What's in a Name?

[Guest guest]

Here is a simple question. Let us have an answer by anya-devata bhaktas.

 

If my name is "Ram," does it logically follow that any individual whose name is "Ram" is also the same person as me?

 

Answers first, then we will discuss why this question is relevant here.

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Come, come, let's have an answer. It isn't a trick question.

[stonehearted]

Ooooh--no one responded in four minutes! That must mean you've got them all buffaloed, eh? Maybe it means no one here is interested in your silly game.

[Guest guest]

you got Owned!

[Guest guest]

Stonehearted, I didn't know you were an anya-devata bhakta.

 

Anyway, the obvious answer to the question is no. Just because my name is Ram, it does not follow that anyone else whose name is Ram is also the same person as me. This is fairly elementary logic. Even a schoolchild can appreciate this.

 

Now why is this important? Well, let's say we have this guy. And let's say this guy's name is.... well, Vishnu. And let's say this guy has all strength, all fame, all opulence, all wealth, all wisdom, and all renunciation. And let's say he has a thousand names, and one of them happens to be "Shiva."

 

Now, does it follow from the above, that because one of Vishnu's names is "Shiva," that therefore anyone else whose name is Shiva must be Vishnu?

 

Leave aside the "oneness and difference" relationship accepted by Chaitanya followers for the moment. We are not discussing the conclusion here, but the "logic" used by some parties to arrive at a particular conclusion. Their "logic" is that because one of Vishnu's names is Shiva, then therefore whenever a deity named "Shiva" is described, it is understood that, regardless of context, that "Shiva" is in fact Vishnu. Logical, right? They share a name in common, so they must be the same person, right?

 

 

 

[I_love_krishna_]

Vishnu= one that pervades everything.

 

So, the whole explanation where Shiva is different from Vishnu is not true.

 

Logic & bhakthi don't mix buddy..

 

[theist]

what is an anya-devata bhakta? Once I know if I see one I can refer him here.

 

[Guest guest]

Theist, an anya-devata bhakta is a devotee of other demigods (that is, not a Vaishnava). As in "ye 'py anyadevatAbhaktA yajante shraddhayAnvitAH / te 'pi mAm eva kaunteya yajanty avidhi-pUrvakam //" from Bhagavad-gItA 9.23. My original question was framed for them.

 

 

I_love_krishna_ wrote:

 

 

Vishnu= one that pervades everything.

 

 

 

The fact that Vishnu pervades everything does not mean that anything can be worshipped in place of Vishnu for liberation. Nor does it mean that everything is the same as Vishnu. The very statement "A pervades B" implies that A and B are two different things.

 

 

So, the whole explanation where Shiva is different from Vishnu is not true.

 

 

 

Please read my earlier posting. The point is not whether Shiva is different or same as Vishnu. The point is, is it logical (as some people think) to say Shiva and Vishnu are same because they share one or more names in common? Perhaps they are same. Perhaps they are different. Perhaps they are one and different. The question is not in regards to the conclusion, but in regards to the validity of a particular type of "logic" used by some parties to arrive at a particular conclusion.

 

 

Logic & bhakthi don't mix buddy..

 

 

 

Ummm, who told you that? Certainly not Srila Prabhupada, whose initiated name is Bhaktivedanta. Srila Prabhupada used many logical arguments in his writings, along with many AchAryas before him, and like them, he supplemented those arguments with quotes from shAstra. Do you not read his books? Take a look at Srila Prabhupada's explanation of gItA 2.12 - a very in-depth and logical writing on his part.

 

"Logic by itself is not adequate to reveal the absolute truth." This is true. But logic, if properly used, is certainly acceptable to supplement many scripturally-based explanations. This is not a point to be disputed; all Vaishnava AchAryas have demonstrated this with their example. It is not that logic is to be thrown away - it just must be relegated to its proper place.

 

However, all of the above is besides the point. The point is, if two entities have the same name, can one conclude that they are the same entity?

