Worship of Siva versus Worship of Lord Vishnu

[Guest guest]

********

"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'."

 

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."

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

 

 

 

This is a good proof of interpolation. Thank you for providing it.

 

Where there is no ITI, you insert it. Where there is no “ETAT PURUSHA YAGNYAM”, you insert it. One can insert anything to create any meaning. If there was any need for ITI, it would have been there.

 

 

But you are correct that occurrences of two “said”, one after another is inappropriate. And you have used this inappropriate parsing to create a wrong translation.

 

 

Your translation is absolutely bogus, since “devakiiputraayoktvovaachaapipaasa eva sa babhuuva” INDICATES CLEARLY THAT DEVAKI PUTRA BECAME (BABHUUVA) THIRST LESS.

 

The exact verse is

 

 

taddhaitadghor aaN^girasaH kR^ishhNaaya

devakiiputraayoktvovaachaapipaasa eva sa babhuuva

so.antavelaayaametattrayaM pratipadyetaakshitamasyachyutamasi

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

 

 

Three translations are given below from three independent sources.

 

 

III-xvii-6 Ghora Ângirasa, after having communicated this (view of the sacrifice) to Krishna, the son of Devăkî --who never thirsted again--said: 'Let a man, when his end approaches, take refuge with this Triad: "Thou art the imperishable,Thou art the unchangeable,Thou art the edge of Prâna."' On this subject there are two Rik verses (Rig-veda VIII, 6, 30):--

 

 

 

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 thirstless. There are these two Rik stanzas in regard to this.

 

 

III-xvii-6 Ghora, Angirasa, communicated this teaching to Krishna, the son of Devaki—and it quenched Krishna’s thirst for any other knowledge—and said: "When a man approaches death he should take refuge in these three thoughts: ‘Thou art indestructible (akshata),’ ‘Thou art unchanging (aprachyuta),’ and ‘Thou art the subtle prana." On this subject there are two Rik—verses:

 

 

 

It is truly painful for those steeped in Puranas to accept Upanishadic statement: Tat Tvam Asi (Thou art That), told to Svetaketu 9 times. When the same (similar three vakyas were told to Krishna He became thirstless.

 

 

THAT IS IT. ELSE SVETAKETU IS KRISHNA.

 

 

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

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.

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

 

 

This is another jugglery to appease ego. Ravi says that actual translation would be “------Rudra gained his Rudra strength-----“.

 

 

Where is the word “Gained” or “Obtained”?

 

On the other hand, he says if it meant “Rudra’s Rudra strength”, it should have been Rudrasya.

 

 

Well, why do translate the first word “asyá = IDAM - All these” Then Rudro is translated as Rudra Deva. Childish attempts.

 

Asyá (as all know) means “of”. And Idam also is not “all these” but “this”.

 

THE RUDRASYA YOU WERE SEARCHING FOR IS THERE IN THE BEGINNING ITSELF. WHEREAS “GAINED” OR “OBTAINED” IS NOT THERE. GO ON HARM YOURSELF.

 

The true translation is:

 

 

We propitiate Vishnu ------- knowing him Rudra’s Rudra glory -----.

 

This fits with samhita verses as below:

 

 

YAJUR VEDA I. 8. 6. D RUDRA ALONE YIELDETH TO NO SECOND

 

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 all are his glories alone.

 

 

There is a Rig Veda verse on this.

 

 

Rig Veda Book 5 HYMN III. Agni.

 

3 The life forces deck their beauty for thy glory, yea, Rudra, for thy birth fair, brightly-coloured. That which was fixed as Visnu's loftiest station-therewith the secret of the Cows thou guardest.

 

 

We love Nilgriva as Isha, Para and Bhagawan based on Vedas:

 

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 ||

 

 

And we love all his glories also.

 

 

 

EKO HI RUDRO NA DVITIIYAAYA TASTHU\-

 

[Guest guest]

 

This is another jugglery to appease ego. Ravi says that actual translation would be “------Rudra gained his Rudra strength-----“.

 

 

Where is the word “Gained” or “Obtained”?

 

On the other hand, he says if it meant “Rudra’s Rudra strength”, it should have been Rudrasya.

 

 

Well, why do translate the first word “asyá = IDAM - All these” Then Rudro is translated as Rudra Deva. Childish attempts.

 

Asyá (as all know) means “of”. And Idam also is not “all these” but “this”.

 

THE RUDRASYA YOU WERE SEARCHING FOR IS THERE IN THE BEGINNING ITSELF. WHEREAS “GAINED” OR “OBTAINED” IS NOT THERE. GO ON HARM YOURSELF.

 

The true translation is:

 

 

We propitiate Vishnu ------- knowing him Rudra’s Rudra glory -----.

 

 

This is funny. Perhaps Atanu does not understand anything about grammar.

 

Possessive form of noun Rudra is Rudrasya.

 

One cannot so foolishly tell that "asya" is in the begining and then combine unrelated words to get some other irrational meanings. Atanu do you think this is right ? Surely you can think once in your lifetime.

 

Grammatically "Rudrasya" is the genitive form. It means "of Rudra". Since this noun does not appear in this form, one cannot translate as you have done.

 

To add to his irrational conclusion, Mr. Atanu completely forgets the words "Vide hi".

