Raguraman

I think you can understand better if you read my entire arguments properly. I cannot teach you like a kid. I think you are old enough and capable of thinking by yourself. Please read my posts very carefully and fully. This is not what I concluded as you allude. My point was based on Shatapatha Brahmana verses, which very clearly states that Lord BrahmA gave birth to RudrA. Hence Svetasvatara Upanishad points to Lord Narayana by the word RudrA. In Svetasvatara it does not refer to Umapati by the word RudrA but to Narayana only. There are indications. One point is giving birth to BrahmA, possessing thousands of parts etc. One may ask why Narayana is mentioned as RudrA. The answer is in Bhallaveya Sruti and Visvakarma SuktA. I have explained this logically more than 3 times. Is this so difficult to understand as opposed to be accepted ? Atanu, I am sure you are not that incapable. No point in beating around the bush. If you have the honesty and courage, face the truth as stated in Vedas. If one interprets as you do, then one will also have to come to the conclusion that Vedas state contradictory things and that Brahman is anapahatapaapma(This is not my conclusion, it is yours).

All your claims are yours alone. Whether something is vedic or not, one has to know by reading Vedas. Advaita is the most anti-Vedic teaching, in the sense it is daimetrically opposed to Vedic teaching. As for Yoga, it is a process taught in Vedas, tha requires the right knowledge to accompany that process. Without that right knowledge from study of Vedas, whatever you do is a waste of your time.

Whio cares about your faulty and wrong opinions ? The verses are clear that Lord Narayana aka Shri Krishna is the Soul of Universe. As per Shatapatha Brahamana, Shiva is not. Aham Brahmasmi is said by Brahman here and in Upanishads. This is a separate issue. Still you cannot explain or accpet the Shatapatha Brahmana verses where Lord Rudra himself says that he is sinful(anapahatapaapma). Can you ? You cannot, because there truth is very explicit unlike diametrically opposed to your fallacious premise.

This point itself shows that you did not understand anything about my logic. So let me repeat again. 1. If any verse from smriti, Itihaasas, Puranas contradict Vedas ie Sruti they are to be discarded, as there is a possibility of being concocted. 2. Point no 1 does not imply that entire Mahabharata is discarded. It is only those portions that contradict Sruti are to be discarded. 3. Now go and read the verses from Mahabharatha where Shri Krishna clears your doubts. 4. Shatapatha Brahmana, being Sruti cannot be sidelined. It is a death blow to claimants of advaita, Shivites etc. If you have anything more logical to explain please do write. If you are truthful and honest guy, you would think about this verse from Shatapatha Brahmana. But I do not think I can expect any better from guys like you. Read my above argument carefully. I never said entire Mahabharatha is to be discarded. I said certain verses in Mahabharatha are probably concocted when they contradict Sruti. Regardless if whether being concocted or not, those verses that contradict Sruti is to be discarded. So now do me a favor. Go and read those verses from Mahabharatha I copy pasted as it is relevant to your question. There Lord Krishna clearly explains that he worships only HiMSELF and NOT RUDRA, Umapati. How does it matter what you think. Prove from Srutis. I have read enough. Advaita is FALSE as per Vedas.

So what. If somebody says I have realized that S is same as V, should I agree with him. How do you know if he/she is realized ? 1. you should be realized 2. There should be some basis for ordinary people to find it out. The basis for us is Vedas. That is why the special status for Vedas as apaurasheya. So let us stick to logic instead of irrelevant topics like my realization or yours. It can easily backfire on you. By your logic(not mine), since you are not realized you are not in any position to tell others whether they are correct or wrong. Such arguments are unproductive for you. Mindless opinions based on one's own opinions and arrogance. Base your arguments on Sruti. Otherwise every tom, dick and harry can say anything they want and the end result is chaos as we today have in so called Hinduism that strayed far away from Vedas even to such an extent as to reject Vedas. The case in point is Lingayats. Who told you that scriptural study does not constitute Sadhna ? Why else there are scriptures provided ? Jnana means knowledge. So whatever you start with wrong knowledge, you are not going to get anything. All your questions have been answered clearly from Scriptures. If you still want to follow your own path fine.

