listening to the holy name from the lips of mayavadis

[RadhaMukunda]

Are you denying the authority of the Shiva Purana, Vishnu Purana, the Markandeya Purana etc? The Padma Purana is not the only one. I know Shankara commented on the Vishnu Sahasranama. He also wrote the Shivananda and Saundarya Lahari.

 

Saguna Brahma can take many forms. Ekam Sat Vipra Bahudha Vadanti.

Matsya, Kurma, Varaha, NaraSinga, ParashuRama, Rama, KRishna, Budha, Kalki

or Shiva, Brahma, Vishnu, Ganesha, Aditya, Gauri, Laxmi, Parwati.

 

 

 

Correction. Sri Ramanuja and Sri Madhva attacked the philosophy of Advaita. This is not related to the Supremacy of Vishnu at all. Advaitins, VA and Dvaitins during those times were agreed on one point - that Hari is Supreme.

No advaitin would ever say Vishnu is not supreme, or that Shiva is not supreme, or that Durga is not supreme.

[Dark Warrior]

Padma Purana, Matsya Purana, etc. state this explicitly 'The Puranas glorifying Hari are Sattvik, those glorifying Brahma are rajasic and those glorifying Shiva are Tamasic'.

 

The Padma Purana, Vishnu Purana, Bhagavata Purana and 3 other Sattvik puranas that praise Hari have been accepted by all schools. However, no scholar has used Shiva Purana or Linga Purana to prove the supremacy of a God.

 

Now, you may argue that this is an interpolation by Vaishnavas. However, the fact is, every Vedantin has abided by its rules. Shankara refrains from quoting the tamasic/rajasic Puranas. He sticks to Vishnu and Padma Puranas.

 

Sri Ramanuja actually mentions this sloka classifying Shiva Purana as tamasic. Sri Madhva also abides by this, and provides proof to show why these Puranas are tamasic.

 

In those days, Vedantins were under tremendous pressure. If any spurious verse had been quoted, opponents would pounce on them and rip their philosophy apart. However, it seems as though even Shaivites have accepted this classification.

 

Appaya Dikshitar himself did not quote Shiva Purana at all.

 

Next point - Rama and Krishna are avatars of that Brahman, Vishnu. Brahman has one rupa, which is described as 'Lotus Eyed'. This Rupa is the eternal form in Vaikuntha (Om Tad Visnoh Paramam Padam). The Vyuha avatars and Vaibhava Avataras are also the complete avatars of this Brahman.

 

You may argue that Shiva is an avatar of this brahman. However, explicit quotes like 'Eko Narayana Asit na Brahma na Isana' clearly distinguish Narayana from Brahma and Shiva. Furthermore, Anya Devata are mentioned to be part of creation, making them Jivas.

 

Rama and Krishna were not created and are hailed as unborn. Mahanarayana Upanishad calls Brahman as the 'Son of Devaki'.

 

Krishna confirms it in Bhagavad Gita. A created entity cannot be an avatar. Unless you want to say that all Jivas are Brahman, hence Brahma and Shiva are Brahman.

 

Thirdly, it has been proven that Saundarya Lahiri and other works are not authored by Sankara. He discourages the worship of Rudra in his Gita Bashya. Hence, it is logical to assume that he wouldn't change his mind after writing a Bhashya.

 

These works arose in the 16th century. To be perfectly fair, I have not mentioned Bhaja Govindam as well. A scholar's opinion is judged by his commentaries on Prasthna Traya and not by devotional hymns.

[Dark Warrior]

 

No advaitin would ever say Vishnu is not supreme, or that Shiva is not supreme, or that Durga is not supreme

 

Mordern Smarthas, yes. But you can check Sankara Bhashya itself if you wish. He clearly says that Meditation on Vasudeva is superior to Rudra, Agni, etc. After all, he's your guru, right?

 

 

Shiva, Brahma, Vishnu, Ganesha, Aditya, Gauri, Laxmi, Parwati.

 

Mahanarayana Upanishad claims Narayana created Brahma, Rudra, Adityas, Vasus, Indra, etc. The Upanishad hails Narayana as flawless. However, the other deities are dismissed by their flaws. Kena Upanishad says Indra and Agni have false ego. Satapatha Brahmana says that the deity named Rudra, Ugra, Pasupati, Isana, Mahadeva, etc. is not flawless due to past karma.

 

Sorry, no offense. I am stating facts.

 

In case you are going to state Vishnu is an aditya (Gita says Adityanam Aham Vishnu), your own guru, Sankara clarifies that the Aditya named Vishnu is a Gandharva and is not the Lord Vishnu on Adi Sesha. This Gandharva apparently is subordinate to Indra.

 

It is because of all these complications that no-one understands Shruti.

[RadhaMukunda]

I will look at the Shiva is demigod thread.

http://www.indiadivine.org/audarya/spiritual-discussions/446416-lord-shiva-demi-god.html

[Dark Warrior]

 

I will look at the Shiva is demigod thread.

http://www.indiadivine.org/audarya/spiritual-discussions/446416-lord-shiva-demi-god.html

 

Yep, its a long one. Most of my posts have been deleted there due to abuses. However, I won't abuse you because you are a devotee of Krishna.

 

The debators in that thread kept arguing that the Kumara named Mahadeva, Isana, Pasupati, etc. is actually Agni and not Rudra, because Rudra had been hailed as Agni there. However, Veda clarifies that every Deva is called Agni simply because the Devas accept prayers by Sacrifice. And Sacrifice=Fire, hence, every Deva is Agni.

 

And the debators kept quoting Shiva Purana.