 

Here "hi" means - Definitely, certainly, On account of

 

Vide means - Knowing, understanding

 

So one can logically see that these two words "Vide Hi" connects the present sentence to previous sentence.

 

Hence Atanu's malpractise of inventing new twisted translation is exposed.

 

The truly true translation Mr.Atanu is as follows.

 

"Certainly knowing this, Rudra got his Rudra glory."

[Guest guest]

I had the opportunity to read the entire threads at one go. To me it is amusing and very childish. Everybody has a right to worship his ishta devata and praise its glory but nobody has the right to denigrate others ishta devata. One who does that is not a Hindu at all, leave alone he being a vaishnavite or shivite. Not only this, I also read that some one advances an argument that he is doing this as his acharya has asked him to defend. By continuing this maligning and slandering words he is bringing disrepute his acharya as well. His acharya has asked him only to defend but not to offend somebody. This is exceeding the brief for which he can no longer have the support of his acharya.

In tamil there is a popular saying, hariyum sivanum onnu, ithai ariyathavan vayila mannu (Hari and Siva are one and the same, only ignorant people distinguish). I am just wishfully thinking, that this thread starts taking about the glories and leelas of sri Krishna and Parameswara ( but I should admit each side has not spared any effort in bringing disrepute the ishta devata of the other).

I again reminded of a typical tamilnadu scene. A few years back, we had talk shows called patti mandram (I think a few still happening). A typical subject for the talk show will be like this: Karpil siranthaval kannakiya seethiya (who is greater in womanly virtues, kannaki or seethe). After hearing the arguments of both sides the sides, the audience will have a feeling that both are worse than prostitutes. That is the level of mudslinging happens in that talkshow rather than praising respective virtues of Kannaki or Seetha, both are revered much more than their mothers.

I need not point out that Hindu religion is at cross roads at this point of time where our younger generation is aping the west and they are only after money (to me, this is much worse than Muslim invasion and British colonialisation) and do not care for their parents. It is our duty to tell them that our religious way of best suited for any time rather than indulging in one up manship and intellectual masturbation.

Finally, I seek pardon, if I have hurt the feelings/sentiments of anybody.

 

[Guest guest]

Vak has left you, my friend

 

 

********This is funny. Perhaps Atanu does not understand anything about grammar.

 

Possessive form of noun Rudra is Rudrasya.********

 

 

Yes, it is funny. I don’t know whom to believe amongst the self proclaimed grammar experts. You say as above and Ravi said: “infact if the meaning is 'Rudra's Rudra power' then the word must have been 'RUDRASYA'”

 

 

Does not matter really since: “vidé hi (on account of Knowing this) rudró rudríyam mahitváM – (Rudra glory)”, is incomplete and does not mean “----Rudra obtained glory-----”.

 

 

Even, “on account of” is willfully inserted, hi means “truly”.

 

 

So, does a phrase “Knowing truly Rudra Rudra glory” can ever mean: “Knowing this, Rudra obtained Rudra glory”?

 

 

The verse means: We propitiate Vishnu------truly knowing the Rudra’s Rudra glory.

 

However you are free to interpret as you wish.

 

 

 

*********

“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. *****************

 

Kastha - Those who attend on Kubera, does not indicate kamalaasanastha is “One who waits on BrahmA”’’

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

 

 

Earlier you had said as below:

 

“ Brahmaanameesham kamalaasanastha-

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

 

 

And to support this you parsed: Kamalaasanastham = KamalAsana + stham.

Do not be angry. Be humble. No one has claimed to be God here.

 

 

 

I just pointed out that the word is “kamalaasanastha” and not “Kamalaasanastham”. Instead of accepting the mistake, you become abusive.

 

 

 

11.15 Pashyaami devaamstava deva dehe

Sarvaamstathaa bhootavisheshasanghaan;

Brahmaanameesham kamalaasanastha-

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

 

 

Lord Shiva is not kamalaasanastha and there is no Shiva in this verse as translated willfully by some people (only one of course).

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Oh. Ravi, hearing your name I remember God. But why so much anger?

 

 

******atanu is very comfortable to point out typos**********

 

 

Those typos simply indicate the control of Vak Devi. Don’t you believe that God does everything?

 

 

And writing about God needs care. One should not be careless, Ravi dear.

 

 

*******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.*************

 

 

 

OK. Then Vishnu is not Brahman since:

 

RV HYMN XCIX. Visnu.

1. MEN come not nigh thy majesty who growest beyond all bound and measure with thy body. Both thy two regions of the earth, O Visnu, we know: thou God, are cognizant of the highest also.

 

 

 

THUS, VISHNU IS MERELY COGNIZANT OF THE HIGHEST AND NOT THE HIGHEST AS PER YOUR STATEMENT: “THE KNOWER MUST BE DIFFERENT FROM BRAHMAN”.

 

 

 

******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".**************

 

 

 

sumájjaanaye is born of Suma and Suma is S-Uma: Soma (moon, air, Soma).

 

 

 

And this is valid from the Rig Veda verses (there are several):

 

 

RV Book 1 HYMN XLIII. Rudra.

