this very thread, we saw some advaitins claiming Shunyavada for advaita. And that is not the vedic religion - that is Buddhism in disguise.

Now that you and I are one, wasn't it Atanu himself who thrashed Shiva and advaita now?
_________________________
SrImAn venkatanAthAryaH kavitArkika kesarI | vedAntAcArya-varyo me sannidhattAm sadA hRdi ||

Top
#70295 - 12/16/05 06:29 PM Re: vedic literature surely [Re: DurgaDas]
Sudarshan Rangaswamy Offline
member
**

Registered: 09/02/05
Posts: 341
Namaste DurgaDas,

Quote:


1. Vishnu as supreme God - say this in whatever way or form you want, advaitins personally dont have any objections. Because there are no standards for comparsion in advaita. If it is Vishnu you want to worship, take your cake. Some advaitins may object that Vishnu is just Saguna Brahman, but I personally hold that Saguna and Nirguna aspects of the Brahman are two sides of the same coin, and hence do not differentitae between them.





OK.

Quote:


2. Material Causalty - both Vishistadvaita and advaita have Brahman as the material cause of the world. Now, the wway we put this on paper is slightly different, with advaita saying - "All this is Brahman", while Vishishtadvita saying "All this is in Brahman and pervaded by Brahman". Technically, I have no objectios to this view as well. It just seems to be one of the logical things beyond human logic - no need to really debate on this issue.





OK


Quote:


3. Nirguna Brahman - Now the most serious objection from Vaishnavites against advaita is that they dont like their Brahman being called nirguna. And some of the advaitins on these forums have not helped in this matter, by making statements similar to Shunyavada and atheism. Well, let us concede that Nirguna just means beyond gunas comprehensible to man, and there we are.

Advaitins dont object to the Brahman qualified by any number of attributes like love, power, beauty or whatever. We just say that these are not attributes, but rather Brahman itself. Love, Bliss etc are not attributes, but Brahman itself.

This part is viewed by Vaishnavites as some kind of personal insult, because it reduces Brahman to some kind of static energy or a "non being". Personally, I dont see any problem with taking God as a being as well. All I want to say is that God is not a being in the sense of humans, who percieve dualty and hence cannot be considered as a being in the strict sense.

For me, Brahman with attributes or Nirguna Brahman is not a big issue, it is a pure semantics and logic. Just resulting from people having a lot of leisure time to debate.





Hmm, OK!

Quote:


4. Identity with Brahman: This is another objection against advaita, used by Vishsitadvatins. While Visihistadvaitins themselves concede that the individual soul enjoys equal bliss and knowledge as the Brahman, they still cant accept that the soul has powers of creation, destruction etc.

While advaita itself does not differentiate between the soul and God, it has always remained a puzzle for me, if advaita referred to an absolute identity or something like in Vishistadvaita. Partly because, the teachings of various advaitin teachers like RK, Ramana or Jiddhu remain different in some sense. Infact, if we consider the fact that the soul is beginningless and also endless, there is sure possibility of jivas which exist without percieving identity for ever. Could Visishtadvaita be addressing this category of souls?

Given this fact, my view would be that some souls will end up in a state of eternal separation of identity from the Brahman, while some souls completely merge into the Brahman - validating both advaita and Vishistadvaita. Just my point of view.





Hmm, it does not make any sense whatsoever to think that some jIvas get merged into the Brahman and some jIvas would remain separate for ever. Brahma Sutras are against this "merging" anyway.

Quote:


5. Mayavada - I personally think this is just a logical device used by advaitins to explain our existance, and I do concede that the world is real. It is hard to come up with a good explanation for avidya given that everything is Brahman, and I beleive mayavada is just a logical explanation and need not address the fundamentals which are beyond human perception





OK - do you mean to equate this maya with Bhagavan's maya? But we do not beleive our existance is not real. Without mayavada, advaita will crash because you no longer can explain non dualty.


Quote:


Sudarshana, what do you think of this? Is it just that advaita and Vishitadvaita are just about the same, with different semantics?





Possible, as long as individual soul is accepted as real and not illusory - I think they can reconcile other conflciting doctrines. If not, I dont see any chance of integrating these systems. You have to accept jIva and Isvara as indpendent principles, failing which advaita and Vishistadvaita cannot go together.

If you refer to the BSB of Shankara, you can see how much he struggles in concluding that jIva is illusory, by quibbling of words.(4th chap) Badarayana is very clear about this aspect - the individual soul is real in all levels.( whether it is part of Brahman or similar to the Brahman is not within my ability to judge)
_________________________
SrImAn venkatanAthAryaH kavitArkika kesarI | vedAntAcArya-varyo me sannidhattAm sadA hRdi ||

Top
#70296 - 12/16/05 06:41 PM Re: Lord Vishnu/Narayana is the Supreme God of the vedic literature [Re: Atanu Banerjee]
Sudarshan Rangaswamy Offline
member
**

Registered: 09/02/05
Posts: 341
Quote:

Mahanarayana Upanishad

ekavi.nsho.anuvaakaH .

iishaanaH sarvavidyaanaamiishvaraH sarvabhuutaanaaM
brahmaadhipatirbrahmaNo.adhipatirbrahmaa shivo me astu sadaashivom.h


XXI-1: May the Supreme Lord who is the ruler of all knowledge, controller of all created beings, the preserver of the Vedas and the one overlord of Hiranyagarbha, be auspicious to me. I am the Sadasiva described thus and denoted by Pranava.


Instead of citing voluminous stories, if someone could come up with another Param Prastad, the equality-inequality debate may continue.

Svet. U.

6.7 tamiishvaraaNaaM paramaM maheshvara.n
ta.n devataanaaM parama.n cha daivatam.h .
patiM patiinaaM paramaM parastaad.h\-
vidaama devaM bhuvaneshamiiDyam.h .. 7..


6.7 WE WILL KNOW THIS MIGHTIEST ONE WHO IS FAR ABOVE ALL THE MIGHTY – THIS SUMMIT OF THE GODS AND THEIR GODHEAD, KING OF KINGS AND LORD OF LORDS, WHO TOWERETH HIGH ABOVE ALL SUMMIT AND GREATNESSES. LET US LEARN OF GOD FOR HE IS THIS UNIVERSES' MASTER AND ALL SHALL ADORE HIM.






I think I already explained this. Just because you find words like Shiva or Maheshvara or even Shiva do not mean, they refer to deval called Shiva. These are all synonyms of Vishnu as you can find in the Vishnu Sahasranama. The primary name used for Brahman in the vedas, is Narayana and that is what Brahman is. Narayana, as explained earlier cannot be name of deva Shiva due to rules in Panini's grammer and you seem to completely ignore all points I made earlier. There are other powerful irrefutable arguments.
_________________________
SrImAn venkatanAthAryaH kavitArkika kesarI | vedAntAcArya-varyo me sannidhattAm sadA hRdi ||

Top
#70297 - 12/16/05 08:17 PM Re: vedic literature surely [Re: Sudarshan Rangaswamy]
DurgaDas Offline
initiate
*

Registered: 12/14/05
Posts: 139
Dear Sudarshan,

Thank you for the response.

Quote:


Hmm, it does not make any sense whatsoever to think that some jIvas get merged into the Brahman and some jIvas would remain separate for ever. Brahma Sutras are against this "merging" anyway.





Yes, indeed, the Brahma Sutras and even the Gita in my opinion do not support this "merging" unambiguosly. But as I said earlier, I do not necessarily beleive that advaitic interpretations of all these texts are valid. Advaita is a very complex philosophy and is logically very hard to defend - it starts with premises beyond human understanding . And I do not beleive that advaita is false just because the Brahma Sutras do not support it. I concede that Brahma Sutras are not advaitic - but I do not consider Brahma Sutras as the final representation of the truth. I think the Upanishads have a higher degree of truth in them -and that is where you find advaita. While it is possible to interpret the advaitic verses in a dualistic way, I take the advaitic part of it only.

My personal view is - the Upanishads, the Brahmasutras and Bhagavad Gita represent the stages of realization in different planes of Yoga. They need not be consistant that way. All vedantins assumed that scripture was completely coherent and went to great lengths to interpret every piece of scripture to his own doctrine. And any unbiased reader can observe that interpretations are often far fetched in all systems of thought. I do beleive that Brahman alone is the truth and the only truth. Other philosophies have their place at lower levels of Yogic realization, and I do not consider any of them wrong. And hence respect all systems of thought.





Quote:


OK - do you mean to equate this maya with Bhagavan's maya? But we do not beleive our existance is not real. Without mayavada, advaita will crash because you no longer can explain non dualty.





As I said, I do not accept this mayavada - it is only an explanation and only a theological point used to defend advaita, nothing more. The term maya has been used by Sri Shankara very sparingly.

Quote:


Possible, as long as individual soul is accepted as real and not illusory - I think they can reconcile other conflciting doctrines. If not, I dont see any chance of integrating these systems. You have to accept jIva and Isvara as indpendent principles, failing which advaita and Vishistadvaita cannot go together.





I am glad you accepted so much. Hope other Vaishnavites will atleast concede so much validity for advaita and not resort to abuse at every sight of the term advaita. That is very sickening because most people do so just because their preceptors did so, and most of them resorting to such abuse have no real knowledge of advaita as well. I strongly beleive that people who opposed advaita were enlightened people and just fulfilled earthly missions for establishing certain philosophical systems and the dictates of the hour and need.

Quote:


If you refer to the BSB of Shankara, you can see how much he struggles in concluding that jIva is illusory, by quibbling of words.(4th chap) Badarayana is very clear about this aspect - the individual soul is real in all levels.( whether it is part of Brahman or similar to the Brahman is not within my ability to judge)





Agreed. I admit of the possibility that jeeva could be real, and you can even see Sri Shankara admitting to this possibility in the BSB.( will get the exact quote later). However, I do not see the need for a jeeva to be eternally separate from Brahman. Swami Vivekanda says that it is the decision of Isvara, whehther a particular soul retains individuality or merges into the absolute.

Please do not criticize advaita just because of its doctrines. Advaita is a philosophical system especially moulded for survival in debates when it was propounded, and it is not necessary that every doctrine advocated by advaita was infact accepted by Sri Shankara. Certain axioms were certainly proposed keeping in mind the challenge of rival schools and the need to making the system bullet proof. And this gave rise to a very complex system, which after Sri Shankara, others could not fully understand or defend very accurately. Sri Shankara, who was fully enlightened alone had the capability to fully defend the charges of rival schools.

Advaita is not without a proper defence, though I will admit that it does have logical inconsistancies and not properly defendable because it is very complex and also it goes beyond human logic. How could the Oneness be expressed in words and human logic?

Top
#70298 - 12/17/05 07:08 AM Re: Amazing [Re: Atanu Banerjee]
DurgaDas Offline
initiate
*

Registered: 12/14/05
Posts: 139
Quote:

******For us advaitins, there is usually no reason to make comparisons. Because Nirguna Brahman is beyond Vishnu and Shiva, and such names and forms.**********

After reading the above, I am surprised. A Brahma knower does not admit a second beside Brahman, which is Self (Atma, from which the I awareness in you springs), but on one hand you speak of advaita and nirguna Brahman and on the other hand you speak of many dieties -- exactly like those who create competition among dieties. These competitions are in the mind which at immature stage picks up a hero who can bash others.

All these posts are like that only. When I meditate on AUM and beyond, I know what Shivam is. It is not the diety with trishula or it is not Vishnu with gada. But I know that this indescribale being is the source of Pragnya of rhe third state (who is the Lord of all). And this indescribable being is called shivo -- the benign and auspicious (Mandyuka Upanishad).


In another post you have cited:

The blessed Lord said:

adityanam aham vishnur
jyotisham ravir amsuman
maricir marutam asmi
nakshatranam aham sasi

One must know what Aham is. Yes, the worshippable dieties are creation of one Aham. But there is a substratum of Aham.

Aham is that which has sphurana from Pragnya, but the Turiya is beyond Pragnya.

This Self is Brahman. Ayamatma brahma. Shivo Shivo.




Namaskar Atanuji,

Yeah, all comparisons are null and void in the paramartika dasa.

In Vyavaharika dasa, there is still room in advaita for comparisons between dieites, personal God, grace of God etc. We could consider that since non advaitic philosophies are valid in the Vyavaharika sense - their competitive arguments are valid within their frame of reference, and certainly not against advaita. I remember reading a sarcastic comment by Appayya Dikshita that he was really not bothered by the dvaitin arguements against advaita because all this was just Vyavaharika!!

Since we cannot mediatate or worship the Nirguna Brahman, all of us have to go through the Saguna Brahman only. Are all Saguna Brahman like Vishnu, Shiva, Ganesha, Devi the same? Sri Shankara does not feel so, as evident in his Gita Bhasya. He prefers Vishnu in the form of Krishna over all overs, as his object of meditation.

But I would like to make one clarification here. Though Sri Shankara holds Vishnu as apprently higher to Shiva, certainly it was not a comparison between the God with the Sudarshana and the God with the trident.

Vishnu simply means the omnipresent aspect of the Saguna Brahman. Shiva represents the aspect of auspiciousness of the Saguna Brahman. Sri Shankara holds the opinion that the former(ananta or the infinite aspect) is a superior object of contemplation.

Top
#70299 - 12/17/05 07:08 AM Re: Amazing [Re: Atanu Banerjee]
DurgaDas Offline
initiate
*

Registered: 12/14/05
Posts: 139
Quote:

******For us advaitins, there is usually no reason to make comparisons. Because Nirguna Brahman is beyond Vishnu and Shiva, and such names and forms.**********

After reading the above, I am surprised. A Brahma knower does not admit a second beside Brahman, which is Self (Atma, from which the I awareness in you springs), but on one hand you speak of advaita and nirguna Brahman and on the other hand you speak of many dieties -- exactly like those who create competition among dieties. These competitions are in the mind which at immature stage picks up a hero who can bash others.

All these posts are like that only. When I meditate on AUM and beyond, I know what Shivam is. It is not the diety with trishula or it is not Vishnu with gada. But I know that this indescribale being is the source of Pragnya of rhe third state (who is the Lord of all). And this indescribable being is called shivo -- the benign and auspicious (Mandyuka Upanishad).


In another post you have cited:

The blessed Lord said:

adityanam aham vishnur
jyotisham ravir amsuman
maricir marutam asmi
nakshatranam aham sasi

One must know what Aham is. Yes, the worshippable dieties are creation of one Aham. But there is a substratum of Aham.

Aham is that which has sphurana from Pragnya, but the Turiya is beyond Pragnya.

This Self is Brahman. Ayamatma brahma. Shivo Shivo.




Namaskar Atanuji,

Yeah, all comparisons are null and void in the paramartika dasa.

In Vyavaharika dasa, there is still room in advaita for comparisons between dieites, personal God, grace of God etc. We could consider that since non advaitic philosophies are valid in the Vyavaharika sense - their competitive arguments are valid within their frame of reference, and certainly not against advaita. I remember reading a sarcastic comment by Appayya Dikshita that he was really not bothered by the dvaitin arguements against advaita because all this was just Vyavaharika!!

Since we cannot mediatate or worship the Nirguna Brahman, all of us have to go through the Saguna Brahman only. Are all Saguna Brahman like Vishnu, Shiva, Ganesha, Devi the same? Sri Shankara does not feel so, as evident in his Gita Bhasya. He prefers Vishnu in the form of Krishna over all overs, as his object of meditation.

But I would like to make one clarification here. Though Sri Shankara holds Vishnu as apprently higher to Shiva, certainly it was not a comparison between the God with the Sudarshana and the God with the trident.

Vishnu simply means the omnipresent aspect of the Saguna Brahman. Shiva represents the aspect of auspiciousness of the Saguna Brahman. Sri Shankara holds the opinion that the former(ananta or the infinite aspect) is a superior object of contemplation.

Top
#70300 - 12/17/05 07:08 AM Re: Amazing [Re: Atanu Banerjee]
DurgaDas Offline
initiate
*

Registered: 12/14/05
Posts: 139
Quote:

******For us advaitins, there is usually no reason to make comparisons. Because Nirguna Brahman is beyond Vishnu and Shiva, and such names and forms.**********

After reading the above, I am surprised. A Brahma knower does not admit a second beside Brahman, which is Self (Atma, from which the I awareness in you springs), but on one hand you speak of advaita and nirguna Brahman and on the other hand you speak of many dieties -- exactly like those who create competition among dieties. These competitions are in the mind which at immature stage picks up a hero who can bash others.

All these posts are like that only. When I meditate on AUM and beyond, I know what Shivam is. It is not the diety with trishula or it is not Vishnu with gada. But I know that this indescribale being is the source of Pragnya of rhe third state (who is the Lord of all). And this indescribable being is called shivo -- the benign and auspicious (Mandyuka Upanishad).


In another post you have cited:

The blessed Lord said:

adityanam aham vishnur
jyotisham ravir amsuman
maricir marutam asmi
nakshatranam aham sasi

One must know what Aham is. Yes, the worshippable dieties are creation of one Aham. But there is a substratum of Aham.

Aham is that which has sphurana from Pragnya, but the Turiya is beyond Pragnya.

This Self is Brahman. Ayamatma brahma. Shivo Shivo.




Namaskar Atanuji,

Yeah, all comparisons are null and void in the paramartika dasa.

In Vyavaharika dasa, there is still room in advaita for comparisons between dieites, personal God, grace of God etc. We could consider that since non advaitic philosophies are valid in the Vyavaharika sense - their competitive arguments are valid within their frame of reference, and certainly not against advaita. I remember reading a sarcastic comment by Appayya Dikshita that he was really not bothered by the dvaitin arguements against advaita because all this was just Vyavaharika!!

Since we cannot mediatate or worship the Nirguna Brahman, all of us have to go through the Saguna Brahman only. Are all Saguna Brahman like Vishnu, Shiva, Ganesha, Devi the same? Sri Shankara does not feel so, as evident in his Gita Bhasya. He prefers Vishnu in the form of Krishna over all overs, as his object of meditation.

But I would like to make one clarification here. Though Sri Shankara holds Vishnu as apprently higher to Shiva, certainly it was not a comparison between the God with the Sudarshana and the God with the trident.

Vishnu simply means the omnipresent aspect of the Saguna Brahman. Shiva represents the aspect of auspiciousness of the Saguna Brahman. Sri Shankara holds the opinion that the former(ananta or the infinite aspect) is a superior object of contemplation.

Top
#70301 - 12/17/05 08:14 AM Re: vedic literature surely [Re: Sudarshan Rangaswamy]
sarabhanga Offline
friend
**

Registered: 08/02/02
Posts: 894
Loc: India
Namaste Sudarshan,

Quote:

All the verses you have quoted use the common synonyms of Shiva … Shiva, Hara, Rudra etc are common names of Shiva



Shiva is actually a synonym of Rudra!

Quote:

common names of Shiva … are by no means applicable only to Shiva, but also to Vishnu … all other references to Shiva point to Vishnu only and not to Shiva … All names of Shiva are easily applicable to Vishnu



If the Yajurveda’s Shatarudriya is actually a hymn to Narayana-Vishnu, then the following impressions perhaps require some explanation:

“Reverence Narayana to thy wrath … reverence to thy violent weapon … to the lord of armies which wound … to the lord of thieves, to the robber … to the cheater, to the deceiver, to the lord of pilferers … to the lord of robbers … to the murderous, to the lord of stealers … to the lord of plunderers … to you who discharge … to you the hosts which wound … to the rogues, and to you the lord of rogues, to you who are ill-formed … to the last-born … to him who exists in punishment … to the assailant … to the fierce and the terrible, to him who kills in front, and who kills from afar … do not crush, do not destroy these [our] offspring, or these cattle”


The Shatarudriya is the precursor of the Mahabharata’s 1000 names of Shiva, and all other Sahasranamavalis have been composed in imitation of these hymns to Rudra-Shiva.

Quote:

the word Narayana, by the grammatical rules of Panini (due to NakarAnta in nArAyaNa) can refer only to Vishnu as it is not a common name, but a specific name. Hence, nArAyaNa can refer only to Vishnu and never Shiva.



Impersonal Nirguna Brahma is Akala and “without an epithet”; whereas Personal Saguna Brahma is Kala and “proper for worship (or naming)”.

Narayana is certainly a patronymic proper noun or personal name (and thus quite appropriate for naming Saguna Brahma or Vishnu); and Shiva is certainly only a vague descriptive attribute (and thus perfect for tentatively naming the unnameable).
_________________________
Sarabhanga Giri ~ Ayamatma Brahma

Top
#70302 - 12/17/05 09:17 AM Re: vedic literature surely [Re: Sudarshan Rangaswamy]
sarabhanga Offline
friend
**

Registered: 08/02/02
Posts: 894
Loc: India
Quote:

you do not realize that Rudra is not a specific name of Shiva - it has a specific meaning "one who causes others to shed tear", and has other meanings, it has no affinity to Shiva in particular.



rudra means “crying, howling, roaring, dreadful, terrific, terrible, or horrible”; or perhaps “red, shining, or glittering” (from rud or rudh); or perhaps “strong, or having or bestowing strength or power” (from rud = vRd or vRdh); or perhaps “driving away evil” or “running about and roaring” (from ru + dra), and thus “praiseworthy” or “a worshipper”.

The term Rudra has been applied in the Vedas to the Ashvins, Agni, Indra, Mitra, and to Varuna.

Rudra is the “Roarer or Howler”, the god of tempests, and the father and ruler of the Rudras and Maruts. In the Veda he is closely connected with Indra and still more with Agni, the god of fire, which, as a destroying agent, rages and crackles like the roaring storm, and also with Kala or Time the all-consumer, with whom he is afterwards identified.

Though generally represented as a destroying deity, whose terrible shafts bring death or disease on men and cattle, he has also the epithet Shiva (“benevolent” or “auspicious”), and is supposed to possess healing powers from his chasing away vapours and purifying the atmosphere.

In the later mythology the word Shiva, which does not occur as a proper name in the Veda, was employed, first as an euphemistic epithet and then as a real name for Rudra, who lost his special connection with storms and developed into a form of the disintegrating and reintegrating principle.

A new class of beings, described as eleven (or thirty-three) in number, though still called Rudras, took the place of the original Rudras or Maruts, and these later Rudras are sometimes regarded as inferior manifestations of Shiva, and most of their names, which are variously given in the different Puranas, are also names of Shiva.

Moreover, according to the Vishnu Purana, Rudra is one of the eight forms of Shiva.
_________________________
Sarabhanga Giri ~ Ayamatma Brahma

Top
#70303 - 12/17/05 03:19 PM Re: vedic literature surely [Re: sarabhanga]
Atanu Banerjee Offline
member
**

Registered: 05/30/04
Posts: 388
Namaskar Sarabhanga Ji

*****************
Though generally represented as a destroying deity, whose terrible shafts bring death or disease on men and cattle, he has also the epithet Shiva (“benevolent” or “auspicious”), and is supposed to possess healing powers from his chasing away vapours and purifying the atmosphere.
*****************

RV Book 1 HYMN XLIII. Rudra.

1 WHAT shall we sing to Rudra, strong, most bounteous, excellently wise, That shall be dearest to his heart?
2 That Aditi may grant the grace of Rudra to our folk, our kine, Our cattle and our progeny;
3 That Mitra and that Varuna, that Rudra may remember us, Yea, all the Gods with one accord.
4 To Rudra Lord of sacrifice, of hymns and balmy medicines, We pray for joy and health and strength.
5 He shines in splendour like the Sun, refulgent as bright gold is he, The good, the best among the Gods.



The above verses indicate that in Rig itself, Rudra is actually the beneficient though apparently (or truly) fierce. The unbeatable One. The Good. The best.

This verse also indicates that Aditi, Mitra, Varuna and all Gods shower their grace when one sings praises of Rudra.

In Yajur Veda also, Rudra is repeatedly prayed to for revealing his auspicious benevolent form only, and approach the devotee, discarding his fierce aramaments on the Param Briksha that He is.


Om Namah Sivayya

Top
#70304 - 12/17/05 03:39 PM Re: vedic literature surely [Re: Sudarshan Rangaswamy]
Atanu Banerjee Offline
member
**

Registered: 05/30/04
Posts: 388
No, dear Sudarshan, I was never angry or anything. I just felt that your use of word thrashing was very amusing. God loving ones should not have a plan to thrash (what that means I do not know).

But no anger. Only love. Since I know that today you think yourself as a different individuality and as "I am Sudarshana". Actually you (in this mode of knowledge) is just infinitely small portion of Agnivaisvanaro (which is just a state of Lord).


*******Now that you and I are one, wasn't it Atanu himself who thrashed Shiva and advaita now?**********


No. I and you are not one. I-I is ONE. Have patience.

Atma does not thrash Atma. Ego thrashes ego. Ego is not bad; it is just a sense of I localized within a body and verbalized -- Aham-kara. But if you searched for this I, eternally, you would not find it.

With Love.

Top
#70305 - 12/17/05 03:44 PM Re: On the Other Hand [Re: Sudarshan Rangaswamy]
Atanu Banerjee Offline
member
**

Registered: 05/30/04
Posts: 388
********Now that you and I are one, wasn't it Atanu himself who thrashed Shiva and advaita now? **********

On the other hand, since I-I is One you thrashed yourself trying to thrash the other.

Top
#70306 - 12/17/05 04:04 PM Re: Oh sure [Re: Sudarshan Rangaswamy]
Atanu Banerjee Offline
member
**

Registered: 05/30/04
Posts: 388
*******
I think I already explained this. Just because you find words like Shiva or Maheshvara or even Shiva do not mean, they refer to deval called Shiva. These are all synonyms of Vishnu as you can find in the Vishnu Sahasranama. The primary name used for Brahman in the vedas, is Narayana and that is what Brahman is. Narayana, as explained earlier cannot be name of deva Shiva due to rules in Panini's grammer and you seem to completely ignore all points I made earlier. There are other powerful irrefutable arguments.
*********

What seems irrefutable to you looks foolish to me.

Visnu Sahasranama was written after Gautama, whereas Vedas are eternal. In Vedas, Shiva is already known as Visvarupa, Shipivista and many other synonyms of Vishnu, Indra, Soma, and others. Narayana is not there in Samhita but appears in Uttara Anuvukas as Param Atma. In many Upanishads Nrayanan is truly Param Brahman and Pram Atma. But the Supreme seer, even in these Upanishads is Rudra.

Without the seer there is no Narayana.


Mahanarayana Upanishad

ekavi.nsho.anuvaakaH .

iishaanaH sarvavidyaanaamiishvaraH sarvabhuutaanaaM
brahmaadhipatirbrahmaNo.adhipatirbrahmaa shivo me astu sadaashivom.h


XXI-1: May the Supreme Lord who is the ruler of all knowledge, controller of all created beings, the preserver of the Vedas and the one overlord of Hiranyagarbha, be auspicious to me. I am the Sadasiva described thus and denoted by Pranava.


Svet. U.

6.7 tamiishvaraaNaaM paramaM maheshvara.n
ta.n devataanaaM parama.n cha daivatam.h .
patiM patiinaaM paramaM parastaad.h\-
vidaama devaM bhuvaneshamiiDyam.h .. 7..


