Dark Warrior

When I mentioned squirrels helped in construction, it was not in debate. It does not have any bearing on philosophy or theology. It was merely an expression of Rama's accessibility. Since it was an unimportant issue, I did not care to check its source. However, if you check this thread, I have provided sufficient pramanas from Veda, Santi Parva and Puranas to establish my facts, as well as proving that Rama worshipped Narayana and not Shiva. I use texts perfectly. If you notice, no-one besides Ganeshprasad and Avinash objects. All Vaishnavas have accepted my viewpoint, even those from other sampradayas (except Hare Christnas).

Then, please explain other parts of the Veda: How do you explain Shiva being called a sinful jiva by Shathapatha Brahmana? - How do you explain the fact that Shruti says Rudra is susceptible to Pralaya? - How do you explain the fact that Rudra is called as a part of Narayana's creation, along with Brahma, Indra, Sun, Stars and Moon? - How do you explain that Shiva & Rudra are mentioned as names of Vishnu in Vishnu Sahasranama? There is NOTHING that is Shaiva, except the Tamasic Puranas. That is the opinion of all Vedantins. Not so. You can't even understand that Shruti and Smriti don't endorse a religion called 'Shaivism', which is the reason why you keep arguing about Shiva being worshipped by Rama, or Shiva being called Supreme, etc.

1) That Rama worshipped Narayana is in Valmiki Ramayana. 2) That this Narayana is indeed 'Ranga' is mentioned in Padma Purana. The validity of this verse is that it has been quoted by Sri Vaishnava acharyas and nobody refuted them. In fact, even Gaudiyas accept it. 3) That Rama worshipped Shiva is in a tamasic/rajasic Purana. Hence, it cannot be accepted. Either it is part of Vyasa's tamo guna purana, or it has been interpolated. Ranga is mentioned in a sattvik Purana. iti uktvaa pradadou tasmai sva vislesha asahishnave Sri Ranga saayinam sva archyam Ikshvaaku kula daivatam Rangam vimaanam aadaaya Lankaam praayaat Vibhishana:" To Vibhishana, who could not bear separation from Rama, Rama gifted His own icon of worship, which had belonged to the Ikshvaaku dynasty for countless millennia. Happy beyond measure at the unexpected and priceless gift, Vibhishana repaired to Lanka with the Ranga vimaanam, says the Paadma Purana. These slokas have been quoted by commentators of Ramayana, while dealing with the gift to the raakshasa raja. No-one has quoted any verse saying Rama worshipped Shiva.

And when did I say that? I said there is no mention of Shiva worship in the Ramayana, by Sri Rama. However, Rama does break Shiva's bow. Kimfelix, first of all, learn the basic etymology of the Vedas, before arguing with me. You don't even understand how 'Rudra' pertains to Vishnu. What is really the point of questioning my credibility, when you completely lack credibility yourself? Whether squirrels were there or not is irrelevant. As far as I know, bears and monkeys helped in building the bridge.

Kimfelix, you do not even understand that 'Rudra' in Svet.Up is not the Mahadeva, and you are questioning me of authenticity? That's pretty rich. AYODHYA KHANDA After Vasistha left, Rama took bath and meditated on Lord Narayana with undistracted mind along with his wide-eyed wife, Seetha. Taking the vessel with clarified butter on his head as per scriptures, he offered to Lord Vishnu the clarified butter, by dropping it into the blazing fire. Rama ate the remainder of clarified butter after finishing the sacrifice, which he performed for his own good, silently meditated on Lord Narayana with controlled mind and slept along with Seetha on a properly laid bed of Kusa grass in a splendid temple of Lord Vishnu. * The learned commentators point out that the deity referred to here is no other than Lord Ranganatha, who had been worshipped by a long line of rulers of Ayodhya as their chosen deity in a separate shrine built within the precincts of the royal palace. We are told at length in the Patala Khanda of Padma Purana how Rama so kindly handed over the image to Vibhishana; through whom it reached Srirangam (near Tiruchirapally) in South India; where it exists even to this day and is held in the highest reverence by the Vaishnavas and other devotees all over India.* The Kings of IkshvAghu dynasty were worshipping Lord Sri RanganAtha with such utmost devotion that the Lord Himself longed to be born in that dynasty of Parama VishNu bhaktas. He resolved to be born as Sri Rama, the son of King Dasaratha. <TT>In due time Dasratha wanted to install Sri Rama as the crown prince (YuvarAja paTTAbhishEkam). As advised by the Kula guru (Family priest) VasishTa, Sri Rama finished his bath and ablutions in holy waters and got ready for the installation functions, he straight went to the temple of Lord Sri RanganAtha to offer the customary prayers as detailed in the 6th Sargam of AyOdhyA khANDam of Srimad RAmAyaNa.</TT> GathE purOhitE rAma: snAthO niyatha mAnasa:/Saha patnyA visAlAkshyA nArAyaNam upAgamth//</PRE> <TT>The word ?VisAlAkshA? denotes how Sri Sita was enchanted by the pulchritude of Lord Sri RanganAtha which seemed to exceed that of Sri Rama himself!. The word ?nArAyaNam? refers to Lord RanganAtha. </TT> <TT></TT> <TT>There is no Siva worship here.</TT>