 

1 WHAT shall we sing to Rudra, strong, most bounteous, excellently wise, That shall be dearest to his heart?

-------

4 To Rudra Lord of sacrifice, of hymns and balmy medicines, We pray for joy and health and strength.

5 He shines in splendour like the Sun, refulgent as bright gold is he, The good, the best among the Gods.

7 O Soma set thou upon us the glory of a hundred men, The great renown of mighty chiefs.

---------

9 Soma! head, central point, love these; Soma! Know these as serving thee, Children of thee Immortal, at the highest place of holy law.

 

 

 

 

RV Book 9 HYMN XCVI. Soma Pavamana

 

---------

5 Father of holy hymns, Soma flows onward the Father of the earth, Father of heaven: Father of Agni, Surya's generator, the Father who begat Indra and Visnu.

 

 

Yes, dear Aditi son. Uma's son. We love Him. Glorious son.

 

 

And Sayana did not translate into English. You are using misusing Sayana’s name

 

 

 

*******Yes, u r absolutely right. Atanu is crazy.***************

 

 

Nice epithets to use Ravi. Very nice. It is sweet; it is good to be crazy about God.

 

 

 

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

 

 

Oh, yes. The verse says: Ya te Rudra Shiva tanura ghora papakashini taya nastanuva shantamaya girisanta bhichakashihi ||

 

 

So, if "Girishanta" refers to Vishnu then “Rudra Shiva” is “Girishanta-Vishnu” since the verse directly refers to Rudra Shiva.

 

 

Ya te Rudra Shiva tanura ghora papakashini taya nastanuva shantamaya girisanta bhichakashihi ||

 

 

 

AND THAT WE KNOW SHIVA IS VISHNU AND VISHNU IS SHIVA. AND WE LOVE BOTH, THE CAUSE AND THE EFFECT AS ONE.

 

 

 

**********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.***************

 

 

 

 

AGAIN A NICE EPITHET --- BLIND. ARE YOU SEETHING WITH ANGER? WHY DON’T YOU FOLLOW THE ADVICE GIVEN BY RESPECTED JNDAS IN ANOTHER THREAD?

 

 

 

 

 

No doubt Rudra is also a deva – but a self powerful one as indicated below:

 

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 (svadhaávne). HE HAS LORDSHIP OVER EARTHLY AND HEAVENLY BEINGS.

 

 

 

AND ALSO HE IS ISHA, PARA 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 ||

 

 

 

He is also ONE WITHOUT A SECOND:

 

SHVETAASHVATAROPANISHHAT (TR^ITIIYO.ADHYAAYAH ).

 

EKO HI RUDRO NA DVITIIYAAYA TASTHU\-

 

 

 

However you abuse me Ravi, still I love you, Ravi.

 

 

[Guest guest]

Dear Kannan/Ravi/Bindu

 

 

Narad Pancharatra:

 

Shivo Harirhariha Shakshatchiva Eva Nirupitaha |

 

Shivadveshi Haridrohi Vishnum Nityam Bhajanapi ||

 

 

‘Shiva is Hari and Hari is none other than Shiva. An enemy of Shiva is an enemy of Hari, even though he may daily worship Vishnu.’

 

 

The purport of Vedas is that Brahman is ONE -- as cause and effect together. By hating either one you will hate the ONE only.

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

I follow Shuddadvaita philosphy (Rudra Sampradaya). So i worship both Vishnu & Shiva.

 

But i worship Vishnu as Supreme God and Shiva as Guru.

 

The phrase telling Shiva & Vishnu as ONE is baseless.

 

Anyway i am not here to argue. I request Smarthas or shaivatees to delete some episodes portraying Vishnu as Inferior or evil in Shiva Purana. For Example :- In Shiva Purana Lord Narashima is portayed as evil god and werer killed by Sarabeswara.

 

So Shaivatees should respect Lord Vishnu rather than depicting Vishnu as inferior or evil.

 

In Vaishnava Puranas, Shiva is not portrayed as Evil or inferior. This shows the morality of Vaishnavas.

 

So Shaivatees should hang their heads in shame for depicting Vishnu as evil or inferior.

 

Note : In olden days many vishnu temples got destroyed by Shaivatees. But till todate no shiva temple got destroyed by Vaishnavas. Also Shaivatees tried to kill Lord Ramanuja , Lord Madhvacharya and other acharyas. This shows that Shaivatees are basically fanatic.

[Guest guest]

 

Yes, it is funny. I don’t know whom to believe amongst the self proclaimed grammar experts. You say as above and Ravi said: “infact if the meaning is 'Rudra's Rudra power' then the word must have been 'RUDRASYA'”

 

 

You must find it by yourselves instead of getting spoon fed(this is not an insult). Try to learn grammar about different noun cases in Sanskrit.

 

 

Does not matter really since: “vidé hi (on account of Knowing this) rudró rudríyam mahitváM – (Rudra glory)”, is incomplete and does not mean “----Rudra obtained glory-----”.

 

Even, “on account of” is willfully inserted, hi means “truly”.

 

So, does a phrase “Knowing truly Rudra Rudra glory” can ever mean: “Knowing this, Rudra obtained Rudra glory”?

 

The verse means: We propitiate Vishnu------truly knowing the Rudra’s Rudra glory.

 

However you are free to interpret as you wish.

 

 

Your interpretation is wrong for the reasons stated below.

 

1. You said "hi" in "Vide hi" means "Truly".

 

The meaning as you think is wrong. You can ask any grammar expert.

