sumedh
-
Posts
456 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Downloads
Gallery
Events
Store
Posts posted by sumedh
-
-
As a matter of general principle, when faced with contradictory statements the original sources should be consulted. When there are contridictions in smriti then arbitration is made in sruti etc. It is a fact that there are directly contradictory statements made by Srila Prabhupada on this subject. Thus for any useful discussion the works of Goswamis, smritis and sruti should be consulted and quoted. As pointed out by others, speculating about the motives of Srila Prabhupada is not useful but accepting contradictory statements would not show well either.
-
Logic has its own advantages and disadvantages and as discussion can only proceed with logic it inherits all those weaknesses.
In earlier periods masters used to emphasize on satsang and less on intellectual discussions.
The advantages/disadvantages are...? Those earlier periods and those masters are... ?
Maharishi raman has rightly said that "we have doubted so much that we have forgotten of our real self or brahma as that is doubtless".I quoted this so that i can bring out the futility of logic and discussion on scriptures.
So discussion on scriptures is useless and by implication scriptures are useless. What remains? The authority of guru, sadhu and shastra has to be accepted.
Another incident from the life of ashtavrak comes to my mind when he entered the palace of janak and all pandits engaged in the discussion started laughing which revealed that how brilliant philosophers,well versed in scriptures valued and laughed over at the form and could not see the soul of ashtavraka which was illuminating not less than that of krishna.
You have changed the account to suit your flow of statements. Neverthless, their lack of knowledge was apparent in their laughter for they would not have done so if they had known the scriptures.
So debate on any scripyure is good but of no use to a devotee.
A false conclusion contradicted by the lives of all our past great acharyas.
Debate can prove something as wrong or wright but can not preceed existence.Existence and truth can not be affected by debate.
When you came to this conclusion, you had an internal analysis of why this conclusion seems correct. We make right and wrong judgements in every action we perform. Every field of study has a notion of right and wrong, for there is no study otherwise. Truth can be known only by means of right knowledge. What do want to say?
-
Friends, I am rather disturbed to read the messages in this Forum. What exactly we gain out of this discussion turning into an arguement on Krishna vs Shiva.
It is very sad to see that any kind of shastric discussion is nowadays considered by some to be useless and counter-productive. Has vedanta come to this? One of the strengths of Vedanta is its preciseness, completeness and verifiability based on the "shabd pramana" and others, quite unlike other philosophies which are more or less just belief systems.
You people dare to call the endevours of our past great acharyas as useless. Kumarila Bhatta and Shankaracharya reject and defeat the Buddhist philosophy by use of logic, Shankara rejects pashupata/shakta and others giving reasons for the same, Ramanujacharya/Madhvacharya and so many other saints/scholars debate with advaitins exposing the many flaws in it and so on.
Vedanta is not a free for all arena where anyone can pass off his/her speculations as Truth and remain unchallanged -- actually such an approach would be laughed out in any other academic field, but somehow some people (sometimes even academicians of other fields) think that when it comes to "spiritual" then there is no need for authorities and start believing in whatever is pleasing to them. This may have been the approach of some other systems which have no tradition of logic, dialectics, polemics etc. but certainly not Vedanta which has a rich tradition of debates.
There is nothing spiritual in arguements.
And what exactly spiritual means?
-
Haribol
You read that wrong. There is no pure conception of God without the Absolute Truth.Because Srila knew there is no controller but a sum of the total; GOD!
Srila Prabhupada is refererring to the fact that the concept of God in western theologies is quite different from Brahman of Vedic scriptures. In essence, the concept of God as in the western theology would not be adequate to be qualified as Param-Brahman as described in the Vedas.
since NO man has brought both the sciences and theology together in real physical application.These conceptions arise due to being exposed to (mostly) western prophet born theologies and the like. Imagining Vedanta to be likewise is a grave error.
