Vishnu and Shiva (To Nomadeva)

[Guest guest]

Dear Nomadeva,

 

I tremendously enjoyed Sarbani's writings until now and now you have brought

light into this discussion. Thank you for the contribution!

 

Now, I am in a hurry to sleep. I may give a detailed rejoinder later, but,

before I sleep, I will give a quick reply.

 

Though your mail was quite long and contained many quotes, a lot of it is

questionable and dry mimamsa. The crux of the mail are the following two

points:

 

> The problem can be solved in a simpler way: atleast> one of them is wrong.

 

Now the car of our discussion has entered the dead-end on the road of logic. We

now have to get off the car and have to do the walk of introspection through

the woods of intelligence.

 

It is simply unacceptable to me to think that one of them is wrong. Instead, any

explanation that allows all of them to be correct simultaneously without

contradiction is the "simpler way" to me. Considering Vishnu and Shiva to be

different forms of the same supreme Brahman, considering them to be

incomparable (and hence considering each as superior), considering Vishnu to

have come from Shiva and Shiva to have come from Vishnu and yet both to have no

beginning or end is a "simpler way" to resolve the contradiction to me than to

assume that some puranas Vyasa wrote are "wrong".

 

> That makes the whole thing easier: Some texts are> tAmasic. The stuff therein

has to be ignored.> > This position, being based on support from shruti and>

actual purANic quotes is better than your (incorrect)

 

Firstly, this is all going back to my original misgiving. The prejudice against

tamas (the most stable state of zero passion) is all too evident.

 

Secondly, if I am told to think that Vyasa wrote several books to "delude" some

people, why can't I instead think that the few stanzas that make that proposal

were actually written to delude some other people and not the whole books as

proposed? Don't you think that would be a much simpler hypothesis?!

 

I personally am not at all comfortable with this interpretation that Vyasa wrote

"wrong" stuff in several books. You are an intelligent person. Please rethink.

Isn't there an alternative way of interpreting everything, which makes every

word and sentence written by Vyasa correct?

 

If there is, however complicated that alternative is, I will go with it!

> solution of considering everybody infinite (in which> case, only those

purANas that consider them equal> should be held correct).

Nope. Infinity and infinity are incomparable. Infinity minus infinity is neither

positive nor negative nor zero - it is indeterminate. Thus all the puranas that

consider them to be equal, all the Puranas that consider Vishnu to be superior

and all the Puranas that consider Shiva to be superior are right. In other

words, all the puranas written by Vyasa are correct.

 

Bottomline: The difference between you and me is very small, compared to the

difference between me and those who criticized Sanjay ji for "recommending the

worship of demigods", ostracized Sri Achyutananda Dasa for "worshipping Shakti"

and criticized the recital of Rudra Chamakam.

 

More later if possible,

May Jupiter's light shine on us,

Narasimha

[Guest guest]

Dear Nomadeva,

 

> Let's see: We are both faced with the problem of some> texts praising Shiva to

be greater than Vishnu, some> holding them to be same and some holding Vishnu to

be> greater than Shiva.> > Your approach: All are correct (you don't mean this>

though you say it), both are infinity, so it is OK to

 

I take an exception. What on earth do you mean by saying that I don't mean this

though I say it?

 

Let us leave the judgment on what I "mean" to me, shall we?

> say infinity is less than/greater than/equal to> infinity.

 

> My approach: There is a guideline in the Puranas as to> how to handle these

contradictions. Your objections to> these are actually objections to the

Puranas> themselves. (Not that your objections are dismissed> JUST on that

basis).

 

And, my objections are objections to JUST A FEW VERSES which may have been

inserted after Vyasa wrote Puranas.

 

On the other hand, you are objecting to A WHOLE SET of puranas and "ignoring"

them. You think you are doing it because you have the sanction of puranas, but

you are ignoring thousands of verses based on a handful of verses. OTOH, I am

ignoring (or interpreting loosely) a handful of verses so that I need not

ignore thousands of verses.

 

If my objections are dismissed, your objections should be dismissed much more

strongly on the basis of ignoring many puranas altogether.

> It is clear, atleast to me, my approach is faithful to> the Puranas while you

are superimposing yours on the> Puranas.

 

Your approach is faithful only to a set of puranas.

> There lies the self-contradiction. They are> incomparable and are yet to

superior to each other?> Even Maths would disagree with you: if there are two>

infinites, question of whether they are greater than> or lesser than simply

does not arise. This is why,> though you claim that your interpretation makes

all of> them correct, it is not so. The solution is not just

 

My friend, get over it, that was just an analogy. Infinity minus infinity is

indeterminate. So two infinities are incomparable. I agree you cannot say X > Y

or X = Y. However, if somebody says X > Y (with X and Y being infinite), you

cannot disprove it. Similarly, if one gives X < Y, again you cannot disprove

it. See, when I am giving an analogy, don't expect it to be perfect.

 

Why is it not possible that in a different space that covers divinity, X > Y, X

= Y and X < Y can be simultaneously true? The analogy of infinity is not

exactly there, but almost there.

> I hope you are not accepting illogical stuff under the> banner of mysticism.

 

The "logic" that our brains can use evolves with time, with our life experiences

and with the guidance we receive. For example, there is no comparison between

the logic I can use now and the logic that I could use as a 3 year old.

 

Because logical capabilities of our brains have inherent limitations, we should

constantly try to expand the barrier. Don't be surprised if something that

sounds "illogical" to you today sounds extremely logical after ten years. Our

"logical thinking" will be able to capture the Absolute Reality only when we

realize our selves.

