Worship of Siva versus Worship of Lord Vishnu

July 29, 2005

hello everyone..just what are you guys talking abt? shiva and vishnu are old men? That which exists is one, sages call it by many names...( and think of IT in many forms). Yet Man is greater than that which he purports to worship, mainly because our concept of divinity falls short of what HE is..That is the irony.

July 29, 2005

****The Krishna(Devaki Putra) mentioned in Chandogya is different from Yadu Kula Krishna, Lord Vasudeva. *****

Eh. He He. You constraint Krishna with time. What all one has to do to support one's ego beliefs.

Nice it suits all.

For the rest no comments.

July 29, 2005

**** That which exists is one, sages call it by many names...( and think of IT in many forms). Yet Man is greater than that which he purports to worship, mainly because our concept of divinity falls short of what HE is..That is the irony. ********

Yes. He, being the indescribable Turiyaatta, is the seer of waking, sleeping, dreaming and Turiya states. He is beyond concepts. He is described as indescribale Ekam Advaitam Shivam in Upanishads. Man worships THAT from different levels of understanding. Some talk of supremacy. Some others argue on philosophy.

But "our concept of divinity falls short of what HE is..That is the irony.---". How apt.

Regards

July 29, 2005

Eh. He He. You constraint Krishna with time. What all one has to do to support one's ego beliefs.

Nice it suits all.

Atanu,

You can do better than this. You know the reason and why such statement was given, just to show Krishna of Chandogya Upanishad(a Seer) is a different person than Yadu Kula Krishna.

Nobody limits Lord Krishna, Vausdeva by time here. It is purely your imagination.

For the rest no comments.

I suppose you cannot answer to Sathapatha Brahamana(Rudra asking BrahmA to cleanse him of sins) or Yajur veda(Siva asking boon to be called as Pasupati). Only make irrational comments or post the same quotes again and again which has no meaning.

July 29, 2005

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.

So in short Mr. Ajit, the all-knowing person, thinks that worshipping any "form of god" for god's sake will lead one to moksa.

So, let us see what Lord Krishna says in Gita.

catur-vidha bhajante mam

janah sukrtino 'rjuna

arto jijnasur artharthi

jnani ca bharatarsabha

Four types of virtuous(sukrtino) ones worship or seek Me, O Arjuna. They are: the distressed, the seeker of Self-knowledge, the seeker of wealth, and the wise one who knows the Supreme. (7.16)

udarah sarva evaite

jnani tv atmaiva me matam

asthitah sa hi yuktatma

mam evanuttamam gatim

All these (seekers) are indeed noble, but I regard the wise as My very Self, because for the one who is steadfast, certainly I am the highest destination. (See also 9.29) (7.18)

Two points to be noted here.

1. Lord Krishna calls HIS devotees as Virtuous(7:16) and again as noble(7:18), even the devotees who worship HIM for wealth, power etc.

2. Lord Krishna confirms that only selfless worshippers of HIM as best among them(read 7:17).

Now Lord Krishna goes to the category of non-devotees in the following verses.

kamais tais tair hrta-jnanah

prapadyante 'nya-devatah

tam tam niyamam asthaya

prakrtya niyatah svaya

They, whose wisdom has been carried away by various desires impelled by their own Sanskaara, resort to other gods (or deities) and practice various religious rites. (7.20)

Note the use of anya Devata in this verse. It refers to all other Devatas except Lord Krishna. There can be no other meaning as it will be clear from subsequent verses.

yo yo yam yam tanum bhaktah

sraddhayarcitum icchati

tasya tasyacalam sraddham

tam eva vidadhamy aham

Whosoever desires to worship whatever deity(tanum - that anya devata referred in previous verse) (using whatever name, form, and method) with faith, I make their faith steady in that very deity. (7.21)

sa taya sraddhaya yuktas

tasyaradhanam ihate

labhate ca tatah kaman

mayaiva vihitan hi tan

Endowed with steady faith they worship that deity, and fulfill their wishes through that deity. Those wishes are, indeed, granted only by Me. (7.22)

Here, in the above 2 verses, Lord Krishna confirms HE is the controller of even anya Devatas, because it is HE who awards even the anya-Devata devotees(see Bhaktah in 7:21) implying all anya Devatas are powerless in reality.

antavat tu phalam tesam

tad bhavaty alpa-medhasam

devan deva-yajo yanti

mad-bhakta yanti mam api

Such (material) gains of these less intelligent(alpa-medhasam) human beings are temporary. The worshipers of Devas go to Devas, but My devotees come to Me. (7.23)

If you see the word in bold(alpa-medhasam), here Lord Krishna differentiates between those who worship anya Devatas(other Devatas) with material desires and those who worship Lord Krishna with material desires.

In 7:16 and 7:18 Lord Krishna praised HIS devotees as virtuous(Sukrtino) and noble(Udarah) even those who seek material benefits from HIM.

In 7:23 Lord Krishna classifies all(no exception) non-devotees as alpa-medhasam, ie men of little intelligent. Non devotees are those who worship anya Devatas. The point of Lord Krishna is clear. All anya Devata worshippers are alpa-medhasam.

Further in 7:23 Lord Krishna says, those who worship Devatas go to Devas, but those who My Devotees(includes those with material desires as mentione in 7:16) come to ME.

