Dark Warrior
-
Content Count
519 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Dark Warrior
-
-
PranamCant let you get away with telling lies about Lord Shiva.
Yajur Veda says Rudra is akrurah, ie, Cruel, which is why he was selected for destroying Tripurasuras.
Yajur Veda vi. 2. 3.
"The Asuras had three citadels; the lowest was of iron, then there was one of silver, then one of gold. The gods could not conquer them; they sought to conquer them by siege; therefore they say--both those who know thus and those who do not--'By siege they conquer great citadels.' They made ready an arrow, Agni as the point, Soma as the socket, Visnu as the shaft. They said, 'Who shall shoot it?' [1] 'Rudra', they said, 'Rudra is cruel, let him shoot it.' He said, 'Let me choose a boon; let me be overlord of animals.' Therefore is Rudra overlord of animals(pasupathi)."
1) Rudra asks for a boon to become Pasupati.
2) Rudra is mentioned as cruel. Vishnu is called the shaft in the sense that He provides power to kill the asuras. But cruelty is clearly a feature of a Jiva.
Yes but then you used varah puran to explain this quote from Avinash In Mahabharat it is written that Krsna prayed to Shiva to which you replied Easily explained.1) Varaha Purana explains that Shiva had asked the Supreme Lord Krishna for a boon,
So purana is now explaining Ithihasas yes.
You are quite delusional.
Only when Puranas contradict Ithihasas or Shruti should they be discarded.
Very good statement though, just as how Rudra appear from Narayan head, common sense just don’t apply in the realms of Gods.Narayana being the indweller of Brahma, hence Shiva is born from Narayana's forehead, as Brahma creates.
Brahma creates because his indweller provides him the powers. Hence, Shiva is referred to being born from Brahma as well as from Narayana.
Its proof that Brahma and Shiva are Jivas.
If Lord Shiva is born, which is contentious, death of Lord Vishnu is clearly mentioned, that’s is why I did not want to go there. We make apradh of huge proportion without self realisation.Contentious? Refer mahanarayana Upanishad,
Mahanarayana Upanishad says, "Again, Narayana, desiring something else, thought. From his forehead a person arose with three eyes and a trident, having glory, fame, truth, celibacy, austerity, detachment, mind, lordship, seven Vyahritis along with Pranava, Rik and other Vedas, all metres is his body – so, he is the great Lord."
Shiva is born. I assume you know that he has 3 eyes and a trident?
- Shiva is born.
- He is absent during pralaya.
- Satapatha Brahmana calls him sinful (and don't bring that lame Agni argument again).
- Yajur Veda calls him cruel.
- Rig Veda says he has an indweller.
Hence, Rudra is a jiva. Comprehend?
There is no death of Vishnu. Satapatha Brahmana simply talks of Vishnu as Yajneswara. Read it properly.
And certainly, Shiva is born.
You are simply letting your imagination running wild, and just loosing the plot.Your inference is wild and not supported anywhere.
Funny, you completely ignore:
stuhi shrutaM gartasadaM yuvAnaM mRgaM na
bhImamupahatnumugram.h |
mRlA jaritre rudra stavAno.anyaM te asman ni vapantu
senAH ||
sage Gritsamada says: O Rudra (rudra) , you pray
(stuhi) to that (deity) who resides in the cave (of
heart) (gartasadaM), who is ever young (yuvAnaM), and
who took a fierce form to kill (the asura)
(upahatnumugram.h) and killed (the asura) by pouncing
(on Him) and who is conveyed by the entire Veda
(shrutaM: shrutyA dyotaM). ~ Rig Veda.
This verse proves that Rudra has an indweller. Curiously, this deity, who is hailed as the one who took a fierce form to kill an asura, appears to be none other than Narasimha!!
Any being who has an indweller is a Jiva. Mahabharata (Santi Parva) also confirms it.
Good and Vishu is one of the Aditya!Rig Veda says Vishnu is unborn. Gita says 'Among Adityas, I am Vishnu.
Conclusion - This aditya is the Vamana avatar of Vishnu. And as you know, birth of an avatar is not a real 'birth'. Hence, Vishnu is not counted.
Vamana is the brother of Indra, ie, Upendra, and hence is an Aditya.
Which can only mean Brahma and Narayana are not distinct, and Rudra appears out of their mind hardly a common birth as you might have all believe.Understand philosophy.
Narayana is the antaryami of Brahma, and hence, Rudra is mentioned as created by both.
Brahma is mentioned as created by Narayana. 'Eko Narayana...'says there was no Brahma, no Shiva, etc. during pralaya.
You are simply stretching your imagination.Now that’s a first
Your incompetence is revealed by lack of pramanas and just nonsensical rambling.
That is your misunderstanding there is no sin and just because he got them names does not mean it is lord Shiva, when it clearly says this is eight forms of Agani.THEN, WHY DO YOU THINK VERSES THAT SAY 'RUDRA IS SUPREME' PERTAINS TO MAHADEVA? THERE CANNOT BE TWO PASUPATIS.
Bhootanam ca Prajapatis samvatsaraya dikshitah | Bhootanam pathir gruhapathir aaseet | Usha Patni | …………….. bhootanam pathis samvatsara ushasi rodho(a)sinchat | Samvatsare kumaro jayatha | sorodheeth | tam prajapathirabraveet | kumara kim rodhishi | yachhramath tapasodhi jathoseethi | so(a)braveet anapahatapapma vaa ahamanahithanama | nama me dehi paapno(a)pahatya iti | tam punah prajapathi braveet | rudro(a)seethi | ……….. rudrobhavachcharva isanah pathir bhima ugra iti sapta namani |"
"The pati of bhoota and praja, Brahma deva, underwent diksha for one year. He was a Grihasta. His wife was Usha. …….. Brahma deva let his veerya ( ‘rodho(a)sinchat’) to Usha. In a year, a son was born. The son cried. Brahma asked him, “ Son! Why are you crying. I got you as child after tough tapasya. The son said, “ I am not cleansed of sins. To wipe out my sins give me names. Brahma again told him, “ Let your name be Rudra.” …….. Rudra, Bhava, charva, Isana, Pathi(pasupathi), Bhima, Ugra – these seven names (were given by Brahma deva)"
Papa clearly is mentioned. Sayana, Adi Sankara, etc. even Advaitins accept it.
anapahatapapma - SINFUL. QUOTED BY ANCIENT SCHOLARS, WHO CALL THIS KUMARA AS MAHADEVA SHIVA.
And I have explained why every deva is called Agni. Or, as you call it, 'Agani'.
Selectively ignoring everything?
Yes masterYou mean rules that governs your understanding yes.
Again, lack of a proper reply.
Oh yes we will except every thing we like and reject everything else because it clashes with srutis, well that is your problem but srutis it self saysEkam sad, vipra bahudha vadanti - RSi dirghatamas, Rig Veda I.164.46
truth is one, sages call it variously.
That is a mistranslation. It says, 'Truth is One, but it has many Names'.
Secondly, the RV says that there is ONLY one God, who bears the names of all gods (it does not say all gods are same) -- yo devAnAM nAmadhA eka eva !!
Which means, 'There is one Brahman (truth), He has many names'.
Rig Veda says one God bears names of all Gods. Hence, Vishnu is Brahman, who has names like Rudra, Shambhu, Siva, Brahma, Indra, etc. Learn etymology.
You will shoot your self in foot every time by your logic Agni is lowest and Vishnu is highest deva, but then there is only one Mahadeva.Um, Mahadeva is included in the hierarchy. Rig Veda says, 'Among Devas, Agni is lowest and Vishnu is highest'. Hence, Mahadeva is inferior to Vishnu.
'Mahadeva' means 'great deva'. It doesn't mean, 'Highest Deva'.
Vishnu is called Deva, because He alone is an avatar of Narayana who resides among Devas.
No this kumar who is born had no sins, Shathapatha Brahmana does not say so,Ignored this, haven't you?
"anapahatapapma" is clearly mentioned in Satapatha Brahmana. It means, 'Not cleansed of sins'. The Kumara, who is Rudra, is shown to have papa, ie, sins. Your translator takes 'Papa' as evil, and says, 'not freed from evil'. A more appropriate word for 'papa' is 'sin'. In any case, Rudra is not freed from 'evil' or 'sin', whichever way you see it.
it says To him (Agni) when built up (kita) he gives a name: whereby he keeps away evil from him.Again, selectively ignoring my explanation. Agni here does not pertain the firegod. ANY deva can be called Agni, as they all are propitiated through sacrifice, which requires fire (Agni).
Rig Veda calls all Devas as Agni, including Rudra and even Brahman (Vishnu). Hence, your opinion is false.
6:1:3:99. Pragâpati said to him, 'My boy, why criest thou, when thou art born out of labour and trouble?' He said, 'Nay, but I am not freed from (guarded against) evil; I have no name given me: give me a name!' Hence one should give a name to the boy that is born, for thereby one frees him from evil;--even a second, even a third (name), for thereby one frees him from evil time after time.And 'Papa' here is translated as 'evil'. Eggbert is wrong.
In any case, even if we assume 'evil'. It means the boy is caught in evil. Which means, he is a jiva, as Brahman is free from evil. As mentioned before, all names belong to Brahman, hence, Brahman's names will free the boy from 'evil'.
The boy is Rudra.
Note names are given to ward off evil
6:1:3:1010. He said to him, 'Thou art Rudra 2.' And because he gave him that name, Agni became suchlike (or, that form), for Rudra is Agni: because he cried (rud) therefore he is Rudra. He said, 'Surely, I am mightier than that: give me yet a name!'Explained already. All devas are Agni. Agni here means, 'Foremost Person', or 'Sacrifice'. Rudra is the foremost of the devas. He was also born after a sacrifice.
Hence, its Mahadeva.
6:1:3:1111. He said to him, 'Thou art Sarva.' And because he gave the him that name, the waters became suchlike, for Sarva is the waters, inasmuch as from the water everything (sarva) here is produced. He said, 'Surely, I am mightier than that: give me yet a name!'The boy now is promoted to Lord over the waters.
6:1:3:1212. He said to him, 'Thou art Pasupati.' And because he gave him that name, the plants became suchlike, for Pasupati is the plants: hence when cattle (pasu) get plants, then they play the master 3 (patîy). He said, 'Surely, I am mightier than that: give me yet a name!'Pasupati is a name of Shiva. No idiot will deny it. The boy attains control over nature now.
6:1:3:1313. He said to him, 'Thou art Ugra.' Andp. 160
because he gave him that name, Vâyu (the wind) became suchlike, for Ugra is Vâyu: hence when it blows strongly, they say 'Ugra is blowing.' He said, 'Surely, I am mightier than that: give me yet a name!'
Ugra is also a name of Rudra. Now, the boy attains control over Vayu, and hence, he is called 'Vayu'.
6:1:3:1414. He said to him, 'Thou art Asani.' And because he gave him that name, the lightning became suchlike, for Asani is the lightning: hence they say of him whom the lightning strikes, 'Asani has smitten him.' He said, 'Surely, I am mightier than that: give me yet a name!'The boy attains cntrol over lightning,. Note, step by step, the boy becomes Lord of all devas.
6:1:3:1515. He said to him, 'Thou art Bhava.' And because he gave him that name, Parganya (the rain-god) became suchlike; for Bhava is Parganya, since everything here comes (bhavati) from the rain-cloud. He said, 'Surely, I am mightier than that: give me yet a name!'Brahma gives the name 'Bhava' to Rudra.
6:1:3:1616. He said to him, 'Thou art Mahân Devah (the Great God).' And because he gave him that name, the moon became suchlike, for the moon is Pragâpati, and Pragâpati is the Great God. He said, 'Surely, I am mightier than that: give me yet a name!'Mahadeva is a name of Shiva, once again. So, shut it.
