durga is more of vishnu-shakti than shiva -shakti

[bhaktajan]

smaranam, maybe you can provide a sparsha-by-sparsha (alphabet/dhatu/ Word-roots) analysis of the word:

 

"Parabrahman"

 

Will such an analysis point to the definition of "Supreme Peronality of Godhead" ?

 

 

.....................................

BTW, do you not mean "paramatma" --who knows what's in your heart ?

[raghu]

 

Lord Krsna takes up the Caturvyuha forms.One of Them is Sankarsana.

 

Fine.

 

 

This Lord sankarsana again takes up four more Forms.One of Them is again called Sankarsana.

 

Again, no problems here.

 

 

Of this Person,Lord Mahavishnu,the Purusha,The Primeval Lord,is but a part(amsa). ow when the we say part of a part of a part of a part of Lord Krsna...do you think we mean that Brahm Sri Krsna is cut four times ??? Or somehow He is made inferior ??? Or He is diluted...His Godhood is diluted ???

 

It is not clear what you mean, because the language you use is imprecise and inconsistent. By standard meanings a "part" is something that is less than a whole. So saying "part" automatically assumes a lesser status. Now it appears that you are saying "part" but it is not really "part" in the conventional sense. That is like the Sai Baba fanatic saying "you must accept Sai Baba to get liberation" and then rationalizing it by saying "oh, but actually Sai Baba does not mean the person Sai Baba in Puttaparthi, it actually means 'universal consciousness.'"

 

 

No.The Purusha Sukta states This Mahavishnu as the Sole cause of all there is..the Supreme Being..The eternal Purusha.

 

So far, no problems here. But what does this have to do with Durga and Vishnu?

 

Here is the problem. You acknowledge that Vishnu is the Supreme Being. Then you say that Vishnu and Durga are identical. But then if that is true, you must accept that Durga is the Supreme Being. Do you? Because that would make you not a Vaishnava but something else.

 

If A = B, then A and B must have the same properties. Otherwise the statement A = B is meaningless.

 

 

Srila Visvanatha Cakravarti thakura says that both Sadashiva and Narayana are present as Themselves on the saguna plane as Shiva and Vishnu.Lord Shiva,in this saguna feature,is apparently bewildered by the three modes of maya and foolishly,is thought to be some petty Jeevatma.

 

So Ramanuja and Madhva are foolish as per you. Very well.

 

And why the words "petty Jeevatama?" Does being a jiva automatically indicate a position of disprespect?

 

If memory serves, it was you who stated that the forms of Shiva and Uma were "horrendous." It is strange that on one hand, you criticize other Vaishnava acharyas for taking Shiva to be a jiva, but on the other hand you brazenly call Shiva ugly. This seems like a double standard to me.

 

 

Sastras tell us how maya is a reflection of Yogmaya.It is not wrong to say that a millionth part of an amsa of Radha(Durga of Vaikuntha) is Durga of the material world.

 

This excessively wordy reply seems designed to conceal the fact that you cannot explain how you go from "Maya is a reflection of Yogamaya" to "Durga is a millionth part of an amsha of Radha." One statement does not clearly follow from the other.

 

Nor can you really explain how, on one hand, Durga is supposedly "identical" to Krishna, and yet on the other hand, Duga is a millionth part of one of Krishna's energies.

 

Perhaps there is nothing wrong with the concept, and it is merely the language with which you use to explain the concept which is at fault.

 

I would not say that Durga is identical to Vishnu because this conclusion is not upheld by the shrutis. For instance, in the Kena Upanishad 4.1-4 we learn that the devatas were humbled by their inability to challenge the power of Brahman, and that it was through Uma that they learned who this Brahman is. This indicates that Uma and para Brahman are different.

 

I do not really understand what you gain by trying to insist that Durga and Vishnu are "identical."

[sambya]

 

I would not say that Durga is identical to Vishnu because this conclusion is not upheld by the shrutis. For instance, in the Kena Upanishad 4.1-4 we learn that the devatas were humbled by their inability to challenge the power of Brahman, and that it was through Uma that they learned who this Brahman is. This indicates that Uma and para Brahman are different.