Vedanta study starts by examining what constitutes an evidence (pramana), what evidences should be accepted in which spheres and what should not be etc. It accepts mainly three evidences, pratyaksha (direct perception), shabd, anumana while the others found in Nyaya and other systems of logic can be reduced to them. While pratyaksha is accepted as a pramana for indriya vishaya (those that fall in the realm of sense perception), shabd is the only pramana for atindriya vishaya (those beyond senses). The need for establishing that there exist subjects beyond the sense perception arises, and is satisfied first in Vedanta (thus ruling out Charvaka and the like theories). Admittedly, the concept of shabd pramana is hard to understand but should not be surprising given the experience that even many worldly subjects are not simple. The Vedas are accepted because they constitute the shabd pramana, and thus also those vedic scriptures that follow the vedas.
Modern day science would qualify as a pratyaksha evidence, though it is likely that most of it would not be accepted for being unable to meet the standards as normally required in Vedanta.
-
Hare Krishna
All,It is my pleasure to introduce to you new upanishad called "Pragyopanishad" written in Hindi by Pandit Shri Ram Sharma Acharya. This upansihad is new in addition to 108 known upanishads. This upanishad is based on the conversation of Rishi Satta of Himalayas who are bent upon to bring new era by awakening conciousness of each and every human being living on this earth. This awakening of Chetna (Consciousness) will be in the form of Pragya (Prakhar Buddhi-Wisdom) that will change the thinking of majority of the people during 21st Century. In this Upanishad, the Rishis have not left any question of common people unanswered. This Upanishad is written based on the prevelant conditions of the current yug (Era). Therefore, it will be very interesting for you to read this upanishad.
Pragyopanishad
I have given the link of this "Upanishad".
http://www.awgp.org/books/hindi/pragyopanishad/pragyopanishad_1.pdf
Pragya Puran
Additional 19th Puran (18 Puranas written by Vyas Muni) was also written by him on the basis of this Upanishad which is called "Pragya Puran" That Puran was written to explain the Upanishad in simple language with examples and stories of great saints, Mahapurushas. This is also in Hindi and written so well that once somebody reads it will have better understanding of the divine culture of India backed by our great Rishi Satta living in Himalayas.
The link for this Puran is:
http://www.awgp.org/gamma/HindiLiterature/PragyaPuran
This is our Rishis's Vani (Conversation) and it has divine power also.
I am sure the you will benefit lot from these divine literatures.
With regards to all,
Datta Pandya
Not meaning to offend or unsult, this is outright intellectually dishonest. If Pandit Sriram Sharma has written them, then he does not know what means by an upanishad -- does he think that somehow "pragya upanishad" becomes an unauthored apaurusheya text and flawless!! Many irresponsible persons (particularly advaitins) have been known to manufacture upanishads and then later quote them as authority. Similarly for the purana, does he want the people to believe that it has been composed by Ved Vyasa? So as Avinashji said, calling these texts as upanishad and purana is very irresponsible.
-
Yajur Veda iv. 4. 8.
(Thou “I” art) all overcoming through Agni; self-ruling through the sun; lord of strength through might; creator with the bull; bountiful through the sacrifice; heavenly through the sacrificial fee; slayer of enemies through rage; supporter of the body through kindliness; wealth through food; through the earth he hath won; (thou art) eater of food with verses; increased by the Vasat cry; protector of the body through the Saman; full of light with the Viraj; drinker of Soma through the holy power; with cows he supporteth the sacrifice; with lordly power men; with horse and car bearer of the bolt; lord with the seasons; enclosing with the year; unassailable through penance; the sun with bodies.”
YV iv. 4. 9.
(Thou art) Prajapati in mind, when come to the Soma; the creator in the consecration; Savitr in the bearing; Pusan in the cow for the purchase of the Soma; Varuna when bound (in the cloth); Asura in the being bought;Mitra when purchased; Çipivista when put in place;delighter of men when being drawn forward; the overlord on arrival;Prajapati being led on; Agni at the Agnidh’s altar; Brhaspati on being led from the Agnidh’s altar; Indra at the oblation-holder; Aditi when put in place; Visnu when being taken down; Atharvan when made wet; Yama when pressed out; drinker of unpurified (Soma) when being cleansed; Vayu when purifying; Mitra as mixed with milk; the Manthin when mixed with groats; that of the All-gods when taken out; Rudra when offered; Vayu when covered up; the gazer on men when revealed;the food when it comes; the famed of the fathers;life when taken; the river when going to the final bath; the ocean when gone; the water when dipped;the heaven when arrived at completion.
