Worship of Siva versus Worship of Lord Vishnu

[Guest guest]

dear Atanu bhaiyya,

 

please do not quote from Griffith's translations. they are unvedic and do not confirm to any canon of interpretation which are found in various works including the Brahmasutras.

 

also, it is disgusting to bear the thought that we have to refer to a beef eating person to know the meaning of our holy scriptures. so i request u to stop quoting him.

 

i hope u will accept this request of mine.

[Guest guest]

also as i have been typing fastly in between my work, there are lot of typos in my posts. please bear with it.

 

dear atanu,

 

do not brood over these typos. instead try to refute my points on Shatapatha, Bhallaveya, Paingi sruti and Aitareya Brahmana which have quoted by me in separate posts.

[Guest guest]

 

Dear Atanu,

 

first of all thanks for ur compliments.

 

 

Dear Srinivas,

 

This is not Atanu. Do not think Atanu will compliment you. This is a different person.

 

Refer me KannaDasan.

[Guest guest]

You vaishnavites don't corrupt the interpretation of BG without pursuing the advaithic doctrine. You vaishnavas/dharmics are the lower intellects as referred by krihsna who pray to demi-gods.

 

All the quotes of 9.23, 9.24, 11.15 etc are all correct, but remeber krishna refers to his formless self and his nirguna personality. All the followings from vedic religion, consider their gods as formless and nirguna, and thus pray to no demigod (thus pursue for moksha without the wish-list of mundane materialism)

 

In BG, Krishna is crystal clear that he's formless and nirguna, and you vaishnavites degrade krishna time-&-again to a demi-god status by considering Krishna as a saguna and with form, disregarding everything else. Vaishnavas are the worshippers of demigod, and they call the demigod as krishna and give it the form of krishna.

[Guest guest]

********for him Sayana, Sankara, Bhaskara, Madhva, Ramanuja etc. are not pramanikas for he has not found one among them.

 

http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/rigveda/

 

in the above page you can see the translations.

 

 

infact even spelling mistakes are repeated.

 

in the page,

 

http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/rigveda/rvi10.htm

 

instead of writing as 'HYMN CXIII. Indra.'

 

it is written as 'HYMN CXTII. Indra.'.

 

the same 'CXTII.' is found in atanu's quotations.

 

let him change his attitude atleast now.

 

I was wondering as to from where Atanu was getting his wrong translations which do not to the various canons of interpretations. now i have got it. readers, beware of such people who misguide u with such wrong translations. *******

 

Hi, I really have to object for taking this to such personal levels. Your Ego and fanatism has no bounds.

 

If I were to sit in the US or australia, and refer to the Vedas, Sacred texts comes as a handy reference to me. I dont sit in Tillikeni, to go buy books. Its as simple as that.

 

One more reason, I woud not shun away from western translation is, it may not be biased and coloured like your vaishnavic translations. The reason being, for an outsider, the vision may not bet clouded by fanatism, and he may not start with the arguement that "Vishnu/Siva is supreme... and all others are demi gods", and build the facts and arguements around the initial arguement.

 

So, things when put in the proper perspective will lead to realisation of truth.

 

"There is water.... off course the fish cannot discover it". Fish will know water only when taken out of it, and will know that, there is something apart from water when taken out of it.

[Guest guest]

Lot of opinions as usual, nothing from Samhitas.

 

 

The following from Samhitas.

 

 

Yajur Veda

 

Rudra alone yieldeth to no second

 

 

Yajur Veda

 

namo astu nIlagrIvAya sahasrAxAya mIDhushhe |

atho ye asya sattvAno .ahaM tebhyo .akaraM namaH ||

 

salutations be to the blue-throated, He who has a thousand eyes -----

 

pramuJNcha dhanvanastvamubhayorArtniyorjyAm.h |

yAshcha te hasta ishhavaH parA tA bhagavo vapa ||

 

 

O Bhagavan! You are endowed with supreme lordship and worship by others. Untie the bow string from the two ends of Your bow. Abandon the arrows in Your hand.

 

 

Isha, Para, Bhagavo

 

 

And from shruti

 

shvetaashvataropanishhat (tR^itiiyo.adhyaayaH) .

 

eko hi rudro na dvitiiyaaya tasthu\-

rya imaa.nllokaaniishata iishaniibhiH .

 

 

Prostrations to you LORD, the ONE WITHOUT A SECOND.

 

[Guest guest]

*****

How do you view this thread, when you have written in another thread regarding Mauna.

 

Mauna can sustain only with viveka.

***********

 

 

You may be Ganesh Prasad Ji. But, whoever you may be, my regards for you.

 

 

In this thread, my arguments are for uniting and not for dividing.

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

 

Worldly-minded individuals, however intellectual they may be, cannot grasp the essential teachings of the Gita. They enter into unnecessary discussions and useless debates. They cavil and carp at the teachings. Such ignorant people say: “There is no intimate connection between the verses. They are thrown in a disorderly manner. There is a great deal of repetition.” If they study the book with reverence and faith under a qualified teacher all their doubts would vanish. They will realize that there is a close connection between the verses in all the chapters. Repetitions in the Gita and the Upanishads are useful repetitions. They are best calculated to create a deep and indelible impression in the mind of the aspirant.

 

Lord Krishna speaks from different levels of consciousness. In the Gita the word “Avyaktam” sometimes refers to primordial Nature and sometimes to the Absolute Para Brahman also. Therefore, the help of a teacher is necessary if you wish to know the right significance of the verses.