The meaning of this verse is only Lord Krishna can give Moksa and purify souls. Only devotion to Lord Krishna can purify a soul and give it Mukti.

This is confirmed in the following verse.

abrahma-bhuvanal lokah

punar avartino 'rjuna

mam upetya tu kaunteya

punar janma na vidyate

The dwellers of all the worlds including the world of Brahmaa, the creator, are subject to (the miseries of) repeated birth and death. But, after attaining Me, O Arjuna, one does not take birth again. (See also 9.25) (8.16)

July 30, 2005

well if Atanu reads the verses in Chandogya properly, he will understand the true meaning of it.

Atanu tries to say that Devaki Putra Krishna is taught by the seer to recite the mantras.

but the translation is wrong.

here, 'Devaki Putra' does refer to Lord Krishna but the fact is that the mantras said by the seer are directed at Krishna and saying so he attained Moksha. infact here Krishna is praised as 'achyutamasi' etc.

but Atanu might not accept. hence I will prove that what i'm saying is right within a day or two by quoting the exact sanskrit verses and their translations.

right now i don't have a copy of Chandogya text with me.

Atanu isso obsessed with Samhita. Solet us quote some verses from Samhita itself.

7:40:5

asyá devásya miiLhúSo vayaá víSNor eSásya prabhRthé havírbhiH

vidé hí rudró rudríyam mahitváM yaasiSTáM vartír ashvinaav íraavat

Translation:

"I get my desires(miiLhuso) granted(avayaah), by offering in sacrifices (prabhrthE havirbhih) to that Visnu, ishwara (controller), who is present in all these(asyA) devatas (devAsya).

On account of knowing this (Vide hi), Rudra Deva(Rudro) gained his Rudra-Strength(Rudriyam mahitvam). The Ashvini brothres have come to our abode with abundant sacrifical food."

here, Atanu will try to misinterpret it wrongly(he had done that before) saying that the translation must be 'Knowing that Visnu is Rudra's Rudra strength, we offer Sacrifices.'

but the verse can be in no way translated like that.

let us see.

the word by word translation will be:

asyá = IDAM - All these

devásya - devas belonging to HIM (present in Devas)

asyá devásya - One who is present in all these Devatas

miiLhúSo - the desires of the devotees

avayaáH - come down

Visnor - Visnu

eSásya - controller

prabhRthé - offering

havírbhiH - in sacrifices

vidé hi- on account of Knowing this

rudró - Rudra Deva

rudríyam mahitváM - Rudra-strength or Rudra glory

yaasiSTáM - come

vartír - abode

ashvinau - two asvini brothers

íraavat - full of all provisions like food etc.

so let us see the entire thing.

the first sentence in itself gives the reason for the offering of sacrifices to Visnu.

Visnu is present in all these Devatas and He is Iswara who grants all our wishes. It is for this purpose is Visnu offered Sacrifices.

so saying that the sacrifices are given knowing that Visnu is Rudra's power will be entirely wrong and baseless. because the first line itself says that the sacrifices are given for the purposes clearly mentioned by me above and the secong line does not mention he word(prabhrte havirbhih).

then the second line says 'vide hi'.

'vide hi' means 'on account of knowing which'. any person who knows Sanskrit will say that 'vide hi' refers to the greatness of Visnu explained in the first line.

'rudro' means 'Rudra deva'.

infact if the meaning is 'Rudra's Rudra power' then the word must have been 'RUDRASYA' and not 'RUDRO'. this is very important because the wrpong translation of Atanu is clearly proved wrong here and by 'vide hi'.

also the term 'we' is not present either directly nor indirectly in the second line of verse. Hence, saying that 'as we know Visnu is Rudra's power...' will be sheer ignorance and outburst of hypocrisy.

thus the fact is that the verse says 'on account of knowing which Rudra gained his Rudra power.'

then the second line conveys the following things.

on knowing that Visnu is the Iswara present in all

Devatas, Rudra attained his Rudra strength. the Asvini brothers bring abundant sacrificial food for the purpose of propitiating Visnu.

thus the first line is the main Vakya. the second line is based on the greatness of Visnu established in the first Vakya.

Thus, Visnu is expounded as the Supreme in the Rg Veda Samhita by this verse.

also Aitareya brahmana(1.1.1) of Rg Veda says

"Agnir vai devAnAm avamo Visnuh paramas, tadantarena sarvA anyA devatA"

here Visnu is expounded as the Supreme of all Devas. also note that as already pointed out,Rudra is also a Deva.(quoted from Rg Veda by Srinivasan).

Hence Visnu is clearly established as the Supreme God who is Superior to all devas including Rudradeva, Brahmadeva , Indra etc.

also due to the fact that Visnu is the most Supreme and that it is by knowing His greatness that

Rudra attained his power does SHRI RUDRAM ITSELF PRAISES VISNU IN THE VERY FIRST ANUVAKA AS 'GIRISHANTA' - 'CREATOR OF GIRISHA'/ 'DESTROYER OF GIRISHA'. THIS IS SO BECAUSE RUDRA HIMSELF HAS ATTAINED HIS POWER ONLY BY 'KNOWING THE GREATNESS OF VISNU'.

then let us see another verse from Yajur Veda:

vi. 2. 3.