I just thought you do not read fully, but you are real dull if you cannot understand what I have said. I said either we have to conclude that Srutis contradict each other or we have to interpret Sritis differently as per point 2. Is that difficult for you to understand. I choose point 2 instead of doubting the infallibility of Srutis.

In Hinduism, we do not follow what Brahmins say, but what Vedas say. If the so called Brahmins do not follow Vedas, we will reject them. As for Judaism, there were(pharisees, sadducees, essene etc.) and there are(hasidic, reform, orthodox etc.) so many sects with their own interpretation of texts similar to Hinduism. What makes you think so ? Without Hindu unity, we could not have survived as one country after being invaded for over 1400 years. We are still one country for ony one reason ie. Hindu unity. I do not understand what is laughable here. Atleast we were still holding on to our country unlike jews who lost their country for about 2000 years. For your information, that is what our scriptures say. It does not mean we Hindus will not help each other during crisis times or even happier times. Infact all schools of Hinduism belonging to diametrically opposing schools cooperate even today when Hindu society is attacked as it had before. We Hindus are not fools. The actual problem is lack of information and disinformation by anti Hindus. Hindus will wake up then. You do not even know where the alleged verse incorectly quoted by you is given. Given that you are an unbeliever in Vedas I would not even bother to correct you. But for the benefit of other Hindu readers, the vedic verse does not state that. It means that all the names of Devatas(such as Indra, Rudra, Brahma etc.) actually refer to the one supreme Lord, ie. Narayana. If one reads the verses in context, then it becomes clear. As for what Vaishnavites say, they are right. Since you do not know an iota of Hinduism, you should desist from making utterly ridiculous statements about the position of Vaishnavites. These statements only betrays your ignorance of issues here. It is better for you to go and learn your religion well. What is Jewish guys interest in Hindus and Hinduism here anyway ? Go home and teach Judaism to Jews, instead of telling us what Hinduism teaches.

