Shiva and Krsna

[atanu]

 

Haribol

The tenth anuvaka "Stuhi shrutam garta sadam yuvanam mrugannabhima mupahat numugram, mruda jaritre rudra satvano anyante asmanniva pantu senaha": the previous verses (as also subsequent verses) address Rudra, and thus here the speaker asks Rudra to praise one who is "seated in the heart", "terrible like a lion" etc. Then Nrsimha-tapani upanishad clarifies that "ugram" above refers to Lord Nrsimha.

.

Dear. We have gone through these a lot many times before. Rudra is a Vedic name of infinite conscsiousness. Whereas all your names are from smriti or itihas or purana. Why do you claim that you are follower of Vedas? Why do you simply not say that we are independent thinkers. What is the use of trying to debase Vedic names?

The verse you are referring to appears in Rig Veda in the Second book in a verse for Rudra (Devata is Rudra), as below. The translation is also given:

Stu/ih ïu/t< g?tR/sd</ font>< Æum! %?ph mm! -I n g< m& yuva?nm!>%/¢m! ,

m&/¦a j?ir/Çe é?Ô/ Stva?nae =/Ny< te? A/Smn! in v?pNtu/ sena>? . 2-033-11

2.033.11 Glorify the renowned Rudra, riding in his car, ever youthful, destructive, fierce like a formidable wild beast; Rudra, propitiated by praise, grant happiness to him who praises (you), and let your hosts destroy him who is our adversary.

 

I repeat: The verse in Rig Veda is an Eulogy to Rudra. Same verse appears in Yajur Veda also. It is funny to see that the root is torn out, hoping that the leaves will saurvive on their own.

After a very long time you will understand what Rudra is. He is the seer in you as well. He is the Supreme Seer, from which nothing is different -- including Narasimha.

 

And regarding the second verse: asya devasya mILhuSo vayA viSNoreSasya prabhRthe havirbhiH | vide hi rudro rudriyaM mahitvaM yAsiSTaM vartirashvinAvirAvat" , the following is the translation of Saraswati project, based on Sayana. What you cite is from Griffith. Even in <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com<st1:place w:st=" /><st1:City w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Griffith</st1:place></st1:City>'s translation, I have no problem. Vishnu being Rudra's arrow is truly he strength. But Shiva and Vishnu are not two beings.

7.040.05 I propitiate with oblations the ramifications of that divine attainable Vis.n.u, the showerer of benefits; Rudra, bestow upon us the magnificence of his nature; the As'vins have come to our dwelling abond with (sacrificial) food.

 

 

You should be sorry for presenting an incorrect translation by which you will have us believe that Vishnu is created by Soma contradicting quotations you provided from Mahanarayana upanishad, Nrismha tapani and host of other srutis (in addition to contradicting yourself). Shatapata Brahmana and other srutis say that yajna is also referred to as Vishnu, and so the above verse is actually referring to yajna. The Shatpatha Brahmana, Mahopanishad and host of other srutis talk about the birth of Rudra from the antaryami of Brahma i.e. Lord Narayana.

 

All your assertions do not make false the Rig Veda verse:

Rig Veda 9

saem>? pvte jin/ta m?tI/na< j?in/ta id/vae j?in/ta p&?iw/Vya> ,

j/in/ta¶erœ j?in/ta sUyR?Sy jin/teNÔ?Sy jin/taet iv:[ae>? . 9- 096- 05

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 Vishnu. 9.96.5

Why should I be sorry? I have not assumed that Vishnu is Narayana. But I know that Narayana is Vishnu.

Regarding Rudra's birth from Prajapati, you should know better. Rudra begets and sees the birth of Hiranyagarbha who is progenitor of Prajapati (Brahma). If Rudra again manifests from Brahma, then it does not mean that Rudra is not eternal.Nrisimha bhagwan appeared in a wall. Do not say that the Wall is Lord of Nrisimha.

And I will now show you a Rig verse which will clarify, who the original father is:

RV

10.061.05 (Rudra), the benefactor of man, whose eager, virile energy was developed, drew it back when disseminated (for the generation of offspring); again the irresistible (Rudra) concentrates (the energy) which was communicated to his maiden daughter.

10.061.06 When the deed was done in mid-heaven in the proximity of the father working his will, and the daughter coming together, they let the seed fall slightly; it was poured upon the high place of sacrifice.

10.061.07 When the father united with the daughter, then associating with the earth, he sprinkled it with the effusion; then the thoughtful gods begot Brahma; they fabricated the lord of the hearth (of sacrifice); the defender of sacred rites.

[Lord of the hearth of sacrifice: or va_stos.pati. Rudra, as in the Aitareya Bra_hman.a 3.33. These r.cas show that Puranic stories are not what they seem. In later literature Rudra seems to be begot by Praja_pati; there is also a mix-up with the legend of Brahma's incestuous passion for his daughter.].

Brahma is a thought creation of devas. Only Rudra Param Brahman Purusha and Narayana -- Param Brahman Tattva as the eternal pure consciousness is true.Rest is all Soma Janitaa.

Can judgements be true, if based one one set of Puranas alone? All that needed to be said have been said. These are not for those who are blinded by ego and do not see that what is Rudra is Vishnu and vice-versa. Those who have open enquiring mind will surely profit. I enjoy posting elsewhere, where more common sense prevails.