"The Asuras had three citadels; the lowest was of iron, then there was one of silver, then one of gold. The gods could not conquer them; they sought to conquer them by siege; therefore they say--both those who know thus and those who do not--'By siege they conquer great citadels.' They made ready an arrow, Agni as the point, Soma as the socket, Visnu as the shaft. They said, 'Who shall shoot it?' [1] 'Rudra', they said, 'Rudra is cruel, let him shoot it.' He said, 'Let me choose a boon; let me be overlord of animals.' Therefore is Rudra overlord of animals(pasupathi)."

so Atanu is completely defeated here. Shiva asks fo a boon to become 'Pasupathi' which means till then he was not 'pasupathi'. this means he was not the overlord of animals till then.

infact Griffith(Atanu's Guru) himself translates the verses as above. they are his very words and this is one of those palcces where he has translated without any mistake. This translation of Griffith matches perfectly with Sayana.

by this it s clear that Rudra has the 'AvyApti' fault.

Rudra was not the overlord of animals and hence he cannot be the Supreme God because Param Brahman by His very nature becomes the Supreme Overlord of everything.

also atanu will say that Shiva is called as 'Isha','para' etc. but it is clear that Rudra's names were given to by Brahmadeva and so they are not his natural names. so these names do not mean much.

also Rudra attained his power by knowing Visnu's greatness and so whatver be Rudra is inferior to Visnu and this is again established by 'Agnir vai devanam avamo Visnu paramas'(Aitareya).

the Samhita does not refer to Visnu often. they neither often refr to Rudra. infact Indra an agni are the most sung in Rg Veda. but Rg Samhita worships all devatas and says that all these Devatas have Visnu present in them. (7.40.5)

thus, Samhita worships Visnu as indirectly as it is Karmakanda which aims at earthly results.

but Upanishads clearly identify the Supreme God as Narayana and they call Him by that name so that no one can misinterpret the fact that Visnu alone is the Supreme God.

so every argument of Atanu is clearly defeated.

July 30, 2005

*******"ugram vIram 'mAhAvisnum'...." (mantra raja expounded by this upanishad)********

Yes. We know it very well. Ugram is Maha Vishnum, from whom Hirayanagarbha is born. Hiryana Garbha then gives rise to Vishnu.

How well you cite my dear. You have yourself cited satpatha to say that Rudra’s one name is Ugra. How nice.

“----rudrobhavachcharva isanah pathir bhima ugra iti sapta namani |"

*******

This is not a discussion on equality.

*********

Yes, Bindu/Kannan/Srinivasa/Ravilochan (the same person), I agree. There is nothing to compare. There is only ONE:

Shvetaashvataropanishhat (tR^itiiyo.adhyaayaH ).

eko hi rudro na dvitiiyaaya tasthu\-

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..

And:

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 - ISHHAVAH PARA TA BHAGAVO” ALONE MANIFESTS AS MANY, so you are correct that there cannot be any discussion of equality.

Since:

pai~Ngalopanishhat.h .. shukla_yajurvediiya

--------

sthuulashaktiraasiit.h . tatpratibimbita.n

yattadviraaTachaitanyamaasiit.h . sa tadabhimaanii spashhTavapuH

sarvasthuulapaalako vishhNuH pradhaanapurushho bhavati .

----

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 is projected by Hiryanagarbha, who is begot by Rudra. Vaisnavs (impelled by delusion) have reversed the truth of the Vedas.

And also 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,

********

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.

*********

Baby, will you please give the reference to these alleged satpatha verses, which you oft repeat without giving the reference, so that the context can be examined?

And yes, if not from the Lord, then from where we are born? Rudra alone takes birth. He is without a second.

YAJUR VEDA

NAMA ATARYAYA CHALADYAYA CHA

SALUTATIONS TO HIM WHO IS BORN AGAIN AND AGAIN IN SAMSARA AND WHO TASTES THE FRUITS OF KARMAS IN THE FORM OF JIVA.

God is ONE and ALL. God only has projected Jiva. HE IS WITHOUT A SECOND.

******* Brahmaanameesham kamalaasanastha-

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

*********

That is in your putrid imagination. “Brahmaanameesham kamalaasanastha”, simply means: LORD BRAHMA SEATED ON LOTUS.

I GIVE THREE DIFFERENT TRANSLATIONS TO SHOW THAT YOU ALONE ARE A LIAR AND FABRICATOR.

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!

11.15 Arjuna said: In Thy body, O God, I see all the gods and the varied hosts of beings as well, Brahma, the lord seated on the lotus throne and all the sages and heavenly nagas.

O God, I see in Your body all the gods as also hosts of (various) classes of beings; Brahma the Ruler, sitting on a lotus seat, and all the heavenly sages and serpents. (11.15)

**********

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.

********

See what you have written. This is very characteristic of you. “YEILD HIS PORTION OF YAJNA TO ANU ONE ELSE”. I don’t know what is yield? I don’t know what is “anu” in this sentence?

God takes care of your lies.

RUDRA ALONE YIELDETH TO NO SECOND MEANS RUDRA ALONE YIELDETH TO NO SECOND.

God takes care of your lies.

****

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.

********

Yes, baby your fabrication skill is poor. See what you have written: “divine Vis.n.u, has attained the utmost limit of your magnitude -----,”

You have made “VISHNU” AND “YOU” DIFFERENT. “Vishnu has attained your utmost limit”. Yes, that is what you mean.