Straight question: Valmiki Ramayana, written in Treta Yuga, says Rama worshipped Ranganatha. Tulasidas Ramayana, written by Tulasidas in the 16th century, says Rama worshipped Shiva. A baboon would be able to recognise which version is correct. And where is the proof that the Shiva Linga in Rameswaram is consecrated by Rama? None at all. It is not even mentioned by Valmiki. It is a later invention concocted by some people. Rama acted as a human. And all dutiful humans worship the Lord. In order to complete His disguise, Rama had to worship the Lord. Being the Lord Himself, He cannot worship inferior devas. He can only worship Himself. Valmiki confirms it. No arguments. OK. You disagree. Now, I would like you to attempt to refute Shruti. - How do you explain Shiva being called a sinful jiva by Shathapatha Brahmana? - How do you explain the fact that Shruti says Rudra is susceptible to Pralaya? - How do you explain the fact that Rudra is called as a part of Narayana's creation, along with Brahma, Indra, Sun, Stars and Moon? If you cannot explain this, your opinions are wrong. The Matsya Purana, the Padma Purana openly state this Sattva/Rajas/Tamas classification. It is not my 'opinion' alone. The tamasic and rajasic puranas are derived from the storytellng of Brahma in his rajas and tamas moods. Hence, they have mistakes. The Lord uses these puranas to delude asuras. Shiva explains it to Parvati in Padma Purana. Sattva Puranas, when interpreted properly, agree with Vedas. They are accepted. But your interpretation goes against Vedas. Valmiki wrote down what he saw. And who said he didn't call Rama god? Tulasidas was a bhakta of Rama. He wrote it in a devotional mood. He didn't see Ramayana happening. You are so full of nonsense. Dimwit, Shiva failed to see that Krishna was the Lord. He tried to Kill Krishna and came as an enemy. How can you even compare it to the lilas of Balarama and Krishna? Shiva, who failed to see Krishna as his own indweller. Hence, Krishna said, only fools make this mistake. However, later on, Shiva admitted his mistake and praised Krishna. And anyone who can't see this, is a fool. Next time, come up with some logic in your posts.

One last post. Bhagavata apachara (Offense to devotees) is also dealt with in Srimad Ramayana. Consider Lakshmana. He was such a great bhagavata, who never left Rama's side. Therefore, when he saw Bharata coming with his troops, he thought Bharata had plans to kill Rama. Lakshmana became angry and confused. As it turns out, Bharata was a great devotee and only wanted to give back the Kingdom to Rama. Upon hearing lakshmana's doubts, Rama chastises Lakshmana. Rama tells Lakshmana to go away from Him. Sri Rama, who never gets angry, becomes furious with Lakshmana, who had always been at Rama's side. So severe was the Lord's anger that Lakshmana was extremely upset and disturbed. So, understand - The Lord never got angry at offenses done to Him (when Kaikeyi made Him leave). He was kind to even Kaikeyi. But when someone even doubted Bharata, a Bhagavata, Lord Rama became furious. And He did not even consider the fact that the offender was none other than His dear brother (and Adi Sesha), Lakshmana. Another incident - During the battle in the skies with Ravana, Rama was hoisted on the back of Hanuman. Rama was never perturbed by Ravana's arrows. The Lord did not try to kill Ravana, but merely deflected the arrows, smiling serenely all the time. Ravana then attempted to rouse Rama. He targeted the arrows at Hanuman. Immediately, Lord Rama's face changed. The Lord became angry and His face became pitiless. He let loose an arrow which immediately killed Ravana. So, here again, the Lord demonstrates that He may even tolerate offenses to Him. But when His devotees are harassed, He never forgives the offender.