Best Wishes and Regards.

<st1:place w:st="on">Om</st1:place> Namah Shivayya

 

[sumedh]

 

 

Param Brahma tattva can only constitute Param Brahma and Param Brahma tattva can only be present in Param Brahma Purusha. With a apriori view that Narayana is different from Shiva and who is different from Vishnu, you will never be able to reconcile many Veda samhita verses. The truth is one shivoadvaita OM, which can be viewed as AUM (in three states), but the states are not the real beings. The Self is ONE and always real. It cannnot be cut. It is One but appears as if divided in bodies. It is known as param purusha, param brahman or mahesvara. All terms mean the same indescribable nameless Self.

 

 

 

 

No, with the aprori view that you take the Vedas become a bunch of contradictory verses. For instance (aitareya brahmana 1.1.1)

 

"agnirvai devaanamavamo viShNuH paramaH"

Agni is the lowest of all deities and Vishnu is the highest.

 

The first chapter of Brahma-sutra deals with the apparent contradictions in the scriptures. What you term as contradictions are not really so, and have been dealt by the Acharyas in their works e.g. Sripad Ramanujacharya in his Vedarthasangraha deals with the pUrvapaksha that apaurusheya vedas have contradictions like different deities being extolled in different hymns, and then explains that all these actually refer to Vishnu alone. Similarly Sripad Madhva deals with this Brahma-sutra-bhasya and all his other works where he establishes that Vishnu alone is sarva-shabda-vachya. Indeed the vishvakarma sUkta says that Vishnu gives His Names to all the deities, and the bhallaveya sruti says that Vishnu is the primary referrent of all the words. The point is that all the gunas that are extolled of various deities in the Vedas are those of Vishnu, and thus He is sarva-shabda-vachya. Thus they show the meaning of Bhagavad-Gita 15.15 "vedaishcha sarvaiH ahaM eva vedyo" (by all the Vedas I am to be known) and Hari-vamsha "vede rAmAyaNe chaiva purANe bhArate tathA | AdAvante cha madhye cha viShNuH sarvatra gIyate".

[atanu]

 

No, with the aprori view that you take the Vedas become a bunch of contradictory verses. For instance (aitareya brahmana 1.1.1)

 

"agnirvai devaanamavamo viShNuH paramaH"

Agni is the lowest of all deities and Vishnu is the highest.

 

The first chapter of Brahma-sutra deals with the apparent contradictions in the scriptures. What you term as contradictions are not really so, and have been dealt by the Acharyas in their works e.g. Sripad Ramanujacharya in his Vedarthasangraha deals with the pUrvapaksha that apaurusheya vedas have contradictions like different deities being extolled in different hymns, and then explains that all these actually refer to Vishnu alone. Similarly Sripad Madhva deals with this Brahma-sutra-bhasya and all his other works where he establishes that Vishnu alone is sarva-shabda-vachya. Indeed the vishvakarma sUkta says that Vishnu gives His Names to all the deities, and the bhallaveya sruti says that Vishnu is the primary referrent of all the words. The point is that all the gunas that are extolled of various deities in the Vedas are those of Vishnu, and thus He is sarva-shabda-vachya. Thus they show the meaning of Bhagavad-Gita 15.15 "vedaishcha sarvaiH ahaM eva vedyo" (by all the Vedas I am to be known) and Hari-vamsha "vede rAmAyaNe chaiva purANe bhArate tathA | AdAvante cha madhye cha viShNuH sarvatra gIyate".

 

 

Shivoadvaitam Turiya is the Self. From the energy of the indescribable and un-nameable Self rest all. EKo and Sarva are not different.

 

 

Rig Veda 9

saem>? pvte jin/ta m?tI/na< j?in/ta id/vae j?in/ta p&?iw/Vya> ,

j/in/ta¶erœ j?in/ta sUyR?Sy jin/teNÔ?Sy jin/taet iv:[ae>? . 9- 096- 05

 

OM

[Yogkriya]

 

No, with the aprori view that you take the Vedas become a bunch of contradictory verses. For instance (aitareya brahmana 1.1.1)

 

Yes so you don't read the Vedas.

 

 

 

"agnirvai devaanamavamo viShNuH paramaH"

Agni is the lowest of all deities and Vishnu is the highest.

 

The first chapter of Brahma-sutra deals with the apparent contradictions in the scriptures. What you term as contradictions are not really so, and have been dealt by the Acharyas in their works e.g. Sripad Ramanujacharya in his Vedarthasangraha deals with the pUrvapaksha that apaurusheya vedas have contradictions like different deities being extolled in different hymns, and then explains that all these actually refer to Vishnu alone. Similarly Sripad Madhva deals with this Brahma-sutra-bhasya and all his other works where he establishes that Vishnu alone is sarva-shabda-vachya. Indeed the vishvakarma sUkta says that Vishnu gives His Names to all the deities, and the bhallaveya sruti says that Vishnu is the primary referrent of all the words. The point is that all the gunas that are extolled of various deities in the Vedas are those of Vishnu, and thus He is sarva-shabda-vachya. Thus they show the meaning of Bhagavad-Gita 15.15 "vedaishcha sarvaiH ahaM eva vedyo" (by all the Vedas I am to be known) and Hari-vamsha "vede rAmAyaNe chaiva purANe bhArate tathA | AdAvante cha madhye cha viShNuH sarvatra gIyate".

