Vishnu and Shiva

[Guest guest]

hari bhakta -

 

shruti is not imagination, it is conception. when one says imagination, most people are likely to think of fairy tales and fantasies. i do not mean that at all. i wont say there isnt ANY of that in the hindu tales, but most are not fairy tales and fantasy.

 

like you said, brahman is the sum totality of everything. this everything is impossible for the mind to conceptualize or visualize mentally. how can we visualize 'everything'? we cant, therefore we come up with aspects to visualize individually. thats were the aspect of lfie and death and learning and peace and prosperity and obstacles and all such things come into play. the aspects we visualize are conceptions of our own minds. in that way, it is a little bit part of our own heads and way of seeing the world. but that doesnt negate its reality.

 

if one says vishnu is an aspect of brahman which humans have created, that does make vishnu an aspect of our minds but it doesnt mean that vishnu is not an actual part of life. its a life of brahman which we categorize into specific ways.

 

consider it a dualistic way of thinking of anything. when one sees a phone, then is a certain conceptualization that every human being creates in our head about what a phone is and it's properties and what it does. this conceptualization is a part of our minds. but that doesnt mean that the phone isnt real.

-----

 

Guest -

 

while it is true that one cannot dream of shiva without shiva's grace, it is equally true taht one cannot do ANYTHING at all without His grace. Even the evil that is done is done by His grace, not His blessing, but deefiatley His grace. stating the obvious doesnt take away from the truth of my claim.

--------

Bindhu -

 

thank you for your compliments. i hope that this truth shall spread amonst the hindu community so that we can get past the shackles of post-colonialist segregation and violence and work together to better improve india and ALL her inhabitants materially and spiritually.

[Guest guest]

"if one says vishnu is an aspect of brahman which humans have created, that does make vishnu an aspect of our minds but it doesnt mean that vishnu is not an actual part of life. its a life of brahman which we categorize into specific ways."

 

 

I maintain a small difference here. Rudra Vishnu are eternal names and forms given to us by Vedas, which is shruti and from god directly.

 

 

These forms are revealed by Vedas to minds and not the other way around. Without respect, devotion, and faith to these Veda revealed aspects, it may be difficult to understand and know the absolute.

 

 

Knowing the absolute only, one can then transcend the forms and not before that.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

"Atanu, specially, is so annoying with his cut-and-paste mode of communication without saying anything substantial"

 

 

I disagree to Guru Dasan. What is termed as cut and paste has been good only.

[Guest guest]

rudra and vishnu are words from the sanskrit language, a man made communication system of words and phrases that symbolize meaning. it is only through man (with the grace of god) that any languages are made. these names are not eternal.

 

the concepts are eternal. vishnu represents he who pervades everything. this concept is older than the oldest language that could adequately describe the concept. much like mountains were in existance way before the first human came around calling the structure a 'mountain'

 

the rishis formulated the vedas through intense meditation and what they beleived was the revelation of god. perhaps it was, perhaps it wasnt. it could easily have been through meditation and contemplation, the rishis opened their eyes to a truth that had not been known to them before, thereby seeming to them as a revelation of god, an act that set about advancing the people spiritually tenfold in one meditation.

 

these 'revelations' were put together to form the vedas. the vedas are not eternal. the truth in the vedas are. revelation is only man made insight due to either meditation or just being exposed to something that was unknown prior to.

 

again, this doesnt mean that the vedas are reduced to something worse than they are, or unholy or something like that. the truth in the vedas is the truth indeed and was brought to us today due to the work of great rishis uncovering the truth in the past. this is how it should be worshipped. one should never worship anything at a greater level just because someone said so. respect the truth and worship the importance of the works based on it's truth, not on it's name.

[Guest guest]

{the rishis formulated the vedas through intense meditation and what they beleived was the revelation of god.}

 

I actually think that the Upanishads have more of an influence on modern Hinduism, that the Vedas (at least the samhitas and brahmanas).