End of citation.
Yajur Veda iv. 4. 8.
(Thou “I” art) all overcoming through Agni; self-ruling through the sun; lord of strength through might; creator with the bull; ------- unassailable through penance; the sun with bodies.”
YV iv. 4. 9.
(Thou art) Prajapati in mind-----
Çipivista when put in place;-----
Aditi when put in place;
Visnu when being taken down; -----
Rudra when offered; -----
the heaven when arrived at completion.
End of citation.
And this is relevant to discussion of "Atman" or advaita how?
-
Do not claim. Read Mandykya again. The fourth pada Turiya is the Self.
"Turiya is the Self" and "This Self is Brahman".
One has to realise that Self is Brahma yoni.
Since you are repeating things over and over without going to the points raised about your interpretations it makes no sense to continue this. Also you have inserted phrases like "Turiya is the Self" etc. without caring about what Mandukya actually says. It says "so.ayamAtmA chatushhpAt.h" i.e. this Atman is of four forms and then terms them as vishva or vaishvAnara, taijasa, etc. which are names of Vishnu.
That Atman primarily refers to Brahman is stated clearly in numerous statements of Sruti and is accepted by all Vedanta traditions including advaita. If that were not so then the Chandogya statement on which advaita is based "saAtmAtattvamasi" would mean you are the individual, an obvious statement and hardly anything to do with advaita.
You need to understand first that someone does not become Brahman just because his parents have named him Brahman or another one of His names. So are the names of devatas actually names of Brahman but does not mean that they are Brahman. Whether the name is referring to Brahman or to a deva is to be known from context.
-
Really? Why only three? And what about the tantras and the agamas? What about the Rudra Sampradaya and the Nath Sampradaya? Do you think there were no NO great saints and God accomplished men in the Nath Sampradaya? Say the great Guru Gorakhnath? Or Bognath whos age is still impossioible to know? Do you really know something about the Indian spiritual culture and about he God realized saints apart from teh Gaudiya marketing? What do you think Lord Hanuman was Vishishta davaita or or achintya Bheda-bheda or tattwada philosophy follower???
The Rudra Sampradaya is from Sripad Visnuswami. Sripad Vallabha and his followers claim to be in line from Vishnuswami and he has the Anu Bhasya commentary on Brahma Sutra.
Regarding the Nath sampradaya, their practise of Kundalini etc. are not to be found in the sadagamas.
Some (portions) of the tantras, agamas and pancharatra are accepted -- those that follow the vedas. Others like the left-handed tantra are not accepted (even a casual reading of these will show why this is so).
Yes, i know about all of those you have listed.
As per Balitha sukta from Rig-Veda (1.141.1-5), Lord Hanuman is told to be an incarnation of Lord Vayu whose second and third incarnations are told to be Bhimasena and Sripad Madhva (yadImanupradivO madhva AdhavE guhasantham.h maatarishvaa mathaayatI) in the same sukta.
Also who do you think are the great Acharyas as you mentioned? Are there any besides the vaishnava lineages? Are there any great Acharyas in the Advaita lineages too? What about the Yogis (like the Trailanga Swami of Benares who lived for 300 years and was enlightened?) What abouth the Shiva bhaktas like Kanappa? And the great shakta bhaktas (like Bama Kshepa of Bengal? ? Do you know anything about them?
Incidently Shankara himself dismisses pashupata, shakta and others (apart from Pancharatra) which were prevelant as being non-vedic.
What do you think about Goswami Tulsidas - a great devotee of Lord Rama - who got real darshana of Rama and Hanuman?
He is said to belong to the Ramanandi sect coming from Sripad Ramanuja.