 

"hi" means "certainly" or "indeed" or "on account of" or "accordingly" which connects the present sentence(effect) with previous sentence(cause).

 

The word "hi" points the cause for the effect indicated.

 

Think of parallels in Hindi. May be then you would understand the sanskrit verse clearly.

 

2. It cannot translate as Rudra's Rudra glory.

 

The word "Rudro" in "Rudro Rudriyam Mahitvam" is in Nominative case. It is not in genitive case "Rudrasya".

 

Genitive case indicates the noun possessing something in a sentence.

 

The nominative case points the subject directly. Therefore Rudro points to Rudra Deva without doubt.

 

Now coming to your point, you said there is no word "gaining" in the sanskrit verse.

 

This is true, but based on context one can construct the meaning of an imcomplete sentence.

 

For example when one says "He completed", based on context the person knows "He completed the task" or something like that.

 

The context here is

 

asyá devásya miiLhúSo vayaá víSNor eSásya prabhRthé havírbhiH

 

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.

 

This meanin is in line with vis.nuh sarva_ devata_h (Aitareya Bra_hman.a 1.1) which says Visnu is the antaryami of all devatas.

 

After this, the sanskrit verse goes on to say

 

vidé hí rudró rudríyam mahitváM

yaasiSTáM vartír ashvinaav íraavat

 

Hence(certainly) knowing(this), RudrA (obtained) "Rudra greatness".

The Asvini brothers bring abundant sacrificial food for the purpose of propitiating Visnu.

 

As explaines before "hi" points to the cause of present sentence.

 

It would be meaningless to say that Visnu, the antaryami and controller of devatas, grants all the desires of his worshippers and then say that Visnu is another Devata's energy, when the first verse clearly mentions Visnu is antaryami and controller of ALL THESE DEVATAS(asya devasya) including Rudra.

 

All you need is to open your mind a little bit to see the truth. This explanation(of Vaishnavas) perfectly fits the context here.

 

 

I just pointed out that the word is “kamalaasanastha” and not “Kamalaasanastham”. Instead of accepting the mistake, you become abusive.

 

 

“kamalaasanastha” or “kamalaasanastham” both give the same meaning.

 

“kamalaasanastha” is Nominative case

 

“kamalaasanastham” is in Accustative case.

 

It is like "Isa" and "Isam"

 

(or)

 

It is like "He" and "Him".

 

It is just one is Subject of a sentece and another is object of teh sentence.

 

In either possibilities, it refers to Isam and further explains Isam as “kamalaasanastha” or “kamalaasanastham”.

 

If you read Venketasa Suprabatham, you can find that “kamalaasana” refers to BrahmA. So “kamalaasanastha” or “kamalaasanastham” means "one who depends on BrahmA".

[Guest guest]

 

sumájjaanaye is born of Suma and Suma is S-Uma: Soma (moon, air, Soma).

 

And this is valid from the Rig Veda verses (there are several):

 

 

This must be some joke..Right

 

Take "Suma" out from the word, then take out "U" and put "O", and

 

TA DA we have "SOMA".

 

Now prove me wrong, how can you deny this ?

 

Sa says Mr. Atanu.

 

Nice Joke Mr. Atanu.

[Guest guest]

 

 

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

RV HYMN XCIX. Visnu.

1. MEN come not nigh thy majesty who growest beyond all bound and measure with thy body. Both thy two regions of the earth, O Visnu, we know: thou God, are cognizant of the highest also.

 

THUS, VISHNU IS MERELY COGNIZANT OF THE HIGHEST AND NOT THE HIGHEST AS PER YOUR STATEMENT: “THE KNOWER MUST BE DIFFERENT FROM BRAHMAN”.

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

 

 

sheer ignorance.

 

dear Atanu,

here nowhere is Visnu differentiated from Brahman. the knower is not shown to be different from Brahman(known). but the verse in Mahiopanishad clearly shows that the knower and the known(Brahman) are different.

 

infact, Vak has failed u(as u say) for it is clear to see for everyone that u do not understand even the most simple terms in Sanskrit which makes u incompetent to argue upon the Vedas.

 

 

 

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

RV Book 9 HYMN XCVI. Soma Pavamana

 

---------

5 Father of holy hymns, Soma flows onward the Father of the earth, Father of heaven: Father of Agni, Surya's generator, the Father who begat Indra and Visnu.

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

 

 

it has been told time and again that 'Soma' here refers to 'soma juice'. 'soma juice' is praised as the father of Deities as it satisfies them(when offered in sacrifice) and hence it begets the Gods to humans(thus praised as father).

 

even going by Atanu's favourite Griffith, we will understand that the verses praise Soma juice and not Shiva:

 

9.96.3

" O God, for service of the Gods flow onward, for food sublime, as Indra's drink, O Soma.

Making the floods, bedewing earth and heaven, come from the vast, comfort us while we cleanse thee"

 

9.96.4

"Flow for prosperity and constant Vigour, flow on for happiness and high perfection.

This is the wish of these friends assembled: this is my wish, O Soma Pavamana."

 

9.96.5

" Father of holy hymns, Soma flows onward the Father of the earth, Father of heaven:

Father of Agni, Surya's generator, the Father who begat Indra and Visnu."