6:1:3:1717. He said to him, 'Thou art Îsâna (the Ruler).' And because he gave him that name, the Sun became suchlike, for Îsâna is the Sun, since the Sun rules over this All. He said, 'So great indeed I am: give me no other name after that!'There you go, Rudra becomes satisfied when he gets the name 'Isana'.
Isana is a name of Umapati Rudra. This Isana is mentioned to be absent during pralaya.
Isn’t funny this boy who is self aware, having given those names, one by one then Agni, Vayu, Asani and so on, became such like and finally stops at Isana, because isana is aditya, hey don’t let me stop you because Isana is non other then Aditya.What nonsense are you blabbering about? The boy becomes Mahadeva. Since he attains lordship over Devas, he is identified with all Devas.
Just listen to what below is saying that’s all.
6:1:3:1818. These then are the eight forms of Agni. Kumâra (the boy) is the ninth: that is Agni's threefold state 1.Agni has three states, true. Sacrifice, Foremost Person and Deva. Rudra is not Agni the Deva in any sense of the Word.
When Agni is mentioned to be the lowest Deva, what possesses you to assume that Agni bears the title of Mahadeva?
Notice, Ganeshprasad has posted absolutely no refutation on any pramana.
Did Adi Sankara say brahma was deluded or Vyasdev did not know srutis?Vyasa knew Shruti, and that is why he has mentioned that Puranas have Guna Classification. Adi Sankara followed it. Brahma became jealous of Krishna and kidnapped the children. You think that a God can get jealous?
Adi Sankara called Shaivism as 'unvedic'. In his gita bhashya, he discourages worship of Shiva.
-
I will explain each verse of Shathapatha Brahmana.
By his Mind (manas) he entered into union with Speech (vâk): he became pregnant with eight drops. They were created as those eight VasusTrue. Brahma creates the Vasus and Rudras as his 'mind sons'. Krishna also confirms in Gita, that the mind sons were born of Him (Narayana).
Brahma is also a creation of Narayana (refer my Mahanarayana Upanishad quote). Hence, whatever he does, has to be within material jurisdiction.
Thus, all creations of a jiva are material. Narayana forces an atma into them to make them come to life. This Narayana, of course, is the indweller of Brahma.
Since you accept then, that all Rudras (including Sankara) were created by a being whose life-span is just 155 trillion human years, it can be concluded that these Rudras also must have a life span. Pramana - Refer to various quotes where it says that these Rudras disappear during pralaya.
No-one can create life, not even Narayana, the Brahman, does it. Only semitic religions speak of creation. According to Veda, we are eternal. Only material bodies can be created.
By his Mind he entered into union with Speech: he became pregnant. He created the All-gods: he placed them in the quartersIts already been explained that Narayana is the ultimate cause. The gods created by Brahma are jivas because their faults are known. Indra, Vayu and Agni are shown to be boasting of their exploits in Kena Upanishad. Rudra is mentioned to be absent during pralaya and is sinful, etc.
Hence, they have normal failings of Jivas.
And so they say, 'After Agni having been created, the Vasus were created: he placed them on this (earth);--after Vâyu, the Rudras: (he placed) them in the air;--after the sun, the Âdityas: (he placed) them in the sky;--after the moon, the All-gods1: he placed them in the quarters.'Two points to note here:
1) All devas are jivas, this has been proven by me. Only way to reconcile statements like 'Narayana created devas', and 'Brahma created Devas'.
2) Birth of Agni, along with all Rudras (Including Sankara) is mentioned. Agni is mentioned as the 'lowest' deva.
the Gâyatrî consisting of eight syllables--therefore they say, 'Agni is Gâyatra.' That boy entered into the forms one after another; for one never sees him as a mere boy (kumâra), but one sees those forms of his 1, for he assumed those forms one after anotherGayatri is a sacrifice itself. Any mantra to propitiate Narayana is a sacrifice. Hence, Gayatri is Agni, because Agni is the medium of sacrifice.
This verse simply talks about how the boy was obtained by a sacrifice. 'One who sees him as a mere kumara, etc.' means that He was born of a special sacrifice, and hence is a form of 'agni', ie, a form of sacrifice itself. And indeed, he assumed the names of Mahadeva, Ugra, Bhaga, Pasupati, Shiva and became the leader of the Devas.
Here is proof - Krishna, in the Gita says that He is the Gayatri Mantra, sung by Brahmanas. Now, if you take Shathapatha Brahmana to literally mean that 'Agni, the firegod is Gayatri', it contradicts Gita.
Hence, we take the etymological meaning, 'Agni is Gayatri' means 'Sacrifice is Gayatri'. Since Vishnu is Sacrifice, it is reconciled with Gita.
And we apply this to 'Rudra is a form of Agni', which means, 'Rudra is a form of sacrifice', indicating that this Kumara who became Mahadeva Shiva was a product of Brahma's sacrifice.
In some places Prajapati is called Agni. In others, the month is called Agni. In another place, Agni is lauded as great.
The Aitreya Brahmana clearly says, 'Among Devas, Agni is the lowest and Vishnu is the Highest'. So, if we take the previous verses to mean Agni, a contradiction arises, because according to the Aitreya Brahmana, even the Prajapatis are greater than Agni. Hence, we take etymology for statements like 'Agni is Gayatri' and 'Rudra is Agni'.
'Rudra' here pertains to Mahadeva. That much is clear. And since the latter verses say that he is named Sarva and that waters become Sarva;That he is named Pasupati, and that the plants become Pasupati, etc...it means that as he gets these names, he is promoted to being a Mahadeva, with control over all devas.
One ought to build him (Agni, the fire-altar) up in (the space of) a year, and recite for a year. 'For two (years),' however, say some; 'for in one year they laid the seed, and in one year that boy was born, therefore let him build for two (years), and recite for two (years).'This verse makes it clear that the boy was BORN of the sacrifice. He is therefore, not the firegod.
To him (Agni) when built up (kita) he gives a name: whereby he keeps away evil from him.He calls him by a bright (kitra) name2, saying, 'Thou art bright;' for Agni is all bright thingsAgain, make the same mistake. You keep taking the literal meaning and confuse everything.
Then, the reason for calling Agni as all devatas is very clear. Agni takes the sacrifice offered to the various devas. Agni, by doing so, pleases the Devas due to which Devas grant boons to us. thus the Devas are worshipped thru Agni. as all the Devas are present in this sacrificial fire to take their part of sacrifice, Agni is said to be all the Devas.
'Thou are Bright, as Agni is all bright things', means that everything bright can be called Agni. Rudra was bright, and hence he is also Agni.
Independently,
Rg Veda
1-156-4
tamasya rAjA varuNastamashvinA kratuM sacanta mArutasya vedhasaH |
dAdhAra dakSamuttamamaharvidaM vrajaM ca viSNuH sakhivAnaporNute ||"
Meaning:
"The royal Varuna and Asvins attain the function of protection(tam kratuM) of the creator of Maruts . That Visnu, with his companion(saki - Lakshmi), has the moksha sAmarthya to give moksha and makes the clouds to rain, seated upon the clouds."
Rg Veda 5-3-3
"By worshipping the feet of Visnu (VishnoRupamam), Maruts wish to attain the bright and coloured(wonderful) Rudra position. Hence, Rudra too keeps the secret name in his heart."
ahám evá svayám idáM vadaami júSTaM devébhir utá maánuSebhiH
yáM kaamáye táM-tam ugráM kRNomi tám brahmaáNaM tám R'SiM táM sumedhaám
10.125.05 I verily of myself declare this which is approved of by both gods and men; whomsoever I will, I render him Ugra(one of the names of Rudra), I make him BrahmA(Chaturmukha), a r.s.i, or a sage.
The speaker is Lakshmi. 'Ugra' here is none other than Rudra. Satapatha Brahmana confirms it again.
Clearly shows that each deva is simply a post occupied by a Jiva.
Rig Veda
10.82.6
"tamid garbhaM prathamaM dadhra Apo yatra devAHsamagachanta vishve |
ajasya nAbhAvadhyekamarpitaMyasmin vishvAni bhuvanAni tasthuH ||"
Meaning:
"The waters verily first retained the embryo in which all the devas were aggregated, single deposited on the navel of the unborn (creator), in which all beings abide."
This is nothing more than a reference to the lotus flower emerging from the navel of Vishnu.
Visnu is unborn, as said by TaittirIya Arayaka(3.13.1)
"ajAyamAno bahudhA vijAyate|"
Meaning:
"He is unborn yet He takes several births(avatars)."
Rg Veda(1.156.2) calls Vishnu as 'Self born'(sumajjAnaye).
-
Pranam alNote he wants to explain srutis and Ithihas by using Purana if any one else does it he is dimwit, moron and god knows what other abusive language he has used.
Back again?
Read my sentence properly. I said, Valmiki should be used as standard for recognising authenticity of Puranas, and not vice versa.
Varaha Purana did not contradict Krishna's words, hence it is accepted. In any case, Santi Parva confirms that Krishna did NOT worship Shiva, but rather worshipped Himself. End of Story.
He can explain Satapatha Brahmana ,but no body else can, we have listen to his outrageous claim that Shiva is born with sins, when there is no such thing.Only your belief. Excuse me, its there plainly for everyone to see.
Outrageous? Birth of Rudra is clearly given. When you do not even accept 'Pasupati' being mentioned there, what hope is there for you?
It is not outrageous to claim Shiva has sins. Shruti mentions that Isana-Mahadeva was born from the forehead of Narayana, and meditated on Vishnu to get his Rudra-Strength. It also says that this same Isana is absent during pralaya, and is a product of Brahma (meaning, Narayana)'s creation.
Again, you evade the question - Is not Mahadeva, Pasupati, Isana and Ugra the names of Shiva? Indeed, they are. Hence, this Kumara is none other than Shiva.
Note all gods created through his mind. No mention here of Narayana forces an atma, we are really ask to stretch our imaginationLater a kumar is born and he cries like all baby would, to give name is to ward off evil, that what we learn if we read without any bias not that the boy is born with sin as some would have us believe and the verse is absolutely clear as to who this boy is.
"anapahatapapma" is clearly mentioned in Satapatha Brahmana. It means, 'Not cleansed of sins'. The Kumara, who is Rudra, is shown to have papa, ie, sins. Your translator takes 'Papa' as evil, and says, 'not freed from evil'. A more appropriate word for 'papa' is 'sin'. In any case, Rudra is not freed from 'evil' or 'sin', whichever way you see it.
stuhi shrutaM gartasadaM yuvAnaM mRgaM na
bhImamupahatnumugram.h |
mRlA jaritre rudra stavAno.anyaM te asman ni vapantu
senAH ||
sage Gritsamada says: O Rudra (rudra) , you pray
(stuhi) to that (deity) who resides in the cave (of
heart) (gartasadaM), who is ever young (yuvAnaM), and
who took a fierce form to kill (the asura)
(upahatnumugram.h) and killed (the asura) by pouncing
(on Him) and who is conveyed by the entire Veda
(shrutaM: shrutyA dyotaM). ~ Rig Veda.
This verse proves that Rudra has an indweller. Curiously, this deity, who is hailed as the one who took a fierce form to kill an asura, appears to be none other than Narasimha!!
Any being who has an indweller is a Jiva. Mahabharata (Santi Parva) also confirms it.
How can a sentient being be created through the mind? Use common sense - Brahma was created by Narayana. Brahma is a jiva because he has a life-span (Krishna mentions it in Gita). So, any creation by a Jiva has got to be material.
How can a jiva put life into Rudra without an atma? It contradicts the basic purport of Vedanta that beings can be born from Brahma, the material creator, and exist without an atman.
Krishna says, 'Never was there a time when you or I, or any sentient being did not exist'. So, it means that Rudra, Agni, Vayu, etc. are all sentient beings (since they have life), and must have existed as well before they were created by Brahma.