 

In the Kathopanishad the term “brick” is used to denote the gods. In the Hatha Yogic texts it is stated: “At the junction of the rivers Yamuna and Ganga there is a young virgin”. The esoteric meaning of this is that there is the Sushumna Nadi between the Ida and the Pingala. So, without the help of a Guru, you will not be able to understand the proper meaning of the verses of the Gita. You will be like the man who brought a horse to one who asked for saindava while taking food. The word saindava means salt as well as horse

 

In the Vishnu Purana, Bhagavan Vishnu is highly eulogised and a secondary place is given to Lord Shiva. In the Shiva Purana, Lord Shiva is immensely praised whilst Lord Vishnu is secondary. In the Devi Bhagavatam, the Divine Mother is given prominence above Lord Shiva and Lord Vishnu. All this is done in order to create in the aspirant intense and unswerving faith in his favourite Deity. All Deities are one; they are different aspects of the Lord. It is simply absurd to believe that Shiva is inferior to Vishnu, or vice versa.

 

In the same manner, in one place in the Gita, Lord Krishna praises Karma Yoga: “The Yoga of action is superior to the renunciation of action”—V.2. In another place He praises Raja Yoga: “The Yogi is thought to be superior to the ascetics and even superior to men of knowledge; he is also superior to men of action. Therefore, be thou a Yogi, O Arjuna!”—VI.46.

 

Tapaswibhyo’dhiko yogee jnaanibhyo’pi mato’dhikah;

Karmibhyashchaadhiko yogee tasmaad yogee bhavaarjuna.

 

46. The Yogi is thought to be superior to the ascetics and even superior to men of knowledge (obtained through the study of scriptures); he is also superior to men of action; therefore, be thou a Yogi, O Arjuna!

 

In yet another place Lord Krishna praises the path of Bhakti Yoga: “The highest Purusha, O Arjuna, is attainable by unswerving devotion to Him alone within whom all beings dwell and by whom all this is pervaded!”—VIII.22.

 

Purushah sa parah paartha bhaktyaa labhyastwananyayaa;

Yasyaantahsthaani bhootaani yena sarvamidam tatam.

 

22. That highest Purusha, O Arjuna, is attainable by unswerving devotion to Him alone within whom all beings dwell and by whom all this is pervaded

 

In one place He praises Jnana Yoga: “Noble indeed are all these; but I deem the wise man as My very Self; for, steadfast in mind, he is established in Me alone as the supreme goal”—VII.18.

 

Udaaraah sarva evaite jnaanee twaatmaiva me matam;

Aasthitah sa hi yuktaatmaa maamevaanuttamaam gatim.

 

18. Noble indeed are all these; but I deem the wise man as My very Self; for, steadfast in mind, he is established in Me alone as the supreme goal.

 

Jnana and Bhakti are essentially the same! Look at the various Stotras that Sankaracharya composed. They indicate clearly that he had developed devotion to a very high degree. Atmanivedan or self-surrender leads to Jnana; and Jnana is synonymous with Para Bhakti.

 

People nowadays condemn Bhakti and think that it is inferior to Jnana Yoga. They have no understanding of Bhakti. They think that they can jump at once to Jnana Yoga. They have really no faith in God. They just acquire some intellectual conception of God. This does not serve them. Jnana Yoga without the necessary preparation is of no use.

 

[Guest guest]

{In the Vishnu Purana, Bhagavan Vishnu is highly eulogised and a secondary place is given to Lord Shiva. In the Shiva Purana, Lord Shiva is immensely praised whilst Lord Vishnu is secondary. In the Devi Bhagavatam, the Divine Mother is given prominence above Lord Shiva and Lord Vishnu. All this is done in order to create in the aspirant intense and unswerving faith in his favourite Deity. All Deities are one; they are different aspects of the Lord. It is simply absurd to believe that Shiva is inferior to Vishnu, or vice versa.}

 

This is very true. But the sectarian mob here wouldn't like to hear that. I hear different things about the puranas. A few Hindus have told me they are largely mythological and only a few events in them relating to kings, saints and Indian society at the time are historical.

 

 

[Guest guest]

 

*****ur doubt about 'Girishanta' must be cleared by my earlier post if u try to understand the concept behind it.

*********

 

Very clear. Rudra Shiva is Girisanta -- the dweller in the hridaYA.

 

Yajur Veda: iv. 5. 9.

 

a ----------.

p Homage to you, sparkling hearts of the gods

 

[Guest guest]

******

note this, Atanu. those who worship other deities fall back in to Samsara. only those who worship Krishna attain moksha.

*********

 

Yes.

 

You are as childish as zealot Christians. As if before Krishna’s birth, all were doomed to eternal bondage.

 

 

And if born Krishna knows that he is That (because Ghora rishi told him: Chandoygya Up.), then manifested Shiva is That by being the best knower and being sakshat That.

 

 

********

note that Brahmadeva and Siva are also found in the body of Krishna in His virAt rUpa.

***********

 

You are a liar or a deluded person. Read Gita and find that Vishnu also is found in the body of Krishna.

 

And remember, Rama is found in body of Hanuman. And Krishna resides in me.

 

 

Get over your concepts and be free.

 

 

[Guest guest]

 

Hi, I really have to object for taking this to such personal levels. Your Ego and fanatism has no bounds.

 

If I were to sit in the US or australia, and refer to the Vedas, Sacred texts comes as a handy reference to me. I dont sit in Tillikeni, to go buy books. Its as simple as that.

 

One more reason, I woud not shun away from western translation is, it may not be biased and coloured like your vaishnavic translations. The reason being, for an outsider, the vision may not bet clouded by fanatism, and he may not start with the arguement that "Vishnu/Siva is supreme... and all others are demi gods", and build the facts and arguements around the initial arguement.

 

So, things when put in the proper perspective will lead to realisation of truth.

 

"There is water.... off course the fish cannot discover it". Fish will know water only when taken out of it, and will know that, there is something apart from water when taken out of it.

 

 

These days, truth is substituted by so called secularized teachings which is totally against Vedas. It has become a fashion and trend to say all devatas are equal, etc. where some equality is established. This appears to be very broadminded, but in fact quite contrary to the teachings of Vedas.