When you fabricate, why don’t you take more care?

Linga Rupi Shambhu is unborn and is that bhava which causes all beings to be born, including the protector.

God takes care of your lies.

********

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).

********

He He baby. You had cited this earlier also and that time there was no “self born”.

The correct translation is “He who brings gifts to him the Ancient and the Last, to Visnu who ordains, together with his Spouse, Who tells the lofty birth of him the Lofty One, shall verily surpass in glory e'en his peer.”

There is mention of mahat (lofty) birth – but no mention of Self born. I’m sorry baby; you are simply inserting words to support your ego.

And Rudra is Agriyaya, prathamaya, purvajaya and chaparajaya:

Yajur Veda

Namo Agriyaya cha prathamaya cha

Salutations to Him who was before all things and who is foremost.

Namah purvajaya chaparajaya cha

Salutations to Him who was before all and who will be born after all

Ha.

******

Yajur Veda 4:2:3

vAram vrnA ahAm evA pashUnAm adhipatir asAnIti tasmAd rudrAh pashunAm adhipatis

Rudra asks boon, once dorectly from Visnu(RV 7:40:5)”********

This verse is not in YV 4.2.3. And in this verse there is no other devata. Rudra chooses a boon for himself. That is why He is Pashupati.

He He. Again and again, I feel sorry for you. I do not know what is “dorectly”? LIES ARE EXPOSED BY BHAGAWAN HIMSELF.

And in RV 7:40:5, sages are exhorted to pray to Vishnu, Rudra’s Rudra power. There is no second being to yield to. Oh, yes.

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 duraÃŠcarÃAnamÂ¥vo rudra jÃAsu no bhava ||

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

Self powerful can pick a boon. He is pasupati. Pasus are all; including devas.

And I’m also sorry that all your “self born” translations do not prove anything. One who is born first and goes last is lofty Vishnu. BUT ONE WHO CHANGES NOT A BIT IS PARAM.

NILGRIVA WHO DRINKS THE POISON SO THAT DEVAS MAY LIVE IS SAKSHAT PARAM, ISHA, AND BHAGAWAN.

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 ||

Namo hridayyaya cha niveshpya ya cha

Salutations to Him who is in hridayyaya and in the grace.

Namo vah kirikebhyo devanam hrudayou bhyo

Salutations to you who shower wealth and who dwell in the hearts of the Gods.

ONE WHO IS IN THE HEART OF MORTALS AND IMMORTALS IS RUDRA ALONE and he is also the SAKSHAT PARAM, ISHA, AND BHAGAWAN Nilgriva.

And Vishnu is Him, for controlling the sthula.

July 30, 2005

Ravi how do you know I'm Atanu?

All noise and no pramana to show that Vishnu is Param, Bhagawan, and Isha all in one -- from the Samhitas.

No need to say anything.

YV i. 7. 5.

------ ----- in that he takes the steps of Visnu the sacrificer becoming Visnu wins these worlds by the metres so as to be irrecoverable.

Om Namah Bhagavate Shri Vasudevayya

Om Namah Sivayya

July 30, 2005

No Ravi seems to be different from naive kannan.

********

here, 'Devaki Putra' does refer to Lord Krishna but the fact is that the mantras said by the seer are directed at Krishna and saying so he attained Moksha. infact here Krishna is praised as 'achyutamasi' etc.

**********

Yes. you are correct. Definitely mantras are directed to Lord Krishna. But you are not mature enough to believe that you also are achyutamasi, even if Lord Krishna tells you. You will not believe that you are a pure atma – without limits and undecaying.

All is ONE GOD -- there is nothing else apart, except the imagination in mind that "I am Ravi". Lord Krishna's I'm this body" was dispelled the moment he heard Ghora. He lost all thirst, which does not mean that Lord's body was not thirsty any more. But, the Self has no thirst.

What about you?

Sacrificer himself becomes Vishnu.

I know that wet wood will not ignite. In fact wet wood will start to abuse. But the mature ones ignite. When the mature ones leave their body (with concentration on Self , (between eye brows or on the source of "I"), which is so-called varanasi (between varan and asi) one is told what one actually is (Narayana) and one gets liberation.

To wet wood this is not told since they have no experience to believe it. They have forgotten their atmic source and nature.

I thought you could benefit from this.

I does not blabber

July 30, 2005

Some are known to close their eyes when they see the truth.

*******

the Samhita does not refer to Visnu often. they neither often refr to Rudra. infact Indra an agni are the most sung in Rg Veda.*********

Few times that it refers makes clear what is what:

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;

This is present in Rig also.

Sama Veda XI Indra

1. That lofty power and might of thine, thy strength and thine intelligence, And thy surpassing thunderbolt, the wish makes keen.

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 in the lofty ruling power, sing thy praise:In thee the Maruts' company have great delight.

This is also there in Rig.

****** but Rg Samhita worships all devatas and says that all these Devatas have Visnu present in them. (7.40.5)******

Such are the interpolations these devotees rely on. But the truth is:

YV iii. 2. 6.

a Thou art the milk of the great ones, the body of the All-gods; may I to-day accomplish the cup of the speckled ones; thou art the cup of the speckled ones; thou art the heart of Visnu,

Some one else is Heart of Vishnu. Vishnu is not pure Atma.

