raghu

I fail to understand the difference, unless you are now telling me that you do not believe Shatanand. You just did. Unless you can show me some evidence in the writings of Madhva and Ramanuja wherein they equate Shiva with Vishnu. Can you? Once again, you seem to be hallucinating. I never said anything about hating "fak avtars of God" (sic). Nor did I say anything about other Vaishnavas being "foolish" for having certain views - this was your position. Nor was it I who directly insulted Shiva by calling his form "horrendous" and "revolting" - that, too, was you. Please see - http://www.indiadivine.org/audarya/spiritual-discussions/453765-shiv-maha-puran-doubts-7.html

If saying "X is supreme" is too indirect and vague for you, I think you are going to have problems deriving anything useful from scripture.

Lie. I never slung mud at Prabhupada or Caitanya. If you wish to prove me wrong, then provide the URL and exact quote. I have been quite respectful to your gurus even when disagreeing with them, while you on the other hand have flung insults at anyone and everyone who disagrees with your views. You called Shiva ugly, and then you stated that those who believe Shiva to be a jiva are foolish, thus indirectly slinging mud at Madhva and Ramanuja. You also stated that those who make distinctions between Vishnu and Shiva should have their eyes put out. The problem with children like you is that you equate any disagreement with your gurus as disrespect towards them. Then you lecture us on the need to just accept the acharyas view (by which it is meant, your acharyas' views). And then you go on to say things that actually are offensive towards other acharyas. The hypocrisy is amazing. Responses like this just underscore the importance of having a minimum age requirement on forums like this one. As in, no one under the age of 18. That was in response to Theist making a condescending comment to the effect that "you cannot have demigod worship and have Krishna too." Obviously he was mistaken as per his own guru's views. Whatever else you are reading into it, and frankly it seems you are reading quite a novel into it, is no concern of mine.

If you interpret this as referring to a supreme Deity, then it is a reference to Brahman. Brahman is one without a second - you agree with this, yes? Now Vishnu is clearly stated to be supreme as per Rig Veda 1.22.20. So Vishnu is Brahman - no disagreements there I think. Now if there are references to Rudra who is less than supreme (as per 7.40.5) and references to Rudra as a supreme deity (as per Shvetashvatara U and others), then how do you neatly reconcile these two sets of references? Is Rudra both supreme and not supreme, or are there two Rudras? The Vaishnava viewpoint would be to interpret the second set as referring to Vishnu by the name Rudra and the first set as being references to a different Rudra i.e. Umapati. This is a clean, clear and consistent approach. Now how exactly would you resolve the contradictions? Saying that Vishnu and Shiva are "different aspects of the same being" is not valid. Because even in the shrutis we see that they are treated as two different beings (you already quoted some examples). So no help there.

Ranjeet, I don't think you are understanding the problem. Perhaps there is a language barrier here. The problem is that you are only acknowledging contradictions without any obviously effective way at reconciling them. Your sole rationale for this appears to be that your acharyas have also endorsed the contradictions, and therefore anyone who does not believe as they do is foolish and should have his eyes put out. The problem with your theory is that it effectively nullifies any and all criticism of mayavada which you could make. For example, you can no longer criticize Advaitins for accepting the theory that Brahman comes under maya, when you yourselves equate Shiva to Vishnu and state that Shiva is voluntarily coming under maya. You cannot criticize Advaitins for relativizing the significance of Vishnu worship because you have effectively done the same by making special cases for Durga, Shiva, etc. You cannot criticize Advaitins for ignoring bheda shrutis because that is obviously what you are doing when you propose the "non-difference" theory of Vishnu and Shiva. The list goes on and on. With reasoning such as what you offered, you should now have no problem at all with Advaita. In fact, for you to now disagree with Advaita would make you a hypocrite. And, it should be pointed out, that you obviously do disagree with stalwart acharyas like Madhva and Ramanuja. WHich of course is your right. I disagree with some conclusions of your acharyas as you have described them here. But then I do not consider acharya's opinion by itself to be independently authoritative, where as you it seems do. So if one must accept the opinion of acharyas, then you are forced into a situation where you can only accept the opinions of some and reject the opinions of others? SO which ones do you pick and why? I think you and I both know that your acceptance is totally arbitrary. Probably you go to an iskcon temple, so naturally it is a predestined fact that you will accept gaudiya vaishnavas and only anyone who agrees with them. In that case, don't bother pretending that you are accepting the most consistent opinion of shastra, since shastra appears to be only tangentially relevant to your conclusions.