6.7 WE WILL KNOW THIS MIGHTIEST ONE WHO IS FAR ABOVE ALL THE MIGHTY – THIS SUMMIT OF THE GODS AND THEIR GODHEAD, KING OF KINGS AND LORD OF LORDS, WHO TOWERETH HIGH ABOVE ALL SUMMIT AND GREATNESSES. LET US LEARN OF GOD FOR HE IS THIS UNIVERSES' MASTER AND ALL SHALL ADORE HIM.


Instead of arguing on vague logic (mental), if someone could come up with shruti showing Param Prastad definition for Narayana, the debate would be valid.


Top
#70307 - 12/17/05 04:22 PM Re: Amazing [Re: DurgaDas]
Atanu Banerjee Offline
member
**

Registered: 05/30/04
Posts: 388
******
Since we cannot mediatate or worship the Nirguna Brahman, all of us have to go through the Saguna Brahman only.
***********

Meditation is to concentrate the mind and lead it to thoughtless state. The final tool is enquiry, for which saguna concept is hindrance.

***********
Are all Saguna Brahman like Vishnu, Shiva, Ganesha, Devi the same? Sri Shankara does not feel so, as evident in his Gita Bhasya. He prefers Vishnu in the form of Krishna over all overs, as his object of meditation.
**********

Dear Durga Dasji, Shankara would not have written Sivaananda Lahari and Brahma Murari Surarchita Lingam, if your concept was correct.

*********

*****************
Vishnu simply means the omnipresent aspect of the Saguna Brahman. Shiva represents the aspect of auspiciousness of the Saguna Brahman. Sri Shankara holds the opinion that the former(ananta or the infinite aspect) is a superior object of contemplation.
*************

First, Shankara wrote Brahma Murari surarchita lingam (for which many are angry at him).

Secondly, contemplation is not the end but a mean to steady the wavering mind. And in contemplation, a second is required, which Brahma knowers do not admit. The final tool is Vichara. When a person dies, the body-brain remains but the body-brain does not say I. Then who says I? In deep sleep I exists but where is the world? etc. etc.

Neti-Neti is the final tool. I hope you realise this truth and agree.

Thirdly, Rudra is known as Cipivista and Visvarupa in Veda Samhita, which is eternal. In different yugas and in different places, different sahasranamas may be created but Vedas remain eternal.

Fourthly, I do not have any use for all pervading quality, if that being is not auspicious.

Fifthly, ONE EKO has no need to be all pervasive as He is all. You will realise that pervasiveness is a concept and not the reality for the ONE BEING.

That's why Rig Veda says: Soma Janitaa hymns, earth, surya, heaven, Indra, and Vishnu.

Top
#70308 - 12/17/05 04:28 PM Re: The Birth [Re: Atanu Banerjee]
Atanu Banerjee Offline
member
**

Registered: 05/30/04
Posts: 388
Book 9 RV Book 9 HYMN XCVI. Soma Pavamana

5 Father of holy hymns, Soma flows onward the Father of the earth, Father of heaven: Father of Agni, Surya's generator, the Father who begat Indra and Visnu.

And Soma is Shiva energy.

Top
#70309 - 12/17/05 05:56 PM Re: Amazing [Re: Atanu Banerjee]
DurgaDas Offline
initiate
*

Registered: 12/14/05
Posts: 139
Quote:

******
Since we cannot mediatate or worship the Nirguna Brahman, all of us have to go through the Saguna Brahman only.
***********

Meditation is to concentrate the mind and lead it to thoughtless state. The final tool is enquiry, for which saguna concept is hindrance.





Arjuna actually asks Isvara, in the Bhagavad Gita about this specific question, and this is what the Lord answers.

Arjuna inquired: Which are considered to be more perfect, those who are always properly engaged in Your devotional service or those who worship the impersonal Brahman, the unmanifested?"

The Supreme Personality of Godhead said: Those who fix their minds on My personal form and are always engaged in worshiping Me with great and transcendental faith are considered by Me to be most perfect.

But those who fully worship the unmanifested, that which lies beyond the perception of the senses, the all-pervading, inconceivable, unchanging, fixed and immovable—the impersonal conception of the Absolute Truth—by controlling the various senses and being equally disposed to everyone, such persons, engaged in the welfare of all, at last achieve Me


For those whose minds are attached to the unmanifested, impersonal feature of the Supreme, advancement is very troublesome. To make progress in that discipline is always difficult for those who are embodied.

( 12.1 - 12.6)

Lord Krishna emphatically says that as long as you are embodied ( that is you are in bondage), Nirguna Brahman is not advisable to be accessed directly. Nirguna Brahman upasana is possible only when you are partially liberated in the world of the Sabda Brahman or already realized Saguna Brahman while still embodied.


Quote:


***********
Are all Saguna Brahman like Vishnu, Shiva, Ganesha, Devi the same? Sri Shankara does not feel so, as evident in his Gita Bhasya. He prefers Vishnu in the form of Krishna over all overs, as his object of meditation.
**********

Dear Durga Dasji, Shankara would not have written Sivaananda Lahari and Brahma Murari Surarchita Lingam, if your concept was correct.





Sorry, there is no evidence of this in the prastana. Sivandanda Lahari, Saundarya Lahari are even quesionable if they are the works of Adi Shankara. Even if they were true, they do not prove that Acharya held them on par with Krishna. As you know Acharya had no prejudices towards any form of the Brahman, but there is no doubt that he was more devoted to Krishna(his Ishta Devata) than any other diety. But, that does not mean he cannot compose lyrics in praise of Shiva and Devi.

Quote:


*********

*****************
Vishnu simply means the omnipresent aspect of the Saguna Brahman. Shiva represents the aspect of auspiciousness of the Saguna Brahman. Sri Shankara holds the opinion that the former(ananta or the infinite aspect) is a superior object of contemplation.
*************

First, Shankara wrote Brahma Murari surarchita lingam (for which many are angry at him).

Secondly, contemplation is not the end but a mean to steady the wavering mind. And in contemplation, a second is required, which Brahma knowers do not admit. The final tool is Vichara. When a person dies, the body-brain remains but the body-brain does not say I. Then who says I? In deep sleep I exists but where is the world? etc. etc.





But this is not the view of Sri Shankara, it looks like the view of Ramana. I think you are mixing different view points. Direct means of contemplation on the Nirguna Brahman has been ruled outin the Bhagavad Gita.

Quote:


Thirdly, Rudra is known as Cipivista and Visvarupa in Veda Samhita, which is eternal. In different yugas and in different places, different sahasranamas may be created but Vedas remain eternal.





Your problem is you are not even willing to consider the views of Acharya and his interpretation on 6.47. Could you tell me why he mentioned that the Yogi absorbed in Krishna is superior to the Yogi absorbed in Rudra and Aditya? Is it because Krishna was his Ishta devata or because it has more pramanas? We know Acharya was not such an emotional type to give weightage to personal whims and fancies, and hence it must be the latter.


Quote:


Fourthly, I do not have any use for all pervading quality, if that being is not auspicious.





I do not understand your point. Acharyas verdict is conclusive. Vishnu encompasses the definition of Shiva, which means Vishnu is also auspicious. Aren't you showing some kind of bias towards Shiva here. when Acharya himself said otherwise?

Quote:


Fifthly, ONE EKO has no need to be all pervasive as He is all. You will realise that pervasiveness is a concept and not the reality for the ONE BEING.

That's why Rig Veda says: Soma Janitaa hymns, earth, surya, heaven, Indra, and Vishnu.




You are not getting my point. Nirguna Brahman is beyond Saguna Brahman, and cannot be qualified by any name whether it be Shiva or Vishnu. The moment you assign a name, form or quality, it ceases to be Nirgua.

Hence, I am solely talking about Saguna here. Acharya holds that the ananta aspect of the Saguna Brahman, known as Vishnu is the most supreme aspect of Saguna Brahman. You have to show me some evidence from Acharya's prastana to prove otherwise. 6.47 is conclusive, as far as I am concerned, even if there are veda pranmanas, because I hold Acharyas' words to be the authority, and I am not as well versed as Sri Shankara to make my own judgement regarding this.

Also, in his commentary on Vishnu Sahasranama, Acharya defines a Brahmin as a person specifically devoted to Govinda. Any takers on this? I will try to get the exact quote for this.

In his prastana works on Upanishads, Brahma Sutras and Gita Bhasya, there is not a single reference where Sri Shankara holds Shiva or any other form of Saguna Brahman to be superior to Krishna( as Vishnu). And there are a few references where he explictly says that Krishna stands taller. For me, this issue is closed - as far as Acharya's personal opinions are concerned. Though I dont really differentiate between Vishnu ,Shiva or Durga Ma.

Top
#70310 - 12/17/05 07:43 PM Re: Oh sure [Re: Atanu Banerjee]
Sudarshan Rangaswamy Offline
member
**

Registered: 09/02/05
Posts: 341
Quote:

*******
I think I already explained this. Just because you find words like Shiva or Maheshvara or even Shiva do not mean, they refer to deval called Shiva. These are all synonyms of Vishnu as you can find in the Vishnu Sahasranama. The primary name used for Brahman in the vedas, is Narayana and that is what Brahman is. Narayana, as explained earlier cannot be name of deva Shiva due to rules in Panini's grammer and you seem to completely ignore all points I made earlier. There are other powerful irrefutable arguments.
*********

What seems irrefutable to you looks foolish to me.

Visnu Sahasranama was written after Gautama, whereas Vedas are eternal. In Vedas, Shiva is already known as Visvarupa, Shipivista and many other synonyms of Vishnu, Indra, Soma, and others. Narayana is not there in Samhita but appears in Uttara Anuvukas as Param Atma. In many Upanishads Nrayanan is truly Param Brahman and Pram Atma. But the Supreme seer, even in these Upanishads is Rudra.

Without the seer there is no Narayana.





This is why I call advaitins as foolish. Because you guys make such idiotic statements without even knowing anything about what work has gone into establishing the supremacy of Vishnu.

As had been mentioned here by many people, Shiva's supremacy is not established from some isolated versesn, but by samanvaya of the entire scripture and resolving all conflicts without any issues.

For you, it seems you are happy with quoting from here and there and just bypassing the rest of the scripture that contradicts your statements.

There are well defined protocols for establishing such things, and one of the earliest works that established Vishnu Sarvottama you may find on (Vedartasangraha)

http://homepage3.nifty.com/ajunamar/e-texts/skt/vas_txt.html

About 60 verses are used to drive home the point, and it is almost childish of you to quote some verses out of context and prove your arguments.

In Madhva's BSB, you can find a slightly better proof for Vishnu Sarvottama, and even more rigorous proofs can be found in later works. You are still showing plenty of ignorance by completeing bypassing why Appayya Dikshita was unable to establish Shiva Sarvottama, and the work he composed was completely refuted by Vaishnavites at that time, for which he had no counter arguments. First atleast learn the history of this Shiva-Vishnu conflicts in the vedantin traditions, and how Vishnu supremacy has been establsihed beyond any question. And show me a link to a work that establishes Shiva sarvottama please...

Probably we can debate this issue after you take a look at some of these works, because you lack complete knowledge about what consitutes a proof of establishing Vishnu Sarvottama or Shiva Sarvottama. You seem just content with quoting some isolated passages, which have no values unless you are able to perform a full reconciliation of the scripture. The fact remains that no one has succeeded in doing this in favour of Shiva to date, using shruti.
_________________________
SrImAn venkatanAthAryaH kavitArkika kesarI | vedAntAcArya-varyo me sannidhattAm sadA hRdi ||

Top
#70311 - 12/17/05 09:23 PM Re: vedic literature surely [Re: Atanu Banerjee]
sarabhanga Offline
friend
**

Registered: 08/02/02
Posts: 894
Loc: India
Namaste Atanu Ji,

I am in agreement with all of your posts in this thread.
The quoted lines were particularly regarding Rudra as the howling God of Tempest who, despite his ferocious reputation, is nonetheless Shiva (“benevolent” or “auspicious”).
Thankyou for clarifying this comment in the context of the present discussion.
_________________________
Sarabhanga Giri ~ Ayamatma Brahma

Top
#70312 - 12/17/05 10:47 PM Re: shivoadvaitam and Lord [Re: DurgaDas]
Atanu Banerjee Offline
member
**

Registered: 05/30/04
Posts: 388
Om Namah Sivayya

Namaskar


*****************
The Supreme Personality of Godhead said: Those who fix their minds on My personal form and are always engaged in worshiping Me with great and transcendental faith are considered by Me to be most perfect.

But those who fully worship the unmanifested, that which lies beyond the perception of the senses, the all-pervading, inconceivable, unchanging, fixed and immovable—the impersonal conception of the Absolute Truth—by controlling the various senses and being equally disposed to everyone, such persons, engaged in the welfare of all, at last achieve Me

For those whose minds are attached to the unmanifested, impersonal feature of the Supreme, advancement is very troublesome. To make progress in that discipline is always difficult for those who are embodied.
*********************

These translations are by a person who calls Shiva a demi-God. One who reads these translations are very deluded.

But the concept is known well and by ‘embodied’ is meant the one who identifies with the body alone. And this is what Isa Upanishad says much more succinctly:

14. He who knows both the Unmanifested and the destructible (Hiranyagarbha) together, transcends death by the (worship of) the destructible and attains immortality by the (worship of ) the Unmanifested.


The BG verses you have quoted are for those of disturbed mind like Arjuna was at the time of discourse. You are assuming that jnanis, who are absorbed in the Self are devoid of Bhakti. They are actually supreme bhaktas who have fully renounced doership (by knowing the falsity of I am this body sense and have known That all is ONE ATMA.

For such yogis Lord says:

Sarvabhootasthamaatmaanam sarvabhootaani chaatmani;
Eekshate yogayuktaatmaa sarvatra samadarshanah.

29. With the mind harmonised by Yoga he sees the Self abiding in all beings and all beings in the Self; he sees the same everywhere.

Yo maam pashyati sarvatra sarvam cha mayi pashyati;
Tasyaaham na pranashyaami sa cha me na pranashyati.

30. He who sees Me everywhere and sees everything in Me, he does not become separated from Me nor do I become separated from him.



******************
Dear Durga Dasji, Shankara would not have written Sivaananda Lahari and Brahma Murari Surarchita Lingam, if your concept was correct.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sorry, there is no evidence of this in the prastana. Sivandanda Lahari, Saundarya Lahari are even quesionable if they are the works of Adi Shankara.
*********************

Sorry, this is a typical Vaisnava ploy. What does not suit is termed a fraud. But who needs your views or of any other when Shruti is clear?

Mahanarayana Upanishad (ekavi.nsho.anuvaakaH)
.
iishaanaH sarvavidyaanaamiishvaraH sarvabhuutaanaaM
brahmaadhipatirbrahmaNo.adhipatirbrahmaa shivo me astu sadaashivom.h


XXI-1: May the Supreme Lord who is the ruler of all knowledge, controller of all created beings, the preserver of the Vedas and the one overlord of Hiranyagarbha, be auspicious to me. I am the Sadasiva described thus and denoted by Pranava.


When one has reached the conviction of the stage that there is no embodied I, but this I itself comes from unlimited sadasiva, the Supreme Lord -- what he needs? Nothing. Just let the mind play with Him.



*****************
But this is not the view of Sri Shankara, it looks like the view of Ramana. I think you are mixing different view points. Direct means of contemplation on the Nirguna Brahman has been ruled outin the Bhagavad Gita.
****************

Do you ever read? I said it earlier in the thread. Mind which is the product of consciousness (which again is a product of advaitam shivo) cannot contemplate on its source and know it. A thought free mind automatically becomes that; no contemplation is required.



**************
Thirdly, Rudra is known as Cipivista and Visvarupa in Veda Samhita, which is eternal. In different yugas and in different places, different sahasranamas may be created but Vedas remain eternal.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Your problem is you are not even willing to consider the views of Acharya and his interpretation on 6.47. Could you tell me why he mentioned that the Yogi absorbed in Krishna is superior to the Yogi absorbed in Rudra and Aditya? Is it because Krishna was his Ishta devata or because it has more pramanas? We know Acharya was not such an emotional type to give weightage to personal whims and fancies, and hence it must be the latter.
************************

I do not wish to speculate on Sankaracharya. I know He has mentioned Lord Shiva as Param Atma. What is the point? The point is that one cannot contemplate on Rudra, since the form itself is not known. Like a typical Vaisnavaite you are trying to divert by bringing in Sankaracharya and then negating his other hymns. I have simply said that Rudra is known as Cipivista and Visvarupa in Veda Samhita, which is eternal. Can you overrule Veda pramana with a Purana or your interpretation of Sankara’s interpretation of BG? No.

It is too circular my friend.


********************
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fourthly, I do not have any use for all pervading quality, if that being is not auspicious.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I do not understand your point. Acharyas verdict is conclusive. Vishnu encompasses the definition of Shiva, which means Vishnu is also auspicious. Aren't you showing some kind of bias towards Shiva here. when Acharya himself said otherwise?
***********************


I said above that in Veda Samhitas Rudra nam includes those of Visnu’s. That is sufficient for my Bhakti and Jnana, Acarya or no Acharya.

And you are not logical at all. You did not answer, why should EKO have any need to pervade? Pervading can only be thought of only from our view points that see discrete things and do not see the underlying one spirit (wrongly due to ignorance).


For this also I cited:

RV Book 9 HYMN XCVI. Soma Pavamana

5 Father of holy hymns, Soma flows onward the Father of the earth, Father of heaven: Father of Agni, Surya's generator, the Father who begat Indra and Visnu.

And Soma is Shiva energy.



****************
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fifthly, ONE EKO has no need to be all pervasive as He is all. You will realise that pervasiveness is a concept and not the reality for the ONE BEING.

That's why Rig Veda says: Soma Janitaa hymns, earth, surya, heaven, Indra, and Vishnu. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You are not getting my point. Nirguna Brahman is beyond Saguna Brahman, and cannot be qualified by any name whether it be Shiva or Vishnu. The moment you assign a name, form or quality, it ceases to be Nirgua.
**************

And you are not getting any point.

What is Nirguna and Saguna both is considered by the sages to be shivam-satyam-sundaram. Please read Jabala Upanishad to understand this. Brahman is directly situated as Lord Shiva at Varanasi (the point between the eye brows above nose). Note: The city of Varanasi may be a material symbol.

And with your logic, the moment you assign a name Nirguna Brahman, it ceases to be Nirguna. Isn’t it?

Actually, the point is that Lord Shiva is Brahma pare, beyond the Supreme.


****************
Hence, I am solely talking about Saguna here. Acharya holds that the ananta aspect of the Saguna Brahman, known as Vishnu is the most supreme aspect of Saguna Brahman.

************

And when I am talking of worship/meditation/absorption in knowledge of Shiva, I mean the Saguna and Nirguna together and the beyond -- the indescribable. This is recommended in scriptures all over, including Gita, when Lord says I am the unborn Mahesvara and when he says that to gain immortality one has to know the anadimat param brahma -- who is neither a being and nor a non-being and who is ONE but appears to be many.

These two Upanishad statements, among many, are sufficient.

Mahanarayana Upanishad

ekavi.nsho.anuvaakaH .

iishaanaH sarvavidyaanaamiishvaraH sarvabhuutaanaaM
brahmaadhipatirbrahmaNo.adhipatirbrahmaa shivo me astu sadaashivom.h


XXI-1: May the Supreme Lord who is the ruler of all knowledge, controller of all created beings, the preserver of the Vedas and the one overlord of Hiranyagarbha, be auspicious to me. I am the Sadasiva described thus and denoted by Pranava.



Manduyka Upanishad

7. The Fourth is thought of as that which is not conscious of the internal world, nor conscious of the external world, nor conscious of both the worlds, nor dense with consciousness, nor simple consciousness, nor unconsciousness, which is unseen, actionless, incomprehensible, uninferable, unthinkable, indescribable, whose proof consists in the identity of the Self (in all states), in which all phenomena come to a cessation, and which is unchanging, auspicious, and non-dual. That is the Self; that is to be known.

12. That which is without letters (parts) is the Fourth, beyond apprehension through ordinary means, the cessation of the phenomenal world, the shivoadvaitam. Thus Om is certainly the Self. He who knows thus enters the Self by the Self.


Knowing the being of highest Turiya does not preclude one from knowing the lower three states of Atma and worshipping the ONE EKO as sarva -- as saguna differentiated Agnivaisvanaro and Taijasa, one undifferentiated Pragnya and reaching that One indescribable who is lovingly called shivo.

YOGIS DO IT. BE A YOGI ARJUNA.

The only quality mentioned of the indescribable is shivoadvaitam and whose only proof consists of identity of the Self. When this indescribable shivoadvaitam manifests as Pragnya, as Taijasa, and as Agnivaisvnara, I prefer to call that Lord Shiva and none else. Simple.

Om Namah Sivayya

Top
#70313 - 12/17/05 10:52 PM Re: I am sorry [Re: Sudarshan Rangaswamy]
Atanu Banerjee Offline
member
**

Registered: 05/30/04
Posts: 388
*********
Shiva's supremacy is not established from some isolated versesn, but by samanvaya of the entire scripture and resolving all conflicts without any issues.
***********

I am sorry Sudarshan, I am not in supremacy debate. I know the Self is the supreme (Sadashiva, nature, void, consciousness, Indra, Krishna, Narayana, Vishnu, Shiva, I etc. etc. are all names of the Self.

I am talking of ONE who is beyond the Supreme.

Top
#70314 - 12/18/05 11:11 AM Rudra [Re: Atanu Banerjee]
Atanu Banerjee Offline
member
**

Registered: 05/30/04
Posts: 388
Robert Kovsky

He shreds the Absolute. He is the finality of accident.

His name cannot be uttered. Every description is a wrong description. Each of us has to find him in a personal way. Hinduism's most ancient scripture, Rg Veda, has a hymn to the "Rowdy God" (raudra brahman). He is called "Rudra." Rudra means "The Howler."

In the hymn, Creation springs from Rudra's hand. He interrupts a crime.

He who is becoming Father takes shape from the mist. His own virgin daughter stands before him. Father sexually violates his daughter, violating also the integrity of the universe. As he reaches climax, an arrow strikes Father. Wounded, he recoils. His semen spills to Earth, collecting into a lake where life is born.

Sharva is the archer and it is his arrow that strikes Father. Sharva is fierce and cruel. Rudra is Sharva. Sharva serves King Bhava, lord of heaven and earth. Rudra is Bhava. Bhava uses Sharva to sustain right by punishing wrong.

When Sharva wounded Father, something right was sustained, but everything else was forever changed. The integrity of the universe had been irrevocably violated. Life was born from the violation.


We first met the wild god in personal experience through the pain and punishment of childhood. As adults, we face harsh truths, courts of law, financial ruin and loneliness. Some of us are struck down by violence or afflicted with disease. We know that by the end of life, pain will probably prevail.

"I am food, food, food, and I am eater, eater, eater! I, who am food, eat the eater of food!"

Rudra is hunger and predation. He grabs and exploits. Those who fear him and fight him take on his form. He is a conscious person consuming and using others -- and realizing he too will be used and consumed.

Rudra is Bhairava who takes pleasure in destruction. He is Agni, Fire, here comforting, there the holocaust. He is Time that sustains and overthrows all things. He is Lingam, the erect phallus, aggressive, heedless and fecund.

Rg Veda sings of Long-Hair, the sage, who wore the faded yellow of wisdom. He was called Sun's Light. Rudra seized him and Long-Hair rode with the rush of the storm. Embraced by the god, he soared in the gale. Lightning poured the poison; the wind stirred it. Sharing with Rudra, Long-Hair drank poison from a cup.

The legendary Tristan and Isolde drank from the cup that held passion and poison. They betrayed the king, Tristan's master, Isolde's spouse. Renegades from the Day, they took refuge in Night. They consummated their lust under the moon and were themselves betrayed. They drank voluptuous abandonment, love and death.

Modern longhairs are rock stars intoxicated to the edge of oblivion. Torrid tales of the rich and famous decorate our supermarkets. What is the attraction? And why do we focus on images of wild emotions on our televisions and in our movies? Is it Rudra in us answering his call?

He masquerades as righteousness. He wears dark garments and presents a confessional demeanor. He is humiliated. Or is it self-humiliation? Humiliation and self-humiliation give Rudra his power. Those with desolated lives address him. They seek him and welcome his presence. He rubs their wounds.

Rudra is contrary. Rudra is defiance. He rebels against his own nature and strikes his darkness against himself. He ignites in radiance.

Rudra becomes Siva. Siva is quick and bright. Rudra and Siva are two names of one god. They emerge together from an unnameable source.

Siva is the dancer, he is always a-twirl. He spins things around, turns them upside-down and inside-out. His rhythms are Real.

Siva is playful. He appears as a man. He is a conqueror, a prophet, a peddler, a bum. He picks your pocket while you marvel at his glory.

He is the wanderer. His hair is long and braided. He mocks those who work in cities. He seduces the wives of priests.

He is everywhere and hidden, inexorable and capricious. He shreds the Absolute. He is the finality of accident.

To those he guides, he reveals the ways. He is Mahadeva, incomprehensible truth dwelling in the seed of consciousness. He is Sadasiva, discernment, originator of subject and object. He is Mahesvara, empathic wisdom that lies where differences cease. He is Isana, embodiment and master of all learning. He is Hara, displayer of wonders.

His is the finger that spindles the vortex, his the eye that sees itself seeing. His hands cradle those that spend themselves fully: soldiers charging into fire, an artist consumed in creation, the mother feeding her body to her child. He is possibility that he weaves and unravels. Next-momentary and eternal, he has never simply been. He is the sea against rock, wilfulness against fate, the copulation of contraries. He is my other self from whom I was estranged. He is me dancing with my demon. He sings a song of silence in my heart. He shines at the center of my outward searching mind.

Top
#70315 - 12/24/05 03:49 PM Re: Rudra [Re: Atanu Banerjee]
Bhakta of God Offline
member
**

Registered: 10/25/04
Posts: 330
Loc: Italy,Europe
Namaste all.
By http://www.srivaishnavan.com/faq_iswara.html
16.Who exactly is Brahman or Iswara? Is there one single deity, who is supreme?
By http://www.srivaishnavan.com/ans_iswara.html#16
16.Here are some passages from the Vedas which will answer your query. 1) "There was only one Narayana, no Brahma, no Rudra"
2) "From His forehead, the three-eyed person, having Sula is born; the four-faced Brahma is bom."
3) "Brahma is born from Narayana, Rudra is bom from Narayana"
4) "Brahma is Narayana, Siva is Narayana, Indra is Narayana, The directions are Narayana. All things are Narayana"
5) "There is only one Divine Being - Narayana"
6) "Narayana is the inner soul of all beings,"
7) "He crosses the human bondage of samsara and reaches the Paramapada of Vishnu."
8) "Among the Devas, fire (Agni) is the lowest and Vishnu is the highest:
9) "He created Brahma as before and taught him the Vedas."
10) "From the Brahma's forehead, Rudra was born."
11) "The Universe is Narayana."
12) "Narayana is the supreme Brahman. Narayana is the supreme truth or reality. Narayana is the supreme light. Narayana is the supreme atma or Paramatma. Whatever is in this world, seen or heard, all that is pervaded by Narayana, both within and without. He is Brahma. He is Siva. He is Indra."
From these, it will be clear to you who is the supreme deity, who is the Brahman and who is Iswara. There are innumerable such passages in the Vedas.


