Supremacy of Visnu

[Ganeshprasad]

Jai Ganesh

 

Namaskar Atanu

 

Re

(I have to leave on a longish trip and I do not have much time. So, without going into the acrimonious discussions and arguments that might have taken place overnight, I write the following.)

 

May the lord be with you my friend come back soon.

 

Jai Shree Krishna

 

 

[Guest guest]

 

Dear all,

 

If I am not wrong ...

 

Vishnu is the omni potent, omni prsent, etc ...... for Vishnavites

 

and

 

Shiva is the omni potent, omni prsent, etc ...... for Shivaites

 

Simple and plain common sense says that Shiva is same as vishnu or whatever name you have in mind to refer to the omnipotent lord.

 

It is unfortunate that so called learnt people fight on names and make arguemtns and counter arguemnts making reference to scriptures.

 

Scriptures are aids to guide one in the direction of realization. Meaning of scriptures lie in their interpretations. Interpretations are beyond word meanings. From the words of learnt Gurus, we should understand that true realization is beyond scriptures. One should not get stuck up in them.

 

The moment one says that Vishu is greater than Shiva (and vice versa) it is implied that Vishu and shiva are separate > implying that vishu (shiva) is incomplete which is not true because Vishnu (shiva, let some else call it by some other name) is used for refering to the supreme ...

 

So let light of true wisdom prevail and the darkness of ignorence vanish ....

 

Hari Om tat sat ... (any obnjections from any quarter? /images/graemlins/smile.gif)

[Guest guest]

yep...i accept....the one who really knows speaks not....

 

except that i would like to end my post with a

 

OM NAMA SHIVAYA

 

this doesnt mean i look down at vishnu or something like that....its just because iam used to seeing BRAHMAN as Siva and i enjoy it....u enjoy it the way u like and i shall respect it....

[sporkubus]

"It is unfortunate that so called learnt people fight on names and make arguemtns and counter arguemnts making reference to scriptures."

 

Truth is One, but sages call it by different names.

[Guest guest]

do u mean that iam fighting for names?

 

if so ur wrong......i delieve in one God Brahman....but my preference amoung the trinity is Shiva....thats it....

 

and one more ques.....i think ur not an indian and a hindu by birth....can i know more about u? iam just curious....and i like the way u post and highly respect ur thoughts...

 

OM NAMA SHIVAYA

[Guest guest]

 

OM Nama Shivaya ..

 

What is in a name? ... There is a lot in it because different people refer to Lord by different names. This is due to cultural reasons etc ...

 

We must also agree that there is nothing in names as the names are refering to the same Lord.

 

Division of thoughts and practices and whatever are our basic nature. We feel like forming groups and sub-groups. But it has no place in spirituality.

 

Rather such differences melt of as spiritual level of individuals increase.

 

So there is no difference in sincere references like"

 

Om Nama Shivaya, Om Namo Narayanaya, OR Alleluyah or Allahu Akbar ...

 

Allahu Akbar

 

 

[sporkubus]

"do u mean that iam fighting for names?

 

if so ur wrong......i delieve in one God Brahman....but my preference amoung the trinity is Shiva....thats it...."

 

The post above this one explains what I meant pretty well. Reality is just one thing, but we split it up and measure it as a result of Maya, and we value certain things above others and see some things a certain way (such as God) because of our humanity. We as humans are not on the same level as Brahman, so we can only understand Him in human terms... when we do this, it doesn't matter what we come up with, because God is far and above our understanding. If Shiva represents for you, all the things God could be, then He is God, plain and simple, and no need to argue because we accept that Brahman is beyond comprehension at this stage of our journey.

[Guest guest]

" We as humans are not on the same level as Brahman, so we can only understand Him in human terms.."

 

so you can wrongly understand that god is human because you are human... but you can wrongly understand also that god has not personality and individuality because you believe that only humans have them

 

the "humanization" is not a strong argument... it can be easily used against advocates of inpersonalism and personalism..

 

in my opinion, and in the opinion of gaudya vaishnava sampradaya, god can be boh things at the same level of transcendence.. satcitananda individual and omnipervasive brahman

 

this is,IMHO, the only way to avoid to put obstacles against transcendence

[Ganeshprasad]

Jai Ganesh

 

Re

(in my opinion, and in the opinion of gaudya vaishnava sampradaya, god can be both things at the same level of transcendence.. satcitananda individual and omnipervasive brahman)

 

I agree, but then why so much aversion to one or the other.