July 31, 2005

*******"ugram vIram 'mAhAvisnum'...." (mantra raja expounded by this upanishad)********

Yes. We know it very well. Ugram is Maha Vishnum, from whom Hirayanagarbha is born. Hiryana Garbha then gives rise to Vishnu.

How well you cite my dear. You have yourself cited satpatha to say that Rudra’s one name is Ugra. How nice.

“----rudrobhavachcharva isanah pathir bhima ugra iti sapta namani |"

I cannot help laughing at this fool Atanu. Only an idiot par excellence, Atanu, can reason so foolishly.

Let us look at mantra rAjA

ugram vIram mahAvishNum jwalantam sarvatomukham

nrusimham bIshaNam bhadram mrutyummrutyum namAmyaham

It is clear that this is a praise on Nrsimha Deva. Any guy with a bit of intellect can see that Ugram is a noun in this verse describing the quality of Nrsinha Deva and not Rudra.

Atanu goes so far to describe that Lord Visnu is born of HiranyaGarba and further quotes Satapatha Brahmana in his favour. This must be a joke of the century.

Satapatha Brahmana explicitly mentions Rudra Deva born through BrahmA(Hiranyagarbha). This is very clear. How can one twist the interpretation like Atanu, answer is only Advaita can totally destroy a person's ability to think.

Still no advaiti has answered. In Satapatha Brahmana RudrA cries and asks BrahmA to cleanse him(Rudra) of sins. RudrA himself says he is sinful. There is not an iota of chance that Rudra Deva can be paramatma.

Yes, Bindu/Kannan/Srinivasa/Ravilochan (the same person), I agree. There is nothing to compare. There is only ONE:

Shvetaashvataropanishhat (tR^itiiyo.adhyaayaH )...Paingi etc.

Rest of your drivel is already answered by others. No point in going over it again. Just quoting again and again proves nothing, unless Atanu can explain logically which obviously Atanu is incapable of.

That is in your putrid imagination. “Brahmaanameesham kamalaasanastha”, simply means: LORD BRAHMA SEATED ON LOTUS.

I GIVE THREE DIFFERENT TRANSLATIONS TO SHOW THAT YOU ALONE ARE A LIAR AND FABRICATOR...

This is all you can do. Blame others and copy and paste some other guy's interpretations. You have no capacity to think, analyse and understand by yourselves.

Such persons are incapable to learn or unqualified to debate with. Henceforth a person like Atanu should not debate eith anyone.

For others.

The word kamalaasanastham = Kamala + asana + stham

Asana means sitting. Stham also means standing or sitting.

Why would two synonyms occur one after another in the same compund word.

So kamalaasanastham means "Attending on BrahmA" or "Sitting on BrahmA". This is very simpple to understand.

July 31, 2005

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

Yes. you are correct. Definitely mantras are directed to Lord Krishna. But you are not mature enough to believe that you also are achyutamasi, even if Lord Krishna tells you. You will not believe that you are a pure atma – without limits and undecaying.

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

now the verse is :

"tad dei tat gora ankirasah krishnaaya devaki putra YOKTVA UVAACHA apipaAsa eva sa baboova|

so(a)ntavelAayAametat trayam pratipadyeta AKSHITAMASI ACHYUTAMASI PRANASAMSHITAMASIM ASEETI|"

TRANSLATION:

" this Purusha Vidya was recited by Rishi Gora of Ankirasa gotra by saying 'FOR Devaki Putra Krishna'. He became devoid of Prakrit Gunas like Thirst etc and became Mukta. During the time of death three mantras must be recited. they are 'AKSHITAMASI', 'ACHYUTAMASI', 'PRANASAMSHITAMASIM'."

now let us see why Atanu's inferences are wrong.

here Krishna is not a student. He is the Devata of this Purusha Vidya.

the exact line of the verse is "KRISHNAAYA DEVAKI PUTRAAYOKTVAA UVAACHA."

The words are "DEVAKI PUTRAAYA UKTVAA UVAACHA." (SEPARATING THE WORDS - PUTRAAYA + UKTVAA = PUTRAAYOKTVAA) .

this is very important. 'Uktvaa' and 'uvaacha' are used. so just saying that 'it was told to Krishna' will be wrong because 'said' is used twice in the form of 'uktvaa' and 'uvaacha'.

thus the meaning of 'DEVAKI PUTRAAYOKTVA UVAACHA' will be as follows:

"DEVAKI PUTRA ITI UKTVAA, ETAT PURUSHA YAGNYAM UVAACHA."

Purusha Vidya(yagnya) is expounded in this Chandogya. 'tad dei tat' refers to this Purusha Vidya which is recited(uvaacha)by Sri Gora.

THEREFORE THE MANTRAS ARE MEANT FOR KRISHNA WHO IS THE DEITY PRAISED BY THOE MANTRAS.

so atanu's arguments are wrong for he does not translate anything properly.

dear Kannadasan,

the above translation is found in 'Visnuchitta vijayam'(Volume 1 - pg.346).

this book is published by Sri Sudharshanar(Krishnaswamy Iyengar), the editor of 'Sri Vaishnava Sudharshanam'.

The book is in Tamil and if u need more details, u can ask for.

July 31, 2005

Baby, will you please give the reference to these alleged satpatha verses, which you oft repeat without giving the reference, so that the context can be examined?

Mr. Atanu,

So you do not know where this occurs. Instead of getting spoon fed go and find where the verses are.

