clarification about Anti-Vaishnava

December 15, 2006

No one can essentially be against Vishnu from the Vedic and Vedantic perspective. As all scripture suggests, that the nature of Bhagawan Vishnu actually consititute's one's own person, and to hate him is to basically hate one's self. I dont dislike Vishnu nor do I have any "animosity" towards his devotees. To hate something you must at least have some understanding of it, I do not understand the scriptures that are pertinent to Vishnu (in their totality), therefore there is no hatred. The most prudent thing to do is vivada and inquiry; I did both. I went to some Vaishnava shastris who werent too keen to take up to my explanations, and the reasoning they gave concluded in remarks similar to "no one can understand bhagawan's leelas". When I went into vivad mode, many of them basically took personal offense and thought my aim was to attack their reputation or Bhagawan himself...both of whcih were equally as ridiculous a conclusion as calling something vague- leela.

In most vedantic scripture, Purusha [adjective given to Vishnu] is considered as the ability to discriminate between right and wrong, it is divine knowledge. This is how bhagawan Svetasvatara also saw it. This same line of argument has been put foward by most scripture of the Vasanjeya recension, a samhita parampara that is considered to come forth from Vishnu himself.

Even within the yogic parampara there is this notion that Ganga comes from his feet, suggesting that he is the master and indeed lord of all divine and or spiritual knowledge. But then you come through to scripture such as Ramayana, Mahabharata and the Puranas. The itihasa paints a all too different and contradictory picture of Vishnu, suggesting that he and his leelas are incomprehensible. This basically doesnt resonate with the Vedic understanding of Bhagawan.

My "anti"-ness comes forth from this concept and the current understanding and portryal of the Vaishnava ideology. Most Vaishnavas hold the idea that for instance Shiva is not a mukta atma. Also when reading some bhasya of certain prominent vaishnavas I came across a lot of derogatory speech against Shaivachara in particular. So basically it is that philosophical and ideological understanding that I am personally against. I've come to the conclusion that a lot of my doubts and "misunderstandings" cannot be clarified partially due to the nature of the questions themselves and also the possible stubborness on my part to not ascribe this nature of esoteric leela to Shri Bhagawan.

Narayana is dhyana, he is anantam and he is para; above all he is vigyana and that is why the tantras gave him the title of martandeya bhairava. He to my understanding need not have avataran and nor does he have leela in accordance to what I have come to see from, what I believe is authentic scripture. This whole yada yada hi dharmasya thing just doesnt digest, why would someone who transcends good and evil actually engage in the maintenance of man made laws.

At best my antiness is an avoidant nature of Vishnuttva, however I actually joined these groups so that gradually that can be resolved; as I understand, it is not healthy for a person to avoid Vishnu in their spritual aspirations.

Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.

December 15, 2006

Dear Karthik

I understand your thoughts.

However, you should consider lot of time factors that are associated with vaishnav bhaashyaas.

Though shaivism and vaishnavism co-existed for long period, many shaivist philosophies were codified much before vaishnavism. All ancient vaishnav works do not comprise a compedium of vaishnav philosophy. All such compendiums are made only after 10 AD though the ideas were clearly spelled in many works made earlier.

Before 10 AD many works emerged that directly and indirectly spelled contradictory ideas with some logic, thus invariably vaishnav bhaashyaas were made by giving adequate refutal to the logic propounded. Apart from this there is no direct attacks that spelled out on other religion.

Regarding Lord Shiva, he is considered as Rudra, and there are 11 Rudras recognised, and according to Padma Puraanaa he was created by Brahma. Yes, he is not a mukta aatma till this time but there is no idea that rejects he is not eligible for mukti. However, Shiva along with great saints like vasishta choose the path of bhakti which will bear the fruit slowly, thus along with shiva, many great saints are still practising bhakti yoga, hence not attained mukti. Vaishnav sects suggest absolute surrender along with bhakti as a short cut to mukti, and practising bhakti as a separate tool for moksha is also recognised.

Not sure what is the offence, if you can clarify I will try to explain

with regards

Jalasayanan

http://p068.ezboard.com/bsrivaishnavism

-

kartik gaurav

Friday, December 15, 2006 9:24 AM

clarification about "Anti-Vaishnava"

No one can essentially be against Vishnu from the Vedic and Vedantic perspective. As all scripture suggests, that the nature of Bhagawan Vishnu actually consititute's one's own person, and to hate him is to basically hate one's self. I dont dislike Vishnu nor do I have any "animosity" towards his devotees. To hate something you must at least have some understanding of it, I do not understand the scriptures that are pertinent to Vishnu (in their totality), therefore there is no hatred. The most prudent thing to do is vivada and inquiry; I did both. I went to some Vaishnava shastris who werent too keen to take up to my explanations, and the reasoning they gave concluded in remarks similar to "no one can understand bhagawan's leelas". When I went into vivad mode, many of them basically took personal offense and thought my aim was to attack their reputation or Bhagawan himself...both of whcih were equally as ridiculous a conclusion as calling something vague- leela.