 

But what do you have to do with Ramanujacharya or MAdhavacharya?

You do not even accept them fully? So why quote them?

Lord Shiva says in Shiv Gita to Rama - that of all the Vedas, he is to be known.

[Yogesh from za]

I have not put anyone down as you assert. Please quote if I have!

 

The reason why Sirla Prabhupada, as I understood it, did not want just anyone reading Vedic Scripture is for the same reson we see here now...Misinterpretation leading to quarrel. The only way to understand any Books of knowladge is by studying under a BONAFIDE GURU (teacher).

 

Let me try and clarify...... If You have read medical journals can you call yourself a Doctor??? JUST BECAUSE YOU HAVE LITTLE MORE KNOWLADGE THAN ANOTHER PERSONE ARE YOU ASSERTING YOU KNOW EVERYTHING???

 

Who is your GURU or have you just picked up some Vedic scriptures and made your own interpretation (Yogikrya and Atanu) ???

 

Lastly I have never said Sirla Prabhupada is the only Vaishnava Servant or the Only Dear Most Servant of the Lord.

 

I have not read a single passage of devotees disregarding or disrespecting other servants in other BONAFIDE Lineage.

 

Please Do Not Put Words in my mouth.

 

 

Jay Gauranga

 

Hare Krsna

 

All Glories To HDG Sirla Prabhupada (dear most servant of the servant topmost vaishnava MAHA-DEV servant of Lord Hari)

[Yogesh from za]

I will quote directly from Gito Upanishad Sung By Lord Krsna on the Battlefield and written by Sirla Vyasadev (Param Guru) I will not include Sirla Prabhupada's purports (although to all devotees the purports help to ground the meaning) since you have an aversion to them.

 

 

 

 

CHAPTER 10 TEXT 22

 

vedanam sama-vedo'smi

devanam asmi vasavah

indriyanam manas casmi

bhutanam asmi cetana

vedanam - of all the Vedas; sama-vedah - the Sama-veda; asmi - I am

devanam - of all demigods; asmi - I am; vasavah - heavenly kings;

indriyanam - of all the senses; manah - mind; ca - also; asmi - I am;

bhutanam - of all living entities; asmi - I am; cetana - the living force;

 

CHAPTER 10 TEXT 23

rudranam sankaras casmi

vitteso yaksa - raksasam

vasunam pavakas casmi

meruh sikharinam aham

rudranam - of all the Rudras; sankarah - Lord Siva; ca - also; asmi - I am

vittesah - the lord of treasury ; yaksa-raksasam - of the Yaksas and Raksasas; vasunam - of the vasunam; pavakah - fire; ca - also; asmi - I am; meruh - Meru; sikharinam - of all mountains; aham - I am.

 

 

Now here is the clincher. You mentioned that Lord Siva showed the universal form to Lord Rama.....Well lets see what Gito Upanishad says:-

 

 

CHAPTER 11 TEXT 6

pasyadityan vasun rudran

asvinau marutas tatha

bahuny adrsta-purvani

pasyascaryani bharata

pasya - see; adityan - the twelve sons of Aditi; vasun - the eight Vasus

rudran - the eleven forms of Rudra; asvinau - the two Asvins;

marutah - the forty nine Maruts ( demigods of wind); tatah - also;

bahuni - many; adrsta - that you have not heard or seen; purvani - before; pasya - there see; ascaryani - all the wonderful; bharata - O best of the Bharatas.

 

 

Now it is said many of the forms shown by Lord Krsna when he exhibited his Universal form was not seen or heard before. If Lord Shiva had shown the universal form during Treta Yuga how is it that Lord Krsna states that no one has seen or heard of these forms before in the Dwarpa Yuga????

 

I must also add that I am disappointed in those devotees that disrespect other BONAFIDE GURUS in other BONAFIDE PARAMPARA SYSTEM (lineage)

 

Hare Krsna

 

All Glories To HDG Sirla Prabhupada (dear most servant of the servant Maha-dev servant of Lord Hari)

 

"PHILOSOPHY WITHOUT RELIGION IS SPECULATION, RELIGION WITHOUT PHILOSOPHY IS FANATICISM"

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Yogkriya]

Yes Shiva says this to Rama in shiv Gita too. You may not believe it, but I still suggest you get a copy and read it devotionally. It is right there in the Padma Puran, that SP quoted much.

 

 

 

CHAPTER 10 TEXT 22

 

vedanam sama-vedo'smi

devanam asmi vasavah

indriyanam manas casmi

bhutanam asmi cetana

vedanam - of all the Vedas; sama-vedah - the Sama-veda; asmi - I am

devanam - of all demigods; asmi - I am; vasavah - heavenly kings;

indriyanam - of all the senses; manah - mind; ca - also; asmi - I am;

bhutanam - of all living entities; asmi - I am; cetana - the living force;

 

CHAPTER 10 TEXT 23

rudranam sankaras casmi

vitteso yaksa - raksasam

vasunam pavakas casmi

meruh sikharinam aham

rudranam - of all the Rudras; sankarah - Lord Siva; ca - also; asmi - I am

vittesah - the lord of treasury ; yaksa-raksasam - of the Yaksas and Raksasas; vasunam - of the vasunam; pavakah - fire; ca - also; asmi - I am; meruh - Meru; sikharinam - of all mountains; aham - I am.