Why judge other devatas as mere servants.Vedas proclaims one goes by many names.

 

Jai Shree Krishna

 

[Rajashekhar]

[if so ur wrong......i delieve in one God Brahman....but my preference amoung the trinity is Shiva....thats it....]

 

Bhartrhari said in Vairagya Shathaka (Rough Translation): "I know that there is no difference between Vishnu and Shiva, but I personally prefer to worship Him in the form of Chandrashekhara".

 

[Guest guest]

i have no adversion and gaudya siddhanta has no adversion. If some fanatic has adversion it is not my fault.

 

In my opinion who says that vishnu is not supreme because all form disappears in brahman, he's highly offensive to lord shiva too.. and that is the condition of all shiva's "defenders" in this thread

 

servant, in spiritual realm is not an offense, we are all god's servants, god is the greates and humblest servant of everyone giving us life, giving us maya when we want maya, giving us moksa when we want moksa and so on..

 

in this blissful atmosphere of mutual service sri shiva, absolute transcendental and real individual (not a symbol or representation of something in brahman) is completely and transcendentally happy

 

he is served by sri vishnu who gives him the powers to be as powerful as god.. that's the difference.

 

And as all differences in vaikunta, it is an eternal source of enjoyement between sri krsna and sri shiva

 

[sporkubus]

"in my opinion, and in the opinion of gaudya vaishnava sampradaya, god can be boh things at the same level of transcendence.. satcitananda individual and omnipervasive brahman"

 

I've heard of this idea and I'm intrigued by it. Got any sources that i should check out for more info? Thanks!

[Ganeshprasad]

Jai Ganesh

 

Re

(i have no adversion and gaudya siddhanta has no adversion. If some fanatic has adversion it is not my fault.)

 

That is nice, but we do it knowingly or by inference we judge others worship able Deity, as subordinate why? Vedas are clear on this

Indram mitram varuNam agnim ãhuh,

atho divyah sa suparNo garutmãn,

ekam sad viprãh bahudhã vadanti,

agnim yamam mãtarišvãnam ãhuh.

(They hail Him as Indra, as Mitra, as VaruNa, as Agni, also as that divine and noble-winged Garutmãn. It is of One Existence that the wise ones speak in diverse ways, whether as Agni, or as Yama, or as Mãtarišvãn.)

 

Re

(In my opinion who says that vishnu is not supreme because all form disappears in brahman, he's highly offensive to lord shiva too.. and that is the condition of all shiva's "defenders" in this thread)

 

The lord is beyond gunas, how can he be offended? The followers perceive offence. Brahman is both sagun and nirgun how can you separate the two? God without the personal expects is less then its creation and without being all pervasive how can he be god?

 

Krishna says

 

Whatever goal a Samnyasi reaches, a Karma-yogi also reaches the same goal. One who sees the path of renunciation and the path of work as the same, really sees. (5.05)

 

Knowing one we will know the other, until realized either one of it we will act like children in the playground.

 

Re

(servant, in spiritual realm is not an offense, we are all god's servants, god is the greates and humblest servant of everyone giving us life, giving us maya when we want maya, giving us moksa when we want moksa and so on.. )

 

When you put it like that it is perfact. He is Sarva. Unfortunately servant takes up a different meaning in this world of ours.

 

Re

(in this blissful atmosphere of mutual service sri shiva, absolute transcendental and real individual (not a symbol or representation of something in brahman) is completely and transcendentally happy)

 

We have no much difference here.

 

Re

(he is served by sri vishnu who gives him the powers to be as powerful as god.. that's the difference.

 

And as all differences in vaikunta, it is an eternal source of enjoyement between sri krsna and sri shiva)

 

I beg to differ since I see no difference between the two except the personality.

 

Hare Krishna

 

[Guest guest]

all great gaudya vaishnava acharyas, from Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu to Sri Bhaktivinoda Takura, Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati, Srila Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada are advocates of acynthia beda abeda tattva

 

"i am different and simultaneously non different by God"

 

non different (a-dvaita) because all is God/nothing's outside God

 

but simultaneously different (dvaita) because in the absolute there's to be the possibility of relationship

 

that tattva is aclled "acyntya".. unconcevaible, paradox...