In most vedantic scripture, Purusha [adjective given to Vishnu] is considered as the ability to discriminate between right and wrong, it is divine knowledge. This is how bhagawan Svetasvatara also saw it. This same line of argument has been put foward by most scripture of the Vasanjeya recension, a samhita parampara that is considered to come forth from Vishnu himself.

Even within the yogic parampara there is this notion that Ganga comes from his feet, suggesting that he is the master and indeed lord of all divine and or spiritual knowledge. But then you come through to scripture such as Ramayana, Mahabharata and the Puranas. The itihasa paints a all too different and contradictory picture of Vishnu, suggesting that he and his leelas are incomprehensible. This basically doesnt resonate with the Vedic understanding of Bhagawan.

My "anti"-ness comes forth from this concept and the current understanding and portryal of the Vaishnava ideology. Most Vaishnavas hold the idea that for instance Shiva is not a mukta atma. Also when reading some bhasya of certain prominent vaishnavas I came across a lot of derogatory speech against Shaivachara in particular. So basically it is that philosophical and ideological understanding that I am personally against. I've come to the conclusion that a lot of my doubts and "misunderstandings" cannot be clarified partially due to the nature of the questions themselves and also the possible stubborness on my part to not ascribe this nature of esoteric leela to Shri Bhagawan.

Narayana is dhyana, he is anantam and he is para; above all he is vigyana and that is why the tantras gave him the title of martandeya bhairava. He to my understanding need not have avataran and nor does he have leela in accordance to what I have come to see from, what I believe is authentic scripture. This whole yada yada hi dharmasya thing just doesnt digest, why would someone who transcends good and evil actually engage in the maintenance of man made laws.

At best my antiness is an avoidant nature of Vishnuttva, however I actually joined these groups so that gradually that can be resolved; as I understand, it is not healthy for a person to avoid Vishnu in their spritual aspirations.

Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.

December 15, 2006

Dear Kartik

I have heard of Vaajasaneyi recension (shakha of

Shukla Yajur Veda), but you keep referring to

Vasanjeyi recension. I would like to know which veda

it is a recension of.

I myself belong to Taittareeya Shaakhaa of Krishna

Yajur Veda. Shankara frequently quotes from

Vaajasaneyi in his commentaries.

I will be thankful to be enlightened.

JR

--- kartik gaurav <omkaaraya .au> wrote:

>

> No one can essentially be against Vishnu from the

> Vedic and Vedantic perspective. As all scripture

> suggests, that the nature of Bhagawan Vishnu

> actually consititute's one's own person, and to hate

> him is to basically hate one's self. I dont dislike

> Vishnu nor do I have any "animosity" towards his

> devotees. To hate something you must at least have

> some understanding of it, I do not understand the

> scriptures that are pertinent to Vishnu (in their

> totality), therefore there is no hatred. The most

> prudent thing to do is vivada and inquiry; I did

> both. I went to some Vaishnava shastris who werent

> too keen to take up to my explanations, and the

> reasoning they gave concluded in remarks similar to

> "no one can understand bhagawan's leelas". When I

> went into vivad mode, many of them basically took

> personal offense and thought my aim was to attack

> their reputation or Bhagawan himself...both of whcih

> were equally as ridiculous a conclusion as calling

> something vague- leela.

>

> In most vedantic scripture, Purusha [adjective given

> to Vishnu] is considered as the ability to

> discriminate between right and wrong, it is divine

> knowledge. This is how bhagawan Svetasvatara also

> saw it. This same line of argument has been put

> foward by most scripture of the Vasanjeya recension,

> a samhita parampara that is considered to come forth

> from Vishnu himself.

>

> Even within the yogic parampara there is this notion

> that Ganga comes from his feet, suggesting that he

> is the master and indeed lord of all divine and or

> spiritual knowledge. But then you come through to

> scripture such as Ramayana, Mahabharata and the

> Puranas. The itihasa paints a all too different and

> contradictory picture of Vishnu, suggesting that he

> and his leelas are incomprehensible. This basically

> doesnt resonate with the Vedic understanding of

> Bhagawan.