Many people think Srimad Ramayana is a tale spun by Valmiki. Do they actually know how many concepts of Vedanta this great Ithihasa teaches? Here are a few examples: 1) Valmiki, when describing how Rama, Sita and Lakshmana walk through the forest, always mentions them as such, 'Sita followed Rama, and Lakshmana followed Sita'. Sri Periyavacchan Pillai questions why this particular order of 'Rama, Sita, Lakshmana' is followed. Why not, 'Lakshmana, followed by Rama and Sita', or other such combinations? Answer: Rama is Akara (A). Sita is (U). Lakshmana, being the Jiva, follows the holy couple (M). AUM = OM. Thus, Rama, Sita and Lakshmana represent OMkara, the holiest symbol of Vedic truth. 2) It should be noted, that during Rama avatara, NOBODY could resist chanting Sri Rama's glories. Shurpanaka, a demoness praised Rama. Vali praised Rama before and after the fatal battle. Tara, wife of slain Vali, praised Rama. Ravana also praised Rama ('I know the brother of Bharata is great'). Mandodari praised Rama, even after He killed Ravana!! 3) Rama acted and behaved like a normal human. But there were some instances where He accidentally revealed His divinity: Vishvamitra tells Dasharatha, 'aham vEdmi mahAtmAnam RAmam satya parAkramam'. Sri Vaishnava acharyas have given 11 different meanings for this sloka, indicating the divinity of Lord Rama. Compare this sloka of Vishvamitra to the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad: AtmA are draStavyaH srotavyaH mantavyaH nididhyAsitavyaH | The Self, my dear, should be seen -- should be heard about, thought about, and lovingly meditated upon. -- Yajnavalkya to his beloved wife Maitreyi, Brihad Aranyaka Upanishad. Therfore, it is clear that Vishvamitra regularly meditated on Sri Rama daily, as is confirmed by 'Aham Vedmi...' Consider the following verse: - Yaa gati: yagjnaseelaanaam aahitaagnEs cha yaa gati: / aparaOvartinaam yaa cha yaa cha bhoomi pradaayinaam// mayaa tvam samanujnaatO gachcha lOkaan anuttamaan // “I permit you to go to the highest worlds to which those who habitually perform yagjnas, those who perform “agnihOtra” with “aahitaagni”, those by total dedication to the Lord, leave this Prakriti maNDalam never to return and those who gift away “bhoomi” are ordained to reach – to that world (Paramapadam), I hereby dispatch you.” This is Sri Rama, giving Moksha to Jatayu. A Sri Vaishnava acharya, Sri Kurathalvan, studied this and lovingly questions Sri Rama: Oh! Lord! I am asking you one question. When you appeared as Sri Rama you called yourself a mere human being and as a man ran after the mysterious deer at the behest of your dear wife. When you got separated from her, you became so shaken and shattered that you did not know where she had gone. This being so, how did you know how to send JaTaayu, the bird to Paramapadam? Don’t you see the contradiction in your actions in the two cases?” You went about asking every sentient being and insentient thing like cow, bird, hill, river, cloud etc whether anyone of them had seen Sri Sita. And, that you would destroy the whole world, if you cannot find Sri Sita. Did you not have even the commonsense of ordinary folk when you swore to destroy the world, being after all a mere human being for whom this is beyond his Capacity? “Oh! Lord! You broke the seven Saala trees that grew up like a huge mountain and threw the pieces down to the nether worlds, all with the minimal force of a single arrow. It is worth noting that the strong monkey, Vaali could not even shake a single branch of a single tree out of the seven. And, you went in search of friendship with Sugreeva who was physically driven from pillar to post by the same Vaali. How do you reconcile this contradiction?” Oh! Lord! You are the one who is not bound by the cycle of birth and death. You ,Who in a second's anger made the Ocean King come and fall at Your lotus Feet to surrender, also fell to the cruel arrows of Indrajit? How did You let it happen? Also You haven't even crossed the ocean to win evil Ravana, You didn't even know His might, but You made a friend in his younger brother and already crowned him the emperor of Lanka? How did You do it? Strictly speaking, Sri Rama was simply, 'The butter-thief in disguise'. Hidden mischief, as referred to by Sri Vaishnavas. There you go. If you think Ramayana is a mythological story of a heroic man, then why would the author go to the extent of 'hiding' this hero's godly status, rather than highlighting it, as most poets do? Furthermore, look at the number of people who have surrendered/ or have been liberated by Lord Rama: - Bharata & Lakshmana, as well as Shatrughna. - Hanuman. - Sugriva. - Jatayu. - Vibhishana. - A Yaksha, who was actually a Gandharva/Deva under a curse. - The rishis of Chitrakoota, whom Rama protected from demons. - Vishvamitra. - Guha. - Ahalya. And the list goes on. Srimad Ramayana is the essence of the Vedas, with Saranagati being its prime subject. It is history, if we accept it. And do I even need to mention the different types of service rendered to Rama by the likes of Hanuman, Bharata, Shatrughna, Lakshmana, Guha, etc.? Its endless.

The Vali Episode is misconstrued by most people. There is a simple explanation: 1) Vali asks Sri Rama 6 questions before dying, upon which Sri Rama clearly answers them. 2) Vali is pleased with the answers, and hails Rama as the Supreme Being before he dies. I do not remember all the 6 answers that Sri Rama gave Vali, but here are two of them: 1) Vali had taken Sugriva's wife. He had chased away Sugriva even when the latter had apologised to him. In doing so, Vali had behaved like a common animal, filled with lust and pride. Sri Rama told Vali that an animal deserves to be killed only this way, and Vali did not deserve the honor of a dignified death. 2) It was Rama Rajya, and on behalf of Bharata, he had the right to punish all wrong-doers. Vali had tried to kill Sugriva even after the latter had literally fallen at Vali's feet, asking for forgiveness. Therefore, Vali was punishable. There is also another hidden meaning. Rama didn't want to give Vali the chance to recognise who He was (Supreme Lord Vishnu). If before Rama could get the chance to kill Vali, if Vali surrenders to Lord Rama's lotus feet, then the Lord would not be able to administer Dharma. He cannot kill a surrendered soul. Before coming to fight Sugriva, Tara warns Vali about Rama, but Vali laughs it off saying, 'I know who Rama is. I know that He would never do wrong, being the embodiment of Dharma'. So, if Rama had challenged Vali to a one-on-one fight, Vali would have lost. And it is quite possible then, that Vali will recognise who Rama really is, and will fall at Rama's lotus feet for Surrender. Sri Rama did not want to give this chance to Vali. Too many people have misunderstood this episode, and quite frankly, there is nothing adharmic r even unnatural about Rama killing Vali the way He did. Even Vali asks for Rama's forgiveness and blessings before he dies, as he becomes satisfied with Rama's answers.