[Ganeshprasad]

Pranam

 

Same old same old, not wishing to start a debate but

 

Vaishnav feels happy defeating Shiva using their own standard of measure, all the time making rules that fit in with their interpretation or else the srutis would contradict it self so they say. As if such contradictions can ever be present in Vedas, is nothing sort of admitting that srutis are faulty. Perish the thought. I will accept what it says at face value, hack with opinions and interpretations, just as Lord Krishna says hardly anyone knows me in truth the unborn mahesvara.

It is for an individual to realise the Brahman that which is beyond the triguna, to get bogged down in this supremacy contest is like missing the boat.

So be happy in your self declared victory meanwhile Lord Shiva’s worship, which is oldest known to mankind will be performed regardless.

 

Jai Shree Krishna

[Dark Warrior]

 

As if such contradictions can ever be present in Vedas, is nothing sort of admitting that srutis are faulty

 

It is to prove that there are NO contradictions that such interpretations are needed. One verse says Rudra is Supreme and another says Rudra gets his powers by meditating on Vishnu. By studying etymology, one can resolve contradictions.

 

There are no contradictions in Shruti, but on the surface, Shruti 'appears' contradictory. In one place, Indra is praised as Supreme. In another place, Indra is mentioned to have failed at realising Brahman, and is shown to have 'Ahamkara' (Kena Upanishad).

 

So, either we have to admit that Shruti is faulty, or a deeper reading is needed. If we take the Vishishtadvaitic concept of Creation being the body of Brahman, there are no contradictions.

 

Hence, since Indra has a fault, statements like 'Indra is Brahman' simply pertains to the Soul/Body concept.

 

Why does Shruti do this? Well, if truth was known to everyone, then what about those under the effects of Karma? Lord Vishnu is not like the semitic God that He gives one scripture and one revelation. Vedanta is not like Islam or Christianity. Intelligence is needed to first find out who Brahman is, and then to find out what the philosophy of Vedanta is.

 

The Vedanga itself provides instructions on how the Vedas should be interpreted. Read the instructions.

 

 

Lord Krishna says hardly anyone knows me in truth the unborn mahesvara.

 

'Mahesvara' simply means 'Lord of the Worlds'. It is not a specific name for Shiva. I name myself Narayana, that doesn't mean I am the Brahman of the Vedas.

 

No commentator has ever said that this verse in Gita pertains to Shiva. Not even Shaivites. Everyone has translated Mahesvara as 'Lord of the Worlds'. Sankara explicitly says Mahesvara is a name of Vishnu. However, if Ganeshprasad wants to start his own guru parampara, I don't really care.

 

Krishna says, 'Those who know me as Mahesvara, ie, Lord of the Worlds (and not Shiva, Brahma, etc.) will get moksha'.

 

For example, in Valmiki Ramayana, Sugriva is called 'Harisvara'. Does this mean Sugriva is Vishnu? Nope. 'Harisvara' means 'Possessor of Wealth'. While Hari is a name of Vishnu, anyone possessing wealth can be called by this name.

 

---

 

Like I said before, you ae free to worship Shiva if you wish. Just don't turn this thread into another Shiva/Vishnu debate.

[Ganeshprasad]

Pranam

 

Oh yes we will except every thing we like and reject everything else because it clashes with srutis, well that is your problem but srutis it self says

 

Ekam sad, vipra bahudha vadanti - RSi dirghatamas, Rig Veda I.164.46

truth is one, sages call it variously. Lord Krishna says I am Shankara, Arjun says you are Vaayu, Yama, Agni, Varuna, Shashaanka, and Brahmaa as well as the father of Brahmaa. Salutations to You a thousand times, and again and again salutations to You. (11.39)

 

For me there is no contradiction, only thing that remains is to realise the truth following Dharma that is the paramount importance.

 

So pardon me for not accepting your opinion.

 

You are so caught up in your superiority concept that you fail to see I used small later in mahesvara.

 

 

Like I said before, you are free to worship Shiva if you wish. Just don't turn this thread into another Shiva/Vishnu debate.

 

I agree and you are free to worship Lord Vishnu, just don’t bring your interpretations to prove your point of view and making Lord Shiva a jiva. Yes keep this thread for mayavad discussion, what ever that means.

 

Jai Shree Krishna

[Pankaja_Dasa]

we all almost mayavadis so make sense to hear name from pure devotee.

[Baobabtree]

Namaste Darkwarrior.

 

 

It is to prove that there are NO contradictions that such interpretations are needed. One verse says Rudra is Supreme and another says Rudra gets his powers by meditating on Vishnu. By studying etymology, one can resolve contradictions.

Skanda Upanishad solves this dilemma for us when in verses 8 and 9 it states

śivāya viṣṇurūpāya śivarūpāya viṣṇave |

śivasya hṛdayaṁ viṣṇuḥ viṣṇośca hṛdayaṁ śivaḥ || 8 ||

yathā śivamayo viṣṇurevaṁ viṣṇumayaḥ śivaḥ |

yathāntaraṁ na paśyāmi tathā me svastirāyuṣi || 9 ||

 

 

(I bow) to Shiva in the form of Vishnu, and Vishnu in the form of Shiva;

Vishnu is Shiva’s heart and Shiva is Vishnu’s heart.

Just as Vishnu is full of Shiva, so is Shiva full of Vishnu.

As I see no difference, I am well all my life.

However I understand Sri Vaishnavas don't consider this Upanishad to be authentic, yes?

