Vishnu and Shiva (from Srila Vyasadeva's point of view)

[Guest guest]

Dear List memebers

We are learning Vedic Astrology from a great parampara on this list.

Vedic comes from Vedas. We have been discussing that in the Vedic literature

there are various opinions. In the Visnu Purana it says that Visnu is Supreme.

In the Siva Purana it says Siva is the Supreme. In the Markandeya Purana it

says that Durga is Supreme. And in the Upanisads it is mentioned 'aham

brahmasmi' - 'I am Brahman'. So we may think that there are many Gods, or that

there are so many Gods that there is no God at all. We may think that what the

Vedas say cannot be true because there are too many apparent contradictions. Or

we may take 'aham brahmasmi' as the ultimate conclusion and then conclude that

we are all God. This is what happens to persons who study the Vedas without the

help of the bona-fide guru. But we first have to find out who actually compiled

the Vedas and Puranas. And take His conclusion. Srila Vyasadeva is none other

than the incarnation of the Supreme Being, Vishnu, Narayana, who appeared in

this world to compile and divide the Vedas so that people of all levels of

intelligence can understand them. It Srila Vyasadeva compiled the Vedas in four

divisions, Atharva Veda, Sama Veda, Rg Veda, Yajur Veda. Then he compiled the

Puranas and other literatures. Lastly he wrote Vedanta-sutra. Vedanta means the

end of knowledge. After revealing so much knowledge Vyasadeva tried to bring his

writing to an end, to the conclusion of knowledge. After he completed

Vedanta-sutra however Vyasa still did not feel satisfied. He was not satisfied

within himself. His mind was troubled. He crossed the ocean of knowledge but

still he was not satisfied.

In all the literature compiled by Vyasadeva, there are many descriptions of the

temporary universe, prayers to the demigods, the process for attaining one's

material necessities, information about the Brahman, the soul, the Supersoul,

and the process of yoga for attaining spiritual realizations. There is also

information about the Supreme Lord, Bhagavan Krishna. But the detailed

descriptions of God, His form, His incarnations, names, activities, potencies

and energies, and how He is the source of everything, including the

ever-increasing spiritual bliss for which we are always looking, had not yet

been fully described. Even though Vyasadeva had worked for the welfare of all

by writing the Vedic literature, before he wrote Srimad-Bhagavatam he had still

felt dissatisfied because of this incompletion.

Then the guru of Vyasadeva, Narada Muni, came and Vyasadeva inquired from his

guru why he did not feel satisfied. Vyasadeva asked his guru why even after

completing all the departments of knowledge he was not satisfied? Then Narada

Muni said, "Actually you are a cheater. You have cheated the people of the

world and you have done a very wrong thing. You have only indirectly described

the truth in so many divisions and so many facets and even when bringing it to

an end you are simply misleading the people." Then Narada instructed Vyasa,

"Without directly coming to describe the lila of Krsna, the Supreme Personality

of Godhead you have not done justice to truth. Now you have to give the meaning

of all these things in one book." Then Vyasadeva wrote the Bhagavata Purana,

Srimad Bhagavatam. Bhagavatam is the natural commentary on Vedanta-sutra from

the very same author. The message of the Bhagavatam is summarized in the

beginning, krsnas tu bhagavan svayam. So that is the meaning. Of all the Devas,

of all the incarnations of the Supreme Lord, Krsna is the Supreme and original.

Vyasadeva revealed in Bhagavatam that Krsna is the asraya-tattva. In other

Vedic literatures Vyasadeva only revealed the asraya-tattva in part, not in

full.

The fact that Vyasa composed the Bhagavata only after completing all of the

other Puranas can be verified by examining the dialogue between Vyasa and

Narada, recorded in the first skandha.

Even Lord Caitanya never cared for writing a commentary on the Vedanta-sutras,

because He considered Srimad-Bhagavatam to be the topmost commentary which had

already been written. We are fortunate to be learning astrology on this list

from the parampara of a great associate of Lord Ciataya namely Sri Achyuta. So

we must consider these things carefully.

My best wishes

Your fallen servant

Kasim

 

>"Narasimha P.V.R. Rao"

>vedic astrology >

>[vedic astrology] Re: Vishnu and Shiva (To Robert Koch) >Sat, 26

Apr 2003 20:00:31 -0400 > >Namaste Robert, > > > i.e. the recitation of the Holy

Names of Hari (Vishnu/Krsna)? Someone > > also posted a protest, I forget who,

and said that no one path can be > > exclusively "the only way", likening Vedic

scriptural injunctions to > > fundamentalism of some sort. Looking at all of

this objectively, a not so > > learned outsider would think Hindus are a

confused bunch, as one scripture > > says one thing, and another Hindu

scripture says the opposite > > thing. > >Hindus in general are not confused.