 

FROM ALL THE ABOVE VERSES, IT CAN BE SEEN THAT THE SOMA JUICE IS PRAISED HERE AND NOT SHIVA. THE EPITHETS USED ARE 'INDRA'S DRINK(3)', 'FLOW FOR CONSTANT VIGOUR(4)', 'SOMA FLOWS ONWARD(5)'. SHIVA IS NEITHER INDRA'S DRINK NOR IS HE A LIQUID TO FLOW.

 

ALSO THE 13TH VERSE IS VERY CLEAR.

 

9.96.13

"Flow onward, Soma, rich in sweets and holy,. enrobed in waters on the fleecy summit.

Settle in vessels that are full of fatness, as cheering and most gladdening drink for Indra."

 

 

NOTE : "SETTLE IN VESSELS THAT ARE FULL OF FATNESS, AS CHEERING AND MOST GLADDENING DRINK OF INDRA."

 

infact, in this hymn the translation of Griffith is very close to that of Sayana. both of them accept the fact that the hymn is in praise of Soma juice though there are certain diferences in word translation.

 

but Atanu will close his eyes to these facts.

 

 

 

 

 

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

Oh, yes. The verse says: Ya te Rudra Shiva tanura ghora papakashini taya nastanuva shantamaya girisanta bhichakashihi ||

 

So, if "Girishanta" refers to Vishnu then “Rudra Shiva” is “Girishanta-Vishnu” since the verse directly refers to Rudra Shiva.

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

 

once again an exposure of Atanu's ignorance.

 

Visnu is 'sarva shabda vAchya'(Bhallaveya shruti). the above verse does not refer to Rudradeva. It refers to the creator of Rudradeva as it has been pointed out earlier. so all ur arguments are manifestations of absolute ignorance and arrogance.

 

 

 

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

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

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

 

once again the above interpretation shows ur ignorance.

 

'dhaavne' in no way means powerful.

 

let us see. 'sva' means 'self'/'one's own'/'by oneself'.

 

'dhaavne' means 'purify' (a form of 'dhaavate').

 

or else, even if 'svadhaavne' is taken to mean 'svadhaa' even then it will mean 'pleasing oneself'.

 

it does not mean powerful in any sense. do not twist the emaning of the verses. unless u learn some basic Sanskrit grammar, u can never understand the nuances of Vedas.

 

 

 

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

AND ALSO HE IS ISHA, PARA AND BHAGAWAN:

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

 

'Isha' is just a name given to Rudra by Brahmadeva(shatapatha). 'para' is used here. but it is neither used as 'param brahmah' nor is it used in such a way that Rudradeva is superior to everyone. so here 'para' just means that he is a superior deity and not the 'Supreme'.

 

in sheer contrast, 'Visnu paramas' is used in relation to all the deities.

 

'bhagavo' does not mean the Supreme God in any sense. but Atanu does not understand. he just keeps on parroting the same old story.

 

[Guest guest]

the following is a quotation from Bhaallaveya shruti. this is also accepted as a pramaana by prominent Achaaryaas and has been often quoted by them.

 

`nAmAni vishvA.abhi na santi loke yadAvirAsIdanR^itasya sarvam.h |

 

nAmAni sarvAni yamAvishanti taM vai viShNuM paramamudAharanti |'

 

iti bhAllaveyashrutiH |

 

Which says that only VISNU IS THE PRIMARY REFERRENT OF ALL NAMES.

 

THESE VERY LINES ARE CITED BY MADHVACHARYA IN HIS BRAHMA SUTRA BHASHYA.

 

thus when we say that 'Rudra','Shiva','Shambhu' etc refer to VIshnu when they r used to speak about the Supreme Lord, it is based on Sruti itself.

 

THEREFORE NOTE THAT WHEN WE SAY 'EKO HI RUDRO...' REFERS TO VISNU, IT IS BASED ON THIS SRUTI. WE SAY THAT 'RUDRA' IN SUCH PLACES REFERS TO VISNU. IT IS ABSOLUTELY RIGHT AND IS IN TANDEM WITH THIS SRUTI QUOTED.

 

LET ATANU SHOW A SINGLE QUOTE FROM SRUTI WHICH SHOWS THAT RUDRA IS 'SARVA SHABDA VACHYA.'

 

ONLY THE SUPREME BRAHMAN IS 'SARVA SHABDA VACHYA' AND VISNU IS CLEARLY SHOWN TO BE THE ONE.

 

[Guest guest]

Paingi Shruti:

 

`sarvotkarshhe devadevasya vishhNor-

mahAtAtparyaM naiva chAnyatra satyam.h |

avAntaraM tatparatvaM tadanyat.h

sarvAgamAnAM purushhArthastato.ataH ||' iti paiN^gishrutiH |

 

"The Supremacy of Vishnu, the Deity-of-deities, is the supreme purport, and not otherwise -- this is true; other purports than this of all Agama-s are inferior, because of the supreme purushhArtha," says the Paingi-shruti.

 

 

show me a single verse which says that Supremacy of Rudra is the Supreme purport.

note the word 'SARVOTKARSHE'. nowhere is Rudra called as Superior to everyone. just calling 'para' is not at all an expression of 'Supremacy.' try to show a verse like this which is very clear.

 

in fact it says that all the agamas which go against this Supreme purport are inferior. no such specific praises for Rudradeva. the reason is that Rudradeva is a jiva as pointed out by Shatapatha. Rudra is not Paramatma.