 

so is there a place in shrutis where brahman is equated with vishnu ?

 

the tantras however do acknowledge uma or durga to be identical with brahman .

[smaranam]

 

smaranam, maybe you can provide a sparsha-by-sparsha (alphabet/dhatu/ Word-roots) analysis of the word:

 

"Parabrahman"

 

Will such an analysis point to the definition of "Supreme Peronality of Godhead" ?

 

 

.....................................

BTW, do you not mean "paramatma" --who knows what's in your heart ?

 

Yes, if you are talking about the title of the post, i DID in fact mean to write

Paramatma, and also to simultaneously imply Parameshwar or the Supreme Lord. I realized this right away, but cannot edit the title. ...... wait a minute , now it can be edited

 

I apologize if this was misleading to some.

 

However, later on , you will see i have written "Nothing can be hidden from Parabrahma Parameshwar Paramatma" .

 

The song , bhajan :Om Jaya Jagdish Hare in Hindi uses these terms to indicate and glorify the Supreme Person as Jagadish. I was thinking of the song http://www.indiadivine.org/audarya/images/smilies/smile.gif

 

Tum Puran Paramatma Tum Antaryami

ParaBrahman , Parameshwar Tum sabke Swami

 

You are the Complete Paramatma, You are the omniscient one (who reads our minds)

You are the Supreme Brahman , the Supreme(para) Lord (Ishwar)

You are the master of all

[hindustani]

Sometime I feel members have lots of spare time with them,some discussions go on and on with no ends on horizon.Time is valueable and should be used for Bhakti rather than endless discussions just my 2 cents view.

[raghu]

 

so is there a place in shrutis where brahman is equated with vishnu ?

 

I can think of a few references off the top of my head:

 

The Katha Upanishad wherein Yama is describing the goal which all the Vedas point to (see 2.15) states in 3.9 that the abode of Vishnu is the highest and the "end of the journey."

 

Then we have Rig Veda 1.22.20 in which it is stated that the nitya suris behold always that supreme abode (paramam padam) of Vishnu.

 

The Aitareya Brahmana 1.1.1 states among all devatas, Vishnu is highest and Agni is lowest.

 

Rig Veda 1.154.4 describes how Vishnu alone upholds the three worlds - another obvious reference to His supremacy.

 

These are just a few references off the top of my head.

 

 

the tantras however do acknowledge uma or durga to be identical with brahman .

 

Tantras are smriti texts whose validity is conditional upon agreeing with shruti. Ranjeet, I believe, is trying to represent the Gaudiya Vaishnava viewpoint which also follows (or is supposed to follow) the Vedantic standard of epistemology.

[ranjeetmore]

Raghu,I have two words for you: Svetasvatara Upanishad.

[ranjeetmore]

 

Yes, and Yes-and-no. To me its the same Durga in the same archa vighraha who could be spiritual potency for one and material for another.

 

My opinion is, it is the motivation, desire and intention of the spiritual seeker (sadhak) that matters more than whether Katyayani is Durga or whether SHE is material or spiritual. It is whether WE are materially or spiritually motivated. Nothing can be hidden from the Parabrahma Parameshwar Paramatma in the heart.

 

 

Srimad Bhagvatam 10.22.44

 

Each of the young unmarried girls performed her worship while chanting the following mantra. "O goddess Kātyāyanī, O great potency of the Lord, O possessor of great mystic power and mighty controller of all, please make the son of Nanda Mahārāja my husband. I offer my obeisances unto you."

 

PURPORT by Srila Prabhupad

 

According to various ācāryas, the goddess Durgā mentioned in this verse is not the illusory energy of Kṛṣṇa called Maya but rather the internal potency of the Lord known as Yoga-māyā. The distinction between the internal and external, or illusory, potency of the Lord is described in the Nārada-pañcarātra, in the conversation between Śruti and Vidyā:

......

......

