Is Durga,vishnu, Shiva The Same ?

[sambya]

IS VISHNU,KRISHNA,DURGA,SHIVA,LAXMI AND RADHA THE SAME PHENOMENON?

 

It is said in the vaishnav doctrines that lord shiva is an expansion of vishnu himself.and vishnu is non different from krishna.Next, puranas and tantras reguard durga(shakti) and shiva to be abhed(without distinction).Puranas state that laxmi is an expansion of durga or shakti.It also mentions that laxmi incarnated in this material world as tulsi.So indirectly durga and tulsi is the same concepts.Then again durga and krishna are inseparable(shakti and shaktimaan).Vaishnavs claim radha to be superior to durga,but in puranas like markendaya and devipuran radha is durga's expansion.And again radha and krishna together is the whole.

 

So in the end all ends up to be the representations of the same reality.

[Ravindran Kesavan]

Deaer Sambya

I second your conclution ,and supply the Vedic pramana for thae same :

 

"Reality is one . Sears call it by varitey of names" - Rg Veda.

 

Regards,

Ravindran

[suchandra]

 

So in the end all ends up to be the representations of the same reality.

 

 

Lord Caitanya's philosophy of acintya-bhedābheda-tattva completed the progression to devotional theism.

 

Sri Rāmānuja had agreed with Śankaracarya that the Absolute is one only, but he had disagreed by affirming individual variety within that oneness.

 

Madhvavacarya had underscored the eternal duality of the Supreme and His expansions.

 

Lord Caitanya, in turn, specified that the Supreme and His expansions are "inconceivably, simultaneously one and different, acintya-bheda-abheda.

 

Example, police officer, he's government representative and in that sense identical with the government. Simultaneously he's also different, he's not the same person like the president.

[Amlesh]

By Ramanujacharya

As the universe is born of Brahman, is sustained by Brahman, so it may surely be said to be

permeated with Brahman(not verily Brahman). For instance, fish is born in

water, lives in water, and dissolves into water; so it may be said to be

surely permeated with water. But as fish can never be water, likewise the

universe too can never be Brahman.

 

And "neha nanasti kinchana" does not mean that there is no diversity

whatsoever here; the various objects do not exist separately, but are like

pearls strung on a thread form a garland, so the various objects threaded in

Brahman have formed this universe. Many have united and give the appearance

of oneness, but by this the distinctiveness has in no way been impaired.</pre>

[Bee]

 

IS VISHNU,KRISHNA,DURGA,SHIVA,LAXMI AND RADHA THE SAME PHENOMENON?

I have always wondered this. I always thought that God is one with many names. But recently in the Gita I came across this quote:

 

 

7:23

"Men of small intelligence worship the demigods, and their fruits are limited and temporary. Those who worship the demigods go to the planets of the demigods, but My devotees ultimately reach My supreme planet."

 

I do not understand. How can Shiva, Brahma be demi-gods? I am finding it hard to see a distinction between them and I cannot seperate them and think of one as more superior. I am not even sure if I am interpreting the quote right so please correct me if I'm wrong. I feel that if I make a distinction between the Gods and start seeing one of them as more superior, my views will start to manifest in my attitude towards other people. For example, I don't want to start behaving as if I am more superior to others because I am on the right path, and everyone else has smaller intelligence than me because they are worshipping "demi-gods". I'm not saying everyone is like this, but it happens all the time. Many people follow a religion which says "my way is the only way" and "anyone who believes differently is foolish and stupid". Then their beliefs start to manifest in their attitude towards other people. Thats why we have people thinking that they are above everyone else because they are "good" and "right" and everyone else who believes differently are "bad", "wrong" and destined to "burn".

[sambya]

Dear bee,

 

its wonderfull to see someone sharing the same thoughts as me.it is a undisputed fact that every individual likes to see his ishta dev(chosen diety) as the highest.there's no harm in that and in fact it solidifies one's love towards his ishta.but in most cases this developes into a fanatical race for supremacy between different groups.

 

one must understand that god is essentially one and he is someone beyond our conceptions.judging by as much we could grasp of him,we alot him different names.ramakrishna used to give his famous parable of blind persons trying to know what a elephant is.one who felt its ears thought it to be like fan,one who touched the legs thought it like pillars and so on.none were totally wrong,yet none were totally right.

 

we,with our limited senses can never fully comprehend his nature.

 

qotations from shastra to justify a particular deity is always misleading.different scriptures glorify different gods by piling all the highest virtues on each one of them.the underlying truth is that they are all manifestation of the same truth.