 

[Guest guest]

"sarvo vai rudras tasmai rudrAya namo astu|

purusho vai rudrassan maho namo astu|

visvam bhUtam bhuvanam chitram bahudhA jAtham

jAyamAnanchayat|sarvo hyesha rudras tasmai rudrAya namo astu|"

 

 

Meaning:

 

"All these are verily (called) Rudra. Salutations to that Rudra. Parama Purusha is (called) Rudra. Salutations to Him again and again. all this universe, all these entities, all the wondrous worlds that were variedly born or being born - all that is verily this Rudra alone. to that Rudra, we offer our salutations."

 

the verse says "sarvo vai rudra", "purusho vai rudra".

 

thus it is the Supreme Brahman, the Parama Purusha, who is called as Rudra here. not the other way around. atanu does not know sanskrit and so let me explain so that he might understand.

 

when the vedas say "Rudro vai krUrah"

 

it means that Rudra is (called) a cruel person. thus cruel person(krUra) is a name/attribute of Rudra. but it cannot be said that every cruel person is Rudra.

 

similar is the case above. Rudra in the above verse is a name/attribute of 'sarva' and 'purusha'. not the other way around.

 

in the verse 'sarva' also refers to Parambrahman as the very next line says 'purusho vai rudra'.

 

now the question is who is this ParamaPurusha / Param Brahman.

 

the answer is given by Taittreya Aranyaka itself of which maha narayana upa. is a part.

 

Purusha SUkta is read in Taittreya Aranyaka and it identifies the Parama Purusha as

 

"hreeshcha te lakshmIscha patnyow"

 

meaning:

"One who has BhUmi(Hree) and Lakshmi as His wives"

 

it is well known that BhUmi and LakshmI are wives of Visnu. the Parama Purusha is identified as Lakshmi Pati(Visnu).

 

thus the Parama Prusha is Visnu.

 

it is Visnu who is 'Sarva'.

 

Subala Upanishad says:

"esha sarva bhUtAntarAtmA apahatapApmA divyo deva eko nArAyanah..."

 

NArAyana Upanishad says:

"sarva bhUtas tam ekam NArAyanam..."

 

MahA nArAyana upanishad itself says:

"..........visvam nArAyanaM harim|"

"antar bahischa tat sarvam vyApya nArAyana sthitah|"

 

 

it is well known that 'Narayana' name refers only to Visnu. hence there is no chance of reinterpretation.

 

thus the word 'sarva' and 'purusha' refer to Visnu and hence these verses of tvarita rudra mantras refer to Visnu and not Rudra. it is Visnu who is called by the name 'Rudra' in these mantras.

 

infact the bhAllavEya sruti clearly says that Visnu is Sarva shabda vAchya. i have already quoted it before.

 

also Atanu might argue that the third mantra of this tvarita rudra says 'umApati'.

 

but Nrisimha TApani clearly calls Nrisimha as umApati thus establishing the fact that Visnu is sarva shabda vAchya.

 

Nrisimha tApani(1.12) says,

 

"rutaM satyam param brahma Nrikesari Vigraham krishna pingalam |

Urdhvaretam virUpAksham shankaram nIlalohitam |

umApati pashupati pinAkI hyamithadyuti |

IsAnas sarva vidyanAm Iswaras sarva bhUtanAm brahmAdhipathir brahmano(a)dhipathih |"

 

[Guest guest]

the verse says:

 

"IshAnas sarva vidhyAnAm Iswaras sarva bhUtAnAm

BrahmAdhipathir Brahmano(a)dhipathir brahma shivo mE astu sada shivom |"

 

meaning:

"the Lord of all branches of knowledge, the lord of all living beings, the Supreme master of the Vedas(brahmAdhipathir), the lord of Brahmadeva(brahmano(a)dhipathir), the one who has Brahma as His VibhUti(brahmA), the one who is ever free from defiling and ever auspicious(sadAshiva), signified by pranava(Om), may Him be the bestower of good for me(shivo mE astu)."

 

 

atanu tries to make 'Sadashiva' to mean Rudra but it is not possible as sadashiva is never used to refer to Rudra in the Sruti anywhere else. 'sadashiva' means ever auspicious and free from defiling.

 

'sadashiva' means 'sarvadha niravadhya'.

 

also Nrisimha tapani(1.12) says:

 

"........... IshAnas sarva vidhyAnAm Iswaras sarva bhUtAnAm BrahmAdhipathir Brahmano(a)dhipathih|"

 

and this forms the major part of the above verse. also the verse of Nrisimha Tapani quoted above clearly says in the very beginning that the deity reffered to is 'NRIKESARI'(NARASIMHA).thus the mantra refers to Visnu and not to Rudra. also Visnu being sarva shabda vAchya this translation is absolutely correct.

 

 

now let us see some very strong vAkyAs of MahAnArAyana Upanishad:

 

"nArAyana param brahma| tatvam nArAyanah parah|"

 

meaning:

"Narayana is the Supreme Brahman. Narayana is the Supreme Reality."

 

"nArAyana paro jyothir| AtmA nArAyanah parah|"

 

meaning:

"Narayana is the Supreme Light. Narayana is the Supreme Soul."

 

note that 'Narayana' name refers only to Lord Visnu and it cannot be taken to mean anyone else.