 

[Yogkriya]

I think you are confusing the yugas. Shiva showed the universal form much before Krishna and this was not in Treta Yuga.

He showed the form to Rama. Krishna did say this universal form is seen by none before (except for himself). Now the question would arise that if Shiva showed Krishna (then in Rama incarnation), then how can Krishna display the same form to Arjuna?

To know this, one has to understand the real relation between Hari and Shiva. This is the most intimate and closest relation in all the universes. And is not to be understood by those who blasphemy other sampradayas or are against Shiva or Vaishnava. Shiva gita and Samhita clearly state this relation in Lord Shiva's own words.

Fortunately enough for me, I've accepted this Shiva-Vishnu relation and don't feel putting down any of them, as it is way to hell.

Lord Shiva's being the 11th avatara as Hanumana to help and serve Rama is also mentioned in Shiv Gita. Read it.

 

 

Now here is the clincher. You mentioned that Lord Siva showed the universal form to Lord Rama.....Well lets see what Gito Upanishad says:-

 

 

CHAPTER 11 TEXT 6

pasyadityan vasun rudran

asvinau marutas tatha

bahuny adrsta-purvani

pasyascaryani bharata

pasya - see; adityan - the twelve sons of Aditi; vasun - the eight Vasus

rudran - the eleven forms of Rudra; asvinau - the two Asvins;

marutah - the forty nine Maruts ( demigods of wind); tatah - also;

bahuni - many; adrsta - that you have not heard or seen; purvani - before; pasya - there see; ascaryani - all the wonderful; bharata - O best of the Bharatas.

 

 

Now it is said many of the forms shown by Lord Krsna when he exhibited his Universal form was not seen or heard before. If Lord Shiva had shown the universal form during Treta Yuga how is it that Lord Krsna states that no one has seen or heard of these forms before in the Dwarpa Yuga????

 

[atanu]

 

I will quote directly from Gito Upanishad

CHAPTER 11 TEXT 6

 

pasyadityan vasun rudran

asvinau marutas tatha

 

 

bahuny adrsta-purvani

pasyascaryani bharata

--------

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Why do you not quote the verse that says: among Adityas I am Vishnu?

 

 

Rudran means Rudras, who are all progeny of Rudra. Do not make smriti your reference point. Do not equate Rudras and shivoadvaita Turiya Self.

 

 

 

 

 

RV HYMN LXIV. Maruts.

 

 

 

 

 

2 They spring to birth, the lofty Ones, the Bulls of Heaven, divine, THE CHILDREN OF RUDRA, free from spot and stain; The purifiers, shining brightly even as suns, awful of form like giants, scattering rain-drops down.

 

 

 

3 YOUNG RUDRAS, demon-slayers, never growing old, they have waxed, even as mountains, irresistible. They make all beings tremble with their mighty strength, even the very strongest, both of earth and heaven.

 

 

 

 

 

12 THE PROGENY OF RUDRA WE INVOKE WITH PRAYER, THE BRISK, THE BRIGHT, THE WORSHIPFUL, THE ACTIVE ONES TO THE STRONG BAND OF MARUTS CLEAVE FOR HAPPINESS, THE CHASERS OF THE SKY, IMPETUOUS, VIGOROUS.

 

 

 

 

 

And Visvarupa? One name of Rudra is Visvarupa as below from Yajur Veda (Rudra is called Visvarupa in Rig Veda also).:

 

 

 

 

 

4th ANUVAKA

 

 

 

 

 

Namo uganabhya strumhati bhyascha vo namo |

Namo ganebhyo Ganapati bhyascha vo namo |

Namo virupebhyo vishvarupe bhyascha vo namo

 

 

And also in Maha Narayana Upanishad:

 

 

dvaavi.nsho.anuvaakaH .

 

 

XXII-1 namo hiraNyabaahave hiraNyavarNaaya hiraNyaruupaaya hiraNyapataye.ambikaapataya umaapataye pashupataye namo namaH .. 1..

XXIII-1 Ritam satyaM paraM brahma purushha.n kRishhNapiNgalam.h .

uurdhvareta.n viruupaaksha.n vishvaruupaaya vai namo namaH .. 1..

 

 

 

Do not forget that Vedas are eternal. You are acting similar to Christians who say that Christ is the only way, as if before Christ there was no way and no God? The day you get harmonised in the knowledge that Shiva and Krishna are two sides of the same coin, then only peace will arrive. Shiva is neither being nor non-being indescribale Self (Turiya) whose manifestation is Sat-Asat.

 

 

 

 

Your blindness will increase your turmoil only.

 

 

 

 

pa~nchasaptatitamo.anuvaakaH .

 

namo rudraaya vishhNave mR^ityurme paahi .. 1..

 

 

 

Om Namah Vasudevayya

 

Om Namah Shivayya

 

 

 

[tackleberry]

 

 

 

Why do you not quote the verse that says: among Adityas I am Vishnu?

 

 

 

Sure. Vishnu took his Trivikrama Avatar as one of the adityas, didn't he? So this verse must be seen in that connection only. Hope you understand. If not, please let me know and I'll try to explain it again.