He already did. It means "universal consciousness" according to him. You have to be with Sai Baba 24x7 to have liberation. But by this he doesn't mean the godman from Puttaparthi, oh no. :-)

Well, I cannot vouch for your strange sense of humor. But I can simply repeat that it was not *I* who called Shiva a "demigod." Your own guru AC Bhaktivedanta Swami was the one who called him a "demigod." Incidentally, you never got back to me regarding that - is he "offensive" for calling Shiva a "demigod?" My position has simply been that Shiva is not on the same level as Vishnu. Navadvipa Mahatmya is an authored work by Bhaktivinod Thakur, so quoting it here is meaningless. It is nonsense. There is no question of anyone "transforming" himself into the Supreme Lord. This is Mayavada. Strawman. I never articulated such views. What does this have to do with the conventional definition of Vaishnava? How do you know? Did you see him go yourself? I think you mean "nondifference." Well, other Vaishnava acharyas maintained the idea that Shiva is different from Hari. So what of them? If Tulasi das is right because he went to Vaikuntha (your opinion), then are Madhva and Ramanuja wrong because they supported the opposite view? Either Shiva is Hari or he is not. They cannot both be right. Regardless of its other possible merits, the fact is that "Brahm sanghita" is an obscure smriti accepted only by Gaudiyas. As far as Bhagavatam is concerned, which verse are you claiming states that MahaVishnu is an "amsha" of Sri Krishna? Where is such a thing unequivocally stated? So now you are modifying your position. Previously you said amshas of Hari are identical to Hari. Now you are delineating two different kinds of "amsha" - one identical and one not. Mayadevi is identical to Sri Hari because she is one of His energies. Let us think about that carefully. I am typing now with my hands, which are attached to my body, which is being directed by nerve impulses being delivered from my brain. Now, the use of language like "my hands,my body," etc implies that I am different from my body. The moment I say, "this is mine" it implies difference between the two entities. I am a spirit soul. I am not identical to my body. You can certainly accept this. Or do you? Do you say that you and your body are identical because your body belongs to you? Do you see the problem now? You accept that one can worship Shiva or Durga for liberation? Then why articulate that one should only worship Krishna? Your views aren't consistent. They are not even consistent with Prabhupada's views. Let me quote from him: http://vedabase.net/bg/7/14/en1 The words mam eva are also significant. Mam means unto Krishna (Vishnu) only, and not Brahma or Siva. Although Brahma and Siva are greatly elevated and are almost on the level of Vishnu, it is not possible for such incarnations of rajo-guna (passion) and tamo-guna (ignorance) to release the conditioned soul from the clutches of maya. In other words, both Brahma and Siva are also under the influence of maya. Only Vishnu is the master of maya; therefore He alone can give release to the conditioned soul. The Vedas (Svetasvatara Upanishad 3.8) confirm this in the phrase tam eva viditva. or "Freedom is possible only by understanding Krishna." Even Lord Siva affirms that liberation can be achieved only by the mercy of Vishnu. Lord Siva says, mukti-pradata sarvesham vishnur eva na samsayah: "There is no doubt that Vishnu is the deliverer of liberation for everyone." Shiva bhaktas do not go to Vaikuntha. They go to the abode of Shiva. Hence, "antavat tu phalaM teShAm tad bhavatyalpamedhasAm...." (gItA 7.23). If you mean "non-different," then this contradicts the shruti, and is thus not acceptable. So Gaudiya Vaishnava equate Shiva Loka with Vaikuntha? If he truly believed that, then why does he object to Siva worship for liberation as quoted elsewhere? THe Gaudiya treatment of Shiva seems inconsistent to say the least. He is Vishnu-tattva, but he cannot grant liberation. Which contradicts Prabhupada's view earlier that Shiva is under maya and cannot grant liberation. Very well. So Vallabha followers also equate Shiva with Vishnu. And they consider distinguishing between them to be an offense punishable by traumatic enucleation. This is certainly enlightening, as I had no idea that Gaudiya and pushi-margas were this fanatical about Shiva. But it really does not address the evidence from shruti placing Shiva in a different position from that of Vishnu. When did I say that they are foolish? Please quote where I said such a thing. I only said that I disagree with your position that Vishnu and Shiva are the same. If it is their position also, then I still disagree with it because of evidence from shruti and smriti which repeatedly says otherwise. It was *you* who claimed that those who make the Vishnu-Shiva distinction are foolish. So I asked you then as I will ask again now - do you really mean this? Because you know that such distinctions are accepted among followers of Ramanuna and Madhva, yes? Why do you keep evading this question? Should followers of Ramanuja and Madhva have their eyes put out? When have I gotten defensive? I have done nothing more than ask very clear, pointed questions in response to which you have been so hostile that you cannot even spell properly in your responses. For all your verbose feedback, you have not really answered a single question in a convincing, direct manner. Specifically the following questions: 1) Why it is offensive for others to call Shiva a "demigod" when Prabhupada calls him a demigod in his writings. Why the double standard? 2) Why it is wrong to make distinctions between Shiva and Vishnu even when the shruti and the smritis make such distinctions. 3) Why Durga is identical to Vishnu even when she is an amsha of His energies. Saying that some amshas are the same as Vishnu while others are different is just another way of restating the point against which the objection is framed. I read the purport. Now will you please answer my question? You said that calling Shiva a "demigod" is offensive. But I showed you several instances where Prabhupada himself caled Shiva a "demigod." Why is he not offensive?