>

> My "anti"-ness comes forth from this concept and the

> current understanding and portryal of the Vaishnava

> ideology. Most Vaishnavas hold the idea that for

> instance Shiva is not a mukta atma. Also when

> reading some bhasya of certain prominent vaishnavas

> I came across a lot of derogatory speech against

> Shaivachara in particular. So basically it is that

> philosophical and ideological understanding that I

> am personally against. I've come to the conclusion

> that a lot of my doubts and "misunderstandings"

> cannot be clarified partially due to the nature of

> the questions themselves and also the possible

> stubborness on my part to not ascribe this nature of

> esoteric leela to Shri Bhagawan.

>

> Narayana is dhyana, he is anantam and he is para;

> above all he is vigyana and that is why the tantras

> gave him the title of martandeya bhairava. He to my

> understanding need not have avataran and nor does he

> have leela in accordance to what I have come to see

> from, what I believe is authentic scripture. This

> whole yada yada hi dharmasya thing just doesnt

> digest, why would someone who transcends good and

> evil actually engage in the maintenance of man made

> laws.

>

> At best my antiness is an avoidant nature of

> Vishnuttva, however I actually joined these groups

> so that gradually that can be resolved; as I

> understand, it is not healthy for a person to avoid

> Vishnu in their spritual aspirations.

>

> Send instant messages to your online friends

> http://au.messenger.

>

> [Non-text portions of this message have been

> removed]

>

December 15, 2006

Hara Hara Mahadeva!

All i have to say is:

Vaishnavanams yatha shambu

~Lord Shiva is the greatest devotee of Lord Vishnu (Krishna).

Srimad-Bhagavatam (12.13.16)

Sri Krsne vaisnavanantu prema bhakti vivardhate

Krisna Bhakti Rasa sara varsi rudra anukampaya

~Being a Vaisnava, if somebody fasts on Lord Siva’s night (Siva Ratri day), by the mercy of him (Lord Siva) who is diving in the ocean of the mellow of devotion to Krsna, one’s devotion to Krsna increases rapidly.

Hari Bhakti Vilasa 14/221 (Skanda Purana)

JANARDANA DASA

kartik gaurav <omkaaraya .au> wrote:

No one can essentially be against Vishnu from the Vedic and Vedantic perspective. As all scripture suggests, that the nature of Bhagawan Vishnu actually consititute's one's own person, and to hate him is to basically hate one's self. I dont dislike Vishnu nor do I have any "animosity" towards his devotees. To hate something you must at least have some understanding of it, I do not understand the scriptures that are pertinent to Vishnu (in their totality), therefore there is no hatred. The most prudent thing to do is vivada and inquiry; I did both. I went to some Vaishnava shastris who werent too keen to take up to my explanations, and the reasoning they gave concluded in remarks similar to "no one can understand bhagawan's leelas". When I went into vivad mode, many of them basically took personal offense and thought my aim was to attack their reputation or Bhagawan himself...both of whcih were equally as ridiculous a conclusion as calling something vague- leela..

In most vedantic scripture, Purusha [adjective given to Vishnu] is considered as the ability to discriminate between right and wrong, it is divine knowledge. This is how bhagawan Svetasvatara also saw it. This same line of argument has been put foward by most scripture of the Vasanjeya recension, a samhita parampara that is considered to come forth from Vishnu himself.

Even within the yogic parampara there is this notion that Ganga comes from his feet, suggesting that he is the master and indeed lord of all divine and or spiritual knowledge. But then you come through to scripture such as Ramayana, Mahabharata and the Puranas. The itihasa paints a all too different and contradictory picture of Vishnu, suggesting that he and his leelas are incomprehensible. This basically doesnt resonate with the Vedic understanding of Bhagawan.

My "anti"-ness comes forth from this concept and the current understanding and portryal of the Vaishnava ideology. Most Vaishnavas hold the idea that for instance Shiva is not a mukta atma. Also when reading some bhasya of certain prominent vaishnavas I came across a lot of derogatory speech against Shaivachara in particular. So basically it is that philosophical and ideological understanding that I am personally against. I've come to the conclusion that a lot of my doubts and "misunderstandings" cannot be clarified partially due to the nature of the questions themselves and also the possible stubborness on my part to not ascribe this nature of esoteric leela to Shri Bhagawan.

Narayana is dhyana, he is anantam and he is para; above all he is vigyana and that is why the tantras gave him the title of martandeya bhairava. He to my understanding need not have avataran and nor does he have leela in accordance to what I have come to see from, what I believe is authentic scripture. This whole yada yada hi dharmasya thing just doesnt digest, why would someone who transcends good and evil actually engage in the maintenance of man made laws.