17.Where does this last passage, "He is Brahma, He is Siva, He is Indra" occur?
18.Doesnt this occurs in Maha Narayana Upanishad
19.You read the passage as "He is Brahma, He is Siva, He is Indra." But some people read it as "He is Brahma, He is Siva, He is Hari, He is Indra."Which is correct?
20.How do you say that the words "He is Hari" are later interpolation and not correct?
21.What was the need for this interpolation, at a later stage?
22.Are these passages in the Vedas also supported by Smritis, Itihasas and Puranas?
23.In some places in the Vedas, Siva is also called as the supreme deity. How do you explain this contradiction?
24.Can you give some examples?
25.So how do you explain the apparent contradiction?
26.Why can't we take it that the word 'Narayana' (as Paramatma) refers to Siva; instead of saying that the word "Siva" refers to Narayana?
27.Quote some passages in the Vedas, praising the greatness of Siva.
28.Why not we say that Brahma, Vishnu and Siva are all equal?
29.We have got the ancient Tamil works (Sangam literature), which are several thousand years old. What do these mention about the supreme deity?
30.If Narayana is the supreme deity, why should Rama (His Avatara) worship another deity in Rameswaram, as people say?
31.Similarly, there are stories that Narayana took the form of a boar (Varaha) and searched the feet of another deity; that Narayana took out his eye and surrendered it to Rudra and got chakra, etc. What do you say about these?
32.Please tell me something more about Rudra
33.But Harivamsa says Krishna requested for a child, from Siva. How do you reconcile this?
34.Does it mean that we cannot give or we should not


At http://www.srivaishnavan.com/ans_iswara.html#16 you will find the answers.Dear non-vaishnavas you may wish read them.

Regards,
Orlando.
_________________________
My e-mail is lingabhakta@yahoo.it Feel free to e-mail me!

Top
#70316 - 12/24/05 04:02 PM Re: Rudra [Re: Bhakta of God]
Bhakta of God Offline
member
**

Registered: 10/25/04
Posts: 330
Loc: Italy,Europe
About concepts like Saguna Brahman and Nirguna Brahman...
look at the commentary of Srimad Ramanuja to Brahma-sutra (named even Vedanta-sutra).
By http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/sbe48/sbe48003.htm
VEDÂNTA-SŰTRAS
WITH
RÂMÂNUGA'S SRÎBHÂSHYA
p. 3

FIRST ADHYÂYA.
FIRST PÂDA.
MAY my mind be filled with devotion towards the highest Brahman, the abode of Lakshmi who is luminously revealed in the Upanishads; who in sport produces, sustains, and reabsorbs the entire Universe; whose only aim is to foster the manifold classes of beings that humbly worship him.

The nectar of the teaching of Parâsara's son (Vyâsa),--which was brought up from the middle of the milk-ocean of the Upanishads--which restores to life the souls whose vital strength had departed owing to the heat of the fire of transmigratory existence--which was well guarded by the teachers of old--which was obscured by the mutual conflict of manifold opinions,--may intelligent men daily enjoy that as it is now presented to them in my words.

The lengthy explanation (vritti) of the Brahma-sűtras which was composed by the Reverend Bodhâyana has been abridged by former teachers; according to their views the words of the Sűtras will be explained in this present work.

By http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/sbe48/sbe48004.htm
1. Then therefore the enquiry into Brahman.

In this Sűtra the word 'then' expresses immediate sequence; the word 'therefore' intimates that what has taken place (viz. the study of the karmakânda of the Veda) constitutes the reason (of the enquiry into Brahman). For the fact is that the enquiry into (lit.'the desire to know') Brahman--the fruit of which enquiry is infinite in nature and permanent--follows immediately in the case of him who, having read the Veda together with its auxiliary

p. 4

disciplines, has reached the knowledge that the fruit of mere works is limited and non-permanent, and hence has conceived the desire of final release.

The compound 'brahmagigńâsâ' is to be explained as 'the enquiry of Brahman,' the genitive case 'of Brahman' being understood to denote the object; in agreement with the special rule as to the meaning of the genitive case, Pânini II, 3, 65. It might be said that even if we accepted the general meaning of the genitive case--which is that of connexion in general--Brahman's position (in the above compound) as an object would be established by the circumstance that the 'enquiry' demands an object; but in agreement with the principle that the direct denotation of a word is to be preferred to a meaning inferred we take the genitive case 'of Brahman' as denoting the object.

The word 'Brahman' denotes the hightest Person (purushottama), who is essentially free from all imperfections and possesses numberless classes of auspicious qualities of unsurpassable excellence. The term 'Brahman' is applied to any things which possess the quality of greatness (brihattva, from the root 'brih'); but primarily denotes that which possesses greatness, of essential nature as well as of qualities, in unlimited fulness; and such is only the Lord of all. Hence the word 'Brahman' primarily denotes him alone, and in a secondary derivative sense only those things which possess some small part of the Lord's qualities; for it would be improper to assume several meanings for the word (so that it would denote primarily or directly more than one thing). The case is analogous to that of the term 'bhagavat 1.' The Lord only is enquired into, for the sake of immortality, by all those who are afflicted with the triad of pain. Hence the Lord of all is that Brahman which, according to the Sűtra, constitutes the object of enquiry. The word 'gigńâsâ' is a desiderative formation meaning 'desire to know.' And as in the


p. 5

case of any desire the desired object is the chief thing, the Sűtra means to enjoin knowledge--which is the object of the desire of knowledge. The purport of the entire Sűtra then is as follows: 'Since the fruit of works known through the earlier part of the Mîmâmsâ is limited and non-permanent, and since the fruit of the knowledge of Brahman--which knowledge is to be reached through the latter part of the Mîmâmsâ--is unlimited and permanent; for this reason Brahman is to be known, after the knowledge of works has previously taken place.'--The same meaning is expressed by the Vrittikâra when saying 'after the comprehension of works has taken place there follows the enquiry into Brahman.' And that the enquiry into works and that into Brahman constitute one body of doctrine, he (the Vrittikâra) will declare later on 'this Sârîraka-doctrine is connected with Gaimini's doctrine as contained in sixteen adhyâyas; this proves the two to constitute one body of doctrine.' Hence the earlier and the later Mîmâmsâ are separate only in so far as there is a difference of matter to be taught by each; in the same way as the two halves of the Pűrva Mîmâmsâ-sűtras, consisting of six adhyâyas each, are separate 1; and as each adhyâya is separate. The entire Mîmâmsâ-sâtra--which begins with the Sűtra 'Now therefore the enquiry into religious duty' and concludes with the Sűtra '(From there is) no return on account of scriptural statement'--has, owing to the special character of the contents, a definite order of internal succession. This is as follows. At first the precept 'one is to learn one's own text (svâdhyâya)' enjoins the apprehension of that aggregate of syllables which is called 'Veda,' and is here referred to as 'svâdhyâya.' Next there arises the desire to know of what nature the 'Learning' enjoined is to be, and how it is to be done. Here there come in certain injunctions such as


p. 6

[paragraph continues] 'Let a Brahnmana be initiated in his eighth year' and 'The teacher is to make him recite the Veda'; and certain rules about special observances and restrictions--such as 'having performed the upâkarman on the full moon of Sravana or Praushthapada according to prescription, he is to study the sacred verses for four months and a half--which enjoin all the required details.

From all these it is understood that the study enjoined has for its result the apprehension of the aggregate of syllables called Veda, on the part of a pupil who has been initiated by a teacher sprung from a good family, leading a virtuous life, and possessing purity of soul; who practises certain special observances and restrictions; and who learns by repeating what is recited by the teacher.

And this study of the Veda is of the nature of a samskâra of the text, since the form of the injunction 'the Veda is to be studied' shows that the Veda is the object (of the action of studying). By a samskâra is understood an action whereby something is fitted to produce some other effect; and that the Veda should be the object of such a samskaâra is quite appropriate, since it gives rise to the knowledge of the four chief ends of human action--viz. religious duty, wealth, pleasure, and final release--and of the means to effect them; and since it helps to effect those ends by itself also, viz. by mere mechanical repetition (apart from any knowledge to which it may give rise).

The injunction as to the study of the Veda thus aims only at the apprehension of the aggregate of syllables (constituting the Veda) according to certain rules; it is in this way analogous to the recital of mantras.

It is further observed that the Veda thus apprehended through reading spontaneously gives rise to the ideas of certain things subserving certain purposes. A person, therefore, who has formed notions of those things immediately, i.e. on the mere apprehension of the text of the Veda through reading, thereupon naturally applies himself to the study of the Mimâmsa, which consists in a methodical discussion of the sentences constituting the text of the

p. 7

[paragraph continues] Veda, and has for its result the accurate determination of the nature of those things and their different modes. Through this study the student ascertains the character of the injunctions of work which form part of the Veda, and observes that all work leads only to non-permanent results; and as, on the other hand, he immediately becomes aware that the Upanishad sections--which form part of the Veda which he has apprehended through reading--refer to an infinite and permanent result, viz. immortality, he applies himself to the study of the Sârîraka-Mîmâmsâ, which consists in a systematic discussion of the Vedânta-texts, and has for its result the accurate determination of their sense. That the fruit of mere works is transitory, while the result of the knowledge of Brahman is something permanent, the Vedanta-texts declare in many places--'And as here the world acquired by work perishes, so there the world acquired by merit perishes' (Kh. Up. VIII, 1,6); 'That work of his has an end' (Bri. Up. III, 8, 10); 'By non-permanent works the Permanent is not obtained' (Ka. Up. I, 2, 10); 'Frail indeed are those boats, the sacrifices' (Mu. Up. I, 2, 7); 'Let a Brâhmana, after he has examined all these worlds that are gained by works, acquire freedom from all desires. What is not made cannot be gained by what is made. To understand this, let the pupil, with fuel in his hand, go to a teacher who is learned and dwells entirely in Brahman. To that pupil who has approached him respectfully, whose mind is altogether calm, the wise teacher truly told that knowledge of Brahman through which he knows the imperishable true Person' (Mu. Up. I, 2, 12, l3). 'Told' here means 'he is to tell.'--On the other hand, 'He who knows Brahman attains the Highest' (Taitt. Up. II, 1, 1); 'He who sees this does not see death' (Kh. Up. VII, 26, 2); 'He becomes a self-ruler' (Kh. Up. VII, 25, 2); 'Knowing him he becomes immortal here' (Taitt. Âr. III, 12, 7); 'Having known him he passes over death; there is no other path to go' (Svet. Up. VI, 15); 'Having known as separate his Self and the Mover, pleased thereby he goes to immortality' (Svet. Up. I, 6).

p. 8

But--an objection here is raised--the mere learning of the Veda with its auxiliary disciplines gives rise to the knowledge that the heavenly world and the like are the results of works, and that all such results are transitory, while immortality is the fruit of meditation on Brahman. Possessing such knowledge, a person desirous of final release may at once proceed to the enquiry into Brahman; and what need is there of a systematic consideration of religious duty (i.e. of the study of the Purva Mimâmsâ)?--If this reasoning were valid, we reply, tin--person desirous of release need not even apply himself to the study of the Sârîraka Mîmâmsâ, since Brahman is known from the mere reading of the Veda with its auxiliary disciplines.--True. Such knowledge arises indeed immediately (without deeper enquiry). But a matter apprehended in this immediate way is not raised above doubt and mistake. Hence a systematic discussion of the Vedânta-texts must he undertaken in order that their sense may be fully ascertained--We agree. But you will have to admit that for the very same reason we must undertake a systematic enquiry into religious duty!


At http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/sbe48/index.htm you may find the whole commentary of Srimad Ramanuja-acharya to Brahma-sutra.

Now a bit of history about the life and teachings of Srimad Ramanuja.
By http://www.gosai.com/chaitanya/saranagati/html/sampradayas_fs.html
In Kanchi there lived a scholar named Yadava Prakash, who was renowned for his scholarship in the doctrine of adwaita-vedanta, non-dualism. No one could surpass Yadava in his ability to explain Shankara's commentaries on Vedanta-sutra. Ramanuja enrolled in Yadava's school and engaged in the study of Sanskrit and Vedic literature. Although not at all convinced by the Shankarite conception, Ramanuja learned his lessons well and soon became one of Yadava's favorite students. Thinking Ramanuja to be a sincere follower of the conclusions of Shankara, Yadava showed Ramanuja special affection. But that affection did not last for long.

One day, after delivering a discourse on the Chandogya Upanishad, Yadava asked Ramanuja to massage his body with oil, as was the customary service to be performed by a student in those days. While giving the massage to his teacher, another student came to Yadava for some clarification on a point from the morning discourse. The boy had failed to grasp the meaning of the seventh verse of the first chapter, which began with tasya yatha kapyasam pundarikam evam akshini. Yadava proceeded to expound an interpretation which described the sublime qualities of the Godhead in a manner which was flagrantly objectionable. On hearing the words of his teacher, the heart of Ramanuja, which was full of love for the Supreme Godhead, was saddened, and hot tears streamed down from his eyes and fell on the thigh of Yadava. Looking up at the touch of the hot tears, Yadava could understand that something was troubling Ramanuja. When he inquired about Ramanuja's distress, Ramanuja replied, "O great and wise master, I have been sorely afflicted at heart to hear such an unbecoming explanation from a noble soul like you. How sinful it is of you to debase the Supreme, who is endowed with all gracious qualities and who is the source of all beautiful things in this world. From the mouth of such a learned man as yourself I would never have expected such a low and deceitful interpretation!"

Yadava became so angry that he could hardly control himself. "Well then," he scorned, "maybe you would like to give your own interpretation since you obviously think you know better than I!"

In a very gentle voice Ramanuja replied, "Revered sir, there is no need to give a low-minded interpretation to the verse when the real meaning is direct and glorious."

"Then let us hear this meaning of yours which is so glorious!" said Yadava. Ramanuja then stood and with great humility recited the meaning of the verse. "The two eyes of the Supreme are as lovely as two lotuses that are blossomed by the rays of the sun."

"I see," said Yadava. "You speak as though there actually was such a 'Supreme Person.' That is due to your childish ignorance. You have not learned your lessons properly. You should always remember that the Supreme is without form, without name, and without attributes. That is the teaching of the great Shankara. In the future you should not voice your foolish sentiments!" The words of Yadava were painful to Ramanuja's ears, but out of respect for his teacher he remained silent.

A few days later a second incident occurred. While explaining a verse from the Taittiriya Upanishad beginning with satyam jnanam anantam brahma, Yadava said that Brahman was intelligence, truth, and the infinite. Hearing this explanation, Ramanuja politely added, "Brahman is endowed with the qualities of intelligence, truth, and the infinite— this means that He is not covered by ignorance as are ordinary living entities, He is never untruthful, and His energies are unlimited, not limited. The Supreme Brahman is the reservoir of all good qualities, yet He is superior to those qualities, as the sun globe is superior to sunlight."

The agitation which Yadava felt within his mind made his voice tremble. "You young fool!" he shouted. "Your conclusions do not agree with those of Shankara or any of the previous masters! If you are going to persist with this useless talk about a personal God, why come here at all simply to waste my time? Why don't you start your own school and teach whatever you like? Now get out of my classroom immediately!"

As Ramanuja rose from his seat and quietly left the room, Yadava began to reflect, "This Ramanuja is not an ordinary boy. If he starts his own school, the philosophy of devotion might become a threat to the philosophy of non-dualism. For the sake of preserving our doctrine, this fool should be killed!"

Shortly thereafter, Ramanuja opened a small school at his home, and in no time many people began to come to him to hear his devotional discourses. Ramanuja's lectures were wholly theistic. He rejected the concept that the jiva, a living entity, could be equal to the Supreme Brahman or become God as postulated by Shankara. The living entity, Ramanuja taught, is a particle of Godhead, and as such, his position is to serve the complete whole. He said that as the hand is part of the body and thus a servant of the body, similarly the living entity is part of the Supreme and thus his constitutional position is to serve the Supreme.

Ramanuja's philosophy became known as visishtadwaita or qualified non-dualism. Accordingly, the living entities are believed to be qualitatively one with the Supreme and at the same time quantitatively different. Ramanuja's assertion was that the quantitative difference means that the fragmentary parts of the Supreme are dependent on the Supreme but they cannot become the Supreme.

The philosophy of Shankara stated that everything is Brahman and Brahman itself is absolutely homogeneous, undifferentiated, and without personality; individuality arose only due to illusion or maya. But this concept was staunchly opposed by Ramanuja. His philosophy stated that there can never be knowledge of an unqualified object; knowledge necessarily points to an object as characterized in some way. Ramanuja never admitted to an attributeless, undifferentiated Brahman, but rather a Brahman which is an attribute of a greater reality: Godhead Himself. He reasoned that as the living entities are individual personalities, so too is the Supreme also a personality—the Ultimate Personality.

Ramanuja further reasoned that if illusion could cover the identity of the Supreme, then illusion was greater than Godhead. Therefore he asserted that we are eternally individual personalities and the Supreme is eternally the Supreme Personality, but due to our finite nature we are sometimes subject to illusion.

Ramanuja also accepted the theory of transformation rejected by Shankara. According to Shankara the material world is false; it has no existence. Ramanuja, on the other hand, said that the material world is the energy of Godhead, and the subjective reality does not undergo any change of substance in the matter of material manifestation in the same way that a singer who creates a song out of his own energy is not diminished due to his creation; rather, he becomes more glorious.

Neither the material world nor the living entities are conceived of as being independent of the Supreme Personality in the system of visishtadwaita philosophy. The living entities are a different manifestation of the Supreme due to their being endowed with free will, whereas the material energy is manifest directly under the will of the Supreme. The free will of the living entity is an all-important factor, since that free will is considered to be the basic principle of reciprocal relations between Godhead and the living entity.

Ramanuja presented the living entities' relationship with Godhead as being one of eternal service. According to Ramanuja, when the living entities are freed from the illusions produced by the material energy by the method of devotion and natural love of God-like the dealings between an affectionate servant and his master—then the soul enters the spiritual sky known as Vaikuntha. Once having reached the Vaikuntha world, the soul engages in eternal service to the Supreme Person, Narayana (Vishnu). This sublime message was daily imparted by Ramanuja to his listeners.


Regards,
Orlando.
_________________________
My e-mail is lingabhakta@yahoo.it Feel free to e-mail me!

Top
#70317 - 12/24/05 04:20 PM Re: Rudra [Re: Bhakta of God]
Bhakta of God Offline
member
**

Registered: 10/25/04
Posts: 330
Loc: Italy,Europe
Namaste all.
Please before read this post,read my two previous posts.
Look at the followings.
After Srila Vyasadeva divided the Vedas into four books (Rg, Yajur, Sama and Atharva), his disciples further divided them into 1,130 divisions. This is stated in the Kurma Purana (52.19-20):
eka-vimsati-bhedena rg-vedam krtavan pura
sakhanam satenaiva yajur-vedam athakarot

sama-vedam sahasrena sakhanam prabibheda sah
atharvanam atho vedam bibedha navakena tu

‘Previously the Rg Veda was divided into 21 sections, the Yajur Veda into 100 sections, the Sama Veda into 1,000 sections and the Atharva Veda into 9 divisions.’

Each division has 4 minor divisions, namely the Samhitas, Brahmanas, Aranyakas and Upanisads. Thus altogether the 4 Vedas contain 1,130 Samhitas, 1,130 Brahmanas, 1,130 Aranyakas, and 1,130 Upanisads. This makes a total of 4,520 divisions.

At present, most of these texts have disappeared due to the influence of time. We can only find 11 Samhitas, 18 Brahmanas, 7 Aranyakas and 220 Upanisads which constitutes a mere 6% of the entire Vedic canon!

bharata-vyapadesena hyamnayarthah pradarsitah
vedah pratisthah sarve sarve purane natra samsayah

"On the pretext of writing the Mahabharata, Vyasa explained the meaning of the Vedas. Certainly all the topics of the Vedas have been established in the Puranas." (Visnu Purana)

Furthermore, it is explained in the Mahabharata (Adi Parva 1.267) and Manu Samhita –

itihasa puranabhyam vedam samupabrmhayet

" One must complement one’s study of the Vedas with the Itihasas and the Puranas."

In the Prabhasa-khanda of the Skanda Purana (5.3.121-124) it is said –

veda-van niscalam manye puranartham dvijottamah
vedah pratisthitah sarve purane natra samsayah

bibhety-alpa-srutad vedo mam ayam calayisyati
itihasa-puranais tu niscalo’yam krtah purah

yan na drstam hi vedesu tad drstam smrtisu dvijah
ubhayor yan na drstam hi tat puranah pragiyate
yo veda caturo vedan sangopanisado dvijah
puranam naiva janati na ca sa syad vicaksana

" O best of the brahmanas, the meaning of the Puranas is unchanging just like that of the Vedas. The Vedas are all sheltered within the Puranas without a doubt. The Veda has a fear that unqualified people will read her and then distort her meaning. Thus, the significance of the Veda was fixed in the Puranas and Itihasas. That which is not found in the Vedas is found in the Smrti. That which is not found in the Smrti is to be found in the Puranas. Those who know even the Vedas and Upanisads are not learned if they do not know the Puranas."

rcah samani chandamsi puranam yajusa saha
ucchistaj-jajnire sarve divi deva divi-sritah

"The Rg, Sama, Yajur and Atharva became manifest from the Lord, along with the Puranas and all the Devas residing in the heavens." (Atharva Veda 11.7.24)

asya mahato bhutasya nihsvasitam etad yad rg-vedo yajur-vedah sama
vedo’tharvangirasa itihasah puranam ityadina

"O Maitreya, the Rg, Yajur, Sama and Atharva Vedas as well as the Itihasas and the Puranas all manifest from the breathing of the Lord." (Madhyandina-sruti, Brhad-aranyaka Upanisad 2.4.10)

pancangam ca puranam syad akhyanam itarat smrtam
sattvikesu ca kalpesu mahatmyam adhikam hareh

rajasesu ca mahatmyam adhikam brahmano viduh
tadvad agnes ca mahatmyam tamasesu sivasya ca

sankirnesu sarasvatyah pitrnam ca nigadyate

" A Purana consists of five elements, as opposed to an Akhyana. 6 The sattvika Puranas glorify Hari; the rajasika Puranas glorify Brahma, and the tamasika Puranas glorify Siva and Agni. Puranas dealing with mixed modes of nature glorify Sarasvati and the fore-fathers." 7

The divisions of the eighteen Puranas is defined by Lord Siva to Uma in the Padma Purana (Uttara Khanda 236.18-21):

vaisnavanam naradiyam ca tatha bhagavatam subham
garudam ca tatha padmam varaham subha-darsane

sattvikani puranani vijneyani subhani vai
brahmandam brahma-vaivarta markandeyam tathaiva ca

bhavisyam vamanam brahmam rajasani nibodha me
matsyam kaurmam tatha laingam saivam skandam tathaiva ca

agneyam ca sad etani tamasani nibodha me


" O beautiful lady, one should know that the Visnu, Naradiya, Bhagavata, Garuda, Padma and Varaha are all in the mode of goodness. The Brahmanda, Brahma-vaivarta, Markandeya, Bhavisya, Vamana and Brahma are in the mode of passion. The Matsya, Kurma, Linga, Siva, Skanda and Agni are in the mode of ignorance."

I think you all accept the fact that sattva (goodness) is superior to rajas (passion) and tamas (ignorance).
The sattvika Puranas recommend the worship of Visnu / Krsna, whereas the rajasika and tamasika Puranas advocate the worship of minor deities and therefore do not lead the aspirant towards the Absolute Truth.

It is noteworthy that the sattvika Puranas commence with a questioner inquiring from a learned speaker about the nature of the Absolute. The speaker’s answers are clear, direct and unambiguous, leaving no room for misinterpretation. However, in the tamasika and rajasika Puranas questions are put to the speaker which do not pertain to the Absolute Truth. For example, in the Linga Purana the sages request Suta to speak about the glories of the Lingam form of Lord Siva. We may conclude from this that although Sri Suta Gosvami is learned in transcendental subject matters and expert in explaining them, the questions by the sages here restrict him from speaking on it. All rajasika and tamasika Puranas contain this characteristic defect and therefore are not reliable sources of transcendental knowledge.
Padma Purana states:
sattvika moksa-dah proktah: "The sattvika Puranas give salvation."

Srimad Bhagavatam - Dvaita - Supremacy of Krishna - Divinity of Sri Caitanya - Srimad Bhagavatam - Madhvacarya




The Supremacy of
Srimad Bhagavatam
over the vedas



OBJECTION: In your arguments you have mostly quoted purana-vakya (quotes from Puranic texts) to substantiate your points. However, this is unacceptable. The Vedas are eternal as they emanate from the Lord Himself (apaurusaya), whereas the Puranas and smrti-sastras, although they give knowledge about God, are authored by men. They are auxiliary to the Vedas and hence their statements should be considered as secondary when compared to the statements made in the Vedas. Therefore, in order to validate your claims, you must give quotes from sruti only.

REFUTATION: That the Vedas are eternal and apauruseya is a fact that all sampradayas, including the school of Sankara, unanimously agree with. They constitute the means of receiving knowledge about the Absolute Truth. However, there are certain factors that make it practically impossible to study the Vedas in this age:

After Srila Vyasadeva divided the Vedas into four books (Rg, Yajur, Sama and Atharva), his disciples further divided them into 1,130 divisions. This is stated in the Kurma Purana (52.19-20):
eka-vimsati-bhedena rg-vedam krtavan pura
sakhanam satenaiva yajur-vedam athakarot

sama-vedam sahasrena sakhanam prabibheda sah
atharvanam atho vedam bibedha navakena tu

‘Previously the Rg Veda was divided into 21 sections, the Yajur Veda into 100 sections, the Sama Veda into 1,000 sections and the Atharva Veda into 9 divisions.’

Each division has 4 minor divisions, namely the Samhitas, Brahmanas, Aranyakas and Upanisads. Thus altogether the 4 Vedas contain 1,130 Samhitas, 1,130 Brahmanas, 1,130 Aranyakas, and 1,130 Upanisads. This makes a total of 4,520 divisions.

At present, most of these texts have disappeared due to the influence of time. We can only find 11 Samhitas, 18 Brahmanas, 7 Aranyakas and 220 Upanisads which constitutes a mere 6% of the entire Vedic canon!