Rest assured those verses from Shatapatha Brahmana do exist as we know where it can be found.

And yes, if not from the Lord, then from where we are born? Rudra alone takes birth. He is without a second.

This is nonsense. Shatapatha Brahman is very explicit in that Rudra is born through BrahmA. Rudra cries and pleads to BrahmA to purify him by giving him names. Hence RudrA himself considers that he(RudrA) is sinful.

So by RurA's own words, RudrA is not paramatma.

Shatapatha Brahmana being a Sruti, this is confirmed. Case is closed.

July 31, 2005

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

Ravi how do you know I'm Atanu?

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

I've argued withu before under this ver thread under the name 'Guest' where I finally gave my name as Ravilochan.

so I know u as Atanu.

July 31, 2005

dear Kannadasan,

the above translation is found in 'Visnuchitta vijayam'(Volume 1 - pg.346).

this book is published by Sri Sudharshanar(Krishnaswamy Iyengar), the editor of 'Sri Vaishnava Sudharshanam'.

The book is in Tamil and if u need more details, u can ask for.

Thank you. I am US. I will try if I can get copies here. I have to read more on this particular verse. I have a Madhva translation of Chandogya Upanishad based on Madvacharya's commentary. Author is K.T. Pandurangi and Publisher is Sriman Madhva Siddhantonnahini Sabha.

I never knew of any Upanishad commentaries of Sri Vaishnava Acharyas or scholars. May be you can provide me some references.

Hari bol.

July 31, 2005

These were your translations:

“YEILD HIS PORTION OF YAJNA TO ANU ONE ELSE”,

“divine Vis.n.u, has attained the utmost limit of your magnitude -----,”

“Rudra asks boon, once dorectly from Visnu(RV 7:40:5)”

Pointing out your self-born translations as work of the ALL MIGHTY has brought out a flurry of anger, which is good. It tells what the truth is and also does you well, by venting out your anger. Else you would burst like a choked pressure cooker.

********

I cannot help laughing AT THIS FOOL Atanu. Only AN IDIOT PAR EXCELLENCE, Atanu, can reason so FOOLISHLY.

Let us look at mantra rAjA

ugram vIram mahAvishNum jwalantam sarvatomukham

nrusimham bIshaNam bhadram mrutyummrutyum namAmyaham

It is clear that this is a praise on Nrsimha Deva. Any guy with a bit of intellect can see that Ugram is a noun in this verse describing the quality of Nrsinha Deva and not Rudra.

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

Laugh heartily baby, it is good for your health. At least Atanu causes you to laugh. YES, DEAR. ATANU IS TRULY A FOOL AND IDIOT TO BE ENGAGING IN ARGUMENTS WITH LIKES OF YOU WHO PUT UP FOR COMPARISON THE INFINITE BEING. AS IF THE INFINITE BEING IS A ‘WAR LORD’.

ugram vIram mahAvishNum jwalantam sarvatomukham

nrusimham bIshaNam bhadram mrutyummrutyum namAmyaham

You say “Ugram is a noun in this verse describing the quality of Nrsinha Deva.” Oh, I see. I thought Ugram is an adjective? Oh, I see now. Thank you.

Then baby: nrusimham – even this is in the same form? To whom this noun (as per you and appearing not at the end and not in the beginning) refers to?

ugram vIram mahAvishNum jwalantam sarvatomukham

nrusimham bIshaNam bhadram mrutyummrutyum namAmyaham

All adjectives refer to Rudra. All these are referred in Sata Rudriya of Vedas.

Yes, these are all indicative of ONE LORD, who is santam ekam advaitam sivam. Sometimes bhadram comes out to spoil Dhaksa sacrifice and sometimes ugram comes out to tear Brahma’s head when he lusts after his own creation.

And shruti is clear and unambiguous as to SARVATOMUKHAM (present in above verse):

3. On all sides eye, on all sides face,

on all sides arms, on all sides feet,

he, God, the One, creates heaven and earth,

forging them together with arms and wings.

4. He who is source and origin of the Gods,

the Lord of all, Rudra, the mighty sage,

who produced in ancient days the Golden Germ--

may he endow us with purity of mind!

*********

Satapatha Brahmana explicitly mentions Rudra Deva born through BrahmA(Hiranyagarbha). This is very clear. How can one twist the interpretation like Atanu, answer is only Advaita can totally destroy a person's ability to think.

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

Atanu has already cited:

YAJUR VEDA

NAMA ATARYAYA CHALADYAYA CHA

SALUTATIONS TO HIM WHO IS BORN AND WHO TASTES THE FRUITS

God is ONE and ALL. God only has projected Jiva. HE IS WITHOUT A SECOND. And instead of repeating abuses like ‘fool and idiot’ give the book and verse numbers of the satpatha verses so that civil discussions can take place.

*********

In Satapatha Brahmana RudrA cries and asks BrahmA to cleanse him(Rudra) of sins. RudrA himself says he is sinful. There is not an iota of chance that Rudra Deva can be paramatma.*************

OH, I see. So, you think that a sinner like you is self born, without a source in Bhagawan?

And, you seem to have no inclination to grasp Veda Samhita verse which clearly sets out ISHA, PARA, and BHAGWAN.