[atanu]

 

Sure. Vishnu took his Trivikrama Avatar as one of the adityas, didn't he? So this verse must be seen in that connection only. Hope you understand. If not, please let me know and I'll try to explain it again.

 

 

Sure. Apply these ideas equally, with other verses also.

 

Rig Veda 9

saem>? pvte jin/ta m?tI/na< j?in/ta id/vae j?in/ta p&?iw/Vya> ,

j/in/ta¶erœ j?in/ta sUyR?Sy jin/teNÔ?Sy jin/taet iv:[ae>? . 9- 096- 05

[tackleberry]

 

Sure. Apply these ideas equally, with other verses also.

 

doing which you get: Vishnu is Supreme. You're catching on real fast.

[atanu]

 

doing which you get: Vishnu is Supreme. You're catching on real fast.

 

 

Sure. The truth, the Self is paratpara.

 

 

Rig Veda 9

saem>? pvte jin/ta m?tI/na< j?in/ta id/vae j?in/ta p&?iw/Vya> ,

j/in/ta¶erœ j?in/ta sUyR?Sy jin/teNÔ?Sy jin/taet iv:[ae>? . 9- 096- 05

[tackleberry]

 

Sure. The truth, the Self is paratpara.

 

And that Self or Antaryamin within all creatures is Lord Vishnu, as He's explained in the Gita.

[atanu]

 

And that Self or Antaryamin within all creatures is Lord Vishnu, as He's explained in the Gita.

 

Sure:

 

But:

 

Sure. The truth, the Self is paratpara.

 

 

Rig Veda 9

saem>? pvte jin/ta m?tI/na< j?in/ta id/vae j?in/ta p&?iw/Vya> ,

j/in/ta¶erœ j?in/ta sUyR?Sy jin/teNÔ?Sy jin/taet iv:[ae>? . 9- 096- 05

 

And

 

Mahanarayana

pa~nchasaptatitamo.anuvaakaH .

namo rudraaya vishhNave mR^ityurme paahi .. 1..

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[tackleberry]

So Atan, you do agree. Good.

[atanu]

 

So Atan, you do agree. Good.

 

Sure. The truth is paratpara. We know.

[sumedh]

Haribol

Dear. We have gone through these a lot many times before. Rudra is a Vedic name of infinite conscsiousness. Whereas all your names are from smriti or itihas or purana. Why do you claim that you are follower of Vedas? Why do you simply not say that we are independent thinkers. What is the use of trying to debase Vedic names?

 

Note that you tried to clear the "Puranic" concepts with something in the sruti only to land up with the same "concepts". Why do you feel compelled to insert your own imaginations like consciousness etc. in the interpretation of sruti which are not there and thereby twist the sruti. Since so far you have not provided a pramana to support your conjecture of "Vedic names", any further discussion down this line is discardable -- being dramatic does not help, and keep personal attacks out of here. On the other hand direct quotations from sruti have been already provided to substantiate that all names primarily refer to Narayana which you have conveniently ignored (or maybe substituted with your own imaginations).

The supposed reference from Mandukya Upanishad has already been elaborately dealt with by the acharyas. In this context the following points may be noted:

* That the primary meaning of Atma actually is Brahman. This is supported by Shankaracharya himself in Brahma sutra 1.1.3 quoting from Mundaka Upanishad.

* Mandukya says that Atma has four quarters (chatuShpAt) thus referring to the chatur-vyuh manifestation of Lord Narayana, and not to four states of existence.

* If the latter is contended then the whole description in the upanishad becomes absurd. It would mean that waking "state" has 19 heads, dreaming "state" again has 19 heads. Then the dreamless "state" is the the Lord of all, sarveshvaraH and inner controller of all, sarvAntaryAmi -- so a really simple way to become Lord of all is to go to sleep... Then the turiya "state" is called as the vibhuH (creator) and devaH.

I repeat: The verse in Rig Veda is an Eulogy to Rudra. Same verse appears in Yajur Veda also. It is funny to see that the root is torn out, hoping that the leaves will saurvive on their own.

After a very long time you will understand what Rudra is. He is the seer in you as well. He is the Supreme Seer, from which nothing is different -- including Narasimha.

 

 

Which apart from dramatism does nothing to address the verse at hand in which the sage asks Rudra to praise the Deity seated in the heart.

 

 

 

And regarding the second verse: asya devasya mILhuSo vayA viSNoreSasya prabhRthe havirbhiH | vide hi rudro rudriyaM mahitvaM yAsiSTaM vartirashvinAvirAvat" , the following is the translation of Saraswati project, based on Sayana. What you cite is from Griffith. Even in <st1:city w:st="<st1:place" on=""><st1:place w:st="on">Griffith</st1:place></st1:city>'s translation, I have no problem. Vishnu being Rudra's arrow is truly he strength.

You are right that the translation is due to Griffith. A more accurate translation would be:

I get my desires granted by offering in sacrifices to that Visnu, the ishwara who is present in all these devatas. Knowing this (vide hi), Rudra gained his Rudra strength. The Ashvini brothers have come to our abode with abundant sacrifical food.

 

Again your interpretation out of the blue of "Vishnu being Rudra's arrow" (apparently from tripurasura episode) is incorrect on account of "vide hi" which says that "knowing this" i.e. only knowing that Vishnu is the ishwara does Rudra gain his rudratva.