Hence, it is inferred that Brahma creates bodies. Narayana forces the atman into them. You, of course, may say, 'Rudra, Agni, etc.' were born of Brahma's mind, and hence it makes them special, like an avatar or something. This is refuted by the fact that Brahma, Adityas, Vasus, Rudras, etc. are mentioned as distinct beings created by Narayana.
It follows that they are all Jivas.
Now,
- Shruti says Brahma created Rudra.
- Shruti also says Narayana created Rudra.
Hence it means, Rudra was created by Brahma, and the indweller injected an atma into the material body of Rudra.
Brahma only creates material body.
Yes, the boy was born with sin. To ward of this sin/evil, Brahma gave him names like Rudra, Isana, Pasupati, Mahadeva, etc. which are asupicious names. It makes perfect sense.
Your english translator, of course, literally interprets 'Agni'. And a guy named 'Eggbert' or whatever is not an expert on Vedanta.
atha puruSho ha vai naaraayaNo 'kaamayata prajaa sR^ijeyeti |
naaraayaNaat praaNo jaayate manaH sarvendriyaaNi cha kha.m vaayur jyotir aapaH pR^ithivii vishvasya dhaariNii |
naaraayaNaad brahmaa jaayate |
naaraayaNaad rudro jaayate |
naaraayaNaad indro jaayate |
naaraayaNat prajaapatiH prajaayate |
naaraayaNaad dvadashaadityaa rudraa vasavaH sarvaaNi chandaa.msi naaraayaNaad eva samutpadyante naaraayaNat pravartante naaraayaNe praliiyante |
etad R^ig-vedo-shiro 'dhiite || naaraayaNopaniShad 1 ||
Naaraayana is the Supreme Lord. He desired, "I shall create children." From Naaraayana the life breath, mind, all the senses, either, air, fire, water, and earth, which maintains the universe, were born. From Naaraayana Brahmaa was born. From Naaraayana Shiva was born. From Naaraayana Indra was born. From Naaraayana Prajaapati was born. From Naaraayana the twelve Adityas, the Rudras, the Vasus, and all the Vedic hymns were born. From Naaraayana they were manifested. Into Naaraayana they again enter. This is the crown of the R^ig Veda (nArAayaNopaniShad 1).
Here, it clearly says Narayana is the cause of everything. 'Into Narayana they enter' clearly shows that they, like all of us, are also subject to pralaya, and hence are jivas. No sense dodging it.
It is clear as day light the names are given to ward of evil and all those name denotes the eight form of Agni and Agni is such like the names given.Also, it says, when he was named Sarva, waters became such like, then when he was named Pasupati, plants became such-like.
It is clear as daylight that you will never understand the basic rules of Vedanta. Why are you so unwilling to learn etymology?
You have to stop taking words literally all the time. If you do, it leads to clashes within shruti itself.
Agni has three meanings, 1) Firegod, 2) Sacrifice...since all devas are obtained by sacrifice, they are all agni in that sense, 3) Foremost person.
Agni here does not pertain to the fire-god because:
- Agni is mentioned to be the lowest of Devas. So, how can he be Mahadeva?
However, we use the etymological meaning here. Agni accepts sacrifices of all devas. Hence, all Devas who have been born through sacrifice are called 'Agni'.
In that respect, Rudra is referred to as 'Agni'.
Proof - refer Rig Veda 2-1-6.
"tvamagne rudro asuro maho divastvaM shardho mArutaM pRkSa IshiSe |
tvaM vAtairaruNairyAsi shaMgayastvaM pUSA vidhataH pAsi nu tmanA ||"
This verse calls Rudra, Maruts, etc....all devas as agni. Note, Tvamagne Rudro.
Hence, any deva can be called Agni. Even Vishnu can be called Agni (refer verse 2-1-1), because He is Yajna Himself.
So all doubts are cleared - Rudra has a birth.
Satapatha Chapter on Pravargya or the birth of kumar will always be bone of contention.There is no bone of contention or whatever. Shruti clearly says Rudra is sinful. Shruti calls Rudra as 'Agni' to denote two things 1) He was born of a sacrifice, 2) He is the 'foremost person'...'foremost' among devas, ie, Umapati Sankara.
No-one has ever denied this argument. No-one who knows Shruti, that is.
To some brahma is deluded or Vyasdev does not know srutis but he gave those so called tamsic puranas any way.Funny, if Adi Sankara had no problem accepting it, I do not know why Ganesha Baby has any problems.
We may refer this matter to an expert (but again I fear that experts are themselves of many kinds, driven by their predilections.) The point is very clearly explained in Brihadaraynaka: "What did Brahman know that it became all?" Resolution of such debates is never possible. Ending of questions is never possible -- new doubts will be ever cropping up. Those with hierarchy problem will never be able to resolve so call contradiction.(because egos will always persists).Jai Shree Krishna
Copy and paste Atanu's posts. Brilliant again.
Answer me a couple of questions, Ganeshprasad:
1) If you think Shathapatha Brahmana which refers to Mahadeva, Pasupati, Rudra, etc. does not talk of your deity Shiva, then on what basis do you claim that verses like 'Shiva is Suprme', pertains to your Rudra?
2) 'Among Devas, Agni is lowest and Vishnu is highest'. Hence, Mahadeva is not agni. He is called Agni because he is the product of a sacrifice Brahma performed to get him. Using etymology, one can say all devas are agni, because they are all products of sacrifice. Kapish?
Rig Veda says there is heirarchy among Devas. So, if you deny this, it renders your opinion invalid.
3) There are verses pertaining to creation of 11 Rudras, absence of Isana during pralaya, him being sinful (oh yes, its him), etc. Hence, its Rudra, all right.
And Vishnu is the Lord of sacrifice.
It is absolute hypocrisy that people blatantly say that 'Pasupati' and 'Mahadeva' is not Rudra, but when they see a quote saying, 'Mahadeva is supreme', they immediately assume its Rudra.
-
Have you read Ganguli's translation or Nilakantha's commentary?First of all, none of them adhere to Shruti. So there is no point accepting them.
Sri Puttur Krishnamachari Swami knows which the real version is. He is over 80 now, and has been very actively involved in promoting such things, writing many books on the subject. That is why I told you, stop placing yourself as authority over Shruti and consult the correct sources.
You have been answered by me, Raghu and some others, yet all you can do is keep harping about 'Rudra and Narayana are One'.
Madhvacharya makes a commentary on certain selected passages of the Mahabharata, but he is not presenting a definitive of the text. What do suggest, that we simply ignore every part of the Mahabharata that Madhvacharya doesnn't mention? That doesn't seem reasonable.According to you, an edition which is merely a compilation of every interpolation is a pramana? Remember, if anyone had objected to Sri Madhva's work, we would have known.
Bottom Line - Stop quoting Bori, Ganguli, Nilakantha, and Tamasic Puranas. Learn the basic rules of polemics in Vedanta.
-
Dark Warrior, just a word of explanation. Firstly, there is no 'Madhvacharya' Mahabharata text. It just doesn't exist so I can hardly refer to it. The BORI (Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute) Critical Edition consists of a collection of existing Sanskrit manuscript of the Mahabharata. These have been set against each other by a team of scholars and the attempt made to provide a definitive edition of the Sanskrit text, which corresponds most closely to the majority of manuscripts. They have not invented anything and if you study the BORI edition you have access to every existing manuscript and the major and minor differences between them.Madhvacharya's "Mahabharata Tatparya Nirnaya" is a commentary on the important events of Mahabharata.
In this commentary, he proves Vishnu's supremacy. Use your bloody brains and read Vaishnava literature.
So if you reject the BORI edition of the Mahabharata, there isn't anything else!This edition is merely a compilation of every verse that has ever been found. It does not refer to Sruti, hence, it does not determine which is an interpolation and which isn't.
Prior to the publication of the Critical Edition, the most widely used version of the Sanskrit text was the Vulgate employed by Nilakantha, the main commentator on the Mahabharata. Ganguli is the only scholar to provided a complete English translation, but this was based on Nilakanth's manuscript not the Critical Edition as his work predates its publication.Even C. Rajagopalachari's version of the Mahabharata was refuted as partly incorrect by Sri Krishnamachari. And Rajagopalachari is a Vaishnava!!
So, understand how inaccurate BORI is. So is Ganguli, Nilakantha and all those other incompetent goofs. Whenever they see one line saying, 'Narayana is Brahma, He is Shiva', they immediately pounce on it and call all gods as equal!! No regard for shruti whatsoever.
Given this information, I can't see why you find references to these texts so infuriating. There really isn't another version to use! If you want to impose a criterion that only verses cited to by pre-modern acharyas are authentic, then you will be left with less 1% of the text, which seems a little ridiculous.It isn't up to you to judge what is and what isn't authentic. What is present in Shruti and Smriti is authentic.
That is why, refer scholars like Krishnamachari before consulting Smriti. And gain a knowledge of Vedanta before you bring up useless arguments.
EDIT: Madhva also points out that many versions were extant during his time itself (13th century). So, understand how many spurious versions must be existing now.
-
Vishnu is Yajna. He is the sacrifice. Hence, when devas perform Yajna, it means that Vishnu is the sacrifice, He is the acceptor of the sacrifice and the giver of the merits of sacrifice as well.
This verse is explained by Vaishnavas in the sense that everything arose as a result of sacrifice performed by Devas for Vishnu.
How to prove this? The Shathapatha Brahmana gives the full story, of what happened when Vishnu's head was cut off.
Vishnu's head gets tossed into the sky and becomes the sun. His headless torso falls in the eastern direction with the sound "ghrIN". Hence the name "gharma" (gharma = theratti paal, used in pravargya rite). { Taittriya Aranyaka's variation is that the head goes upto the heaven and falls down with the "ghrIN" sound and hence the name gharma }.
Vital essence starts oozing out of Vishnu's body. Indra reached first and smeared the vital sap on his body and hence he became "makhavAn". The devas divided Vishnu's body into three parts corresponding to three soma pressings in a sacrifice (Remember - Vishnu = Yagnya). Few more verses on what deva gets each soma pressing.
Hence, this shows how the devas obtained different merits from different portions of the sacrifice. Head becomes sun. Sap from Vishnu's body gives Indra strength.
Thus, the Shathapatha Brahmana glorifies Vishnu as Yajneswara, the Lord of Sacrifice. This is not the 'death' of Vishnu.
Remember, the Purusha Sukta also says how the Purusha was tied to a stake and sacrificed. it is not to be taken in the literal sense of 'killing' the Purusha. It indicates that Purusha, who is Brahman (Vishnu) is the act of sacrifice and the giver of sacrificial benefits.
-
Rg Veda
1-22-17
"idaM viSNurvi cakrame tredhA ni dadhe padam |
samUDamasya pAMsure ||"
Meaning:
"Vishnu measured all these worlds with three steps. These worlds were covered by the dust from His Feet."
All the worlds were covered by the dust from Visnu's feet. This shows His Great strength. when all the worlds were covered by dust then so were the living beings of those worlds.
Thus Indra, Agni etc. who reside in Heaven were also covered by the dust which shows Visnu's superior position. He is superior to these Devas.
1-22-18
"trINi . vi cakrame viSNurgopA adAbhyaH |
ato dharmANi dhArayan ||"
Meaning:
" Vishnu, the protector(gopA) and invincible(adAbhyaH), measured with three steps. By doing so, He bears and saves all the Dharmas(dharmANi dhArayan)."
Thus Visnu saves all the Dharmas. He is the Supreme protector.
1-154-3
"pra viSNave shUSametu manma girikSita urugAyAya vRSNe |
ya idaM dIrghaM prayataM sadhasthameko vimame tribhirit padebhiH ||"
Meaning:
"To that Visnu who measured these worlds which are broad and long, all alone and without any support, with three steps, unto Him who showers boons , who is highly praised and who resides in higher plane; let these hymns of strength go and reach."
