raghu

i never said that people who do not accept Shankara indifferent from Sri Vishnu should have their eyes put out.I quoted Shatanand,a saint from the Pushti marg order who said that.

I fail to understand the difference, unless you are now telling me that you do not believe Shatanand.

Calling Shiva a Jiva is foolish,certainly.This is for those whose acharyas have similar views.You say i have indirectly called Madva and Ramanuja foolish.

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?

I fail to see why doesn't the same apply to your case.You've made it clear that you absolutely hate fake avtars of God.I do too.On the other hand,you refuse to accept Chaitanya's avtaarhood.Does it mean,you indirectly hate,despise,look down upon,continuously insult Gauranga ????

 

You see,it's not so easy.

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

indirect and vague method , instead of being specific and conclusive ........but anyways.............a lot of centuries have rolled by and nothing could be done about that now .

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.

Raghu believes that having faith in Sri Narayana as the Supreme Brahm and then freely slinging mud on other acharyas(Prabhupad,Caitanya) is allowed.

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.

Raghu,you have posted over and over again the purport of prabhupad on Ganesha.

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.

of course it doesn’t in your eyes, but a self effulgent, whom no one can defeat is quite clear to me.

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.

Please allow the thread starter to explain the concept of Saibaba .

 

There are plenty of other threads to discuss gaudiyas or iskcon.

 

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. :-)

i find it funny that after providing so many quotes of the Gaudiya acharyas, you insist on calling Shiva as a demigod...like Varun or agni.

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.

 

In Navadvipa Dhama mahatmya,

Navadvipa Mahatmya is an authored work by Bhaktivinod Thakur, so quoting it here is meaningless.

the four kumaras a 'mere' avesa avatara of the Supreme Lord transform Themselves into The Supreme Lord Himself.

You can never understand this becoz

It is nonsense. There is no question of anyone "transforming" himself into the Supreme Lord. This is Mayavada.

you think that Bhagavan is cut into pieces and somehow His incarnations are inferior to Him.

Strawman. I never articulated such views.

sorry to break your bubble,but Tulsidas defines Rama-tattva better than you could ever bring yourself upto doing the same.

What does this have to do with the conventional definition of Vaishnava?

He very well went to Vaikuntha.

How do you know? Did you see him go yourself?

And suprise suprise.He maintained Shankara's indifference with Sri Hari.

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.

Srimad Bhagavatam,Brahm sanghita.

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?

there are two kinds of amsas.Those Who are amsas of the svarupa sakti vishisht Brahm,are identical with Him,even if They may display ZERO power.

Those who are amsas of the Jeeva sakti vishisht Sri Krsna..they are jeevatmas-ranging from indras,varunas etc down to ants.

 

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.

No.No changing of position.

 

Yogmaya is identical with Sri Hari and Even Mayadevi is identical becoz THEY BOTH ARE HIS ENERGIES..Just becoz Maya performs work of deluding the maya-baddha jivas,should it mean She is a limitedly powerful sakti of Bhagavan ??

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?

 

of course i do...

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."

If shiva bhaktas never went to Vaikuntha...who or what are the attendants of sadashiva ??? Fictitious characters ???

Shiva bhaktas do not go to Vaikuntha. They go to the abode of Shiva. Hence, "antavat tu phalaM teShAm tad bhavatyalpamedhasAm...." (gItA 7.23).

But skanda purana maintains that Sri Vishnu and Lord Shiva are indifferent.

If you mean "non-different," then this contradicts the shruti, and is thus not acceptable.

Srila Rupa Gosvami writes in Laghu Bhagavatamrta 31

...vayavyadisu saiveyam shivaloke pradarshita

'In the Vayu and other Puranas he is shown to be in Shiva loka.'

 

Baladeva Vidyabhusana in his tika on Laghu Bhagavatamrta comments - shiva loke vaikuntha dhamni -

'In Shiva Loka means in Vaikuntha dhama'.

So Gaudiya Vaishnava equate Shiva Loka with Vaikuntha?

CC adi 6.79 partial purport :

In the Vayu Purana there is a description of Sadasiva in one of the Vaikuntha planets. That Sadasiva is a

direct expansion of Lord Krsna's form for pastimes. It is said that Siva (Lord Sambhu) is an expansion from

the Sadasiva in the Vaikuntha planets

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.

Rupa Gosvami's Laghu Bhagavatamrita:

31 Siva's form named Sadasiva, who is a direct expansion of the Personality of Godhead, is the cause of all

causes, is free from the slightest scent of the mode of ignorance, and resides in Sivaloka, is described in the

Vayu Purana and other scriptures

Which contradicts Prabhupada's view earlier that Shiva is under maya and cannot grant liberation.