 

Srinivasan is merely pointing the fact here. I have been observing Atanu for a more than a year. It is a fact that Atanu does not know Sanskrit and does not understand logic at all. So these statements by Srinivasan and some other guys who repeated the same fact about Atanu need not be taken as personal insults, but as a statement of fact, and that too not to insult Atanu but to make readers know how futile it is to argue with a person who provides no logic or who does not understand Sanskrit to provide one counter argument. All Atanu does is dump the whole thread with repetition of Rudram verses without understanding the content.

 

As for sacred texts, their translations are wrong in many places period. No sensible person who knows a little bit of sanskrit would consider that translation as authentic.

 

Others without reading, without understanding what is Scripture and What is not quote Devi Bhagavatam as one. Devi Bhagavatam is not even among 18 Mahapuranas. It cannot be even considered as a purana. Devi Bhagavatam is a bogus creation by some Shaktite.

 

As for Puranas, they have to agree with Srutis. If they do not they should be rejected. So this whole discussion is on establishing what Sruti says. Atanu or anybody have not refuted so many quotes from so many different Srutis which prove beyond doubt that Visnu is Sarvottama, and Rudra is a Being inferior even to ChaturMukha BrahmA(Remember the quote from Satapatha Brahmana).

 

Following are vakyas from Shatapatha Brahmana of Yajur Veda,

 

 

"Bhootanam ca Prajapatis samvatsaraya dikshitah | Bhootanam pathir gruhapathir aaseet |

Usha Patni | …………….. bhootanam pathis samvatsara ushasi rodho(a)sinchat | Samvatsare kumaro jayatha | sorodheeth | tam prajapathirabraveet | kumara kim rodhishi | yachhramath tapasodhi jathoseethi | so(a)braveet anapahatapapma vaa ahamanahithanama | nama me dehi paapno(a)pahatya iti | tam punah prajapathi braveet | rudro(a)seethi | ……….. rudrobhavachcharva isanah pathir bhima ugra iti sapta namani |"

 

"The pati of bhoota and praja, Brahma deva, underwent diksha for one year. He was a Grihasta. His wife was Usha. …….. Brahma deva let his veerya ( ‘rodho(a)sinchat’) to Usha. In a year, a son was born. The son cried. Brahma asked him, “ Son! Why are u crying. I got u as child after tough tapasya. The son said, “ I am not cleansed of sins. To wipe out my sins give me names. Brahma again told him, “ Let your name be Rudra.” …….. Rudra, Bhava, charva, Isana, Pathi(pasupathi), Bhima, Ugra – these seven names (were given by Brahma deva)"

 

 

 

What constitutes a Sruti ?

 

1. Rig Veda

 

a.)Samhita

b.)Brahmana

c.)Aranyaka

d.)Upanishad

 

2. Yajur Veda

 

a.)Samhita

b.)Brahmana

c.)Aranyaka

d.)Upanishad

 

3. Sama Veda

 

a.)Samhita

b.)Brahmana

c.)Aranyaka

d.)Upanishad

 

4. Atharvana Veda

 

a.)Samhita

b.)Brahmana

c.)Aranyaka

d.)Upanishad

[Guest guest]

Immature, ignorant devotee that he is, it is not surprising that he on one hand says "Eko Narayana" and then says "Supremacy of this or that". EKO does not have anything to compare with.

 

He cuts his own arguments.

 

*****************

once again u repeat the same mistake in the verses 4.83-87.

 

Shiva is clearly differentiated from Brahman by the word 'ayam'(this). u conveniently leave out the word in ur (wrong) translations.

******************

 

 

No, you have left out the first line of the verse.

 

 

lakshyaalakshyamati.n tyaktvaa yastishhThetkevalaatmanaa .

shiva eva svaya.n saakshaadayaM brahmaviduttamaH .. 85..

 

 

He who remains alone, giving up what is implied and expressed is Shiva himself, the best of the Brahman-Knowers. That un-decaying being is the substratum (of all), without comparison beyond words and mind, eternal, omnipotent, omnipresent and subtle.

 

 

The word by word translation is as below:

 

lakshyaalakshyamati.n (implied and expressed) tyaktvaa (giving up) yastishhThetkevalaatmanaa (atma who remains alone) shiva eva (shiva is) svaya.n (himself) saakshaadayaM (directly this) brahmaviduttamaH (the best knower of brahma) .. 85..

 

 

Then comes:

 

adhishhThaanamanaupamyamavaa~Nmanasagocharam.h .

nitya.n vibhu.n sarvagata.n susuukshma.n cha tadavyayam.h .. 86..

 

 

That un-decaying being is the substratum (of all), without comparison beyond words and mind, eternal, omnipotent, omnipresent and subtle.

 

 

 

Note: when kevalatma alone remains, what else remains? Only the substratum -- That un-decaying being.

 

And this is Vedanta. One Atma who remains alone, discarding all that is expressed and implied is called Shiva. When one atma alone remains, then who else is there? Best of Brahman knower only is the one. Because Brahman is pure knowledge as below:

 

 

praj~naanameva tadbrahma satyapraj~naanalakshaNam.h .

evaM brahmaparij~naanaadeva martyaa.amR^ito bhavet.h .. 81..

 

The Supreme Being is knowledge alone – so a mortal becomes immortal only by vision of Brahman.

 

 

 

And Shiva and Vishnu are such knowers as below:

 

avisheshheNa sarva.n tu yaH pashyati chidanvayaat.h .

sa eva saakshaadvij~naanii sa shivaH sa harirvidhiH .. 76..

 

 

IV-76-82. Only one who looks upon everything in relation to consciousness (CID) is the knower proper, Shiva, Vishnu and Brahma.

 

 

But Shiva is the best knower and remains at the end as kevalatma Rudra. He alone begins the creation again as Bhava. This is clear from the Shruti.