[theist]

I know less than nothing of sanskrit.

[stonehearted]

Guest: you got Owned!

 

I'm not sure what you mean here.

[stonehearted]

I'm probably not any kind of bhakta, although I aspire to associate with Krishna bhaktas. I was responding only to your apparent impatience.

[Guest guest]

May be I should elaborate on what I was saying earlier.

 

First, I said Vishnu= Shiva, so where one entity is the whole thing, where do you find duality?

 

I see no duality here because all of this is Vishnu. This is written in many instances in Bhagavatham. One such example is where Lord Narasimha comes our of the pillar. This shows that God is omnipresent.

 

In my view , your arguement is similar to this arguement: "Allah is not God" . In arabic however, allah is God!. How can you say allah is not God? If you say Vishnu is different from shiva, that would be untrue... because then it would be like saying "This shiva thing is not in everything"

 

Guest: "The fact that Vishnu pervades everything does not mean that anything can be worshipped in place of Vishnu for liberation."

 

I ask you why not!. How can prahlada worship a pillar and make Narasimha come out of that pillar.

 

 

"but in regards to the validity of a particular type of "logic" used by some parties to arrive at a particular conclusion."

 

I find prahlad's "God is in this pillar" logic quite valid. It is not just me , it is bhagavatham that finds such examples quite valid. If scriptures such as bhagavatham proclaim that Krishna the almighty being is in everything then why cannot we accept and tolerate other types of worship if they are out of pure devotion to krishna?

 

 

[Guest guest]

It's difficult to follow a 'conversation' between individuals when the individuals are both guest. You are not one - you are individuals - so stand up and be counted!

 

For the record - Prahlada did not worship the pillar - rather when asked if his God was everywhere, Prahlada answered yes - and when further prodded about whether or not he was therefore in the pillar, he also answered yes to this question. This lila should not be misinterpreted in the way that you have. We are personalists, not pantheists. God is omnipresent, no doubt, but that does not mean that we worship everything as God.

 

Krsna makes a very clear distinction about worship in Bhagavad Gita. There he says that those who worship the ancestors go to the planet of the ancestors, those who worship the demigods go to their planets and that those who worship him come to him. These are all distinct destinations - all is not one!

 

Vaishnavas worship Siva and other demigods in this sense - they are devotees of Vishnu and therefore we give them due honor and respect. Vishnu DOES NOT EQUAL Shiva or Jiva. We worship Shiva because he shows us by his example how to be a devotee.

 

If you want to make sense of the Vedic revelation you will have to come to terms with that revelation both in terms of it's non-duality AND also in terms of it's duality. God has a form and is formless, He has hands and he doesn't, He is all pervading and localized, etc.

 

Again, we are personalists, we are interested in Krsna - even the gopis told Krsna that they had no use for his philosophy that God is all pervading and that he never leaves anyone - they wanted him with them in Vrndavana - they had no use for word jugglery. Neither do we. The Srimad Bhagavatam is about devotion to Krsna. It does touch on all sorts of philosophies in terms of comparing and contrasting them to devotional service, but make no mistake about it - the Bhagavatam is ultimately about prema dharma and completely rejects cheating religion which is defined within the text itself as pursuit of dharma, artha, kama and moksha.

 

Your servant,

Audarya-lila dasa

[theist]

Audarya-lila,

 

Is appreciating God and worship of God two separate but perhaps related things then?

 

It seems confusing to me. Everything is God and yet God is within that thing and so that thing is not really God, but yet it is.

 

My mind can't easily house this apparent contradiction.