Even if the Vedas were complete in there entirety, in order to understand them one must first study the Vedangas which includes Siksa (the science of phonetics), Vyakarana (grammatical rules), Kalpa (ritualistic rules), Nirukta (obscure word meanings), Chanda (Metres for chanting Vedic hymns), and Jyotisa (astrology and astronomy).
Since the language of the Vedas is enshrouded in mysterious meanings, one must also be willing to sacrifice years of study in order to learn Vaidika (classical) Sanskrit. This entails primarily learning the basic grammar (which generally takes 12 years or so) and then memorising extra vocabulary in order to decipher the mystical language of the Vedas. 1
Apart from that, it is practically impossible for those born in the age of Kali (who are generally ‘mandah sumanda-matayo’) to memorise even the slightest thing. What to speak of the entire Vedas or even the 6% that still survives today! At present, amongst the brahmana communities in India, it is generally observed that vedadhyayana simply consists of memorising the text of one of the four Vedas ‘parrot-fashion’, but as we can see from above, there is much more to it than that. Therefore, we may conclude that although the Vedas are perfect sabda-pramana, it is impractical to become thoroughly conversant with the Vedas in this day and age in order to understand the Supreme. Hence the solution lies in the Puranas and the Itihasas. This is explained in the following verse -


bharata-vyapadesena hyamnayarthah pradarsitah
vedah pratisthah sarve sarve purane natra samsayah

"On the pretext of writing the Mahabharata, Vyasa explained the meaning of the Vedas. Certainly all the topics of the Vedas have been established in the Puranas." (Visnu Purana)

Furthermore, it is explained in the Mahabharata (Adi Parva 1.267) and Manu Samhita –

itihasa puranabhyam vedam samupabrmhayet

" One must complement one’s study of the Vedas with the Itihasas and the Puranas."

In the Prabhasa-khanda of the Skanda Purana (5.3.121-124) it is said –

veda-van niscalam manye puranartham dvijottamah
vedah pratisthitah sarve purane natra samsayah

bibhety-alpa-srutad vedo mam ayam calayisyati
itihasa-puranais tu niscalo’yam krtah purah

yan na drstam hi vedesu tad drstam smrtisu dvijah
ubhayor yan na drstam hi tat puranah pragiyate
yo veda caturo vedan sangopanisado dvijah
puranam naiva janati na ca sa syad vicaksana

" O best of the brahmanas, the meaning of the Puranas is unchanging just like that of the Vedas. The Vedas are all sheltered within the Puranas without a doubt. The Veda has a fear that unqualified people will read her and then distort her meaning. Thus, the significance of the Veda was fixed in the Puranas and Itihasas. That which is not found in the Vedas is found in the Smrti. That which is not found in the Smrti is to be found in the Puranas. Those who know even the Vedas and Upanisads are not learned if they do not know the Puranas."

The reason they are called ‘Puranas’ is because they make the Vedas complete (puranat puranam iti canyatra). This is not to suggest that the Vedas are incomplete. It simply means that the Puranas are explanatory supplements which aid one to understand the concise and ambiguous passages in the Vedas. If the Puranas complete the Vedas, it is only logical that they must be Vedic in nature.

Our Tattvavadi friends have stated that Puranic evidence is secondary to those statements of the sruti because they are composed by mortals. Generally it is correct to state that the sruti is primary and the smrti secondary in that it (sruti) seeks to elaborate on the meaning of the smrti. However, under the circumstances, the puranas and itihasas are now to be considered primary evidence. As regards the mortal composition of the puranas and Itihasas, 2 we beg to differ with this view, on the basis of the following references in the sruti-sastras –

rcah samani chandamsi puranam yajusa saha
ucchistaj-jajnire sarve divi deva divi-sritah

"The Rg, Sama, Yajur and Atharva became manifest from the Lord, along with the Puranas and all the Devas residing in the heavens." (Atharva Veda 11.7.24)

sa brhatim disam anu vyacalat tam itihasas ca puranam ca gathas ca itihasasya ca sa vai puranasya ca gathanam ca narasamsinam ca priyam dhama bhavati ya evam veda

"He approached the brhati meter, and thus the Itihasas, Puranas, Gathas and Narasamsis became favorable to him. One who knows this verily becomes the beloved abode of the Itihasas, Puranas, Gathas and Narasamsis." (Atharva Veda 15.6.10–12)


evam ime sarva veda nirmitah sa-kalpah sa-rahasyah sa-brahmanah sopanisatkah setihasah sanvakhyatah sa-puranan

"In this way, all the Vedas were manifested along with the Kalpas, Rahasyas, Brahmanas, Upanisads, Itihasas, Anvakhyatas and the Puranas." (Gopatha Brahmana, purva 2.10)

nama va rg-vedo yajur-vedah sama-veda atharvanas caturtha itihasa-puranah pancamo vedanam vedah

"Indeed, Rg, Yajur, Sama and Atharva are the names of the four Vedas. The Itihasas and Puranas are the fifth Veda." (Kauthumiya Chandogya Upanisad 7.1.4)


asya mahato bhutasya nihsvasitam etad yad rg-vedo yajur-vedah sama
vedo’tharvangirasa itihasah puranam ityadina

"O Maitreya, the Rg, Yajur, Sama and Atharva Vedas as well as the Itihasas and the Puranas all manifest from the breathing of the Lord." (Madhyandina-sruti, Brhad-aranyaka Upanisad 2.4.10)

From these above sruti statements it is clear that the puranas are part of the Vedas and originate from the same source as the Vedas, namely the Supreme Lord Himself. One may argue that since the Puranas have names such as Skanda, Agni, Markandeya etc. they must have been composed by those personalities, therefore they are not eternal and thus cannot be apauruseya. However, if that is the case, then certain sections of the Vedas must also be considered to be pauruseya-vakya since they have names like Katha Upanisad, Aitareya Upanisad (Katha and Aitareya being names of sages). It is understood that certain parts of the Vedas are named after certain rsis, not because they composed them, but because they were the main exponents of those portions. Since persons with the names Katha and Aitareya appear in every millenium, one should not misunderstand that before the appearance of those persons described in the Vedas, these names were simply meaningless words.

Similarly many of the Puranas are named after the first person who expounded them. Many times however, due to the influence of time, a scripture may become forgotten on this planet and thus a deva or sage speaks it again, and it becomes known by that name. Such an example is found in the Bhagavatam wherein the sun-god imparts the Vajasaneyi-samhita of the Yajur Veda to Yajnavalkya Muni –

atha ha bhagavams tava carana-nalina-yugalam tri-bhuvana-gurubhir
abhivanditam aham ayata-yama-yajus-kama upasaramiti.

evam stutam sa bhagavan vaji-rupa-dharo ravih
yajumsy ayata-yamani munaye ’dat prasaditah

"Therefore, O lord, with prayers I approach your two lotus feet, which are adored by the preceptors of the three worlds, because I wish to receive from you mantras of the Yajur Veda that are unknown to anyone else."

"Being pleased by such exaltation, the sun-god took the form of a horse and presented to the muni mantras of the Yajur Veda which were previously unknown to any mortal." (Bhagavata 12.6.72-73)

In his treatise Visnu Tattva Vinirnaya, Sri Madhva, quoting Brahmanda Purana explains thus –

puranani tadarthani sarge sarge’nythaiva tu
kriyante’tastvanityani tadarthah purva-sargavat
vedanam srsthivakyani bhaveyurvyaktyapeksaya
avantarabhimananam devanam va vyapeksaya
nanityatvat kutastesamanityatvam sthiratmanam

In other words, the Puranas are supposed to explain the meaning of the Vedas and are only different by the changes in words, chanda (metre), rsi, sequence etc. at the beginning of each creation. In this way they are considered to be non-eternal, but their meaning will be the same as in the previous creation.

Therefore Madhva categorizes the Puranas as ‘nitya-anitya’ because they originally emanate from the Supreme Lord, but they are sometimes unmanifest.

As a side note, it may be asked that if the Puranas are indeed subsidiary to the sruti-sastras, why does Sri Madhvacarya himself quote them so often in his works? Not only that, he even uses puranic evidence in order to establish the nityatva of the Vedas! If the Puranas are not eternal and apauruseya, why would he use their ‘secondary statements’ as a pramana to validify something which is superior?

Another point is that in the chanting of the Brahma-yajna (formal study of the Vedas), the Puranas are included. If they were not Vedic in nature they would not be included. Therefore the Taittiriya Aranyaka (2.9) states yad brahmananitihasa-puranani: "The Itihasas and Puranas are Vedas."

It has already been stated above in the quote from Chandogya Upanisad 3 that the Puranas are known as the fifth Veda. 4 The reason behind this is because the Puranas and Itihasas are derived originally from the Yajur Veda. This is explained by Sri Suta in the Vayu Purana-

itihasa-purananam vaktaram samyag eva hi
mam caiva pratijagraha bhagavan isvarah prabhuh

eka asid yajur-vedas tam caturdha vyakalpayat
catur-hotram abhut tasmins tena yajnam akalpayat

adhvaryavam yajurbhis tu rgbhir hotram tathaiva ca
audgatram samabhis caiva brahmatvam capyatharvabhih

akhyanais capyupakhyanair gathabhir dvija-sattamah
purana-samhitas cakre puranartha-visaradah

yac-chistam tu yajur-veda iti sastrartha-nirnayah

"That almighty Lord (Sri Vyasa) chose me as the qualified speaker of the Itihasas and the Puranas. In the beginning there was only one Veda – the Yajur Veda. This was divided into four portions. From these stemmed the four performances known as the catur-homa by which he (Vyasa) arranged for the performance of sacrifice. The Adhvaryu priest uses the Yajur mantras, the Hotra priest uses the Rg mantras, the Udgata priest uses the Sama mantras, and the Brahma priest uses the Atharva mantras.

O best of all the brahmanas, after this he (Vyasa) who understands the meaning of the Puranas, compiled them and the Itihasas by combining various akhyanas, upakhyanas and gathas. 5 Whatever remained after Vyasa had divided the Vedas into four divisions was considered to also be the Yajur Veda. Thus is the conclusion of the sastras."

(Vayu Purana 60.16-18, 21-22)

The statement of Sri Suta Gosvami in the above verse from Vayu Purana in which he says that ‘Whatever remained after Vyasa had divided the Vedas into four divisions was considered to also be the Yajur Veda’ indicates that the essence of the original Purana (which was the remaining part of the Yajur Veda) became the condensed version of the Purana consisting of four-hundred-thousand slokas, available on the earth-planet.

Further evidence for this is found in the Matsya Purana (53.8-9) wherein the Lord says –

kalenagrahanam matva puranasya dvijottamah
vyasa-rupam aham krtva samharami yuge yuge


"O best of the brahmanas, understanding that the Purana would gradually become forgotten, in every yuga I appear in the form of Vyasa and condense it."


In the next sloka of that Purana, the Lord continues –


catur-laksa-pramanena dvapare dvapare sada
tad astadasadha krtva bhur-loke’smin prabhasyate

adyapyamartya-loke tu sata-koti-pravistaram
tad artho’tra catur-laksah sanksepena nivesitah


"The Purana contains four-hundred-thousand verses which is divided into eighteen parts. These are passed on via oral tradition every Dvapara-yuga on the earth-planet. Even today the original Purana which consists of one-billion verses exists in the heavenly planets. The essential meaning of that Purana is contained in the smaller version of four-hundred-thousand verses."

The same point is raised in the Vayaviya Samhita (7.1.1. 37-38) –

sanksipya caturo vedams caturdha vyabhajat prabhuh
vyasta-vedataya khyato veda-vyasa iti smrtah

puranam api sanksiptam· catur-laksa-pramanatah
adyapyamartya-loke tu sata-koti-pravistaram

sanksiptam ityatra teneti sesah

"That Lord who is most intelligent then divided the Vedas into four. He therefore became known as Veda Vyasa. He also summarized the Puranas into four-hundred-thousand verses which are still available in the heavenly domain in the form if one billion verses."

However, it should be explained that although the Puranas and Itihasas are known as the fifth Veda — that does not mean that they are literally identical in all ways with the Vedas. If that were so, Purana and Itihasa would just be names of certain sections of the Vedas. The difference between them is in annotation and the order of words. The Vedas are chanted in a particular style involving three tone accents (svaras) called udatta, anudatta and svarita. If a word is chanted in the wrong accent, the whole meaning of the sentence can change.

As regards the order of words, the Vedas maintain a particular sequence which has not changed since the dawn of creation. There is no scope for even the slightest change in the Vedic texts, whereas the texts of the Puranas change according to kalpa-bheda. It is for this reason that we find occasional differencies in certain editions of the Puranas.

Another distinction between the Vedas and the Puranas is that although the Puranas are considered part of the Brahma-yajna, they are not used in the performance of Vedic sacrifices.

Unfortunately, major problems also arise when trying to studsy the Puranas. Firstly, although the Puranas are much more accessible than the Vedas and more readily available, they too are not available in their entirety. The eighteen Puranas and eighteen Upa-Puranas are a vast body of literature and there are so many different versions that it is difficult to know which editions are complete and which texts have been interpolated. This is due to the fact that there are no current disciplic schools nor bona-fide commentaries for most of these works.

Secondly, we can understand that independent study of the Puranas yields no fruit since each seems to establish a different deity as Supreme. By studying the Puranas without proper guidance, the result is only confusion. Matsya Purana (53.65, 68-69) states –

pancangam ca puranam syad akhyanam itarat smrtam
sattvikesu ca kalpesu mahatmyam adhikam hareh

rajasesu ca mahatmyam adhikam brahmano viduh
tadvad agnes ca mahatmyam tamasesu sivasya ca

sankirnesu sarasvatyah pitrnam ca nigadyate

" A Purana consists of five elements, as opposed to an Akhyana. 6 The sattvika Puranas glorify Hari; the rajasika Puranas glorify Brahma, and the tamasika Puranas glorify Siva and Agni. Puranas dealing with mixed modes of nature glorify Sarasvati and the fore-fathers." 7

The divisions of the eighteen Puranas is defined by Lord Siva to Uma in the Padma Purana (Uttara Khanda 236.18-21):

vaisnavanam naradiyam ca tatha bhagavatam subham
garudam ca tatha padmam varaham subha-darsane

sattvikani puranani vijneyani subhani vai
brahmandam brahma-vaivarta markandeyam tathaiva ca

bhavisyam vamanam brahmam rajasani nibodha me
matsyam kaurmam tatha laingam saivam skandam tathaiva ca

agneyam ca sad etani tamasani nibodha me


" O beautiful lady, one should know that the Visnu, Naradiya, Bhagavata, Garuda, Padma and Varaha are all in the mode of goodness. The Brahmanda, Brahma-vaivarta, Markandeya, Bhavisya, Vamana and Brahma are in the mode of passion. The Matsya, Kurma, Linga, Siva, Skanda and Agni are in the mode of ignorance."


Sri Krsna has clearly expressed in Bhagavad-gita that goodness is superior to passion and ignorance. 8 Similarly, Sri Suta Gosvami explains in the Bhagavata (1.2.24) that "Passion is better than ignorance because it can lead to realization of the Absolute Truth."9 In this verse Suta speaks about which type of worship produces the ultimate benefit, and his conclusion is that one can only achieve the best result by worshipping Lord Visnu. The sattvika Puranas recommend the worship of Visnu / Krsna, whereas the rajasika and tamasika Puranas advocate the worship of minor deities and therefore do not lead the aspirant towards the Absolute Truth.

It is noteworthy that the sattvika Puranas commence with a questioner inquiring from a learned speaker about the nature of the Absolute. The speaker’s answers are clear, direct and unambiguous, leaving no room for misinterpretation. However, in the tamasika and rajasika Puranas questions are put to the speaker which do not pertain to the Absolute Truth. For example, in the Linga Purana the sages request Suta to speak about the glories of the Lingam form of Lord Siva. We may conclude from this that although Sri Suta Gosvami is learned in transcendental subject matters and expert in explaining them, the questions by the sages here restrict him from speaking on it. All rajasika and tamasika Puranas contain this characteristic defect and therefore are not reliable sources of transcendental knowledge.

One may ask at this point why Srila Vyasadeva wrote these Puranas. According to the various desires of the materially conditioned jivas, he arranged the Puranas. Nevertheless, all Puranas contain glorification of Lord Visnu. This was included by Vyasa in order that those in the lower modes of passion and ignorance will slowly develop interest in the Supreme Lord Hari while studying the rajasika and tamasika Puranas. 10 Therefore in the Hari Vamsa (3.323.34) it is said –

vede ramayane caiva purane bharate tatha
adav-ante ca madhye ca harih sarvatra giyate

"In the Vedas, the Ramayana, Puranas and Mahabharata, from the very beginning to the end, as well as within the middle, only Hari, the Supreme Personality of Godhead, is explained."

Yet it must be understood that although rajasika and tamasika Puranas do not speak extensively on the Absolute Truth, this does not mean that they give no valid knowledge at all. If this was the case why would acaryas such as Madhva cite from Puranas such as Skanda, Brahma, Brahmanda, Brahma-vaivarta etc which are not sattvika by nature? The Puranas in the lower modes may also give some insight into the Absolute Truth, although not to the same extent as the sattvika Puranas.


Ehi,people!
If we vaisnava say that Advaita Vedanta is a wrong philosophy...isn't because of "sectarism" but out of mercy.
We vaishnava want save you all from the cycle of death rebirth.A wrong philosophy can't do so.But only a right philosophy like visistadvaita,dvaita and other vaisnava philosophy.Advaita Vedanta is a powerful poison for the spiritual realization.And I don't want allow you advaitin to drink this poison.Sometimes you have to be cruel in order to be kind.

Regards,
Orlando.


_________________________
My e-mail is lingabhakta@yahoo.it Feel free to e-mail me!

Top
#70318 - 12/25/05 12:29 PM Repeatations *DELETED* [Re: Bhakta of God]
Atanu Banerjee Offline
member
**

Registered: 05/30/04
Posts: 388
Post deleted by Shaivite

Top
#70319 - 12/25/05 12:59 PM Re: Repeatations [Re: Atanu Banerjee]
ELEGANTLY WASTED Offline
initiate
***

Registered: 09/14/04
Posts: 107
The veda proclaims Vishnu Sarvottama. Wherever you come across agni or rudra or other devatas being proclaimed as supreme, you must conclude that they're referring to Vishnu, just as when you praise a beautiful reflected image (rudra) of the sun, you're actually praising the sun itself (Vishnu) and NOT its reflection.

Or else, the veda will appear contradictory. But since Veda is not of human origin, there cannot be any mistakes, meaning which one must appropriate contradictory passages in the light of Vishnu Sarvottama. There is simply no other way. OTOH, if you consider all gods as one, that too will contradict veda because veda says God is one and all names/forms are his (because he is the supreme).

It is similar to saying that the reflection of sun belongs to the sun, because without the sun, there would be no reflection. But that doesn't mean the sun and reflection are one. Likewise, to say that all names/forms are His is totally differnt from saying all gods are one.

Top
#70320 - 12/26/05 03:07 PM Who is janitaa of beginningless EKO? [Re: ELEGANTLY WASTED]
Atanu Banerjee Offline
member
**

Registered: 05/30/04
Posts: 388
******The veda proclaims Vishnu Sarvottama*******

This is your proclamation or from Vedas?. It would have been better if you cited a samhita verse.

On the other hand, Rig Veda says the following.

RV Book 9 HYMN XCVI. Soma Pavamana

5 Father of holy hymns, Soma flows onward the Father of the earth, Father of heaven: Father of Agni, Surya's generator, the Father who begat Indra and Visnu.


While Vishnu is said to have a birth like earth, sun etc., the EKO is beginningless and has no janitaa.
And nowhere in Shruti, Param Parastad is used except in case of Mahesvara --- who only is Vishnu when manifested, as below:

YV iv. 4. 9.

(Thou art) Prajapati in mind, when come to the Soma; the creator in the consecration; -----the overlord on arrival; Prajapati being led on; Agni at the Agnidh's altar; Brhaspati on being led from the Agnidh's altar; Indra at the oblation-holder; Aditi when put in place; Visnu when being taken down; ---- Rudra when offered; ----- the heaven when arrived at completion.



EKO has no name and cannot be described, Different people give him different attribute and different names, based on their perspectives and experience. Siva lovers know it and they usually do not argue over supremacy of the infinite, indescribable Lord. My entry was instigated by a comment by some one that Shiva is not Bhagwan. That was unfortunate.

Om Namah Sivayyaa

Top
#70321 - 12/26/05 03:15 PM Ulta Pulta [Re: ELEGANTLY WASTED]
Atanu Banerjee Offline
member
**

Registered: 05/30/04
Posts: 388
*********
Or else, the veda will appear contradictory. But since Veda is not of human origin, there cannot be any mistakes, meaning which one must appropriate contradictory passages in the light of Vishnu Sarvottama. There is simply no other way. OTOH, if you consider all gods as one, that too will contradict veda because veda says God is one and all names/forms are his (because he is the supreme).

It is similar to saying that the reflection of sun belongs to the sun, because without the sun, there would be no reflection. But that doesn't mean the sun and reflection are one. Likewise, to say that all names/forms are His is totally differnt from saying all gods are one.
**********

You are absolutely correct in the opposite way. Whereas Lord Krishna says "My reality is unborn mahesvara", you say that mahesvara is just a reflection of Lord Visnu.

Do you ever accept Lord Vishnu?

Om Namah Vasudevayyaa Namah
Om Namh Sivayyaa

Top
#70322 - 12/26/05 03:35 PM Sarva [Re: ELEGANTLY WASTED]
Atanu Banerjee Offline
member
**

Registered: 05/30/04
Posts: 388
******The veda proclaims Vishnu Sarvottama***********

Yes, it is true. But there is also sarvo; One portion of Sarvo can only be sarvottama, who has to be one among many.


Mahanarayana Upanishad

chaturvi.nsho.anuvaakaH .

sarvo vai rudrastasmai rudraaya namo astu . purushho vai rudraH sanmaho namo namaH .
vishvaM bhuutaM bhuvana.n chitraM bahudhaa jaata.n jaayamaana.n chayat.h .
sarvo hyeshha rudrastasmai rudraaya namo astu .. 1..



But Lord is EKO, without a second. I repeat that One portion of Sarvo can only be sarvottama. And this sarva is also EKO:

shvetAshvatara upaniShad

eko hi rudro na dvitIyAya tasthu- rya imAn lokAnIshata IshanIbhiH |


Contemplate. Love the EKO, who is the janitta of consciousness in whom all these varities exist.


Om Om Om


Top
#70323 - 12/26/05 04:02 PM Re: Ulta Pulta [Re: Atanu Banerjee]
ELEGANTLY WASTED Offline
initiate
***

Registered: 09/14/04
Posts: 107
Quote:

mahesvara is just a reflection of Lord Visnu.




Maheswara refers to Vishnu. So how can Vishnu be a reflection of Himself? You are confusing Maheswara with Rudra Deva, hence your faulty deduction.

Top
#70324 - 12/26/05 04:10 PM Re: Sarva [Re: Atanu Banerjee]
ELEGANTLY WASTED Offline
initiate
***

Registered: 09/14/04
Posts: 107
Quote:


But Lord is EKO, without a second





"One without a second" doesn't mean there is nothing other than Lord. It means there is nothing like the Lord, nothing exists that can be compared to the Lord's supreme status since He is the absolute; and there cannot be more than one absolute. But it doesn't mean aside from the absolute, nothing else exists. Look at "Sarvottama" in this light and you'll understand better.



Top
#70325 - 12/27/05 05:01 PM Truly wasted [Re: ELEGANTLY WASTED]
Atanu Banerjee Offline
member
**

Registered: 05/30/04
Posts: 388
********Maheswara refers to Vishnu. So how can Vishnu be a reflection of Himself? You are confusing Maheswara with Rudra Deva, hence your faulty deduction.**********

Again assertions without shruti proof.

But even then its nice. We are talking about the same being then. Isn't it nice? But Vishnu you are talking about has birth from Soma, like earth, heaven, sun, agni etc..


RV Book 9 HYMN XCVI. Soma Pavamana

5 Father of holy hymns, Soma flows onward the Father of the earth, Father of heaven: Father of Agni, Surya's generator, the Father who begat Indra and Visnu.

Whereas Svet. Upanishad says Shiva has no progenitor. Dear Elegantly wasted, it is truly a wastage of time when you try to bend "Eko Hi Rudro dvitiya na tastu".It says "--dvitiya na tastu", which simply means there is no second.

Om Namah Sivayyaa

Top
#70326 - 12/27/05 05:32 PM Rudra-Shiva-Mahesvaram param parastad [Re: ELEGANTLY WASTED]
Atanu Banerjee Offline
member
**

Registered: 05/30/04
Posts: 388
Rudra-Shiva-Mahesvaram param parastad

The following verses clarify who is Mahesvara -- the controller of Maya Prakriti.

Svet. Upanishad

maayaa.n tu prakR^iti.n vidyaanmaayina.n cha maheshvaram.h .
tasyavayavabhuutaistu vyaapta.n sarvamida.n jagat.h .. 10..

yo yoni.n yonimadhitishhThatyeko
yasminnida.m sa.n cha vichaiti sarvam.h .
tamiishaana.n varada.n devamiiDya.n
nichaayyemaa.n shaantimatyantameti .. 11..

yo devaanaaM prabhavashchodbhavashcha
vishvaadhipo rudro maharshhiH .
hiraNyagarbhaM pashyata jaayamaana.n
sa no buddhyaa shubhayaa sa.nyunaktu .. 12..

yo devaanaamadhipo
yasminllokaa adhishritaaH .
ya iishe asya dvipadashchatushhpadaH
kasmai devaaya havishhaa vidhema .. 13..

suuxmaatisuuxma.n kalilasya madhye
vishvasya srashhThaaramanekaruupam.h .
vishvasyaikaM pariveshhTitaara.n
GYaatvaa shiva.n shaantimatyantameti .. 14..

He is the controller of Maya, Rudro Maharshi (the seer), who gives birth to Hiryanagarbha and all gods, who is minuter than the minutest, and who is shanta Shiva.

And the following verse indicates who Param Parastad (beyond the Supreme)is

tamiishvaraaNaaM paramaM maheshvara.n
ta.n devataanaaM parama.n cha daivatam.h .
patiM patiinaaM paramaM parastaad.h\-
vidaama devaM bhuvaneshamiiDyam.h .. 7..


Let us not argue. I request you to provide another shruti verse that specifies Lord Vishnu as "patiM patiinaaM paramaM parastaad". Else please desist from claims of supremacy etc. Those are claims on behalf of your mental pictures of God as a highly glorified man and nothing else. God encompasses all but is still beyond all. He has no second to whom he can be compared. The moment a comparison is made He is limited. True Lord is parastaad to everything.

Om Namah Sivayya

Top
#70327 - 12/27/05 06:41 PM Re: Rudra-Shiva-Mahesvaram param parastad [Re: Atanu Banerjee]
winsome Offline
member
**

Registered: 06/06/04
Posts: 213
Loc: USA
Quote:

....God encompasses all but is still beyond all. He has no second to whom he can be compared. The moment a comparison is made He is limited. True Lord is parastaad to everything.



I am confused - one hand, God cannot be compared. But on the other, he is beyond all.

So who is 'all' ? why is he compared to 'all' ?