But Shiva and Vishnu are not two beings.

7.040.05 I propitiate with oblations the ramifications of that divine attainable Vis.n.u, the showerer of benefits; Rudra, bestow upon us the magnificence of his nature; the As'vins have come to our dwelling abond with (sacrificial) food.

 

The quote is not relevant to the point being discussed, nor does anything to further your assertion that "Shiva and Vishnu are not two beings" even with your interpretation.

 

Why should I be sorry? I have not assumed that Vishnu is Narayana. But I know that Narayana is Vishnu.

 

Interesting theory, however the sruti says "NArAyaNAya vidmahE VAsudEvAya dheemahi. TannO VishNuH prachOdayAt". That Vishnu is unborn is known on the strength of several pramanas like TaittirIya Arayaka(3.13.1):

"ajAyamAno bahudhA vijAyate" i.e. He is unborn yet He takes several avatars. Rig Veda 1.156.2 calls Vishnu as sumajjAnaye or self-born. Then Rig Veda 1.154.1 says:

 

"Visnornukam vIryAni pravocham yah pArthhivAni vimame rajAMsi

yo aska bhAyadhuttharaM sadhastham vichakramAnas tredhhorugAyah"

Let me say to you the brave deeds of Visnu who created the seven worlds below - belonging to earth and who created the seven worlds above occupied and crowded with persons of good deeds and he who is greatly praised measured these worlds in three steps.

 

So it says that Vishnu is the creator of all the worlds, and the Brahma Sutra (4.4.17) "jagadvyApAravarjam.h" holds that only Brahman creates, ruling out any jiva doing it. Of course the famous "tad viShNoH paramaM padaM" and similarly Taittreya Aranyaka 1.8.3-4 says:

 

"kim tad visnor balamAhuh kA dhIpthi kim parAyanam

eko yadhdhhAra yadhdhevah rejathI rodhasI ubhhe

vAthAdhvisnorbalamAhuh aksharAdhdhIpthiruchyate

tripadhAdh dhhArayadhdhevah yad visnor ekam utthamam

 

agnayo vAyavashchaiva etadasya parAyanam"

What is said about Visnu's strength, His brightness and His Supreme abode. Divine Visnu Himself all alone bears the heaven and earth with that strength.Visnu's strength is said to greater than that of Vayu, His brightness is said to be greater than that of Agni. Residing in Moksha Loka, Visnu who is the one supreme "ekam utthamam" bears the world(heaven and earth), Agnis and Vayus and that Moksha Loka is His Supreme Abode.

 

The purusha sUkta also talks of the Supreme Being who has Hri and Sri as the wives and who are known to be wives of Vishnu from sruti: "dEvIm VishNupatnIm ajUryAm" and "MahIm asyEsAnA jagatO VishNu patnI". The already cited Aitareya Brahmana (1.1.1) "agnirvai devaanamavamo viShNuH paramaH" says the same thing as also "te viSNo jAyamAno na jAto deva mahimnaH param antam Apa" (Rg Veda 7.99.2).

Of course, there are innumerable smriti pramanas for this.

Regarding Rudra's birth from Prajapati, you should know better. Rudra begets and sees the birth of Hiranyagarbha who is progenitor of Prajapati (Brahma). If Rudra again manifests from Brahma, then it does not mean that Rudra is not eternal.Nrisimha bhagwan appeared in a wall. Do not say that the Wall is Lord of Nrisimha.

 

Useless comparison, since the Shatapatha Brahmana also says that the boy (Rudra) cried at the time of birth saying that he is not cleansed of sins -- hardly a sign of Param Brahman. The Mahopanishad also says that Rudra is born from Narayana and specifically says that Rudra did not exist in the beginning; same with Narayanopanishad.

 

 

 

Can judgements be true, if based one one set of Puranas alone? All that needed to be said have been said. These are not for those who are blinded by ego and do not see that what is Rudra is Vishnu and vice-versa. Those who have open enquiring mind will surely profit. I enjoy posting elsewhere, where more common sense prevails.

 

 

Indeed it shall be better if you stop posting among those with "ego", as you yourself would enjoy that more. Remember the same can be said about yourself, so no need to dramatise things.

 

[Yogkriya]

 

Haribol

Note that you tried to clear the "Puranic" concepts with something in the sruti only to land up with the same "concepts". Why do you feel compelled to insert your own imaginations like consciousness etc.

 

Prabhuji! PAMHO!

Hare Krishna!

 

I agree with you, but if consciousness was just imagination, then why would our beloved Srila Prabhupada name the organization after krishna consciousness? Is that imagination too? After all, everything starts with consciousness. Right consciousness. Without any consciousness there no reading of the Vedas either.

I don't find Atanu Prabhu or YogKriya Prabhu wrong if they want to be in Shiva consciousness. This is also God consciousness, confirmed by the Vedic authorities and also by previous posts. And a lot has been said about Lord Shiva in the scriptures. It will definitely not be wise to stamp and stress the sin and child incident. There is indeed a lot more said and written by much more higher authorities than us in the scriptures.

As far as I can remember, Srila Prabhupada never propagated this.

I guess we are just too hard on each other. While we ourselves haven't really reached neither Krishna nor Shiva. Please spare any offenses.