At best my antiness is an avoidant nature of Vishnuttva, however I actually joined these groups so that gradually that can be resolved; as I understand, it is not healthy for a person to avoid Vishnu in their spritual aspirations.

Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.

December 16, 2006

Namaskars To Shri Jalasayanan and Shri Radhakrishnan.

Thank you to Shri Jalasayanan for your kind reply. I believe if the yajurveda can ask him to forgive our sins, this would suggest that he would be mukta and also capable of giving mukti. So says the Shiva sutras.

Firstly to address the queston of Vasanjeya Samhita. It is the most

fundamental recension of Shukla Yajur Veda, and has been translated by

a variety of sources. You can purchase the Vasanjeya from Chaukhamba

and even motilal. You can get the translations for free online. I only have the Brahmana, not the Aranyaka as the veda. I purchased the Aranyaka seperately.

I have just recently found where I can get good taittiriya translation

and also some bhasya on it. I am interested to know if you can refer me

to a good source. However I had always held the view that

Shankaracharya was schooled in the Kanva recension? This is actually

the samhita that I am looking for.

Also as per the Vaishnavacharya question; I believe in order for me to hold some shreds of sanity I have come to these two conclusions:

I believe I might have to come to personal correspondence with either

of you to discuss my doubts, as I dont want to cause offense to the

general public.

This is my open but not ended conclusion so far:

The itihasa of Vishnu does not do justice to the Lord as praised by the

Vedas. So I disregard itihasa. I hold the view that Shiva is not only a

mukta atma but also the source of mukti, as per svetasvatara

upanishad.I personaly do not acknowledge the 10 avatars, I just worship

Bhagawan with Narayana Sukta and Purusha Sukta. But I worship him as

the shiva linga !

After Vedic training, I got bored of the dryness and so I decided to

have some fun. Originally I was taught old school occult tantra, how to

bind and control certain demi deities without the use of vama. I

decided to end things after purna diksha in this parampara, that is why

I am eligible of mentioning it. I came to the conclusion that this path

is not very compatible with my nature and then decided to seek the

source of mukti. After revisiting much of Veda and Vedanta, I stumbled

across trika. Now I stand as a devotee of Shyama, so I am content but

also at the same time confused.

If Shri Vidya is the highest of all vidyas, then how can Kameshwara not be mukta? The Vedas never investigated the need of either the superiority or the heirarchical relativity between Vishnu and Shiva. Itihasa is the only source of this nonsense.Or am I wrong?

Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.

December 16, 2006

Hi Kartik

My question was whether it is vajasaneya or vasanjeya.

Anyway I have taittariya in original Sanskrit which

will serve my purpose. You see, it is my shaakhaa and

I have done adhyayanam. Paathashaalaayaam

veda-adheetoham asmi. bhaashaa-jnaanam api kinchit

asti.Shaankarabhashyaani api gurumukhena adhitaani

eva.

Coming to the question of vaishnava-achara, I m not a

vaishnava. From what I have seen and heard, I say this

without any rancour; to be a vaishnava, one should

indulge in at least minimal shiva-ninda and decry

Adishankara at least subliminally.

The temple of Shiva is considered rudrabhoomi by them

equal to smashana. If at all they are constrained to

enter it, they need to go through purificatory rites

such as taking bath etc.

I know of many passages in Yajur veda which at the

same time extol Shiva as the foremost among gods, the

giver of boons to all gods and that all gods praise

him.

I love Lord Krishna; I pray to Narayana; but Shiva

ninda is not thinkable in my dreams, for, in our

lineage, we wear bhasma on our forehead and we owe

allegiance to Adishankara.

Yes, what you say of vaishnavites is subtantively

true. Even in these pages, people have been ranting

about lingham worship instead of saying Shiva Pooja.

Narayana..Narayana..Narayana -- JR

--- kartik gaurav <omkaaraya .au> wrote:

>

> Namaskars To Shri Jalasayanan and Shri

> Radhakrishnan.

>

> Thank you to Shri Jalasayanan for your kind reply. I

> believe if the yajurveda can ask him to forgive our

> sins, this would suggest that he would be mukta and

> also capable of giving mukti. So says the Shiva

> sutras.

>

> Firstly to address the queston of Vasanjeya Samhita.

> It is the most

> fundamental recension of Shukla Yajur Veda, and has

> been translated by

> a variety of sources. You can purchase the Vasanjeya

> from Chaukhamba

> and even motilal. You can get the translations for

> free online. I only have the Brahmana, not the

> Aranyaka as the veda. I purchased the Aranyaka

> seperately.

>

> I have just recently found where I can get good

> taittiriya translation

> and also some bhasya on it. I am interested to know

> if you can refer me

> to a good source. However I had always held the view

> that

> Shankaracharya was schooled in the Kanva recension?

