Lord Vishnu is Supreme. Also worship Lord Brahma.

02-20-2004, 04:47 AM

In Vedas, it is clearly specified about Superiority of Lord Vishnu. Only pious people can recognise the essence of vedas (not ignorant ones).

Moreover, in mandukiya upanishad is regrded as "SAthvic" Upanishad. In 'mandukiya Upanishad Lord Vishnu is mentioned as "Parabrahma".

Moreover, Only Bhagavath Gita contains essence of all upanishads.We shouldnt forget that upanishads are written by some sages trying to recognise parabrahma. But Bhagavath Gita is not written by any sage, but spoken by God himself.
So Bhagavath Gita should be given much importance than the Upanishads. In Bhagavath Gita "Lord Vishnu" is recognised as Supreme.

We Vaishnavas accepted Supremacy of Vishnu by studying vedas, upanishads & Gita at "all angles". So No one has right to blame that we have studied only half of the vedas/scriptures.

ALSO WE VAISHNAVAS RESPECT & WORSHIP "LORD BRAHMA ALONG WITH OTHER GODS" BUT OTHER SECTS REJECT "LORD BRAHMA" & CALL THEMSELVES AS SECULAR. ASK THE REASON THEY WILL TELL A STORY FROM A TAMASIC PURANA. OTHER SECTS DONT GIVE IMPORTANCE TO BAGAVATHAM AS THEY GIVE TO TAMASIC PURANAS.

We Vaishnavas Respect All Gods & Worship (including Rudra & Brahma). The Status of Rudra is clearly mentioned in Rig Veda. But Other sects for sake of their convinience reject that & cling only on "Svetavatara Upanishad".

I wonder other than "Svetavatara Upanishad & Kainkarnya Upannishad" any other scripture support "Shiva" ???? I am sure that no.

But there are more ample evidence on scriptures stating that "Lord Vishnu" as Parabrahma.

AGAIN I TELL THAT WE VAISHNAVAS RESPECT & WORSHIP ALL GODS. BUT COMING TO SURRENDER, WE SURRENDER ONLY TO LORD VISHNU SINCE HE IS RECOGNISED AS SUPREME IN ALL OF THE SCRIPTURES.

JUST BECAUSE WE ACCEPT VISHNU AS SUPREME DOESNT MEAN THAT WE ARE REJECTING OTHER GODS. REMEMBER WE GIVE RESPECT TO "LORD BRAHMA" WHEREAS OTHERS DONT GIVE.

MY QUESTION IS DOESNT LORD BRAHMA DESERVE RESPECT ? WHAT HARM DOES THIS LOVELY GOD DID TO US ? WE SHOULDNT FORGET THAT IT IS LORD BRAHMA HAS CREATED US . LORD BRAHMA LOVES ALL EVEN THOUGH SOME SECTS REJECT HIM.

I FEEL SORRY FOR LORD BRAHMA.

OM NAMO BRAHMA DEVAYA NAMAHA
OM NAMAH SIVAYA
[img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] OM NAMO NARAYANAYA NAMAHA

Of course, Essence of Gita is to love all but not at the cost of "accepting other gods equal to vishnu". Even we vaishnavas remain as tolerant as possible to other sects.

Of course, there are pseudo vaishnavas fight among themselves by telling "vada killai" & "then killai". But it should not be considered seriously as its just a verbal conflict. but now even the two killais have stopped their quarrels.

[img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] Jai Shri Krishna

02-20-2004, 02:34 PM

" But Bhagavath Gita is not written by any sage, but spoken by God himself."

That is just your opinion, Vaishnavas may believe that also, but other Hindus believe the Gita was writen by Sage Vyasa or many Sage(s) which is just another Upanishad and is not the word of God. If you believe the Gita to be spoken by the historical Krishna himself, where is your proof? Historians research found that it was written between 500-300BC, not around 3000BC.

The Vedas say little about Lord Vishnu, which is surprising if he is supposed to be the supreme God.

02-20-2004, 02:53 PM

Nobody worships Brahma in India.
I think there is only one temple for Brahma in India.

It is because of a Curse of Lord Shiva.

There was once a Conflict among the trinity as to who is the greatest.

Lord Shiva said " Whomsoever sees my Adi ( foot) and mudi ( hair) and comes back is the winner."