This:
"it (classification of scriptures) is established in Madhavacharya's dvaita school well before gaudiyas. Sri Vijayindra Tirtha referred to it in his historic debate with Lingaraja." You don't follow the Madhavacharya's school for one. and even if you did, what was before that?
was in response to the allegation that the division of Puranas is a creation of gaudiyas (implying that it is a fabrication by them). As such the verses from Puranas that talk about this division are to be found in all kinds of Puranas (Padma, Matsya, Garuda, ) some of which have been quoted before.
You made a comment about Turiya. What is Turiya? Do you understand this term? How? I would be more interested in knowing it.
I would be interested in your own experiences too if you have any. If all you can do is point to another book, then I can go and read it myself.
Turiya has multiple meanings. In the context of Mandukya it means fourth (which is its literal meaning) and refers to the fourth of the chatur-vyuh manifestation of Lord Narayana. It does not refer to a "state" at all, at least in the Mandukya. See my response earlier.
As for my own experiences, i do not think they ought to be a subject of a public forum.
-
That is precisely your problem dear Sumedh. You are a lover of God, no doubt, but you are an immature one. You have taken the Puranic concepts as the truth. The concepts are like addrresses to the home but not the home. The truth is beyond description and Paratpara.
Seriously, your way of dealing simply shows your eagerness to get some kind of imaginary upper hand. In other words such words from your side only sound quite silly and "immature". Anyway, this is the last time i am asking you not show "pity" on myself or any other "misguided" people.
The one who says "I" in everyone -- is he with a form or is he formless? Is He manifest or is he unmanifest? That "I", when manifest in full is all pervading Vishnu. That same "I" when offered worship is Rudra.
Please read these verses. One day the realisation will dawn that the being who is aware as the real "I" in you is the SELF. He is the seeing/seer/seen. These divisions as so called tattwas is for understanding and realising the ONE indescribale truth alone.
Just that your definition of "ONE" Brahman is quite different from ours. BTW i can say something like "Oh, i used to think precisely like you when i was immature and realized my folly and so blah blah..." (which is actually true), but is stupid in a discussion.
Haribol
-
Read mandyuka. Turiya is the Self. Do not imagine the fifth pada beyond.
Is this the way you deal with objections to your (or whoever else's) interpretations? Anyway, as already explained turiya in mandukya refers to the fourth "pada" of Brahman.
Some people do not bend but they will break. What I cited earlier was from Rig Veda, translated as per Sayana for the sarawswati project. So, you now want to say that your mis-translation is correct:
Stu/ih ïu/t< g?tR/sd<!-- font-->< Æum! %?ph mm! -I n g< m& yuva?nm!>%/¢m! ,m&/¦a j?ir/Çe é?Ô/ Stva?nae =/Ny< te? A/Smn! in v?pNtu/ sena>? . 2-033-11
2.033.11 Glorify the renowned Rudra, riding in his car, ever youthful, destructive, fierce like a formidable wild beast; Rudra, propitiated by praise, grant happiness to him who praises (you), and let your hosts destroy him who is our adversary.
I repeat: The verse in Rig Veda is an Eulogy to Rudra. Same verse appears in Yajur Veda also.
You know, repitition hardly qualifies as clarification. Indeed the way you deal is quite strange, in that you do not try to address as to why something is a "mis-translation" rather pick out another verse.
This:
The Saraswayti project translation has been cited by me previouisly and like all your motivated translation this translation of yours is also simply wrong.
and this:
Yes. May Vishnu impel us to know Narayana.
are devoid of substance and thus ignorable.
Purusha sukta in Rig Samhita does not say anything of the sort. It is there in Uttara Anuvuka, wherein, it refers to Hiryanagarbha. And Hiryanagarbha is born of Rudra -- the Supreme seer.
Yes UttaraAnuvaka of Purusha sUkta appears in Taittreya Arayanka of Yajur Veda. And no, it does not refer to Hiranyagarbha. The 2nd verse says:
tamevam vidhvAnamrta iha bhavati
nAnya: panthA vidhyate ayanAya
Who knows Him in this manner becomes immortal in this very birth.