This is a prayer to Rudra but it does not help your thesis in any other way. In Rig Veda 7.40.5 it is clearly stated that Rudra gets his strength through worship of Vishnu. Do you believe the Vedas and shrutis are inconsistent? If you do, then there is no point having any discussion one way or another. However, if you consider them consistent and one in purpose, then they must be interpreted to resolve apparent inconsistencies. Names like "Rudra,Maheshvara," and so on are also listed as names of Vishnu in the Sahasranama. The principle enunciated in the Vedanta-sutra is to interpret references to apparently dependent entities as being actually references to Brahman if other characteristics of Brahman are mentioned in the description. This is only sensible - after all, you must look at context to know who is being talked about. Your name is Ganeshprasad. Since you have "Ganesh" in your name, should I assume you have an elephant's trunk? The "Rudra" in Svetashvatara Upanishad can be interpreted as Vishnu. This is internally consistent since the Shvetaashvatara invokes Hari in the very beginning and later refers to the Deity as the one from whom Brahma was born. This is also consistent with Rig Veda 7.40.5 which places Shiva as a dependent being on Vishnu. If you argue (as Ranjeet is doing), that Shvetaashvatara Upanishad really refers to Shiva, then how do you reconcile that with Rig Veda 7.40.5?

If Brahman is supreme, then references describing Vishnu as supreme should be sufficient to indicate that Vishnu = Brahman. There is also the fact that the Upanishads are focused on Brahman, and in the Katha Upanishad Vishnu is specifically mentioned as the highest goal of endeavor. What tantras say about themselves may be something else. But as far as Vedantic standards go, tantras are smritis, and like all other smritis their authority is conditional upon not contradicting the shrutis.

Rig Veda 7.40.5 Now tell me how "Rudra" should be understood in these different instances and you will have finished making your point.