 

Regardless, these arguments about what the Vedas mean, the authenticity of certain Upanishads, whether Shankaracharya was a Vaishnava etc. have been done to death already, and I agree with you that we should not hijack this thread and turn it into another one of those endless debates.

[RadheyRadhey108]

 

(I bow) to Shiva in the form of Vishnu, and Vishnu in the form of Shiva;

Vishnu is Shiva’s heart and Shiva is Vishnu’s heart.

Just as Vishnu is full of Shiva, so is Shiva full of Vishnu.

As I see no difference, I am well all my life.

Very beautiful, Baobabtree Thx for posting it for us!

[Dark Warrior]

 

Pranam

 

Oh yes we will except every thing we like and reject everything else because it clashes with srutis, well that is your problem but srutis it self says

 

Ekam sad, vipra bahudha vadanti - RSi dirghatamas, Rig Veda I.164.46

truth is one, sages call it variously. Lord Krishna says I am Shankara, Arjun says you are Vaayu, Yama, Agni, Varuna, Shashaanka, and Brahmaa as well as the father of Brahmaa. Salutations to You a thousand times, and again and again salutations to You. (11.39)

 

For me there is no contradiction, only thing that remains is to realise the truth following Dharma that is the paramount importance.

 

Dude, you have it reversed. Vaishnavas do not reject even one portion of Shruti. However, we interpret it the right way. However, you ignore pramanas which clearly say Shiva is created and disappears along with Brahma, Moon, Stars, Sun during pralaya. Since such pramanas exist, unless you accept the Vaishnava interpretation of 'Rudra is Supreme', your interpretation causes Shruti to clash horribly.

 

You reject whatever you do not like and blindly quote two sentences out of context. This is against all rules of interpretation.

 

'Truth is One, but it has many names'. You never stop prattling, do you? This translation is atrocious.

 

It means, there is only one truth, ie, Brahman. And this Brahman has many names. Which means, all names like Rudra, Indra, Chandra belong to Brahman only.

 

However, the gods are not Brahman. Only the names belong to Brahman. Since Brahman is Vishnu, all names like Rudra, Shiva, etc. belong to him. The deities are simply named after him.

 

All names are Brahman's. All gods are not Brahman. The Vedas clarify that all gods are not the same.

 

thus, by default, this means that the Vedas provide sanction. Wherever Rudra is mentioned to be Supreme, it only indicates Narayana. Because Narayana is the One Truth and all Names belong to Him.

 

Again, mindlessly quoting Gita without understanding the context. In one verse, Krishna clarifies that even the abode of Brahma won't give moksha. Then how can Brahma be Krishna? He makes a clear distinction by saying that those who worship Devas will go to Devas and those who worship Him will go to Him.

 

'I am Brahma, I am the father of Brahma'. How can one entity be both of these things? A mindless interpretation like yours has no place in Vedanta.

 

The verse, 'I am Brahma, I am Vayu' etc. simply indicate relative identity. For the thousandth time, do not quote mindlessly without understanding the concept. All of creation is the body of Narayana. The body is identified with the soul. To say 'Ganeshprasad' means I address Ganeshprasad's body and soul together.

 

Hence, since Brahma, Vayu, etc. are the body of Krishna, they are addressed in a sense of relative identity with Krishna. Lord Krishna also says 'I am the Self of all beings'. Does this mean Ganeshprasad or myself is krishna? No. As Brihadaranyaka Upanishad clarifies, Paramatma is the indweller of the Atman itself. Hence, Krishna is the soul of our soul, and relative identity is seen here.

 

In the Kena Upanishad, Indra, Agni and Vayu admit that they have failed to realise Brahman. So, how can they be Brahman? Use common sense. By your interpretation, if Agni and Vayu are Brahman, then Kena Upanishad says Vayu and Agni have false ego and incomplete knowledge. This means, Brahman has some faults and has incomplete knowledge. Which contradicts the vakya 'Satyam Jnanam Anantam Brahma'.

 

 

You are so caught up in your superiority concept that you fail to see I used small later in mahesvara.

 

That's 'letter'. And if you also believe that Mahesvara is not Shiva there, what is the point of quoting that verse?

 

There are innumerable verses praising Shiva as Supreme. There are innumerable verses that say he was created by Narayana and that he had a birth. Hence, to accept one portion at face value and ignore the other is not Vedantic. A woman has beautiful hair, but the praise not only goes to the hair, but also goes to the woman. Similarly, Vishnu has many beautiful and powerful devas as part of His body. therefore, praise of any portion of Vishnu's body (ie, Rudra, Indra, etc.) goes to Vishnu alone.

 

The very fact that your 'interpretations' have not been accepted by any scholar in history should prove to you that you are in a clear minority. Even a Shaivite does not interpret those verses that way. Of course, if you feel you are above the level of seeking a Guru, kindly go ahead.

 

 

I agree and you are free to worship Lord Vishnu, just don’t bring your interpretations to prove your point of view and making Lord Shiva a jiva. Yes keep this thread for mayavad discussion, what ever that means.

 

Jai Shree Krishna

 

Then, I suggest you stop pushing your stupid 'All Gods are One' theology here. Without understanding the basic way of debate, simply using a neovedantic interpretation for 'Truth is One, but it has many names' is useless.

 

Shiva is a jivatma for Vaishnavas based on authentic pramanas from Rig Veda, Yajur Veda, Satapatha Brahmana and Mahanarayana Upanishad. I suggest that you stop posting inane interpretations if you believe otherwise. Someone said Sri Ramanuja and Sri Madhva were not Vaishnavas, which is what I came to clarify.

 

I am not here to proselytize anyone. My best friend is a Shaivite anyway!!