 

Although alot of Hindus today show respect for the Vedas it is not followed like it was and the Vedanta has taken a more important role. All the acharyas did their commentaries on the Upanishads not the Vedas, why did you think this is? Is it because the Vedas are not relevant or did they not understand them? There has only been Dayananda and Aurobindo who promoted them in the modern age.

[Guest guest]

i think the vedas prescribe too much ritual practice, that is not as important to the average person living an average life. mostly it is useful for preists or others who actually choose to perform the rituals. if one doesnt choose to perform, then whats the use?

 

Yet hindus maintain a certain respect for the vedas knowing that their existance is more important than anything else in the hindu religious fold.

[BinduMadhav]

Atanu wrote:

 

*****Atanu, specially, is so annoying with his cut-and-paste mode of communication without saying anything substantial.********

 

This is a good observation. Atanu should mend his ways.

 

Thanks Guru Dasan.

 

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

 

Somehow I missed Mr.Guru Dasan's note on how Atanu is boring. I could not disagree more. I think Atanu's posts are scholarly and a pleasure to read. So were Ravilochan's posts.

 

 

[BinduMadhav]

Guest 2 wrote:

 

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

 

I actually think that the Upanishads have more of an influence on modern Hinduism, that the Vedas (at least the samhitas and brahmanas).

 

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

 

It is true that when Upanishads came about, they had a profound effect on the masses. As a result of this, the Karmakaanda was pushed to the background. Which really is not so bad because the Karmakaanda consisted of sacrifices with animals and some truly unacceptable practices. You are right that the Upanishads have had more of an impact on modern Hindus (and Non-Hindus alike.)

 

But one cannot completely dismiss the Samhitas and Aranyakas. Many of the verses from the Samhitas are adopted into our Puja process. For Shaivites, Rudram (Namakam) is very important and they recite them with great devotion whenever an opportunity arises. Vaishnavites use verses like Purusha Suktam, Sri Suktam, Vishnu Suktam and many others that are directly from the Vedas. The Brahmanas are no longer used because they formed the Karma Kanda.

[Guest guest]

{But one cannot completely dismiss the Samhitas and Aranyakas.}

 

I agree there are parts of the Vedas that are still practiced like Havan and Gayatri Mantra recitation. But the religion of the Vedas as it was in Vedic times does not really exist anymore. Modern Hinduism is a development from the Vedic religion where I believe most of the essential teachings on God, Soul, Matter, Law of Karma and reincarnation are from the Upanishads although the seeds of these ideas are from the Veda Samhitas - they were not fully developed or explained.

Sri Aurobindo is one of the few authors who has written on how the Upanishads are related to the Vedic Mantras. I think there should be more of a study on the Veda Samhita as these were revealed in the minds of the original Rishis, they are very important as they are the earliest scripture we have. There are western scholars misinterpreting the mantras for their own agenda, while they are being ignored by Hindu scholars.

 

{Which really is not so bad because the Karmakaanda consisted of sacrifices with animals and some truly unacceptable practices.}

 

This is true and again it was the sages of the upanishads that rebelled against these rituals. I wonder how such practices could have arisen in the first place? Is it because the priests had too much power, that they became corrupt and exploited society? Again, this is probably another reasons why the Upanishads became more important.

 

{The Brahmanas are no longer used because they formed the Karma Kanda.}

 

I think many of the rituals are outdated and most people wouldn't practice them anyway in this day and age. Plus there is more of an emphasis on individual action determining your karma rather than rituals.

[jayan008]

Time constraint doesn’t permits me to visit the site regularly now, but it is Great to see you with a totally changed perspective…..Even though I have not been much involved like others, yet I have been going through all the postings and its reactions, commenting on a few, and I congratulate you on this change and specially your courage to accept it and speak out, which is rarely among people nowadays, as they never accept their ignorance/mistakes even if it is there for all and himself to see.

 

As all of them have said, I too say, you have Won.

 

If you have thanked others for giving you a new insight, all of them, including me, should thank you for picking up such debates, which has refined theirs and my own knowledge equally, about things which were not known / not delved into much deeper earlier.