To moksha, liberation I know not of other paths.
And then the third:
ajAyamAno bahudhA vijAyate
Unborn, he appears in many ways.
</pre>
As for "agnirvai devaanamavamo viShNuH paramaH", itself indicates that among Devatas Vishnu is parama.
I am talking of paratpara.
That Rudra is a devata is known from various srutis like Rig Veda 7.46.1:
imaa rudraaya sthiradhanvane giraH kSipreSave devaaya svadhaavne
So your contention that the verse cannot be applied to Rudra is incorrect.
Give us one shruti showing Param Parastad for any oother being.
Are you being plain dishonest or what? The already quoted Maha-Narayana upanishad says that "yamantaH samudre kavayo vayanti"and that nothing is beyond Him "ataH paraM nAnyad" that He is Param Brahman etc. Then the mention of "hrIshcha te lakshmIshcha patnyau" shows that He is indeed Vishnu as known from the sruti "dEvIm VishNupatnIm ajUryAm" (Bhoo sUkta) and "MahIm asyEsAnA jagatO VishNu patnI" (Sri sUkta).
That Rudra is the same as Narayana is ruled out on account of various srutis like Shatapatha Brahmana, "na yasyendro varuNo na mitro vratamaryamA na minanti rudraH" (that Rudra does not fully understand savitR), already quoted Rig Veda 7.40.5 which says that Rudra gets his powers from Vishnu, the ambhraNi sUkta which says that Lakshmi makes anyone a Brahma, Rudra as She pleases and the source of her powers is Lord Narayana, the Mahopanishad which talks of birth of Rudra from Narayana and that he did not exist in the beginning etc.
It has been already established that all the Names primarily refer to Narayana, that Narayana gives His Names to all the devatas and so the srutis that extol Rudra as the Param Parastad should be known to be referring Narayana (as He is indeed referred to by many other Names in the sruti).
Rig Veda 9
saem>? pvte jin/ta m?tI/na< j?in/ta id/vae j?in/ta p&?iw/Vya> ,
j/in/ta¶erœ j?in/ta sUyR?Sy jin/teNÔ?Sy jin/taet iv:[ae>? . 9- 096- 05
Sama Veda XIX Soma Pavamana
1. Father of holy hymns, Soma flows onward, the father of the earth, father of heaven.Father of Agni, Surya's generator, the father who begat Indra and Vishnu.
Param Atma has no progenitor. I am sorry.
If you do not want to understand this verse or just try to mislead others then it is your problem not mine. This verse is referring to the Soma used in yajnas as sacrificial offering, and through yajna it brings the devatas to us.
That Vishnu is unborn has already been shown using various srutis, which simply shows that you do not care for sruti rather are just trying to search support for your position.
And as you have yourself said: Vishnu is Self born.The Self is Turiya --- shivoadvaitam.
Do you know the meaning of "sumajjAnaye"? Anyway if you want to keep discussing this then rewind a bit and establish your concept of "shivoadvaitam" from Mandukya first, or in other words address the questions above that have been put forward to the silly interpretation of Mandukya.
-
Namaskar
I think, the whole concept, is hard to know through shastric refrences alone, since as you mentioned the "ego" thing is there. You did not quote Rudra Upanisha or Shiva Purana at all. I feel in these threads one side goes on mentioning one kind of scriptures to prove his side of the theory while neglecting the other. Krishna or Shiva can not be known just through reading.
Yes, these concepts should be known through the great acharyas. There are three well-known vedantic traditions (kevala-advaita, vishishtadvaita and tattvavada or dvaita) and none of them consider Rudra as Supreme including Shankaracharya -- though if one takes to a self-defined concept of Rudra as referring to Brahman then the case is different.
