Vishnu and Shiva (To Narasimha-jI)

[Guest guest]

Nomadeva.. Splendid arguments.. keep it up !!

 

You too PVR..Please let this thread continue.. it

is very enlightening..

 

TIA

Srinivas

 

 

vedic astrology, Nomadeva Sharma

<nomadeva> wrote:

> >

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

> > Tuesday, April 29, 2003 11:40 AM

>

> Dear Narasimha-jI,

>

> > Though your mail was quite long and contained many

> quotes, a lot of it

> > is questionable and dry mimamsa.

>

> I hope you will cover why you consider all that to be

> questionable and 'dry mImAmsa' in a detailed

> rejoinder. A declaration that it is dry mImAmsa or

> shuShka-tarka is not quite the same as actually

> proving it. My experience has been that such labelling

> is quick to happen when one realizes the lack of

> defense for one's baises. I know that it will be

> different with you.

>

> > The crux of the mail are the following two points:

>

> No, you missed it. Shruti says that (i) Vishnu is

> supreme and (ii) devatas, other than Vishnu, have

> flaws. So, others cannot be equal to Him, cannot be a

> different form of Him. The authority of Puranas comes

> from their being aligned to shruti. They lose their

> authority if they contradict shruti. Same with Itihasa

> and Smritis, kalpa sutras and any vedAnga. And tAmasic

> purANas (rather tAmasic portions) do just that.

>

> You will need to prove that shruti does NOT say

> whatever I had said. Points to note then are (i) Just

> giving a shruti that praises Rudra as Lord of All etc

> is not going to help your case (refer to the example I

> had given) and (ii) one should tell how one should

> interpret texts that hold Brahma, Rudra and others to

> be under the control of Lakshmi and (iii) show texts

> that assigns some flaws OR birth/death to Vishnu.

>

> I hope you will do more than just remark that such

> interpretations are dry mImAmsa or whatever.

>

> > > 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.

>

> That is another point you have missed. I have not used

> logic. On the other hand, you did, in the course of

> solving the problem by equating both Shiva and Vishnu

> to infinity.

>

> 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

> 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).

>

> It is clear, atleast to me, my approach is faithful to

> the Puranas while you are superimposing yours on the

> Puranas.

>

> > 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),

>

> 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

> self-contradictory, but renders those purANas that

> make either of them to be superior to the other as

> plain false. I find it very puzzling that a person

> such as you with a solid background in Maths does not

> find the idea of infinity being lesser than or greater

> than infinity, repelling enough!!!

>

> I hope you are not accepting illogical stuff under the

> banner of mysticism.

>

> > 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

>

> But the solution has not resolved any thing, instead

> made 2/3 (assuming an uniform distribution, which is

> not true) of the Puranas wrong.

>

> > to assume that some puranas Vyasa wrote are "wrong".

>

> That is another point missed. Puranas are anAdi.

> Disagreeing is against the traditional as well as

> Puranic view itself (I can get some references if you

> want). Sri Vedavyasa classified one single purana into

> 18.

>

> > > 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.

>

> 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 ... ?

> There are literally thousands of passages in the

> literature that equates tamas with something to be

> avoided; yes, even the tamo prakriti guNa.

>

> > 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?!

>

> The following can be noted:

>

> 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)?

>

> C. Vyasa is not the AUTHOR of puranas. He has

> classified them. Puranas testify that. So, the

> question of 'how can the kind Vyasa do THAT' does not

> arise? In any case, Vyasa should be accused of

> cheating or whatever if he did not tell all readers

> that some of them should not be taken; hardly the

> case. Consider this: The initial chapters of the

> lectures on Physics by Feynman (actually nearly the

> first volume itself) speaks in terms of classical

> mechanics. If one were to read just that and conclude

> that it is true, what would you tell him? Moreover,

> Sri Vedavyasa's compassion cannot be doubted because

> of all this. Stretching your expectations a bit, one

> would expect that he writes purANas in all languages,

> ensures that copies are available everywhere etc.

>

> D. Our literature is full of pUrvapaksha and siddhAnta

> (take any commentary on the Brahmasutra or any sUtras

> or any text; perhaps even the Brihadaranyaka

> Upanishad). Purvapaksha is a part of the text. If a

> reader confuses pUrvapaksha to be the siddhAnta, it is

> not the fault of author. Purvapaksha is anyway needed

> to clarify the need of siddhAnta. The same thing has

> been followed in purAnas. Those NOT extolling Vishnu

> are Purvapaksha (rajasika, tAmasic). Those that do are

> siddhAnta.

>

> G. You are uncomfortable with the delusion stuff,

> perhaps because you are uncomfortable with the idea of

> tAmasa. That is very surprising! I'd suggest you read

> the Mahabharata, Gita (17th and 18th chapters in

> particular), Ishavasya Upanishad etc. That somebody

> can become deluded is not something extraneous of

> Vedanta. Consider the Indra-virochana episode in

> Chandogya. Virochana is eternally deluded over there.

>

> > 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.

>

> I don't know the history out there. Actually it does

> not matter. If you can actually refute the points I

> have raised, using scriptures, it will be the best;

> you know, it is easy to superimpose one's ideas into

> the purANAs or scriptures. So far, you have only

> provided your personal preferences or theories that

> you are comfortable with, instead of accepting

> scriptures as they are.

>

> Finally this quote from Mahabharata (ashvamedha parva,

> Bhishma says this):

>

> AloDhya sarvashAstrANi vichArya ca punaH punaH |

> idamekaM suniShpannaM dhyeyo nArAyaNaH sadA ||

>

> Regards,

> Nomadeva

>

>

>

> The New Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.

> http://search.