Ranjeet, I'm really not sure what this means, so I do not know what to say in response to it. Therein lies the problem. You are equating the part with the whole. This is leading to an ambiguous situation in which, on one hand, you argue for the supremacy of Vishnu over the "demigods," and yet on the other hand you are placing some "demigods" on the same level as Vishnu. In Bhagavaa 1.3.28 the "demigods" Manus, etc are also referred to as "amshas" of the Lord. Do you accept that they are identical to the Lord? You cannot be a Vaishnava if you do not accept the exclusive supremacy of Sri Hari. The word "part" would be fine if you stuck to a standard meaning of the word. First, from where do you get pramana stating that Mahavishnu is an "amsha" of Sri Krishna? Second, do you accept that the demigods who are "amshas" of the Lord as per Bhagavatam 1.3.28 are identical to the Lord? Third, your original claim was that Durga was identical to Vishnu. Now here you are saying that actually Drug is identical to "Durga of Vaikuntha." Are you now changing your position? Having the property of supremacy, ownership over all, etc does not mean manifesting it. Relevance: Rama is the Supreme Lord, but He did not identify Himself as such, since He was playing the role of a kshatriya prince. Now if you say that Durga is actually Vishnu, but simply playing a subordinate role, then you must accept that Durga worship is every bit as valid as Vishnu worship. Do you? I accept the view that Vishnu and Shiva are different. I do not accept the view that Shiva is superior to Vishnu. All Vaishnavas that I know of consider Shiva to be different from Vishnu. I am only aware of Gaudiyas, Mayavadis, and Neo-Hindus (Vivekananda, Ramakrishna, etc) who consider Shiva to be same as Vishnu. I did not call anyone anything. You are being evasive. Specifically, it was you who stated, and I quote, "Srila Visvanatha Cakravarti thakura says that both Sadashiva and Narayana are present as Themselves on the saguna plane as Shiva and Vishnu.Lord Shiva,in this saguna feature,is apparently bewildered by the three modes of maya and foolishly,is thought to be some petty Jeevatma. " From this one can reasonably deduce the following about your views: 1) It is foolish to think that Shiva is a jiva 2) Those who think that Shiva is a jiva are foolish 3) This includes most other Vaishnava acharyas such as Madhva and Ramanuja who consider Siva to be a jiva Do you wish to now change or amend your position? Whether or not Shiva is a "personality of God" is itself up for debate. But in any case I did not say anything about Shiva being under maya. I only pointed out that he can be a jiva without being reduced to a "petty jiva." You stated that considering Shiva to be a jiva is foolish. You did not qualify it in any way. Since other Vaishnava acharyas do consider Shiva to be a jiva, they are included as per your statement. This coming from the guy who just castigated me for not agreeing with the "gosvami's view" that Shiva is Vishnu-tattva. Still does not answer the question. There is no such reference in the Chandogya. Has nothing to do with the subject of equating Durga with Vishnu. Which mainstream Upanishads are you talking about? Have you actually read any of them? Vaishnava acharyas who have read and commented on Shvetashvatara U. would disagree with your opinion that it is about Siva. Regarding calling Shiva as "demigod," I can point you to the following words of your own A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami: http://vedabase.net/sb/12/10/18/en1 Suta Gosvami said: Lord Siva, the foremost demigod and the shelter of the saintly devotees, was satisfied by Markandeya's praise. Pleased, he smiled and addressed the sage. http://vedabase.net/sb/4/4/28/en1 Why had Sati, the wife of the most respectable demigod, Lord Siva, quit her body in such a manner? http://vedabase.net/tlc/5/en2 For instance, in the Markandeya Purana there is mention of Devi worship, or worship of the goddess Durga or Kali, but in this same candika it is also stated that all the demigods -- even in the shape of Durga or Kali -- are but different energies of the Supreme Visnu. So, is A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami offensive for calling Siva and Durga as demigods?

Three words: What about it?

I can think of a few references off the top of my head: The Katha Upanishad wherein Yama is describing the goal which all the Vedas point to (see 2.15) states in 3.9 that the abode of Vishnu is the highest and the "end of the journey." Then we have Rig Veda 1.22.20 in which it is stated that the nitya suris behold always that supreme abode (paramam padam) of Vishnu. The Aitareya Brahmana 1.1.1 states among all devatas, Vishnu is highest and Agni is lowest. Rig Veda 1.154.4 describes how Vishnu alone upholds the three worlds - another obvious reference to His supremacy. These are just a few references off the top of my head. Tantras are smriti texts whose validity is conditional upon agreeing with shruti. Ranjeet, I believe, is trying to represent the Gaudiya Vaishnava viewpoint which also follows (or is supposed to follow) the Vedantic standard of epistemology.

Are you including iskcon in that supposition?