 

 

I understand Sri Vaishnavas don't consider this Upanishad to be authentic, yes?

 

Even Advaitins (except Neovedantins perhaps) do not accept that Upanishad. The authentic Upanishads are identified based on what Sri Sankara, Sri Ramanuja, Sri Madhva identified.

 

In any case, the phrase, 'Shiva is in heart of Vishnu' is itself faulty. Vishnu means 'to pervade'. A pervader can only be the indweller. He can never have an indweller.

 

Hence, the very act of pervading can only be a unique trait of Brahman. You can't say that Brahman gives the duty of pervasiveness to a lesser deity. However, Shiva is auspicious and Brahman can certainly give auspiciousness to a deity and still remain auspicious.

 

There is a 'Trivikrama Upanishad', a 'Ramakrishno Upanishad', a 'Gopalatapani Upanishad', etc. Its apparently very easy to write an Upanishad, it seems. However, these spurious texts are nowhere near the level of beauty seen in the authentic Upanishads.

[ranjeetmore]

.

[Ganeshprasad]

 

'Truth is One, but it has many names'. You never stop prattling, do you? This translation is atrocious.

 

Do I care about your translation, time to get out of this kindergarten mentality

 

 

 

It means, there is only one truth, ie, Brahman. And this Brahman has many names. Which means, all names like Rudra, Indra, Chandra belong to Brahman only.

 

Oh really, is anyone talking about Eko truth other then Brahman?

Not only names like Rudra, Indra Chandra Vishnu, Narayan but all this forms belong to Brahman.

 

 

However, the gods are not Brahman. Only the names belong to Brahman. Since Brahman is Vishnu, all names like Rudra, Shiva, etc. belong to him. The deities are simply named after him.

 

All names are Brahman's. All gods are not Brahman. The Vedas clarify that all gods are not the same.

 

thus, by default, this means that the Vedas provide sanction. Wherever Rudra is mentioned to be Supreme, it only indicates Narayana. Because Narayana is the One Truth and all Names belong to Him.

Gibberish, these are your opinion, I don’t buy in to it.

 

 

Again, mindlessly quoting Gita without understanding the context. In one verse, Krishna clarifies that even the abode of Brahma won't give moksha. Then how can Brahma be Krishna? He makes a clear distinction by saying that those who worship Devas will go to Devas and those who worship Him will go to Him.

What is it are this verses getting to you?

Who said anything about abode of Brahma giving moksa, it stand to reason if the abode is in material world it will be destroyed and why would you think worshipers of devas will go anywhere else other then who they worship.

 

 

'I am Brahma, I am the father of Brahma'. How can one entity be both of these things? A mindless interpretation like yours has no place in Vedanta.

Where have I brought my interpretation, see what Arjun is saying, you cant even read what was quoted Bg11.39 go figure not my sloka, if you have problem with Vedanta take it up with Arjun.

 

 

The verse, 'I am Brahma, I am Vayu' etc. simply indicate relative identity. For the thousandth time, do not quote mindlessly without understanding the concept. All of creation is the body of Narayana. The body is identified with the soul. To say 'Ganeshprasad' means I address Ganeshprasad's body and soul together.

You can shout from roof top makes no difference and I don’t care for your opinions.

 

 

Hence, since Brahma, Vayu, etc. are the body of Krishna, they are addressed in a sense of relative identity with Krishna.

Opinion

 

 

In the Kena Upanishad, Indra, Agni and Vayu admit that they have failed to realise Brahman. So, how can they be Brahman? Use common sense.

 

Ask Arjun.

 

Then they said to Indra, "O giver of wealth, find this out, what this spirit is.So be it." He hurried toward it. It disappeared from before him. In the same region of the sky, he came across a very beautiful woman, Uma, the daughter of the snowy mountains. He asked her, "What is this spirit?"

So Uma knows it, who is this Uma pati.?

 

 

 

That's 'letter'. And if you also believe that Mahesvara is not Shiva there, what is the point of quoting that verse?

 

No, no I did not say that, don’t put words in my mouth. Shiva is Maheshvara so much so that when I used maheshvara as an adjective you could not help equate that to Shiva.

 

Point was, Lord Krishna is saying hardly anyone knows him in truth, yet here you are making all kind of interpretation limiting his unlimited form and functions. Did you ever wonder why Arjun would ask him how may I worship you in your various forms?

 

 

 

There are innumerable verses praising Shiva as Supreme. There are innumerable verses that say he was created by Narayana and that he had a birth. Hence, to accept one portion at face value and ignore the other is not Vedantic.

 

First I do not accept your version of sat path bramana hence there is no birth of Lord Shiva that aside we can say the same for Lord Vishnu, who is described as mere sun deity or a younger brother of Indra or sat path barmana mentions his head being severed by bow. I know you will give us your opinion and that is just that opinion. facts are given in Vedas and if it says Shiva is supreme I have no arguments period.

 

 

 

The very fact that your 'interpretations' have not been accepted by any scholar in history should prove to you that you are in a clear minority. Even a Shaivite does not interpret those verses that way. Of course, if you feel you are above the level of seeking a Guru, kindly go ahead.

 

Hey, I don’t have to look beyond Tulsidas Goswami or Sridhar swami never mind a Shaivite.

 

 

 

Then, I suggest you stop pushing your stupid 'All Gods are One' theology here. Without understanding the basic way of debate, simply using a neovedantic interpretation for 'Truth is One, but it has many names' is useless.