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 - ISHHAVAH PARA TA BHAGAVO” ALONE MANIFESTS AS MANY, so satpatha essence is correct since HE himself is born in flesh, both from Diti and from Aditi.

You do not have the inclination to believe the followings also:

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..

Shvetaashvataropanishhat (tR^itiiyo.adhyaayaH ).

eko hi rudro na dvitiiyaaya tasthu\-

***********

Rest of your drivel is already answered by others. No point in going over it again. Just quoting again and again proves nothing, unless Atanu can explain logically which obviously Atanu is incapable of.

*********

“Drivel”. You have used such a nice word. How you commit mistakes such as “YEILD HIS PORTION OF YAJNA TO ANU ONE ELSE” is unimaginable, if not driven by the Supreme himself.

And boss, quoting again and again will help me and others read the mantras 108 times and more. I will do it as long as necessary. Remembering “eko hi rudro na dvitiiyaaya tasthu\-“, helps me to love all, including you. So, I will repeat.

eko hi rudro na dvitiiyaaya tasthu\

He is Bhagawan, Isha, and Param.

******

For others.

The word kamalaasanastham = Kamala + asana + stham

Asana means sitting. Stham also means standing or sitting.

Why would two synonyms occur one after another in the same compund word.

So kamalaasanastham means "Attending on BrahmA" or "Sitting on BrahmA". This is very simpple to understand.

**********

Yes, dear. You alone have the capacity to self generate translations as per your wish such as: “Rudra asks boon, once dorectly from Visnu(RV 7:40:5)”, where there is no such thing in as ‘dorectly’ and there is no such reference of Rudra asking for boon in RV 7.40.5.

I prefer to consult the experts and compare with an open mind.

AND YOU ARE LYING.

THE WORD IS “ASANASTHA” AND NOT “ASANA” AND “STHANAM” AS YOU PARSE:

11.15 ------Brahmaanameesham KAMALAASANASTHA-

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

. “asanastha” simply means positioned. The translation is simple:

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!

Lies do not remain unexposed. Only the truth prevails. Go ahead and abuse more. Be more unvedic and help to reveal the truth further.

July 31, 2005

Thank you. This is a very long thread. Nice to know you and discuss with you.

July 31, 2005

Smile please

**********

So by RurA's own words, RudrA is not paramatma.

***********

Who is this Rura?

You angered VAK, by trying to kill ISHA, BHAGA, PARA through her once. So, Vak will fail you again and again.

Smile.

July 31, 2005

Then baby: nrusimham – even this is in the same form? To whom this noun (as per you and appearing not at the end and not in the beginning) refers to?

ugram vIram mahAvishNum jwalantam sarvatomukham

nrusimham bIshaNam bhadram mrutyummrutyum namAmyaham

All adjectives refer to Rudra. All these are referred in Sata Rudriya of Vedas.

Yes, these are all indicative of ONE LORD, who is santam ekam advaitam sivam. Sometimes bhadram comes out to spoil Dhaksa sacrifice and sometimes ugram comes out to tear Brahma’s head when he lusts after his own creation.

And shruti is clear and unambiguous as to SARVATOMUKHAM (present in above verse):

3. On all sides eye, on all sides face, on all sides arms, on all sides feet,

he, God, the One, creates heaven and earth,

forging them together with arms and wings.

4. He who is source and origin of the Gods,

the Lord of all, Rudra, the mighty sage,

who produced in ancient days the Golden Germ--

may he endow us with purity of mind!

From your own verses you give out the truth and yet you do not see.

1. In verse 4 birth of Hiranyagarbha from this BEING called Rudra is given.

2. The verse 3 is is similar to Purusa Sukta. Taittiriya aranyaka mentions(13:03) explicitly that PURUSA is Lord of Hree and Lakshmi.

3. Shatapatha Brahmana explicitly states that RudrA is born of BrahmA or prajapati.

This proves that Lord Visnu is the one who is referred here in mantra rAjA and Svetasvatara and not Umapati RudrA.

How can RudrA be paramatma, when RudrA himself claims to be sinful. Poor Atanu cannot find where the veses are. So much for his perverted knowledge. All he can do is quote from unreliable english translations and make long ridiculous posts.

May be you need some encouragement. Atanu, you can find the verses in Shataptha Brahmana, work hard. Hard work is good for you.

God is ONE and ALL. God only has projected Jiva. HE IS WITHOUT A SECOND. And instead of repeating abuses like ‘fool and idiot’ give the book and verse numbers of the satpatha verses so that civil discussions can take place.

First your advaita itself is not proven, while dvaita is self-evident through experience all the time. So repeating meaningless statements will only fetch factual statements about you.

I prefer to consult the experts and compare with an open mind.

AND YOU ARE LYING.

THE WORD IS “ASANASTHA” AND NOT “ASANA” AND “STHANAM” AS YOU PARSE:

As usual poor Atanu cannot use his own mind and ascertain the meanings correctly on his own. He has to consult experts. So much for calling himself GOD.

These advaitis call themselves GOD and when they get problems go to other Gods for help.

Makes me laugh.

Some words

Kastha - Those who attend on Kubera

ekastha - One place

antara-stham - Situated within

Kamalasana indicates BrahmA.

Lies do not remain unexposed. Only the truth prevails. Go ahead and abuse more. Be more unvedic and help to reveal the truth further.

True, Your lies Atanu has been exposed and blown apart. Can you see that.