 

[Guest guest]

That is nice, but we do it knowingly or by inference we judge others worship able Deity, as subordinate why? Vedas are clear on this :

It is of One Existence that the wise ones speak in diverse ways, whether as Agni, or as Yama, or as Mãtaris<caron>vãn.)

••vedas and connected literature (itihasas, puranas, upanishad and so on) speak sometime about oneness, sometimes about variety, sometimes about simultaneous existence of bot tattvas. I think that simultaneity, even if unconceivable for human mind, is the best explanation.

So the reality is one and simultaneously full of variety and relationships.. and, in an atmosphere of complete bliss (=ananda), The Lord and His associates take roles of supremacy and subordination just to enjoy their transcendental relationships.

Being us living in a world where plurality and supremacy are connected with suffering, we try to artificially "de-humanize" the absolute saying that there's no variety and no roles..

 

The lord is beyond gunas, how can he be offended?

••Lord can be offended.. the fact is that He does not get hurt by this but the offender takes very bad karma.. so the real offended is the offender. We have the duty to say it to help him,

 

Brahman is both sagun and nirgun how can you separate the two?

••yes,, no separation.. both aspects are simultaneously active and alive. Separation and oneness.. no discussion.

 

I beg to differ since I see no difference between the two except the personality.

••yes.. they are different personalities , being a vaishnava i am taught that sri vishnu/krsna is the source of sri shiva's existence. That is the only difference because powers and transcendence are exactly the same

 

 

 

[Ganeshprasad]

Jai Ganesh

 

 

Re

(••vedas and connected literature (itihasas, puranas, upanishad and so on) speak sometime about oneness, sometimes about variety, sometimes about simultaneous existence of bot tattvas. I think that simultaneity, even if unconceivable for human mind, is the best explanation.)

 

Why then so much anguish if one is exploring from one angle and the other from a different, both is searching for the same truth and yet we ridicule each other for what?

Madukya Upanishad says He is that which is known, he is that which is not known, he not the sum total of that might be known. He is one with out a second.

 

Re

(So the reality is one and simultaneously full of variety and relationships.. and, in an atmosphere of complete bliss (=ananda), The Lord and His associates take roles of supremacy and subordination just to enjoy their transcendental relationships.)

 

Yes the reality is one and every thing is contained in him and every time we try to connect with him we experience the hint of that anand,that bliss we all search for.

 

RE

(Being us living in a world where plurality and supremacy are connected with suffering, we try to artificially "de-humanize" the absolute saying that there's no variety and no roles.)

 

 

Yes having recognised this suffering we search for this supreme absolute and from a distance, just as we perceive the mountain hazy as we come closer we see the trees and we get even closer we could see the river flowing get even more closer and we could see it is full of life.

 

 

((The lord is beyond gunas, how can he be offended?))

RE

(••Lord can be offended.. the fact is that He does not get hurt by this but the offender takes very bad karma.. so the real offended is the offender. We have the duty to say it to help him,)

 

nadatte kasyacit papam

na caiva sukrtam vibhuh

ajnanenavrtam jnanam

tena muhyanti jantavah

 

The Lord does not take the (responsibility for) good or evil deeds of anybody. The knowledge is covered by (the veil of) ignorance, thereby people are deluded. (5.15)

 

Our duty is to help if we can, but what sort of help is it when we belittle some ones worship?

Does not Krishna say give this knowledge to who actualy want to know. If you try and shove in some ones throat, he is only going to throw it back at you.

 

 

 

((I beg to differ since I see no difference between the two except the personality.))

RE

(••yes.. they are different personalities , being a vaishnava i am taught that sri vishnu/krsna is the source of sri shiva's existence. That is the only difference because powers and transcendence are exactly the same)

 

Yes but when you extenuate this point perpetually you would only antagonize a person who thinks different from you.

 

Jai Shree Krishna

 

[Guest guest]

Why then so much anguish if one is exploring from one angle and the other from a different, both is searching for the same truth and yet we ridicule each other for what?

--i am not sure if everyone is searching for the same truth.. but it does not matter. We have not to repress the differences, because differences are there also in the absolute realm.. we simply have to learn to be peacefully different

 

Our duty is to help if we can, but what sort of help is it when we belittle some ones worship?

--if we belittle it is not helping. If we respectfully express our different opinion this is sanga, spiritualists' association

 

when you extenuate this point perpetually you would only antagonize a person who thinks different from you.