It is Non-Vedic literature.'Vedic Literature' includes the original Valmiki Ramayana. It does not include devotional works like Ramacharitramanas and Kamba Ramayana, which are products of devotees. Tulasidas is a bhakta, and hence his work is devotional. It is not authoritative Shruti or Smriti. Valmiki Ramayana does not contain any instance of Rama worshipping Shiva. According to Valmiki, Rama worshipped only Lord Ranganatha (Himself), who is currently residing in Srirangam. And what is your point? I am arguing that Ramacharitramanas is NOT a pramana. It is not a vedic text, and it is not a pramana. Because you know nothing about the Vedas or the purport of our texts. Are you even aware of the basic principles of Vedanta? Why do you think our acharyas went to great trouble to integrate Gita, Brahma Sutras and Upanishads with Smriti? Shruti is apaurusheya. It is perfect, without flaw. The Puranas and Ithihasas are paurusheya. Especially the Puranas, which were revealed by Brahma in his Sattvik, Rajasic and Tamasic periods. Therefore, the tales told by Brahma need to be measured by Shruti, to acknowledge its validity. Brahma in his rajasic and tamasic moods gives misleading information. Veda Vyasa composed the Puranas for people to understand the essence of Shruti. So that means, the basic qualification of a Purana is that it MUST be in accordance with Shruti. My interpretation shows that Srimad Bhagavatam is in accordance with Shruti. Your interpretation will make the Purana rebel with Shruti. Now, please use your brains and tell me, how does this make your blind beliefs correct? You are hopeless. Are you completely off your rocker? Vyasa composed the Puranas in order to make people understand Shruti better. So, how in the ever loving world can you even think that the Puranas can contradict Shruti? A child would understand this concept, but you don't. Let me give you an example. If Shruti says Rudra is sinful, and Smriti calls him God, then it means they are contradictory. And this would mean, these scriptures are not divine, but simply products of fallible men, because they don't say the same thing. We believe that both Shruti and Smriti echo the same truth. Since Shruti is flawless and Smriti itself admits to having faults (Guna classification), it needs to be validated. Why need Vyasa? The apaurusheya shruti declares it. Chandogya Upanishad says this, 'Puranas, Ithihasas are the 5th Veda'. The same Vyasa who compiled the Vedas also authored the Puranas. So, how can you, in your blind beliefs, even assume that the Puranas need NOT be reconciled? And didn't Vyasa himself classify the Puranas as Sattvik, Rajasic and Tamasic? Is not Shiva Purana Tamasic? The same Vyasa has also stated, 'I raise my hands and strongly state the truth - that there is no God higher than Kesava'. Over the long history of Vedanta, every acharya has accepted that Smriti cannot be accepted if it contradicts the Vedas. Ganeshprasad, then tell me, what world are you in? Do you think one can accept Shruti as saying something and the Puranas as saying something else? No. Both Shruti and Smriti are part of the same revelation and hence need to be reconciled. Shruti cannot be rejected because it was not even authored by Krishna. It is eternal. Smriti, however, is authored by fallible personalities like Brahma. Its validity needs to be checked. I see. So, you consider yourself to be above the acharyas, who have extensively studied Vedanta, and shown how Smriti also echoes the same philosophy. I think a new 'Parampara' is in the making. What is it, the Ganeshprasad Guru Parampara? Learn the difference between works of Vyasa and the works of devotees. I could write a Ramayana now and say that Hanuman killed Ravana and not Rama...does that make it fact? Valmiki Ramayana was written by Valmiki in the Treta Yuga. Tulasidas' Ramayana was written in the 16th century. Tulasidas' Ramayana is NOT accurate. Blabber away. Understand, our scripture cannot be taken at face value. It is not so simple as the Bible. The Lord explains in Santi Parva that He can be meditated as the indweller of any entity, and specifically mentions Shiva. The Vedas themselves explain how anya devata are to be meditated on. Brahman within the Sun is Narayana, within Indra is Narayana, within Shiva is Narayana. So, when the Bhagavata Purana addresses Shiva as Supreme, it means Narayana is being referred to. So, tell me, a straight answer - HOW do you reject authoritative quotes from Shruti for your asinine beliefs? And even in the Bhagavatam, quotes like 'Narayana Para brahman' makes it clear that Narayana is highest, so Shiva is simply being meditated on as the body of Narayana. Going by your explanation, we have to reject Vedas and Ithihasas, and even the portions of the Puranas calling Vishnu a God and exposing Shiva as a Jiva. You will only accept a few random verses quoted out of context. This is NOT the purport of Veda Vyasa's works. You admitted it finally. Blind belief is not pramana. Shruti and Smriti does not support your views. Vedanta has three means of acquiring knowledge - Perception, Logic and Scripture. Ganeshprasad lacks credibility in all 3. He doesn't even know what the tradition of Vedanta is. Blind 'love' has no place here. 1) Shiva is not Vishnu. That he is a Jiva is supported by Shruti, and by Smriti, which shows him to possess some failings of ego and lust. Bhrigu judged him, if you remember. 2) Parasurama is an amsa avatar of Vishnu. He is not Vishnu, but a Jiva empowered with some fighting skills of Vishnu. Therefore, Parasurama may not be a perfect being, merely an empowered being. 3) Balarama and Krishna were playing around, but Shiva openly tried to kill Krishna in the Banasura episode. This shows that even the best of Jivas are often deluded by the Lord's potency. That is why Krishna says, 'Fools contemplate distinction'. Shiva had thought Krishna was a person distinct from him. Krishna was chastising Shiva, reminding him that Krishna is the indweller of Shiva, and hence, shares that oneness. Incidentally, may I ask if you actually bothered to read how I explained your quote, 'Vishnu, Brahma and Shiva are same'? No. You never read it, and never managed to refute multiple pramanas calling Shiva a Jiva and Vishnu the highest. You are not only ignorant, but also irritating.

First of all, you need to realise this: 1) Smriti is accepted only when it does not contradict Shruti. Shruti says Vishnu is Supreme. Hence, only that part of Smriti is accepted. In any case, all of Smriti except the Tamasic Puranas can be accepted, as they all only talk about Vishnu. 2) Vishnu's supremacy is the whole point of Ithihasas. 3) Stuff like Shiva Sahasranama are interpolations. This is not the conclusion of 'biased' Vaishnavas, but by unbiased historians. Notice, no acharya, even Adi Sankara has ever quoted things like Shiva Sahasranama. Only Vishnu Sahasranama has been commentated on. 4) Rama did not worship Shiva, nor did He compose Aditya Hridayam. 5) Therefore, quote something that is accepted by all schools. This sort of stupidity exhibited on your part certainly reveals your ignorance of the sastras.