> This is actually

> the samhita that I am looking for.

>

> Also as per the Vaishnavacharya question; I believe

> in order for me to hold some shreds of sanity I have

> come to these two conclusions:

>

> I believe I might have to come to personal

> correspondence with either

> of you to discuss my doubts, as I dont want to cause

> offense to the

> general public.

>

> This is my open but not ended conclusion so far:

>

> The itihasa of Vishnu does not do justice to the

> Lord as praised by the

> Vedas. So I disregard itihasa. I hold the view that

> Shiva is not only a

> mukta atma but also the source of mukti, as per

> svetasvatara

> upanishad.I personaly do not acknowledge the 10

> avatars, I just worship

> Bhagawan with Narayana Sukta and Purusha Sukta. But

> I worship him as

> the shiva linga !

>

> After Vedic training, I got bored of the dryness and

> so I decided to

> have some fun. Originally I was taught old school

> occult tantra, how to

> bind and control certain demi deities without the

> use of vama. I

> decided to end things after purna diksha in this

> parampara, that is why

> I am eligible of mentioning it. I came to the

> conclusion that this path

> is not very compatible with my nature and then

> decided to seek the

> source of mukti. After revisiting much of Veda and

> Vedanta, I stumbled

> across trika. Now I stand as a devotee of Shyama, so

> I am content but

> also at the same time confused.

>

> If Shri Vidya is the highest of all vidyas, then how

> can Kameshwara not be mukta? The Vedas never

> investigated the need of either the superiority or

> the heirarchical relativity between Vishnu and

> Shiva. Itihasa is the only source of this

> nonsense.Or am I wrong?

>

> Send instant messages to your online friends

> http://au.messenger.

>

> [Non-text portions of this message have been

> removed]

>

December 17, 2006

I am always prone to making typos with this, but it is most certainly the vajasaneya samhita. Apologies for that. Also when I was given shiksha on the shada darshana, that was when my apprehension towards Vishnu first appeared. Everything you have mentioned are along the lines of what I have read and or heard from vaishnava doctrine.

I think Brahmavaivarta Purana was the straw that broke the camel's back for me. Of course I am happy that people see Vishnu as the supreme, absolute godhead. I choose to personify Bhagawan based on different ideologies and parampara. However what I did not like was this extreme relativism furnished in vaishanva scripture as to the superiority of Vishnu over Shiva. I have yet to see a Shaiva scripture that does the converse.

The truth of the matter is that prior to Gita Bhasya Krishna tells Arjun to invoke Bhagawati for certain victory. He called on the very diety have had my initial diksha in.

Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.

December 18, 2006

Hi Kartik

You can have a private conversation with me either here or over my bulletin board - http://p068.ezboard.com/bsrivaishnavism

However, you should understand you are trying to analyst vaishnavism from the tantrik prespective.

Not sure when you are amicable with dasa maha vidya devis all comprising a same god, what is the confusion with avatara.

Probably, I should clarify a little bit more. Vishnu as the name suggests resides everywhere and is omnipotent. Now that he can do what ever he wants by mere will still there are some thing which will not be satiated when done by satyakaama and satyasankalpa - like say Yashoda wanted to be mother of Lord, this wish cannot be satiated by mere wish thought he satisfaction can be given by mere will. If this is done by mere will this will run futile and would had been an Illusion.

Regarding, Lord Shiva, no one denies he is eligible for Mukti but he chose to differ it for he can bear it. He is considered to be mahavaishnava. If he is already a mukta atma then according to vaishnavism he should be showing the vishnu as lord where in the contrary is seen in this world hence logically he cannot be mukta atma - just putting points from your prespective.

Considering shrii vidya and puja as ultimate truth is your belief where in I have no rights to comment on, however, there are some factors which has been elucidated by a good friend of mine over some hindu discussion forum, and I do not want to be part of such discussion hereafter

However, just to say, denial to accept puraanaas and itihaasaas are just part of tantrik tradition where in tantriks where tantriks being unable to reconcile their beliefs according the ancient texts should be scrutinized. itihaasaa, as the name suggets, is history. If you deny history then most probably there should be no basis for imaginative works being considered as authoritative. Yes, of course, you can refuse to accept history as the thing happened then you should also suggest on what basis you accept few works are authoritative.

Probably if you could explain svetaasvatara in your prespective we can proceed leaving this abrupt denial of each other's views

regards

Jalasayanan

-

kartik gaurav

Saturday, December 16, 2006 6:58 AM

Re: clarification about "Anti-Vaishnava"