 

Shiva is a jivatma for Vaishnavas based on authentic pramanas from Rig Veda, Yajur Veda, Satapatha Brahmana and Mahanarayana Upanishad. I suggest that you stop posting inane interpretations if you believe otherwise. Someone said Sri Ramanuja and Sri Madhva were not Vaishnavas, which is what I came to clarify.

 

Yes in gist of clarification you never fail a trick to make your un Vedic judgement on Lord Shiva, other then that I would not bother with likes of you.

 

Jai Shree Krishna

[Dark Warrior]

 

Do I care about your translation, time to get out of this kindergarten mentality

 

Unfortunately, you have no pramanas to back it up. This 'kindergarten' translation is espoused by Sri Sankara, Sri Ramanuja, Sri Madhva. Your interpretation is not even an interpretation...its a mess.

 

 

 

Oh really, is anyone talking about Eko truth other then Brahman?

Not only names like Rudra, Indra Chandra Vishnu, Narayan but all this forms belong to Brahman.

 

The verse says 'All names belong to Brahman'. If you stick to your way of reading directly, you, by your own method, must admit that there is NO mention of 'all gods are Brahman'.

 

NarayaNa is a proper noun and is the specific name for Brahman. Nobody can attribute 'Narayana' to a lesser deva. Sanskrit grammar.

 

And the trick is to identify which deva can be called as Narayana. Only Vishnu fits the bill. Purusha Suktam hails Narayana, Brahman as 'Lakshmi Pathi'. Mahanarayana Upanishad says Narayana created Shiva.

 

Indra is mentioned to have ahankara. Tell me, does Brahman have false ego? Because Kena Upanishad pretty much details some major faults of Vayu, Agni and Indra.

 

 

 

Gibberish, these are your opinion, I don’t buy in to it.

 

"yo devAnAM nAmadhA eka eva" says the Rig Veda, Which clearly says that there is only one Deva who has all these names. Hence, it is not just my opinion. All names belong to one God, and there is only ONE god, ie, Vishnu. So, without taking the whole text into consideration, stop saying 'all gods are one'.

 

 

 

What is it are this verses getting to you?

Who said anything about abode of Brahma giving moksa, it stand to reason if the abode is in material world it will be destroyed and why would you think worshipers of devas will go anywhere else other then who they worship.

 

When Krishna says His abode is different from the devas, and that His abode gives moksha, it implies that the Devas abode WON'T give moksha. Common sense, right? Otherwise, why does He ask everyone to worship Him alone (Mam ekam Saranam vraja).

 

Brahma Loka is in material world because Brahma is a Jivatma. Furthermore, 'Eko Narayana Asit Na Brahma Na Isana' says that before CREATION, neither Brahma nor Shiva existed. This verse also says that no moon, no stars existed.

 

Thus, it is safe to conclude that Brahma, Shiva, Stars, Moon, etc. are dissolved during pralaya.

 

 

 

Where have I brought my interpretation, see what Arjun is saying, you cant even read what was quoted Bg11.39 go figure not my sloka, if you have problem with Vedanta take it up with Arjun.

 

 

You can shout from roof top makes no difference and I don’t care for your opinions.

 

Krishna says He is Brahma and He is the father of Brahma using the soul/body concept. As per Brihadaranyaka, Krishna is the indweller of Brahma's soul. As per Rig Veda, all names belong to Brahman. Krishna is Brahman, hence, He is Brahma.

 

The very fact that Gita says 'People who worship the Devas go to the Devas and people who worship Me go to Me', shows that the abode of Krishna is different from devas. Krishna also mentions that His abode is the place of moksha.

 

Since the devas' abode is different from Krishna's and you cannot attain Krishna's abode by worshipping the Devas, it means, moksha cannot be obtained by worshipping Devas.

 

Elementary, Watson.

 

 

Opinion

 

Not just an opinion. Refer Brihadaranyaka Upanishad, where it is mentioned that everything from wind and water to fire and ice to Jivatma and entire Universe is the BODY of Brahman. This is called 'Ghataka Sruti'. Meditate on everything as Brahman's body, implying that Brahman is the indweller.

 

 

 

 

Ask Arjun.

 

Then they said to Indra, "O giver of wealth, find this out, what this spirit is.So be it." He hurried toward it. It disappeared from before him. In the same region of the sky, he came across a very beautiful woman, Uma, the daughter of the snowy mountains. He asked her, "What is this spirit?"

So Uma knows it, who is this Uma pati.?

 

If this is from the Kena Upanishad, I agree. Uma is Parvati. She is the guru for Indra, Vayu and Agni. When these three devas failed to realise Brahman, Parvati came before them and taught them to realise Brahman.

 

So, Parvati and hence, Shiva are these Devas' gurus. They teach the devas about Brahman, but that doesn't make the gurus Brahman, does it? Just like acharyas know more than common people, Shiva has more realisation than the Devas.

 

This verse does not say Uma or Shiva are Brahman. It says Uma knows Brahman. What makes you think that this Brahman is automatically her husband Shiva?

 

Furthermore, here you have Indra asking someone who is Brahman. Clear proof that Devas are not Brahman.

 

 

 

No, no I did not say that, don’t put words in my mouth. Shiva is Maheshvara so much so that when I used maheshvara as an adjective you could not help equate that to Shiva.

 

Point was, Lord Krishna is saying hardly anyone knows him in truth, yet here you are making all kind of interpretation limiting his unlimited form and functions. Did you ever wonder why Arjun would ask him how may I worship you in your various forms?

 

Yes. Hardly anyone knows Him in truth. Everyone equates Him to Devas, and our corrupt Indians consider Him to be a normal person. They do not know His supremacy.