 

 

 

eko hi rudro na dvitiiyaaya tasthu\-

rya imaa.nllokaaniishata iishaniibhiH .

pratyaN^ janaastishhThati saJNchukochaantakaale

sa.nsR^ijya vishvaa bhuvanaani gopaaH .. 2..

 

 

2

Rudra is truly one; for the knowers of Brahman do not admit the existence of a second, He alone rules all the worlds by His powers. He dwells as the inner Self of every living being. After having created all the worlds, He, their Protector, takes them back into Himself at the end of time.

 

 

And obviously, in your blind fold mode and due to ego, you do not care to read the full text of anything. Maha Upanishad follows:

 

 

shuunya.n tatprakR^itirmaayaa brahmavij~naanamityapi .

shivaH purushha iishaano nityamaatmeti kathyate .. 61..

 

VI-61. ‘that Brahman which has been identified with emptiness, Prakriti, Maya and also consciousness is called Shiva, pure Spirit, the Lord, the eternal and the self.

 

Your arguments are from the assumption of a fleshy Lord, which he is not. Lord is pure Pragnya in whom the “I” sense takes birth.

 

 

 

*******

Rig Veda 7:46

imaá rudraáya sthirádhanvane gíraH kSipréSave DEVAAYA svadhaávne

áSaaLhaaya sáhamaanaaya vedháse tigmaáyudhaaya bharataa shRNótu naH

 

dear atanu,

note the word in caps. Vedas have accepted Rudra to be a DEVA. so u cannot say that Rudra is not a deva or that he is not considered as deva.

************

 

 

He. He.

 

Are you not naïve – always caught up in your own serpentine logic? WHAT DOES VASUDEVA MEAN?

 

DEVA OF VASUS (MARUTS). HA HA.

 

 

And why don't you note “SVADHAÁVNE” in the above verse on Rudra --- HAVING SELF-POWER, SELF RULE.

 

And why don’t you note the following verse:

 

Rig Veda Book 7 HYMN XLVI. Rudra.

 

sa hi kHayeHa kHamyasya janmanaH sÃAmrÃAjyena divyasya cetati |

avannavantÂ¥rupa no duraÊcarÃAnamÂ¥vo rudra jÃAsu no bhava ||

 

HE HAS LORDSHIP OVER EARTHLY AND HEAVENLY BEINGS. HE IS SELF POWERFUL.

 

 

 

And He is called Isha, Param and Bhagawan (not only a deva).

 

 

Shri Rudram 1.10

 

pramuJNcha dhanvanastvamubhayorArtniyorjyAm.h |

yAshcha te hasta ishhavaH parA tA bhagavo vapa ||

 

 

 

Vedas have accepted Rudra as ISHHAVAH PARA TA BHAGAVO.

 

 

 

***********

Aitareya Brahmana(1.1.1) states

 

Agnir vai devAnAm avamo Visnuh paramas, tadantarena sarvA anyA devatA

 

Meaning:

Agni is the lowest and Visnu is the Supreme among the Devas. In between them lie the other devas.

 

the sruti(vedas) clearly point out hierarchy among the devatas in terms of Supremacy and it says that Visnu is the Supreme of them all. Also Vedas themselves call Rudra as DEVA and so Rudra is also mentioned here and he too occupies a position in between Agni and Visnu.

 

*************

 

 

Avamo means: Lower or younger (please check up).

 

Since Vishnu himself is creator of Agni, there is nothing wrong in this verse. This does not contradict anything.

 

Here “Avamo” is not the lowest but the youngest. There are innumerable verses from Rig Veda to support this.

 

And then see how you are trapped again and again: “vai devAnAm avamo Visnuh paramas”, indicates:

 

 

AMONG DEVAS VISHNU IS PARAMA. “AMONG DEVAS”.

 

 

 

Vishnu is not self dependent. Someone else is the heart of Vishnu.

 

YV iii. 2. 6.

a Thou art the milk of the great ones, the body of the All-gods; ------ thou art the heart of Visnu,

 

 

 

 

But Rudra is called Isha, Param and Bhagawan (not only a svadhaávne -- self powerful deva).

 

Shri Rudram 1.10

 

 

pramuJNcha dhanvanastvamubhayorArtniyorjyAm.h |

yAshcha te hasta ishhavaH parA tA bhagavo vapa ||

 

 

Vedas have accepted Rudra as ISHHAVAH PARA TA BHAGAVO.

 

 

What you thought?

 

 

 

YV iv. 4. 9.

 

(Thou art) Prajapati with Soma in mind; the creator in the consecration; -------Visnu when being taken down; -----Rudra when offered; ----- the heaven when arrived at completion.

 

“Yajur Veda iv. 4. 8.

 

(Thou “I” art) all overcoming through Agni; self-ruling through the sun; lord of strength through might; creator with the bull;

 

 

(Thou “I” art) all overcoming through Agni; self-ruling through the sun; lord of strength through might; creator with the bull;

 

Yes. This is Lord Shiva.

 

 

Sama Veda XI Indra

 

2. O Indra, heaven and earth augment thy manly force and thy renown: The waters and the mountains stir and urge thee on:

 

3. Vishnu, Varuna, Mitra of the lofty ruling power sing thy praise: In thee the Maruts' company have great delight.

 

 

YV iv. i. 2.

 

d In each need more strong, In each contest, we invoke, As friends, Indra to aid us.

 

e Hastening [1] come hither, trampling the enemy, Come with wondrous skill from the leadership of Rudra;

 

 

 

 

 

RUDRA ALONE YIELDETH TO NO SECOND

 

 

om

[Guest guest]

 

Yes.

 

You are as childish as zealot Christians. As if before Krishna’s birth, all were doomed to eternal bondage.

 

 

Do not confuse yourselves. It is Krishna Himself who tells that those who pray to demigods got to them. Those who pray to me come to me. Lord Krishna also says that those who come to me do not return.