On the other hand if you declare Shiva Purana as so called "Tamasic" then you have to state why it is tamasic, since Shiva himself is above all the three gunas and is not bounded by them. The stressing of Shiva being sinful continuosly is offensive. Please Be careful of the reaction you may get. In other words, you are preaching Shiva as sinful in your enthusiasm to preach Vishu/Narayana higher. This is time waste and dangerous for spiritual life and progress. Hope you understand.
Thank you for your concern. However, i do not think you are familiar with what i think etc. As for the classification of puranas, it is already replied in this thread before:
http://www.audarya-fellowship.com/forums/krishna-talk/34478-shiva-krsna-5.html#82
Other than that whatever was written about Rudra was from the sruti itself and there was no speculation (either positive or negative) from my side.
Hare Krishna
-
Hare Krishna
I agree with you, but if consciousness was just imagination, then why would our beloved Srila Prabhupada name the organization after krishna consciousness? Is that imagination too? After all, everything starts with consciousness. Right consciousness. Without any consciousness there no reading of the Vedas either.
I never said that consciousness is imagination; the reference was to the interpretation that Narayana and Rudra are not Beings but refer to "infinite consciousness"; that the "Puranic concepts" of Narayana/Rudra refer to "shivoadvaitam" etc.
-
Haribol
Dear. We have gone through these a lot many times before. Rudra is a Vedic name of infinite conscsiousness. Whereas all your names are from smriti or itihas or purana. Why do you claim that you are follower of Vedas? Why do you simply not say that we are independent thinkers. What is the use of trying to debase Vedic names?
Note that you tried to clear the "Puranic" concepts with something in the sruti only to land up with the same "concepts". Why do you feel compelled to insert your own imaginations like consciousness etc. in the interpretation of sruti which are not there and thereby twist the sruti. Since so far you have not provided a pramana to support your conjecture of "Vedic names", any further discussion down this line is discardable -- being dramatic does not help, and keep personal attacks out of here. On the other hand direct quotations from sruti have been already provided to substantiate that all names primarily refer to Narayana which you have conveniently ignored (or maybe substituted with your own imaginations).
The supposed reference from Mandukya Upanishad has already been elaborately dealt with by the acharyas. In this context the following points may be noted:
* That the primary meaning of Atma actually is Brahman. This is supported by Shankaracharya himself in Brahma sutra 1.1.3 quoting from Mundaka Upanishad.
* Mandukya says that Atma has four quarters (chatuShpAt) thus referring to the chatur-vyuh manifestation of Lord Narayana, and not to four states of existence.
* If the latter is contended then the whole description in the upanishad becomes absurd. It would mean that waking "state" has 19 heads, dreaming "state" again has 19 heads. Then the dreamless "state" is the the Lord of all, sarveshvaraH and inner controller of all, sarvAntaryAmi -- so a really simple way to become Lord of all is to go to sleep... Then the turiya "state" is called as the vibhuH (creator) and devaH.
I repeat: The verse in Rig Veda is an Eulogy to Rudra. Same verse appears in Yajur Veda also. It is funny to see that the root is torn out, hoping that the leaves will saurvive on their own.
After a very long time you will understand what Rudra is. He is the seer in you as well. He is the Supreme Seer, from which nothing is different -- including Narasimha.
Which apart from dramatism does nothing to address the verse at hand in which the sage asks Rudra to praise the Deity seated in the heart.
And regarding the second verse: asya devasya mILhuSo vayA viSNoreSasya prabhRthe havirbhiH | vide hi rudro rudriyaM mahitvaM yAsiSTaM vartirashvinAvirAvat" , the following is the translation of Saraswati project, based on Sayana. What you cite is from Griffith. Even in <st1:city w:st="<st1:place" on=""><st1:place w:st="on">Griffith</st1:place></st1:city>'s translation, I have no problem. Vishnu being Rudra's arrow is truly he strength.
You are right that the translation is due to Griffith. A more accurate translation would be:
I get my desires granted by offering in sacrifices to that Visnu, the ishwara who is present in all these devatas. Knowing this (vide hi), Rudra gained his Rudra strength. The Ashvini brothers have come to our abode with abundant sacrifical food.