Most Hindus are comfortable with the apparent contradictions. And, we don't

care about how a "not so learned outsider" would view us. Embracing some

scriptural quotes quite literally and dismissing other scriptural quotes

completely may be one arbitrary way of resolving the contradictions, but most

Hindus have a more balanced picture where the apparent contradiction is

transformed to a subtle and self-consistent higher Truth. > > > I never once

quoted a verse purporting to state the Lord Shiva was > > inferior. > >Who said

it was you? Others did. Go back and read the archives. My criticism was never

aimed at you. > > > I did quote a verse (in a private discussion with you) from

the > > Bhagavatam in which it is stated that Lord Shiva is the greatest

Vaishnava > > (Vaishnavanam yatha shambhu), but that does not make him

inferior. > >And, it goes vice versa, i.e. Lord Vishnu is the greatest devotee

of Shiva and received a lot of knowledge and boons from Shiva. > > > 'O

Varanana (Parvati), 'I chant the holy name of Rama, Rama, Rama and thus > >

enjoy this beautiful sound. This holy name of Ramachandra is equal to one > >

thousand holy names of Lord Vishnu.' > > > > "'The pious results derived from

chanting the thousand holy names of Vishnu > > three times can be attained by

only one utterance of the holy name of Krsna.' > > > > Doing the math, this

equates the punya derived from chanting one Name of > > Krsna, to that derived

from chanting 3 names of Rama. > >OK, how about another math just based on

first paragraph above? > >Vishnu's 1000 names include "Rama". So value of the

name Rama + value of other 999 names = value of the name Rama. This implies the

value of other 999 names is zero. These 999 names whose combined value is zero

contain the name Krishna also. So the value of the name "Krishna" is zero. >

>Gee, isn't kind of math is quite silly? > >Bottomline: Don't do math on Lord's

names! ;-) > >[Note: For the serious readers, I have a comment. The equation

x+y=x normally implies that y=x-x=0. That's what I took above. However, if x is

infinity, then x-x is not zero and y is indeterminate. But then, 3 times x is

not necessarily greater than x. If x is infinity, you cannot compare x and 3x.

Both are infinite and there ends the matter. See, it all goes back to my

original analogy and comments - applying finite thinking to infinity...] > > >

I have no disrespect in the slightest for someone who follows a different > >

path than I. I will quote Krsna Himself ad infinitum in which He > >

establishes Himself to Arjuna as the Supreme Personality, even up to the > >

point of showing the entire universe within His form as the Virata > > Purusa.

All the devatas up to Lord Shiva, were and continue to be > > enshrined within

the womb of that universal form, and all those existing in > > the past,

present, and future as well. To establish that the numerous > > Devata and

Krsna are one, or in other words "Abhedam", or the non-dualistic > >

philosophies of the Mayavada school, is always going to invoke a passionate > >

response from Vaishnava devotees of Vishnu who believe in the > > transcendental

form of Godhead. > >Yes, Krishna showed his viraat roopa to Arjuna, which

contained Shiva and others. But then, Shiva also showed his virat roopa to

Brahma and Vishnu in which they saw themselves and the whole universe. > >Look,

I am not being emotional. I am only trying to factor in the scriptures that you

left out. And, that changes the picture! ;-) > >As I wrote in the original

mail, all the following are mentioned in various scriptures: > >Vishnu is

superior to Shiva. Shiva is superior to Vishnu. Vishnu came from Shiva. Shiva

came from Vishnu. Vishnu worshipped Shiva and got his blessings. Shiva

worshipped Vishnu and got his blessings. Vishnu is a superset of Shiva. Shiva

is a superset of Vishnu. > > >Again, it goes back to my main point about

applying finite thinking to infinity... > >And, don't tell me about making a

"not so learned outsider" think that Hindus are confused. We care about the

Absolute Truth more than what others think of us. > > > To wit, you made the

statement to me, that "Krsna may not be a real > > person." Putting it quite

politely, this is an aparadha, or offense, > > especially in consideration of

the statements of Arjuna who said "purusam > >Please don't misquote me out of

context. I was talking about Krishna's statement "people of limited

intelligence think that I am just this particular person. But I am not just

this person. Everything and everybody in this universe is me". I never said

Krishna might not be not a real person. > > > Anyway, so offense can be taken

on either side. Yes, I can understand why > > Shiva bhaktas may feel anger or

dismay if their Deity is not seen in the > > same light as they. Then again,

the response may not be commensurate to > > the intent of the original

statement, > >I have to respectfully draw your attention to the difference. No

Shiva devotee has disturbed this list by giving quotes from Shiva Purana and

Linga Purana about Shiva's superiority when Vishnu's worship was being

recommended. On the other hand, when Shiva's worship through Chamakam was being

recommended, some Vishnu devotees started giving quotes about Vishnu's

superiority and putting a lot of caveats on Shiva's worship. Shiva's devotees

only responded to the diatribe to set the record straight. They never launched

a diatribe first. > >Diatribes against a deity by those who read only a few

scriptures and ignore the others are not welcome on this list (again, Robert,

this warning is not meant for you). > > > >His Highness Chandrashekhara

Saraswati Swamiji once said,""You don't see > > >the Lotus feet of the Lord.

Why are you fighting over what his face looks > > >like?". Let us not argue

over whether Vishnu is superior or Shiva. Let us > > >instead surrender to Him

and place ourselves at His feet. What difference > > >does it make if we call

him Vishnu or Shiva or Allah? Surrendering at his > > >feet is the main thing!

> > > > Very good then, and I am in agreement. Hare Krsna! > >I am glad! > >A

word as the administrator: When the milky ocean was churned, first poison came

out and then came nectar. I am honestly not so concerned about wasting a few

posts on this topic related to spirituality. When we talk about remedial

measures in astrology, this topic will keep coming up again. To have a little

bit heated discussion and to bridge the gap between various groups a little

bit, there cannot be a better time than right now, based on the planetary

positions! > >May God bless all with wisdom, compassion, open-mindedness and

devotion! > >May Jupiter's light shine on us, >Narasimha > Add photos to your

messages with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*.