Fine. Again, no problems here. It is not clear what you mean, because the language you use is imprecise and inconsistent. By standard meanings a "part" is something that is less than a whole. So saying "part" automatically assumes a lesser status. Now it appears that you are saying "part" but it is not really "part" in the conventional sense. That is like the Sai Baba fanatic saying "you must accept Sai Baba to get liberation" and then rationalizing it by saying "oh, but actually Sai Baba does not mean the person Sai Baba in Puttaparthi, it actually means 'universal consciousness.'" So far, no problems here. But what does this have to do with Durga and Vishnu? Here is the problem. You acknowledge that Vishnu is the Supreme Being. Then you say that Vishnu and Durga are identical. But then if that is true, you must accept that Durga is the Supreme Being. Do you? Because that would make you not a Vaishnava but something else. If A = B, then A and B must have the same properties. Otherwise the statement A = B is meaningless. So Ramanuja and Madhva are foolish as per you. Very well. And why the words "petty Jeevatama?" Does being a jiva automatically indicate a position of disprespect? If memory serves, it was you who stated that the forms of Shiva and Uma were "horrendous." It is strange that on one hand, you criticize other Vaishnava acharyas for taking Shiva to be a jiva, but on the other hand you brazenly call Shiva ugly. This seems like a double standard to me. This excessively wordy reply seems designed to conceal the fact that you cannot explain how you go from "Maya is a reflection of Yogamaya" to "Durga is a millionth part of an amsha of Radha." One statement does not clearly follow from the other. Nor can you really explain how, on one hand, Durga is supposedly "identical" to Krishna, and yet on the other hand, Duga is a millionth part of one of Krishna's energies. Perhaps there is nothing wrong with the concept, and it is merely the language with which you use to explain the concept which is at fault. I would not say that Durga is identical to Vishnu because this conclusion is not upheld by the shrutis. For instance, in the Kena Upanishad 4.1-4 we learn that the devatas were humbled by their inability to challenge the power of Brahman, and that it was through Uma that they learned who this Brahman is. This indicates that Uma and para Brahman are different. I do not really understand what you gain by trying to insist that Durga and Vishnu are "identical."

Let me get this straight - you are ignoring me, and you just wanted me to know that?

Ranjeet, First you say Durga and Krishna are identical. Now you say that Druga is a millionth of a portion of Radha. These two positions are not consistent.

Interesting from two points of view: 1) Sai Baba (meaning something other than the person Sai Baba of Shridi or Sai Baba of Puttaparthi) would obviously be a non-standard meaning. Like the Hare Krishnas, you propose controversial statements, and then when questioned about the validity of said statements, you redefine specific words to make the entire statement mean something else. Example: "You must accept Sai Baba as God" is an aggressive, sectarian statement. However, claiming that "Sai Baba" means "universal consciousness" is just an excuse to say "You must accept Sai Baba as God" without admitting to the sectarianism. However, at the end of the day, most people who hear the statement hear the sectarian, aggressive undertones because that is the most obvious, direct meaning of the sentence. The idea that "Sai Baba" means "universal consciousness" has no linguistic justification and is just an excuse to get away with making the objectionable statement in the first place. 2) You write, "so u have to be connected to any subtle power ...be it anyone you believe in...not necessary saibaba only." So if a person believes in a prophet who teaches him to aggressively uproot all other religions, destroy their temples, rape and enslave their women, and he does this 24x7, then according to the statement you have given, this is a valid way to liberation. After all, he believes in the prophet, which was your criterion of validity, and if he follows the prophet's teachings 24x7, then he is on is way to a glorious afterlife, right?

Answered. Regarded by many as interpolated. Answered. See http://www.indiadivine.org/audarya/spiritual-discussions/38443-shvu-speaks.html where the relevant verse numbers are reported. Answered in the form of 18 chapters known as Bhagavad-Gita. You do know Bhagavad-Gita, right? What specifically is the question? No, there is only one way of handling such questions - read the relevant texts themselves to orient yourself to the facts, and then answer based on the facts and explanations found in those texts. Notice that "searching Google" and "asking Greek philosophers" are not among those options. If someone asks "Why Rama asked Sita to walk on fire?" the answer is not for you to go and hide behind your insecurities. Orient yourself to the facts and correct the mistake in the questioner's assumptions first. The tired old refrain of blaming Brahmins for your own cluelessness is not doing anyone any favors. Please stop rationalizing the one-sided, false accusations of our local Christian fundamentalist. You may be ashamed of your religion and unable to answer these doubts. But your lack of conviction does not represent all of us. Many of us are perfectly capable of answering those questions, as I have already done here.