These are illogical statements. Every statement of Sruti is infallible and equally important. You have no capacity to understand logic properly. The Shatapatha Brahmana verses explain very clearly and cannot be interpreted in any other way. It is clearly talking about Umapati Rudra Deva or Lord Shiva and none else. While in Shvetasvatara Upanishad verses there is no such indication. Apparently it talks about a being called RudrA who gave birth to HiranyagarbhA. There is also mention of this being possessing thousands of parts which is similar to Purusa Sukta. Purusa Sukta talks about Narayana which is confirmed explicitly in Tatittiriya Aranyaka as Lord of Sree and Hree. Now one can ask why Narayana is mentioned by the name Rudra in Svetasvatara Upanishad. The answer is Visvakarma Sukta of Rig Veda and Bhallaveya Sruti where it is implicitly and explicitly mentioned that Narayana is the real owner of all Devatas names. Besides Isavasya Upanishad clearly mentiones Brahman is without defects, while Lord RudrA is mentioned as anapahatapaapma in Shatapatha Brahmana. Hence Lord RudrA is not Brahman. Case closed. You can jump, shout, cry, throw insults, do whatever you want. As per Vedas Lord RudrA is not Brahman and hence that is the truth period. Itihaasas are secondary when compared to Srutis, ie. they are authored by somebody. Besides itihaasas can be, were and are being tampered with unlike Vedas. Hence when they oppose Vedas they are to be rejected as unauthorized rendering of scriptures. It is irrelevant if Lord Shiva's devotees are high souled here. The truth remains truth regardless of what people become and what people do. Please read fully and carefully, especially the verse in bold red. http://www.dvaita.org/list/list_44/msg00112.html Public username and password: dvaita Reference: Shanti Parva of Mahabharata. Verses 12.328.5 onwards Arjuna uvAcha bhagavanbhUtabhavyesha sarvabhUtasR^igavyaya lokadhAma jagannAtha lokAnAm abhayaprada yAni nAmAni te devakIrtitAni maharShibhiH vedeShu sapurANeShu yAni guhyAni karmabhiH teShAM niruktaM tvatto.ahaM shrotumichChAmi keshava na hyanyo vartayennAmnAM niruktaM tvAmR^ite prabho Addressing the Lord, Arjuna says, O Lord Keshava, the Lord of Past and future, the Creator of All, the Changeless Being, the Supporter and indweller of the universe, the Lord of the universe and grantor of refuge to [all the deserving beings of] the universe, I wish to know the etymology of your names, which are extolled by [the Devas and] the Maharishis, which are in the Vedas and the Puranas and are hidden from the [undeserving beings] and beyond the reach of actions. There does not exist a greater truth or divine law apart from the true meaning of your names, my Lord. shrIbhagavAn uvAcha R^igvede sayajurvede tathaivAtharva sAmasu purANe sopaniShade tathaiva jyotiShe.arjuna sA~Nkhye cha yogashAstre cha Ayurvede tathaiva cha bahUni mama nAmAni kIrtitAni maharShibhiH The Lord says: My names are sung by the Maharishis in the RgVeda, YajurVeda, Atharvaveda, Samaveda, in the purANa, in the Upanishad(**Any idea why the singular is used?**), in the Jyotish Vidya, in the Sankhya, in the Yogashastra, and in the Ayurveda(!). gaunAni tatra nAmAni karmajAni cha kAni chit niruktaM karmajAnAM cha shR^iNuShva prayato.anagha kathyamAnaM mayA tAta tvaM hi me.ardhaM smR^itaH purA O Destroyer of opponents, in those texts, some names are indicative of my qualities (Gunas), while some extol my actions. Listen to the etymology of these names. Earlier, I have told some of these to you. namo.ati yashase tasmai dehinAM paramAtmane nArAyaNAya vishvAya nirguNAya guNAtmane yasya prasAdajo brahmA rudrashcha krodhasambhavaH yo.asau yonirhi sarvasya sthAvarasya charasya cha astAdasha guNaM yattatsattvaM sattvavatAM vara Glories to the extremely famous, the Paramatma Narayana, who is nirguna (devoid of prakritic attributes) and full of auspicious qualities. Glories to that Being, out of whose grace was Brahma born and out of whose anger was Rudra born; Glories to Him who is the origin of all; the moving and stationery. Glories to Him, who has the eighteen excellent virtues and who is the true essence and strength of all living beings. prakR^itiH sA parA mahyaM rodasI yogadhAriNI R^itA satyAmarAjayyA lokAnAmAtmasa~nj~nitA tasmAtsarvAH pravartante sarga pralaya vikriyAH Everything; creation, destruction and all other changes; arises out of the Prakriti (Lakshmi), Who is the wife of Narayana. [Among all dependent beings], she is the most knowledgeable, effulgent, powerful and victorious. She does all this with my grace and she is known as "AtmA" of the entire universe [after Paramatma] (as she appoints and manages Brahma, Rudra and other deities as per the command of the Lord). Note: The thoughts expressed in the above 3 lines are the same as reflected in "AmbhR^iNI sUkta" and 7th adhyaya of Dvadashastotra. tato yaGYashcha yaShTA cha purANaH puruSho virAt aniruddha iti prokto lokAnAM prabhavApyayaH Thus such Lord is spoken of as yaj~na (the worship) and the worshipper. (God takes all the fruits of yaj~na and He instigates the worshipper.) He is the most ancient (anAdi and controller of all) and greatest one. No one is His Lord and He is unstoppable. He is the creator and