Top
#70328 - 12/28/05 11:45 AM Re: Rudra-Shiva-Mahesvaram param parastad [Re: winsome]
ELEGANTLY WASTED Offline
initiate
***

Registered: 09/14/04
Posts: 107
Quote:


I am confused - one hand, God cannot be compared. But on the other, he is beyond all.

So who is 'all' ? why is he compared to 'all' ?




On behalf of Atanu, let me answer like a true advaitin. God is beyond all and the all is Himself, so He is beyond Himself even though all is an illusion which makes God an illusion, yet He is beyond all illusions despite being an illusion Himself.

Top
#70329 - 12/28/05 02:25 PM Re: Rudra-Shiva-Mahesvaram param parastad [Re: Atanu Banerjee]
ELEGANTLY WASTED Offline
initiate
***

Registered: 09/14/04
Posts: 107
Your arguments, which include pulling a few disjointed verses here and there, are worthless, because Vishnu Himself clarifies as to who is superior when, in his incarnation as Krishna, teaches the gita. He reconfirms his supremacy over devatas like rudra in no uncertain terms. You do accept the gita, don't you? OTOH, if you accept Krishna's supremacy and deny Vishnu's, here's a news flash...Krishna is Vishnu.:D

Top
#70330 - 12/28/05 02:26 PM True [Re: ELEGANTLY WASTED]
Atanu Banerjee Offline
member
**

Registered: 05/30/04
Posts: 388
Unable to show a "Param Parastad" from shruti my friends try the game of diversion. Be it so.


Mandyuka Up.

5. Where the sleeper desires not a thing of enjoyment and sees not any dream, that state is deep sleep. (The Self) seated in the state of deep sleep and called Prajna, in whom everything is unified, who is dense with consciousness, who is full of bliss, who is certainly the enjoyer of bliss, and who is the door to the knowledge (of the preceding two states), is the third quarter.

6. This is the Lord of all; this is omniscient; this is the in-dwelling controller (of all); this is the source and indeed the origin and dissolution of all beings.

7. The Fourth is thought of as that which is not conscious of the internal world, nor conscious of the external world, nor conscious of both the worlds, nor dense with consciousness, nor simple consciousness, nor unconsciousness, which is unseen, actionless, incomprehensible, uninferable, unthinkable, indescribable, whose proof consists in the identity of the Self (in all states), in which all phenomena come to a cessation, and which is unchanging, auspicious, and non-dual. That is the Self; that is to be known.



Yes friends, Pragnya is the Supreme Lord in whom the so-called ALL unify. It is pure consciousness and the source of individual I and the consequent vaisvnaro -- the multi forms.

But that from which Pragnya springs up is indescribable EKO. Words do not reach there, so you can try to create fun.

12. That which is without letters (parts) is the Fourth, beyond apprehension through ordinary means, the cessation of the phenomenal world, shivo advaitam. Thus Om is certainly the Self. He who knows thus enters the Self by the Self.


YES TURIYA IS EKO -- ADVAITAM. THE WORLDLY CONFUSE THAT EKO WITH HIS THREE STATES WHICH ARE HIS EFFECT and NOT HIM. LIKE WE WRONGLY KNOW WATER AS LIQUID, SOLID, AND GAS; BUT DO WE REALLY KNOW WHAT WATER ACTUALLY IS?

In case of lord, the effect thinks "I am an individual, independent, original" etc. etc. Search for your I, and you will not find it ever.

These mis-guided "I" are "All". Perception of Sarvottama can be from among these only. There is no conscious perception in Turiya.

OM NAMAH SIVAYYAA


Top
#70331 - 12/28/05 02:45 PM Re: Rudra-Shiva-Mahesvaram param parastad [Re: ELEGANTLY WASTED]
Atanu Banerjee Offline
member
**

Registered: 05/30/04
Posts: 388
*************
in his incarnation as Krishna, teaches the gita. He reconfirms his supremacy over devatas like rudra
************

In which verse does Krishna say "I am superior to Rudra"? Why cannot you show a shruti instead of using interpretations always?


************
if you accept Krishna's supremacy and deny Vishnu's, here's a news flash...Krishna is Vishnu.:D
*********

Friend, it is the other way around: you do not accept Gita. Since, you do not understand the following:

Yajur Veda iv. 4. 9.

(Thou art) Prajapati in mind, when come to the Soma; the creator in the consecration; ----; Agni at the Agnidh's altar; ---- Aditi when put in place; Visnu when being taken down; -----; Rudra when offered; ---the heaven when arrived at completion.


Since, you have a priori decided that EKO does not mean EKO, how will you realize the EKO? I say what I said earlier:

Soma Janitaa Earth, Heaven, Surya, Indra , and Visnu.And Soma is Lord's energy.


Top
#70332 - 12/28/05 03:16 PM Re: Rudra-Shiva-Mahesvaram param parastad [Re: Atanu Banerjee]
ELEGANTLY WASTED Offline
initiate
***

Registered: 09/14/04
Posts: 107
Quote:

In which verse does Krishna say "I am superior to Rudra"?




Look it up, sonny. Krishna says even the devatas (and rudra is a devata) cannot understand him because he's superior in every way to the devatas. Did you expect Him to say, "I am superior to rudra, indra, surya," until he hits 330 million?

Quote:


Since, you have a priori decided that EKO does not mean EKO, how will you realize the EKO?




You haven't understood the meaning of EKO and like a broken tape, repeat the same old thing. If I say there's no one like you in your family, it doesn't mean all of your family members have vanished and you're the only person left; it simply points to your superiority. There is nothing like Brahman, because He's Supreme and there cannot be more than one supreme; it doesn't mean nothing else exists. I've explained this already, but you seem to have more interest in refuting me than in understanding.

Top
#70333 - 12/28/05 04:45 PM Re: Rudra-Shiva-Mahesvaram param parastad [Re: ELEGANTLY WASTED]
openSky Offline
initiate

Registered: 10/07/04
Posts: 185
Newtonian physics is more tangible and mechanically logical. But it breaks down once you stretch the reference frame. QM or relativity is more inclusive approach, of which Newtonian mechanics is a mere approximation. To me Dvaita in that sense is (a useful) approximation of advaita made for children to grasp it easily. Hence it is always delivered in stories and puranas.

To an elevated perspective Krishna is “the” Brahman personified. Supremacy of Krishna mentioned in Gita is the supremacy of Brahman. Therefore I think concluding “Brahman as false because Krishna is said to be supreme” is a bit out of place. But that happens when one tries to read poetry like a VCR manual

Top
#70334 - 12/28/05 06:05 PM Re: Rudra-Shiva-Mahesvaram param parastad [Re: openSky]
winsome Offline
member
**

Registered: 06/06/04
Posts: 213
Loc: USA
Quote:

Newtonian physics is more tangible and mechanically logical. But it breaks down once you stretch the reference frame. QM or relativity is more inclusive approach, of which Newtonian mechanics is a mere approximation.



Quantum Mechanics is just a model which can be used to predict a subset of behaviors. It is not universal truth and is based on assumption. The possibilities inherent in this theory have not been realized. Even physicists don't agree; and their conclusion is that it can't really be explained.

You are right. It makes sense comparing Advaita to QM, although it is difficult to figure out what is inclusive


Quote:

To me Dvaita in that sense is (a useful) approximation of advaita made for children to grasp it easily. Hence it is always delivered in stories and puranas.



Dvaita considers Vedas as absolute truth. Vedas are not stories or puranas. The analogy of it being meant for 'children' is fine and will be taken as a compliment

Quote:

To an elevated perspective Krishna is “the” Brahman personified. Supremacy of Krishna mentioned in Gita is the supremacy of Brahman. Therefore I think concluding “Brahman as false because Krishna is said to be supreme” is a bit out of place. But that happens when one tries to read poetry like a VCR manual



No one compared Brahman with Krishna and nowhere it is mentioned that one is real and the other is false. There is one God and you can call this creator any name you like. God is real and so are you.

Top
#70335 - 12/28/05 07:40 PM Re: Rudra-Shiva-Mahesvaram param parastad [Re: winsome]
openSky Offline
initiate

Registered: 10/07/04
Posts: 185
Quote:

it is difficult to figure out what is inclusive


Yes it is if the line between brahman (god) and not god acquires a false rigidity. This line is an approximation made for initial understanding. If god is omnipresent there can be nothing outside the omnipresent god. There is brahman alone. But for the mind caught up in vanity or survival; the ideas of me and not me make more sense. So does the division between the god and not god. In Advaita you realize that there is no you outside the god. Brahman is within and without. There is no real duality. Dvaita is there only to graduate to advaita which BTW is also rooted in Vedas and is authored by the very sages who wrote Vedas.

Of course QM or relativity is not "the" truth but a better model than NM. The truth is outside all of these concepts (Dvaita and Advaita included), but better models come closer to eliminating dense conclusions such as earth is a flat space. Also better models help realize that writings such as “The universe came out of Lord Vishnu’s naval” are more likely to be a poetic metaphors (and a good one at that) and are not to be read literally.

Top
#70336 - 12/28/05 08:12 PM Re: Rudra-Shiva-Mahesvaram param parastad [Re: openSky]
winsome Offline
member
**

Registered: 06/06/04
Posts: 213
Loc: USA
It is a misconception that understanding of Dvaita is needed to graduate to Advaita. These are 2 doctrines to know the supreme and are poles apart in their means to reach that state. But people have supposedly achieved this by employing either.

One may possibly realize bliss, but that does not make his or the world's existence unreal.

If a philosophy is only a better model, but is unable to reconcile or clearly explain it's tenets, it's just brainwashing.

Top
#70337 - 12/28/05 08:28 PM Re: Rudra-Shiva-Mahesvaram param parastad [Re: winsome]
openSky Offline
initiate

Registered: 10/07/04
Posts: 185
Quote:

One may possibly realize bliss, but that does not make his or the world's existence unreal.



What made you conclude that advaita suggests that? Advaita suggests that world existence has no permanent basis, and that is not same as "unreal". You may not be able to reconcile only if you insist on equating unreal (mithya) = impermanent (maya).

Now, if there is anything outside god as suggested in dvaita; the omnipresence goes away. Omniscence, Omnipresence and Omnipotence of the supreme reality (brahman/god) that even dvaita aspire to worship can be best explained by advaita alone. But as I mentioned earlier that doesn't render Dvaita completely useless. There is place for the both in Hinduism.


Top
#70338 - 12/29/05 11:37 AM Re: Rudra-Shiva-Mahesvaram param parastad *DELETED* [Re: openSky]
ELEGANTLY WASTED Offline
initiate
***

Registered: 09/14/04
Posts: 107
Post deleted by Shaivite

Top
#70339 - 12/30/05 03:58 PM Re: Rudra-Shiva-Mahesvaram param parastad [Re: ELEGANTLY WASTED]
Atanu Banerjee Offline
member
**

Registered: 05/30/04
Posts: 388
***********
Think of the paper as god and the words on it as the world. The words don't exist independently of the paper (which makes the paper "all-pervasive"), yet there is a clear distinction between the paper and the words; one doesn't become the other. Likewise, god is all-pervasive, yet there is a distinction between god and the world. Hence, both dualism and omnipresence are reconciled.
***********

Devastating example. Neither the paper can write on itself nor the written material can get written on the paper by itself. A third, the writer is required. So, much for dvaita mental acrobatics.


******************
"-----Unfortunately, most mentally challenged people of the opensky variety know next to nothing---"

"---except what fake prophets like ramakrishna has taught them."
**********************

Sweet language and good example of humbleness.


**************
According to advaita, Brahman Himself is caught in 'maya' and suffering in the gutter.
****************

No, No. Param Brahaman is ever Sadasivam -- the shanta advaitam base of consciousness. You probably have not read scriptures and Gita properly. No advaitin will ever say that nirguna brahman, 'who appears to be divided but is one' (please read the 13 th Chapter of Gita) is ever deluded. It is the consciousness of "I exist", that limits itself by often attaching itself to a limited object.

*************
And guess what, none of this has been proved either by pratyAksha or by scriptures.
****************

And guess what your and mine pratyaksha is poorer than an animal's. A Dog can hear, smell, and look better. So, ask a dog about the pratyaksha.

Only true pratyaksha is "I exist". When one turns to search for this "I" , one finds it nowhere. Till now assumed body- brain cannot be the I, since after death the body is not capable of saying "I exist". Then where this I comes from?

During Shushupti, when the personal I sense is not there one is devoid of pain and turbulence. Then, to whom the pain is? It is to the false "I am this body" ego, which comes up in the waking and dreaming states. It is simply not there in the shushpti and Turiya (God). And please read Mandyuka Upanishad to learn that in the third deep sleep (Lord Parjanya), the universe and devas are dissolved. The turiya is specifically stated to be shivo advaitam.

Yes, from our sense bound pratyaksha experience, till we understand the mystery of deep sleep, or attain to Turiya, there will be the agni vaivanaro -- apperently many.


My dear friend, "elegantly wasted", please drop your tough arrogance and for little time search for your own I.


And about scriptures, proclaiming "the world ( including devas)disappearing in Him", how many citations you wish to read? Please do not say that after dissolution, Elegantly wasted will remain as elegantly wasted.

Best Regards.


Top
#70340 - 12/30/05 04:23 PM Re: Rudra-Shiva-Mahesvaram param parastad [Re: ELEGANTLY WASTED]
Atanu Banerjee Offline
member
**

Registered: 05/30/04
Posts: 388
By the way, 33 koti does not mean 33 crores. Koti means number. 33 simply means 33. It is like terming Siva Linga as an emblem of Penis, by some perverts. In sanskrit, linga is indicatory mark.


***********
You haven't understood the meaning of EKO and like a broken tape, repeat the same old thing
****************

Very well my dear friend. But the EKO has been defined in the preceding verse.

Svet Upanishad.

3.1 The one spreader of the net, who rules with power,
who rules all the worlds with power,the one who stands alone
in their rising and continuing existence--- those who know that one become immortal.

3.2 For Rudra is the one, others notwithstanding for a moment,who rules all the worlds with power,watching over creatures as their protector,after creating them all, merging them together at the end. Having eyes and mouths everywhere, arms and feet everywhere,the one God making hands and wings,creates the heaven and the earth.


3.3 The source and origin of the gods,ruler of all, may Rudra,the great seer, who anciently created the golden germ (cosmic soul), endow us with clear intellect.



I am truly sad that the great valorous attempts of yours simply do not gel in the perspectives of "One who stands alone" and "creating and merging thenm together at the end".


And " --- Na Dvittiya Tasthu", simply mens "there is no second". If you wish to go against Mandyuka Upanishad and all other Upanishads, which describes "ONE SELF" as the supreme, then you go ahead gleefully. No onee stops you. You are simply shutting off the infinite, unlimited, all pervading Lord away and making the apparent boundaries real -- that is called delusion.

3.3 The source and origin of the gods,ruler of all, may Rudra,the great seer, who anciently created the golden germ (cosmic soul), endow us with clear intellect.


Let Bhargo give us passionless intellect that enables us to experience beyond the shining Pusan.


Om Namah Sivayya



Top
#70341 - 01/23/06 02:59 PM Re: Rudra-Shiva-Mahesvaram param parastad [Re: Atanu Banerjee]
Bhakta of God Offline
member
**

Registered: 10/25/04
Posts: 330
Loc: Italy,Europe
Quote:

***********
Think of the paper as god and the words on it as the world. The words don't exist independently of the paper (which makes the paper "all-pervasive"), yet there is a clear distinction between the paper and the words; one doesn't become the other. Likewise, god is all-pervasive, yet there is a distinction between god and the world. Hence, both dualism and omnipresence are reconciled.
***********

Devastating example. Neither the paper can write on itself nor the written material can get written on the paper by itself. A third, the writer is required. So, much for dvaita mental acrobatics.




Namaste all.
Dear Atanu Banerjee,God Him-self is the writer in this case.He writes Him-self.
I wll give you some lesson about Visistadvaita.
Tattva" means that which is real.

There are three tattvas or reals. These are:

1. Jivatma. It is also called as Chit, Soul, Self, Atma and Chetana. It is sentient i.e., has Knowledge.

2. Achetana or matter or achit. It is non-sentient. i.e., dose not have knowledge.

3.Iswara or the Supreme Lord.

The Brahman or Iswara is the soul and the other two reals (tattvas), chetana and achetana, form His body.

How can I define a body?

You can say that the body has legs and hands. The body of a serpent does not have any hands. Similarly, the shape and size of one body are different from that of another. A tree has a different body. An animal has a different body from that of a bird. The body of an elephant is different from the body of a mosquito. So, you cannot give physical characteristics to define a body.

There are three characteristics which decide what the body is

The first one is that the body is supported by the soul. The body exists from the time of the soul entering into it, in the mother's womb. The bodycontinues and perishes or dies, only when the soul leaves the body. In other words, the body is supported by the soul. As long as the soul remains in the body, the soul supports the body. This is the first characteristic of the body. Even in a state of dreamless sleep, the body continues to exist. So, the soul fully supports the body.

The second characteristic is that the Soul also controls or rules over the body. When the body is awake, the body is controlled by the will of the soul. The soul thus rules or controls the body. The body acts as per the will of the soul.

The third one is that the body exists only for the fulfilment of the desire of the soul. The soul, through the mind, desires something and then the body acts accordingly. So, the body exists only for the purpose of the soul.

These three govern the relationship between the body and the soul.

The soul performs the following three functions,over the body:
(1) Supporting (adharatva)
(2) Controlling (niyantrutva)
(3) Mastership (Seshitva).

So, the soul is, in relation to the body, as follows:
(1) Supporter (adhara)
(2) Controller (niyanta)
(3) Master (Seshi).

So, the body is
(1) being supported by the soul; (adheyatva)
(2) being controlled by the soul; (niyamyatva)
3) existing for the pleasure of the soul (seshatva).

The above three qualifications can be taken to define the body/soul relationship.
You take all the three factors, which has have mentioned above and apply the principle to Brahman versus the chetana and achetana:
(1) All these chetana and achetana are supported by Brahman.
(2) Secondly, in their waking state, they are controlled or ruled by Iswara.
(3) Thirdly, all these exist only for His pleasure.
Thus, all the three characteristics or factors which determine the relationship between the soul and the body, are present in the case of Brahman or Iswara versus the entire chetana and achetana. Hence the fundamental doctrine of visistadvaita philosophy is that Iswara is the soul of all chetanas or Jivatmas. Iswara is also the soul of all achetana i.e.the fundamental Matter and its evolutions. In other words, all the Jivatmas are the body of Iswara. Similarly, Matter and its evolutions also are the body of Iswara. This is the basic doctrine of Sri vaishnava religion and philosophy.
We have a full section called "Antaryami Brahmana" in the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad and also similar passages in the Subala Upanishad. These specifically and clearly say that Iswara is the soul and the Jivatma and Matter are His body. The following are some of the passages:- "He is dwelling in the earth, is within the earth."
"His body is the earth",
"His body is the water",
"His body is the fire"
"His body is the air"
"His body is the sun"
"His body is the moon and the stars"
"His body is ether"
"His body is the light"
"His body is speech"
"His body is the eye"
"His body is the ear"
"His body is the mind"
"His body is the skin"
"His body is the soul or Jivatma"
"His body is the intellect"
"His body is matter"
"His body is death"
"He is the internal soul of all beings"
"He is the divine Lord Narayana. He is the soul of all".

Dear Atanu Banerjee,may be you will ask:"TheBrahman has matter and Jivatmas as His body and the Brahman resides in them. All the imperfections, and impurities, which are in the human beings or in this world: Will they not taint the Brahman?
The Jivatma is the soul in our body. The Jivatma experiences the pains and pleasures, because it is associated with this body. In the same way, if Brahman is also associated with Jivatmas and matter as body, would not the Brahman also suffer the pains and pleasures, just as the Jivatma does?
When we experience pain or pleasure does the Lord inside our heart also experience them?"

I reply: No. Although He is in all these, these do not taint Him. We have water on lotus leaf. The water is on the leaf, but still it does not get tainted by the impurities on the lotus leaf. Similarly, the Lord does not get tainted by His association with the chetanas and achetanas. /p>

No, because of the inherent difference between the Jivatma and the Paramatma. What applies to Jivatma need not necessarily apply to Brahman also. In the Vedas, Brahman is described as having two characteristics. The first one is that He is free from all defects and impurities. The second characteristic is that He possesses all auspicious qualities. In view of this categorical statement in the Vedas, we have to understand that Brahman does not get tainted by His association with the chetanas and achetanas.

No, as I have already stated, the impurities and the imperfections do not taint the Lord. Similarly, He is beyond all pains and pleasures, which we experience.

The Mundaka Upanishad very clearly mentions as follows: "There are two birds, of beautiful feathers, residing in the same tree. The birds are friends and closely attached to each other. One bird eats the fruit of the tree. The other bird shines, without eating." Here, the tree is the body. The two birds are the Jivatma and Paramatma. The Jivatma eats the fruit of his karma. This means, the Jivatma undergoes the pains and pleasures, due to his past karma. Paramatma, although in the same body, shines without eating, i.e. He is not tainted by the pains and pleasure of the Jivatma. This shows clearly that Paramatma, although residing in the body, is not tainted by impurities and past karma, of Jivatma. The same passage occurs again in Svetasvatara Upanishad.

Regards,
Orlando.








_________________________
My e-mail is lingabhakta@yahoo.it Feel free to e-mail me!

Top
#70342 - 01/25/06 03:57 PM Re: Rudra-Shiva-Mahesvaram param parastad [Re: Bhakta of God]
Bhakta of God Offline
member
**

Registered: 10/25/04
Posts: 330
Loc: Italy,Europe
Namaste.
Dear Atanu Banerjee,please read the following.
By http://www.ramanuja.org/
----------------------------------------
Visishtadvaita is the system of thought embodied by the Vedanta, the philosophical portion of the Vedas, India's ancient scriptures. The central idea of Visishtadvaita is this: there exists an Ultimate Principle, an Absolute Being that is the source and substratum of all that exists. This immanent spirit is the inner guide and controller of the whole universe with all its diverse animate and inanimate elements. Communion with this gracious, omnipotent Supreme Being constitutes the supreme end of existence. Such communion is attainable exclusively through self-surrender and undivided, loving meditation.
-------------------------------------------------------

By http://www.ramanuja.org/intro.html
-----------------------------------------------------
INTRODUCTION
TO
SRI VAISHNAVA PHILOSOPHY


The philosophy of Sri Vaishnavism is known in Sanskrit as Visistadvaita. The term literally means ``non-duality of Reality as characterized by attributes.'' As a classical expression of Vedanta (the philosophical basis for much of Hinduism), the goal of Visistadvaita philosophy is to understand and experience Brahman, the One Blissful Reality who is the all-pervasive ground and sustenance of the universe -- the string upon whom all pearls are threaded. The ``pearls'', individual beings and matter, are inseparable attributes of the Supreme Person, modes of Its existence.

To the devout Sri Vaishnava, the religious concept of Brahman is best expressed by the term ``God''. Brahman is Infinite, not just in physical terms, but in metaphysical and qualitative terms. Brahman is the absolutely real abode of all consciousness. He is infinitely auspicious, infinitely blissful, supremely gracious, infinitely merciful, infinitely beautiful -- in fact, infinitely infinite. The relationship between God and the universe is one of love, as all this is but a conscious emanation from Him. We are to Him as a child is to a parent, as a friend is to a friend, and as a beloved is to a lover.

Brahman also stands in relation to the universe and the individual souls as the Self of each, providing the basis for their reality. As such, Brahman has matter and individual souls as His body, and is therefore the Supreme Being in whom all reality is comprehended. All that we see is but a spilling from the plenitude of His glorious, all-pervasive essence. This is why the favorite devotional name for God among Sri Vaishnavas is Narayana -- He in whom all beings rest.
------------------------------------------------------------

Please read carefully (and completally) http://www.ramanuja.org/sv/acharyas/ramanuja/vedarthasangraha.html and http://www.ramanuja.org/sv/acharyas/ramanuja/sribhashya.html

I am sure that,if you will read carefully and completally these two links you will understand many things about Brahman.

Regards,
Orlando.




_________________________
My e-mail is lingabhakta@yahoo.it Feel free to e-mail me!

Top
#70343 - 01/25/06 06:32 PM Re: Rudra-Shiva-Mahesvaram param parastad [Re: Bhakta of God]
winsome Offline
member
**

Registered: 06/06/04
Posts: 213
Loc: USA
Quote:

To the devout Sri Vaishnava, the religious concept of Brahman is best expressed by the term ``God''. Brahman is Infinite, not just in physical terms, but in metaphysical and qualitative terms. Brahman is the absolutely real abode of all consciousness. He is infinitely auspicious, infinitely blissful, supremely gracious, infinitely merciful, infinitely beautiful -- in fact, infinitely infinite......



Agreed.


Quote:

.....As such, Brahman has matter and individual souls as His body, and is therefore the Supreme Being in whom all reality is comprehended.



if

- The world/matter is part of Brahman i.e. all matter constitute his body and are non-different.
- and Brahman is always blissful

Why then there is chaos/suffering in this world ? How can lord's body part (the world) experience differently than the lord ?

Top
#70344 - 01/26/06 02:48 PM Re: Rudra-Shiva-Mahesvaram param parastad [Re: winsome]
Bhakta of God Offline
member
**

Registered: 10/25/04
Posts: 330
Loc: Italy,Europe
Namaste.
Dear Winsome,please note that the Sastras are the only source of knowledge about Brahman. Logic will be useful, when we discuss about known things, so that, with authority. we can make use of our logic and argument. But logic cannot be of use, in discussing about unknown things, unseen things like Brahman. Here we have to accept the authority of the Vedas.The main purpose or perhaps the sole purpose of the Vedas and Upanishads is to teach about Brahman. Hence, they are the only source for us to understand the Brahman.

You asked:"if

- The world/matter is part of Brahman i.e. all matter constitute his body and are non-different.
- and Brahman is always blissful

Why then there is chaos/suffering in this world ? How can lord's body part (the world) experience differently than the lord ?"
Answer:Jivatma and the Paramatma have an inherent difference.What applies to Jivatma need not necessarily apply to Brahman also. In the Vedas, Brahman is described as having two characteristics. The first one is that He is free from all defects and impurities. The second characteristic is that He possesses all auspicious qualities. In view of this categorical statement in the Vedas, we have to understand that Brahman does not get tainted by His association with the chetanas and achetanas.

Maybe you will ask:"Do you mean that logic cannot be used at all for studying or understanding Brahman?"

Answer:No,I do not mean that. The primary authority is the Vedas and these can be supplemented by logic, without deviating from the authority of the Vedas.

Then please note a thing:I am a common a Jivatman and,like you,I am inside an human body.Note that I am NOT my body where I live.If one cuts my head,he doesn't kill my self (an immortal entity,like all the other jivatmans-like you!) but kills my body.So,in the same way that a jivatman and the body where he/she lives are different,Brahman (a spiritual entity) and his body are different.But unlike the bodies where the jivatmas live,if you hurt and destroy a rock (that is matter-part of body of Brahman) the Paramatma (Brahman) will not feel pain.