Again your interpretation out of the blue of "Vishnu being Rudra's arrow" (apparently from tripurasura episode) is incorrect on account of "vide hi" which says that "knowing this" i.e. only knowing that Vishnu is the ishwara does Rudra gain his rudratva.
But Shiva and Vishnu are not two beings.
7.040.05 I propitiate with oblations the ramifications of that divine attainable Vis.n.u, the showerer of benefits; Rudra, bestow upon us the magnificence of his nature; the As'vins have come to our dwelling abond with (sacrificial) food.
The quote is not relevant to the point being discussed, nor does anything to further your assertion that "Shiva and Vishnu are not two beings" even with your interpretation.
Why should I be sorry? I have not assumed that Vishnu is Narayana. But I know that Narayana is Vishnu.
Interesting theory, however the sruti says "NArAyaNAya vidmahE VAsudEvAya dheemahi. TannO VishNuH prachOdayAt". That Vishnu is unborn is known on the strength of several pramanas like TaittirIya Arayaka(3.13.1):
"ajAyamAno bahudhA vijAyate" i.e. He is unborn yet He takes several avatars. Rig Veda 1.156.2 calls Vishnu as sumajjAnaye or self-born. Then Rig Veda 1.154.1 says:
"Visnornukam vIryAni pravocham yah pArthhivAni vimame rajAMsi
yo aska bhAyadhuttharaM sadhastham vichakramAnas tredhhorugAyah"
Let me say to you the brave deeds of Visnu who created the seven worlds below - belonging to earth and who created the seven worlds above occupied and crowded with persons of good deeds and he who is greatly praised measured these worlds in three steps.
So it says that Vishnu is the creator of all the worlds, and the Brahma Sutra (4.4.17) "jagadvyApAravarjam.h" holds that only Brahman creates, ruling out any jiva doing it. Of course the famous "tad viShNoH paramaM padaM" and similarly Taittreya Aranyaka 1.8.3-4 says:
"kim tad visnor balamAhuh kA dhIpthi kim parAyanam
eko yadhdhhAra yadhdhevah rejathI rodhasI ubhhe
vAthAdhvisnorbalamAhuh aksharAdhdhIpthiruchyate
tripadhAdh dhhArayadhdhevah yad visnor ekam utthamam
agnayo vAyavashchaiva etadasya parAyanam"
What is said about Visnu's strength, His brightness and His Supreme abode. Divine Visnu Himself all alone bears the heaven and earth with that strength.Visnu's strength is said to greater than that of Vayu, His brightness is said to be greater than that of Agni. Residing in Moksha Loka, Visnu who is the one supreme "ekam utthamam" bears the world(heaven and earth), Agnis and Vayus and that Moksha Loka is His Supreme Abode.
The purusha sUkta also talks of the Supreme Being who has Hri and Sri as the wives and who are known to be wives of Vishnu from sruti: "dEvIm VishNupatnIm ajUryAm" and "MahIm asyEsAnA jagatO VishNu patnI". The already cited Aitareya Brahmana (1.1.1) "agnirvai devaanamavamo viShNuH paramaH" says the same thing as also "te viSNo jAyamAno na jAto deva mahimnaH param antam Apa" (Rg Veda 7.99.2).
Of course, there are innumerable smriti pramanas for this.
Regarding Rudra's birth from Prajapati, you should know better. Rudra begets and sees the birth of Hiranyagarbha who is progenitor of Prajapati (Brahma). If Rudra again manifests from Brahma, then it does not mean that Rudra is not eternal.Nrisimha bhagwan appeared in a wall. Do not say that the Wall is Lord of Nrisimha.
Useless comparison, since the Shatapatha Brahmana also says that the boy (Rudra) cried at the time of birth saying that he is not cleansed of sins -- hardly a sign of Param Brahman. The Mahopanishad also says that Rudra is born from Narayana and specifically says that Rudra did not exist in the beginning; same with Narayanopanishad.