 

In another verse Lord Krishna says that souls who go to even Brahmaloka(abrahmaloka....)suffer birth, diseases and death. So it is clear.

 

 

And if born Krishna knows that he is That (because Ghora rishi told him: Chandoygya Up.), then manifested Shiva is That by being the best knower and being sakshat That.

 

 

It does not refer to Lord Krishna in that Upanishad. No acharya ever made a point that this refers to lord krishna. You are wrong on this account.

 

 

You are a liar or a deluded person. Read Gita and find that Vishnu also is found in the body of Krishna.

 

 

I think you should not get emotional and write without knowing. For your reference, Arjuna does not see Lord Visnu in that body, although he sees Lord Shiva.

 

Read chapter eleven before writing nonsense.

 

 

And remember, Rama is found in body of Hanuman. And Krishna resides in me.

 

 

 

Lord Visnu and HIS avataras(Like Rama, Krishna etc.) are all identical. They are transcendental(no prakrita body) and their bodies are full of Satyam(Pure Existence), Jnanam(Knowledge) and anantam(unlimites). All Avataras like Krishna etc., do not possess material bodies.

 

Lord Visnu is omnipresent and immanent. So HE, the Lord of all, resides in Hanuman , in you and me too.

[Guest guest]

Mahopanishad is heavily interpolated text. The reasons are explained below by a knowledgeable person.

 

http://www.hindunet.com/forum/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=47398&page=&view=&sb=5&o=&fpart=4&vc=1

 

Another example of tampered Upanishad is that of mahA-upaniShad; only some parts are available (such as 'eko nArAyaNa asIt na brahmA na IshAno; which is quoted by both Madhva and Ramanuja).

 

1. The Upanishad has been quoted by both Madhva and Ramanuja and all verses quoted by them is not found.

 

2. Secondly, some of the illustrations that Shankara uses (for the first time) to justify his theory that there can be bhrama without an adhiShThAna are all found here. For one, Shankara is the first person to give the analogy of seeing two moons when one presses one's eyes. This illustration is found in this Upanishad. Shankara could have simply pushed this UpanishadvAkya to press his point: dvichandrashuktikArUpyamR^igatR^iShNAdibhedataH. In fact, other illustrations (that of shukti-rajata, mR^iga-tR^iShNa, are standard ones have been given by advaita vedantins to justify their mAyAvAda, but they don't refer to this Upanishad at all. Check up Shankara's commentary on the Gaudapada kaarika, esp on the vaitathya-prakaraNa. In fact, you should keep wondering why Shankara does not quote this Upanishad in his commentaries on the prasthAna-traya, if at all the text was so clear in propounding advaita; Unless you admit the possibility of Shankara not knowing the mahA-upanishad, which is not a palatable idea to advaitins.

 

3. Other classical advaitins, when attempting to uphold jaganmithyAtva, have not quoted this Upanishad. Instead, they try to give the same old (stray) quotes from the 10 Upanishads ('satyasya satyaM' from Brihadaranyaka, ekamevAdvitIyaM etc) to prove that jagat is false. Take a look at advaita-siddhi of madhusUdana-saraswati for proof. He too does not quote mahA-upanishad either in defense of advaita or in offensive of dvaita.

 

Or take Sayana's own statement while explaining the nArAyaNa-sUkta 7th mantra: "manomUlamidaM dvaitaM yatkiJNchitsacharAcharaM" -- iti sAmpradAyavidbhiruktatvAt.h (This entire dvaita world comprising the movable and immovable, is all imagined by the mind -- thus is stated by people who know the advaita sAmpradAya). Since the prevalent text of the mahA-Upanishad has the same idea, couldn't he just have quoted mahA-upanishad as 'shrutyantaraat' (as he does to some other shruti in the preceding line)?

 

There is only logical conclusion to all this. The text is fabricated. This kind of fabrication is not unknown in the Upanishadic literature.

[Guest guest]

 

Immature, ignorant devotee that he is, it is not surprising that he on one hand says "Eko Narayana" and then says "Supremacy of this or that". EKO does not have anything to compare with.

 

 

Eko Narayana.. does not mean that only Narayana exists. It simply means there is only ONE Narayana.

 

If I say that there is only one river Cauvery, it does not mean that other rivers like Krishna, Godavari do not exist ?

 

I wonder where they get this horrible and flawed logic.

 

Your Maho Upanishad is fully corrupted as shown in the previous post.

 

As for Svadhaavne

 

Rig vEda 7:40:5 is clear as pointed out in previous posts. So many other points were also noted, where in Yajur Veda Samhita Rudra asks a Vara from Devatas to be called as Pasupathi. Does not matter who these devatas are, as Rudra asks a boon(Vara) from somebody other than himself. Remember this Sruti and Yajur Veda samhita.

 

Now, why awould a self-dependent god ask for boon. Shows Rudra is not completely self-dependent.

 

As for your explanation on Avamo, it is completely baseless.

 

Parama means "Supreme" and since avamo appears in the same line, it can mean only Lowest. No other meaning will fit the context no matter how advaitis or Shivites twist and contort those verses.

[Guest guest]

 

What you thought?

 

 

 

YV iv. 4. 9.

 

(Thou art) Prajapati with Soma in mind; the creator in the consecration; -------Visnu when being taken down; -----Rudra when offered; ----- the heaven when arrived at completion.

 

“Yajur Veda iv. 4. 8.

 

(Thou “I” art) all overcoming through Agni; self-ruling through the sun; lord of strength through might; creator with the bull;

 

 

(Thou “I” art) all overcoming through Agni; self-ruling through the sun; lord of strength through might; creator with the bull;

 

Yes. This is Lord Shiva.

 

 

 

 

Would you mind explaining how you arrived at this conclusion. There is not a speck of evidence for your claims

[Guest guest]

**********

For your reference, Arjuna does not see Lord Visnu in that body, although he sees Lord Shiva.