[Guest guest]

Srla Prabhupada:

 

"A jnani may become detached from material attractions by prolonged discussions on subjects of knowledge and may in this way finally come to the brahma-bhuta stage, but a devotee does not have to undergo so much trouble. By virtue of his devotional service, he attains the brahma-bhuta stage without a doubt. The yogis and jnanis are always doubtful about their constitutional position; therefore they mistakenly think of becoming one with the Supreme. However, a devotee's relationship with the Supreme becomes manifest beyond all doubt, and he immediately understands that his position is that of eternal servant of the Lord. Jnanis and yogis without devotion may think themselves liberated, but actually their intelligence is not as pure as that of a devotee. In other words, the jnanis and yogis cannot become factually liberated unless they become elevated to the position of devotees." SB 4. 23.11 P

 

YS,

Prtha dd

 

 

[Guest guest]

Sri Vakrathunda mahaakaaya kotisuryasamaprabha

nirvighnam kurume deva subhakaryeshu sarvadaa

 

The questioner was having a debate with me.

He had stated

“The names Siva, Rudra, Sambhu, Mahesh are also names of lord Vishnu”

 

This he quoted in refuting a verse in Shvetaashvatara Upanishad, in which it refers to lord shiva as supreme purusha,"

 

My question is plain and simple if Siva, Rudra, Sambhu, Mahesh are also names of Lord Vishnu

Will you chant these names?

 

Jai Shree Krishna

 

[Avinash]

However, all of the above is besides the point. The point is, if two entities have the same name, can one conclude that they are the same entity?

 

No, we cannot make such a conclusion.

 

BTW, I am not anya-devata bhakta.

[Guest guest]

Sri Vakrathunda mahaakaaya kotisuryasamaprabha

nirvighnam kurume deva subhakaryeshu sarvadaa

 

I put it to you again

If Siva etc are also the names of Vishnu

Will you chant this names?

 

Jai Shree Krishna

 

[Guest guest]

Dear Theist,

 

That is why the Gaudiya's view on Vedanta in terms of God, the world, the jiva etc. is stated as: achintya, or inconceivable - it is beyond the realm of the mind to hold. God is simultaneously one with and different from his creation. Unity and distinction.

 

But really, in terms of what to do - it's quite simple - chant Hare Krsna, and spend your time hearing about, thinking about and reciting the pastimes and glories of the Lord. What did the gopis do when Narayana, who they worship as God, do? They bowed down and gave him all respect and then immediately asked him if he had seen Krsna! They followed their hearts in all respects and their hearts are the property of Krsna. That is our ideal.

 

Your servant,

Audarya-lila dasa

[Guest guest]

 

However, all of the above is besides the point. The point is, if two entities have the same name, can one conclude that they are the same entity?

 

No, we cannot make such a conclusion.

 

 

 

Thank you for your response. You see, it wasn't a trick question. It was very simple.

 

We cannot conclude that Vishnu and Shiva (husband of Paarvathii) are the same person merely because Vishnu has some names which also belong to Shiva.

 

In fact, there is a Skandha Puraana quote given by Baladeva VidyabhUshana in his Govinda Bhaashya explaining that all of the names of the demigods are actually also names of Vishnu. The ramifications of this are obvious. We know that Vishnu is the Supreme Brahman. Hence, if in Vedic texts we see attributes of the Supreme Brahman being applied to a "Shiva,Indra," etc then we must immediately understand that Vishnu is the one being referred to (by a name which also coincidentally belongs to demigod). This principle is accepted by all Vaishnava Vedaantins in one form or another.

 

The idea that all the demigods are same as Vishnu is contradicted in places in shruti and smriti too numerous to count.

 

Now as far as Shiva is concerned, the greatest controversy among some Hindus on this forum (who not conincidentally do not seem very familiar with shaastra) seems to be whether Shiva is superior to Vishnu, same as Vishnu, or subordinate to Vishnu. In theory, we Vaishnavites could worship Vishnu by chanting names of Shiva, but Shaivites unfortunately will misunderstand that we are worshipping Lord Shiva (husband of Paarvathii). Actually, we could in fact worship that Lord Shiva as Lord Vishnu's devotee, but again Shaivites with their misconceptions will misunderstand that we are worshipping him because we believe him to be Supreme Brahman. So no wonder we avoid that kind of worship in public.

 

Saying that Shiva is same as Vishnu just because Vishnu also can be called "Shiva" is like saying that because my name is Ram, everyone else in the world whose name is also Ram must be the same as me. Clearly, this kind of logic is ludicrous, although it appears to be a major crutch for the Shaivite argument.

 

The point therefore, is that Shiva's alleged supremacy must be known from a consistent review of all available evidence. It cannot be known from such ludicrous use of logic as mentioned above. If Shiva is the Supreme Brahman, then this must be consistently shown. In reality, some pramaanas say this, while others clearly make him out to be a devotee of Vishnu. Because the shruti says "naaraayaNo rudro jaayate" (Shiva is created from Vishnu), we must therefore accept the smriti evidence which is consistent with this.

 

But since we do not reject the other evidence (though we have the right to based on the above principle of interpretation), we accept the version given by Brahmaa-samhitaa - that Shiva is one and different from Vishnu, not exactly the same as Him. This is why he is not worshipped as on par with Vishnu, although he is very powerful and almost (but not quite) like Vishnu Himself. This view reconciles all of the "Shaivite" evidence in the Puraanas without sacrificing Vishnu's supremacy, which is based on shruti and Saattvik Puraanas.

 

The idea that Shiva is exactly the same as Vishnu contradicts shruti and hence cannot be accepted by Vedaantins. His relationship to Vishnu is just like yogurt and milk - they are similar but not exactly the same.

[Avinash]

I do not play games during discussion. I never avoid any question intentionally. You asked ... if two entities have the same name, can one conclude that they are the same entity?

 

I answered this question in negative. Now, you have asked a different question, so let me answer that.

 

If Siva etc are also the names of Vishnu

Will you chant this names?

 

I agree that just because Siva is one of the names of Visnu, we cannot conclude that Lord Siva and Lord Visnu are one and the same. So far chanting is concerned, I believe that the devotees of Visnu can definitely chant the word "Siva" provided they keep in mind that they are chanting one of the names of Lord Visnu and not of Lord Siva.

[theist]

 

That is why the Gaudiya's view on Vedanta in terms of God, the world, the jiva etc. is stated as: achintya, or inconceivable - it is beyond the realm of the mind to hold. God is simultaneously one with and different from his creation. Unity and distinction.

 

But really, in terms of what to do - it's quite simple - chant Hare Krsna, and spend your time hearing about, thinking about and reciting the pastimes and glories of the Lord. What did the gopis do when Narayana, who they worship as God, do? They bowed down and gave him all respect and then immediately asked him if he had seen Krsna! They followed their hearts in all respects and their hearts are the property of Krsna. That is our ideal.

 

 

Thank you Audarya, that is a very clear answer. And typically the answer revealed a more refined answer then contained in the original question.

 

Dandavats,

Hare Krsna

 

[Guest guest]

 

do not play games during discussion. I never avoid any question intentionally. You asked ... if two entities have the same name, can one conclude that they are the same entity?

 

I answered this question in negative. Now, you have asked a different question, so let me answer that.

 

If Siva etc are also the names of Vishnu

Will you chant this names?

 

 

 

Clarification, Avinash. The guy who is asking the question about chanting Lord Shiva's name is a different guest than me. I'm the one who pointed out that Shiva and Vishnu are not the same merely because they share some names in common. I asked the question only to bring that very obvious answer out. Sorry for the confusion.

 

The Shaivite guest just keeps asking the question about chanting Shiva's names because, once you defeat his logic, the only way he can feel that he has not been defeated is to change the subject. His logic was that Shiva is the same as Vishnu because one of the thousand names of Vishnu is Shiva. When it was pointed out that such "logic" is in fact not logical, suddenly he changed the subject to the practice of chanting Shiva's names.