 

and now comes the question so as to why krishna,being the purna avatar,denounced the worship of other gods in gita?the meaning of this text should be taken not literally.what he is condemming is not their worship,but the prayers of material prosperity,money,sex,etc that almost immediately follows their worship.generally a person would worship laxmi for wealth,wouldnt they?it is this dangerous mentality,which retards ones spiritual progress,that krishna wants to leave aside.

 

from the point of advaita vedanta a demigod worship is when you perform it with material cravings and such mentalities.it shows that you are far from spirituality.

and true worship is when you do it in pusuit of truth and spirituality.such worship can be offered to any deity,but viewing him as the supreme brahman or ultimate truth.in other words you must accept him as the supreme and attribute all the highest virtues to him.the moment you take him in material perspective(say as god of fire etc) or pray for material benedictions you enter into the realm of demigod worship.

 

similarly when krishna says that surrender onto me it means,absolute surrender to god for spiritual attainment.it does not mean surrendering only to krishna and to nobody else.if the latter was true then that would imply that all other faith systems are totally wrong.question may arise that if nothing in this world happens without god's will then how come such false religions are surviving on earth for so long? it means god definately has a positive reason and wish to make these religions exist.

 

this is the interpretation of the sloka from advaitic viewpoint.but some other sects like to take it in literal sense.they dont belive in the fact that the same truth is being searched by men of different faiths through different paths.

 

i would suggest to find out which diety you are naturally inclined to,and after having done that,stick to him for your sadhana.dont change your ishta,for forcefull alteration of a river's course could spell havoc.

 

jay radhe...

[sambya]

some might object in my explanation of the slokas,but i should inform that these thoughts are not formulated by me and is from a advaitic standpoint.

 

and indeed some slokas need to be interpreted not just in literal sense but also in its emotional aspect.just like in purusa shukta there is no mention of vishnu at all yet we percieve him as vishnu.taking literally that would mean another god--purusha.isnt it?as the saying goes, 'bhavagraahi janardan'(janardan always considers the bhav or feelings that you harbour for him)

[suchandra]

 

some might object in my explanation of the slokas,but i should inform that these thoughts are not formulated by me and is from a advaitic standpoint.

 

and indeed some slokas need to be interpreted not just in literal sense but also in its emotional aspect.just like in purusa shukta there is no mention of vishnu at all yet we percieve him as vishnu.taking literally that would mean another god--purusha.isnt it?as the saying goes, 'bhavagraahi janardan'(janardan always considers the bhav or feelings that you harbour for him)

 

 

Lord Brahma doesn't seem to believe that he is one with Lord Krishna.

[Bee]

 

Dear bee,

 

it is a undisputed fact that every individual likes to see his ishta dev(chosen diety) as the highest.there's no harm in that and in fact it solidifies one's love towards his ishta.but in most cases this developes into a fanatical race for supremacy between different groups.

There is nothing wrong with seeing your God as highest, one cannot worship all the Gods. I am just scared that it could produce fanatics depending on how the scripture is interpreted. We don’t need those. The last thing we need is fighting amongst ourself over whose God is more superior.

 

and now comes the question so as to why krishna,being the purna avatar,denounced the worship of other gods in gita?the meaning of this text should be taken not literally.what he is condemming is not their worship,but the prayers of material prosperity,money,sex,etc that almost immediately follows their worship.generally a person would worship laxmi for wealth,wouldnt they?it is this dangerous mentality,which retards ones spiritual progress,that krishna wants to leave aside.

This is a different interpretation but it makes much more sense to me!! I guess you can apply the elephant analogy here, we all interpret and understand our scriptures differently

[bhaktajan]

How many time must I repeat before you see the obvious relationship of the Devatas to eachother and the Supreme Soul/First Person/The Supreme Enjoyer????

 

Brahma is the First born person in the cosmos --he proceeded to populate the Brahmanda [universe] --the Family Tree of Personalities comprising the descendents of Brahma are enumerated thoroughly in the BHagavata-purana.

 

Vedic literatures are Histories of the act/dictums/experiences of ancient personalities of importance to the welfare of all living entities.

 

These Vedic literatures were compiled 5,000 years ago by Vyasadev [the literary incarnation of God]--but, these Vedic literatures relate stories/lessons/mantras/events of persons in vastly distant epochs; ie: the span of time between Brahma's youth, offspring; and then Prahlad Maharaj's life then Revati's Father's search for a husband [vis, Balarama]; Lord Rama's pastimes are all examples of Famous events that occured in vastly different time eras, and so their 'story' came into existence in different epochs.

 

Many of these historical accounts where recounted by different Personages [who witness or lived during or heard from someone related to the Pastime] in different Vedic literatures-- these different Personages recounted the various Vedic Histories from their vantage point.