Why there is suffering in this world?
All jivatmas are eternal and uncreated like Brahman Him-self.Even the karma of the jivas is withot beginning.

Brahman is not only blissful!
The essential nature of Iswara (one of the names of Lord Vishnu) is truth, knowledge, infiniteness, happiness and purity. He is present everywhere. He knows everything.
He possesses six qualities and that is why He is called Bhagavan. Bhaga in Sanskrit means good quality.
These are: 1) Knowledge 2) Lordship 3) Strength 4) Valour 5) Energy and 6) Splendour

Maybe you will ask:"You are saying that because He has the six qualities, He is called Bhagavan and these qualities are not found in others. But we hear many people being called as Bhagavan, like Vyasa Bhagavan and Narada Bhagavan, How do you explain this?"

Answer: We apply the word Bhagavan to others, only out of respect. When we say that Rama is a lion, it only shows that Rama is as majestic and strong as a lion. Similarly, when we say Vyasa Bhagavan, it is only a term of respect for Vyasa.

Dear Winsome,if you have other questions,I am at your service!

Regards,
Orlando.












_________________________
My e-mail is lingabhakta@yahoo.it Feel free to e-mail me!

Top
#70345 - 02/05/06 06:42 PM Re: Rudra-Shiva-Mahesvaram param parastad [Re: winsome]
Sudarshan Rangaswamy Offline
member
**

Registered: 09/02/05
Posts: 341
Quote:

Why then there is chaos/suffering in this world ? How can lord's body part (the world) experience differently than the lord ?




The Lord wants it that way. I am reminded of a puranic narration ( i forgot which one) in which Sage Narada asks the Lord to show him his powers, and the Lord engulfs Narada is a veil of maya that he does not even remember himself.

The world, the creation all exist for the sport of the Lord. The supreme soul and the individual soul are different and hence what they percieve can be different too, atleast in the state of bondage.
_________________________
SrImAn venkatanAthAryaH kavitArkika kesarI | vedAntAcArya-varyo me sannidhattAm sadA hRdi ||

Top
#70346 - 02/06/06 11:52 AM Re: Rudra-Shiva-Mahesvaram param parastad [Re: Sudarshan Rangaswamy]
sarabhanga Offline
friend
**

Registered: 08/02/02
Posts: 894
Loc: India
Question: Why is there chaos and suffering in this world?
Answer: The Lord wants it that way. The world exists for the sport of the Lord.
Conclusion: The Lord enjoys chaos and suffering.

_________________________
Sarabhanga Giri ~ Ayamatma Brahma

Top
#70347 - 02/06/06 03:43 PM Re: Rudra-Shiva-Mahesvaram param parastad [Re: sarabhanga]
Sudarshan Rangaswamy Offline
member
**

Registered: 09/02/05
Posts: 341
Haha.

Advaita Version:

The Lord himself is snared in the net of illusion, and "suffers" or imagines himself to be "suffering" . Now that looks much better.
_________________________
SrImAn venkatanAthAryaH kavitArkika kesarI | vedAntAcArya-varyo me sannidhattAm sadA hRdi ||

Top
#70348 - 02/06/06 09:02 PM Re: Rudra-Shiva-Mahesvaram param parastad [Re: Sudarshan Rangaswamy]
sarabhanga Offline
friend
**

Registered: 08/02/02
Posts: 894
Loc: India
Advaita Shiva has no connexion with Maya and no possibility of “suffering”.
Dvaita Vishnu enjoys chaos and suffering.
_________________________
Sarabhanga Giri ~ Ayamatma Brahma

Top
#70349 - 04/09/06 11:30 AM This post is very important [Re: sarabhanga]
Bhakta of God Offline
member
**

Registered: 10/25/04
Posts: 330
Loc: Italy,Europe
Namaste all.
Please read completely this post from the beginning.
Regards,
Orlando.
_________________________
My e-mail is lingabhakta@yahoo.it Feel free to e-mail me!

Top
#70350 - 06/11/06 12:55 AM Re: This post is very important [Re: Bhakta of God]
Parnah Dhanika Offline
member
*

Registered: 06/10/06
Posts: 227
I haven't read any of the posts here, but let me put my reasons out why i stand neutral to conception of any god as supreme (other than an indivisible parabrahman and parashakti, in an impersonal manner):

1)Dont quote any puraanas - each of them claims their god to be supreme. Vishnu Puraanas gained prominence only around 12th century, while saivites existed since harrapan civilisation.

2)Dont use vedanta philosophies to support vishnu - dvaita is propounded in an impersonal manner by Arya Samaj. Vishisht Advaita is propounded in a saivite manner by Kashmir Savites and Lingayats. Shiva in Advaita is impersonal, no reference to shiva.

3)Gita? Dont quote some lines it - the interpretations i've seen are horrible, much worser than christian interpretations... Not to mention, in gita he says that he is all gods - including vishnu, that puts him at a superset position of vishnu.

4) Krishna i believe, is a superset of vishnu - not his subset. I agree with srila prabhupada here. There are many a differences between other avataars of vishnu and krishna. Unlike others, he wasn't 'pious' - he was a prankster, an ideal for modern youth. Only krishna said he is god, not other avatars.
Vaishnavs generally say that the three pairs of evildoers (the guardians of vishnu who long to go back to him) that he is to kill, krishna killed kamsa and some other guy, thus it would be inconsistent to say he is a superset. What i say is - the two that krishna killed, AREN'T the gatekeepers of vishnu. Reason? First off, unlike Hiranyaksha and Hiranyakashipu, or Ravana and Kumbakarna, those two weren't so much of a threat. One should remember that when krishna got angry and charged with a wheel at bhishma, bhishma said he was more than happy as he knew he is god, and that dying in his hands will give him moksha. Now, if that were the case, when vishnu killed hiranyaksha and hiranyakashipu, why didnt they attain moksha?

5)(Maitri Upanishad 5.2): "That part of Him which is characterized by tamas is called Rudra. That part of Him which belongs to rajas is Brahma. That part of Him which belongs to sattva is Vishnu.". Now where does it speak of his stance as supreme? It is a misconception, as you see - sattvic, means what is in equilibrium, preserved, and represents present tense. Thus it is assumed vishnu is the supreme.

6)According to many sources, all gods are mere positions. Devas, the terrestrial deities live for 36,000 years. I'm not aware as to how long the asuras (not daityas, the ones who fought devas, but the gods of abstract things like knowledge, love, etc..) live, but in the trimurthi - birth of a brahma ("a" brahma, as we live in a multiverse in hinduism) witnesses creation of universe, and his death causes its destruction.
A brahma lives for 311 trillion years
Vishnu lives twice age of brahma, that is 622 trillion years
Shiva lives thrice his age, thus 1866 trillion years

7)We have read many a places that vedic deities aren't to be worshipped in kalyug. This justifies our stance on brahma, who is named prajapathi ('he was self-born and gave birth to other gods') in vedas. Vishnu, is a solar deity who covers the entire universe in three paces (just like vamana avatar). Rudra is a fierce god of roaring storm, medicine and carries arrows which can poison anything - including the devas. Thus we can see almost no similiarity, thus quoting vedas is useless for stance on any of the supreme gods.
_________________________
No im not a girl

Top
#70351 - 06/17/06 07:20 PM Re: This post is very important [Re: Parnah Dhanika]
Parnah Dhanika Offline
member
*

Registered: 06/10/06
Posts: 227
Some passages i found on the net...
3.2 Rudra is truly one; for the knowers of Brahman do
not admit the existence of a second, He alone rules
all the worlds by His powers. He dwells as the inner
Self of every living being...

3.3 His eyes are everywhere, His faces everywhere, His
arms everywhere, everywhere His feet. He it is who
endows men with arms, birds with feet and wings and
men likewise with feet. Having produced heaven and
earth, He remains as their non—dual manifester.

3.4 He, the omniscient Rudra, the creator of the gods
and the bestower of their powers, the support of the
universe, He who, in the beginning, gave birth to
Hiranyagarbha—may He endow us with clear intellect!

The mahaanaaraayaNa upanishhad says, "Everything is
Rudra, we worship That Rudra."

According the shrI rudram of the yajur veda, rudra is
the deity who is "sarveshvara" -- the Lord of All.

And what of the name of shiva, 'parameshwara'? "param ishwara, i.e., Supreme God"???

It is difficult to quote vedas, its like looking through one eye - because, in vedas, vishnu and others are pretty different than what is described in the puraanas. Upanishads however speak of ONE god and only ONE, his three aspects being brahma vishnu rudra
EDIT:
Bhagavata: Brahma said:- I, Brahma, create the world, commanded by Narayana. Siva, controlled by Narayana, destroys the world. ----- If this is the perfect translation of what is written, then this doesnt conclude that narayana controls shiva - instead, it says narayana controls the world, while shiva destroys it

EDIT2: Ehh? What kind of manipulation of the 18 puraanas is that? The puraanas are classified as such :
First the rajasic puraanas, otherwise known as the brahma puraanas, for they speak of the active creation
Second the sattvic puraanas, otherwise known as the vishnu puraanas, for they speak of maintenance
Third the tamasic puraanas, otherwise known as siva puraanas, for they pertain to destruction

Glorification of both fo them is done in all. Sattvic, isnt greater or such. They're three states of consciousness.

Proofs that they are one:

"He is called Brahma - the Creator* of the Universe; Vishnu - All-pervading; Rudra - Punisher of the wicked, whom he causes to weep; Shiva - Blissful and Benefactor of all; Akshara - Immortal, Omnipresent; Swaraati - Self-effulgent; Kaalaagni - Cause of the dissolution** of the world and Regulator of time; Chandramaa - the true Source of Hapiness." KAIVALYA UPNISHAD.

"He is One, but the wise call Him by different names; such as, Indra, Mitra, Varuna, Agni,*** Divya - One who pervades all the luminous bodies, the source of light; Suparnaa - the Protector and Preserver of the Universe, Whose work are perfect; Matrishwaa - Powerful like wind; Garutmaan - Mighty by nature.**** " RIG VEDA MANDAL 1-22, 164.

And as for the 'devas', devas or devats plainly means 'virtuous qualities'. The stance of 'gods' is difficult to say, it was interpreted so due to orthodox brahmins, puurva mimaamsa and ill-minded britishers of the old days

EDIT:

This is why Vaishnavites reject advaita, because Shunyata is not what is advocated by the vedas. Rejecting Buddhism for its doctrine of Shunyata and re-establishing a modified Shunyata using Badaryana's work by flouting mimAmsa is not so appropriate isn't it? Vedanta Sutras affirm all the magnificence of Brahman, and not his Shunyata. Nirguna Brahman is nothing but disguised Shunyata- and in effect denial of God. That is why we reject it. Where does Bhagavan support anything near Shunyata in his 700 verses of wisdom?

That's the way you perceive it. It isn't disguised anatta - advaita existed much before, and it has support in the vedas. You are wrong in the way you put it, because many ridiculous problems, like free will v/s god's will, First Reason, and God Rules over Time aren't answered by other philosophies to a good level.

All is god, isn't anatta philosophy. Im not an advaitin, but im slowly advancing to it, from dvaita, to vishishtadvaita, to shuddadvaita, undoubtedly to kevala advaita. Vishishtadvaita, is yet again advaita - but explained in a different manner. All is god, yet isn't god - if it is and is not god, then it should be seperate from god. But if it is seperate from god, then god shouldnt have the ability to control it, much like a sculptor's control over a statue. If we are seperate from god, why can't we merge into him? If bhakti is indeed the only way, then why are four yoga explained by krishna, one of them involves destroying of ego and thus dissolution of personality - this is against the doctrines of visisht advaita, which says the personality is retained in vaikuntha. When people can go to heaven without personality, what becomes of them then?

And no, i dont think that's the reason - from what i see, vaishnavites prefer to say - "you are never god" and "you are a slave of god". Now saying that you are god and knowledge is the only way to god, defies both of them. I prefer to call vaishnavs and many others as 'dasavaadi' because vaishnavs enjoy calling kevala advaitins as 'mayavadi' - the reason for them being called so, is because puraanas say mayavadi philosophy is a false philosophy and its follower is doomed. The very meaning of 'maya' means false, thus those accusations are useless.

The other VERY famous line i hear is : kevaladvaita was conceived only to defeat jaina and bauddha thought, and now its time is over. This is cracked up logic. If rock beats scissors, and paper beats rock, how does that make paper prevail?
_________________________
No im not a girl

Top
#70352 - 06/19/06 04:55 AM Re: This post is very important [Re: Parnah Dhanika]
Shriyash21 Offline
seeker
*

Registered: 09/11/05
Posts: 58
Loc: India
excellent posts Parnah Dhanika, i enjoyed the lucid and straightforward style!

Top
#70353 - 06/19/06 01:17 PM Re: This post is very important [Re: Parnah Dhanika]
Bhakta of God Offline
member
**

Registered: 10/25/04
Posts: 330
Loc: Italy,Europe
Namaste.
Parnah Dhanika,please note that the answer to your two posts are already wrote on this thread.Please read it from the beginning.The first page will be enough.You may wish to read it.
Regards,
Orlando.
_________________________
My e-mail is lingabhakta@yahoo.it Feel free to e-mail me!

Top
#70354 - 06/19/06 04:58 PM Re: This post is very important [Re: Parnah Dhanika]
winsome Offline
member
**

Registered: 06/06/04
Posts: 213
Loc: USA
Quote:

I haven't read any of the posts here, but let me put my reasons out why i stand neutral to conception of any god as supreme (other than an indivisible parabrahman and parashakti, in an impersonal manner):

1)Dont quote any puraanas - each of them claims their god to be supreme. Vishnu Puraanas gained prominence only around 12th century, while saivites existed since harrapan civilisation.

2)Dont use vedanta philosophies to support vishnu - dvaita is propounded in an impersonal manner by Arya Samaj. Vishisht Advaita is propounded in a saivite manner by Kashmir Savites and Lingayats. Shiva in Advaita is impersonal, no reference to shiva.



What is the purpose of providing a list of don't's ?

Quote:

3)Gita? Dont quote some lines it - the interpretations i've seen are horrible, much worser than christian interpretations... Not to mention, in gita he says that he is all gods - including vishnu, that puts him at a superset position of vishnu.



Please show a reference where Krishna says he is greater than Vishnu.

Quote:

4) Krishna i believe, is a superset of vishnu - not his subset. I agree with srila prabhupada here. There are many a differences between other avataars of vishnu and krishna. Unlike others, he wasn't 'pious' - he was a prankster, an ideal for modern youth. Only krishna said he is god, not other avatars.



Does that make other avatar's not God's ?

Quote:

Vaishnavs generally say that the three pairs of evildoers (the guardians of vishnu who long to go back to him) that he is to kill, krishna killed kamsa and some other guy, thus it would be inconsistent to say he is a superset.



How is killing "guys" make him a superset; Is this what Srila Prabhupada is assuming ?

Quote:

What i say is - the two that krishna killed, AREN'T the gatekeepers of vishnu. Reason? First off, unlike Hiranyaksha and Hiranyakashipu, or Ravana and Kumbakarna, those two weren't so much of a threat. One should remember that when krishna got angry and charged with a wheel at bhishma, bhishma said he was more than happy as he knew he is god, and that dying in his hands will give him moksha. Now, if that were the case, when vishnu killed hiranyaksha and hiranyakashipu, why didnt they attain moksha?



I do not know if at all Krishna got angry and charged at Bhishma with a wheel to kill him in any war setting. But Bhishma was an ardent devotee of the Lord so it comes as no surprise if he attains Moksha. Kamsa, Narakasura and other "guys" were asuras, and cannot attain liberation just because they met their fate at the hands of the Lord. As such birth and death of all are in His hands, but that does not mean everyone will attain moksha.

Quote:

5)(Maitri Upanishad 5.2): "That part of Him which is characterized by tamas is called Rudra. That part of Him which belongs to rajas is Brahma. That part of Him which belongs to sattva is Vishnu.". Now where does it speak of his stance as supreme? It is a misconception, as you see - sattvic, means what is in equilibrium, preserved, and represents present tense. Thus it is assumed vishnu is the supreme.



Assumptions can be based on gross interpretations or vice versa. If they are studied with proper context and grammer, it will be clear what the vedas convey. Taking an explicit meaning of one or two scriptural sentences and establishing a Vedanta school gives rise to misconceptions.

Quote:

7)We have read many a places that vedic deities aren't to be worshipped in kalyug. This justifies our stance on brahma, who is named prajapathi ('he was self-born and gave birth to other gods') in vedas. Vishnu, is a solar deity who covers the entire universe in three paces (just like vamana avatar). Rudra is a fierce god of roaring storm, medicine and carries arrows which can poison anything - including the devas. Thus we can see almost no similiarity, thus quoting vedas is useless for stance on any of the supreme gods.



If that is so, quoting Vedas is useless for everything. Anyone who accepts Vedas as spiritual authority is considered to be a Hindu. ONE supreme being has to be established and the Vedas are clear on that.

Top
#70355 - 06/20/06 11:47 AM Re: Lord Vishnu/Narayana is the Supreme God of the vedic literature [Re: Bhakta of God]
Shriyash21 Offline
seeker
*

Registered: 09/11/05
Posts: 58
Loc: India
The first page did you say?

Quote:

I wrote "In the past I didn't accept that Lord Vishnu was inferior to Shiva,Durga,Ganesha,etc".I wanted write "In the past I didn't accept that Lord Vishnu was superior to Shiva,Durga,Ganesha,etc".



Ok, so its supposed to concern us that you didnt accept something?
What is this obsession with 'superiority' that you have?
Is there an inferiority complex lurking beneath somewhere?

Quote:

Dear Yash_mys,please note that there is only one God.Shiva and Brahma are devas (celestial beings).




LOL,Thats God Shiva and God Brahma, my friend.

Quote:

About the "supernatural power",please note that God is a personal entity.He is a trascendental person.Devotion to the true and only GOD is bigger than which being (even if an high being like a deva like Shiva) is worshipped.




When will you understand that this obsession of putting God Shiva somehow beneath God Vishnu is utterly foolish,and in my opinion its a SIN!

Quote:

I respect and accept all the religions.




Why thank you, how nice.

Quote:

As follower of the vedic religion I can't accept that Shiva and Brahma are God.




pffft.if you cant, then dont.who is forcing you?
Just dont try to force your 'truths' down any passerbys throats.

Quote:

You may worship every deva you like but this doesn't mean that you must equate a deva with the Lord.




grow up already.

Top
#70356 - 06/20/06 11:53 AM Re: Lord Vishnu/Narayana is the Supreme God of the vedic literature [Re: Bhakta of God]
Shriyash21 Offline
seeker
*

Registered: 09/11/05
Posts: 58
Loc: India
Quote:

Dear Natyanyaki,please note that Lord Shiva is not God.He is a deva or celestial being.No one can prevent you from worship a deva you like,but this does not mean that you must equate every high being with the Lord.
Shiva is a great bhakta of Sriman NarayaNA.I am sure he himself DOES NOT RELISH being considered anywhere near the Supreme Lord.



Yeah, am i am saying that what you have written is utter rubbish. I dont even know why i am responding, but i just cant stand such open stupidity .

Top
#70357 - 06/20/06 12:13 PM Re: vedic literature surely [Re: Atanu Banerjee]
Shriyash21 Offline
seeker
*

Registered: 09/11/05
Posts: 58
Loc: India
Quote:

The mere effort to establish supremacy indicates that there are comparable others. And this is ridiculous. It is my experience that whereever Vaisnavas try to describe Lord they cannot do anything but denigrate others, as if Lord's greatness depends upon comparison. It is puerile. This itself indicates doubt and insecurity. Mere shouting or voluminous writing of trash does not change the truth. When there is need to shout of Supremacy of a diety, it is not the jnana of diety but is simply an ego belief.




How right you are Atanu Banerjee, well said.

Top
#70358 - 06/20/06 12:16 PM Re: Amazing [Re: Atanu Banerjee]
Shriyash21 Offline
seeker
*

Registered: 09/11/05
Posts: 58
Loc: India
Quote:

It is really amazing that how confident one becomes by not knowing anything.



Indeed, it is quite funny and sad at the same time.

Top
#70359 - 06/20/06 01:58 PM Re: This post is very important [Re: winsome]
Parnah Dhanika Offline
member
*

Registered: 06/10/06
Posts: 227
Sorry all, my net was down for a few days so was unable to reply BTW, before i proceed, as for my personal stance upon god - Im a smartha, who calls to Shiva, Raama, Krishna and Mother (Shakti, paarvati, lakshmi, whichever name you wish to give to her) but consider ganesh to be the actual supremity.

@Bhakta of God : Im sorry, but i didn't find those replies at all satisfactory. Not to mention, majority or all of what you've quoted is from vaishnav sites, so i consider them all one-eyed interpretations. That is the other reason i havent read all of em. Anyways let me re-reply to two of your lines:
1)Shiva can be prayed to, but he shouldn't be prayed to. What sense does this make? No matter what you say, your stance here is illicit.

2)As for the rajasic, sattvic, tamasic thing - here's nother way of putting it:
"rajasic texts are relate to creation, thus they seperate us from god and shouldn't be treated with high respect. Sattvic means persistence of this seperation, thus they should be rejected by all means. Tamasic texts deal with destruction, thus returning things to their true state - the soul is no longer in body etc., thus they are the texts speaking truth"

Quote:

What is the purpose of providing a list of don't's ?



I dont think i need to provide an answer for this silly question.

Quote:

Please show a reference where Krishna says he is greater than Vishnu.


True, i have to dig it up. But all those i read, he doesn't say he's vishnu either. One line i can remember right now goes like this : "Those who pray to demigods will go their planets, those who pray to Me will come to Me" -- he neither spoke of vaikuntha, nor his 'planet'. You cant say "its what he meant" for that's not what's written. I haven't read gita though, i just browse through it a few times when i'm bored.

Quote:

Does that make other avatar's not God's ?



Of course not. Remember, Raavana took the boon that he cant be killed by any devatas, and Brahma told Indra that Vishnu will be born as raama, a human, who shall kill him. This by all means exemplifies him as HUMAN, not GOD. Valmeeki didn't even said he's vishnu - tulsidaas exhalted him as avataar of vishnu (and kamban too i think). Dont get me wrong though, i celebrate raam navami and say his name when i'm worried. Like it goes in gita (somewhere) - whatever you worship, whether it be a plant, animal, man or idol - the prayers will go to him. I call raama god, in the sense he's an epitome of knightly perfection.

Quote:

How is killing "guys" make him a superset; Is this what Srila Prabhupada is assuming ?



I dont know what Srila Prabhupada says, for im not a gaudiya vaishnav.

Quote:

I do not know if at all Krishna got angry and charged at Bhishma with a wheel to kill him in any war setting. But Bhishma was an ardent devotee of the Lord so it comes as no surprise if he attains Moksha. Kamsa, Narakasura and other "guys" were asuras, and cannot attain liberation just because they met their fate at the hands of the Lord. As such birth and death of all are in His hands, but that does not mean everyone will attain moksha.



It happens so, he did charge at bhishma like that. You seem to be pretty offended by me calling them "guys" -- so you want me to exemplify them as 'asuras' 'devas' and others such? The names are all inconsistent - many of the vedic deities like mithraa were asuras, later changed in vedaas as devas. In zoroastrian religion, asuraas are good, devas are bad. So what am i to say - mithraa got "prosletysed"? Or did he get a Green Card? Asuras were originally gods of abstract things, like love education and other such things, and later labelled as "evil divinities". Thus i call em "guys". Seems like Vishnu doesn't treat all equally, going against nother line i stumbled in the gita where krishna says he receives all alike, good or bad. (funny how the few lines i remember are helpin me here oO). Kumbhakarna, wasn't interested in fighting against raama, but he did for he loved his brother. Raavana himself is said to have reigned peacefully but as vishnu wasn't born for long, began to reign chaos all over the world.

Quote:

Assumptions can be based on gross interpretations or vice versa. If they are studied with proper context and grammer, it will be clear what the vedas convey. Taking an explicit meaning of one or two scriptural sentences and establishing a Vedanta school gives rise to misconceptions.


Your stance is pretty interesting - the vaishnav translations you rely on, are correct. The other translations, are wrong. I dont know from where you came up with this baseless idea. But pray tell me then, what do these lines otherwise signify?

Quote:

7)We have read many a places that vedic deities aren't to be worshipped in kalyug. This justifies our stance on brahma, who is named prajapathi ('he was self-born and gave birth to other gods') in vedas. Vishnu, is a solar deity who covers the entire universe in three paces (just like vamana avatar). Rudra is a fierce god of roaring storm, medicine and carries arrows which can poison anything - including the devas. Thus we can see almost no similiarity, thus quoting vedas is useless for stance on any of the supreme gods.



If that is so, quoting Vedas is useless for everything. Anyone who accepts Vedas as spiritual authority is considered to be a Hindu. ONE supreme being has to be established and the Vedas are clear on that.



Nope, the popular definition is WRONG. There have been many definitions proposed, this is what i find in Sivaananda's book "All about hinduism":

Quote:

In a meeting of the Sanatana Dharma Sabha, Lokamanya Tilak said: “A Hindu is he who believes that the Vedas contain self-evident and axiomatic truths.”

The Hindu Maha Sabha has given another definition: “A Hindu is one who believes in a religion which has originated in India.”

“Those who burn the dead are Hindus.” This is another definition given by some.

“He who protects the cows and the Brahmins is a Hindu.” This is another definition given by some.

Some define: “A Hindu is one who regards India as his motherland and the most sacred spot on earth.”

Some others define: “He who calls and considers himself a Hindu is a Hindu.”

Some define: “He who accepts the Vedas, the Smritis, the Puranas and the Tantras as the basis of religion and of the rule of conduct, and believes in one Supreme God (Brahman), in the Law of Karma or retributive justice, and in reincarnation (Punarjanma), is a Hindu.”

“He who follows the Vedic or Sanatana-Dharma is a Hindu.” This is the definition by some.

“He who is a follower of the Vedanta is a Hindu.” This is another definition given by some others.

“He who has perfect faith in the Law of Karma, the law of reincarnation Avatara, ancestor worship, Varnashrama Dharma, Vedas and existence of God, he who practises the instructions given in the Vedas with faith and earnestness, he who does Sandhya, Sraaddha, Pitri-Tarpana and the Pancha-Maha-Yajnas, he who follows the Varnashrama Dharmas, he who worships the Avataras and studies the Vedas, is a Hindu.” This is the definition given by some highly cultured men. This is the only correct and complete definition.





And of course quoting the vedas is useless. Vedas speak of many deities, and Vishnu is a minor solar deity, who is not naraayana but a god who needs 3 steps to cover the world. Now how can a god be a minor deity and supreme god at the same time? Does the mean the vedas are wrong....? If you say they are wrong, you are not sticking to your definition. If you say they aren't wrong, then you cannot testify the nature of the ultimate being. Braahman is impersonal, while Vishnu is personal. How can he be both? If he is, why should i exclude maheshwara? The truth is, he IS impersonal - but people perceive him due to their limited nature. Like the story of six blind men who try to know what an elephant is, all of us are holding to different parts of the elephant and saying we ourselves are right as to how it looks like. Vaishnavs, are the blind man holding the trunk, whose sound can be heard by all the six. Heck, so you accept vishnu is but a minor deity...