--so i do not antagonize. The average mood of such discussions is that impersonalists/mayavadis in order to defend shiva from being called demigod, actually they offend both shiva and vishnu sayng that they are not absolute reality but beyond them there's brahman.

This is much worse than saying that one is subordinated to another..

 

if you are my boss and i am the secretary, it is better to mistake you as the secretary than that both us are practically not exixtent, illusory, fake, imagination, relative and so on

[Ganeshprasad]

Jai Ganesh

 

Re

(--i am not sure if everyone is searching for the same truth.. but it does not matter.)

 

Well if you are not sure why even bother?

 

Re

(We have not to repress the differences, because differences are there also in the absolute realm.. we simply have to learn to be peacefully different)

 

Well this is the Hindu way. Peacefully different, respect.

 

Re

(--if we belittle it is not helping. If we respectfully express our different opinion this is sanga, spiritualists' association)

 

Jaya.

 

Re.

(--so i do not antagonize. The average mood of such discussions is that impersonalists/mayavadis in order to defend shiva from being called demigod,)

 

Does Shiva need defending? Are you saying impersonal realization is in defense of Shiva being called a deva? These are all called deva in the Vedas and Shiva is called mahadeva question does not arise.

Impersonal realization is not a new concept thought by shankrarcharya. Lord Shree Krishna explains this in the Gita in many places.

 

Re

(actually they offend both shiva and vishnu sayng that they are not absolute reality but beyond them there's brahman.)

 

As I said before in my opinion the Lord can not be offended, the extreme offence of sishupal or Kansa resulted in their getting liberated, such is the mercy of the lord.

As I said before depending from which angle you are looking at the reality that is what one would perceive as reality, since Brahman and personality is non-different.

 

Re

(This is much worse than saying that one is subordinated to another.

if you are my boss and i am the secretary, it is better to mistake you as the secretary than that both us are practically not exixtent, illusory, fake, imagination, relative and so on )

 

 

 

We can not justify subordination from above view point.

 

Jai Shree Krishna

 

[sporkubus]

actually they offend both shiva and vishnu sayng that they are not absolute reality but beyond them there's brahman.

This is much worse than saying that one is subordinated to another..

+++++Nope. Even in Bhagavad-Gita Krishna talks about the supreme reality that even the Devas wish to glimpse.

[Guest guest]

Well if you are not sure why even bother?

--if someone search for something different , what's the problem?

 

Does Shiva need defending?

--why are you asking it?... my message was clear. Apparently they are shiva's advocates, actually they're attempting to kill both krsna and shiva

 

the extreme offence of sishupal or Kansa resulted in their getting liberated,

--are you suggesting blasphemy ad a dharma of spiritual realization? we say the biggest offences we are able to, so krsna comes and saves us killing us?

 

yaso:This is much worse than saying that one is subordinated to another.

if you are my boss and i am the secretary, it is better to mistake you as the secretary than that both us are practically not exixtent, illusory, fake, imagination, relative and so on )

 

ganeshprasad: We can not justify subordination from above view point.

 

yaso: yes, i do not need to justify... subordination gives no problem to me..

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

bhagavad gita says clearly that this supreme reality is krsna bhagavan

[Ganeshprasad]

Jai Ganesh

 

Re

(--if someone search for something different , what's the problem?)

 

Problem is not mine a lot people here seems to think they have divine right to condemn others who have different goals, if we can not progress without pointing the deficiencies of others then there is seriously something wrong with what we want to follow. I am not immune to this but I am trying to adjust.

 

((Does Shiva need defending?))

RE

(--why are you asking it?... my message was clear. Apparently they are shiva's advocates, actually they're attempting to kill both krsna and shiva)

 

I am sorry your message is not very clear here I quote again

--so i do not antagonize. The average mood of such discussions is that impersonalists/mayavadis in order to defend shiva from being called demigod. Unquote.

 

You are implying that the impersonal concept is in defense of Shiva being called a demigod.

 

Re

 

(--are you suggesting blasphemy ad a dharma of spiritual realization? we say the biggest offences we are able to, so krsna comes and saves us killing us?)

 

No I am only trying to prove that the lord does not get offended.

It is us who create the offence, and what offence? Of holding a concept which is not strange to Vedas or even Bhagvat Gita where Krishna confirms Brahman realization. (Brahma buta prasan Atma na sochti na Kanksti)

So let us prefect our respective sadhna without stepping on each other’s toes.