A typo. I meant Mahabharata, not Ramayana. Dude, if you want to worship Shiva, go ahead. I am tired of you asking question after question. Its clear that you are unwilling to accept the facts, as are so many people here. You have Shruti and Smriti staring in your face, unambiguously declaring that Rudra has faults. That alone ought to be enough. Yet, its question after question after question. My solution - Stick to your sentiments. First you ask me Shruti pramana, I provided you that. Then you ask me Smriti pramana, I provided that. Then you ask for interpretation, I did that. Then you ask why Shiva drank the poison and not Vishnu, so I explained that. Its not worth my time reasoning with you or Ganeshprasad. When you feel up to facing facts, ask for it. Until then, read some literature to understand concepts properly. You cannot quote random verses and then say, 'Lookee here, Rudra is being referred to as Supreme!!'.

Tell me something. Why does Krishna descend to eradicate evil? He could easily sit in Vaikuntha and snap His fingers, so that every evil person on Earth is destroyed. Its because Sri Hari loves to mingle with Jivas and allow them to help Him. All Jivas wish to do service to the Lord. Hence, Sr Hari gives them a chance. Take the Ramayana. The Vanaras and the Squirrels built a Bridge for Rama. The squirrels were so eager to help the Lord, that they carried sand in their tiny paws, although it was not really helping in the cause of building the bridge. When the Vanaras saw that the Bridge was almost complete except for a few rocks, 4 of them carried one tiny pebble!! Because they all wanted to be a part of the Service. Similarly, although Sri Hari can do everything by Himself, He allows His servants, the Devas, to help Him. Shiva acquired the chance to do Service to Hari. It is sad that people mistake this great sowlabhyam (accessibility) of the Lord as a weakness. Tell me, Krishna mingled with cowherds. Does that make Him a mere cowherd? Just like that, Vishnu is a complete avatar of Lord Narayana in Vaikuntha, who has come amongst the Devas to be with them. Does that make Him a mere deva? No. But many devas are often deluded by Him, and even they forget at times as to who He really is. EDIT: In answer to your question why the Gods did not directly go to Vishnu, Srimad Ramayana says: 'The Devas pray to Shiva. Shiva prays to Brahma. Brahma prays to Me (Vasudeva). I need no protection, for I am the refuge of all'. It is an order established by the Lord. Everyone needs a Guru. And the gurus for the Devas are Brahma and Shiva. Hence, the Devas go to Brahma and Shiva only.

I see, and didn't you argue that Rama worshipped Shiva because it is in the Ramacharitramanas? Boy, are you confused. So, you reject the Shruti because it says Rudra is sinful? And only accept the Puranas? There you go. Finally, you accept that your view is NOT vedic then. Your primitive way of thinking shows that you don't even know one word of our literature. Smriti MUST be reconciled with Shruti. Otherwise, it is rejected. Then explain why so many acharyas took trouble to write Bhashyas. If you had even read the Upanishads before, you would know what this means. Do you know how complicated the explanation for this is? How can you take it at face value, when Puranas state elsewhere that Rudra has fought with Vishnu? How can Rudra and Krishna fight each other if they are the same? Are you so blind? Upanishads say, Sarvam Khalv Idam Brahma(n). It means, 'Everything is Brahman'. Does this mean we are also brahman? No. It only means, Brahman is the indweller of everything. So, everything (Jivas, Asuras, Devas, insentient matter) is one in the sense that they all have Brahman as their essence. This isn't absolute identity. It is RELATIONAL identity. Therefore, Vishnu being the indweller of Rudra and Brahma, can call Himself, 'I am Rudra, I am Brahma'. Again, let me explain: Aham Brahmasmi means 'I am Brahman'. This does not mean you are Brahman. The reasoning is, that Brahman is the indweller of the Soul, and hence, both the Soul and Brahman are referred to in this verse. When I call you 'Ganeshprasad', I refer to both your body and soul. I don't have separate names for your body and soul. Similarly, since everyone is Vishnu's body, and He Himself is the indwelling Supersoul, when He says, 'I am brahma, I am Rudra', it means He is referring to Himself as present within the bodies of Brahma and Rudra. He doesn't have separate names for His body (the whole world) and the Supersoul. This is the conclusion of the Brahma Sutras. If you don't accept this, you aren't a Vedantin. Here is pramana for what I am saying: 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) After defeating Rudra, Krishna says, 'That which I am, that you are'. This doesn't mean Rudra is Krishna, because here Krishna also says, 'So is the World, with all the Gods, Demons and Mankind'. Therefore, Krishna is only referring to Rudra and the entire jagat in a relative sense of oneness. If Krishna had wanted to say, Rudra and Himself are equals, He wouldn't have mentioned the whole jagat in that sentence. Ganeshprasad's theories contradict both Shruti and Vishnu Purana, whereas my opinions are consistent with them. Hence, Ganeshprasad is wrong. And going by the same method, one can say with conviction that the verses praising Shiva in the Bhagavatam are indeed directed to Vishnu only. In fact, Lord confirms this in Santi Parva of Mahabharata. Therefore, stop quoting random Bhagavatam verses out of context. cBrahma, you are a striking of example of a soppy sentimentalist who simply refuses to accept the truth. Are you absolutely blind? I posted those pramanas two times for your benefit, and you simply ignore it, and ask for them again. Here they are. Now, try to answer this, without blindly quoting Srila Prabhupada or Brahma Samhita for once.