@shriyash21: Heh, thanks ^^

There's a very simple reason as to why vaishnavs are so many - he's the "active" god, the one who takes all the struggle for maintaining the world and takes birth time over time (if we consider all the avataars as that of vishnu other than the dashaavatara) - thus he is most worthy of worship. However this doesn't mean he's a supreme god. I stick with the stand of smaarthics - every god is worthy of worship, whether it be Vishnu, Shiva, Shakti or YHWH/Trinity/Allah

EDIT: And yea, raavana isn't an asura by the way - he's a raakshasa.
_________________________
No im not a girl

Top
#70360 - 06/20/06 02:53 PM Re: This post is very important [Re: Parnah Dhanika]
Bhakta of God Offline
member
**

Registered: 10/25/04
Posts: 330
Loc: Italy,Europe
Namaste Parnah Dhanika.
I will try to reply.
Quote:

1)Shiva can be prayed to, but he shouldn't be prayed to. What sense does this make? No matter what you say, your stance here is illicit.




I hope you already know what the puranas are.
Please read Srimad Bhagavata Purana,Canto 12,Chapter 3.
By http://www.srimadbhagavatam.org/canto2/chapter3.html
(1) S'rî S'ukadeva said: 'For the intelligent among men, I have given you all the answers in response to the inquiring of your good self about the human being on the threshold of death. (2-7) The ones who desire for the luster of the Absolute worship the master of the Vedas; Indra, the King of Heaven is for the ones desiring strength of the senses [sex] and the Prajâpatis [the strong progenitors] are for those who desire offspring. The goddess [Durgâ] is for those desiring after the beauty of the material world, the firegod for the ones desiring power, for wealth there are the Vasus [a type of demigod] and the incarnations of Rudra [Lord S'iva] are for those wishing for strength and heroism. For a good harvest the mother of the demigods Aditi is worshiped, desiring heaven one worships her sons, for those desiring royal riches there are the Vis'vadeva demigods and for a commercial success there are the Sâdhya gods. The As'vinîs [two brother demigods] are for the desire for longevity, for a strong body the earth is worshiped and those who want to maintain their position and be renown respect their environment up to the horizon. Aspiring beauty there are the heavenly Gandharvas, those who want a good wife seek the girls of the heavenly society [the Apsaras and Urvas'îs] and everybody who wants to dominate over others is bound to the worship of Brahmâ, the head of the Universe. Yajńa, the Lord of Sacrifice is worshiped for tangible fame and for a good bank balance Varuna, the treasurer, is sought. But those who desire to learn worship S'iva himself while for a good marriage his chaste wife Umâ is honored.

(8) For spiritual progress the supreme truth [Lord Vishnu and His devotees] is worshiped, for offspring and their protection one seeks the ancestral [the residents of Pitriloka], pious persons are sought by those seeking protection, while the demigods in general are for the less common desires. (9) The godly Manus [the fathers of mankind] are for those desiring a kingdom, but the demons are sought for defeating enemies. The ones desiring sense gratification are bound to the moon [Candra], while those who are free from desire worship the Supreme Personality beyond. (10) Whether free from desire, full of it or desiring liberation, the person with a broader intelligence should with all his heart worship in devotional service [bhakti-yoga] the Original Personality of God, the Supreme Whole. (11) All these types of worshipers surely develop, worshiping the highest benediction in this life, unflinching spontaneous attraction to the Supreme Lord through the association with His pure devotees.


Lord Shiva can give you material boons like wealth etc but He and other devas can't give you Moksha (freedom from the cycle of death and rebirth).ANd of course even Lord VIshnu can give you material things if you ask for them.THen no need for praying Shiva.

Quote:

True, i have to dig it up. But all those i read, he doesn't say he's vishnu either. One line i can remember right now goes like this : "Those who pray to demigods will go their planets, those who pray to Me will come to Me" -- he neither spoke of vaikuntha, nor his 'planet'. You cant say "its what he meant" for that's not what's written. I haven't read gita though, i just browse through it a few times when i'm bored.




Srimad Bhagavad-Gita is part of Mahabharata.In the Mahabharata it is wrote tha Lord Krishna is Lord Vishnu.

Quote:

Of course not. Remember, Raavana took the boon that he cant be killed by any devatas, and Brahma told Indra that Vishnu will be born as raama, a human, who shall kill him. This by all means exemplifies him as HUMAN, not GOD. Valmeeki didn't even said he's vishnu - tulsidaas exhalted him as avataar of vishnu (and kamban too i think). Dont get me wrong though, i celebrate raam navami and say his name when i'm worried. Like it goes in gita (somewhere) - whatever you worship, whether it be a plant, animal, man or idol - the prayers will go to him. I call raama god, in the sense he's an epitome of knightly perfection.




In the Bala Kanda,the first part of Srimad Valmiki Ramayana it is told that Lord VIshnu will born as Rama.And Brahma just asks Lord Vishnu to kill Ravan.Lord VIshnu was born as Rama by His own will.Please read http://www.valmikiramayan.net/bala/sarga15/bala_15_frame.htm

Now please read Srimad Bhagavatam,Canto 1,Chapter 3.By http://www.srimadbhagavatam.org/canto1/chapter3.html
(1) "The Lord as the purusha accepted the universal form of the material world with its sixteen principles of material action to make a start with His creation. (2) Dormant in the water, from that navel sprouted out of the lotus of manifestation Brahmâ, the father of all beings as the creator. (3) It is imagined that the purusha, from the excellence of His existence, expanded into all the worlds. (4) His form seen perfectly thus has numerous legs, thighs, arms and faces, with wonderful heads, ears, eyes and noses, all glowing with garlands and dresses. (5) These multifarious incarnations are the indestructible source from which all the godly, human and animal beings originate.

(6) At first the sons of Brahmâ [the Kumâras] were disciplined in austerity for the realization of continuation. (7) Incarnated next for the sake of its welfare, He, like a boar, lifted the world from the lower regions. (8) Thirdly He accepted His presence among the learned (rishis) [as Nârada Muni] for the sake of evolving vedic knowledge for service in devotion without further material motives. (9) Fourth born as the twin sons of king Dharma in the form of Nara-Nârâyana He underwent severe penances to attain control over the senses. (10) Fifth with the name of Kapila He gave an exposition to the brahmin Âsuri on the nature of metaphysics and the elements of creation as through time the knowledge was lost. (11) Sixth, born as the son of Atri from Anasűyâ who prayed for Him, He lectured to Alarka, Prahlâda and others about the transcendental. (12) Seventh born from Âkűti as Yajn'a, the son of Prajâpati Ruci He, assisted by the godly, ruled over the change of the period of Svâyambhuva Manu together with His son Yama and others. (13) Eighth, from the wife of King Nâbhi, Merudevî He took birth as King Rishabha and showed the path of perfection respected by people of all stages of life. (14) Accepting His ninth incarnation from prayers by the sages, He ruled [as Prithu] the earth for the sake of its cultivation and produces, which made it beautifully attractive. (15) Like a fish [Mâtsya] in the water He kept Vaivasvata Manu after the period of Câkshusha Manu on a boat of protection afloat the waters when the world was deeply inundated. (16) Eleventh as a tortoise [Kurma] He sustained the Mandarâcala Hill of the theists and atheists which served as a pivot in the ocean. (17) Twelfth was Dhanvantari [Lord of medicine] and thirteenth He appeared as an alluring beautiful woman to the atheists while giving nectar to the godly. (18) His fourteenth incarnation He appeared as Nrisimha, who with His nails half as a Lion on His lap tore apart the king of the atheists like a carpenter does cane. (19) Fifteenth He assumed the form of Vâmana [the dwarf-brâhmana] who, from the arena of sacrifice of Mahârâja Bali, begged only for three steps of land, while at heart willing to return to the kingdom of the three worlds. (20)In His sixteenth incarnation [as Bhrigupati] He acted twenty-one times against the ruling class that negated the intelligentsia. (21) Seeing the common people as being less intelligent He seventeenth incarnated as Vyâsadeva from Satyavatî by Parâs'ara Muni, to divide the desire tree of the Veda into several branches.(22) Next He performed superhuman in controlling the Indian Ocean having assumed the form of a divine human being [Râma] in order to act for the sake of the Godly. (23) Nineteenth as well as twentiest He appeared as Balarâma and Krishna from the Vrishni-family and thus Bhagavân removed the burden from the world. (24) Thereafter in the Age of Kali His birth as Lord Buddha from An'jana in Gayâ will take place in order to delude the ones envious with the theists. (25) Following that at the conjunction of two Yugas when there is hardly a ruler found that is not a plunderer, the Lord of Creation will take birth with the name of Kalki as the son of Vishnu Yas'â.

(26) O Twice-born, from the ocean of goodness the incarnations of the Lord are innumerable like the countless streams from thousands of lakes. (27) All the powerful sages, the godly, the Manus and their progeny, as well as the Prajâpatis [founding fathers] are aspects of the Lord. (28) All these are part of Lord Krishna, the Supreme Lord [Bhagavân] in person who gives protection in all ages and worlds against the enemies of the King of Heaven [Indra]. (29) Those who in the morning and the evening carefully recite these mysterious births of the Lord, will find relief from all miseries of life. (30) All these forms of the Lord are certainly of the one without a form that is transcendental; they came about in the self from the modes of the material energy with its elements. (31) To the less intelligent seer they are as clouds in the sky and dust in the air in order to perceive. (32) This unmanifested beyond, which is without a form affected by the modes of nature and is alike that what is unseen and unheard - thŕt is the living being that takes birth repeatedly. (33) Whenever one realizes that all these gross and subtle forms originate from the ignorance in the self, at that time one is in association with the divine. (34) With the illusory energy subsided there is enrichment with the full knowledge of enlightenment and knowing in the glories of the self. (35) Thus the inactive unborn Lord of the Heart with His births and activities has been described by the learned as being undetectable even in the Vedas. (36) Being within every living being He, the omnipotent master of the senses who's play is spotless, is independent and unaffected by creation, destruction and maintenance. (37) Acting like an actor in a drama, by His manipulations the ones with little knowledge cannot know Him in His activities, names and forms by means of speculation and oration. (38)


Now please read Srimad Bhagavata Purana,Canto 2,Chapter 7.By http://www.srimadbhagavatam.org/canto2/chapter7.html
(1) The Creator said: 'When the Lord attempted to lift the earth out of the great ocean [ - the Garbodhaka], assumed He as the Unlimited One within the universe for His pastimes the form of the sum total of all sacrifices, in being faced with the first demon [called Hiranyâksha, the demon of gold] who by Him, as if He was a thunderbolt piercing a pack of clouds, was defeated with His tusk [Him considered as the boar-avatâra Varâha].

(2) From Âkűti ['good intention'], the wife of the Prajâpati, Suyajńa ['appropriate sacrifice'] was born who with his wife Dakshinâ ['the reward'] gave birth to the godly headed by Suyama ['proper regulation'] by which He greatly diminished the distress in the three worlds and because of which the father of mankind called Svâyambhuva Manu was named Hari [the Lord].

(3) Next He took birth in the house of the twice born Kardama ['the shadow of the Creator'], from the womb of Devahűti ['the invocation of the Gods'] accompanied by nine women. In teaching His mother as Lord Kapila ['the analytic one'] in spiritual realization, she in that life was freed from the soul-covering material modes and achieved liberation.

(4) The sage Atri praying for offspring, I, satisfied by his surrender, promised the Supreme Lord to be born as Datta [Dattâtreya, the given one] of whom the dust of His lotus feet purified the body of mysticism bringing wealth to the spiritual and material worlds of Yadu [the founder of the dynasty], Haihaya [a descendant] and others.

(5) Because of my first having lived austere in penance for the sake of the creation of the different worlds, the Lord appeared as the four Sanas [the four celibate sons called Sanat-Kumâra, Sanaka, Sanandana and Sanâtana]. In the epoch before, the spiritual truth was devastated in the inundation of the world, but it became completely manifest with these sages who had a clear vision of the soul.

(6) From Műrti ['the idol'], the wife of Dharma ['righteousness'] and the daughter of Daksha ['the able one', a prajâpati], He took the form of Nara-Nârâyana ['man, the course of man']. Thus [in that descent] by seeing the strength of [the beauties originating of] His personal penances the Supreme Lord never would see His vows broken by the celestial beauties that came to Him with Cupid [the god of love]. (7) Great stalwarts [like Lord S'iva] can overcome their being overwhelmed by lust by means of their wrathful vision, but they cannot overcome their own intolerance. To that however, with having Him within, the lust is afraid to enter. How can it factually reclaim the attention with Him in mind?

(8) Incited by the sharp words uttered by a co-wife, even in the presence of the king, [He as] a boy took to severe penances in a great forest and therewith set the goal of the attainment of Dhruva [the immovable] with being prayed for to the satisfaction of the denizens of heaven as do the great sages ever since ascending and descending from that position [see also fourth Canto].

(9) When the twice born, cursed King Vena ['the anxious'], strayed from the path of religion, it burnt him like a thunderbolt and all his great deeds and opulence went to hell. Being prayed for He delivered him coming to earth as his son [named Prithu, 'the great one'] as well achieving that the earth could be exploited to yield all kinds of crops.

(10) As the son of King Nâbhi ['the pivot'] He was born as Rishabha ['the best one'] from Sudevî to go for the certainty of being equipoised in the matter of yoga which is accepted by the learned sages as the highest stage of perfection, in which one, being perfectly liberated from material influences, accepts the selfreposed in suspension of the activities of the senses.

(11) In a sacrifice of mine the Supreme Lord appeared with a horse-like head [called Hayagrîva] and thus He is seen as the Personality of Sacrifices with a golden hue from whose breathing through His nostrils the sounds of the vedic hymns, personal sacrifices and all that concerns the [Super-]soul of the godly can be heard.

(12) He who became the Manu [called Satyavrata, 'the truth-abiding'] at the end of the epoch saw that Lord Matsya ['the fish'] is the shelter of all living beings up to the earthly ones because of which out of a great fear for the waters, having taken to my mouth, therefrom certainly all the Vedas could be enjoyed.

(13) When in the ocean of milk [knowledge] the leaders of the immortals and their opponents where churning the mountain [called Mandara, big] for gaining the nectar, supported the primeval Lord half asleep as a tortoise [called Kurma] it scratching and itching His back.

(14) As Nrisimha ['the lion'] He appeared as the one that takes away the fear of the god-conscious in rolling His eyebrows and showing the terrifying teeth of His mouth, directly on His lap with His nails piercing the fallen king of the demons [Hiranyakas'ipu] who had challenged Him with a club in his hands.

(15) The leader of the elephants who within the river at his leg was taken by an exceptionally strong crocodile, holding a lotus in great distress addressed [Him] like this: 'You are the Original Personality and Lord of the Universe and as famous as a place of pilgrimage all good ensues just hearing of Your name so worthy to chant.' (16) The Lord who heard him in his need, as the Unlimited Powerful One seated on the king of the birds [Garuda], cut the beak of the crocodile in two with His cakra-weapon and delivered him in His causeless mercy by pulling him out by his trunk.

(17) Although by His transcendental qualities the greatest He [as the youngest] of all the sons of Aditi ['the infinite one'] surpassed in this universe all the worlds [as Vâmana] and was therefore called the Lord of Sacrifice: pretending to need only three steps of land He took thus begging all the lands [of Bali Mahârâja] without ever offending the authorities He is never bereft of. (18) O Nârada, by virtue of the strength of the water that washed from the feet of the Lord, he [Bali Mahârâja], who kept it on his head and who had the supremacy over the kingdom of the godly, never tried for anything else but to keep - even at the cost of his own body - to his promise, as he was dedicated to the Lord within his own mind.

(19) Unto you, Nârada, the Supreme Lord satisfied by the developing of your goodness through your transcendental love, nicely in all detail described the light of the knowledge of yoga and the science of relating to the soul, which all surrendered to Vâsudeva so perfectly know to appreciate.

(20) By His cakra and undeterred in all circumstances ['ten sides'] He in the different incarnations as the Manu-successor in the Manu-dynasty ruled over de miscreants and kings of that type, subduing by the marks of His personal glories from the world of truth the three systems [see loka] thus establishing His fame.

(21) With the name of Dhanvantari ['moving in a curve'] the Supreme Lord as fame personified descended in the universe directing the knowledge for obtaining a long life by bringing the nectar from the [Kurma-churning] sacrifice that swiftly cures the diseases of all living entities.

(22) With the purpose of diminishing the increasing dominance of the ruling class the great soul [as Lord Paras'urâma] as the Ultimate Spiritual Truth abated all those thorns of the world who strayed from the path and opted for a hellish life, awfully powerful operating thrice seven times by His transcendental hatchet. (23) By dint of His causeless all-embracing mercy, the Lord of All Time [as Râma] descended in the family of Ikshvâku [the dynasty of the solar order] where on the command of his father [Das'aratha] He took to the forest with His wife [Sîtâ] and brother [Lakshmana] on the opposition of the ten-headed one [the demoniac ruler Râvana] who had caused great distress. (24) Unto Him the fearful Indian ocean, which saw its aquatics [sharks, seasnakes and such] burnt, quickly gave way when from a distance He, angered as He was about His aggrieved intimate friend [the kidnapped Sîtâ], meditated the city of the enemy [on the island of Lankâ] with red-hot eyes like Hara did [who wanted to burn the heavenly kingdom by his fiery looks] in desiring to burn it down. (25) When the trunk of the elephant carrying Indra with light in all directions broke on the chest of Râvana, he was proudly overtaken by laughter strolling amidst the armies, but within no time the kidnapper was killed by the tingling sound of the bow [of Râma]. .


Quote:

And of course quoting the vedas is useless. Vedas speak of many deities, and Vishnu is a minor solar deity, who is not naraayana but a god who needs 3 steps to cover the world.




After Srila Vyasadeva divided the Vedas into four books (Rg, Yajur, Sama and Atharva), his disciples further divided them into 1,130 divisions. This is stated in the Kurma Purana (52.19-20):
eka-vimsati-bhedena rg-vedam krtavan pura
sakhanam satenaiva yajur-vedam athakarot

sama-vedam sahasrena sakhanam prabibheda sah
atharvanam atho vedam bibedha navakena tu

Previously the Rg Veda was divided into 21 sections, the Yajur Veda into 100 sections, the Sama Veda into 1,000 sections and the Atharva Veda into 9 divisions.

Each division has 4 minor divisions, namely the Samhitas, Brahmanas, Aranyakas and Upanisads. Thus altogether the 4 Vedas contain 1,130 Samhitas, 1,130 Brahmanas, 1,130 Aranyakas, and 1,130 Upanisads. This makes a total of 4,520 divisions.

At present, most of these texts have disappeared due to the influence of time. We can only find 11 Samhitas, 18 Brahmanas, 7 Aranyakas and 220 Upanisads which constitutes a mere 6% of the entire Vedic canon!

You may read Lord Vamana's story in Srimad Bhagavata Purana,Canto 8,Chapters 15,16,17,18,19,20,21 and 22.You may read it at http://www.srimadbhagavatam.org/canto8/c8-contents.html



Please note that Lord Vishnu didn't need 3 steps to cover the universe.He did this just for fun.

Regards,
Orlando.











_________________________
My e-mail is lingabhakta@yahoo.it Feel free to e-mail me!

Top
#70361 - 06/20/06 03:21 PM Re: This post is very important [Re: Bhakta of God]
Shriyash21 Offline
seeker
*

Registered: 09/11/05
Posts: 58
Loc: India
Quote:

Lord Shiva can give you material boons like wealth etc but He and other devas can't give you Moksha (freedom from the cycle of death and rebirth).




Congratulations, the most ill-informed, unsubstianted, unresearched, biased, discriminatory, revolting, infuriating, pathetic, childish and idiotic statement yet!

Ever heard of the 18 Yoga Siddhas?

Nandi Devar

Paambati

Boganathar

Machamuni

Patanjali

Danvanthari

Goraknath

Kudumbai

Idai Kadar

Tirumoolar

Rama Devar

Agathiyar

Konkanavar

Kamalamuni

Sattamuni

Karuvoorar

Sundaranundar

Valmiki

They are all ENLIGHTENED Bhakts of God Shiva.

Ever heard of the 63 Nayanars?

* Aanaaya Nayanar
* Adhipaththa Nayanar
* Aiyadigal Kaadavarkon Nayanar, Pallava King Aiyadigal Perumaanaar
* Amarneethi Nayanar
* Appoodhi Adigal Nayanar
* Arivaattaaya Nayanar
* Chandesuvara Nayanar
* DhandiyadigaL Nayanar
* Enaathinatha Nayanar
* Eripaththa Nayanar
* Eyarkon Kalikkaama Nayanar
* Gananaatha Nayanar
* Idankazhi Nayanar
* Ilaiyaankudimara Nayanar
* Isaijnaniyaar, Female Nayanmar
* Iyarpakai Nayanar
* Kaari Nayanar
* Kalikkamba Nayanar
* Kaliya Nayanar
* Kanampulla Nayanar
* Kannappa Nayanar
* Karaikkal Ammaiyaar, Female Nayanmar.
* kazharchinga Nayanar
* Kazharir-rarivaar Nayanar, Chera King Cheramaan perumaaL
* Kochchenkat Chola Nayanar, A Chola King
* Kootrruva Nayanar
* Kotpuli Nayanar
* Kulachchirai Nayanar
* Kungiliyak Kalaya Nayanar
* Manakkanychaara Nayanar
* Mangaiyarkkarachiyaar, Female Nayanmar
* Meypporul Nayanar
* Moorkha Nayanar
* Moorthy Nayanar
* Munaiyaduvaar Nayanar
* Muruga Nayanar
* Nami Nandhi Adigal
* Narasinnga Munaiyaraiya Nayanar
* Nesa Nayanar
* Ninra Seer Nedumaara Nayanar
* Perumizhalaik Kurumba Nayanar
* Poosalaar Nayanar
* Pugal Chola Nayanar, A Chola King
* Pukazth Thunai Nayanar
* Saakkiya Nayanar
* Sadaiya Nayanar
* Saththi Nayanar
* Seruththunai Nayanar
* Sirappuli Nayanar
* Siruththonda Nayanar
* Somaachi Maarra Nayanar
* Sundaramoorthy Nayanar, Popularly known as Sundarar
* Thirugnana Sambanthar, Popularly known as Sambanthar
* Thirukkuripputh Thonda Nayanar
* Thirumoola Nayanar
* Thirunaalaippovaar Nayanar, Popularly known as Nandhanaar
* Thirunavukkarasar, Popularly known as Appar
* Thiruneelakanda Nayanar
* Thiruneelakanda Yaazpaana Nayanar
* Thiruneelanakka Nayanar
* Uruththira Pachupathi Nayanar
* Vaayilaar Nayanar
* Viranminda Nayanar

Again, they are all enlightened Bhakts of God Shiva.

................OM NAMAH SHIVAYA............................

Top
#70362 - 06/20/06 04:06 PM Re: This post is very important [Re: Shriyash21]
Parnah Dhanika Offline
member
*

Registered: 06/10/06
Posts: 227
Quote:

Lord Shiva can give you material boons like wealth etc but He and other devas can't give you Moksha (freedom from the cycle of death and rebirth).ANd of course even Lord VIshnu can give you material things if you ask for them.THen no need for praying Shiva.



Says who? The word 'siva' in upanishads as said by upanishads in my earlier quote, is the loving god. His very name means so. Vishnu means the 'all pervading'. And as i said, when krishna said he will accept all, who are you to say he doesnt?

Dont quote those useless puraanas, each exalting their favourite god to the highest level. Saying shiva puraanas are wrong is the funniest thing come up by vaishnavs, choosing only one part of truth like one-eyed men. Its like saying "he is a boy but he is not a male". Accept all of it, or accept none. Dont waver

As for missing parts of vedas - so? You mean to say, the missing parts of vedas say "vishnu isn't a minor god, he is THE ULTIMATE GOD!!" Contradictions mean they are not Sanaatana Dharmaa. Vedas indeed have a few such contradictions, thus i do not follow them completely.

As for mahaabhaarata thing, i doubt its veracity. Valmeeki never said vishnu is raama, but vaishnavs say he is. So how can i say the same about krishna? What i've read, is that he's his avataar. So is he his avataar or is he himself?

Unlike other avataara only Krishna declared himself the ultimate god. That is the source of the pride of vaishnavs. All gods are but mere positions, save for the ultimate AUM. It is Aum, the braahman, from whom Krishna came. Vaishnavs enjoy saying rudraa and brahmaa are positions, but enjoy skipping the part that vishnu is himself a position. All will agree that shiva is greater than brahmaa. Now, brahma lives the life of a universe (said to be 311 trillion years), vishnu twice his age, rudraa thrice vishnu's age.

Of course you'll say "how can it be so that krishna is vishnu's avataara but not vishnu" -- remember, vedas say - god is unborn. So how can be born? Only krishna was born by Divine Grace, other avataara were just 'there' or were born from progeny. Thus he wasn't born. But as for the world he appears to be so, so has Krishna assumed the avatara of vishnu. Vishnu, Shiva, Brahma, Rudra, Shakti -- all these are the various aspects of him, but souls fill in these positions and operate to some extent - the personal divine aspect. They're yet again in the control of the Aum, thus it was born out of Vishnu, the aspect controlled by Aum, but not by the personal self.

Krishna is clearly distinct from other avataara, such a fact can NEVER be ignored.
Quote:


Please note that Lord Vishnu didn't need 3 steps to cover the universe.He did this just for fun.



Please not that Lord Shiva doesn't pray to Vishnu, nor is he not the Supreme Lord. He does this just for fun.


Edited by Parnah Dhanika (06/20/06 04:26 PM)
_________________________
No im not a girl

Top
#70363 - 06/20/06 04:42 PM Re: This post is very important [Re: Parnah Dhanika]
winsome Offline
member
**

Registered: 06/06/04
Posts: 213
Loc: USA
Quote:

I dont think i need to provide an answer for this silly question.



Maybe I did not make it clear. Your posting was more of a preaching, and usually done by our christian brethren. It's beneath you to take on this mantle of educating ignorant Hindus - Shaivas or Vaishnavas. Now I am sorry I responded to a silly posting.

Quote:

Your stance is pretty interesting - the vaishnav translations you rely on, are correct. The other translations, are wrong. I dont know from where you came up with this baseless idea. But pray tell me then, what do these lines otherwise signify?



Everyone thinks their translation is the correct one, including you. So the idea (what idea !?) is as baseless as someone preaching to people the list of "do's" and "don'ts". The chances of you accepting my translation is as good as me accepting your's

So long.

Top
#70364 - 06/20/06 05:17 PM Re: This post is very important [Re: winsome]
Parnah Dhanika Offline
member
*

Registered: 06/10/06
Posts: 227
Quote:


Maybe I did not make it clear. Your posting was more of a preaching, and usually done by our christian brethren. It's beneath you to take on this mantle of educating ignorant Hindus - Shaivas or Vaishnavas.