This is what happens when a confused Neo-Hindu Ramakrishna follower tries to represent Hinduism. Google is not an authority on Ramayana. Ramayana is an authority on Ramayana. Tenali's accusation was that Rama "ordered Sita to walk on fire." This is false. According to the Ramayana, Sri Rama ordered Sita to be brought before him, after which He told her that she could do or go wherever she liked. Since she refused to leave the side of her husband, and seeing that her husband was not ready to take her back, she chose to immolate herself in protest. It was then that Agni pronounced her chaste. There was no order that she be burnt as Marxist pseudo-scholars and clueless Neo-Hindus are apt to think. Nor did this have anything to do with "sati" as Indian feminists are apt to think. Read the text. Tenali's specific accusation was that, "Krishna, on the other hand, called himself brahmachari and yet abducted many women." Krishna did not "abduct many women." He did abduct Rukmini from her marriage, after she first wrote to Him and begged Him to do so. He was a householder at that time living in Dwaaraka, not a brahmachari as Tenali falsely claimed. Tenali's specific accusation was that Sri Krishna incited "mass murder." Warfare between willing combatants is not "mass murder." So your point is, don't study Ramayana and Mahabharata when you can instead take things out of context by using Google? Calling your posting stupid would be an insult to stupid people everywhere.

You do not need to be a "philosopher" to read Mahabharata and Ramayana. I do not consider myself a "philosopher." Like all things, if you want to learn, you must invest the time. My point is simply that you should refrain from providing answers to questions which you do not know the answers to. Your answer as posted seems to acknowledge that Sri Rama and Sri Krishna did do all those terrible things. The Christian fundamentalist can then copy-cut-paste your quote to his Hindu hatred website and use it to stir up more prejudice against Hinduism. This in turn affects all of us. Whether you like it or not, when you speak up on behalf of Hinduism in a public forum, you will be treated as an ambassador of your religion and culture. Your comments will affect how the culture and attitudes of millions are preceived by foreigners who have money and big guns. If you think that is far-fetched, then consider for a moment that the British rationalized their dominance over India by perpetuating ugly stereotypes about men routinely burning their women over dowry, killing people over caste, etc. And this was done without the instantaneous access to free information which the internet provides. Those of you who took apologistic or neutral stances in regards to these kinds of prejudiced questions are not doing anyone any favors. Please resist the urge to post until you have familiarized yourself with the facts. This is not just directed at you, but also the Neo-Hindu who advised that we should go to the Greeks to get our answers about Hinduism, the Hare Krishna who just repeated that everything God does is "divine" (thus rationalizing the false accusations), etc.

They can be answered, assuming that the person doing the answering has a clue about Hindu scriptures. Then he could tell the questioner that his questions are based on false assumptions. Rama did not tell Sita to "walk on fire." Sri Krishna did not advocate "mass murder." These questions are so stupid that it is shocking that any Hindus would take them seriously. You don't need to go to the Greeks to answers these questions any more than you need to go to Muslims, Christians, or even Swami Vivekananda. Just read the Ramayana and the Mahabharata and find out what really happened. That is because it is the same poster with a different handle. How is it that you didn't realize that?

Wow, really? You mean he isn't a sincere soul with a genuine interest in Hinduism? I hope you are not going to now tell me that he isn't really Manmohan Singh, the prime minister of India.

One simple thing you (and Tenali) could do is *READ* the Mahabharata and the Ramayana. Sri Krishna and Sri Rama did not do any of those things that Tenali ascribed to Him. If people could make it a point to read the source material, questions like these would not arise. You do not need to give oblique answers that do not answer the question. This only reveals that you yourself do not know what he was talking about. A Christian missionary propagating lies about Hinduism is nothing new. What is disturbing is a Hindu accepting such lies as truth and then trying to rationalize them using philosophy. Please take the time to familiarize yourself with the literature.

Wow. To learn about Hinduism, go to the Greeks. Do you think you can possibly be any more flattering towards Hinduism?