 

Bottomline is that I don't think I am thinking illogically, but only constantly

trying to expand the horizons of my logic through meditation and contemplation.

> But the solution has not resolved any thing, instead> made 2/3 (assuming an

uniform distribution, which is> not true) of the Puranas wrong.

 

I don't know how to explain my position further to you. I am considering the

possibility of X > Y, X = Y and X < Y being true simultaneously, in the space

of divinity. Thus your statement about me is wrong.

> But it appears to be your prejudice or some notion> about tamas being

whatever. Can you pls quote a text> that equates tamas as the most stable state

.... ?

 

Yes, I agree with you. I deviated from my goals and made a statement that I

didn't need to make. I will take back my statements on tamas. It has no impact

on the rest of the arguments anyway.

 

> A. The few stanzas do not render 'whole books' invalid> as you have made out

to be. It is not even that these> verses were 'written' later to clean up the

first set> of works (as you said in some other reply).> > B. If simpler

hypothesis that these few verses are> delusory appeals to you, it implies that

you have no> problems with the basic idea of delusion. In which> case, why

impose one's biases and predilections on the> scriptures and not take the

purANas as they stand (esp> when doing so does not contradict stronger

pramANa:> shruti)?

 

OK, now I see that the whole weight of your argument is shifting to sruti. I am

now assuming based on what you wrote that you are agreeing with my view that

one can ignore a few verses instead of ignoring a whole set of puranas, if I

can show to you that srutis are fine with my views on Vishnu-Shiva

equality/incomparability. I will address it in another email.

 

So, I assume we will not go back to puranas and talk about verses that hint at

the incorrectness of other puranas.

> NOT extolling Vishnu> are Purvapaksha (rajasika, tAmasic). Those that do are> siddhAnta.

 

I am lost. What is the siddhanta part you are talking about here?

> Regards,> Nomadeva

 

More in another mail,

May Jupiter's light shine on us,

Narasimha

[Guest guest]

>

> Narasimha P.V.R. Rao [pvr]

> Wednesday, April 30, 2003 8:45 AM

 

> Dear Nomadeva,

>

> > Let's see: We are both faced with the problem of

some

> > texts praising Shiva to be greater than Vishnu,

some holding them to

> > be same and some holding Vishnu to be greater than

Shiva.

> >

> > Your approach: All are correct (you don't mean

this

> > though you say it), both are infinity, so it is OK

to

>

> I take an exception. What on earth do you mean by

saying that I don't

> mean this though I say it?

>

> Let us leave the judgment on what I "mean" to me,

shall we?

 

Oh no, I meant that though you claim that, by your

approach, all puranas are correct, it is not so. Even

in your approach, more than 2/3rd of puranas will be

wrong. I should have said 'it is not implied though

you say it'.

 

> And, my objections are objections to JUST A FEW

VERSES which may have

> been inserted after Vyasa wrote Puranas.

>

> On the other hand, you are objecting to A WHOLE SET

of puranas and

> "ignoring" them. You think you are doing it because

you have the sanction of puranas,

> but you are ignoring thousands of verses based on a

handful of verses. OTOH, I am ignoring

> (or interpreting loosely) a handful of verses so

that I need not ignore thousands of verses.

> If my objections are dismissed, your objections

should be dismissed much more strongly on the basis of

 

> ignoring many puranas altogether.

 

1. I am interested in knowing how you can interpret

those verses 'loosely'.

 

2. Your objection is based on a statistical approach.

It is unwarranted because you are imposing your

personal preferences over how purANas should be

interpreted. Btw, I am not objecting to a 'WHOLE SET'

of purANas as you make it to be. It is only where

Vishnu is shown to be less or equal to any other God

OR having some flaw. If you allow 'loose

interpretations', it will nomore be a 'WHOLE SET' of

Puranas that I am ignoring.

 

3. The idea that these verses are interpolations

simply because they disagree with the 'general tenor

of Hinduism' (as defined by Advaitins!) is not

agreeable. Advaita holds that it is the

Panchamahavakyas that can give abhedajnAna. Most of

the Vedic literature is not in jnAnakANDa. And even in

jnAnakANDa, a lot of passages (with vidyA, upAsana

related stuff) relate to the saguNa brahman. So, the

passages revealing nirguNa brahman are fewer. And even

in those, if we take Shankara's interpretation of AtmA

in Brahmasutra 1.3.1 (that it refers to the Paramatma

primarily), the no. of passages giving knowledge of

nirguNa brahman will come down to a paltry 5

statements (if grammatical and contextual liberty is

allowed, let's say in 10 other statements). So, would

it be OK to consider such 'abhedavAkyAs' as

interpolations?

 

> infinities are incomparable. I agree you cannot say

X > Y or X = Y. However, if somebody says

> X > Y (with X > and Y being infinite), you cannot

disprove it.

 

No, Your words are sufficient to disprove it: They are

incomparable.

 

> Why is it not possible that in a different space

that covers divinity,

> X > Y, X = Y and X < Y can be

> simultaneously true? The analogy of infinity is not

exactly there,

> but almost there.

 

That is an excuse for lack of logic. Just imagine

somebody writing an answer '2+3 = 1000 in some other

realm of existence!

 

In other words, we have to draw the line somewhere

between accepting anything (esp self-conceived

notions) in the name of divinity vs holding up

everything to some logic.

 

Regards,

Nomadeva

 

 

 

The New Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.

http://search.