 

Read chapter eleven before writing nonsense.

*********

 

 

DO NOT USE WORDS SUCH AS NONSENSE ETC. You think Rudras is Rudra- Shiva? Where is it stated that Shiva was seen in cosmic form? Lord Shiva is beyond forms -- unborn, unmanifest, Bhava and also is the cosmic form with thousand arms and eyes.

 

 

 

11.6 Pashyaadityaan vasoon rudraan ashwinau marutastathaa;

Bahoonyadrishtapoorvaani pashyaashcharyaani bhaarata.

 

11.6 . Behold the Adityas, the Vasus, the Rudras, the two Asvins and also the Maruts; behold many wonders never seen before, O Arjuna!

 

 

11.15 Pashyaami devaamstava deva dehe

Sarvaamstathaa bhootavisheshasanghaan;

Brahmaanameesham kamalaasanastha-

Mrisheemshcha sarvaanuragaamshcha divyaan.

 

11.15. I behold all the gods, O God, in Thy body, and hosts of various classes of beings; Brahma, the Lord, seated on the lotus, all the sages and the celestial serpents!

 

Lord Shiva is not kamalaasanastha. Your sources have corrupted the knowledge of Vedas and Gita by interpolating and not the other way around.

 

 

Siva is not kamalaasanastha. It is material Brahma seated on lotus. Shiva sits on a tiger skin.

 

 

Do not mislead knowingly.

 

 

11.22 Rudraadityaa vasavo ye cha saadhyaa

Vishwe’shvinau marutashchoshmapaashcha;

Gandharvayakshaasurasiddhasanghaa

Veekshante twaam vismitaashchaiva sarve.

 

11.22. The Rudras, Adityas, Vasus, Sadhyas, Visvedevas, the two Asvins, Maruts, the manes and hosts of celestial singers, Yakshas, demons and the perfected ones, are all looking at Thee in great astonishment.

 

 

DO NOT USE SUCH LANGUAGE AS NONSENSE ETC.

 

 

 

***

As for Svadhaavne

 

Rig vEda 7:40:5 is clear as pointed out in previous posts.

*********

 

Simply look up the meaning of Svadhaavne first and then take into account: “Yajur Veda i. 8. 6. d Rudra alone yieldeth to no second” and then interpret other verses.

 

 

Rig Veda 7:46

 

imaá rudraáya sthirádhanvane gíraH kSipréSave DEVAAYA svadhaávne

áSaaLhaaya sáhamaanaaya vedháse tigmaáyudhaaya bharataa shRNótu naH

 

sa hi kHayeHa kHamyasya janmanaH sÃAmrÃAjyena divyasya cetati |

avannavantÂ¥rupa no duraÊcarÃAnamÂ¥vo rudra jÃAsu no bhava ||

 

 

HE IS SELF POWERFUL. HE HAS LORDSHIP OVER EARTHLY AND HEAVENLY BEINGS. AND READ THE YAJUR VEDA PASSAGE THAT YOU REFERRED – HE CHOOSES A BOON.

 

Yajur Veda i. 8. 6. d Rudra alone yieldeth to no second

 

 

 

**********

Do not confuse yourselves. It is Krishna Himself who tells that those who pray to demigods got to them. Those who pray to me come to me. Lord Krishna also says that those who come to me do not return.

************

 

--demigods got to them--- WHAT IS GOT TO THEM?

 

 

Dasan Saab, I am not confused. You are confused and angry. Christ also says: I am the light, I am the path etc. His zealot devotees forget that He has also said: I am that I am.

 

Similarly Lord Krishna says: One who does not know my real nature as unborn does not know me.

 

 

7.25 Naaham prakaashah sarvasya yogamaayaasamaavritah;

Moodho’yam naabhijaanaati loko maamajamavyayam.

 

7.25 . I am not manifest to all (as I am), being veiled by the Yoga Maya. This deluded world does not know Me, the unborn and imperishable.

 

But what is common in you and Christians is that both WORSHIP THE BODY BORN IN ASSISTANCE WITH MAYA. WE KNOW THE REALITY OF AKSHARA BRAHMA (VERSE 8.3).

 

 

 

.

**********

It does not refer to Lord Krishna in that Upanishad. No acharya ever made a point that this refers to lord krishna. You are wrong on this account.

*************

 

 

 

Oh I see, So there are many Devaki Putras named Krishnayya? So, which one is That?

 

 

 

Chandyogya

 

taddhaitadghor aaN^girasaH kR^ishhNaaya

devakiiputraayoktvovaachaapipaasa eva sa babhuuva

so.antavelaayaametattrayaM pratipadyetaakshitamasyachyutamasi

praaNasa\m+shitamasiiti tatraite dve R^ichau bhavataH || 3\.17\.6||

 

 

III-xvii-6: Ghora Angirasa expounded this well-known doctrine to Devaki’s son Krishna and said, ‘Such a knower should, at the time of death, repeat this triad – "Thou art the imperishable, Thou art unchangeable, Thou art the subtle essence of Prana". (On hearing the above) he became thirst less. There are these two Rik stanzas in regard to this.

 

 

 

*************

Eko Narayana.. does not mean that only Narayana exists. It simply means there is only ONE Narayana.

*************

 

Yes. I see now. You do not want to transfer the full shruti to Narayana?

 

Shvetaashvataropanishhat

 

tR^itiiyo.adhyaayaH .

 

ya eko jaalavaaniishata iishaniibhiH

sarvaa.nllokaaniishata iishaniibhiH .

ya evaika udbhave sambhave cha

ya etad.h viduramR^itaaste bhavanti .. 1..

 

eko hi rudro na dvitiiyaaya tasthu\-

rya imaa.nllokaaniishata iishaniibhiH .

pratyaN^ janaastishhThati saJNchukochaantakaale

sa.nsR^ijya vishvaa bhuvanaani gopaaH .. 2..