 

also MahAnArAyana Upanishad says:

 

"yena(aa)vrutam kancha dhivam mahIncha yenAdityastapathi tejasA brAjasA cha|

yamantas samudre kavayo vayanti yadhakshare parame prajAh|"

 

meaning:

"He ,by whom the atmospheric region, the cellestial region and the terrestrial region are pervaded, by whose splendour and heat the sun illumines and whom the wise sages know as RESIDING IN THE OCEAN, is residing in the Supreme immutable abode. He is Brahman (parame prajAh)."

 

 

Atanu will try to argue that Rudra resides in waters as well. but the exact word used here is 'Samudra'(ocean) and not just waters. by the way mahanarayana upanishad itself says in "namoagnaye(a)psumathe.....namo(a)dbhyah||" that Agni, Indra, Varuna, VAruni(wife of Varuna) reside in waters.

 

so sruti has clearly said 'Samudra' in order to refer to Visnu for residing in Samudra is a distinct feature of Visnu.

 

also Nrisimha tApani(1.10) says

"kshIrodhArnavashAyinam nrikEsarim....."

 

meaning:

"Nrisimha, who is lying upon the milk ocean,....."

 

thus Visnu is the one who has His home in ocean and it is his distinct mark just as residing in kailasha is the distinct mark of Rudra.

 

by referring to this unique feature in the very beginning Mahanarayana Upanishad clearly identifies Visnu as the Supreme Brahman.

 

[Guest guest]

also note that 'sadashiva' is not a distinct name of any deity. it is just an adjective. even in Rudram 'sadashivaya' refers to the character of being ever auspicious and it is not a name of rudradeva. many terms of Rudram are adjectives and not names. Atanu can seek clarification from any learned person to understand this or simply refer to Sayana's translation.

 

also Bhallaveya sruti and Nrisimha Tapani make it clear that the deity of the mantra 'Isanas sarva...' is the Supreme Lord Visnu.

[Guest guest]

1.156.02 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).

 

 

 

don't try to misinterpret this verse,Atanu. when u gave ur first interpretation, u never said that the verse says Soma is father of Visnu.

 

but when pointed out that 'sumajjaanaye' means 'self born', u try to misinterpret 'suma' as 'soma' and write some rubbish. don't torture the Vedas. anyway ur mistake was clearly pointed out by Kannadasan.

 

then the next verse:

 

10.113.02 Vis.n.u offering the portion of the Soma, glorified by his own vigour that greatness of his. Indra, the lord of wealth, with the associated gods having slain Vr.tra, became deserving of honour.

 

 

and

 

7.099.02 No being that is or that has been born, 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.

 

 

note that there is no one equal to Visnu as pointed out by this verse. Atanu might try to say that Rudra is superior to Visnu. but even that is not possible.

 

 

and the above verse of Rg Veda is expalined by Krishna in Bhagavad Gita as follows:

 

7.7 - "There is nothing Superior to me, arjuna. Like clusters of yarn-beads formed by knots on a thread, all these are borne by me(threaded on me)."

 

thus no one is superior to Visnu and all the others are borne by Visnu, the Supreme Lord.

 

from Rg eda:

 

7.100.03 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.

[Guest guest]

from Rg Veda:

 

7.100.03 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.

 

in the earlier post there was a typo. atanu will look only at that. so I have corrected it now. let him try to answer my posts in a genuine way(without deliberate misinterpretations).

[Guest guest]

 

 

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

This is a good proof of interpolation. Thank you for providing it.

 

Where there is no ITI, you insert it. Where there is no “ETAT PURUSHA YAGNYAM”, you insert it. One can insert anything to create any meaning. If there was any need for ITI, it would have been there.

 

But you are correct that occurrences of two “said”, one after another is inappropriate. And you have used this inappropriate parsing to create a wrong translation.

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

 

this shows ur ignorance. Sruti is infallible. I said that occurences of two 'said' will become inappropriate if the verse is translated wrongly as u have done.

 

sruti cannot have any inappropriate parsing.

 

there is no interpolation made by me. infact, this shows ur sheer ignorance of Sanskrit. so, Vak is failing u again and again. u expose ur ignorance time and again.

 

Gora upon reciting the Purusha Vidya(Purusha Yagna) became thirstless. the Mantras were recited to propitiate Lord Krishna.

 

'etat Purusha Yagnyam' is referred to in the verse as 'tad dhai tat'. they refer to the Purusha Vidya expounded in Chandogya.

 

two 'said' words are used. my translation is understood by the usage of two 'said' one after another.

 

first Gora said 'For Krishna, Devaki's son'.(thus Krishna is praised in the mantras). 'iti' just means 'this was said'. when u give the meaning of verses words like 'iti' are used to give the meaning clearly. they r no interpolations. even 'tat tvam asi' is interpreted by Sankara in the same way. 'asi' is taken to mean 'bhavati' by Sankara. u give th interpretation of Sankara for 'tat tvam asi' but u fail to see the logic behing such interpretations. this shows ur ignorance and nothing else.

 

then he said the Purusha Vidya mantras.

 

saying them he became thirstless(thus attained Moksha).

 

 

then the Sruti says about the mantras to be recited at the time of death(the 3 mantras).

