rudraksha Posted September 2, 2003 Report Share Posted September 2, 2003 ok maybe both rudra and vishnu are the same Brahman, according to Narada he was confused with the same question when confronting both the deities, both were praying to the other. In the epics both Shiva and Vishnu are considered supreme respectively, at the end of Mahabharata after krishna leaves the earth i remember the words "whoever prays to any name of God, by that name will He come." but there really is no tradition extolling that though, advaitists see the ultimate Brahman as impersonal energy correct? i just couldnt except nondualism no matter how "universal" it sounds......is there tradition that extolls both forms equally? i would like to know...... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yasodanandana Posted September 2, 2003 Report Share Posted September 2, 2003 why you have a form, an individuality, a charachter, a behaviour, tastes, you can eat, walk, see, have friends, have a wife, swim, play... and the poor GOD is limited to be only a formless concept? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 2, 2003 Report Share Posted September 2, 2003 why you have a form, an individuality, a charachter, a behaviour, tastes, you can eat, walk, see, have friends, have a wife, swim, play... and the poor GOD is limited to be only a formless concept? Why do you ask such a question? 1. If God is limitless, God cannot be limited by being formless also. 2. If God is Supreme, then so must all His Forms be. 3. The meaning of "supreme" depends on God and not the other way around. I.E. God is not defined by "supreme". Therefore saying that Shiva is Supreme or Hari is Supreme does not limit either. 4. Please consider, Which is riper - a ripe mango or a ripe peach? QED. 5. Finally, God is only limited by Love. If Love is not there neither is God. Even hate is a form of Love. Thanks Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yasodanandana Posted September 2, 2003 Report Share Posted September 2, 2003 "i dont worship forms as supreme, vishnu is a form, the para brahman is formless....." i was answering to this Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 2, 2003 Report Share Posted September 2, 2003 most hindus revere this philosophical position over the others, whether they are shaivite or not! so is majority wrong? So now it doesn't matter after all what Vedas say on this subject? We are just going to determine the truth by taking the popular vote and letting the majority decide? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rudraksha Posted September 3, 2003 Report Share Posted September 3, 2003 ok yasoda i'll have to explain the shuddhadvaita concept of formless since your not too familiar. it does not imply that God is just an abstract concept, force, whatever u want to call it, but an eternal consciousness beyond all our understanding, i think its the same in alot of other religions as well, such as Judaism and Islam, Hashem (yahweh) and Allah are devoid of form, worshiping forms is considered idolatry in their view lol, yes i know its rediculous as we see our statues as symbolic figures of the actual deity, NOT the deity itself, and i dont know how many times i've been verbally attacked by that response : P But what i am saying is if the Supreme Brahman is Beyond our understanding, that pure conscious God cannot be reached without, yes a form! so ParaShiva (the formless) transforms into RudraShiva, MaheshvaraShiva, and other manifestations even Goddess Durga Herself! (all the divine forms of the formless), and symbolically on earth as the Linga (a special stone representing Shiva held most sacred by the Shaivites). Rudraksha beads (tears of Rudra) and Holy Ash (transcendance from the material) are among other symbolic importance we wear...... So to us God is not an abstract principle like the Advaitists make it out to be, We can realize He is beyond our limited knowledge and know He manifested to bring the knowledge of Unity for all peoples.......When the Lord manifests, It is not physical body, but eternally brilliant (similar to Vishnu-tattva), and that is how we can know God, by the eternal self-devotion of our souls, by learning to worship Shiva's forms, and ultimately, the Formless Supreme, that devotion shall be unlimited bliss! Just think of worshiping the One beyond all things! an amazing experience...... It is also said those who revere Vishnu will get their permanent homes in Vaikuntha, because Vishnu and all his forms are most dear to Shiva. what a benevolent Lord indeed! Love and Shiva, there exist two things say the fools, Love is Shiva which no one understands, But when realized Love is Shiva, We shall sit in Love as Shiva. ~thirumular~ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yasodanandana Posted September 3, 2003 Report Share Posted September 3, 2003 god is "eternal consciousness beyond all our understanding" is abstract.... god is "the person with eternal consciousness beyond all our understanding" is not abstract.... very simple... (then we will discuss if this person is vishnu or shiva) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 4, 2003 Report Share Posted September 4, 2003 I don't know that any sort of discussion with these people is going to bear fruit. Initially they tried to quote Vedas, but when asked to give specifics, they were unable to. First they say Vishnu is a minor god, then when caught in that trap, they say actually no, he is same as Shiva who is supreme. They quote vox populi on the popularity of the Advaitist viewpoint, and then distinguish their own views from Advaita. They really can't seem to make