 

Arjuna asks How may I worship Krishna? Krishna replies 'I am the Self of all beings'. Which means, when you meditate on the atman, you realise the Paramatman dwelling WITHIN the atman. Then, you realise that although Atman and Paramatman are not one, they are inseparable.

 

Hence, since they are inseparable, they can be referred to as ONE entity. So, I call you Ganeshprasad which hails both your body AND soul as one entity.

 

He then goes on to say 'Among Rudras, I am Sankara' etc because, He is the indweller of these entities and hence is inseparable from them.

 

Kapish?

 

 

 

First I do not accept your version of sat path bramana hence there is no birth of Lord Shiva

 

1) A deity named Ugra, Rudra, Bhava, Pasupati, Sarva, Isana, Mahadeva is mentioned to have a birth in Satapatha Brahmana. If you think this isn't Shiva, then on what basis can you take verses like 'Shiva is Supreme' to mean your Shiva? Use your ;direct interpretation' technique for both.

 

2) Mahanarayana Upanishad mentions Isana, with 3 eyes and a trident to have been born, ie, created by Narayana.

 

3) Yajur Veda calls Rudra cruel. Cruelty is not a trait of Brahman.

 

4) Rig Veda says Rudra gets his powers by meditating on Vishnu. This means, he had to earn his powers and didn't possess them before.

 

5) Eko Narayana Asit Na Brahma Na Isana is crystal clear in saying that Shiva was not present during Pralaya.

 

6) Ambhrani Sukta quoted by Sri Madhva has Lakshmi saying that She can make anyone Rudra or Brahma, if She desires. Hence, these are just posts.

 

7) Rig Veda puts the kibosh on it all and says that Rudra worships a deity in the cave of his heart. This clearly shows that Rudra has an indweller. It further says that the deity in Rudra's heart is Supreme.

 

 

And there are no verses detailing the birth of Shiva? Now who is ignoring verses? You have been selectively ignoring these pramanas, and simply blabbering on without reason.

 

 

that aside we can say the same for Lord Vishnu, who is described as mere sun deity or a younger brother of Indra or sat path barmana mentions his head being severed by bow. I know you will give us your opinion and that is just that opinion. facts are given in Vedas and if it says Shiva is supreme I have no arguments period.

 

My opinion? Look at my replies. Everyone of them has a Vedic pramana. Heck, if you look below, I have even given a pramana for why Tulasidas was wrong in equating Shiva=Vishnu!!

 

I am chockfull of pramanas. All you have been doing is chanting 'Opinion, Opinion, Opinion', without considering the pramanas. So, is the word 'Opinion' a new mantra for meditating on Brahman now?

 

1) Vishnu is the younger brother of Indra because in His avatara as Vamana, He was born as an Aditya. However, an avatar is not a normal birth.

 

By that same logic, Krishna is a cowherd. Would you call Him a mere cowherd?

 

2) A deity named Rudra, Pasupati, Isana, Mahadeva, Ugra, Sarva, Bhava is mentioned to be born and was given names to free him from sins. The son of this deity is mentioned to be Skanda. Thus, there is no doubt that this deity is Umapathi.

 

Since Rig Veda says 'Vishnu is Agni, Rudra is Agni, Brahma is Agni', even if you take the literal interpretation, it means Mahadeva Shiva only.

 

3) Thirdly, Vishnu is often associated with Surya because the Sun is the life force of all beings. In one Vidya, the seeker is advised to meditate on Brahman within the sun. This Brahman has a flowing moustache and lotus eyes!!

 

4) When S.Brahmana says Vishnu was severed by a bow, did you read the whole story? It says, Vishnu's head became the Sun, his body oozed a sap which gave strength to Devas. Thus, here, Vishnu is shown to provide strength to Devas.

 

Hence, this isn't the death of Vishnu. It means, Vishnu is the act of Sacrifice. All Sacrifices go to Him and He gives the merits of Sacrifice. That is why He is called Yajneswara.

 

The Purusha Suktam mentions the Purusha being tied to a stake and sacrificed. This doesn't mean the Purusha was killed. Remember the Gita, 'The Gods performed a Sacrifice in the beginning of creation'.

 

There you go. Like I said before, Vaishnavas have NEVER ignored one single verse. Everything explained, no contradictions.

 

This is the sad problem. People like Ganeshprasad make a quick read and note words without understanding their meanings. Then, they come to some awful conclusions. And if people like these are exposed to Christian Missionaries and Islamists, then Hinduism is mistaken to be nothing more than superstition and myth.

 

The very fact that we have tales of Indra fighting Shiva, Shiva plucking the head of Brahma, etc. appear quite rational if these devas are called jivatmas. After all, Gods do not fight, but Jivas certainly do. Quite normal for Shiva, a Vaishnava, to have a wife named Parvati and a son named Skanda as well.

 

 

 

 

Hey, I don’t have to look beyond Tulsidas Goswami or Sridhar swami never mind a Shaivite.

 

 

 

 

Yes in gist of clarification you never fail a trick to make your un Vedic judgement on Lord Shiva, other then that I would not bother with likes of you.

 

Jai Shree Krishna

 

If its Unvedic, then why every Vedic Scholar has followed this line of reasoning?

 

Take a poll. How many scholars follow your line and how many have interpreted it my way? Result - I win.

 

Tattiriya Upanishad says, 'Obey your elders and follow them only till the point they are right'. Tulasidas was a great bhakta, but his philosophy of Vishnu=Shiva is not right. There is no mention of Rama worshipping Shiva in Valmiki Ramayana.