 

 

 

THE ONE WITHOUT A SECOND OF THE FOURTH STAGE, THERE IS NO DVITIIYAAYA.

 

 

 

****

Mahopanishad is heavily interpolated text

***********

 

Whatever does not suit you are heavily interpolated? No problems, Dasan saab.

 

 

pai~Ngalopanishhat.h .. shukla_yajurvediiya

 

iishaadhishhThitaavaraNashaktito rajodriktaa mahadaakhyaa vikshepashaktiraasiit.h . tatpratibimbita.n yattaddhiraNyagarbhachaitanyamaasiit.h . sa mahattattvaabhimaanii

spashhTaaspashhTavapurbhavati . hiraNyagarbhaadhishhThitavikshepashaktitastamodriktaaha~Nkaaraabhidhaa

sthuulashaktiraasiit.h . tatpratibimbita.n

yattadviraaTachaitanyamaasiit.h . sa tadabhimaanii spashhTavapuH

sarvasthuulapaalako vishhNuH pradhaanapurushho bhavati .

 

 

 

1-5.From the power of concealment controlled by Isha arose the Power of Projection called Mahat. What is reflected in it is the consciousness of Hiranyagarbha. He has the conceit of ownership as regards Mahat and has a body partly manifest and partly unmanifest.

 

I-6. From the projective power controlled by Hiranyagarbha arose the gross power called the ego, with the preponderance of Tamas. What was reflected in it was the consciousness of Virat. That Virat who has conceit in the Ego, a manifest body, and is the Chief Person, Vishnu is the protector of all gross things.

End of Citation

 

 

SARVASTHUULAPAALAKO VISHHNUH

 

 

“THAT VIRAT WHO HAS CONCEIT IN THE EGO, A MANIFEST BODY, AND IS THE CHIEF PERSON, VISHNU”

 

 

 

Mahanarayana Up

 

chaturvi.nsho.anuvaakaH .

 

sarvo vai rudrastasmai rudraaya namo astu . purushho vai rudraH sanmaho namo namaH .

 

vishvaM bhuutaM bhuvana.n chitraM bahudhaa jaata.n jaayamaana.n cha yat.h . sarvo hyeshha rudrastasmai rudraaya namoastu .. 1..

 

 

VISHNU IS NOT SELF DEPENDENT. SOMEONE ELSE IS THE HEART OF VISHNU.

 

 

YV iii. 2. 6.

 

a Thou art the milk of the great ones, the body of the All-gods; ------ thou art the heart of Visnu,

 

 

Sama Veda XI Indra

 

2. O Indra, heaven and earth augment thy manly force and thy renown: The waters and the mountains stir and urge thee on:

 

3. Vishnu, Varuna, Mitra of the lofty ruling power sing thy praise: In thee the Maruts' company have great delight.

 

 

YV iv. i. 2.

 

d In each need more strong, In each contest, we invoke, As friends, Indra to aid us.

 

e Hastening [1] come hither, trampling the enemy, Come with wondrous skill from the leadership of Rudra;

 

 

 

Whereas thousand eyed nIlagrIvAya is ISHA, PARA, and BHAGAVO.

 

 

Yajur Veda

 

namo astu nIlagrIvAya sahasrAxAya mIDhushhe |

atho ye asya sattvAno .ahaM tebhyo .akaraM namaH ||

 

 

pramuJNcha dhanvanastvamubhayorArtniyorjyAm.h |

yAshcha te hasta ishhavaH parA tA bhagavo vapa ||

 

That Eko alone manifests as many.

 

YV iv. 4. 9.

 

(Thou art) Prajapati with Soma in mind; the creator in the consecration; -------Visnu when being taken down; -----Rudra when offered; ----- the heaven when arrived at completion.

 

 

“Yajur Veda iv. 4. 8.

 

(Thou “I” art) all overcoming through Agni; self-ruling through the sun; lord of strength through might; creator with the bull;

 

 

 

YES THE ONE, WHO IS “I” IN ALL, IS LORD OF SHAKTI AND THE CREATOR WITH THE BULL.

 

 

Yajur Veda i. 8. 6. d Rudra alone yieldeth to no second

 

 

 

WE KNOW YOUR PROPOENSITY FOR BENDING THE TRUTH. INSTEAD OF USING WORDS LIKE NONSENSE ETC., JUST CITE A CLEAR VERSE FROM THE SAMHITAS TO SUPPORT YOUR CONTENTIONS ELSE PLEASE DO NOT WASTE TIME.

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

I will try. If I cannot find a good word to explain, I have no choice.

 

 

DO NOT USE WORDS SUCH AS NONSENSE ETC. You think Rudras is Rudra- Shiva? Where is it stated that Shiva was seen in cosmic form? Lord Shiva is beyond forms -- unborn, unmanifest, Bhava and also is the cosmic form with thousand arms and eyes.

 

 

I will try not to use.

 

Thankyou for confirming Rudras do not refer to Rudra. Perhaps you should mention it to your guys.

 

Rudra Deva, Lord Shiva has form and is the same being mentioned in Sathapatha Brahamana. He has normal birth with body as per the above Sruti and cries and asks BrahmA to cleanse him of his sins by giving him names. Then BrahmA gives him names such as Rudra, Isana, Sarva etc.

 

Sathapatha Brahmana(Sruti) states clearly that

 

1. Rudra has ordinary birth like any other Devata. His birth proves he has a form and a Sthula Sharira.

2. Rudra himself requests BrahmA to cleanse him of sins and thereby acknoweldges that Rudra has Karma.

 

This is enough proof that Rudra aka Shiva is not paramatma. This is enough proof against all counter claims. Not one Advaiti or Shivite can give counter arguments.