up their mind on a number of issues. There needs to be some agreement on pramaanas first. For Vedaantins, pramaana includes the eternal Veda, which is subdivided into four Vedas. Each of these Vedas contains Samhitaas, Braahmanas, Aranyakas, and Upanishads. This is collectively known as shruti. What was left over from that was compiled into the Puraanas (18 major puraanas) and Itihaasas (Mahaabhaarata). Mahaabhaarata also includes Bhagavad-Giitaa. There is no point in debating with someone who only gives lip service to the above. If they do not accept the above evidence and feel obliged to change their views to bring them in harmony with ALL of the above evidence, then they are renegades and nothing we say to them will get through. A perfect example of this is when they were pressed to produce one piece of evidence in Sanskrit regarding their views, and in response they could only allude to Shaiva Siddhanta. Who accepts Shaiva Siddhanta? Only the Shaivites, no one else. What's the point in quoting a text which only you accept as authoritative? Everything I have quoted so far has been from mainstream texts - the Rig Veda Samhitaa, Aitareya Braahmana, Taitiriiya Samhitaa, Shvetaasvhatara Upanishad, Naaraayana Upanishad, Padma Puraana, and Bhaagavata Puraana. Our Shaivite "scholars" have pretty much ignored all of the evidence from all the above sources, except for a few statements taken completely out of context from the Shvetaashvatara Upanishad. But, as any scholar knows, a theory of interpretation must interpret each piece of evidence in such a way as to be consistent with the rest of the evidence. The Shaivites were unable to do this with Shvetaashvatara, (since theory interpretation contradicted Rig Veda and Naaraayana Upanishad) so they chose instead to fling accusations and insults. Even now, you will see that if they respond to this, their response will almost invariably be peppered with accusations and innuendos - e.g. "you shouldn't be such a fanatic,I used to be a Vaishnava but I left....,you can have me shot," etc. What will be lacking in their response is a convincing, point-by-point response to the pramaanas already brought which refute their position. That is how you know which position is well thought out and which one is based on fanaticism. The correct position is the one that has explicit shaastric support. The incorrect position is the one based on narrow minded interpretations of select texts, ignoring everything to the contrary. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 4, 2003 Report Share Posted September 4, 2003 As an aside, another point that is generally agreed upon by all Vedaantins is that evidence from shruti takes precedence over evidence from smriti. Thus, it is not enough for Shaivities to point to a Shiva Puraana and say, "here Shiva is said to be supreme." THey have to explain the evidence from the Vedas which explicitly says otherwise. Else, they can keep their views to themselves instead of trying to preach them to us. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yasodanandana Posted September 4, 2003 Report Share Posted September 4, 2003 you do not need to use all these big efforts with me... the subject is very simple... in my poor logic "formless" is abstract... "form" is concrete so, with my very ignorant mind, when you say that god is "an eternal consciousness beyond all our understanding" i think that the concept is more complete if we put a CONSCIOUS behind that CONSCIOUSNESS so god is the ethernal, conscious, happy (sat, cit, ananda) living being (purusha) beyond all our understanding in my experience of life i do not know thoughts or concepts coming out by themselves not generated by persons with minds ... i am a poor mosquito... why use all these big weapons upon me? /images/graemlins/smirk.gif Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rudraksha Posted September 4, 2003 Report Share Posted September 4, 2003 "Else, they can keep their views to themselves instead of trying to preach them to us." mhmm, once again this only proves your close-mindedness to everyone else, u see its u and ur silly followers who cause all this trouble and no one wants to listen to ignorant minds, i dont preach to anyone or was ever preaching, just explaining, those days of preaching are over because of rediculous evangelists such as yourself, with all your rambling who the hell can explain anything? anyways, this was just a waist of my precious time, u obviously have not studied Vedas, Vedic culture was NOT vaishnava culture thousands of years ago, all these forms of Hinduism now are just splinters coming out of original Vedism, both vaishnavism and shaivism, which of both i cant stand anymore, u've only proven me how stupid it is for any of these traditions to go on........... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 5, 2003 Report Share Posted September 5, 2003 Sri Vakrathunda mahaakaaya kotisuryasamaprabha nirvighnam kurume deva subhakaryeshu sarvadaa You have dismissed any evidence, which does not fit with your view. And true to your form, the quotes from Shvetaashvatara Upanishad you say it refers to Vishnu Your excuse is Siva, Mahesh, Rudra are also names of lord Vishnu. So I ask you again Are you going to chant these names? YES or No very simple Jai Shree Krishna Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 5, 2003 Report Share Posted September 5, 2003 Sri Vakrathunda mahaakaaya kotisuryasamaprabha nirvighnam kurume deva subhakaryeshu sarvadaa When all the devatas were chocking from the effect of the poision, they prayed to supreme Lord Shiva ((Bhagvatam8.7) Bhagvatam commentator Sridhar