annihilator of all the worlds. brAhme rAtrikShaye prApte tasya hyamitatejasaH prasAdAtprAdurabhavatpadmaM padmanibhekShaNa tatra brahmA samabhavatsa tasyaiva prasAdajaH In the Brahma muhurta, at the end of the night, due to the mercy of the extremely brilliant Lord, a lotus emerged from His navel and in that lotus, Brahma was born, ofcourse, due to His grace. ahnaH kShaye lalAtAchcha suto devasya vai tathA krodhAviShTasya sa~njaGYe rudraH saMhAra kArakaH etau dvau vibudhashreShThau prasAdakrodhajau smR^itau At the end of the day, the Lord [present as antaryAmi of Brahma *] created Rudra out of Krodha-guNa, to enable him to be the 'samhAra-kartA'. Thus, these two 'fine-among-wise', Brahma and Rudra, are known to have been born out of grace and anger respectively. *: This interpretation is necessary because in the later sections of Moxadharma, Brahma addresses Rudra as a son. tadAdeshita panthAnau sR^iShTi saMhAra kArakau nimittamAtraM tAvatra sarvaprAni varapradau Thus, they carry out the instructed tasks of creation and destruction. However, they, the givers of boons to all the creatures, are just the agents. kapardI jatilo mundaH shmashAnagR^ihasevakaH ugravratadharo rudro yogI tripuradAruNaH dakShakratuharashchaiva bhaga netraharastathA [Rudra has] braided hair with knot of an ascetic and rest of the head bald. He dwells in the home of graveyard, steadfast on vigorous penance as a yogi. He is ferocious to tripurasuras, destroyed daxayaj~na and took away the eyes of Bhaga. nArAyaNAtmako GYeyaH pANDaveya yuge yuge O Arjuna, know that in every yuga, Rudra is 'nArAyaNAtmaka'. This phrase can mean: one whose indweller is Narayana, one who is always immersed in Narayana. tasminhi pUjyamAne vai devadeve maheshvare sampUjito bhavetpArtha devo nArAyaNaH prabhuH It is the Lord, the prabhu, the Narayana *IN* Maheshvara (the worshippable, the lord of the devas), who is actually worshipped. ahamAtmA hi lokAnAM vishvAnAM pANDunandana tasmAdAtmAnamevAgre rudraM sampUjayAmyaham yadyahaM nArchayeyaM vai IshAnaM varadaM shivam AtmAnaM nArchayetkashchiditi me bhAvitaM manaH O Son of Pandu, I am, indeed, the Atma, the indweller of this universe and the worlds. Therefore, I worship myself first, even when I worship Rudra. If I did not worship Rudra, the bestower of boons, in such a way (i.e., worshipping the indwelling Lord first), some would not worship me, the indwelling Lord, at all - this is my opinion. mayA pramANaM hi kR^itaM lokaH samanuvartate pramAnAni hi pUjyAni tatastaM pUjayAmyaham Whatever I follow and give due worth as a pramANa, the world follows that. Such pramANAs have to be duly followed; therefore I follow them. yastaM vetti sa mAM vetti yo.anu taM sa hi mAm anu rudro nArAyaNashchaiva sattvamekaM dvidhAkR^itam loke charati kaunteya vyakti sthaM sarvakarmasu Whoever knows him, knows Me. Whoever follows him, follows ME. (Though) the world, in all its actions, worships two Gods Rudra and Narayana, it is actually One only(i.e. Narayana, the indweller of Rudra) who is worshipped. na hi me kenachid deyo varaH pANDavanandana iti sa~ncintya manasA purANaM vishvamIshvaram putrArthaM ArAdhitavAn AtmAnaM aham AtmanA O Son of Pandu, there is, of course, nobody who can grant me boons. Knowing that well, I worhip myself, Who am the beginningless and universal power, known as Sarveshvara, for the sake of getting sons. na hi viShNuH pranamati kasmai chidvibudhAya tu R^ita AtmAnameveti tato rudraM bhajAmyaham Indeed Vishnu does not bow to any one and [even when He bows to Himself], for what sake, but for the sake of showing the path to the wise. Therefore, it is the truth that I worship myself even when I worship Rudra. sabrahmakAH sarudrAshcha sendrA devAH saharShibhiH archayanti surashreShThaM devaM nArAyaNaM harim The Brahmas, the Rudras, the Indras, the Devatas, all the Rishis worship the best among the Gods, Narayana, Hari. bhaviShyatAM vartatAM cha bhUtAnAM chaiva bhArata sarveShAmagraNIrviShNuH sevyaH pUjyashcha nityashaH Always, of all the past, future and present, it is first, Vishnu who is to be propitiated and worshipped. namasva havyadaM viShNuM tathA sharaNadaM nama varadaM namasva kaunteya havyagavya bhujaM nama [You] bow to Lord Vishnu, Who grants the material for oblations [so that the devotee can perform worship]. Bow to One, Who gives refuge to the devotees. Bow to One, Who gives boons to the devotees. Bow to One, Who consumes all the oblations and milk, curds, etc. chaturvidhA mama janA bhaktA evaM hi te shrutam teShAmekAntinaH shreShThAste chaivAnanya devatAH ahameva gatisteShAM nirAshIH karma kAriNAm ye cha shiShTAstrayo bhaktAH phalakAmA hi te matAH sarve chyavana dharmANaH pratibuddhastu shreShTha bhAk brahmANaM shiti kanthaM cha yAshchAnyA devatAH smR^itAH prabuddhavaryAH sevante eSha pArthAnukItritaH bhaktaM prati visheShaste eSha pArthAnukIrtitaH There are four kinds of devotees. Among them the best are the "ekanta bhaktas" like the gods. I am their refuge, who do action interested in nothing except me. The other three kinds are desirous of fruits of action. They move on the path of Dharma, enlightened share their knowledge with others. They worship Brahma, Rudra and other gods, with their own enlightenment. O Partha, they go unto the god, they worship.