Note:
"sadhasthameko vimame" - Worlds were measured by Him alone. This shows, He needs no help to do anything.
1-154-4
"yasya trI pUrNA madhunA padAnyakSIyamANA svadhayAmadanti |
ya u tridhAtu pRtivImuta dyAmeko dAdhAra bhuvanAni vishvA ||"
Meaning:
"He whose three steps are filled of nectar, are indestructible and please by giving food, that Vishnu, all alone(eko),bears the earth, space and all worlds along with the three dhAthus - past, present and future/ land, fire and water."
Vishnu is praised as the bearer of the worlds here.
1-154-5
"tadasya priyamabhi pAtho ashyAM naro yatra devayavo madanti |
urukramasya sa hi bandhuritthA viSNoH pade parame madhva utsaH ||"
Meaning:
"From Supreme Feet of Visnu(visno pade parame), who is the friend of everyone, arose a flood of water(Ganga) as sweet as nectar(madhva) and that water which is dear to Him(tadasya priyamabhi) be drunk by me. Men who wish to attain Devatva bath(naro yatra devayavo madanti) in that water(pAtho). Like this is its greatness(itthA)."
This shows even Devatas take bath in the water that springs from the feet of Vishnu. Note, it says, any jiva who wishes to become a Deva can take bath, which indicates that the Devas are posts held by Jivas. Vishnu is clearly excluded from the lot.
1-155-3
"tA IM vardhanti mahyasya pauMsyaM ni mAtarA nayati retase bhuje |
dadhAti putro.avaraM paraM piturnAma tRtIyamadhi rocane divaH ||"
Meaning:
"These sacrifices increase increase the wealth, pride and manliness of the Yajamana. From the bright centre of the Sun, to create living beings and for their enjoyment, He makes the Jivas to attain the space and earth. By the of grace Him who is the protector, this Jiva is born as a son to one father and attains the higher name(son), lower name(grandson) and a third name (father)."
Here it shows Vishnu to be the source of everything. Remember, Vishnu is Yajna. That is identified in Shathapatha Brahmana.
SAyana translates 'pitur - pituh' as "pAlakAt viSNur anugrahAt".
1-155-4
"tat tadidasya pauMsyaM gRNImasInasya traturavRkasya mIDhuSaH |
yaH pArthivAni tribhirid vigAmabhiruru kramiSTorugAyAya jIvase ||"
Meaning:
"That LOrd who measured each and every atom of the worlds(pArthivAni) with three steps to be praised and to protect the worlds, let us worship those manly deeds of Him who is the Lord of everything(inasya), protector(trAtu), kind hearted(avRkasya), ever young/giver of all wishes(mIDhuSah)."
Vishnu is the Lord of everything. Cannot be clearer.
1-155-5
"dve idasya kramaNe svardRsho.abhikhyAya martyo bhuraNyati |
tRtIyamasya nakirA dadharSati vayashcana patayantaH patatriNaH ||"
Meaning:
"Men know and worship by praising only the two steps of Visnu, who sees the heaven. He can never know about the third step of Visnu. Even the VAyus which blow everywhere and the flying birds cannot know it."
Vishnu alone is said to know some things, like His 3rd step. No-one else knows it. Hence, He is omniscient.
1-156-3
"tamu stotAraH pUrvyaM yathA vida Rtasya garbhaM januSApipartana |
Asya jAnanto nAma cid vivaktana mahaste viSNo sumatiM bhajAmahe ||"
Meaning:
"O singers of Hymns! Knowing the most ancient and the creator of water(and thus the worlds), please Him by singing hymns in praise of Him without any thought for worldly boons but for attaining Him(januSA).O knowers of His name! Sing it everywhere. O divine Great LOrd(maha) Visnu! Let us attain the good thought singing ur praise."
Self-explanatory.
Sayana, in his commentary on Rig Veda says "janusA :: janmanA - svata eva - na kenachit vara lAbhAdinA" (as the purpose of taking this birth and not for any worldly boons - thus only for attaining Visnu[this is confirmed by words like 'sodhvana pAramApnoti tad viSNo paramam padam'{KaTha Upa}).
1-156-5
"A yo vivAya sacathAya daivya indrAya viSNuH sukRte sukRttaraH |
vedhA ajinvat triSadhastha AryaM Rtasya bhAge yajamAnamAbhajat ||"
Meaning:
"That Visnu, who is divine and who is the best in giving good fruits(boons), came down to help Indra who did good work(of worshipping Visnu thru yagna). That Visnu who is in the moksha loka(triSadhasthah) and who is the giver of all boons(vedhA) makes the Yajmana(Indra) feel happy(ajinvat) by giving him the fruits(abhajat) of his yagna."
Thus, Indra worships Vishnu for powers.
7-99-2
"na te viSNo jAyamAno na jAto deva mahimnaH param antam Apa |
ud astabhnA nAkam RSvam bRhantaM dAdhartha prAcIM kakubham pRthivyAH ||"
Meaning:
"No being that is or has been born can ever attain Your Magnitude which has the highest limit(naH param antam). The moksha loka(nAkam) which is beautiful to see and large is borne by You. You art bearing the worlds at their ancient positions(after pralaya)."
Here it says that the mahima of Vishnu is greatest. Narayana is said to be present during Pralaya, and no-one else, in another verse. Hence, this verse pertains to Vishnu (Narayana).
7-100-5
"pra tat te adya shipiviSTa nAmAryaH shaMsAmi vayunAni vidvAn |
taM tvA gRNAmi tavasam atavyAn kSayantam asya rajasaH parAke || "
Meaning:
"O Bright Lord! I utter that name of You after knowing about the way to attain Moksha(vayunAni vidvAn) becoming the master(arya). I worship by singing about You as the One who is the Most Ancient and who is residing beyond this material world(rajasaH parAke)."
Vishnu is the Lord who gives Moksha.
Now, in the Second Prasna of the First Kanda of Krishna Yajus Samhita occur the following mantra:
"divo vA viSNuvuta vA pRithivyAH maho vA viSNuvuta vAntarikSAt|
hastow pRNasva bahubhirva savyairA prayachchha dakSiNA dota savyAt||"
Taittiriya samhita (1-2-13[8])
Meaning:
"O Visnu! Fill my hands with the different kinds of wealth(gems, gold etc) brought from heaven, earth, maharloka and space. Give from Your right hand and left hand."
This verse shows Vishnu is the owner of all worlds.
Rg Veda
7.100.3
"trir devaH pRthivIm eSa etAM vi cakrame shatarcasam mahitvA |
pra viSNur astu tavasas tavIyAn tveSaM hy asya sthavirasya nAma ||"
Meaning:
"This Divine Visnu, measured this earth with a hundred(innumerable) splendours with three steps in grand manner(mahitvA). Let Visnu , Mightier than the mightiest(tavasas tavIyAn), be our protector(pra astu). He is the most ancient and ever living(sthavirasya), His name(asya nAma) is glorious[because of being the protector](tveSaM hi)."
The reason for His name being glorious is identified as His being the protector which is said about in the previous of the mantra.
Vishnu is Supreme. He is identified with Narayana (Narayana Vidmahe Vasudevaya Dimahe Tanno Vishnu Prachodayat) in Narayana Suktam. Purusha Suktam calls the wives of the Purusha as 'Sri' and 'Hri', ie, Lakshmipathi is mentioned as Supreme here.
Rudra's faults and his absence during pralaya, Brahma's creation account, faults of Indra, Vayu, Varuna and the creation of Prajapatis, Rudras, Adityas, etc. are mentioned in the Veda. Hence, it follows that all names pertains to Vishnu alone, who is Supreme.
EDIT: A bit more, this time from Upanishads:
nArAyana parambrahmah| tattvam nArayanah parah||
nArAyana parojyothir| AtmA nArAyanah parah||"
Mahanarayana Upanishad says,
"evam nArAyanAsIt na brahma neSAna|"
"nArAyanah parambrahmah|"
Subala Upanishad says,
"esha sarva bhUtAntarAtmA apahatapApmA divyo deva eko nArAyanah"
The last verse is important. It says Narayana is the indweller of everyone. Hence, this verse alone validates the Vaishnava viewpoint of taking Rudra, Brahma and other devas to mean Narayana whenever these Devas are called 'Supreme'.
Since you can't link Shiva to Narayana, due to the laws of Sanskrit, it follows that your arguments hold no soap.
Of course, a complete ignoramus like you will never see the point.
-
After a long time of thinking, you have come up with some argument, eh?
Vishnu is unambiguously identified as unborn. The gods sprouted from the navel of the unborn...Om tad Visnoh Paramapadam. Narayana Para Brahman, that Narayana created Brahma, Rudras, Prajapatis, Adityas, etc.
Hence, in one portion, birth of Prajapati is indicated. In another portion, Prajapati is called supreme.
Now, to resolve this contradiction - The prajapati who was born is literally taken to be a deva.
Since he was born, he cannot be the one referred to as 'Prajapati' in another verse which says Prajapati is supreme.
Logically, it follows that this Supreme Prajapati is not the same Prajapati who was born.
Hence, Prajapati is a name of Brahman. Brahman is Vishnu. Thus, confusion of Veda is cleared. You need to find out when to apply etymology and when to apply the literal meaning. This requires proper study of Shruti.
A person's name is Narayana. He does not become the Narayana of the Veda just because his name is Narayana.
-
You are quoting from Puranas. Where does Shruti say that Vishnu took the form of a boar? In fact Satapatha Brahmana (14.2.1.11) says that Prajapati took the form of boar. And Satapatha Brahmana is a shruti.Moron, Shruti is not for describing avatars. It is for describing the nature of Brahman.
Rig Veda says that One God bears the names of all Gods (because he is indweller). Narayana Suktam says Narayana is God. Shiva's birth, his absence during pralaya, his admittance of being sinful is recorded. Narayana is mentioned to have no flaws.
Combining all this info, one call agree that all names pertain to Narayana, because he is indweller. Hence, Shrutis that say 'Hiranyagarbha is supreme', 'Prajapati is Supreme', 'Shiva is Supreme', etc. pertains to Narayana.
Shathapatha Brahmana mentions birth of Prajapati. It also says Prajapati took form of boar. We know Vishnu is Varaha. We also know all names pertain to Vishnu (based on above conclusions).
Hence, Prajapati is Vishnu here. This resolves all contradictions.
It was easy to guess that you will talk about different yugas. But other contradictions too can be reconciled by mentioning different yugas. For example, we can say that in one yuga, Rama prayed to Shiva and in another he did not. Shiva Purana talks about one yuga and Valmiki Ramayan of another. It can also be argued that both books talk about the same yuga but Valmiki did not write about Rama worshipping Shiva. Just because Valmiki did not write, it does not mean that it did not happen. After all, we cannot expect Valmiki to have written each and every thing that Rama didFrom above conclusions, it has been proved that Narayana is Brahman. So, it follows that He will NEVER worship a jiva such as Shiva in any yuga.
Hence, Shiva Purana is tamasic.
-
And in the Mahabharata (Book 3, Chapter 185, Critical Edition) there is an account of the Matsya avatar, but at the end Matsyadeva reveals his true identity: aham prajapatir brahma!And you can't get you stupid brain out of 'BORI, CRITICAL EDITION', can you?
Try reading Madhvacharya's Mahabharata. He has clearly refuted all spurious versions. But of course, his arguments are 'sectarian', aren't they?
Smriti and Shruti both say Vishnu is Supreme and also say Shiva is Supreme.Shruti says Vishnu is Supreme. Smriti says Vishnu is Supreme.
you know nothing about Shruti. First, learn how to apply Sanskrit laws.