"The Lord's inferior potency, known as Durgā, is dedicated to His loving service. Being the Lord's potency, this inferior energy is nondifferent from Him. There is another, superior potency, whose form is on the same spiritual level as that of God Himself. Simply by scientifically understanding this supreme potency, one can immediately achieve the Supreme Soul of all souls, who is the Lord of all lords. There is no other process to achieve Him. That supreme potency of the Lord is known as Gokuleśvarī, the goddess of Gokula. Her nature is to be completely absorbed in love of God, and through Her one can easily obtain the primeval God, the Lord of all that be. This internal potency of the Lord has a covering potency, known as Mahā-māyā, who rules the material world. In fact she bewilders the entire universe, and thus everyone within the universe falsely identifies himself with the material body."

 

From the above we can understand that the internal and external, or superior and inferior, potencies of the Supreme Lord are personified as Yoga-māyā and Mahā-māyā, respectively. The name Durgā is sometimes used to refer to the internal, superior potency, as stated in the Pañcarātra: "In all mantras used to worship Kṛṣṇa, the presiding deity is known as Durgā." Thus in the transcendental sound vibrations glorifying and worshiping the Absolute Truth, Kṛṣṇa, the presiding deity of the particular mantra or hymn is called Durgā. The name Durgā therefore refers also to that personality who functions as the internal potency of the Lord and who is thus on the platform of śuddha-sattva, pure transcendental existence. This internal potency is understood to be Kṛṣṇa's sister, known also as Ekānaḿśā or Subhadrā. This is the Durgā who was worshiped by the gopīs in Vṛndāvana. Several ācāryas have pointed out that ordinary people are sometimes bewildered and think that the names Mahā-māyā and Durgā refer exclusively to the external potency of the Lord.

......

....

 

PLEASE READ THE PURPORT .

 

 

Hare Krshna

 

 

 

EXCELLENT...Seriously

[ranjeetmore]

 

Fine.

 

It is not clear what you mean, because the language you use is imprecise and inconsistent. By standard meanings a "part" is something that is less than a whole. So saying "part" automatically assumes a lesser status. Now it appears that you are saying "part" but it is not really "part" in the conventional sense. That is like the Sai Baba fanatic saying "you must accept Sai Baba to get liberation" and then rationalizing it by saying "oh, but actually Sai Baba does not mean the person Sai Baba in Puttaparthi, it actually means 'universal consciousness.'"

 

You kinda always had the habit to show the person down before you actually took out bits and pieces of his post and went on and on.

 

Amsa loosely means part.My post was meant to imply that the amsas(sva amsas) of Godhead are identical with Him.

 

If could be so kind enough to give me a better word than 'part',i would substitute it in my post.

 

 

 

 

So far, no problems here. But what does this have to do with Durga and Vishnu?

 

That Mahavishnu being an amsa of Sri KRsna is fully identical with Him.

Similarly,Durga of the material world(mahamaya),being a amsa/transformation/reflection of Durga of vaikuntha(yogmaya),is identical with Her.

 

 

 

Here is the problem. You acknowledge that Vishnu is the Supreme Being. Then you say that Vishnu and Durga are identical. But then if that is true, you must accept that Durga is the Supreme Being. Do you? Because that would make you not a Vaishnava but something else.

 

If A = B, then A and B must have the same properties. Otherwise the statement A = B is meaningless.

 

Srila Krsna Dvaipayana Veda Vyasa is an incarnation of the lord.From what angle does Veda Vyasa or for that matter Parashurama display the same properties as Sri Visnu?

 

Mohini.Does She look like Sri Vishnu ??? Does She have properties Like Him.How can She and Laxmipati have any property in common whatsoever ??

 

Shaivites have always advertised Shankara as DIFFERENT from Vishnu,as INDEPENDENT from Vishnu.

You seem to accept their view than to accept the gosvamis' view that Sri Krsna takes up the form of Sadashiva just as He takes up the form of Nrsingha.

 

That just makes you short sighted.You BELIEVE that shankara is some completely different tattva.

 

 

 

 

So Ramanuja and Madhva are foolish as per you. Very well.

 

There were so many elevated Gaudiya saints who maintained the view that "Durga lives in Vaikuntha".

 

DO YOU CALL THEM FOOLS LIKE YOU OBVIOUSLY CALL ME IN YOUR MIND ?

No.

There's your answer.

 

 

 

And why the words "petty Jeevatama?" Does being a jiva automatically indicate a position of disprespect?