 

A champion gains praise only if he win against a worthy competitor.

 

Hope you stick to this new found identity, and gain more knowledge and insights. Consider this just a beginning,

 

Good luck,

 

Jayan

 

[krishnadas7]

Those who distinquish between Lord krishna and Lord shiva will go to hellish planets, as said by srila prabhupada.....for the ignorant people it been described in shastras as lord krishna has 64 artistic qualities where as lord shiva has only 54 (more or less)...that's the reason why lord krishna is the original god ( govindam adi purusam as said in BRAHMA SAMHITA)...Lord shiva is a separate partial manifestation of Lord Krishna's spiritual internal potency and lives in KAILASA....the area below the vainkuntha planets....So please dont think with ur little brains , go through proper scriptures and through authoritative acharyas who are coming from disciplinic succession like A C BHAKTHIVEDANTHA SWAMY PRABHUPADA...hare krishna

[redhead]

rudra is claimed not to be a vedic deity from a historical referance in commentary on SB called krshna samhita.

 

what i wonder is are there more saivites or vishnavites? that would settle an argument sheer force of devotees. J/K

[Guest guest]

 

rudra is claimed not to be a vedic deity from a historical referance in commentary on SB called krshna samhita.

 

What do you mean Rudra is not a Vedic diety? If he isn't, then then what is he?

[shivakeshava]

In devi mahatme it s said tat..... When vishnu was in deep slumber (ananta shayana) madhukhaitabas were born from his ears... during tat time brahma prays to lord vishnu...quoting tat u r the maya, u r the savitri, u r gayatri...

 

And also during churning of ocean for elixir...vishnu took the form of mohini( maya) to mesmerize asuras while distributing nectar... so tat they wont b immortal, thinking tat they will b of future threat...

And also when asura princess, sister of mahishasura, mahishi pleased lord brahma with austerities n penance asked him to grant a boon where she can be only killed by the child born from the union of Hara n Hari, thinking tat both hara n hari are males n it wont b possible n she s invincible...but Sri hari took mohini form and union with lord shiva giving birth to HariHara sutha Ayyappa...

In other case, when shiva granted Bhasmasura, the boon to burn anything he touches...Bhasmasura wanted to try it on Shiva himself..Then shiva called for vishnu's help... Then also Vishnu took mohini's form n saved shiva n d world..

And lastly as everybody knows Sri hari in every yugas like treta yuga, dwapara yuga etc.. he takes incarnations n indulge himself in his own maya.. He enjoys in his own maya..

Maya, she makes everyone to blind, it seduces,it makes us to desire material things, it makes everyone to forget their main motto, it devoids us from the salvation..its like a test to every being so tat we've to successfully come out of it to attain salvation from it....

 

And also in Das mahavidya, all 9 forms of devi are worshipped with their respective shiva..but except one Dhumavati...often she is said to be a widow..

without purusha how could prakritti solemenly exists...

This clears tat shiva is purusha..... conciousness.... vishnu is prakritti .....power.... without power conciousness cannot do anything....without conciousness power cannot do anything... Union of these two plays a major role in creation, maintainence n dissolution of universe....

And also i'm not saying tat Sri hari is female....i know mohini is his female avatar... his shakti...

what we have to look here is....both shaivas n vaishnavas have to accept that both dieties are equally interdependent and equally devoted to each other....

According Svetasvatara Upanishad

 

4.18 yadaa.atamastaanna divaa na raatrih

na sannachaasachchhiva eva kevalah .

tadaxara.n tat.h saviturvareNyaM

pragyaa cha tasmaat.h prasr^itaa puraanii......

 

 

When the light has risen, there is no day, no night, neither existence nor non-existence; Siva (the blessed) alone is there. That is the eternal, the adorable light of Savitri, - and the ancient wisdom proceeded thence.

 

Shiva - conciousness..... savitri- power

 

 

Its is said that Shiva is the greatest vaishnava ever...and Vishnu is greatest shaiva ever...

both hav worshiped each other in many instance...