Contradictions, contradictions. We must therefore conclude, 'The Shiva Purana is lying'Moron, with the double proof of Guna Classification and Valmiki Ramayana, your pea brain cannot refute it.
The standard is Shruti > Ithihasas > Puranas. Hence, Puranas must be compared to Valmiki and not vice versa.
But if we accept the view of the Mahabharata that Vishnu, Shiva and perhaps Brahma are different features of the same Supreme Deity then all the apparent contradictions melt away so easily.And who died and made you a Vedantin? That absurdity contradicts the basic verses of Shruti.
I will list Kimfelix's absurdities:
1) Svetasvatara is a Shaivite text.
2) Krishna is not a 'Vedic' god.
3) BORI CRITICAL EDITION is apparently the only book he can ever refer to (other than Ganguli, perhaps). According to him, books written by institutes without referring to Shruti are more valid that the works of Vaishnavas which integrate Shruti and Smriti.
4) Kimfelix can't go beyond 'Rudra and Narayana are One'. Apparently, his mind is incapable of understanding philosophy.
Stands to reason, these nut-jobs have no arguments.
-
Avinash, you are pathetic.
1) Puranas say that Brahma meditated on Narayana, and Varaha came out of Brahma's nostril to defeat the asura. Hence, it is taken to mean that Narayana, the indweller literally became Varaha. Since, jiva is the body of Brahman, according to Vishishtadvaita, when we say 'Jiva is Brahman', it means 'the indweller of the Jiva is Brahman'.
So, by saying 'Brahma became the boar', it pertains to Brahma's indweller.
2) Secondly, the Puranas show Yuga Bheda. The reason why there is a contradiction in ancestors is because it may pertain to a Rama avatara of another Yuga. Similarly, Krishna Lila of Vishnu Purana differs from Bhagavata Purana's Krishna Lila.
Lord performs activities differently in different yugas. Nobody said that all Puranas pertain to this Yuga.
Avinash, you are not a Vaishnava. I am sick of mordern day hindus calling themselves Vaishnavas, and yet equating Shiva to Vishnu. What you people know about Brahman can fit into the surface area of a pinhead.
-
Sarcasm without substance is useless.
Now, I really will stop posting here. It is a given that Sri Hari has revealed tamasic puranas for a purpose. And that purpose is clearly Avinash, ganeshprasad and co. I have no problem with that.
Its the law of the Universe. Bye.
-
Unfortunately for you, no-one has accepted that Valmiki can get deluded. Valmiki Ramayana is consistent with Shruti. Hence, it is proof that Valmiki was NOT deluded.
Vaishnava Acharyas have PROVEN that Shiva Purana is inconsistent. Hence, in order to show that they were 'deluded', you need to prove them otherwise. I have already shown how Shiva Purana is indeed lying.
A liar won't admit that he is lying. So, the Guna Classification is not seen in Shiva Purana.
Your ignorance is exposed - Valmiki was deluded in to writing the Ramayana, which is accepted as pramana by all schools. That's a terrific statement, dude.
-
Seems like Avinash's mind couldn't take all the facts, so its pretty much an outpouring of sentiment here. Since this is pretty answerable, I will take back what I said, and reply again.
You say that the Puranas showing Shiva as supreme are tamasic and, therefore, not authentic. Why not authentic? To that, your reply is that Brahma is deluded during his tamasic period. If the content of tamasic puranas is Brahma's mistake, then it must be a very big mistake. The two statements "Vishnu is greater than Shiva." and "Shiva is greater than Vishnu." are so contradictory that a person with even little bit of common sense will know that these are contradictory. If Brahma could not notice this, then we must say that he was heavily deluded. If Brahma can be so deluded, then how can anybody trust your arguments or the arguments of the Vaishnava acharyas, whom you have quoted?When Vishnu is among the Devas, few know that He is the Supreme Lord. On Earth, there are many foolish atheists. Similarly, when the Devas get clouded by Maya, they think they themselves are Supreme.
Proof - refer the Puranas where Shiva fights Krishna. Shiva was so deluded that even he forgot Krishna is God. Bhrigu also had to test Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva to find out who was Supreme among them, showing how well Vishnu blends in with the Devas. The Devas egged Shiva to contest with Vishnu to find out who was supreme. Vishnu defeated Shiva by a mere glance, upon which Mahadeva fell unconscious.
Brahma is deluded by Sri Hari to provide Tamasic Puranas. If an atheist can be so deluded so as to worship a man like Sai Baba, why can't a Jiva like Brhma be deluded enough to think wrongly at times?
Remember, Sri Hari came as Buddha and gave out a Nastika Doctrine. So, there is absiolutely no problem with a tamo guna purana which says 'Shiva is supreme'. When Buddhism itself is a product of Vishnu's mischief, you can expect ANYTHING from him.
Vaishnava acharyas KNOW that Sri Hari deludes. They KNOW that Brahma is a Jiva who is subject to faults. So, you can definitely trust them. Besides, I don't see any shaivite who has ever refuted them.
And you are right - A verse saying 'Shiva is Supreme' and a verse saying 'Vishnu is supreme' are contradictory. Anyone with common sense can see that. So they both can't be right. Hence, we refer to Shruti. Shruti verifies that Vishnu is Supreme.
What is the proof that Shiva Purana is tamasic? You reply that it is written in Padma Purana. But Padma Purana has been interpolated a lot. At present, there are various versions of Padma Purana available. There is no guarantee that the verse in Padma Purana calling Shiva Purana as tamasic is not interpolationMoron, open your eyes and read this thread. Shiva Purana's claims of Rama worshipping Shiva is nowhere present in Valmiki Ramayana. Hence, Shiva Purana is blatantly lying. Such a lie is tamasic indeed.
In order to prove that the guna classification verse is an interpolation, you have to first prove that Shiva Purana is not tamasic. But here is the proof - Shiva Purana is not above misinformation.
There are many versions of Padma Purana, but this one verse about guna classification has been quoted by both Ramanujacharya and Madhvacharya. NOBODY OBJECTED TO THEM QUOTING THIS VERSE DURING THOSE TIMES. Hence, if Shaivites couldn't say it was an interpolation, its not.
Adi Sankara does not refer to Guna classification, but he appears to accept it in his works - he only refers to Vishnu and Padma Puranas as authority in his bhashyas.
Hence, its authentic. We only use whatever has been quoted by Acharyas, as there was heavy debate during their times, and any fake quotes would have been criticised. Even Shaivas like Appaya Dikshitar, who were so biased, never refuted this guna classification.
Even if, for the sake of argument, we believe that the Padma Purana originally spoken by Brahma calls Shiva Purana as tamasic, it does not really prove that Shiva Purana is really tamasic. It is quite possible that Brahma wrote Padma Purana during his tamasic period. Since he was deluded, he wrote wrong things. Because of delusion, he did not know that he was writing wrong things.1) Brahma did not 'write' Puranas. He acts as a storyteller to the devas. Vyasa is the one who wrote it down.
2) As I said before, when Sri Hari takes an avatar among Devas, He fits in so well that even the Devas are deluded by Maya. So, Brahma gets confused sometimes.
3) Sattvik Puranas are consistent with both Shruti and Ithihasas, so there is no way that they could have been products of a Tamasic person. But Shiva Purana contradicts Shruti and Smriti. The example of Rama worshipping Shiva clearly proves it.
Another objection is that sattvic puranas contain many things, which can neither be proven correct nor be proven wrong according to shruti. In other words, the puranas contain things, which are just not present in shruti.Moron, acharyas have written elaborate commentaries on Sattvik Puranas and shown them to be consistent with Shruti. Exactly WHAT is inconsistent? Only your addled brain.
These verses of puranas become suspect. It is possible that Brahma spoke these so called sattvic puranas (or at least some part of them) during his tamasic period.Shiva Purana - Rama worships Shiva. WRONG, as per Valmiki.
Padma Purana - Rama worships Himself. RIGHT, as per Valmiki. This verse is also quoted by acharyas, hence its authenticity is known.
A 5 year old would understand, but you don't.
Being in tamasic period does not mean that everything spoken by him must be wrong. Some things may be right and some things wrong. If some verses can be verified with shruti, then we know whether those are right or not. But what about other verses? Those verses become suspect.You are absolutely right. Not everything in a tamasic purana is wrong. Sri Ramanujar quotes from Skanda Purana and Linga Purana in his Sri Bhashya.
So, the rule is - Sattvik Puranas are 100% consistent. Tamasic Puranas can be taken as valid only in those portions where they DON'T contradict Shruti.
Shiva as supreme contradicts both Shruti and Smriti. But the theory of Karma and Reincarnation is in Shiva Purana as well, and since it is consistent with Shruti, it can be accepted.
1. Consider all elements of A.2. Consider only those elements of B, which are common in both A and B. Discard other elements.
If we need to follow the above two rules, then we do not need to look into B at all. This is because the elements of B, which should be considered are present in A also. So, why not study only A?
Again, dimwit, your logic is wrong.
Purpose of B (Smriti) is to elucidate A (Shruti) for proper understanding.
For instance, Shruti says, 'The being (Vishnu) on the Ocean is Supreme'. Smriti describes this Ocean as the Ocean of Milk, with Lord Vishnu on Adi Sesha. Hence, it s accepted as truth because it doesn't contradict Shruti.
Then, Shruti says, 'Vishnu is Supreme'. Smriti says at some points, 'Shiva is Supreme'. Now, should be believe this? But Smriti itself offers a solution - that Sri Hari deludes people and the verse about some parts being Sattvik/Rajasa/Tamasa. Hence, Smriti recommends discarding non-vedic statements.
And what about some statements in Mahabharata about Shiva's supremacy? We have no guna classification. So, we turn to the option of proving it as an interpolation. Two proofs - 1) NO scholar in ancient times has EVER mentioned or quoted such a verse, so it is a recent addition, 2) It contradicts Shruti.
Since we operate on the basis that Vyasa composed Smriti with a view to understanding Shruti, we reject false statements as works not authored by Vyasa. But tamasic Puranas were authored by Vyasa purposefully.
If you study only A, you wouldn't understand anything deeper about it. If you study B without A, you wouldn't know which is right and which is wrong. So you need both.
You called one verse as interpolation because meter does not match. I agree with you here. But, has anybody, really checked the meters of all the verses in all scriptures to make sure that the meter is correct? Or, only when a verse was found to be in contradiction to one's belief, that the meter was checked?Refer above. When something contradicts Shruti, its authenticity can be verified if anyone, be he a buddhist, jain, shaivite, etc. has quoted it in ancient times. If he hasn't, further proof is offered by showing how it is inconsistent with Shruti. So, it is an interpolation.
Vaishnavas have written elaborate commentaries on Vishnu and Bhagavata Puranas to show their consistency. We have also proven how Shiva Purana is absurd and borders on blatant lies.
In another case, when meter was correct, then you claimed that Rudra referred to Vishnu because Narayan is a proper noun, but Rudra is not. How can you claim that Narayan is a proper noun? The word "narayan" means one who lives inside water. Of course, Vishnu lives inside water. But it does not mean that nobody else can. If you argue that Vishnu only is called as Narayan because of certain incidents like Vishnu residing in causal ocean and garbhodak ocean, then I can argue that only Shiv is called as Rudra because Brahma asked him not to cryDimbulb, it is not my 'opinion' that Narayana is a proper noun. IT IS THE BASIC LAW OF SANSKRIT. Refer Panini's grammatical treatise. Refer any book on how to follow the language of the Vedas. NO VEDANTIN HAS EVER FLOUTED THIS RULE. Even Appaya Dikshitar abides by it.
Any sanskrit scholar will tell you that Narayana is linked with Vishnu. Shiva is a name of Narayana, but Narayana cannot be applied to Shiva. Since I am no sanskrit pundit, refer to a Sanskrit scholar for the same.
You are really ignorant, aren't you?