And if I said something offensive, I beg your pardon.

Hari Bol!

 

Chant and be happy or fight and be miserable!

[sumedh]

Hare Krishna

 

 

I agree with you, but if consciousness was just imagination, then why would our beloved Srila Prabhupada name the organization after krishna consciousness? Is that imagination too? After all, everything starts with consciousness. Right consciousness. Without any consciousness there no reading of the Vedas either.

 

 

I never said that consciousness is imagination; the reference was to the interpretation that Narayana and Rudra are not Beings but refer to "infinite consciousness"; that the "Puranic concepts" of Narayana/Rudra refer to "shivoadvaitam" etc.

[Guest guest]

 

Hare Krishna

I never said that consciousness is imagination; the reference was to the interpretation that Narayana and Rudra are not Beings but refer to "infinite consciousness"; that the "Puranic concepts" of Narayana/Rudra refer to "shivoadvaitam" etc.

 

Hari Bol! PAMHO!

 

I think, the whole concept, is hard to know through shastric refrences alone, since as you mentioned the "ego" thing is there. You did not quote Rudra Upanisha or Shiva Purana at all. I feel in these threads one side goes on mentioning one kind of scriptures to prove his side of the theory while neglecting the other. Krishna or Shiva can not be known just through reading.

 

On the other hand if you declare Shiva Purana as so called "Tamasic" then you have to state why it is tamasic, since Shiva himself is above all the three gunas and is not bounded by them. The stressing of Shiva being sinful continuosly is offensive. Please Be careful of the reaction you may get. In other words, you are preaching Shiva as sinful in your enthusiasm to preach Vishu/Narayana higher. This is time waste and dangerous for spiritual life and progress. Hope you understand.

Hari Bol!

[Guest guest]

Rightly said Prabhu. Hari bol!

 

 

Prabhuji! PAMHO!

Hare Krishna!

 

I agree with you, but if consciousness was just imagination, then why would our beloved Srila Prabhupada name the organization after krishna consciousness? Is that imagination too? After all, everything starts with consciousness. Right consciousness. Without any consciousness there no reading of the Vedas either.

I don't find Atanu Prabhu or YogKriya Prabhu wrong if they want to be in Shiva consciousness. This is also God consciousness, confirmed by the Vedic authorities and also by previous posts. And a lot has been said about Lord Shiva in the scriptures. It will definitely not be wise to stamp and stress the sin and child incident. There is indeed a lot more said and written by much more higher authorities than us in the scriptures.

As far as I can remember, Srila Prabhupada never propagated this.

I guess we are just too hard on each other. While we ourselves haven't really reached neither Krishna nor Shiva. Please spare any offenses.

And if I said something offensive, I beg your pardon.

Hari Bol!

 

Chant and be happy or fight and be miserable!

[atanu]

 

 

The supposed reference from Mandukya Upanishad has already been elaborately dealt with by the acharyas. In this context the following points may be noted:

* That the primary meaning of Atma actually is Brahman. This is supported by Shankaracharya himself in Brahma sutra 1.1.3 quoting from Mundaka Upanishad.

* Mandukya says that Atma has four quarters (chatuShpAt) thus referring to the chatur-vyuh manifestation of Lord Narayana, and not to four states of existence.

------

Read mandyuka. Turiya is the Self. Do not imagine the fifth pada beyond.

Which apart from dramatism does nothing to address the verse at hand in which the sage asks Rudra to praise the Deity seated in the heart.

 

Some people do not bend but they will break. What I cited earlier was from Rig Veda, translated as per Sayana for the sarawswati project. So, you now want to say that your mis-translation is correct:

 

Stu/ih ïu/t< g?tR/sd</ font>< Æum! %?ph mm! -I n g< m& yuva?nm!>%/¢m! ,m&/¦a j?ir/Çe é?Ô/ Stva?nae =/Ny< te? A/Smn! in v?pNtu/ sena>? . 2-033-11

<?xml:namespace prefix = o />

2.033.11 Glorify the renowned Rudra, riding in his car, ever youthful, destructive, fierce like a formidable wild beast; Rudra, propitiated by praise, grant happiness to him who praises (you), and let your hosts destroy him who is our adversary.

 

I repeat: The verse in Rig Veda is an Eulogy to Rudra. Same verse appears in Yajur Veda also.

 

 

Again your interpretation out of the blue of "Vishnu being Rudra's arrow" (apparently from tripurasura episode) is incorrect on account of "vide hi" which says that "knowing this" i.e. only knowing that Vishnu is the ishwara does Rudra gain his rudratva.

 

The Saraswayti project translation has been cited by me previouisly and like all your motivated translation this translation of yours is also simply wrong.

 

 

 

---

Interesting theory, however the sruti says "NArAyaNAya vidmahE VAsudEvAya dheemahi. TannO VishNuH prachOdayAt". That Vishnu is unborn is known on the strength of several pramanas like TaittirIya Arayaka(3.13.1):

 

 

 

Yes. May Vishnu impel us to know Narayana.

 

 

 

 

 

The purusha sUkta also talks of the Supreme Being who has Hri and Sri as the wives and who are known to be wives of Vishnu from sruti: "dEvIm VishNupatnIm ajUryAm" and "MahIm asyEsAnA jagatO VishNu patnI". The already cited Aitareya Brahmana (1.1.1) "agnirvai devaanamavamo viShNuH paramaH" says the same thing as also "te viSNo jAyamAno na jAto deva mahimnaH param antam Apa" (Rg Veda 7.99.2).