 

 

11.15 Pashyaami devaamstava deva dehe

Sarvaamstathaa bhootavisheshasanghaan;

Brahmaanameesham kamalaasanastha-

Mrisheemshcha sarvaanuragaamshcha divyaan..........

 

Lord Shiva is not kamalaasanastha. Your sources have corrupted the knowledge of Vedas and Gita by interpolating and not the other way around.

 

Siva is not kamalaasanastha. It is material Brahma seated on lotus. Shiva sits on a tiger skin.

 

 

Kamalaasanastham = KamalAsana + stham

 

Here KamalAsana refers to BrahmA. Kamala here refers to Lotus and Asana means Sitting.

 

So Kamalasana means sitting on Lotus. So who is sitting on Lotus. Definitely BrahmA.

 

The prefix "Stham" also means "sitting in" or "waiting on".

 

So Kamalasanatham means "One who waits on BrahmA" or "One who attends on BrahmA"

 

So coming to the point,

 

TEXT 15

 

arjuna uvaca

pasyami devams tava deva dehe

sarvams tatha bhuta-visesa-sanghan

brahmanam isam kamalasana-stham

rsims ca sarvan uragams ca divyan

 

Arjuna said -- O Lord! I behold in Your body all gods and all classes of living beings as also Brahma, the four-faced ruler of the cosmic egg. So too Siva (Isa) who is seated in the lotus-seated Brahma, meaning that Siva abides by the directions of Brahma. So also all the seers of whom the divine seers are the foremost; and lustrous snakes like Vasuki, Taksaka etc.

 

 

Oh I see, So there are many Devaki Putras named Krishnayya? So, which one is That?

 

 

Yes they are different. Ghora Angirasa, Aitareya Mahidasa etc. mentioned in this Upanishad are ancestors to Veda Vyasa etc. This being the case there is no chance that they were contemporaries of Lord Krishna, Vausdeva.

 

The Krishna(Devaki Putra) mentioned in Chandogya is different from Yadu Kula Krishna, Lord Vasudeva. Besides there is no mention of Ghora belonging to the clan of Angirasa as a contemporary of krishna in Mahabharatha. There is no mention of Lord Krishna(Yadu kula) meeting anybody by that name as well. The point is clear that the Krishna of Chandogya is different.

[Guest guest]

Correction...

 

 

The prefix "Stham" also means "sitting in" or "waiting on".

 

 

It should actually be

 

The suffix "Stham" also means "sitting in" or "waiting on".

[Guest guest]

 

Yajur Veda i. 8. 6. d Rudra alone yieldeth to no second

 

 

 

This refers to Yajna and that Rudra does not yeild his portion of Yajna to anu one else.

 

While you are at it try to explain Rg Veda 7:40:5 and

 

Yajur Veda 4:2:3

 

vAram vrnA ahAm evA pashUnAm adhipatir asAnIti tasmAd rudrAh pashunAm adhipatis

 

If your meaning is right how do you explain the above verses, where in both places Rudra asks boon,, once dorectly from Visnu(RV 7:40:5) and another from Devatas in Yajur Veda.

 

How do you explain Sathapatha Brahmana where Rudra himself says he is sinful and asks BrahmA to cleanse him.

 

As for Visnu, Purusa Sukta is clear who mentions PurusA as Lord of Hree and lakshmi.

 

Rig Veda mentions Visnu as follows.

 

 

7.099.02

 

ná te viSNo jaáyamaano ná jaató déva mahimnáH páram ántam aapa

úd astabhnaa naákam RSvám bRhántaM daadhártha praáciiM kakúbham pRthivyaáH

 

No being that is or that has been born(includes Shiva or Rudra), divine Vis.n.u, has attained the utmost limit of your magnitude by which you have upheld the vast and beautiful heaven, and sustained the eastern horizon of the earth.

 

7.100.03

 

trír deváH pRthiviím eSá etaáM ví cakrame shatárcasam mahitvaá

prá víSNur astu tavásas táviiyaan tveSáM hy àsya sthávirasya naáma

 

This deity, by his great power, traversed with three (steps) the many-lustrous earth; may Vis.n.u, the most powerful of the powerful rule over us, for illustrious is the name of the mighty one.

 

1.156.02

 

yáH puurvyaáya vedháse náviiyase sumájjaanaye víSNave dádaashati

yó jaatám asya maható máhi brávat séd u shrávobhir yújyaM cid abhy àsat

 

He who presents (offerings) to Vis.n.u, the ancient, the creator, the recent, the self-born;he who celebrates the great birth of that mighty one; he verily possessed of abundance, attains (the station) that is to be sought (by all).

 

Visnu is the antaryami(present in the heart) of all Devatas(Includes Shiva).

 

vis.nuh sarva_ devata_h (Aitareya Bra_hman.a 1.1)

[Guest guest]

 

Vishnu contains Shiv and shiv contains vishu. why fight? both are first and both are last.

 

vishnu = shiva

 

vish = shiv

 

arrange and see.

 

[Guest guest]

 

[Guest guest]

 

Vishnu contains Shiv and shiv contains vishu. why fight? both are first and both are last.

 

vishnu = shiva

 

vish = shiv

 

arrange and see.

 

 

This is not a discussion on equality.

 

The subject is Vedas claim that Visnu is Sarvottama and this is the fact as stated by Vedas.

 

Saying every Devata is equal etc. may look broad minded, secular but the TRUTH as explained in Vedas is Visnu Sarvottamatva.

[Guest guest]

I find it really amusing that people are discussing whether siva or vishnu is greater and even more amused when folks quote Bhagavad Gita to say that worshippersof demegods go demigods...The notionof demigods is missunderstood. When people pray for a particular aspect of divinity be they power wealth or others, the Lord God Siva, aka Vishnu bestows it upon them... That is the realm that is being referred to. But he who worships God for God's sake comes to him irregardless of the form of worship.