 

It does when you call a personality of God or His expansions as a tattva who is under maya.

 

 

 

If memory serves, it was you who stated that the forms of Shiva and Uma were "horrendous." It is strange that on one hand, you criticize other Vaishnava acharyas for taking Shiva to be a jiva, but on the other hand you brazenly call Shiva ugly. This seems like a double standard to me.

 

 

I didn't criticise them.Mahatmas have their own reasons....If you think they should all agree with only one siddhanta,there wouldn't have been 4 different doctrines.

 

 

 

This excessively wordy reply seems designed to conceal the fact that you cannot explain how you go from "Maya is a reflection of Yogamaya" to "Durga is a millionth part of an amsha of Radha." One statement does not clearly follow from the other.

 

fair.

 

 

Nor can you really explain how, on one hand, Durga is supposedly "identical" to Krishna, and yet on the other hand, Duga is a millionth part of one of Krishna's energies.

 

Mahamaya and yogmaya.

 

 

 

Perhaps there is nothing wrong with the concept, and it is merely the language with which you use to explain the concept which is at fault.

 

precisely.Thank you.I happen to have the exact same view.

 

 

I would not say that Durga is identical to Vishnu because this conclusion is not upheld by the shrutis. For instance, in the Kena Upanishad 4.1-4 we learn that the devatas were humbled by their inability to challenge the power of Brahman, and that it was through Uma that they learned who this Brahman is. This indicates that Uma and para Brahman are different.

 

In the same vein as Sri Krsna is mentioned in the chandogya upanishad as being having obtained the knowledge of Brahm from His 'guru'.Right ??

 

And to say Krsna is Svayam Bhagavan,the basis of Brahm !!

 

Besides,

Even not considering Svetasvatara upanishad,there are other upanishads glorifying Shankara.

 

 

I do not really understand what you gain by trying to insist that Durga and Vishnu are "identical."

 

To help others avoid to offense of ever thinking that :"Visnu's energies or even one of them can ever be limited,or not supremely powerful" and continuously try to call Uma-Mahesvara as demigods.

[sant]

 

This internal potency of the Lord has a covering potency, known as Mahā-māyā, who rules the material world. In fact she bewilders the entire universe, and thus everyone within the universe falsely identifies himself with the material body."

 

Im talking about the durga created to destroy the villian.She's different from spiritual durga.

Katyani is one of shakti peeths a form of sattti...

[bhaktajan]

Post 154:

You are the Complete Paramatma, You are the omniscient one (who reads our minds)

You are the Supreme Brahman ,

the Supreme(para) Lord (Ishwar) You are the master of all

 

.........................................

This reminds me of how Krsna gives the "Peace Formula (of the gyani's mind)":

 

To understand that Godhead is: Paramisvaram, Suhrdam-sarva-bhutanam, and Hrsikesa combined. This still mystifies me.

[raghu]

 

Raghu,I have two words for you: Svetasvatara Upanishad.

 

Three words: What about it?

[Ganeshprasad]

Pranam

 

 

Three words: What about it?

 

Just five letters in this case, RUDRA

 

Jai Shree Krishna

[raghu]

 

You kinda always had the habit to show the person down before you actually took out bits and pieces of his post and went on and on.

 

Ranjeet, I'm really not sure what this means, so I do not know what to say in response to it.

 

 

Amsa loosely means part.My post was meant to imply that the amsas(sva amsas) of Godhead are identical with Him.

 

Therein lies the problem. You are equating the part with the whole. This is leading to an ambiguous situation in which, on one hand, you argue for the supremacy of Vishnu over the "demigods," and yet on the other hand you are placing some "demigods" on the same level as Vishnu.

 

In Bhagavaa 1.3.28 the "demigods" Manus, etc are also referred to as "amshas" of the Lord. Do you accept that they are identical to the Lord?

 

You cannot be a Vaishnava if you do not accept the exclusive supremacy of Sri Hari.

 

 

If could be so kind enough to give me a better word than 'part',i would substitute it in my post.

 

The word "part" would be fine if you stuck to a standard meaning of the word.

 

 

That Mahavishnu being an amsa of Sri KRsna is fully identical with Him.