Satapata Brahmana contains the story of how Vishnu's head was cut off when Vamri ants ate up the thread of the bow on which Vishnu was resting his head. This story does not find mention in the puranas, which show Vishnu as supreme.Bloody Idiot, Quote the exact verses. And remember, Shathapatha Brahmana has been commentated upon by Vaishnavas. Even Shaivas accept that Vishnu is declared as invincible by the Veda.
Ganeshprasad made the same mistake when he called Rudra as Agni. But Agni itself has a deeper meaning than observable. There is absolutely no story in Shruti that subordinates Vishnu, and that is a fact.
When you were asked why devas went to Shiva to pray to Vishnu dwelling inside Shiva and why they did not go directly to Vishnu, then you replied that Shiva is devata's guru. But guru is a medium to get us to God. If I directly see God in front of me, then why should I go to guru and why not to God? Suppose that God comes in front of you. Won't you talk to him directly1) Mahabharata clarifies that Vishnu is indeed Shiva's indweller. Hence, Bhagavatam was indeed pertaining to this.
2) Vishnu Himself wants everyone to approach Him through Guru. That's His law, and nobody shall flout it. The devas are requested to approach Brahma through Shiva. Brahma then appoaches Lakshmi Narayana and pleads on their behalf.
3) You will NEVER attain God without a Guru. Krishna confirms it in Gita. Tell me, even Vyasa and Valmiki were schooled by Narada. So, Avinash is such a great jnani, that he does not need a guru to appear before God?
Avinash, you are just blabbering here. Go wipe your fevered brow.
-
I think, one needs to consider the concept of Antaryami, ie, the indweller here. It is a fact that the Lord is the soul of our soul, ie, we are sentient atman, who have within us, the sentient Lord.
The BG Sloka only says that a Jiva acts as a result of the interaction of the 3 Gunas of Sattva, Rajas and Tamas. The BG Sloka 18.14 'Adhishtaana' clearly says the body, the soul, the mind in association with senses, the vital air and Bhagavan are the five agents that act together. Brahadaranyaka Upanishad 4.1.18 describes how Jiva is the prime mover like a king moving with his subjects. According to Sastras, oneself experiences the fruits of one's actions. "Prakriti" does not enjoy the fruits of actions since it has no action on its own. It is, therefore, clear that Atman is the doer. And it is also clear that atman is NOT the doer. Confused? Well, here is the explanation.
In certain statements in the Gita, Lord says, 'Practice Bhakti-Yoga. If you cannot do that, remain Self-Situated. If you cannot do that, renounce fruits of your actions'. And so on. Since the Lord gives us options, does this not imply that there may be something that the Jiva can do by his own volition?
In an attempt to reconcile these statements, it can be said that this freedom granted to the jiva is to be seen in the concept of antaryami, Vishnu's presence as the 'inner most' being in the Jiva. The antaryami presence is related to embodiment of the self as a consequence of creation. Even in this embodied state, the jiva continues to depend on the divine for its sustenance (as verified by the Dvaitins in the link that Shvu provided), and the divine in the form of antaryami thus becomes a power source without which no action is possible on the part of the embodied jiva. Even in the samsaric state where the jiva acts with relative freedom constructing its own separate world, it is the antaryami that provides the needed energy and sustenance for the jiva to do so, making it possible to drift away from the playful world of the original creation and thus get trapped in the cycle of birth-death-rebirth!!
Thus, I believe that no action is possible without permission of the Lord. But this does not imply lack of freedom, rather, the Lord simply gives assent for a Jiva's decisions in Samsara. Hence, the Jiva is free, but is also the non-doer, because the actions owe their 'power source' to the antaryami. And statements like 'Jiva is mover' , etc. can be said to pertian to the indweller.
It is by the will of Vishnu that an individual is either in the state of bondage or release. But this immanence in the souls is not to be construed as to leave no freedom of action on their part. The souls resting in and furnished by it with bodies and sense organs as well as powers to use them, apply themselves of their own accord and in accordance with their wishes, to works either good or evil. No action is indeed possible without the assent of the inner Soul; but in all volitional actions there is the volitional effort (prayartana) made by the individual soul; the Supreme Soul, by giving it assent carries out the action.
Sorry about the long post.
-
Because, Krishna had given His word to His devotee, Shiva, that He would fulfill Shiva's desire and seek boons from the latter.
So, Krishna tells Arjuna, 'If I hadn't kept my word and worshipped Shiva, then nobody would trust My words and worship Me'.
Devotees wouldn't be able to trust the Lord if He broke His word.
There is also a second reason. Krishna is saying, 'If I had not worshipped Myself as indweller of Rudra, and instead worshipped Rudra himself, then, no-one would recognise Me as the Supreme Person, and instead will consider Rudra as Supreme.'
Vaishnavas understand that both these meanings were conveyed by Krishna. His sowlabhyam (accessibility) shows that 1) He keeps His word, 2) He never worships a Jiva, but rather worships Himself within the Jiva to ensure that no-one confuses the Jiva as Brahman.
Well, I am off this thread. You people are so caught in your sentiments, your brains simply cannot register the simple facts. That is why, Kimfelix ignores the statements about Narayana being Supreme and simply quotes the one line about Rudra and Narayana being one, and you (Avinash), questioning everything, despite the bold letters that proclaim Narayana to be the only Brahman, full of auspicious attributes.
Atman is the body of the Lord. He resides literally within you. Hence, worship of Shiva does not mean Krishna worshipped the Jiva named Shiva. Krishna, while fulfilling Shiva's promise, simply was worshipping Himself, the indweller of the Jivatma named Shiva.
So, Krishna says, 'Whoever worships Rudra or Narayana, worship only one God'. Since in the earlier verse, it says Narayana is supreme and the indweller of Shiva, it means, prayer to Rudra reaches Narayana only, and worship of Narayana directly also gets same result. But if you don't have the jnana to realise this, you are committing a mistake by worshipping Rudra as Brahman.
Kimfelix is unable to grasp the sarira-sariri relationship of Jiva and Brahman, so according to him, its 'sectarian' Vaishnava interpretation. And according to him, some texts are written by a bunch of dishonest Vaishnavites and some others by dishonest Shaivites. So, our culture is garbled and confused.
This is what ignorance and misunderstanding leads to.
It is not my duty to explain everything to Ajnanis, so I shall go.
-
I am not too knowledgeable on this issue, but I will comment.
It is true that these verses exist in the Gita, but there are some verses which state the gunas as doer as well. "prakrteh kriyamanani gunaih karmani sarvasah ahamkara vimudatma karta aham iti manyate" indicates that gunas are the doer not atma. Gita (chapter 13, I believe) says: "prakrityaiva hi karmani kriyamani sarvashah yah pasyatitathatmanam akartaram sa pasyati", ie, Only prakriti does all the work, who sees that Atman is not the doer, is right.
Arjuna was a surrendered soul, and hence he had the jnana to become the instrument of the Lord. Actually, the Lord was persuading Arjuna to fight. If He wished to exercise absolute control, He could have hypnotised Arjuna into fighting instead of convincing him with 18 chapters!!
My understanding is that Karma is anadi (not started by even Vishnu), and that according to Karma, the Jiva's knowledge contracts or expands while in samsara. Hence, Karma and Prakrti become the doer, and the Jiva does good or bad things according to them.
But this doesn't mean that the Lord is powerless. His function is defined in Gita, that He is the antaryamin, the eternal controller, etc. He is fully aware of our actions, and can exercise control over them. But, the Lord is also a neutral arbitrator. He controls the Gunas that control us, but He does not violate the laws of Karma, which are anadi (though He can, He doesn't). He gives merits or punishment to Jivas depending on their actions, which in turn depend on their karmas. That is why we are all not in Vaikuntha now, despite His mercy!!
We are totally dependant on Him, but we forget that we are dependant on Him due to Karma. He goes out of His way to remind us of our dependency.
He dwells in us and accompanies us on our journey through samsara. He loves even the worst of sinners, so if they even do one good deed in His favor, He reduces their Karmas greatly.
If someone states that Vishnu makes us do bad things, and yet He is unaffected by anything bad because He is Brahman, it isn't a satisfactory explanation because then He wouldn't have to take the trouble to come down as an avatar and provide an exhaustive explanation on spirituality!!
His very act of taking descent shows that although He is capable of anything and is ever neutral to the Karma of the Jivas, He is also extremely biased in the sense that He loves all these trapped souls, and hence wishes for them to be liberated.
So, statements like the Jiva being completely deluded by Maya, can be understood as the duties of the Lord. *Some* freewill is essential. A soul (as in the case of Arjuna) is provided with sastras and knowledge. If this soul has less Karma, he will come to know this knowledge. Then, depending again on Karma, the Soul makes the right or wrong decision. The right decision - you realise that you are an instrument of the Lord. Even if you make a wrong decision, eventually, everything works to His favor.
Of course, the ISKCON view of a 'fall' from Vaikuntha is wrong, as no muktatma can ever make a 'wrong' decision.
However, I think this sort of topic cannot be solved by us. We need to consult learned Vedantins for this purpose. One thing we should all agree on is this - His causeless mercy will liberate us, and we may do whatever we can to get to Him.
-
All of these points have both some merit and some inaccuracy in them. Nimbarkas are very similar in their doctrine. Gaudiya Vaishnavism has some strong Tantra infuences and the purely Vedic Vaishnava lines like the Madhvas or Sri Vaishnavas often object to that approach.The Nimbarka, Vallabha and Gaudiya Sampradayas are rasikas, and base their doctrine on love of Krishna (and authority of Bhagavatam). The other two are more traditional in their approach, giving the Prasthna Trayam great authority, and using it to interpret texts like the Bhagavatam.
Its OK to consider Vishnu as the avatar of Krishna if you do not differentiate between the two in terms of powers/attributes. And as for Chaitanya Mahaprabhu, its normal for every sampradaya to glorify their guru (even Upanishads recommend it).
But I do admit, considering Rama and Narasimha to be 'plenary portions' of Sri Chaitanya is a bit much!!
-
The key verse from Dark Warrior's perspective is verse 12, which is translated half way down page 151: 'From his grace hath arisen Brahman and from his wrath hath arisen Rudra . . ' However, one page 152 we find a translation of verses 21f, beginning from 'I am the Soul . . ' which suggests that Narayana and Rudra form a single identity and one should not distinguish between them. Verse 24 even states:rudro narayanas chaiva sattvam ekam
*Sigh* 'Sectarian' again...do you ever learn? How many times do I have to tell you this?
First of all, 'Ganguli' or 'Bori' is not my idea of a pramana. Provide verses which have been quoted by people prior to the 15th century. That is the way to ascertain which versions are authentic. But since complete ignoramuses like you do not understand this, its pretty useless to argue, of course.
Since Shruti clearly mentions Vishnu and Rudra are NOT same, this does not mean so either.
Think - Aham Brahmasmi means 'I am brahman'. Does this mean, 'Soul is Brahman'? No. It means that Brahman is within the Soul as indweller. Just like I call Kimfelix's body and Kimfelix's soul as 'Kimfelix' together, so do the Scriptures.
Jiva is the body of Brahman. Hence, both Brahman and Jiva are mentioned together.
Similarly, 'Rudra and Narayana are One' means that they are one in essence, that everything has the essence of Hari.
I will give pramana from Vishnu Purana:
yuShmaddattavaro baaNo jiivataameSha shankara |
tvadavaakyagauravaadetanmayaa chakra.m nivattitam || vp 5.33.46 ||
tvayaa yadbhaya.m datta.m taddattamakhila.m mayaa |
matto 'vibhinnamaatmaana.m drShtumarhasi shankara || vp 5.33.47 ||
yo 'ha.m sa tva.m jagachcheda.m sadevaasuramaanuSham |
avidhyaamohitaatmaanaH puruShaa bhinnadarshinaH || vp 5.33.48 ||
Since you, Shankara, have given a boon unto Baana, let him live, from
respect to your promises, my discus is arrested: the assurance of
safety granted by you is granted also by me. You are fit to apprehend
that you are not distinct from me. That which I am, thou art; and
that also is this world, with its gods, demons, and mankind. Men
contemplate distinctions, because thy are stupified by ignorance.