Lord Vishnu took the form of a Varaha( Pig) and was digging into earth to find the foot of Siva.

Brahma took his Swan and flew to see his hair.

Siva is so big without a beginning and end, so Vishnu accepted defeat.

But Brahma thought he was smart enuff, so he brought a Flower ( Thazhampoo) as a witness to prove that he has indeed seen Sivaas hair.

But Siva found that Brahma was lying, so he cursed him that he will not be worshipped at all and The flower will not be used in poojas at all ( except on certain occasions).

I donno why you are posting childish postings like this and make a fool of yourself and vaishnavas.

02-20-2004, 05:26 PM

Let us see when VadaKalai and Thenkalai Iyengars decide what naamam to put for the Seerangam Elephant, or when a Vadakalai Iyengar boy marry a Thenkalai Iyengar girl.

02-20-2004, 05:26 PM

Quote:

" But Bhagavath Gita is not written by any sage, but spoken by God himself."

That is just your opinion, Vaishnavas may believe that also, but other Hindus believe the Gita was writen by Sage Vyasa or many Sage(s) which is just another Upanishad and is not the word of God. If you believe the Gita to be spoken by the historical Krishna himself, where is your proof? Historians research found that it was written between 500-300BC, not around 3000BC.

1. What is your religion ?
2. Sage Vyasa is an Avatar of Lord Visnu ie HE is GOD supreme.
3. Bhagavad Gita was spoken by Lord Krishna(GOD).
4. What researchers say is often wrong.
5. That Bhagavad Gita was spoken by Lord Krishna is accepted by many great sages from India like Adi Shankara, Madvacharya, Ramanujacharya etc.

What your pathetic researchers or you believe has no value.

Quote:

The Vedas say little about Lord Vishnu, which is surprising if he is supposed to be the supreme God.

It is time for ignoramus idiots like you to stop posting irritating posts like this. Read below.

idaM viSNurvi cakrame tredhA ni dadhe padam
samULhamasya pAMsure || RV 1.22.17 ||

trINi . vi cakrame viSNurgopA adAbhyaH
ato dharmANi dhArayan || RV 1.22.18 ||

tad viSNoH paramaM padaM sadA pashyanti sUrayaH
divIva cakSurAtatam || RV 1.22.20 ||

tad viprAso vipanyavo jAgRvAMsaH samindhate
viSNoryat paramaM padam || RV 1.22.21 ||

viSNornu kaM vIryANi pra vocaM yaH pArthivAni vimamerajAMsi
yo askabhAyaduttaraM sadhasthaM vicakramANastredhorugAyaH || RV 1.154.1 ||

pra tad viSNu stavate vIryeNa mRgo na bhImaH kucaro giriSThAH
yasyoruSu triSu vikramaNeSvadhikSiyanti bhuvanAni vishvA || RV 1.152.2 ||

pra viSNave shUSametu manma girikSita urugAyAya vRSNe
ya idaM dIrghaM prayataM sadhasthameko vimame tribhirit padebhiH || RV 1.154.3 ||

yasya trii puurNaa madhunaa padaanyakShiiyamaaNaa svadhayaa madanti ya u tridhaatu pR^ithiviim uta dyaam eko daadhaara bhuvanaani vishvaa || RV 1.154.4 ||

tA vaM vAstUnyushmasi gamadhyai yatra gAvo bhUrishRN^gAayAsaH
atrAha tadurugAyasya vRSNaH paramaM padamava bhAti bhUri || RV 1.154.6 ||

agnirvai devAnamavamo viShNuH paramaH || aitareya brAhmaNa 1.1.1 ||

aniravamo devatAnAM viShNuH paramaH || taittirIya saMhitA 5.5.1 ||

asya devasya mILhuSo vayA viSNoreSasya prabhRthe havirbhiH
vide hi rudro rudriyaM mahitvaM yAsiSTaM vartirashvinAvirAvat || RV 7.40.5 ||

Vayu Sukta of Rig Veda which says that Lord Vayu powdered the Visha, most hard to break, churned out of the ocean and gave it to Lord Shiva and drank it along with Him

Devi or Ambrani Sukta of Rig Veda says that Devi makes whom she wants as Brahma, Ugra, a Rsi or a wise man.

02-20-2004, 05:29 PM

Hare Krishna,

Quote:

Let us see when VadaKalai and Thenkalai Iyengars decide what naamam to put for the Seerangam Elephant, or when a Vadakalai Iyengar boy marry a Thenkalai Iyengar girl.

Please do not digress from the issue. The issue here is Supremacy of Lord Visnu as per the Vedas. Can you provide any rational argument against this ?

You cannot and so you start attacking the Vaishnavas taking silly incidents.

02-20-2004, 05:44 PM

Hare Krishna,

Quote:

Nobody worships Brahma in India.
I think there is only one temple for Brahma in India.

It is because of a Curse of Lord Shiva.

There was once a Conflict among the trinity as to who is the greatest.

Lord Shiva said " Whomsoever sees my Adi ( foot) and mudi ( hair) and comes back is the winner."

Lord Vishnu took the form of a Varaha( Pig) and was digging into earth to find the foot of Siva.

Brahma took his Swan and flew to see his hair.

Siva is so big without a beginning and end, so Vishnu accepted defeat.

But Brahma thought he was smart enuff, so he brought a Flower ( Thazhampoo) as a witness to prove that he has indeed seen Sivaas hair.

But Siva found that Brahma was lying, so he cursed him that he will not be worshipped at all and The flower will not be used in poojas at all ( except on certain occasions).

The story is from a Tamasic Purana and so not authentic. Not to mention it conflicts with what Vedas teach ie Supremacy of Lord Visnu.

Quote:

I donno why you are posting childish postings like this and make a fool of yourself and vaishnavas.

and your above story is of what intellectual value. The story is quite childish.

The trinity who are considered to be forms of Nirguna Brahman engage in petty power struggle. The very content is Tamasic in nature. I would not even consider this story.

02-20-2004, 05:53 PM

OK,

Your guy said Vaishnavites worship Brahma. That is what I call BS.
Brahma is not worshipped at all.
And the reason is what is explained in the Purana.
If you want not to believe in anything else, its upto you.

02-20-2004, 06:12 PM

Hare Krishna,

Quote:

OK,

Your guy said Vaishnavites worship Brahma. That is what I call BS.

Why worshipping Lord Brahma is ... I do not even want to say that word you used here.

The story you provided is Tamasic in nature. At one place you say Trinity represents nirguna Brahman and here in this story you people say Trinity is engaged in petty quarrels. Such stories are of TAMASIC category and not the truth. First defend on the position that Lord Shiva is lower in position to Lord Vayu.

Quote:

Brahma is not worshipped at all.
And the reason is what is explained in the Purana.
If you want not to believe in anything else, its upto you.

Your purana is tamasic and not authentic.

02-20-2004, 07:09 PM

I see you're upset, I'm glad I you feel so even if it is just to knock your ego senseless!

Now I'll answer your questions

1. What is your religion ?
I'm a Hindu.

2. Sage Vyasa is an Avatar of Lord Visnu ie HE is GOD supreme.
Nope, that's only the opinion of some Vaishnavas. I'm not a Vaishnava, nor am I Shivite, nor Shakta. Sage Vyasa was a great Sage who organised the Vedas, wrote the Mahabharata and started the school of Vedanta. He was an elder in the family of the Pandavas.

3. Bhagavad Gita was spoken by Lord Krishna(GOD).
It may be spoken by him in the Gita itself, but is he a historical character? The Gita is thought by many to be written around 500-300BC, which is way off the date given by some Vaishnava sects who think it is 5000 years old!

4. What researchers say is often wrong.
And who are you to talk? Is there any evidence behind this? Where's your proof? How can I know what comes out of your mouth is true? You don't do research yourself but choose to believe whatever makes you happy, whereas I'd like to know the truth whatever it may be.

5. That Bhagavad Gita was spoken by Lord Krishna is accepted by many great sages from India like Adi Shankara, Madvacharya, Ramanujacharya etc.
Yes I agree, in the Gita it is Sri Krishna speaking, but another opinion is that Sri Krishna is not historical and the war may never have took place but Sri Krishna symbolises Brahman, and the Gita was written to make the philosophy of the Upanishads practical in everyday life. I'm not saying this is MY opinion, but would love to see how you guys tackle it, if only for amusement purposes.

"What your pathetic researchers or you believe has no value."

I really don't think so as it clearly upsets people like yourself, all we want to know is the truth but you have to cry and whine about it. You've even taken to insults! What a great reflection of the religion you claim to represent.

By the way, even if Sri Krishna wasn't historical, I do believe that many Sages have obtained darshan of many of the divine forms of God, including Sri Krishna.

02-20-2004, 08:10 PM

HareKrishna!All glories to Srila Prabhupada!I offer my respectful obeisances unto Him!

"but other Hindus believe the Gita was writen by Sage Vyasa or many Sage(s) which is just another Upanishad and is not the word of God. If you believe the Gita to be spoken by the historical Krishna himself, where is your proof? Historians research found that it was written between 500-300BC, not around 3000BC."

A very wise answer Mr.WISE GUY. Do you have any proof that you had a grandfather in your lineage 1000 years before. Surely you should have had a grandfather 1000 years before.But have you seen Him or for that matter any material proof of his name and activites. My guess is no one will know. So does that mean he did not exist. No one has found the historical remains of Jesus Christ or any solid evidence of his days. They are still speculating and that is why there are so many wars now like between the Jews and Christians and the like. So according to you does that mean Jesus Christ was not there? Well...my point is you cannot explain everything based on historical proof and science as it is fallible. Human beings are fallible which means the science created by man is fallible. If you start to believe everything based on proof then you should question your very own existence.

Krishna is the Supreme Personality of Godhead and He did speak the Bhagavad Gita. There is a small thing called Faith. So we should have that to believe that.Dont be too bombastic that ego deludes your mind.It is not correct.If you want to learn then you should have an open mind and not submit irresponsible posts like this one. You talked about sage Veda Vyasa and say that He compiled the Bhagavad Gita. So then, you have proof for that???

So if you dont believe in Krishna Consciousness that is upto you, but seeking impossible proof to prove you wrong from Vaishnavas is stupid and ignorant. You know and I know one cannot produce that kind of proof, then why on earth do you ask for one. We are talking spiritual stuff here,obviously we dont have proof for anything we talk. Hope you change your mind and be more open to others opinion atleast for the sake of knowledge.Hare Krishna!

anand

02-20-2004, 10:39 PM

"There is a small thing called Faith"

no prabhu, you are answering identificating yourself as a Gaudya Vaishnava and Prabhupada follower. So, if you answer, you have to do it giving scriptural and scientific proofs like prabhupada and other acharyas could have done.......... not with some "why not?", hirony, declaring that a religion (christianism) is possible also if based on speculation, criticizing science without giving proofs and declaring at the end that all is about faith.

Discussing in this way could be gratifying for you because you are fighting with "karmis" but, in my opinion, you are not giving a good service because you make others believe that prabhupada followers are ehem... mmhh.. a little ignorants.

So, if you do not have too much informations, you can surely say that it is much better to follow a school who gives an organic and omnicomprehensive system of spiritual realization, (even if one does not have the skills and the culture to demonstrate in debates), than to be full of accuracy and dates remaining in the arid field of materialistic speculation without any real contact with transcendental people..

..if asked..

You can say also that you believe in acharyas that have changed as a miracle the life, the behaviour of so many people in the world ... and you are perfectly correct and ortodox..

..if asked...

but if you challenge people please make it if you are a little bit more competent, otherwise your words will decrease the prestige to our beloved acharyas and masters..

so if your last word is faith... very well, but do not engage yourself in discussions, faith is not at all a discussion subject

please take my suggestion without offence

haribol

02-20-2004, 10:51 PM

To all you Vaishnavas, I put forward another side of the argument and you lot always get angry. This is probably because you can't handle it, so the best you can do is insult. Alot of these arguments I put forwards have been proposed by reputable HINDU leaders of recent times and I do believe they know what they are talking about.

And I do not dislike all Vaishnavas, but I find the Hare Krishnas a little fanatical (calling other rascals). Not only that but they argue about stuff that is not even backed up by the discoveries of science, for example in Prabhupada's gita he states that the stars are really moons and they are all shining from the reflection of the sun! How wrong can he be! If any of you don't know what they stars are then I suggest you find out rather than embarassing yourselves.

How do they expect me or anyone who uses their head to follow their path when they dogmatically hold onto belifs like this?

02-20-2004, 11:52 PM

We Vaishnavas always give proof from vedas clearly showing status of Rudra & other gods.

We have also shown umteen times in this forum -> stanzas from vedas dentoing "Supremacy of Vishnu".

If you dont accept vedas & its stanzas, then you are just a atheist or a blind follower of "Tamasic purana".

Truth is that whenever we vaishnavas show the truth you people just divert the topic because you cant handle the truth.

You people always put arguements in a childish way. You dont argue in a religious way. This forums are menant to be debated in a religious way not in a childish or materialistic way.

If you have any proof from "Vedas" (not from other) showing "Rudra" is supreme, show it . otherwise just keep mum. Dont yell by taking stories from tamasic puranas.

okee.

[img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] Jai Shri Krishna

02-20-2004, 11:55 PM

Whenver you people come to argue instead of showing evidences from vedas, you people just divert the topic by blaming iskcon & others.

This thread is started my me. i am NOT a iskcon member.
so dont talk about ISKCON.

if you have any proof from "Vedas" stating that "Rudra is supreme than Vishnu" show it. otherwise keep mum. Dont yell by taking Tamasic stories.

[img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] Jai Shri Krishna

02-21-2004, 12:00 AM

We dont pull into our faith.

Dogmatic approach ???

Are you telling quoting from "Vedas" is a dogmotic approach ?

Do you know "vedas" ? If you want prove vaishnavam is wrong then prove it by taking vedas as authority rather than blaming some people.

if you cant prove from vedas then keep mum.

[img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img] Jai Shri Krishna

02-21-2004, 01:11 AM

You talk as if Vaishnavism is based on the Vedas, but it's more like the Vaishnava's Puranas and Agamas than the Vedas. In the Puranas you can see this conflict between the gods as in the Puranas associated with Vishnu, Shiva is seen as lower, but in the Puranas associated with Shiva, Vishnu is seen as lower.

There are Hindu movements based on the Vedas, but none of them are exclusively the type of 'Vaishnava' you propound. And they certainly are in more authority to talk than you are, an example of one of these is 'Arya Samaj' who speak of only One God in the Vedas, where Vishnu is just a name for God focusing on the quality of sustenance and preservation. You may not like it but at least that makes sense, than all these silly Vaishnava vs Shaivite arguments. And before you jump to any conclusions, NO I'm NOT an Arya Samajist.

I won't even bother stooping so low to your level as I don't see the point, you do a good job making yourself look silly.

02-21-2004, 01:16 AM

Havent u read my words ?

if you can prove that "Rudra is supreme" by taking vedas as authority prove it. otherwise you should keep mum.

You arguements are very childish & silly.

If you cant quote anything from vedas proving "Rudra" is supreme, then u keep mum.

dont try to divert the topic.

02-21-2004, 01:50 AM

Get this clear into your head...I AM NOT A SHAIVITE!
I AM NOT HERE TO PROVE SHIVA OR VISHNU IS SUPREME AS I BELIEVE THEY ARE DIFFERENT ASPECTS OF GOD (which is ONE).

GO ask a Shaivite where to prove that Rudra is Supreme.

I'm a Hindu, while your a Vaishnava, I think Vishnu is no different from the other gods as they are nothing but the same, so no name is supreme as God is ONE.

Gokul, you are good at demonstrating your own ignorance and as you can't defend yourself you make up in your mind that I'm a Shaivite - your worse enemy. You make it up so you can have an argument where you always lose as you don't even know who you're speaking to. You've been speaking to all non-vaishnavites as if they are all Shivites. DON'T ASSUME.

Not all Hindus follow your sectarian nonsense!

gokulkr · 02-21-2004, 05:32 AM

if you are not a shaivate then why are you so tensed in seeing my messages .

First of all theres no such as religion as Hinduism. The word "Hindu" means people living in banks of River Indus. This term is labelled by foriegn invaders. So no such thing as Hinduism. Its just a myth.

Your words prove your ignorance. Dont shout too much. Your throat may burst. have a cool lemon juice & chant Gods name.

cool down baby. dont expose your ignorance too much