 

The same Taittiriya says that Manushyas have so much of bliss and realisation of Brahman, that Gandharvas have a greater amount of realisation, that Devas have a still greater amount of Realisation, etc. Thus, it differentiates Brahman and Devas, plus makes it clear that Devas are just beings that have realised Brahman to some extent, that's all.

 

Ganeshprasad, its rudimentary calculation. The very fact that Kena Upanishad calls Indra, Agni and Vayu as having false ego and lack of proper realisation shows that they are not Brahman. Or do you think Brahman has false ego? Now that's a new philosophy.

 

So, I suggest that you go follow your faith if you cannot do anything but quote the same verses 'I am Brahma, I am Vayu', etc. I just came back from watching Batman -The Dark Knight., which is why I feel up to this. Heath Ledger was pretty awesome as the Joker!!

[srikanthdk71]

Dark Warrior Mahajan, I bow to your extreme knowledge of the books, its interpretation, kindly let me know how may quotes were done from Srimad Bhagavatam from Sri Adi Shankara or Sri Ramanujacharya. None. Why? It only has its existance felt from the time of Sri Madhvacharya. Was it written in between? If so from whom? Vyasa ? It is not written in Anushtup Chandas which all other forms of Vyasa works has been written. Why this speciality? Who was supreme before the Dwapara Yuga? Why did Rama worship Shiva? Why only Shiva and Shakti finds mention in the Sat Yuga? Kindly give Pramaans for the same so that it will be useful for all.

[RadhaMukunda]

Bhagavata Purana was there before Shankara. Shankara refutes the Bhagavatam in his commentary on the Brahma Sutra. I haven't studied his complete bhaashya, but I disagree with Shankara here. I believe in the Puranas. So, the bhagavata was not written between the period of Madhva and Shankara. Other puranas aslo (skanda, padma, garuda) glorify the bhagavatam.

 

It doesn't matter what the writing style of other puranas are. Veda Vyaasa was the most learned sage of his time and was obviously capable of writing in different styles. He also wrote the Brahma sutras. The Bhagavatam has more sophisticated language, because it was meant for a more sophisticated audience.

[Dark Warrior]

 

Dark Warrior Mahajan, I bow to your extreme knowledge of the books, its interpretation, kindly let me know how may quotes were done from Srimad Bhagavatam from Sri Adi Shankara or Sri Ramanujacharya. None. Why? It only has its existance felt from the time of Sri Madhvacharya. Was it written in between? If so from whom? Vyasa ? It is not written in Anushtup Chandas which all other forms of Vyasa works has been written. Why this speciality? Who was supreme before the Dwapara Yuga? Why did Rama worship Shiva? Why only Shiva and Shakti finds mention in the Sat Yuga? Kindly give Pramaans for the same so that it will be useful for all.

 

Number One. Sri Sankara and Sri Ramanuja never quoted the Bhagavata Purana because the Vishnu Purana was more ideal for philosophical concepts. While the Bhagavata stresses on the reader to accept Vishnu bhakti, the Vishnu Purana is more philosophical, enumerating the tattvas (Chit, Achit, Isvara). Another reason why it attracted Sri Ramanuja is because it gives great importance to Lakshmi.

 

Hence, it is quite redundant to quote from Bhagavata when Vishnu P. has everything.

 

And I dunno if Adi Sankara refuted Bhagavata. For one thing, he does not quote bhagavata at all. For another thing, there are many passages in Bhagavata that can be cleverly interpreted as advaitic.

 

As far as dating of literature goes, there are differences within Puranas itself, in the case of linguistics. However, traditionalists have the faith that Tamil itself is as old as Treta yuga, hence there is a clear chance of intermixing. Furthermore, it is possible that the rishis who preserved the work of Vyasa used the conventions of their time. There is no substantial proof to call the Bhagavatam as a recent work.

 

Lastly, Rama did not worship Shiva. Valmiki Ramayana mentions that Rama worshipped Lord Narayana only. Tulasidas's devotional work is not scripture and any version of Ramayana other than Valmiki cannot be accepted as pramana.

 

Krishna worshipped Shiva because Shiva wanted a boon from Him, that He (Krishna), despite being Supreme, would worship Shiva for a son. Bhagavan loves to satsify His devotees, hence He worshipped Shiva. However, Krishna tells Arjuna in Santi Parva that He never worshipped Shiva, but rather, the Narayana dwelling within the atman of Shiva. And the Mahabharata, as anyone knows, is highly interpolated with many slokas praising Shiva (like Shiva Sahasranama).

 

No offense. Your parents/uncle/gurus should be respected, but you don't call them paramatman. Similarly, respect devas like Shiva and Brahma as realised souls. The scriptures say they will attain moksha after pralaya.

[hindustani]

Dark Warrior,

Somehow when I read your posts I recall one famous advertisement of detergent powder featuring Boman Irani,he too does same thing like you asking for Saboot(pramana).

[RadhaMukunda]

 

 

And I dunno if Adi Sankara refuted Bhagavata. For one thing, he does not quote bhagavata at all. For another thing, there are many passages in Bhagavata that can be cleverly interpreted as advaitic.

 

http://www.bharatadesam.com/spiritual/brahma_sutra/brahma_sutra_sankara_34219.php

[Dark Warrior]

Nope. That isn't the Bhagavata Purana. In that verse, Sri Sankara is claiming that the Pancharatra Agama is not authentic because he thinks it promotes creation of souls (actually, it doesn't). While he accepted the Bhagavata religion as Vedantic, he did not accept the Pancharatra.