(viShNu puraaNa 5.33.46-48)
Simply put, Krishna is saying that just like the world, its devas, its asuras all have the essence of Brahman, Shiva is also Brahman. The body of Brahman can be referred by the name of Brahman.
This is the philosophy of Vishishtadvaita. Since everything is Brahman's body, when we say 'Brahman', we refer to both Him and His body. In the Santi Parva, Shiva was the object of debate, and hence, Krishna specifically referred to Shiva, calling him as One.
There is no question of equality - The evidence is plain because the verse mentions that Brahma and Rudra are born from Narayana.
Kimfelix, PLEASE learn the philosophy of Vedanta. This is why one must never make blind statements from some book like 'Bori' or 'Ganguli' without atleast a rudimentary knowledge. Since you seem incapable of understanding, I will spoonfeed it to you:
1) Shruti say Vishnu is supreme. All objections to verses like Shathapatha Brahmana and Mahanarayana Upanishad have been dismissed by me properly.
2) Shruti mentions that Jiva is the body of Brahman.
3) Hence, any direct interpretations of 'Vishnu is Rudra, Brahma, etc.' from Smriti will clash with Shruti.
4) However, we assume both Smriti and Shruti are correct, so reconciliation is needed.
5) Hence, an understanding of philosophy is needed to comprehend these sentences.
6) Bori, Ganguli and others can stuff it. They are not pramana.
7) Kimfelix needs to get it implanted in his brain that there is no such thing as 'selective or sectarian' Vaishnavite interpretation. We interpret Smriti only with regards to Shruti.
-
Which publication are you using? Ganguli's translation shows something entirely different in Shanti Parva, Mahabharat 12.328 as is evident from the following link: -Do not quote Ganguli's or other such stupid versions. They are not even authentic. There are many versions of Mahabharata extant today.
That is why I only quote what is given in the Bhashyas of acharyas. You realise, that these acharyas quoted these verses while arguing with Shaivites. If these verses were spurious, the Shaivites should have protested.
Dark Warrior, Chapter 328 of the Shanti is an interesting chapter. It is the eighth chapter of the Nara-Narayaniyam, which is definitely Vaishnava in its orientation, and possibly Pancharatric. Even there though the issue is not clear cut as one can see from reading verses 24 to 26. But thank you for pointing it out, it is an interesting passage, and I am sorry to have annoyed you. It was not my intention.No offense intended or taken on my part. But realise this, there is no such thing as one portion of scripture being 'Vaishnavite in orientation and another being 'Shaivite'. According to us, Shruti (All Vedas, Upanishads, etc.) and Smriti (excluding the interpolations) are Vaishnavite. Even Rudram Chamakam is Vaishnavite, because all prayers go to Vishnu, not Shiva.
Until people understand this basic fact (that Vaishnavas have not neglected any pramana) there is no way they will understand.
-
My dear friend, I am not the adamant one. The average hindu who refuses to see that Shiva is not equal to Vishnu is adamant.
You need to realise that there is absolutely no claim for these people. Shruti and Smriti reveal the greatness of Sri Hari. Sometimes, Bhagavan, due to His intense desire to mingle with Jivas, does things like living among Devas, cowherds and gives boons to Shiva which makes him look powerful. But this wonderful gesture of Lord Vishnu is so misunderstood by all of you.
There is no parampara that says Shiva and Vishnu are one. Adi Sankara's original parampara was Vaishnava. Ramanujacharya and Madhvacharya were Vaishnavas.
Shaivas do have their own parampara, where they ignore all Shruti and place Shiva as Supreme. Hence, those who say Vishnu=Shiva will be condemned by even Shaivites.
In any case, the senseless arguments of Shaivites can be easily refuted.
Before you accuse Vaishnavas, refer to our works to see how extensively we have proven our point. Not one portion of pramana is discarded in our works.
-
I don't think there can be any objections. Shathapatha Brahmana establishes that Rudra has a birth, and is sinful. Verses from the Vedas indicate that Rudra is absent during Pralaya, that he gets his strength from Vishnu, that he is born of Narayana (and Brahma), that he lacks complete knowledge, etc.
Hence, wherever Rudra is praised as Supreme, its logical to either attribute his name to Vishnu, the unborn, or attribute it as a praise to the indweller of Rudra's atma (Who is Vishnu as well).
So, only the Vaishnava viewpoint is able to explain every bit of Shruti. If you want to claim our viewpoint is wrong, first, you must go and look at how Shavites completely ignore all these portions, and simply adhere to Sri Rudram Chamakam.
Take the words of Sri Krishna from the Santi Parva. This is quite authentic, and no amount of interpreting can hange the purport of the message.
Reference: Shanti Parva of Mahabharata. Verses 12.328.5 onwards have been quoted by both Sri Vedanta Desikar of the Sri Vaishnava sampradaya, I believe and by Dvaitins as well. Sri Ramanujar never needed to prove the supremacy of Vishnu much in his times, because even advaitins of those times were jnanis enough to know this fact. Only mordern day hindus persist in this asinine practice of calling all gods as equals.
Arjuna uvAchabhagavanbhUtabhavyesha sarvabhUtasR^igavyaya
lokadhAma jagannAtha lokAnAm abhayaprada
yAni nAmAni te devakIrtitAni maharShibhiH
vedeShu sapurANeShu yAni guhyAni karmabhiH
teShAM niruktaM tvatto.ahaM shrotumichChAmi keshava
na hyanyo vartayennAmnAM niruktaM tvAmR^ite prabho
Addressing the Lord, Arjuna says, O Lord Keshava, the Lord of Past and
future, the Creator of All, the Changeless Being, the Supporter and
indweller of the universe, the Lord of the universe and grantor of refuge to
[all the deserving beings of] the universe, I wish to know the etymology of
your names, which are extolled by [the Devas and] the Maharishis, which are
in the Vedas and the Puranas and are hidden from the [undeserving beings]
and beyond the reach of actions. There does not exist a greater truth or
divine law apart from the true meaning of your names, my Lord.
shrIbhagavAn uvAcha
R^igvede sayajurvede tathaivAtharva sAmasu
purANe sopaniShade tathaiva jyotiShe.arjuna
sA~Nkhye cha yogashAstre cha Ayurvede tathaiva cha
bahUni mama nAmAni kIrtitAni maharShibhiH
The Lord says:
My names are sung by the Maharishis in the RgVeda, YajurVeda, Atharvaveda,
Samaveda, in the purANa, in the Upanishad(**Any idea why the singular is
used?**), in the Jyotish Vidya, in the Sankhya, in the Yogashastra, and in
the Ayurveda(!).
gaunAni tatra nAmAni karmajAni cha kAni chit
niruktaM karmajAnAM cha shR^iNuShva prayato.anagha
kathyamAnaM mayA tAta tvaM hi me.ardhaM smR^itaH purA
O Destroyer of opponents, in those texts, some names are indicative of my
qualities (Gunas), while some extol my actions. Listen to the etymology of
these names. Earlier, I have told some of these to you.
namo.ati yashase tasmai dehinAM paramAtmane
nArAyaNAya vishvAya nirguNAya guNAtmane
yasya prasAdajo brahmA rudrashcha krodhasambhavaH
yo.asau yonirhi sarvasya sthAvarasya charasya cha
astAdasha guNaM yattatsattvaM sattvavatAM vara
Glories to the extremely famous, the Paramatma Narayana, who is nirguna
(devoid of prakritic attributes) and full of auspicious qualities. Glories
to that Being, out of whose grace was Brahma born and out of whose anger was
Rudra born; Glories to Him who is the origin of all; the moving and
stationery. Glories to Him, who has the eighteen excellent virtues and who
is the true essence and strength of all living beings.
prakR^itiH sA parA mahyaM rodasI yogadhAriNI
R^itA satyAmarAjayyA lokAnAmAtmasa~nj~nitA
tasmAtsarvAH pravartante sarga pralaya vikriyAH
Everything; creation, destruction and all other changes; arises out of the
Prakriti (Lakshmi), Who is the wife of Narayana. [Among all dependent
beings], she is the most knowledgeable, effulgent, powerful and victorious.
She does all this with my grace and she is known as "AtmA" of the entire
universe [after Paramatma] (as she appoints and manages Brahma, Rudra and other deities as per the command of the Lord).
tato yaGYashcha yaShTA cha purANaH puruSho virAt
aniruddha iti prokto lokAnAM prabhavApyayaH
Thus such Lord is spoken of as yaj~na (the worship) and the worshipper. (God takes all the fruits of yaj~na and He instigates the worshipper.) He is the most ancient (anAdi and controller of all) and greatest one. No one is His Lord and He is unstoppable. He is the creator and annihilator of all the
worlds.
brAhme rAtrikShaye prApte tasya hyamitatejasaH
prasAdAtprAdurabhavatpadmaM padmanibhekShaNa
tatra brahmA samabhavatsa tasyaiva prasAdajaH
In the Brahma muhurta, at the end of the night, due to the mercy of the
extremely brilliant Lord, a lotus emerged from His navel and in that lotus,
Brahma was born, ofcourse, due to His grace.
ahnaH kShaye lalAtAchcha suto devasya vai tathA
krodhAviShTasya sa~njaGYe rudraH saMhAra kArakaH
etau dvau vibudhashreShThau prasAdakrodhajau smR^itau
At the end of the day, the Lord [present as antaryAmi of Brahma *] created Rudra out of Krodha-guNa, to enable him to be the 'samhAra-kartA'. Thus, these two 'fine-among-wise', Brahma and Rudra, are known to have been born out of grace and anger respectively.
*: This interpretation is necessary because in the later sections of
Moxadharma, Brahma addresses Rudra as a son.
tadAdeshita panthAnau sR^iShTi saMhAra kArakau
nimittamAtraM tAvatra sarvaprAni varapradau
Thus, they carry out the instructed tasks of creation and destruction.
However, they, the givers of boons to all the creatures, are just the
agents.
kapardI jatilo mundaH shmashAnagR^ihasevakaH
ugravratadharo rudro yogI tripuradAruNaH
dakShakratuharashchaiva bhaga netraharastathA
[Rudra has] braided hair with knot of an ascetic and rest of the head bald.