298 Lord Siva, who is known as Sadasiva and Sambhu, is manifest in the northeast part of Vaikunthaloka

 

Jagadguru Vallabhacharya: Vishnu is the sustainer of creation while Shiva is the destroyer. Both have been

revealed as such in their own scriptures. Know without a doubt that the Supreme Brahman is both Vishnu and

Shiva for they have both been declared as the Self of all things. They have also been described in their own

scriptures as being flawless and replete with all divine virtues. (Balbodh 12-13a)

 

translated text by Shatanand Swami (a saint of the Vallabha order) who has

written a commentary on the Shikshapatri in Sanskrit.

 

TEXT 47

No distinction shall be made between Narayan and Shiva, as they are

both proclaimed as Brahmnswarupa by the Vedas.

 

Ekatmyameva Vigneyam Narayanamaheshyoha |

Ubhyorbrahmanrupera Vedeshu Pratipadanat ||47||

 

Those who think of God differently to this, where Narayan or Shiva are defamed in some way are insulting God(Sri Krsna).

Shatanand says that such people should have their eyes removed. Such a person is blind to the truth and can

never be enlightened to that truth.

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.

Similarly,do you consider Vallabha,Shreedhar and Jeeva Gosvami foolish ?

 

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?

This reference to shankara shouldn't bother Gaudiyas becoz they know that Sadashiva is indifferent from Vishnu.

 

When you look upon shankara as some different tattva-naturally-you(raghu) get defensive and thus: 'all' vaishnavas would disagree with your opinion that it is about shiva.

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.

Read the purport of Srila Prabhupada in chaitanya bhagavat provided above.

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?

Pranam

 

 

 

See Rig Veda 7.XLVI.1

 

If it was that simple as you might have us believe, the debate would have ended a long time ago.

 

Jai Shree Krishna

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?

good , but i was searching for a direct reference that firmly affirms vishnu=brahman in the shrutis .

 

the examples that you gave like "tadvishnor paramam padam..." etc indicate to the supreme nature of vishnu but does not directly equate brahman with vishnu .

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.

as per my knowledge tantra does not depend upon the vedas at all . all it does is to accept the validity of the ancient shrutis and give them their due respect . but at the same time it loudly proclaims that rituals described in shrutis are ineffective in the age of kali and tantra is the way salvation . hence they are free to deviate from vedic principles(which they sometimes does) and show a complete independence !!

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.

Pranam

 

 

 

Just five letters in this case, RUDRA

 

Jai Shree Krishna

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.

You kinda always had the habit to show the person down before you actually took out bits and pieces of his post and went on and on.

Ranjeet, I'm really not sure what this means, so I do not know what to say in response to it.

Amsa loosely means part.My post was meant to imply that the amsas(sva amsas) of Godhead are identical with Him.

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.

If could be so kind enough to give me a better word than 'part',i would substitute it in my post.

The word "part" would be fine if you stuck to a standard meaning of the word.

That Mahavishnu being an amsa of Sri KRsna is fully identical with Him.

Similarly,Durga of the material world(mahamaya),being a amsa/transformation/reflection of Durga of vaikuntha(yogmaya),is identical with Her.

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?

Srila Krsna Dvaipayana Veda Vyasa is an incarnation of the lord.From what angle does Veda Vyasa or for that matter Parashurama display the same properties as Sri Visnu?

 

Mohini.Does She look like Sri Vishnu ??? Does She have properties Like Him.How can She and Laxmipati have any property in common whatsoever ??

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?

Shaivites have always advertised Shankara as DIFFERENT from Vishnu,as INDEPENDENT from Vishnu.

You seem to accept their view than to accept the gosvamis' view

I accept the view that Vishnu and Shiva are different. I do not accept the view that Shiva is superior to Vishnu.

that Sri Krsna takes up the form of Sadashiva just as He takes up the form of Nrsingha.

 

That just makes you short sighted.You BELIEVE that shankara is some completely different tattva.

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.

There were so many elevated Gaudiya saints who maintained the view that "Durga lives in Vaikuntha".

 

DO YOU CALL THEM FOOLS LIKE YOU OBVIOUSLY CALL ME IN YOUR MIND ?

No.

There's your answer.

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?

It does when you call a personality of God or His expansions as a tattva who is under maya.

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."

I didn't criticise them.Mahatmas have their own reasons....

 

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.

If you think they should all agree with only one siddhanta,there wouldn't have been 4 different doctrines.