 

'Bhagavata' here refers to followers of Pancharatra and not the Purana. In any case, Sri Yamunacharya has written a rebuttal to this. Satapatha Brahmana itself mentions the Pancharatra, I believe.

 

Sankarshana is not a soul, but a manifestation of Narayana, who is responsible for destruction. The Mandukya, when interpreted the Vishishtadvaitic way, conveys the concept of the 4 Vyuhas. So does the Purnamidam Mantra. There are also other references in the Veda.

[shvu]

 

Number One. Sri Sankara and Sri Ramanuja never quoted the Bhagavata Purana because the Vishnu Purana was more ideal for philosophical concepts.

 

Perhaps...but they did not actually say so. So we are just speculating.

 

The Matsya Purana lists all the major Puranas and provides a brief description of each Purana. These descriptions are of great interest because most of the Puranas in their present form deviate from these descriptions in some way.

 

1. Vishnu: The Matysa says the Vishnu has some 23000 verses. But in reality, the Vishnu only has some 14000 verses and yet it is a full text without the slightest indication that some portion is missing.

 

2. Bhagavatam: The Matsya says the Bhagavatam talks about events that occured in the Saraswata Kalpa and the story of Vritra. That is it....nothing is said about Krishna. The Bhagavatam as we know does not match this description.

 

So I do not recommend reading too much into Puranas. They have most certainly undergone several revisions over time to gloss over their original content.

 

In my opinion - and I am not the only one - the Bhagavatam as we know it today was not existing during the time of Shankara (800 AD) and was too new and an obvious interpolation during the time of Ramanuja which is why he never mentions the text. A couple of centuries later, it had become popular and so Madhva wrote a brief commentary on it to clear up some confusion it had created - like the avatar concept of Krishna, etc.

 

Cheers

[Dark Warrior]

 

Perhaps...but they did not actually say so. So we are just speculating.

 

Well, Sri Azhagia Manavala Perumal Nayanar, an acharya who wasn't too far off from Sri Ramanuja's time, quotes it. The Bhagavatam could not have become that popular by then.

 

There is only speculation, and both Indologists as well as Devotees have equal claim. However, the argument that the Bhagavatam resembles the works of the alvars can be answered by a devotee - that both the alvars and Sukar had the same realisation.

 

 

The Matsya Purana lists all the major Puranas and provides a brief description of each Purana. These descriptions are of great interest because most of the Puranas in their present form deviate from these descriptions in some way.

 

1. Vishnu: The Matysa says the Vishnu has some 23000 verses. But in reality, the Vishnu only has some 14000 verses and yet it is a full text without the slightest indication that some portion is missing.

 

2. Bhagavatam: The Matsya says the Bhagavatam talks about events that occured in the Saraswata Kalpa and the story of Vritra. That is it....nothing is said about Krishna. The Bhagavatam as we know does not match this description.

 

So I do not recommend reading too much into Puranas. They have most certainly undergone several revisions over time to gloss over their original content.

 

That there are such differences is answered by the fact that not all Puranas describe the events of the same Yuga. No scholar will accept it. However, according to devotees, Vishnu Purana of one Yuga changes from the Purana of another Yuga.

 

Hence, Matsya Purana of X Yuga may give different information pertaining to the Vishnu Purana of that Yuga. The Vishnu Purana we have may be from Z Yuga.

 

Yuga Bheda is often left out of the equation.

 

 

In my opinion - and I am not the only one - the Bhagavatam as we know it today was not existing during the time of Shankara (800 AD) and was too new and an obvious interpolation during the time of Ramanuja which is why he never mentions the text. A couple of centuries later, it had become popular and so Madhva wrote a brief commentary on it to clear up some confusion it had created - like the avatar concept of Krishna, etc.

 

Cheers

 

Considering that the Bhagavatam does not veer from vedic philosophy or the paratvam of Sriman Narayana, there is no substantial proof either way. And also considering the fact that the name 'Bhagavata' implies that it is for rasikas, whereas the Vishnu Purana is more of a neutral style, also may imply the reason for it not being quoted.

[RadhaMukunda]

 

Nope. That isn't the Bhagavata Purana. In that verse, Sri Sankara is claiming that the Pancharatra Agama is not authentic because he thinks it promotes creation of souls (actually, it doesn't). While he accepted the Bhagavata religion as Vedantic, he did not accept the Pancharatra.

 

'Bhagavata' here refers to followers of Pancharatra and not the Purana. In any case, Sri Yamunacharya has written a rebuttal to this. Satapatha Brahmana itself mentions the Pancharatra, I believe.

 

Sankarshana is not a soul, but a manifestation of Narayana, who is responsible for destruction. The Mandukya, when interpreted the Vishishtadvaitic way, conveys the concept of the 4 Vyuhas. So does the Purnamidam Mantra. There are also other references in the Veda.

 

Thanks for your explanation.

[bhaktajan]

I agree with what theist posted:

 

". . . It's odd that the mayavadi can

proclaim to tens of thousands that ultimately

there is no Supreme God above anyone else and

that is hailed here as liberal thinking.

 

But when someone stands up in support of

what ALL the vaisnava acaryas teach

which is opposed to the impersonalist view

as much as the impersonalist view is opposed to the Vaisnava view

then those persons are labeled intolerant or lacking in universal vision.

And this coming from others who claim vaisnavism as their path.

 

Strange days are upon us."

 

As some hipster duffus stated:

"Mayavadis also possess the Holy-name"

 

This, "Mayavadis also possess the Holy-name" is simply uneducated or naive or blunt subsersive diatribe