 

Also, some of these pastimes in Sastra may have occured more then once-- in different Kalpas.

 

Also, many Sastras are found unabridged in the Heavenly planets in the celestrial realms high above the north star [Dhruva-Loka].

 

Krishna has spoken and we should not be envious of our own selves in regards to the welfare of our own future birth.

[Bee]

 

How many time must I repeat before you see the obvious relationship of the Devatas to eachother and the Supreme Soul/First Person/The Supreme Enjoyer????

 

Because cleverclogs, those of us who don't see things your way are not really clever . We should all come to the same conclusions as yours with our interpretations or else there must be something wrong with our brains.

[bhaktajan]

Because cleverclogs, those of us who don't see things your way are not really clever . We should all come to the same conclusions as yours with our interpretations or else there must be something wrong with our brains.

 

I appreciate sarcasism.

But you are 'obfuscating' --the principal is plain logic.

People forming a family tree!

It's delineated in the Bhagavatam.

No need for belief nor intepretation!

 

Just admit that you didn't know, and now, you have been informed, and now, you must confirm it with your Guru, Sadhus & Sastra.

 

you're welcomed,

haktajan

[Bee]

 

I appreciate sarcasism.

But you are 'obfuscating' --the principal is plain logic.

People forming a family tree!

It's delineated in the Bhagavatam.

No need for belief nor intepretation!

 

Just admit that you didn't know, and now, you have been informed, and now, you must confirm it with your Guru, Sadhus & Sastra.

 

you're welcomed,

haktajan

 

I don't claim to know the truth but I go by my understanding. And maybe you're right with your interpretation and I can’t understand it. But you can’t see through the eyes of others either so you'll never understand why things makes sense to them. If I go to one Guru, he will tell me one thing. If I go to another, he will tell me another thing. People interpret scriptures in different ways and this does not only happen in Hinduism. Why else do you think there are many denominations in Christianity and Islam? Each denomination will tell you they have authority over the truth. If you go to a priest of one denomination, he will tell you one thing. If you go to another, he will tell you something else.

[yagna_narayana]

I heard that in the same bhagavad gita, Krishna says to seek " Sadgurus" instead of directly praying Gods. "Sadgurus" are the ones who can take us to the planets of God.Sadgurus know exactly how to attain salvation and they can make you to go in the right way to the God.

 

The famous sadgurus are "shirdi Sai baba ", ,rama krishna parama hansa, Ramana maharshi, Akkalkota swamy, Meher baba etc.

[yagna_narayana]

In my view Krishna asks us not to mislead by False spritual leaders etc who claim themselves as the incarnations of God. Krishna has forseen the Kaliyuga where many people , inorder to fulfil their interests , claim themselves as gods. So he tells us not to be mislead by these so called demi gods

[MikeMalaysia]

 

IS VISHNU,KRISHNA,DURGA,SHIVA,LAXMI AND RADHA THE SAME PHENOMENON?

 

It is said in the vaishnav doctrines that lord shiva is an expansion of vishnu himself.and vishnu is non different from krishna.Next, puranas and tantras reguard durga(shakti) and shiva to be abhed(without distinction).Puranas state that laxmi is an expansion of durga or shakti.It also mentions that laxmi incarnated in this material world as tulsi.So indirectly durga and tulsi is the same concepts.Then again durga and krishna are inseparable(shakti and shaktimaan).Vaishnavs claim radha to be superior to durga,but in puranas like markendaya and devipuran radha is durga's expansion.And again radha and krishna together is the whole.

 

So in the end all ends up to be the representations of the same reality.

 

To say that all the gods are various forms of the one Impersonal Brahman, which is essentially what you are saying, is the Mayavada Philosophy taught by Shankaracharya.

 

However, there is some confusion over the term "demigod" as it is not exactly accurate. This is mainly a language issue.

 

The Sanskrit word that is translated as "demigod" by Srila Prabhupada is deva. Deva means "god" and is the root of the Latin word divinus, which is where the English words "divine" and "divinity" come from. However, the Scriptures state that the devas are subordinate to Lord Krishna, the Supreme Lord. Lord Krishna states that He is the origin of the devas. The term used to refer to Lord Krishna is Bhagavan, meaning "He who possesses all opulences in full".

 

In order to emphasize Krishna's supremacy and show the subordinate position of the devas, Srila Prabhupada translated the Sanskrit word "deva" as "demigod". Let's keep in mind that he was preaching to a Western audience, whose concept of God arose mainly from Christianity. If Srila Prabhupada had started talking about "gods", then many people would have run a mile thinking that he was teaching polytheism, when in fact the devas occupy a position similar to angels in the Judeo-Christian tradition.