He dwells in the home of graveyard, steadfast on vigorous penance as a yogi. He is ferocious to tripurasuras, destroyed daxayaj~na and took away the eyes of Bhaga.
nArAyaNAtmako GYeyaH pANDaveya yuge yuge
O Arjuna, know that in every yuga, Rudra is 'nArAyaNAtmaka'. This phrase can mean: one whose indweller is Narayana, one who is always immersed in Narayana.
tasminhi pUjyamAne vai devadeve maheshvare
sampUjito bhavetpArtha devo nArAyaNaH prabhuH
It is the Lord, the prabhu, the Narayana *IN* Maheshvara (the worshippable, the lord of the devas), who is actually worshipped.
ahamAtmA hi lokAnAM vishvAnAM pANDunandana
tasmAdAtmAnamevAgre rudraM sampUjayAmyaham
yadyahaM nArchayeyaM vai IshAnaM varadaM shivam
AtmAnaM nArchayetkashchiditi me bhAvitaM manaH
O Son of Pandu, I am, indeed, the Atma, the indweller of this universe and the worlds. Therefore, I worship myself first, even when I worship Rudra. If I did not worship Rudra, the bestower of boons, in such a way (i.e., worshipping the indwelling Lord first), some would not worship me, the indwelling Lord, at all - this is my opinion.
mayA pramANaM hi kR^itaM lokaH samanuvartate
pramAnAni hi pUjyAni tatastaM pUjayAmyaham
Whatever I follow and give due worth as a pramANa, the world follows that.
yastaM vetti sa mAM vetti yo.anu taM sa hi mAm anu
rudro nArAyaNashchaiva sattvamekaM dvidhAkR^itam
loke charati kaunteya vyakti sthaM sarvakarmasu
Whoever knows him, knows Me. Whoever follows him, follows ME. (Though) the world, in all its actions, worships two Gods Rudra and Narayana, it is
actually One only(i.e. Narayana, the indweller of Rudra) who is worshipped.
na hi me kenachid deyo varaH pANDavanandana
iti sa~ncintya manasA purANaM vishvamIshvaram
putrArthaM ArAdhitavAn AtmAnaM aham AtmanA
O Son of Pandu, there is, of course, nobody who can grant me boons. Knowing that well, I worhip myself, Who am the beginningless and universal power, known as Sarveshvara, for the sake of getting sons.
na hi viShNuH pranamati kasmai chidvibudhAya tu
R^ita AtmAnameveti tato rudraM bhajAmyaham
Indeed Vishnu does not bow to any one and [even when He bows to Himself], for what sake, but for the sake of showing the path to the wise. Therefore, it is the truth that I worship myself even when I worship Rudra.
sabrahmakAH sarudrAshcha sendrA devAH saharShibhiH
archayanti surashreShThaM devaM nArAyaNaM harim
The Brahmas, the Rudras, the Indras, the Devatas, all the Rishis worship the best among the Gods, Narayana, Hari.
bhaviShyatAM vartatAM cha bhUtAnAM chaiva bhArata
sarveShAmagraNIrviShNuH sevyaH pUjyashcha nityashaH
Always, of all the past, future and present, it is first, Vishnu who is to
be propitiated and worshipped.
namasva havyadaM viShNuM tathA sharaNadaM nama
varadaM namasva kaunteya havyagavya bhujaM nama
[You] bow to Lord Vishnu, Who grants the material for oblations [so that the devotee can perform worship]. Bow to One, Who gives refuge to the devotees. Bow to One, Who gives boons to the devotees. Bow to One, Who consumes all the oblations and milk, curds, etc.
chaturvidhA mama janA bhaktA evaM hi te shrutam
teShAmekAntinaH shreShThAste chaivAnanya devatAH
ahameva gatisteShAM nirAshIH karma kAriNAm
ye cha shiShTAstrayo bhaktAH phalakAmA hi te matAH
sarve chyavana dharmANaH pratibuddhastu shreShTha bhAk
brahmANaM shiti kanthaM cha yAshchAnyA devatAH smR^itAH
prabuddhavaryAH sevante eSha pArthAnukItritaH
bhaktaM prati visheShaste eSha pArthAnukIrtitaH
There are four kinds of devotees. Among them the best are the "ekanta
bhaktas" like the gods. I am their refuge, who do action interested in
nothing except me. The other three kinds are desirous of fruits of action.
They move on the path of Dharma, enlightened share their knowledge with
others. They worship Brahma, Rudra and other gods, with their own enlightenment. O Partha, they go unto the god, they worship.
<!-- / message --><!-- edit note -->
-
Easily explained.
1) Varaha Purana explains that Shiva had asked the Supreme Lord Krishna for a boon, that Krishna would worship Shiva for something. Krishna fulfills it.
In the Santi Parva, however, Arjuna asks Krishna, 'When you are the Supreme Being, why did you worship Shiva?', Krishna tells Arjuna, 'I did not worship Shiva, but rather, the indweller within Shiva, who is Myself. If I did not keep my word and fulfill my boon to Shiva, nobody will trust Me.'
2) The Shiva Sahasranama, and the little thing about Bhishma telling Arjuna that Krishna is subiordinate to Shiva, has not been quoted by ANY scholar from ancient times. Therefore, all mordern scholars have rejected it as an interpolation by some zealous Shaivite.
However, the Vishnu Sahasranama is the authentic conversation between Bhishma and Yudhishtira. Which clearly says, 'Vishnu is Supreme'.
-
There you go. Proves my point.
Like I said, it is completely useless arguing with people who are unaware of even the definition of the word 'Pramana'.
Is Lord Shiva a demi-god?
in Spiritual Discussions
Posted · Report reply
I will now make my position absolutely clear. Ganeshprasad - since you seem blind to pramanas, read this carefully, and see if you can refute any of this.
INDWELLER CONCEPT
Narayana is the indweller of everyone. That is substantiated as follows:
Subala Upanishad says,
"esha sarva bhUtAntarAtmA apahatapApmA divyo deva eko nArAyanah"
This says, Narayana, who is without defects, is the indweller of everyone. Therefore, any verse which praises Rudra is taken to mean Narayana.
Now, does Rudra have an indweller? Refer Sayana's commentary on Rig Veda,
stuhi shrutaM gartasadaM yuvAnaM mRgaM na
bhImamupahatnumugram.h |
mRlA jaritre rudra stavAno.anyaM te asman ni vapantu
senAH ||
sage Gritsamada says: O Rudra (rudra) , you pray
(stuhi) to that (deity) who resides in the cave (of
heart) (gartasadaM), who is ever young (yuvAnaM), and
who took a fierce form to kill (the asura)
(upahatnumugram.h) and killed (the asura) by pouncing
(on Him) and who is conveyed by the entire Veda
(shrutaM: shrutyA dyotaM). ~ Rig Veda.
This verse proves that Rudra has an indweller.
Narayana is eternal.Brahma is Narayana. Shiva is Narayana. Indra(Sakra) is Narayana ....." (Mahanarayana Upanishad)
it is stated that Brahma,Shiva,Indra are Narayana. it is also said that Narayana created Brahma,Indra etc.
therefore,it is even more clear that Narayana on creating the devas, made them powerful, by giving them powers residing as the Antaryami in them
AGNI AS ALL DEVAS
"tvamagne rudro asuro maho divastvaM shardho mArutaM pRkSa IshiSe |
tvaM vAtairaruNairyAsi shaMgayastvaM pUSA vidhataH pAsi nu tmanA ||"
This verse calls Rudra, Maruts, etc....all devas as agni. Note, Tvamagne Rudro.
Hence, any deva can be called Agni. Even Vishnu can be called Agni (refer verse 2-1-1), because He is Yajna Himself.
Therefore, when satapatha Brahmana calls Pasupati, Mahadeva, Rudra, etc. as Agni, the fact remains, that this isn't the firegod. ANY Deva can be called Agni BECAUSE THEY ALL ACQUIRE BOONS THROUGH SACRIFICE.
Thus, calling Rudra as Agni, does not make Mahadeva as Agni. Since Agni is mentioned as lowest of Devas, and Satapatha Brahmana calls Rudra as 'Isana', it follows that this kumara is not Agni, the firegod.
BIRTH OF RUDRA/RUDRA AS JIVA
'eko nArAyaNa AsIt.h na brahmA na IshAnaH ' means only Narayana existed in the begining, no Brahma or Shiva (also known as Isha) existed.
Isana is the name of Rudra, as it is mentioned in Gita, Mahabharata and even in Shruti.
Rudra is absent during Pralaya, hence he is Jiva.
atha puruSho ha vai naaraayaNo 'kaamayata prajaa sR^ijeyeti |
naaraayaNaat praaNo jaayate manaH sarvendriyaaNi cha kha.m vaayur jyotir aapaH pR^ithivii vishvasya dhaariNii |
naaraayaNaad brahmaa jaayate |
naaraayaNaad rudro jaayate |
naaraayaNaad indro jaayate |
naaraayaNat prajaapatiH prajaayate |
naaraayaNaad dvadashaadityaa rudraa vasavaH sarvaaNi chandaa.msi naaraayaNaad eva samutpadyante naaraayaNat pravartante naaraayaNe praliiyante |
etad R^ig-vedo-shiro 'dhiite || naaraayaNopaniShad 1 ||
Naaraayana is the Supreme Lord. He desired, "I shall create children." From Naaraayana the life breath, mind, all the senses, either, air, fire, water, and earth, which maintains the universe, were born. From Naaraayana Brahmaa was born. From Naaraayana Shiva was born. From Naaraayana Indra was born. From Naaraayana Prajaapati was born. From Naaraayana the twelve Adityas, the Rudras, the Vasus, and all the Vedic hymns were born. From Naaraayana they were manifested. Into Naaraayana they again enter. This is the crown of the R^ig Veda (nArAayaNopaniShad 1).
Birth of Rudra is mentioned.
There is another Rigvedic text, which says that Rudra doesn't fully understand the actions of 'savitr' (na yasyendro varuNo na mitro vratamaryamA na minanti rudraH). So, he is not absolutely a jnani.
ahám evá svayám idáM vadaami júSTaM devébhir utá maánuSebhiH
yáM kaamáye táM-tam ugráM kRNomi tám brahmaáNaM tám R'SiM táM sumedhaám
10.125.05 I verily of myself declare this which is approved of by both gods and men; whomsoever I will, I render him Ugra(one of the names of Rudra), I make him BrahmA(Chaturmukha), a r.s.i, or a sage.
The speaker is Lakshmi. 'Ugra' here is none other than Rudra. Satapatha Brahmana confirms it again.
Finally another sukta (vayA viSNoreSasya prabhRthe havirbhiH | vide hi rudro rudriyaM) tells us that rudra gets his 'rudratva' from his prayers to Vishnu.
SATAPATHA BRAHMANA ISSUE
Names like Mahadeva, Pasupati, Isana are all exclusively the names of Rudra. There is no avoiding this.
The accurate translation of the Kumara's speech:
so(a)braveet anapahatapapma vaa ahamanahithanama | nama me dehi paapno(a)pahatya iti
Note the words 'Paapno' an 'Anapahatapapma'....meaning, sins. No two ways about it.
AGAIN, ANSWER A SIMPLE QUESTION - IF YOU THINK PASUPATI, ISANA AND MAHADEVA DO NOT PERTAIN TO RUDRA, HOW DO YOU ASSUME ALL VERSES LIKE 'SHIVA/RUDRA IS SUPREME PERTAIN TO MAHADEVA?
Calling Rudra as Agni is simply to denote that he was born of the sacrifice. No english translator like eggbert can do justice to this.
The Kumara has sins. Brahma therefore, gives him power and names like Rudra, Ugra, Pasupati, etc. This Kumara is Mahadeva Shiva, who is called Agni simply because he is the product of a sacrifice, and is foremost among devas.
Therefore, Shiva was born. And it has been demonstrated by Sayana's commentaries that Shiva is sinful.
VISHNU AS SUPREME
Refer all pramanas I provided above. In my previous post itself there is enough indication of this - Vishnu is unborn, has no equal, takes avatars, etc.
Narayana Vidmahe Vasudevaya Dimahe Tanno Vishnoh Prachodayat identifies Vishnu asn an avatar of Narayana.
Mahanarayana Upanishad refers to a 'Being on the Ocean' as Supreme. Sri Ramanujacharya has quoted it.
Ganeshprasad has been revealed to be ignorant, hypocritical and plain misleading. According to him, an entity born with sins (or even 'not freed from evil', as his english commentator claims) is not Rudra-Shiva even though he bears the names of Isana, Maahadeva and Pasupati.
Ganeshprasad needs to answer these questions to gain credibility:
- If this Rudra is Agni, then why does the Aitreya Brahmana say that 'Agni is the lowest Deva'? After all, this Kumara became Mahadeva, so he is not lowest!!
- Rig Veda mentions that any Deva, be he Indra, Brahma, Rudra, can be called Agni. Why does Ganesha ignore this?
- I have provided etymological explanations for why Agni is referred to here. Why does Ganeshprasad ignore this?
Typical. Selective interpretation of shruti.