This coming from the guy who just castigated me for not agreeing with the "gosvami's view" that Shiva is Vishnu-tattva.

Mahamaya and yogmaya.

Still does not answer the question.

In the same vein as Sri Krsna is mentioned in the chandogya upanishad as being having obtained the knowledge of Brahm from His 'guru'.Right ??

There is no such reference in the Chandogya.

And to say Krsna is Svayam Bhagavan,the basis of Brahm !!

 

Has nothing to do with the subject of equating Durga with Vishnu.

Besides,

Even not considering Svetasvatara upanishad,there are other upanishads glorifying Shankara.

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.

To help others avoid to offense of ever thinking that :"Visnu's energies or even one of them can ever be limited,or not supremely powerful" and continuously try to call Uma-Mahesvara as demigods.

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?

Raghu,I have two words for you: Svetasvatara Upanishad.

Three words: What about it?

so is there a place in shrutis where brahman is equated with vishnu ?

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.

the tantras however do acknowledge uma or durga to be identical with brahman .

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.

ummmmm,maybe because every generation from 500 years ago witnessed top class mahatmas spring from the same line ?????

Are you including iskcon in that supposition?

Lord Krsna takes up the Caturvyuha forms.One of Them is Sankarsana.

Fine.

This Lord sankarsana again takes up four more Forms.One of Them is again called Sankarsana.

Again, no problems here.

Of this Person,Lord Mahavishnu,the Purusha,The Primeval Lord,is but a part(amsa). ow when the we say part of a part of a part of a part of Lord Krsna...do you think we mean that Brahm Sri Krsna is cut four times ??? Or somehow He is made inferior ??? Or He is diluted...His Godhood is diluted ???

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.'"

No.The Purusha Sukta states This Mahavishnu as the Sole cause of all there is..the Supreme Being..The eternal Purusha.

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.

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.

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.

Sastras tell us how maya is a reflection of Yogmaya.It is not wrong to say that a millionth part of an amsa of Radha(Durga of Vaikuntha) is Durga of the material world.

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."

I have put raghu and chandu_69 on my ignore list.

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.

Dear raghu,

 

Saibaba means not the physical body of saibaba..but the subtle body which is universal consciousness itself..so u have to be connected to any subtle power ...be it anyone you believe in...not necessary saibaba only.

 

rohit

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?

There are many questions regarding Hinduism specifically certain events in the Itihasas and Puranas which have been raised over centuries.

 

Some of the more important ones are

 

1. Sita's Agni Pravesam.

Answered.

2. Leaving Sita in the forest in Uttara ramayana.

 

Regarded by many as interpolated.

3. Killing of Vali.

Answered. See http://www.indiadivine.org/audarya/spiritual-discussions/38443-shvu-speaks.html where the relevant verse numbers are reported.

4. Krishna's advice to Arjuna on the battle field.

Answered in the form of 18 chapters known as Bhagavad-Gita. You do know Bhagavad-Gita, right?

5. Treatment of Karna

What specifically is the question?

Now there are many ways of handling such questions.

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.

"sita agni pariksha". This word in google returns 39100 hits.

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.

Krishna kidnaps Rukmani

 

http://krsnabook.com/ch53.html

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.

Arjuna wanted to lay down his arms at the beginning of the Kurukshetra war. Lord Krishna advises him about his duties. This is the beginning of Bhagavad Gita.

Tenali's specific accusation was that Sri Krishna incited "mass murder." Warfare between willing combatants is not "mass murder."

Now my learned friend wants everyone to believe that these never happened and wants us to study Ramayana and Mahabharata.

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.

Raghu,

Thank you for instructing me to read further. I am no philosopher like yourself. It was an answer to help a sincere person understand how to overcome contradicting statements in our scriptures rather than answering the question itself. You are right. I am wrong.

Your servant,

Patit.

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.

Yes. Because these questions even if asked by a devout Hindu can not be answered in a forum like this.

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.

Please see this discussions

 

http://www.indiadivine.org/audarya/spiritual-discussions/453461-did-krishna-advocate-mass-murder.html

 

The same posters posting similar views.

That is because it is the same poster with a different handle. How is it that you didn't realize that?

The poster named Tenali Ram is the same poster who was named Manmohan Singh previously (IP addresses are same). He is here to discredit the Hindu religion.

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.

It is hard for ordinary people to unerstand the extraordinary ways of the Supreme Lord.

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.

 

Greek Philosophy answers many questions which are raised about Hinduism.

Wow.

To learn about Hinduism, go to the Greeks.

Do you think you can possibly be any more flattering towards Hinduism?