 

Of course, there are innumerable smriti pramanas for this.

 

 

 

Oh Oh.

 

Purusha sukta in Rig Samhita does not say anything of the sort. It is there in Uttara Anuvuka, wherein, it refers to Hiryanagarbha. And Hiryanagarbha is born of Rudra -- the Supreme seer.

 

As for "agnirvai devaanamavamo viShNuH paramaH", itself indicates that among Devatas Vishnu is parama.

 

I am talking of paratpara.

 

 

Give us one shruti showing Param Parastad for any oother being.

 

 

Rig Veda 9

saem>? pvte jin/ta m?tI/na< j?in/ta id/vae j?in/ta p&?iw/Vya> ,

j/in/ta¶erœ j?in/ta sUyR?Sy jin/teNÔ?Sy jin/taet iv:[ae>? . 9- 096- 05

 

 

Sama Veda XIX Soma Pavamana

1. 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 Vishnu.

 

Param Atma has no progenitor. I am sorry. And as you have yourself said: Vishnu is Self born.The Self is Turiya --- shivoadvaitam.

[Guest guest]

 

Give us one shruti showing Param Parastad for any other being.

Param Atma has no progenitor. I am sorry. And as you have yourself said: Vishnu is Self born.The Self is Turiya --- shivoadvaitam.

NO i don't think Sumedh bhaiya has any Shruti to show Param Parastad an understanding of Turiya - Shivoadvaitam.

 

Jai Lakshmi Narayan, Jai Gauri Shankar!

 

AKAL MRITYU SE MARE WOH JO KAAM KARE SHAITAN KA , KAAL USKA KYA BIGADE JO BHAKT HO MAHA KAAL KA! HAR-HAR MAHADEV. JAI GURU DEV.

[atanu]

 

 

I never said that consciousness is imagination; the reference was to the interpretation that Narayana and Rudra are not Beings but refer to "infinite consciousness"; that the "Puranic concepts" of Narayana/Rudra refer to "shivoadvaitam" etc.

 

 

That is precisely your problem dear Sumedh. You are a lover of God, no doubt, but you are an immature one. You have taken the Puranic concepts as the truth. The concepts are like addrresses to the home but not the home. The truth is beyond description and Paratpara.

 

 

When you say among devatas Vishnu is highest and Agni is lowest, you automatically demean both Vishnu and Agni -- though ignorantly and definitely with love for Vishnu. Vishnu -- Vasudeva is all. Agni -- is all. All these are infinite expressions of ONE SELF. Vishnu is infinite Self -- how can you compare that to another. And how can you even try to demean Agni by comparison. He is the Purohit. He takes all our prayers and oblations to whichever deity we wish to reach.

 

 

Anyway Sumedh. I have no time for these discussions and I am withdrawing on this Vijaya Dashami day -- with two verses from Yajur Veda as my intangible gift to you and other readers of this forum. Hope these two verses will bring illumination someday.

 

 

Yajur Veda iv. 4. 8.

(Thou “I” art) all overcoming through Agni; self-ruling through the sun; lord of strength through might; creator with the bull; bountiful through the sacrifice; heavenly through the sacrificial fee; slayer of enemies through rage; supporter of the body through kindliness; wealth through food; through the earth he hath won; (thou art) eater of food with verses; increased by the Vasat cry; protector of the body through the Saman; full of light with the Viraj; drinker of Soma through the holy power; with cows he supporteth the sacrifice; with lordly power men; with horse and car bearer of the bolt; lord with the seasons; enclosing with the year; unassailable through penance; the sun with bodies.”

YV iv. 4. 9.

(Thou art) Prajapati in mind, when come to the Soma; the creator in the consecration; Savitr in the bearing; Pusan in the cow for the purchase of the Soma; Varuna when bound (in the cloth); Asura in the being bought;Mitra when purchased; Çipivista when put in place;delighter of men when being drawn forward; the overlord on arrival;Prajapati being led on; Agni at the Agnidh’s altar; Brhaspati on being led from the Agnidh’s altar; Indra at the oblation-holder; Aditi when put in place; Visnu when being taken down; Atharvan when made wet; Yama when pressed out; drinker of unpurified (Soma) when being cleansed; Vayu when purifying; Mitra as mixed with milk; the Manthin when mixed with groats; that of the All-gods when taken out; Rudra when offered; Vayu when covered up; the gazer on men when revealed;the food when it comes; the famed of the fathers;life when taken; the river when going to the final bath; the ocean when gone; the water when dipped;the heaven when arrived at completion.

 

End of citation.

 

The one who says "I" in everyone -- is he with a form or is he formless? Is He manifest or is he unmanifest? That "I", when manifest in full is all pervading Vishnu. That same "I" when offered worship is Rudra.

 

 

Please read these verses. One day the realisation will dawn that the being who is aware as the real "I" in you is the SELF. He is the seeing/seer/seen. These divisions as so called tattwas is for understanding and realising the ONE indescribale truth alone.

 

 

 

Om Namoh Vasudevayya

Om Durge Namah

Om Namah Shivayya