Oh well, the reason is because most of the arguments cannot be considered correct by any means.
Shaivites quote shiva puraanas and say shiva is supreme
Vaishnavs quote vishnu puraanas and say vishnu is supreme

Earlier, there was an argument on vedaantic philosophies - which is seriously senseless, for philosophies dont preach on vishnu or shiva... they preach on three things - brahman, atman, prakriti. This argument of philosophies to support their personal god, thus, is stupid to say the least.

Quote:

Now I am sorry I responded to a silly posting.



Its okay, i'll forgive your silly err of a reply .
Quote:


Everyone thinks their translation is the correct one, including you. So the idea (what idea !?) is as baseless as someone preaching to people the list of "do's" and "don'ts". The chances of you accepting my translation is as good as me accepting your's



Nah, i dont preach any form of translations. I dont accept the authority of any text. I will read the transliteration, analyse, and if i find it comfy, i will stick to it. Otherwise, i wont. Thus, the list of do's and dont's. I preach shuddhadvaita, only because i find it most comfy and comprehend it the best. If one is gonna just say "N, YOU'RE WRONG - THIS IS THE ULTIMATE AUTHORITY!!!" he is no doubt worthy of being called a crack. So, by all means, im NOT anywhere near our abrahamic brethren who say their text is ultimate authority and every other is fake.

So i dont see how you came to the interesting and strange conclusion that i preach like an abrahamic, or my do's and dont's have any baselessness. Unless of course, you're saying this with bigotry... Please think ONCE, not even TWICE - the next time you classify a person into anything.

And no, i dont know if you'll accept my translation, but i'll certainly accept yours if it makes sense.. On the other hand you seem to be preaching one of the points i mentioned :P

And if you continue to argue that i'm baseless by i dunno which approach - i must say, you're a miracle man.


Edited by Parnah Dhanika (06/20/06 05:20 PM)
_________________________
No im not a girl

Top
#70365 - 06/25/06 02:52 PM Re: Lord Vishnu/Narayana is the Supreme God of the vedic literature [Re: Bhakta of God]
H.V. Shivadas Offline
initiate
****

Registered: 01/16/00
Posts: 140
Loc: USA
My Dear Bhakta,

Quoting a particular puran or a particular guru or swami to prove that one deity is superior or inferior to any other is no proof at all. For every puran or quote you can show saying that Vishnu is supreme, I or others can quote other purans, agamas, upanishads or veds that show otherwise. The Vedas themselves say "The wise know that God is ONE, but known by many names"
_________________________
Hariharan Shivadas satyam nasti paro dharma!

Top
#70366 - 06/26/06 01:47 AM Re: Lord Vishnu/Narayana is the Supreme God of the vedic literature [Re: H.V. Shivadas]
Parnah Dhanika Offline
member
*

Registered: 06/10/06
Posts: 227
I would like to add just ONE more thing...
At the site by vjsingh, it says that Srimad Bhagavatam, Narayana blesses Brahma that he shall never be a victim of infatuation. Yet, it says Brahma stole calves through infatuation. So am i to say - narayana isn't all powerful, or should i say that the texts are not of highest authority? We will easily prefer the latter. Vaishnav puraanas are named sattvik by vyasa because it exhalts the sattvik and saguna part of brahman.
Through another perspective, they will be the inferior ones while saivite puraanas the highest:
Rajasic, deal with creation - the "initial" texts, of basic value
Sattvik, deal with maintenance - the "temporary" texts, thus shouldn't be considered
Tamasic, deal with destruction - the "ultimate" texts, thus of highest order

Of course this is a silly classification. Personally i like shiva because of his meditative state, representing nirguna brahman. However I preferred vishnu as he's the most active form of brahman, but when i think of that lakshmi is always pressing his feet, i shrunk away from the vaishnav form of brahman, and preferred the ardhanarishwara - half shiva, half parvati. But when i found out that there are two states of vishnu and parvati - one where she is in his heart, i redeveloped affinity towards vishnu. I chant 'hare' which for me means krishna - not shiva (hara), nor vishnu (hari)

[true that hari is morphed into hare while singing bhajans]
_________________________
No im not a girl

Top
#70367 - 06/30/06 09:33 AM Re: Lord Vishnu/Narayana is the Supreme God of the vedic literature [Re: Parnah Dhanika]
Parnah Dhanika Offline
member
*

Registered: 06/10/06
Posts: 227
Found the right lines i was searching for! These are lines from "Gita as it is" by A.C.Bhaktivedanta Prabhupada:

Ch.10:
[Txt.21] "Of the adityas i am vishnu, of the lights I am the radiant sun, of the maruts I am mareechi, and among the stars I am the moon"
[Txt.22] "Of the vedas I am the saama veda, of the demigods I am indra, of the senses I am the mind, and in the living beings I am the living force"
[Txt.23] "Of all the rudras I am Shankar, of the yakshas I am Kuvera, of the Vasus I am agni, of the mountains I am meru"

Here you either have to accept that he's all these divinities and objects, or accept that he is neither of them but glorifying himself.

Siva is just as valid as Vishnu on being 'vedic'. The five headed destroyer with visible inner eye is as valid as the four handed preserver bearing blue(black?) skin.

To quote madhava, "There is one God, the embodiment of positive Divinity. He is addressed as ‘Narayana’; he is also called Ishwara, Brahma, Vishnu and by other names. You can address Him by any name."

The god of vedas is nowehere near vishnu or shiva or any such. If you really want to know "the supreme god of the vedas" i suggest you read satyaarth prakaash by dayaananda, which dismisses the apocryphal puraanas which are compilation of prevailing myths coupled with certain revelations.
EDIT: Seems like i wont be satisfied by my replies in this thread... just to confirm, when i said 'quoting vedas is useless', i mean - in relation to the mythical puraanas, whose accounts cannot be trusted

EDIT: Vedas and vedic texts also argue that god can only be one etc., and puraanas spoken of in yajur veda refer to the brahmanas according to translations by dayananda.
_________________________
No im not a girl

Top
#70368 - 07/03/06 05:22 PM Re: This post is very important [Re: Parnah Dhanika]
Bhakta of God Offline
member
**

Registered: 10/25/04
Posts: 330
Loc: Italy,Europe
Quote:

Valmeeki never said vishnu is raama, but vaishnavs say he is.



Please read what Srimad Valmiku Muni writes in the verses 18 and 19a of Bala Kanda,the first part of Srimad Ramayana.
By http://www.valmikiramayan.net/bala/sarga1/bala_1_frame.htm
viSNunaa sadR^isho viirye somavat priya darshanaH |
kaala agni sadR^ishaH krodhe kSamayaa pR^ithvii samaH || 1-1-18
dhanadena samaH tyaage satye dharma iva aparaH |


"In valour Rama is comparable with Vishnu, and in his looks he is attractive like full-moon, he equals the earth in his perseverance, but he is matchable with era-end-fire in his wrath... and in benevolence he is identical to Kubera, God of Wealth-Management, and in his candour he is like Dharma itself, the other God Probity on earth...

Now read what Srimad Valmiki says in Srimad Ramayana,Bala Kanda,Chapter 15.By http://www.valmikiramayan.net/bala/sarga15/bala_15_frame.htm
Please note that I will copy the whole chapter
1.That intellectual sage and one proficient in Veda-s Rishyasringa contemplated for a while, and gaining indications as to which ritual is to be performed, then said the king.
2."I will procedurally conduct the ritual contained in the preamble of adharva-veda with procedural hymns, called putra kaameSTi i.e., the ritual that bestows sons, for your benefit."
3.Then that resplendent Sage Rishyasringa commenced that putrakaameSTi ritual, offering oblations into sacred fire with ritual acts meticulously contained in hymns.
4.Then the deities along with celestial beings, siddha-s, i.e., the souls that obtained salvation, and also other esteemed sages who by now are the residents of Heavens have duteously assembled in the firmament to receive their part of the oblations.
5.Those deities who procedurally assembled there in that congregation then spoke to Brahma, the creator of worlds.
6."Oh! God, the demon named Ravana is torturing all of us with his intrepidity, as you have blessed him, and we are unable to control him.
7."You have given boon to him appreciating his ascesis and oh, god, with high regard to that boon of yours we are tolerating all the cruel acts of Ravana from then onwards
8."That malevolent Ravana is tormenting all the three worlds, hating the functionary deities of cosmos, and always desires to assail Indra, the king of all the functionary deities of universe.
9."That invincible one is further self-conceited by the boons you have accorded, and he is overbearingly torturing the sages, celestial beings like yaksha-s, gandharva-s, asura-s, and like that even the Brahmans.
10."The Sun-god will not verily parch Ravana, the Air-god will not puff at his sides, and on seeing Ravana, the lord of the undulating waves, namly the ocean will not pulsate either.
11."Thereby, there is a great panic for all of us from that demon with an awesome look, hence oh, god, it will be apt of you to give a thought for his elimination.
12.When all the deities spoke to Brahma thus, he thought for a while and then said "Aha! The idea to kill that evil-minded Ravana is discerned.
13."Ravana said while seeking boon that, 'I shall not be killed by gandharva-s, yaksha-s, or by gods, or by other demons...' and I also said 'so be it..."
14."That demon did not express about humans then with his disrespect to them, and evidently his death does not occur otherwise." So said Brahma to gods.
15.On hearing Brahmathe explaining himself , then all those gods and great sages became adequately happy.
16,17.In the meanwhile the great resplendent Vishnu, the Lord of the Universe, arrived there mounted on his Eagle-vehicle Garuda, handling conch-shell, disc, and mace in his three of four hands, clad in yellow-ochre robes, wearing golden bracelets, and while best gods eulogised him, and his arrival there is like the arrival of sun mounted on black cloud to accord the gratuitous gift called the rain.
18.Vishnu having met Brahma stood there contemplating, and then all of the gods on bowing down and offering prayers addressed Vishnu.
19,20,21a."Oh! Vishnu, desiring prosperity in all the worlds we nominate you to become the son of the ruler and lord of Ayodhya, namely Dasharatha, who is a virtuous one, renowned one and one whose resplendence equals that of the sages, and oh, Vishnu, through the wives of such a king Dasharatha, who are in similitude with the hrii, the virtue, shrii, the affluence, and kiirti, the glory, you have a fourfold transformation and take birth as their son.
21b,22a."Oh! Vishnu, on your taking birth as human through the wives of Dasharatha you eliminate Ravana in war, who has become exacerbating and thorny to all worlds, and who is otherwise not eliminable for gods.
22b,23a."He that preposterous demon Ravana with his invigorated doggedness is torturing gods along with eminent saints, gandharva-s, and siddha-s.
23b,24a."He that furious one with his insolence is knocking down sages from their celestial abodes, and like that he is knocking down the gandharva-s and apsara celestials too from the heavenly gardens Nandana, where they will be taking delight.
24b,25a."We the celestial beings like siddha-s, gandharva-s, yaksha-s along with sages have actually come for his elimination, and thereby we seek shelter in you.
25b,26a."Oh, enemy tormentor, oh, Vishnu, you are the ultimate recourse for all us in eliminating enemies of divinity, hence you make up your mind to take birth in human world." The gods appealed to Vishnu that way.
26b,27.When the god of gods Vishnu, the supreme one among deities, one who is revered by all worlds is eulogised this way, then he spoke to all of those celestials that abide in the righteousness and that are in the assemblage, keeping the Forefather Brahma at their helm.
28,29,30a."Get rid off the fear, let safety be upon you, on eliminating that cruel and evil-minded Ravana who became dreadful to deities and sages, along with his sons, grandsons, friends, cousins and relatives, ministers and forces too in war for your welfare, I will then reside in human world ruling this earth for eleven thousand years." Thus Vishnu assured the gods.
30b,31a.On giving boon to all gods in that way the kind-hearted god Vishnu started to think about the instituting base for his birth in human world.
31b,32a.And then that lotus-petal-eyed one agreeing to manifest himself in fourfold way is predisposed towards Dasharatha to be his father.
32b.Then all the groups of gods, sages, gandharva-s, with rudraa-s, and apsarasa-s, extolled Vishnu with prayers of divine exposition.
33."Oh! Vishnu, he that fiery one is uprising furiously with his heightened arrogance, and he is a fright to sages and a thorn in the side of hermits, and he is the hater of Indra, hence we pray you to redeem that Ravana."
34.On eliminating that furiously vainglorious Ravana with all his forces and with all his kinsmen neutralise the pandemonium created by him in all the worlds, and for a long time to come you get rid of your febrility, and you please return to your heavenly abode, namely your blameless and faultless Vaikuntha.


As you can see Srimad Valmiki him-self writes that Lord Rama is an avatara of Lord Vishnu.


Quote:

Of course you'll say "how can it be so that krishna is vishnu's avataara but not vishnu" -- remember, vedas say - god is unborn. So how can be born? Only krishna was born by Divine Grace, other avataara were just 'there' or were born from progeny. Thus he wasn't born. But as for the world he appears to be so, so has Krishna assumed the avatara of vishnu.




By http://www.srivaishnavan.com/faq_iswara.html
35)We see that God Narayana also takes avataras like Rama and Krishna. Does it mean that He is also born in this world, like us?
36)Can you quote the authority of the Vedas?
37)Well, that sounds puzzling.
42)When the Lord took avatara in this world, like Rama or Krishna, did He also have bodies like us, ordinary human beings, of flesh and blood?

By http://www.srivaishnavan.com/ans_iswara.html#35
35)No. We human beings or animals or trees are bom in this world because of our past karmas - punya and papa. There is no such thing as Karma or punya or papa for Lord Narayana. So, when He comes into this world, as Rama or Krishna, it is not like other Jivatmas. He comes into this world of His own free will and desire. So, it is not birth for the Lord, like we understand the birth of any of us.
36)The Vedas say that He is not born; but still, He is born in many ways.
37)What the Vedas say is that He is not bom, because of past karma, like us. But He is born in many ways. He takes many avataras, like Rama and Krishna, out of His own free will, not bound by any karma.
42)Here Gita says that the bodies the Lord takes during these avataras are of Suddha Sattva. I have explained to you already, what is Suddha Sattva. So there is no question of the Lord having bodies like us, ordinary human beings.

By http://www.srivaishnavan.com/ans_matter.html#37
37)Suddha sattva, as the name indicates, is pure sattva, without any mixture or trace of the other two qualities, namely, rajas and tamas.
38)Sri Vaikunta or Paramapada is fully suddha, sattva. In this world also, the archa forms of Sriman Narayana and Lakshmi in the temples are suddha sattva.

Regards,
Orlando.









_________________________
My e-mail is lingabhakta@yahoo.it Feel free to e-mail me!

Top
#70369 - 07/03/06 08:10 PM Re: This post is very important [Re: Bhakta of God]
Parnah Dhanika Offline
member
*

Registered: 06/10/06
Posts: 227
The first part of quotes says he is COMPARABLE to vishnu. At other places, he is also equalled to rudra.

What you've quoted is from bala kanda
From valmikiramayan.net
Quote:

6.

While stabilizing the original text of Ramayana, historians surmised that portions of two Books [Kaandas], namely Book I, Bala Kaanda and Book VII, Uttara Ramayana (not listed above) are later additions - "The first and the last Books of the Ramayana are later additions. The bulk, consisting of Books II--VI, represents Rama as an ideal hero. In Books I and VII, however Rama is made an avatara or incarnation of Vishnu, and the epic poem is transformed into a Vaishnava text. The reference to the Greeks, Parthians, and Sakas show that these Books cannot be earlier than the second century B.C......"[ The cultural Heritage of India, Vol. IV, The Religions, The Ramakrishna Mission, Institute of Culture ].

However Book I, Balakanda is considered to be an original version except for some injected stories. Story starts from the fifth chapter of Book I, and tradition demands it to be read with the others. This stipulation is not obligatory to Uttara Kaanda, a later kaanda, wherein Sita's expulsion to forest takes place.



I accept the first six kandas on the other hand..

One can tell tradition has tampered a lot, for even after jatayu tells rama that ravana of lanka kidnapped sita, he asks sugreeva to find out where sita is located, and all his armies march off in four directions.

Quote:


35)No. We human beings or animals or trees are bom in this world because of our past karmas - punya and papa. There is no such thing as Karma or punya or papa for Lord Narayana. So, when He comes into this world, as Rama or Krishna, it is not like other Jivatmas. He comes into this world of His own free will and desire. So, it is not birth for the Lord, like we understand the birth of any of us.
36)The Vedas say that He is not born; but still, He is born in many ways.
37)What the Vedas say is that He is not bom, because of past karma, like us. But He is born in many ways. He takes many avataras, like Rama and Krishna, out of His own free will, not bound by any karma.
42)Here Gita says that the bodies the Lord takes during these avataras are of Suddha Sattva. I have explained to you already, what is Suddha Sattva. So there is no question of the Lord having bodies like us, ordinary human beings.
37)Suddha sattva, as the name indicates, is pure sattva, without any mixture or trace of the other two qualities, namely, rajas and tamas.
38)Sri Vaikunta or Paramapada is fully suddha, sattva. In this world also, the archa forms of Sriman Narayana and Lakshmi in the temples are suddha sattva.



37)Suddha sattva, as the name indicates, is pure sattva, without any mixture or trace of the other two qualities, namely, rajas and tamas.
38)Sri Vaikunta or Paramapada is fully suddha, sattva. In this world also, the archa forms of Sriman Narayana and Lakshmi in the temples are suddha sattva.

35)The definition of birth from what i can recognise in our hindu scriptures, relates to the coming of soul into this world by the formation of an embryo by the sexual union of a couple. Birth isn't related to karmas - thaz rebirth
36)That line you said is contradictory and i wish for further elaboration. What is born, is not unborn. But as he is unborn, he cannot be born. Birth, as i said, is by sexual union of a couple.
37)No, the vedas simply say he is unborn. Unless i can find elaboration over it..
42)If avatars were indeed suddha sattva, krishna wouldn't have been angry at bhishma for accidentally attacking arjuna beforehand, nor Rama at Varuna for not parting after meditation for 3 days. Tulsi Das ramayana was written with immense bhakti, thus many of the details of his human nature are lost. This is supported by the fact that Valmiki promises Hanuman to write his version of ramayana in his next birth. (For a briefing on hanumad ramayana, please check http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanuman#Hanumad_Ramayana)

38)Vaikuntha cannot be suddha sattva, for we are aware that the gatekeepers of vishnu were cursed out of anger by the ascetics. If the place is suddha sattva, how can there be anger? According to the story of Balaji, when rishi brigu kicks vishnu on his chest, lakshmi feels insulted and leaves vishnu, after whom vishnu goes and we have him incarnate on the earth.
_________________________
No im not a girl

Top
#70370 - 07/16/06 09:48 PM Re: This post is very important [Re: Parnah Dhanika]
Parnah Dhanika Offline
member
*

Registered: 06/10/06
Posts: 227
Why is there a cessation of this debate?
_________________________
No im not a girl

Top
#70371 - 07/17/06 09:46 AM Re: This post is very important [Re: Parnah Dhanika]
Atanu Banerjee Offline
member
**

Registered: 05/30/04
Posts: 388

Mahanarayana Upanishad

chaturvi.nsho.anuvaakaH .

sarvo vai rudrastasmai rudraaya namo astu . purushho vai rudraH sanmaho namo namaH .
vishvaM bhuutaM bhuvana.n chitraM bahudhaa jaata.n jaayamaana.n chayat.h .
sarvo hyeshha rudrastasmai rudraaya namo astu .. 1..



There is no real debate except on personal perceptions.

Top
#70372 - 07/19/06 09:54 AM The One lone I [Re: Atanu Banerjee]
Atanu Banerjee Offline
member
**

Registered: 05/30/04
Posts: 388
Please consider the universe and find out who knows about it.


This universe, all that I see -- sun, moon, stars, others, and this so-called body of mine -- constitute my universe. It is there since I perceive it. These are there since I am there. If someone, such as Sudarshan comes and tells me: Universe exists, that also is possible since I exist and perceive. I only perceive Sudarshan existing.

Now what is this I? It is the pure intelligence that perceives and interprets and cognizes. Further, since nothing can be out of this awareness, all things of this universe also exist in this awareness only.


This I is absolutely alone. All other things that appear to exist, exist only because this lonely I exists.


If Bhakta of God can perceive this much then he will leave his tendency to indulge in supremcay debates.


And 2 verses very often cited by me are repeated again out of necessity here.

Yajur Veda iv. 4. 8.

(Thou “I” art) all overcoming through Agni; self-ruling through the sun; lord of strength through might; creator with the bull; bountiful through the sacrifice; heavenly through the sacrificial fee; slayer of enemies through rage; supporter of the body through kindliness; wealth through food; through the earth he hath won; (thou art) eater of food with verses; increased by the Vasat cry; protector of the body through the Saman; full of light with the Viraj; drinker of Soma through the holy power; with cows he supporteth the sacrifice; with lordly power men; with horse and car bearer of the bolt; lord with the seasons; enclosing with the year; unassailable through penance; the sun with bodies.”


YV iv. 4. 9.


(Thou art) Prajapati when Soma flows in mind;
the creator in the consecration; Savitr in the bearing;
Pusan in the cow for the purchase of the Soma;
Varuna when bound (in the cloth); Asura in the being bought;
Mitra when purchased; Çipivista when put in place;
delighter of men when being drawn forward; the overlord on arrival;
Prajapati being led on; Agni at the Agnidh’s altar;
Brhaspati on being led from the Agnidh’s altar;
Indra at the oblation-holder; Aditi when put in place;
Visnu when being taken down; Atharvan when made wet;
Yama when pressed out; drinker of unpurified (Soma) when being cleansed;
Vayu when purifying; Mitra as mixed with milk;
the Manthin when mixed with groats; that of the All-gods when taken out;
Rudra when offered;
Vayu when covered up; the gazer on men when revealed;
the food when it comes; the famed of the fathers;
life when taken; the river when going to the final bath;
the ocean when gone; the water when dipped;
the heaven when arrived at completion.



The consciousness is All and this consciousness has issued from shivoadvaitam Turiya, which is the reality -- the Self.


Ayamatma Brahma



Top
#70373 - 07/19/06 02:19 PM Re: The One lone I [Re: Atanu Banerjee]
winsome Offline
member
**

Registered: 06/06/04
Posts: 213
Loc: USA
What about the Mumbai bomb blasts ? They must be a figment of our awareness, the lonely 'I'.

Top
#70374 - 07/19/06 02:20 PM Re: Rudra-Shiva-Mahesvaram param parastad [Re: Bhakta of God]
Atanu Banerjee Offline
member
**

Registered: 05/30/04
Posts: 388
Quote:

Namaste.
Dear Winsome,-----

----All jivatmas are eternal and uncreated like Brahman Him-self.Even the karma of the jivas is withot beginning.

-------
Regards,
Orlando.






Namaskar Orlando


Aitreya Upanishad

I-i-1: In the beginning this was but the absolute Self alone.


Oh Orlando, idea of presence of eternal uncreated jivas simply do not fit with shruti as above and many others.










Top
#70375 - 07/19/06 03:58 PM Re: Rudra-Shiva-Mahesvaram param parastad [Re: Bhakta of God]
Atanu Banerjee Offline
member
**

Registered: 05/30/04
Posts: 388
Quote:


Quote:

***********
Think of the paper as god and the words on it as the world. The words don't exist independently of the paper (which makes the paper "all-pervasive"), yet there is a clear distinction between the paper and the words; one doesn't become the other. Likewise, god is all-pervasive, yet there is a distinction between god and the world. Hence, both dualism and omnipresence are reconciled.
***********

Devastating example. Neither the paper can write on itself nor the written material can get written on the paper by itself. A third, the writer is required. So, much for dvaita mental acrobatics.




Namaste all.
Dear Atanu Banerjee,God Him-self is the writer in this case.He writes Him-self.

I wll give you some lesson about Visistadvaita.







Thank you for the lessons Orlando, the humble soul.

I had sensed earlier and had told you also that you do not understand what you paste. Above you have written: "God Him-self is the writer in this case".

And elsewhere (to another poster) you wrote: Jivas are eternal and uncreated. Which would indicate that Brahmman was not the writer at all. Jivas were not crafted by Brahman. Please go back and read all that you paste before you begin to impart lessons, for which you are ill equipped.


Quote:


The Mundaka Upanishad very clearly mentions as follows: "There are two birds, of beautiful feathers, residing in the same tree. The birds are friends and closely attached to each other. One bird eats the fruit of the tree. The other bird shines, without eating." Here, the tree is the body. The two birds are the Jivatma and Paramatma. The Jivatma eats the fruit of his karma. This means, the Jivatma undergoes the pains and pleasures, due to his past karma. Paramatma, although in the same body, shines without eating, i.e. He is not tainted by the pains and pleasure of the Jivatma. This shows clearly that Paramatma, although residing in the body, is not tainted by impurities and past karma, of Jivatma. The same passage occurs again in Svetasvatara Upanishad.

Regards,
Orlando.








'birds' are not 'atmas'. We are talking of Atma and not birds. If the Upanishad had meant Atma, it would have used the word Atma.


And Mundka also very clearly says the followings:

1. This is the truth. As from a blazing fire sparks, being like unto fire, fly forth a thousandfold, thus are various beings brought forth from the Imperishable, my friend, and return thither also.

----
II-ii-5: Know that Self alone that is one without a second, on which are strung heaven, the earth and the inter-space, the mind and the vital forces together with all the other organs; and give up all other talks. This is the bridge leading to immortality.
-----

3. When the seer sees the brilliant maker and lord (of the world) as the Person who has his source in Brahman, then he is wise, and shaking off good and evil, he reaches the highest oneness , free from passions;



So, those many many sparks have appeared from a single blazing fire and all merge in that. There are no millions of uncreated eternal jivas(verse 1). The Self (Atma) is ONE (verse II-ii-5). And when the restless bird sees the Lord bird, he reaches the highest oneness (verse 3).

Do you and the likes of you have decided to close eyes when you reach abheda verses? Why?

Since you never enquire: who sees all these jivas? but cling to the dictum "in case of perception conflicting with scripture, the scripture is not stronger". This has effectively banned scientific examination of perceptions for you.



I understand that all this will be useless for you today. Nonetheless, just to go with the motion.



Om Namah Shivayya









Top
Page 1 of 18 1 2 3 ... 17 18 >


Moderator:  ashs, bbadmin, satay, Shaivite 
(Views)Popular Topics
VALUE BASED MANAGEMENT 6532253
Building A Caring Society 2579324
The Dvaita Viewpoint 1491330
Instances of Muslim Bigotry 1393106
Need some help with my MBA project 1152640
Islamic fanaticism and terror 947276
Allegations on Sinha : Who is gunning for whom? 776235
Christians Converting to Hinduism 680567
Instances of psuedo-secularism in India 564458
THEORY OF ACTION AND KARMA YOGA 481924




This site is part of Dharma Universe LLC websites.
Copyrighted 2009-2010, Dharma Universe.