The conclusion can be either 1 or 2. In that same post I mentioned that no 2. is right. I adid not say anything about 1. Learn to read properly first.

How does it matter if you recognize or do not recognize Srutis ? You are not that important.

Really. Yet in Judaism we have orthodox jews doing the same. I do not think this is a problem among Hindus at all as there are no Hindus killing each other. The real problem is majority Hindus are uninformed and disinterested in the welfare of their religion and society.

Hari Aum Prabhu, Good to hear you too. Hope everything is good.

Those who followed Vedas followed Shri Krishna, who is none other than Vishnu.

Hari Aum, Aum Nama Shivaya, If you have read the Shatapata Brahmana verses properly, you will not get confused like this. In Shatapatha Brahmana, BrahmA gives his child names one after another when his child cries and claims to be sinful (anapahatapaapma). The names are Rudra, Sarva, Pasupati, Ugra, Usana, Bhava, Mahadeva, Ishana. All the above names given to the child indicates that the child is unmistakably Lord Shiva, Umapati. There is no single reason to think otherwise in this particular verse. Now it is also important to note that here this child(who is Lord Shiva) claims to be sinful (anapahatapaapma) in nature when born and cries and requests BrahmA to cleanse his sins by giving above names. By putting both points together we can conclude Lord Shiva is not Brahman or supreme. All we know in Svetasvatara Upanishad is that, a being named RudrA is mentioned. Yet this upanishad mentions RudrA giving birth to BrahmA. So the conclusion should be 1. Srutis contradict each other and hence Srutis are fallible 2. Shvetasvatara Upanishad mentions a different being by the name RudrA. No 2 is the right conclusion. Also Svetatara mentions about this being RudrA possessing 1000s of heads, etc. which is similar to Purusa Sukta Verses. We also know that Purusa Sukta verses refer to Lord of Shri and Hree from Tatiriya Aranyaka. Also we know from Bhallaveya Sruti and Visvakarma Sukta of Rig Veda that all the names of Devatas belong to Narayana. Besides it is well known that Isavasya Upansihad refers to Yajna(avatara of Narayana) as beyong impurities. Hence RudrA in Svetasvatara upanishad refers to Narayana, while Umapati RudrA is (anapahatapaapma) as per Shatapatha Brahmana. Therefore all your claims are iirelevant and illogical.

When Vedas mention RudrA in singular, it refers to only Lord Shiva, the dweller of Kailasa, Umapati. There are only 11 Rudras as per Vedas, including Lord Shiva, Umapati. Nonesense and proven wrong by the same Shatapatha Brahmana verses. All these verses are concocted and must be rejected as it opposes Sruti. By the way, there is no SadaShiva etc. which some schools have manufactured. Perhaps you should try to answer or give an argument against the Sruti verse logically intead of giving more emotional rants. I will reply only to logical replies from now.