 

also note that Chandogya calls the Purusha in the Sun as 'PundarIkam evam akshinI'.(pundarIkAksha - epithet of Visnu).

 

also NArAyana Upanishad(4) says :

 

"brahmanyo devaki putro| brahmanyo madhusUdhano|"

 

meaning:

"DEvaki's Son is Brahman. MadhusUdhana(killer of Madhu - Hayagriva) is BRahman."

 

thus 'Devaki's son'(Devaki putra) is clearly shown as Brahman.

 

thus BRahman is propitiated by Gora when he recites the mantras.

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

bravo Ganesh, there are many who quote scriptures to jsutifytheir tunnel vision. They are turning the bhagavad Gita into their own narrow sectarian holy scriptures.

[Guest guest]

In the first prapata’s six grantha of Chandogya Upanishad the following mantras occur:

 

“ya yesho(a)ntaraditye hiranmaya purusho dhrushyathe hiranmayashmashrur hiranyakesha aaparanakath sarva eva suvarnah | tasya yatha kapyasam pundarikamevam akshini | tasya udh iti nama | sa esha sarvebya papmabhya udhitah | udhethi ha vai sarvebhya papmabhyo ya evam veda tasya rg cha sama cha geshnow ||”

 

‘In the Sun, which Purusha with golden moustache, golden hair, golden nails, every part being gold is seen , that Purusha has two eyes which are like lotus bloomed by the Sun. his name is Udh. He is above all sins. He who knows this rises out of all sins. Rg Veda and Sama Veda sing about Him’.

 

Now I will say why these Mantras refer only to Narayana. The word ‘Purusha’ refers to Narayana as Narayana is the Parama Purusha of Purusha Sukta as said in the Uttaranuvaka(also called Narayana anuvaka) of Taittreya.

 

The most important word is ‘Pundarikamevam akshini’ – lotus like two eyes. ‘akshini’ means two eyes. Thus the Purusha mentioned here is not Rudra. Rudra deva has three eyes not two. Pundarikaksha is a name of Narayana. No other deity is called by that name. This name of the Lord is referred to a number of times in both Ramayana and Mahabharatha.

 

‘sa esha sarvebya papmabhya udhitah’ – He is above all sins. This is one characteristic which differentiates Narayana from other deities. This is referred in the Gita also where Krishna says that His birth is not determined by Karma which means He is above all sins.

For Karma includes both punya and papa and if one is above karma then He is above sins. ‘ ajayamano bahudha vijayathe’ of Uttara Anuvaka of Purusha Sukta means that – ‘He is unborn; He takes birth a number of times’ which means His birth is not binded by Karma while He takes births out of His own will. All these make it clear that the Person referred is Narayana.

 

 

[Guest guest]

arjuna uvAcha:

 

"param brahmah param dhAma pavitram paramam bhavAn|

purushham shAshvatam divyam Adidevam ajam vibhhum||"

 

meaning:

 

"Arjuna said: Thou art the supreme Brahman, the supreme Abode, the supreme Purity, the one permanent, the divine Purusha, the original Godhead, the Unborn, the all-pervading Lord."

[Guest guest]

"don't try to misinterpret this verse,Atanu. when u gave ur first interpretation, u never said that the verse says Soma is father of Visnu. "

 

 

Read this thread fully to know that earlier also it was stated that Soma is the father of Vishnu, Indra, Earth, Heaven.

 

 

Asya Vamya Suktam of Rig Veda also states the same.

[Guest guest]

Bravo Ravi etal.

 

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

"sarvo vai rudras tasmai rudrAya namo astu|

purusho vai rudrassan maho namo astu|

visvam bhUtam bhuvanam chitram bahudhA jAtham

jAyamAnanchayat|sarvo hyesha rudras tasmai rudrAya namo astu|"

 

 

Meaning:

 

"All these are verily (called) Rudra. Salutations to that Rudra. Parama Purusha is (called) Rudra. Salutations to Him again and again. all this universe, all these entities, all the wondrous worlds that were variedly born or being born - all that is verily this Rudra alone. to that Rudra, we offer our salutations."

 

the verse says "sarvo vai rudra", "purusho vai rudra".

 

thus it is the Supreme Brahman, the Parama Purusha, who is called as Rudra here. not the other way around. atanu does not know sanskrit and so let me explain so that he might understand.

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

 

 

You are a person called Ravilochan but the other way round is not true. The person that is you is not Ravi lochan.

 

 

Bravo.

[Guest guest]

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

'Isha' is just a name given to Rudra by Brahmadeva(shatapatha). 'para' is used here. but it is neither used as 'param brahmah' nor is it used in such a way that Rudradeva is superior to everyone. so here 'para' just means that he is a superior deity and not the 'Supreme'

------

 

 

 

Isha is not Lord.

 

Para is not the Suprememe

 

Bhagavo is not Bhagawan with six qualities such as omnipotence etc.

 

 

 

Excellent.

[Guest guest]

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

you are a person called Ravilochan but the other way round is not true. The person that is you is not Ravi lochan

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

 

 

 

And obviously: "Eko Rudro na dvittiya tastu", does not refer to Rudra but to some one else.

 

 

The Supreme Purusha to whom: "na dvittiya tastu" refers is named Rudra but Rudra is actually not that Supreme Purusha .

 

 

 

 

Yes it sounds logical. Brilliant logicians.