Similarly,Durga of the material world(mahamaya),being a amsa/transformation/reflection of Durga of vaikuntha(yogmaya),is identical with Her.

 

First, from where do you get pramana stating that Mahavishnu is an "amsha" of Sri Krishna?

 

Second, do you accept that the demigods who are "amshas" of the Lord as per Bhagavatam 1.3.28 are identical to the Lord?

 

Third, your original claim was that Durga was identical to Vishnu. Now here you are saying that actually Drug is identical to "Durga of Vaikuntha." Are you now changing your position?

 

 

 

Srila Krsna Dvaipayana Veda Vyasa is an incarnation of the lord.From what angle does Veda Vyasa or for that matter Parashurama display the same properties as Sri Visnu?

 

Mohini.Does She look like Sri Vishnu ??? Does She have properties Like Him.How can She and Laxmipati have any property in common whatsoever ??

 

Having the property of supremacy, ownership over all, etc does not mean manifesting it. Relevance: Rama is the Supreme Lord, but He did not identify Himself as such, since He was playing the role of a kshatriya prince. Now if you say that Durga is actually Vishnu, but simply playing a subordinate role, then you must accept that Durga worship is every bit as valid as Vishnu worship. Do you?

 

 

Shaivites have always advertised Shankara as DIFFERENT from Vishnu,as INDEPENDENT from Vishnu.

You seem to accept their view than to accept the gosvamis' view

 

I accept the view that Vishnu and Shiva are different. I do not accept the view that Shiva is superior to Vishnu.

 

 

that Sri Krsna takes up the form of Sadashiva just as He takes up the form of Nrsingha.

 

That just makes you short sighted.You BELIEVE that shankara is some completely different tattva.

 

All Vaishnavas that I know of consider Shiva to be different from Vishnu. I am only aware of Gaudiyas, Mayavadis, and Neo-Hindus (Vivekananda, Ramakrishna, etc) who consider Shiva to be same as Vishnu.

 

 

There were so many elevated Gaudiya saints who maintained the view that "Durga lives in Vaikuntha".

 

DO YOU CALL THEM FOOLS LIKE YOU OBVIOUSLY CALL ME IN YOUR MIND ?

No.

There's your answer.

 

I did not call anyone anything. You are being evasive. Specifically, it was you who stated, and I quote, "Srila Visvanatha Cakravarti thakura says that both Sadashiva and Narayana are present as Themselves on the saguna plane as Shiva and Vishnu.Lord Shiva,in this saguna feature,is apparently bewildered by the three modes of maya and foolishly,is thought to be some petty Jeevatma. "

 

From this one can reasonably deduce the following about your views:

 

1) It is foolish to think that Shiva is a jiva

2) Those who think that Shiva is a jiva are foolish

3) This includes most other Vaishnava acharyas such as Madhva and Ramanuja who consider Siva to be a jiva

 

Do you wish to now change or amend your position?

 

 

It does when you call a personality of God or His expansions as a tattva who is under maya.

 

Whether or not Shiva is a "personality of God" is itself up for debate. But in any case I did not say anything about Shiva being under maya. I only pointed out that he can be a jiva without being reduced to a "petty jiva."

 

 

I didn't criticise them.Mahatmas have their own reasons....

 

 

You stated that considering Shiva to be a jiva is foolish. You did not qualify it in any way. Since other Vaishnava acharyas do consider Shiva to be a jiva, they are included as per your statement.

 

 

If you think they should all agree with only one siddhanta,there wouldn't have been 4 different doctrines.

 

This coming from the guy who just castigated me for not agreeing with the "gosvami's view" that Shiva is Vishnu-tattva.

 

 

Mahamaya and yogmaya.

 

Still does not answer the question.

 

 

In the same vein as Sri Krsna is mentioned in the chandogya upanishad as being having obtained the knowledge of Brahm from His 'guru'.Right ??

 

There is no such reference in the Chandogya.

 

 

And to say Krsna is Svayam Bhagavan,the basis of Brahm !!

 

 

Has nothing to do with the subject of equating Durga with Vishnu.