August 1, 2005

He He baby. You had cited this earlier also and that time there was no “self born”.

The correct translation is “He who brings gifts to him the Ancient and the Last, to Visnu who ordains, together with his Spouse, Who tells the lofty birth of him the Lofty One, shall verily surpass in glory e'en his peer.”

There is mention of mahat (lofty) birth – but no mention of Self born. I’m sorry baby; you are simply inserting words to support your ego.

The guy is totally out of his mind. For Atanu some english guy's translation is more valid than Sayana's tranlation or some Acharya's tranlation.

The sanskrit word is sumájjaanaye = sumáj + Jaanaye

The word su-máj means Svayam as per Sayana

Jaanaye means Born.

So the meaning is clear. Lord Visnu is "Self-Born".

I do not see any mention of the word "wife" here.

But Atanu will stick to a foreigners translation as it suits his blind belief in a wrong philosophy called advaita.

August 1, 2005

Yes, u r absolutely right. Atanu is crazy. he just closes his eyes when truth stares at his face. then atanu is very comfortable to point out typos when he does not have anything else to show. he forgets that evryone is not comfortable with typing. and he has no right to spak about this because he is absolutely ignorant of Sanskrit.

poor man. let God give him peace of mind.

August 1, 2005

U had asked Srinivasan to explain about 'Girishanta' as it is found in Rudram.

now I gave u a somewhat clear reason for the fact that Girishanta refers to Visnu even in Rudram.

another reason is that the Samhita refers to Visnu by the names of various devatas while praising them.

example:

while explaining 'Varuna Sukta', Sayana says that in a particular verse where Varuna is praised as the giver of all pleasures, 'Varuna' refers to Visnu.

similar is the case of Rudram.

August 1, 2005

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

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..

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

see the fallacy of ur arguments, Atanu. u translate 'ayam' as 'this' but leave it out when u give the meaning of the verse. Typical misinterpretation of Shaivite zealots.

let us see the verse.

shiva - Shiva

eva - only

svayam - himself

saakshaat - directly

ayam - this

brahma - Brahman

vidh uttama - best knower

the first line of the verse gives the LakshanAs of the Supreme.

the word 'ayam' clearly distinguishes Shiva and Brahman.

also 'ayam brahma' shows that all the LakshanAs found in the first line belong to this Brahman.

the actual meaning of the verse will be:

Only Shiva himself directly is the best knower of this Brahman which is "lakshyaalakshyamati.n tyaktvaa yastishhThetkevalaatmanaa ".

this is what the verse means. all these are characteristic of Brahman and not of Shiva.

the word 'ayam' implies this. but Atanu blindly closes his eyes and fails to identify the real meaning.

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

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.

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

Now Atanu tries to say that among them as Shiva is identified as Supreme Knower he must be the Brahman.

but the argument is baseless. Atanu will say that the Lord of moksha loka(Parama Padam) need not mean that the deity is Supreme. but he says knowledge of Brahman makes one Supreme.

but the verse clearly says 'ayam brahma' and hence Shiva cannot be that Brahman.

and certainly Visnu is not included in the deities among whom Shiva is the Supreme knower.

the reason is clear. here the Knower and known are differentiated by the word 'ayam'.

the known is Visnu. ('NArAyana param brahma')

thus Visnu cannot be considered as a knower in this verse. because the knower must be different from Brahman. the knower must be a jiva. Visnu is not a Jiva.

the verse is clear. but it is Atanu's mind which is not clear.

then when

August 1, 2005

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

AMONG DEVAS VISHNU IS PARAMA. “AMONG DEVAS”.

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

u have become blind, atanu. We have shown u more than once that Samhita identifies Rudra as a Deva. thus Rudra is also a Deva.

also saying that 'avama' means youngest in this context will amount to gross stupidity. also no old Sanskrit dictionary says so as far as I know.

because 'parama' does not mean old in any sense. there should be continuity in what is said. also, nowhere it is told that Agni is the youngest of all devas.

also note that the verse says that everyone lie between these two. if 'avamo' is taken to mean youngest (which is not at all possible) then the verse will become meaningless.

also atanu asks us whether all of them who lived before Krishna are doomed to fall when quoted from BG to show that the devotees of all other deities fall back to samsara.

the very question is an outburst of ignorance.

Visnu is eternal and He was worshipped even before His Krishna avatar. but atanu tries to differenntiate between Visnu and Krishna which is not possible.

so what Krishna says is very clear: only those who worship Krishna(VIsnu) can attain Moksha.

August 1, 2005

also atanu tries to say by quoting YV 3.2.6(a)(taittreya Samhita) that someone else is the heart of Visnu.

but unfortunately he fails to recognise that the verse is in praise of Yagna(sacrifice).

all his misinterpretations about Visnu inferior to Indra and such stupid claims have been proven wrong long before in this very thread but he has not refuted them so far. still he keeps on repeating the lies just as a typical Shaivite zealot.

he will claim that he is not a shaivite just as a shaivite does during arguments. they call themselves 'smartha'.

atanu,

u have been squarely defeated in this thread. but u won't stop blabbering. so keep on doing it till u want it to do. it can in no way disprove the truth - Visnu is the Supreme God.

Worship of Siva versus Worship of Lord Vishnu

Recommended Posts

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Posted Images

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest