Is Lord Shiva a demi-god? - Page 21

Ashok009 · 07-15-2008, 08:07 AM

HA HA HA....SO U R ALIGINING HERE ......U GUYS ARE WORSE THAN THE INDIAN POLITICS.......PLS PLS SUPPORT ME..HA HA HA

Ravindran Kesavan · 07-15-2008, 08:14 AM

Dear Dark warrior.

I am not goimg to react to your provocations of calling me childish, having nonsical views and rest of the name calling. Not that I dont have my valied diffence to counter them but I simply think that is true inappropriteness in a rational discussion and least spiritual. I rather respond to you purely at the rational debate with Stita prajna. I would not even have mentioned these things normally at the first place. But With you I am doing this because you should not assume that my civilised behaviour to be my weekness and acceptence of your accusations.

I will drop this at that and to rational spiritual discussion.

While you quoted many evidences for supporting your your thesis that Narayana is a suprime god - which I have no problem to accept at the first place,( only I have problem with the positions other gods inferior, I will come to the reason soon) - you have conspicuoukly silent about the very important vadic concept of Bhraman. What is your posion on it? I am asking this because, If we settle that issue first many unnessery debate which goes on this forum will disappear. Let me explain. Bhramin is the unifying concept. Braman is the source of everything . Braman is everything. All dualism and plurality is an illusion created by our lack of spiritual intution of bhraman. This applies to the myrrads of objects in the the physical world as well, as the thousands of gods that mankind ever worshiped and going to worship. In otherwords, God is one and that one theistic entity, one god, is called Bhraman. Different people of different languages of different geographical reagions of different cultures of different time period called the same thing with different names and conceived of different forms.

Sarvam Kalvidam Bhraman is the upanisadic truth. (I am including Upanisad as part of Vedas). Does veda contradict this vision anywhere?

Even Bhavad geeta declares the one who sees a dog and a priest (bramana) as equal, (as bhramin - or narayana, if you like - reaides in them , or manifestations of Bhraman) is a true jnani.
If that is the case where is the question of different gods being inferior or superior?
Sarva dharma Sama bhava is truely spiritual and a natural application of the one bhraman concept. Does veda reject this idea?

What is your position on this oneness concept?

I have heard some Vishnavite scholars arguing for the case that Advida - the oneness concept- is Sankara's, misinterpretation of Veda. I dont know whether you hold that position. But in case you hold that, I dont see any misinterpretation as Upnisads are quite explicit on it.

I like your hemaneutics of interpreting veda with out contradiction. You pointedd out the contradiction in asuming Indra as suprime and hence one must reject it. I expect the same rigour in your further analysis too. You need to interpret veda with out contradicting with the central notion of Bhraman. If any thing contradicts this central idea then that which contradicyts should be rejected - Unless of course you decide to reject the concept of Bhramin itself.

Regards,
K.Ravindran

ranjeetmore · 07-15-2008, 08:15 AM

yuck,that sounded so cheap frm ur mouth.....
Its basic vaishnava(nephyte or advanced) etiquette to respect another 1,irespective of his lineage...thats what i expect frm a felow suporter of Vishnu tattva as supreme,when i cme to post here.Got it ? Ur losing it,asok.

ranjeetmore · 07-15-2008, 08:25 AM

kesavan,the Brahm concept u covered in ur post,lacked(no offense) the important definitions found in the upanishads.
At 1 point,the veda does describe that there is only 1 tattva,that is Brahm.But the same upanishad further states ,there are two aspects of truth,bhram and jeeva.Then again further,it states that there are 3 principles,Brahm,jeeva, and maya.This is why only a mahatma has the right to read the veda.He understands its transcendental content alone.
Every vedic scholar knws that maya is the inferior energy of Brahm.Seeing as we have no control,even in the slightest,over maya,it cannot be our inferior energy.by this logic,v can refute that jeeva is brahm.Hence,we shud acept that v all fall under the category of jeevas.The veda explains how jeeva is tatastha shakti of brahm.So how can a particle be the whole ? How can jeeva be paramatma.

Ashok009 · 07-15-2008, 08:29 AM

HA HA HA...WOOPTI DOOLE DOO.....THIS DISCUSSION MAKE MY HEAD SPIN.....

IS THERE SOMEONE HERE WHO WILL JUSTIFY THIS DISCUSSION BASED ON PRACTICAL EXPERIENCE OR THIS IS JUST BOOKISH MUMBO JUMBO.....

DEAR DARK WARRIOR....THE DARKNESS SPREAD BY U IS ENGULFING EVERYONE.....U HAVE GRADUATED FROM DARK TO DARKER TO DARKEST NOW...

ranjeetmore · 07-15-2008, 08:41 AM

1st..when the ved says that there is only Brahm.fine.But it doesnt entail its difrent energies.When it talks of a single Brahmn,it implies Brahm alongwith His difrent energies.All that there is,is brahm.fine.But brahm cant have energies? thats a faulty assumption made by a limited mind.
2nd. Then again the vedas declare that there are 3 principles.Brahm,jeev,maya.
The ved further explains that the former is always the controller of the latter two.But all 3 principles have no beginning and hence,none of the 3 is older than the other two.While this is true,the jeeva tattva is ansh of jeeva-vishisht-brahm. And maya is maya-vishisht-brahm.Both of them,jeeva and maya,being energies of Brahm are referred to as above ...-vishisht-brahm.
So when the veda connotes prakriti as Brahm,it is pointing towards Brahm itself,who controls prakriti and not prakriti,as a separate,independent entity.Same applies when brahm is calld ' jeeva'.(yes,the veda has cald the jeev as brahm.)Jeev being a chit(conscious) particle of brahm enjoys all the qualities of brahm as a whole,but in infinitesimally smaller quantities..e.g. Brahm is vibhu(infinite),jeev is anu(atomic).Brahm is Ananda,Jeev to is a particle of ananda(note the millions of jnanis who have attained self/jeeva realisation thruout history hav brutally refused even indraloka.That is the amount of happiness they attain in samadhi.but jeeva,being tatastha shakti,is subject to control by either maya or para shakti,yogmaya.As soon as the persn comes out of samadhi,maya cathes him again.Thats y the so cald jeevan muktas are not realy mukt)

Ashok009 · 07-15-2008, 08:55 AM

DRUM ROLL PLEASE...........DRUM !! DRUM !! DRUM !!......CAUSE HERE IS THE CONCLUSION.......OH I AM CONFUSED .....BUT I WILL STILL TRY.......SO SHIV IS A JUNIOR GOD, VISHNU IS THE SENIOR GOD...AND SOMEWHERE THERE IS A PRINCIPLE GOD.....SO NOW WHAT IS NEXT...PRAY TO VISHNU ONLY.....OK I WILL DO THAT TOO........DOES THAT HELP.......U HAVE MANAGED TO CONVERT ME....... CAN U PLS TELL ME HOW DO I MANAGE TO MEET HIM

ranjeetmore · 07-15-2008, 08:55 AM

the above two posts gave the vedic version of Brahm,whereas the Brahm you dscribe is that found in Shankaracharya's books...
Now shankaracarya says,every1 is Brahm.rite ?
But he also suports the vedic philosophy that,''no living entity can attain mukti unless he recieves the mercy of Brahm.''
But shankarachary was the 1 who stated so clearly that,''brahm has no energies.No form.no quality,no name,nothing.''
He himself says,''mere brahm,tum udaseen ho.''(Brahm,u are inert.)
What a contradiction ! He earlier statd that the living entity needs mercy of brahm to eliminate maya and nw he says that,brahm,u cannot do anything !
He further says,''oh brahm,enter my heart and give me svarupa shakti i.e. Give me ur mercy.''
Lol,wat kind of jokes is Sri shankaracharya playing ?
He himself has stated that evrything is Brahm.So why does he need to invoke Brahm 'enter my heart'? And brahm is inert.How wil it giv mercy to us ? kripaluji maharaj always gets a kick out of these inconsistencies,he says,''Mahapurush lok hai,kuch bhi bol dete hai(These are all saintly pple,they wil say anything)''
So the principle that jeev is Brahm is unaceptable.

ranjeetmore · 07-15-2008, 09:03 AM

then shankaracharya goes on,''sRI krsna,enter my heart and give ur mercy.''
Arey...just nw u said that brahm has no name and now you nominate Him as Sri Krsna..!wow.
By logic v can refute that jeev is Brahm.This is becoz we are all under maya and the veda clearly states that maya is ashamed to stand in front of brahm(By this point,v can also refute that lord Shiva is God.Remember kaali mata danced on his body...naked ?She was hardly ashamed,nt to mention dancing on him.)
So how come v are under maya,if v are Brahm. ?
Also,if jeevatma is Brahm,how come he came under maya in the 1st place.Brahm controls maya ! She is the apara(inferior) shakti of Brahm.

ranjeetmore · 07-15-2008, 09:22 AM

now...who is Brahm?
Brahm being the propreitor,controller and refuge of jeevatma,it is obvious that jeeva's original position is realised when he attaings brahm.Jeev,being an ansh of Ananda is always searching 4 ananda...Right nw,v are searching 4 happines in the material creation(marrying a woman,starting family,buying a car,eating this,hearing that...all 4 happiness.)But the vedas cal this preya marga.But many,in history as well as in present,work towards attaining brahm.This is cald shreya marga.
When v attain Brahm ,v becme eternally happy.''sada paschyanti suryah tad Vishnu paramam padam.''
Those who achieve this position,after death,go to Vishnu's loka,where they reside eternaly,with ever increasing ananda.This is the real goal of evry single living entity.This is what vedic knwledge contains.There is no other higher truth.

ranjeetmore · 07-15-2008, 09:35 AM

these facts are not corroborated in any tradition,be it smarta,shaivite or shakta..Even advaitins cannot explain certain vedic verses such as, ''He has thousands of heads,eyes,hands and legs evrywhere.''
Their brahm is formless.But we knw how garbhodakshayi Vishnu enters every single material universe and pervades the entire jagat.This 4 handed Narayana form is identified by Vedavyas as the Paramatma feature.
Vedvyas,the highest authority on the vedas writes,''the supreme truth is realised in 3 aspects,Brahm,paramatma and Bhagwan.Brahmjyoti is the formless spiritual effulgence that pervades the entire spiritual sky just as the sun rays pervade the material sky.The material creation being situated in the spiritual sky as a small cloud,is also pervaded by the formless Brahmjyoti.This Brahmjyoti is the goal of jnyanis(shankaracharya).The second feature,Paramatma is the localised aspect of Godhead.He permeates evry atom in His personal form,the four handed Narayana.This Paramatma is the goal of yogis,who meditate upon Him in their mind's eye.The last word in Supreme truth is Bhagvan.He is the personal form of Godhead Himself.He is the goal of rasik saints of Vraja bhumi,ayodhya,mithila etc.''

Ravindran Kesavan · 07-15-2008, 10:09 AM

[quote=Ashok009]HA HA HA...WOOPTI DOOLE DOO.....THIS DISCUSSION MAKE MY HEAD SPIN.....

IS THERE SOMEONE HERE WHO WILL JUSTIFY THIS DISCUSSION BASED ON PRACTICAL EXPERIENCE OR THIS IS JUST BOOKISH MUMBO JUMBO.....

Hi Ashok,

I have colosal mystical experience. I got it out of long spiritual sadana. Everything I say I can and will justidfy by this direct spiritual experience. Mine is not mere bookish knowledge, and no mumbo jumbo philolsphy, though I insidently found that Upanisadic texts actually describe the same mistical experience - I should admit.

I can share my experience - but there is one hitch. The forum discussion as it is going on , I have a feeling , is not conducive for that and such direct experience will not be appreciated and even will be threatening to the religiosity of many members of this forum. Such attempt will only degrade in to worst form of name calling and religious war.

My suggestion is , if you are interested, we will start a new form and discuss it there. Not that there is a guaranty that degradation will not happen as we needto respect the democracy of everyone's opinion an sooner or latter the threatened religiousity will emerge there too . But we can atleast define the agenda to startwith and proceed for a while and call it a day when degradation starts to leave the rest of its destiny to others who are interesting in fighting. And you and can have your fun .

Do let me know if you are serious about a forum for Only direct experiencers - No bookish guys. There I will free share my direct spiritual experience to your fullest satisfaction.

This forun though called Spiritual Discussion i hardly find any spirituality - and you will agree with me on that isint it. Here in this forum just have fun. It is a good learning experience isint it?

Regards,
K.Ravindran

Ravindran Kesavan · 07-15-2008, 10:35 AM

Dear Ranjeetmore,

Veda or any religious text must be interpreted with out contradiction. that is Hermaneutics - the rules of interpretation of a text.
Hence going by this prinvciple, if the Vedic text declares there is only one princple -Bhraman, and then introduces a second -Jeevatman And then yet another, Maya, We need to interprete them in such a way there is no contradiction to the parts. That is, the first statement - that there is only one principle, is not to be rejacted when we come accros that there is a second. We need to integrate them. This is not difficult or imposible given the fact that Vadas- Upanisads rather -explicitly state that integration formula too. Consider the four Mahavakyas of the upanasids:
(1) Pragjnanam Bhrama ( consciousness is bhraman)
(2) Aham Bhramasmi ( I am Bhraman - I refering to jeevatman)
(3) Tat Vam Asi ( you are that)
(4) Ayamatma bhrama (this soul is bhraman)

These prety explicit statements of upaniads clearly and explicitly establishes the unity of Jeevatma ans paramatma (or Bhraman)
Therby establishing there is only one thing. Jeevatma and paramatma are actually one. No contradiction.
Now coming to the third Maya, What is maya? It is the very illusion that jeevatma is different from Bhraman -this very dualistic conception - is maya.
Where is the difficulty. Everything coherently fits in the oneness schema isint it?

As to my sourse I dont draw from sankara. My sourse is upanasids themself. They are pretty explicit. I dont need any secondhand interpreter. However I have no problem with many of his interpretation. After all he is a scholar. Though I may not agree with all he says.

Regards,
K.Ravindran

ranjeetmore · 07-15-2008, 10:57 AM

this means u have taken the upanishads,opened them and convertd the sanskrit and read them..wow...u did all that with what ? With your intelligence.I am sory to awaken u,bt ur inteligence is material,every1's is...the subject matter of veda is spiritual.If u believe that u can understand spiritual matters with your brain,wich is material,then u must change ur beliefs...
Vedvyas said, ''prarokshvado vedoyam balanamanushasanam.''
Paroksh vaad is the nature of vedas.It cannot be undestood by material intelect.

He also says,''vedo bramatm vishaya''.
The vedas are Brahmsvarup.We cant even percieve our mind,which is material.How can u percieve Brahm with ur faulty senses and intelect.You cannot.Since you cant undestand Brahm,u cant understand the vedas.Period.

ranjeetmore · 07-15-2008, 11:03 AM

vedavyas also acepts,
''shabda bramh su durgodham praneindriyamanomayam,
Ananta baram gambhiram durvigha:yam samutravat.''

Veda is shabd brahm...(ananta baram gambhiram) you read it,peruse it infinite times,but it wil just be like measuring an infinite ocean's depth with a 3 metre stick.You wil say,the ocean is 3 meters deep becoz 3 metres of the stick is wet.But the actual answer is very difrent.
Conclusion: DO NOT OPEN THE VEDAS,UPANISHADS.,WORSE,DO NT TRY TO UNDERSTAND THEM.
_______

moderator's note: After twenty one pages and over four hundred posts, it seems there is just back and forth arguing, creating bad feelings. So, we will close this thread. Please try to start and contribute to threads, that may attract others to your understandings, in a positive way.