True. That is why I said it is speculation. In any case, Srikanta's Bhashya is admired by Vaishnavas because its philosophy is Vedic. For instance, Vishishtadvaita or Dvaita is not necessarily Vaishnava. There are Shaiva Vishishtadvaita or Shaiva Dvaita Sampradayas as well. Shaivites run into a major problem when interpreting the Vedas - The birth of Rudra, Him being mentioned as Sinful, etc. They try to explain that away by saying it doesn't pertain to this Rudra, but that is refuted by the fact that the name of 'Isana' is clearly mentioned. Here is the failed attempt of Appaya Dikshitar summarised: Appaya Dikshitar tried to infer the meaning "Naarayana Param Brahman" as "Naarayanath Param Bramhan" (Trying to prove that Para Brahman is different and higher than Narayana) But couldnt establish as in Maho Upanishdh the same is stated as "Naarayanaha Param Brahmaha." Sree Appaya Deekshitha tried to the follwing and proceded from one to the other as mentioned below as he failed to achieve the objective : 1) Tried to Identify Siva as Para-Brahman(Siva-Parathva Vaadham) - Failed. 2) Tried to Introduce another Brahman or Paramathma Higher than Siva or Narayana. (Thureeya Vaadham) - Failed. 3) Tried to Put Siva and Narayana in the same plane.(Samathva Vaadham) - Failed. 4) Tried to identify Siva and Narayana( I-kiyaa Vaadham) - Failed. 5) Finally, he gave up and wrote a Stotra on Lord Varadaraja (Vishnu) and also wrote Nayamayuka Maalika. I am not undermining Advaita Sampradaya, although I reject it as a path for salvation. It is Vedic, no matter what Hare Krishnas say. The research work on the Vaishnava Status of Adi Sankara has been done. His work on prasthna trayam reveals that all along, he has only equated Vishnu with Saguna Brahman. There is no trace of Shiva worship in these works...in fact, he openly rejects anya-deva worship in his Gita Bhashya. Now, Advaita philosophy does not consider the supremacy of a deity as important, it is true. But the opinion of Adi Sankara apparently was that - worship of Vishnu is most effective for Jnana, as compared to anya devata. From the ultimate reality perspective, though he states that Nirguna Brahman is the one, from the perspective of conventional reality, Sankaracharya strongly supports Narayana and terms that entity as the one to be meditated upon. Let me state references from the net: 6th chapter, last sloka : yoginamapi sarvesam madgatenantaratmana sraddhavan bhajate yo mam sa me yuktatamo matah For this Sankara-bhasya - states: rudra-adityaadi parananam yoginam yaha vasudeva meva. He feels the yogi who meditates on Vasudeva is superior. Vasudeva is saguna and is not just in-dweller or atman since meditation is the form of bhajate -sevate, since for nirguna brahman 'seva' is not advised.The comparison is with Rudra, Aditya etc. which are saguna forms. Further, 18th chapter in manmana bhava- madbhaktaha and 18-66 'sarva dharman parityajya'... Sankarabhasya states : without 'surrender' to the feet of Vasudeva, one cannot attain jnana!!! Further, let me quote the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad: In the famous 'antaryami brahmana..... yah prithivyam antaro yamayati, yam prithvi na veda, yasya prithivi sariram......yasya atma sariram......' Sri Sankaracharya could have said that an ultimate entity is the in-dweller and controller of all the 27 entities such as : earth, water, wind fire, jiva, etc....., He goes one step further and states: sah antaryamih narayanah (a step not even taken by other strong vaisnava acharyas!). Please note that by definition, the term narayana is used for saguna brahma, since creation, maintenance and destruction is meant by it. This is also the subject of brahma-sutras as per sankara-bhasya. He has also only commentated on Vishnu Sahasranama and not on the other existing 'Sahasranamas' of other deities. Furthermore, he accepted the Vaishnava personalist philosophy (even our theory of 4 Vyuha manifestations of Narayana!!) as Vedic, although he disagreed with it, whereas he rejected Shaiva and Shakta as unvedic. Advaita is accepted as Vedic simply because the qualification of a vedantin is this - he recognises Vishnu as supreme. The philosophy may differ. Adi Sankara was a vedantin in that sense. Therefore, Saundarya Lahiri could not have been authored by him. Only Bhaja Govindam, Lakshmi Narasimha Stotram, Ranganatha Stotram, etc...which are Vaishnavite works. The reason why Advaita aligned with Shaivism/Anya Devata worship is because despite the former's authenticity in the Vedic tradition, it is still heavily refuted by personalist philosophies. So, reactionaries like Appaya Dikshitar gave Advaita a new direction. This is explained by the fact that the Vaishnavas are the ones who have realised that the Lord misleads. Those who are Vaishnavas have less karma, so they automatically realise it. Now, it should be taken this way - (No offense to anyone here, its just the only way to explain) - I have been graced by Vishnu, so I understand that He can mislead. Someone like Ganeshprasad, for instance, who argues against this, has still not achieved the truth because of Karma. And you may ask - how do we believe what the Lord says about Himself is true? Well, we have the apaurusheya vedas, which are unauthored. We compare what He says with the Vedas. If what He says is in line with the Vedas, we accept. Otherwise, even His words are rejected!! Even Krishna says in Gita, 'I am the knower of the Vedas'. He doesn't say, 'I wrote them'. Unlike ISKCON, we don't accept the current version of Padma Purana, except for the verses that Sri Ramanujar has quoted. Sri Vaishnavas believe that only Vishnu Purana and Bhagavata Purana are authentic and present as originally written by Vyasa, because these have been commentated on by acharyas who found them to wholly echo the Vedic Truths faithfully. Of course, the random verses quoted by Sri Ramanujar from Padma and Garuda Puranas are also accepted, but not the entirety of the Purana. ISKCON has no understanding of advaita because they believe it is 'merging with Brahman'. Anyone should know that Advaita means 'Not two'. If you say someone is merging with Brahman, it means there are two entities, which goes against Advaita itself!! Right. But since the Sattva/Rajas/Tamas agrees with Veda, we accept it as the original verse. Sri Ramanujar has also accepted this classification, and nobody came to refute him at that time. Since you are an atheist, I shall not debate with you on that. I only have problems when people like cBrahma think their opinion is absolutely right. No. Vaishnavas have explained every bit of pramana. What portion of Yajur Veda do we reject? There is no such thing. It is only the whole of shruti and smriti (sattvik ones) that speak of Hari's supremacy. It certainly is possible.