 

Actually, this sort of evasive maneuver is nothing new. A previous comrade (Rudraksha) of his stated that in Vedas, Vishnu was a minor solar deity and not the Supreme Lord. When I quoted evidence from the Vedas which explicitly refuted this, he refused to retract his claim but instead just changed his view on that. But then he continued to say that Shiva was the same as Vishnu, and that this was the position of the Vedas. When I quoted evidence from shruti saying that Shiva was created by Vishnu, he didn't retract this claim either. Instead, he changed the subject again to the PurAnas. The PurAnas, he claims, glorifies Shiva as the Supreme Lord. When I quoted PurAnic text saying otherwise, and more PurAnic text explaining that Lord Shiva spread the Shaivite religion to mislead people, then suddenly even PurAnas were no longer acceptable. So Rudraksha changed the subject again. Never mind Vedas, PurAnas, etc - go straight to Shaiva SiddhAnta. Oh well.

 

Many of the Shiva references in PurAnas are easily reconciled by the theory of transformation discussed in BrahmA-saMhitA 5.45. This explains how Shiva can be glorified as supreme even though he is not on the same level as Vishnu. On the other hand, the Shaivite theory so far (even assuming that they accept Vishnu as a form of Shiva) does not explain numerous references in shruti and smriti where Shiva is depicted as a subordinate deity to Vishnu. Their method is to ignore all such references and only pull out the ones that support their contention. While our method accepts both types of references in such a way as to be consistent with shruti which holds that Vishnu, and not Shiva, is the Supreme Personality of Godhead.

 

So yes, you didn't avoid anything Avinash. They're the ones playing the avoiding game. Just see - their only responses to this will be to just attack our character like "oh u arent a devotee" or "oh u are such a fanatic" etc etc. They may even mention some scripture which they themselves have not bothered to read. They won't quote pramAnas though, because then they have to explain pramAnas we quote from those same texts which don't agree with their opinion.

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

one day, just recently, i was very bored -very bored. I was just sitting around and was think bout my name- the meaning, and popularity among Indians. So, I did a google search. There were a couple of thousand people in the world that had a hompage of some sort with the same as mine. All of these people, with the same name as me, had varying strengths. Ranging from teachers to artists to wives to mothers to daughters,to students, to atheletes, to high tech geeks(thats me, for clarity). So, in response to your question, i dont think that these other people are me. Unless- i have gone completely insane.

all of us, though we may share the same name, have different life stories. We may even share personality traits, but still the fact remains, we are not each other. Now, i will not go into the depth of each persons life (that may not even be legal) but obviously we are not the same people.we dont even know each other.

 

for mathematical people out there

trupti(dallas)!=trupti(uk)

trupti(michiagn)!=Trupti(houston)

trupti(india)!= trupti(dallas)

please ignore me if i have misunderstood the entire meaning of your inquiry, because this is how I interpreted it.

[Guest guest]

 

one day, just recently, i was very bored -very bored. I was just sitting around and was think bout my name- the meaning, and popularity among Indians. So, I did a google search. There were a couple of thousand people in the world that had a hompage of some sort with the same as mine. All of these people, with the same name as me, had varying strengths. Ranging from teachers to artists to wives to mothers to daughters,to students, to atheletes, to high tech geeks(thats me, for clarity). So, in response to your question, i dont think that these other people are me. Unless- i have gone completely insane.

 

 

 

LOL. And according to Shaivite "logic," all those people share the same name as you, so they are all the same as you! Thanks for answering my question, because I just wanted to bring out how absurd this "logic" is.

 

Note that I'm not saying anything about that religion or its followers - only about one piece of "logic" relied upon by them to make a point which they cannot otherwise defend.

 

Similarly, just because Vishnu has some names that are also names of Lord Shiva, it does not logically follow from this that Vishnu and Shiva are the same Supreme Personality of Godhead. Maybe it follows from other evidence (or maybe not), but certainly not on the basis of the above "logic." This was the whole point of the question which started this thread.