 

The word "Bhagavan" is the Sanskrit word for God in the traditional monotheistic view - the Supreme Being that created the universe. Deva refers to a lesser divine being, a "god" with a small "g" (let's face it, we talk about the Greek "gods" and we don't believe that they are supreme, do we?). The word "god" simply means a divine being.

 

The term "demigod" is also not very accurate. "Demi" means "half" in Latin, and it does not make sense in a Hindu context. If Lord Shiva is half god, what is the other half of him made up of?

 

However, talking about "gods" can also confuse people. I think that the best thing to do is to use the original Sanskrit word "deva" and then explain to people what it means and the relationship between Bhagavan and the Devas.

 

Hare Krishna!

[sambya]

Many of u want to establish your viewpoint by refering to scriptures. in this context i'm curious to know what do you actually mean by scriptures.does that list include bhagavatam,charitamrita,gita and isopanishad and drop out everything else ? if you take the pains of reading through even a few of the 16 puranas(not to mention the other upa puranas),108 upanishads, the four principal vedas,64 tantras,and numerous other commentaries and books you would immediately find that that those very devas are also equally glorified in some of these.

[Jack_ripper]

I would say the are incarnations of one supreme lord-GOD. He represents himself through his incarnations- Vishnu Shiva Brahma. His presence is all over, but we do not know the form of Him, In my opinion.

[atanu]

 

Deaer Sambya

I second your conclution ,and supply the Vedic pramana for thae same :

 

"Reality is one . Sears call it by varitey of names" - Rg Veda.

 

Regards,

Ravindran

 

Namaste Ravindran Ji,

 

There will be some misunderstanding in understanding the above verse if the phenomenal state of waking, dreaming, and sleeping and the transcendental Seer the Turya are not differentiiated and understood. Please consider as to why a single sage, while expressing his realisation and knowledge, has named more than one divinity such as Soma, Aditi, Vishnu, Indra etc etc., if there is no differences in these names?

 

What is actually intended is that Lord is ONE-EKO and He alone bears all these names and forms, as below:

 

 

 

IV-3: Thou art the woman, Thou art the man, Thou art the youth and the maiden too. Thou art the old man who totters along, leaning on the staff. Thou art born with faces turned in all directions.

IV-4: Thou art the dark blue butterfly, and the green parrot with red eyes. Thou art the thunder-cloud, the seasons and the oceans. Thou art without beginning, and beyond all time and space. Thou art He from whom all the worlds are born.

 

------------------

 

Being in phenomenal realm and never ever having experienced the Samadhi of Turya, the differences of names and forms affect us very practically and we cannot say that the reality is one only and the names and forms do not signify any real differences. The differences are only transcended in the Turya.

 

Scriptures however exhort us to the Advaita Turya which is without a Second Lord, wherein there is no other and no fear and no death. The following verse from Mandukya Upanishad explains (on proper contemplation) what Shankaracharya teaches:

 

Mandukya Upanishad

 

The Fourth is thought of as that which is not conscious of the internal world, nor conscious of the external world, nor conscious of both the worlds, nor dense with consciousness, nor simple consciousness, nor unconsciousness, which is unseen, actionless, incomprehensible, uninferable, unthinkable, indescribable, whose proof consists in the identity of the Self (in all states), in which all phenomena come to a cessation, and which is unchanging, auspicious, and non-dual. That is the Self; that is to be known.

 

• It is unchanging, it is known as One, all phenomena come to ceasation, it is the Self -- not another one.
  
• Self cannot be another one. It is unchanging, so number of other souls joining it as different entities is ruled out.
  
• It is Advaita. Number of other souls joining it yet remaining separate entities is ruled out.
  
• It is actionless. So, thoughts of serving it or actual tasks undertaken to serve it are not possible.
  
• It is not conscious of the inner or the outer. So, the consciousness of me and another is impossible.
  
• It not unconsciousness either. So, it is aware of itself without inner or outer perceptions.
  
• It is the Self which is Brahman. So nothing exceeds it.

That is the Self; that is to be known, though Mandukya terms the Self as achnityam - unthinkable. The Self is unthinkable because the Self alone thinks. There is no other with any power of cognition whatsoever. Only true way to know the Lord is in Samadhi, in union, as Advaita Atma.

 

 

That which is without parts is the Fourth, beyond apprehension through ordinary means, the cessation of the phenomenal world, the auspicious and the non-dual. Thus Om is certainly the Self. He who knows thus enters the Self by the Self. <!-- / sig -->

 

Om Namah Shivaya