swami comments in Sanskrit as such (please forgive my ignorance in English transliteration) Nirguna saguna ch avem sivam hari parakrame Stuvananantsu Praje sanam namanyantram tayo Nirguna and saguna Lord Shivas in Lord Haris Lila, being worshiped by Prajapati, do not see difference between Siva and Vishnu. He comments this oneness is seen in many places, even than some insist on seeing them as different are simply being obstinate. Jai Shree Krishna Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rudraksha Posted September 5, 2003 Report Share Posted September 5, 2003 History of Hinduism ~ a Hindutva webpage..... http://www.dalitstan.org/journal/hindutwa/htv000/bra_reld.html i think we've been lied to by both vaishnavites and shaivites, and i want some honest opinions this time without us getting in over our heads with tradition! it appeares that our history of india was much different, i've read these things alot before but just thought they were hoaxes and ignored them, the shaivas definately stress that there religion is pre-aryan or pre-vedic, the indus valley peoples, the dravidians did have the aryan gods or vedas in there country until the aryans came over from the north, the dravidians before this worshiped only a pan-like shiva, and a earth mother-like kali devi....... The Aryans who followed Vedas also pre-date the modern Hindu revival, most of the texts after Vedas were from 700bc-1st century ad and on, but Vedas are much older, over 5000 years old, and Upanishads nearly as old. The Aryans or Vaidikas also followed a totally different tradition that has nothing to do with modern hinduism in any of its forms. There was no krishna, no rama, no shiva or shakti in their pantheon, krishna and rama formed later from bhakti movements. They were Polytheistic, they had no karmic or reincarnation beliefs, they believed in a Vedic Heaven, they sacrificed cows even and ate meat!....There is even a Vedic Revival going on now, maybe a couple of them, Arya Samaj is one in India, but their was also no concept of Monism or Brahman in the Vedas, or among the ancient Aryans (who came over from Indo-Europa, the Indo Europeans were made up of Persians, Slavs, Celts, Norsemen, Baltic and many others, the Aryans are one of the first and largest ethnic peoples of the world, this was all very interesting... For a real Vedic Revival religion, for us going back our roots, we need to take every piece of history and actually understand it. Both Dravidian and Aryan religion is long gone now, Buddhism and Jainism splintered this, then along came the Bhakti and philosophical movements further splintering Vedas, they were Anti-Vedic so to speak...... Vedic Revival Movement i would like to belong to someday when they get moving http://www.perfumedscorpion.org Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 6, 2003 Report Share Posted September 6, 2003 So I ask you again Are you going to chant these names? YES or No very simple Answer all of my questions and then i will answer yours. I have no time for people who want to argue, fail at it miserably, and then try to change the subject to cover up their defeat. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 6, 2003 Report Share Posted September 6, 2003 Consequently, if you just keep ignoring anything I wrote, I will just continue to ignore you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 6, 2003 Report Share Posted September 6, 2003 Sri Vakrathunda mahaakaaya kotisuryasamaprabha nirvighnam kurume deva subhakaryeshu sarvadaa I do accept the pramanas presented by Sridhar swami, Tulsidas Goswami, Gujarati sadhus like Morari bapu, Rameshbhai Oza and many more. They have no problem with chanting the names of Lord Shiva You on other hand self proclaimed winner, who stated, Siva, Rudra, Mahesh are Vishnus names also, therefore I am not deviating from the debate or changing the subject, when I ask you, are you going to chant these names ?very simple. Jai Shree Krishna Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Govindaram Posted September 6, 2003 Report Share Posted September 6, 2003 Morari bapu Chants hare-krishna, gaura-nitai as well, he is great! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 6, 2003 Report Share Posted September 6, 2003 I see. So you don't accept Vedas. Consequently we don't accept you. Cheers Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 6, 2003 Report Share Posted September 6, 2003 re Morari bapu Chants hare-krishna, gaura-nitai as well, he is great! I agree Jai Shree Krishna Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 6, 2003 Report Share Posted September 6, 2003 re I see. So you don't accept Vedas. How did you work that out? re Consequently we don't accept you I dont need your acceptance chant and be happy cheers Jai Shree Krishna Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 6, 2003 Report Share Posted September 6, 2003 What's in a name? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rudraksha Posted September 6, 2003 Report Share Posted September 6, 2003 u see how he is? attacking others now lol! the "me better than u" factor seems to always confuse the person that he is better when it clearly says in Gita all paths are His.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 7, 2003 Report Share Posted September 7, 2003 Are you still going to marry her? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 7, 2003 Report Share Posted September 7, 2003 Sri Vakrathunda mahaakaaya kotisuryasamaprabha nirvighnam kurume deva subhakaryeshu sarvadaa chant the name of the lord and you will find out Jai Shree Krishna Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.