That verse excludes Shiva, Brahma, Agni, Vayu, etc. The speaker of that verse is Sri Krishna Paramatma, who is Vishnu Himself. Now, Hare Christnas unfortunately include Vishnu and His forms such as Rama, Narasimha, Trivikrama in that list. And calling Vishnu a demigod is blasphemous, according to Vaishnavism. As for Srila Prabhupada, he had bhakti. He was not an ordinary person. So, his mistakes can be overlooked by the fact that he had some special favor of the Lord. His disciples are not on the same level as him, and hence, need to improve their jnana.

I think the thread starter is talking about a new movie being released in the South. The actor in the movie is seen to be making a mockery of Vaishnavism. He also stamps on the Bhagavad Gita and 'OM' symbol, and stands on an idol of Vishnu in the movie. Its definitely distressing, but heck, its Kali Yuga. The Lord never gets angry at offenses done to Him, so He rarely reacts. Only when His devotees are offended, He get angry.

Shvu, at this point, I would like to clear this up. There is speculation that a 'Srikantha' never really existed. A saivite advaitin by the name of Appaya Dikshitar in the 16th century wrote that Bhashya under the name of 'Srikantha'. I hope I haven't confused this. Its either Srikantha or another Saivite that Appaya Dikshitar was impersonating as. Similarly, Appaya Dikshitar also wrote Saundarya Lahiri, Shivananda Lahiri and passed it off as the works of Adi Sankara. Appaya Dikshitar was defeated by Vaishnavas soundly during his times. He had a hatred for Vaishnavas, which led him to attempt to prove Shiva's supremacy. However, he himself admitted that he was unable to get past the NAkaara in Narayana, which, according to Panini's rules, would not be equated to Shiva. In his later days, he became a devotee of Lord Varadaraja (Vishnu). Look at it this way. If Vaishnava interpretation of scripture sees the sattva/rajas/tamas classification as natural and not an interpolation. Because Lord Vishnu certainly is known to mislead people at times. Shaivites claim it to be an interpolation. So, for Shaivites, a contradiction arises. For Vaishnavites, there is no contradition. Hence, the Vaishnavite view is correct. Its elementary. So now, you say only 'Indians' think Shiva is Jiva. And tell me, what are your answers to my Vedic Pramanas? Might I ask, where do you get the idea that there is such a thing as 'Shiva is Vishnu in another form'? Oh wait...you only know how to blindly quote Srila Prabhupada's translations. Ganeshprasad's earlier reply to my post shows the incompetent goof that he is. He has completely ignored all my shruti pramanas, and the commentaries of all Vaishnava acharyas who have explained the Shiva episode, and clings to his sentiments. He mistakes the Lord Vishnu's desire to divide work with His servants as 'inability', ie, Shiva drinking poison. Shiva prays to Brahma because Brahma is his father. Brahma offers his respects to Shiva because Shiva is more powerful than Brahma. Vishnu says, 'I am Shiva, Brahma' because they are His angas. Ganeshprasad is incapable of understanding philosophy. That is the main problem. And according to him, Ramacharitramanas is a pramana because 'Morari Bapu' said so. Talk about being dumb. He has also provided a pramana which quotes Vishnu as saying, 'Brahma and Shiva are Me just as the Head and Hands are part of the body', which proves that the Devas are angas/limbs of the Lord, just like us. And he thinks this pramana supports his theories. Stupidity at its zenith.

Say, do we have 10% of His attributes? I will trade you 5% if you give me your 2%. Now, Do I really need to explain this again? cBrahma has already done this in the other thread, and Theist apparently couldn't read any of my posts. These Hare Christnas are stuck in a major rut.

The first three alvars, Poigaialvar, Bhoothathalvar, Peyalvar were born in Dwapara Yuga. They were present even while Krishna was gracing the Earth with His lotus feet. The Bhagavatam does not mention these three alvars because they were not born in Kali Yuga. Madhurakavi Alvar was born at the end of the Dwapara Yuga, but He lived predominantly in Kali Yuga. Nammalvar was born on the 43rd day after the disappearance of Lord Krishna. Andal on the 97th day of Kali Yuga. And so on. The youngest alvar, Thirumangai Alvar was born in 1000 BC or so. Now, mordern scholars do not accept these dates because they say: 1) Thirmangai alvar and Thirumazhisai alvar refer to Buddhism, so they were born in 7-8th century AD. But since Buddhism itself is considered to be an eternal religion that existed even during Dwapara Yuga, I do not consider this argument to hold weight. 2) Thirumangai Alvar says that Thondaiman King was a great bhagavata. The Thondaiman King ruled 1500 years ago. This is again, refuted by the fact that there were many Kings who bore the title of 'Thondaiman'. Granted, there was one 1500 years ago, but there may have been another King in 1000 BC with that title. 3) The first three alvars sing very little about Krishna. They mainly sing about Trivikrama, Rama, etc. This may be an indication that they lived while the Mahabharata was taking place. Therefore, they didn't sing much about Krishna!! Therefore, I do not trust mordern scholars. I have more faith in Srimad Bhagavatam anyway. And in any case, dates do not matter when it comes to Prabandham.