 

 

Besides,

Even not considering Svetasvatara upanishad,there are other upanishads glorifying Shankara.

 

Which mainstream Upanishads are you talking about? Have you actually read any of them?

 

Vaishnava acharyas who have read and commented on Shvetashvatara U. would disagree with your opinion that it is about Siva.

 

 

To help others avoid to offense of ever thinking that :"Visnu's energies or even one of them can ever be limited,or not supremely powerful" and continuously try to call Uma-Mahesvara as demigods.

 

Regarding calling Shiva as "demigod," I can point you to the following words of your own A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami:

 

http://vedabase.net/sb/12/10/18/en1

Suta Gosvami said: Lord Siva, the foremost demigod and the shelter of the saintly devotees, was satisfied by Markandeya's praise. Pleased, he smiled and addressed the sage.

 

http://vedabase.net/sb/4/4/28/en1

Why had Sati, the wife of the most respectable demigod, Lord Siva, quit her body in such a manner?

 

http://vedabase.net/tlc/5/en2

For instance, in the Markandeya Purana there is mention of Devi worship, or worship of the goddess Durga or Kali, but in this same candika it is also stated that all the demigods -- even in the shape of Durga or Kali -- are but different energies of the Supreme Visnu.

 

So, is A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami offensive for calling Siva and Durga as demigods?

[raghu]

 

Pranam

 

 

 

Just five letters in this case, RUDRA

 

Jai Shree Krishna

 

Rig Veda 7.40.5

 

Now tell me how "Rudra" should be understood in these different instances and you will have finished making your point.

[sambya]

 

I can think of a few references off the top of my head:

 

The Katha Upanishad wherein Yama is describing the goal which all the Vedas point to (see 2.15) states in 3.9 that the abode of Vishnu is the highest and the "end of the journey."

 

Then we have Rig Veda 1.22.20 in which it is stated that the nitya suris behold always that supreme abode (paramam padam) of Vishnu.

 

The Aitareya Brahmana 1.1.1 states among all devatas, Vishnu is highest and Agni is lowest.

 

Rig Veda 1.154.4 describes how Vishnu alone upholds the three worlds - another obvious reference to His supremacy.

These are just a few references off the top of my head.

 

good , but i was searching for a direct reference that firmly affirms vishnu=brahman in the shrutis .

 

the examples that you gave like "tadvishnor paramam padam..." etc indicate to the supreme nature of vishnu but does not directly equate brahman with vishnu .

 

 

 

 

Tantras are smriti texts whose validity is conditional upon agreeing with shruti.

 

as per my knowledge tantra does not depend upon the vedas at all . all it does is to accept the validity of the ancient shrutis and give them their due respect . but at the same time it loudly proclaims that rituals described in shrutis are ineffective in the age of kali and tantra is the way salvation . hence they are free to deviate from vedic principles(which they sometimes does) and show a complete independence !!

[sant]

 

as per my knowledge tantra does not depend upon the vedas at all . all it does is to accept the validity of the ancient shrutis and give them their due respect . but at the same time it loudly proclaims that rituals described in shrutis are ineffective in the age of kali and tantra is the way salvation . hence they are free to deviate from vedic principles(which they sometimes does) and show a complete independence !!

Sometimes???????????

You forgetting sex,drug,alchohol,fish

Dont say this is corrupted tantra

[sambya]

 

Sometimes???????????

You forgetting sex,drug,alchohol,fish

Dont say this is corrupted tantra

actually it is !

 

like the sahajiya vaishnavas !

 

im sorry but i cannot discuss things with you because you have absolutely no knowledge of tantra , which i know from the previous discussions with you . and neither will you accept what i say nor go out and seek it yourself !

[Amlesh]

Then, there is the saying in the Gita... about the basis of Brahman... forget about equating it.

[Ganeshprasad]

Pranam

 

 

Rig Veda 7.40.5

 

Now tell me how "Rudra" should be understood in these different instances and you will have finished making your point.

 

See Rig Veda 7.XLVI.1

 

If it was that simple as you might have us believe, the debate would have ended a long time ago.

 

Jai Shree Krishna

[chandu_69]

 

as per my knowledge tantra does not depend upon the vedas at all .

 

Are u a practicing tantrik?.

 

Tantra is supposed to be a secret ritual practiced by a very few people the details of which no tantrik discusses on internet.

 

Despite your indignation at sant for mentioning sex, it is well established fact that Many tantriks(like the rk hamsa in his failed practice) consider sex to be the final step.Neo tantriks(like..., you know who..) did replace actual sexual act with Bhava with nil results only to fall back on bhakthi.

[ranjeetmore]

 

 

 

Therein lies the problem. You are equating the part with the whole. This is leading to an ambiguous situation in which, on one hand, you argue for the supremacy of Vishnu over the "demigods," and yet on the other hand you are placing some "demigods" on the same level as Vishnu.

 

i find it funny that after providing so many quotes of the Gaudiya acharyas,you insist on calling Shiva as a demigod...like Varun or agni.

 

In Bhagavaa 1.3.28 the "demigods" Manus, etc are also referred to as "amshas" of the Lord. Do you accept that they are identical to the Lord?

[raghu]

 

good , but i was searching for a direct reference that firmly affirms vishnu=brahman in the shrutis .

 

the examples that you gave like "tadvishnor paramam padam..." etc indicate to the supreme nature of vishnu but does not directly equate brahman with vishnu .

 

If Brahman is supreme, then references describing Vishnu as supreme should be sufficient to indicate that Vishnu = Brahman. There is also the fact that the Upanishads are focused on Brahman, and in the Katha Upanishad Vishnu is specifically mentioned as the highest goal of endeavor.

 

 

as per my knowledge tantra does not depend upon the vedas at all . all it does is to accept the validity of the ancient shrutis and give them their due respect . but at the same time it loudly proclaims that rituals described in shrutis are ineffective in the age of kali and tantra is the way salvation . hence they are free to deviate from vedic principles(which they sometimes does) and show a complete independence !!

 

What tantras say about themselves may be something else. But as far as Vedantic standards go, tantras are smritis, and like all other smritis their authority is conditional upon not contradicting the shrutis.

[raghu]

 

Pranam

 

 

 

See Rig Veda 7.XLVI.1

 

If it was that simple as you might have us believe, the debate would have ended a long time ago.

 

Jai Shree Krishna

 

This is a prayer to Rudra but it does not help your thesis in any other way. In Rig Veda 7.40.5 it is clearly stated that Rudra gets his strength through worship of Vishnu.

 

Do you believe the Vedas and shrutis are inconsistent? If you do, then there is no point having any discussion one way or another.

 

However, if you consider them consistent and one in purpose, then they must be interpreted to resolve apparent inconsistencies. Names like "Rudra,Maheshvara," and so on are also listed as names of Vishnu in the Sahasranama. The principle enunciated in the Vedanta-sutra is to interpret references to apparently dependent entities as being actually references to Brahman if other characteristics of Brahman are mentioned in the description. This is only sensible - after all, you must look at context to know who is being talked about. Your name is Ganeshprasad. Since you have "Ganesh" in your name, should I assume you have an elephant's trunk?

 

The "Rudra" in Svetashvatara Upanishad can be interpreted as Vishnu. This is internally consistent since the Shvetaashvatara invokes Hari in the very beginning and later refers to the Deity as the one from whom Brahma was born. This is also consistent with Rig Veda 7.40.5 which places Shiva as a dependent being on Vishnu.

 

If you argue (as Ranjeet is doing), that Shvetaashvatara Upanishad really refers to Shiva, then how do you reconcile that with Rig Veda 7.40.5?

[kaisersose]

To give ths discussion another slant, Shaivas have their own sources which say Vishnu, etc are alternate names for Shiva. Then references to both Rudra and Vishnu in the Veda are consistent with their position of a Supreme Shiva/Ishwara.

 

Shrikanta wrote a commentary on the sutras showing its purport to be Shaiva in nature. Many Yajur Vedins worship Shiva as the supreme, drawing from Rudram, etc,, of the Yajur. Rig-Vedin Brahmaanas are usually Vaishnava.

 

However, Shaivas in general, have their own sources and do not rely on the Veda for their core beliefs.

 

Cheers