If you want to blame someone blame Krishna for saying this

Some worship Me by knowledge sacrifice. Others worship the infinite as the one in all (or non-dual), as the master of all (or dual), and in various other ways. (9.15)

 

Re

 

(yaso: yes, i do not need to justify... subordination gives no problem to me..)

 

So if i say (but I have no intention to actually say it) your worship-able deity is sub ordinate to mine you would have no problem?

 

Jai Shree Krishna

 

[Guest guest]

{Even in Bhagavad-Gita Krishna talks about the supreme reality that even the Devas wish to glimpse.}

 

So devas are not one with Brahman? What exactly are devas, I thought the were high manifestations of Brahman - i.e. God with form.

[Guest guest]

Problem is not mine a lot people here seems to think they have divine right to condemn others who have different goals

••that's kali yuga.. the age of conflicts

 

You are implying that the impersonal concept is in defense of Shiva being called a demigod.

••i am implying that i in this forum i see that the ones who prefere vishnu really believe that vishnu is a real, complete, transcendental person with real and ultimate supremacy over the whole (sarveshvara).. and i see that the one who prefere sri shiva or who simply want to pacify, actually believe that beyond vishnu and beyond shiva, the absolute reality is only the nirguna brahman.

I sympathize with a real devotee of Sri Shiva who says that He's really Supreme.. not with the one who says that only impersonalism is absolute and individualism (god, conditioned souls, devas, saints) is material

 

No I am only trying to prove that the lord does not get offended.

It is us who create the offence..

••i agree completely... our duty is to help people making them avoiding offences or stopping to say offences

 

So if i say (but I have no intention to actually say it) your worship-able deity is sub ordinate to mine you would have no problem?

••i am a neophite.. i do not see if absolute reality is vishnu, shiva, manitu or jesus.. but i have found real shelter in real saints (among them my revered and pure Guru Maharaja) who explain to me that krsna is supreme. Sincerely i have real faith that such persons are truthful.. but that's not my point now.

I do not want to discuss if Shiva, Krsna, Indra , Varuna etc are subordinate or supreme, i only noticed that who are act as pacifiers, actually are the ones who make war to every devata saying that they're relative and not absolute..

 

So.. real Shivaites, have to discuss with such impersonalist mayavadis, before quarrelling with vaishnavas.

 

Vaishnavas do not want to say that the individuality if Sri Shiva is maya, Vaishnavas say that Sri Shiva is absolute... they're not the real enemies of Shivaites.. the (philosophical) "enemies" are the impersonalists

 

 

[Ganeshprasad]

Jai Ganesh

 

Re

(••that's kali yuga.. the age of conflicts)

 

We should not hide behind this and compound the problem

 

Re

(••i agree completely... our duty is to help people making them avoiding offences or stopping to say offences)

 

However good our intentions are, we only succeed further antagonizing some one who think different then you. They might hold the view that you are offending them.

 

Re

(So if i say (but I have no intention to actually say it) your worship-able deity is sub ordinate to mine you would have no problem?

••i am a neophite.. i do not see if absolute reality is vishnu, shiva, manitu or jesus.. but i have found real shelter in real saints (among them my revered and pure Guru Maharaja) who explain to me that krsna is supreme. Sincerely i have real faith that such persons are truthful.. but that's not my point now.

I do not want to discuss if Shiva, Krsna, Indra , Varuna etc are subordinate or supreme,)

 

 

In other words your statement of mistaken identity was not very honest.

 

 

Re

( i only noticed that who are act as pacifiers, actually are the ones who make war to every devata saying that they're relative and not absolute..)

 

If some one honestly believe in the supreme Brahman as the only reality he is not making war with the other devtas he is reconciling every thing within that one supreme reality.

Where does Krishna say that brahman realisation is making war or an offence?

He gives all three darsan in the Gita

Re

(So.. real Shivaites, have to discuss with such impersonalist mayavadis, before quarrelling with vaishnavas.)

 

A real Bhakta does not quarrel.

 

Re

(Vaishnavas do not want to say that the individuality if Sri Shiva is maya, Vaishnavas say that Sri Shiva is absolute... they're not the real enemies of Shivaites.. the (philosophical) "enemies" are the impersonalists)

 

A Bhakta never see an enemy in any soul, philosophical discussion is healthy but a mine is better then your attitude is a disturbance to peace.

 

Jai Shree Krishna