Lakshmi is the eternal consort of Narayana. So are Bhu Devi and Nila Devi. The whole collection of the alvars is called Nalayira (4000) Divya Prabandham (Divine Collection). Bhagavatam actually is thought to prophesise the advent of the alvars in the 11th canto, I believe. Here is an exercept from the commentary of Sri Veeraraghavacharya. Extending this prophecy, one can say that these verses even predict the later births of Sri Adi Sankaracharya, Sri Ramanujacharya and Sri Madhvacharya, who were also great devotees born near the rivers mentioned above. But it is the alvars who came first and this verse alludes to their prabandham especially.

Lakshmi Narayana is the same as Radhe Krishna. Everyone should understand that. Remember the Gita verse, 'My Devotees love to talk about Me. They are always conversing with one another about My Pastimes'. That is what the three alvars were doing in the hut when Lord Narayana came to them. And that is why Sri Vaishnavas consider the life of our alvars and acharyas as 'Bhagavad Gita being enacted perfectly'.

The three alvars were bewildered, because it appeared as though there were many invisible persons squeezing into the little place, although they could not see them. Then, by virtue of divine experience, the three of them started flowing with hymns. They decided to find out who the intruder was, thusly: In order to see who it was, Poigai Alvar composed this hymn: Poigaialvar started with the first one: vaiyam thagaliyA, vArkadlE neyyAga/ veyyakkadirOn viLakkAga/ sudarAzhiyAn adikkE soottinEn son mAlai/ Idar neenghugavE enRu/ Meaning: Lord Narayana, who holds the Divine Chakra, is the cause of this wonderful universe and the seas. I am singing these malai (Garland) of verses(pasurams) and dedicating to Him, whose vision I had is the light of the lamp of the earth, and oil being the seas, the sun being the source of the light. Then, Boothathalvar had a vision, and he too composed this hymn: anbE thagaliyA, ArvamE neyyAga/ inburugu sindhai idu thiriyA/ naNpurugi GnAna chudar viLakku EtrinEn/Gnana thamizh purindha nAn/ Meaning: " I dedicate myself to the service of the lord, by singing this song that blesses wisdom(Jnana), with love as the lamp, endearing involvement as the oil(Ghee), and knowledge as the wick of the torch. Finally, the three alvars could see who was with them. It was none other than the Lord Narayana Himself, who had come with Sri Lakshmi Devi, Garuda, Adi Sesha and every one of His servants. The Lord knew that 3 very exalted devotees were residing in this hut. And as everyone knows, He loves to touch His devotees, be very close to them, and never leave them. Therfore, He had come racing to be with them. Just like Lord Krishna loved to be close to the gopis, Sriman Narayana wanted to touch and hug the three alvars, hence, He, along with His servants, was squeezing and pressing against them!! Peyalvar, in tremendous delight, composed this hymn: thirukkaNdEn, ponmEni kaNdEn- thigazhum/arukkan Ani niRamum kaNdEn-seruk kiLaRum/ ponAzhi kaNdEn puri sangham kai kaNdEn/ en Azhi vaNNan pAl inRu/ Meaning:" I found the Glorious, GOLDEN form of the Lord. I have seen the Glory of Sri and Narayana and His beauty and His Sea colour, His brightness and brilliance like the Sun and His sanghu (Divine Conch) on one hand and chakrA (Discus) on the other." And He continued in this vein, but that is too long to post. Remember the Bhagavad Gita verse, 'My Devotees are always interested to converse about Me. They delight in telling each other stories about Me.' Exactly what these three alvars were doing in the Hut, when the Lord came to them.

No arguments. Atleast let this thread pass without debate. I will post the charitra of the first 3 alvars: The first three alvars were called 'Poigai Alvar, Boothathalvar and Peyalvar' (too difficult to explain the reason for their names). According to tradition, these 3 alvars were born on three consecutive days on flowers (not a normal birth). Now, these 3 alvars did not meet each other at any point in time, until for some reason, all three of them decided to make a trip to Tirukkovalur, where there is a Divya Desam of Lord Vishnu. It was a dark and stormy night at Tirukkovalur, with rain coming down in torrents, the threatening roar of thunder shaking all souls and with flashes of lightning serving as the only illumination. It was a night when none would venture out and everyone had shut himself up tight in his home. Yet, it was a night on which three Yogis, who had the Lord entrenched in their hearts, chose to be out and about. When they reached Tirukkovalur separately by different routes, they found all houses shut, all choultries locked up, with the inmates unlikely to open up. The first to reach was Poigayalvar, who found a narrow passage in the front portion of an ashramam belonging to Mrigandu Maharshi and lay down, prepared to spend the night among the inhospitable and confined environs. Sometime later, Bhoothathalhwar too discovered the same place and finding someone already occupying the space, enquired whether there would be room for one more person. The first occupant welcomed the stranger, saying that if there was space enough for one person to lie down, two could sit there. An hour or so passed and there came knocking another worthy, wet and drenched to the skin and seeking shelter in the passage. He too was welcomed by the other two, who thought that three could at least stand comfortably in the small space, which could seat two and provide a bed for one. The three Azhwars were thus standing in the pitch dark, sharing with one another their experiences of the Lord and His auspicious attributes. All of a sudden, they felt rather tight pressed. Where they were standing comfortably earlier, they now felt that the available space had diminished, as if a fourth person, unknown to the other three, had entered the narrow passage and was crowding them. Apparently, someone had sneaked into the already constricted space without announcement and was standing as one with them. (CONTINUED)

Sure. Have you ever read the Prabandham? Nobody can understand Him. That is why I said He doesn't act according to our limited conceptions. The alvars, apparently had some vision that even we couldn't conceive.