Can judgements be true, if based one one set of Puranas alone? All that needed to be said have been said. These are not for those who are blinded by ego and do not see that what is Rudra is Vishnu and vice-versa. Those who have open enquiring mind will surely profit. I enjoy posting elsewhere, where more common sense prevails.
Indeed it shall be better if you stop posting among those with "ego", as you yourself would enjoy that more. Remember the same can be said about yourself, so no need to dramatise things.
-
Param Brahma tattva can only constitute Param Brahma and Param Brahma tattva can only be present in Param Brahma Purusha. With a apriori view that Narayana is different from Shiva and who is different from Vishnu, you will never be able to reconcile many Veda samhita verses. The truth is one shivoadvaita OM, which can be viewed as AUM (in three states), but the states are not the real beings. The Self is ONE and always real. It cannnot be cut. It is One but appears as if divided in bodies. It is known as param purusha, param brahman or mahesvara. All terms mean the same indescribable nameless Self.
No, with the aprori view that you take the Vedas become a bunch of contradictory verses. For instance (aitareya brahmana 1.1.1)
"agnirvai devaanamavamo viShNuH paramaH"
Agni is the lowest of all deities and Vishnu is the highest.
The first chapter of Brahma-sutra deals with the apparent contradictions in the scriptures. What you term as contradictions are not really so, and have been dealt by the Acharyas in their works e.g. Sripad Ramanujacharya in his Vedarthasangraha deals with the pUrvapaksha that apaurusheya vedas have contradictions like different deities being extolled in different hymns, and then explains that all these actually refer to Vishnu alone. Similarly Sripad Madhva deals with this Brahma-sutra-bhasya and all his other works where he establishes that Vishnu alone is sarva-shabda-vachya. Indeed the vishvakarma sUkta says that Vishnu gives His Names to all the deities, and the bhallaveya sruti says that Vishnu is the primary referrent of all the words. The point is that all the gunas that are extolled of various deities in the Vedas are those of Vishnu, and thus He is sarva-shabda-vachya. Thus they show the meaning of Bhagavad-Gita 15.15 "vedaishcha sarvaiH ahaM eva vedyo" (by all the Vedas I am to be known) and Hari-vamsha "vede rAmAyaNe chaiva purANe bhArate tathA | AdAvante cha madhye cha viShNuH sarvatra gIyate".
-
Haribol
Rudram and RV verses are translated as per your wish and the translations are wrong since the following verses already clarify who is in the Hridaya of all:From Yajur Veda
Namo hridayyaya cha niveshpya ya cha
Salutations to Him who is in hridayyaya and in the grace.
Namo vah kirikebhyo devanam hrudayou bhyo
Salutations to you who showers grace and who dwell in the hearts of the Gods.
Rudra is the Hridaya and He resides there like lion.
The tenth anuvaka "Stuhi shrutam garta sadam yuvanam mrugannabhima mupahat numugram, mruda jaritre rudra satvano anyante asmanniva pantu senaha": the previous verses (as also subsequent verses) address Rudra, and thus here the speaker asks Rudra to praise one who is "seated in the heart", "terrible like a lion" etc. Then Nrsimha-tapani upanishad clarifies that "ugram" above refers to Lord Nrsimha.
Sama Veda XIX Soma Pavamana
1. Father of holy hymns, Soma flows onward, the father of the earth, father of heaven.Father of Agni, Surya's generator, the father who begat Indra and Vishnu.
Param Atma has no progenitor. I am sorry.
You should be sorry for presenting an incorrect translation by which you will have us believe that Vishnu is created by Soma contradicting quotations you provided from Mahanarayana upanishad, Nrismha tapani and host of other srutis (in addition to contradicting yourself). Shatapata Brahmana and other srutis say that yajna is also referred to as Vishnu, and so the above verse is actually referring to yajna. The Shatpatha Brahmana, Mahopanishad and host of other srutis talk about the birth of Rudra from the antaryami of Brahma i.e. Lord Narayana.
Then Rg-Veda 7.40.5:
"asya devasya mILhuSo vayA viSNoreSasya prabhRthe havirbhiH | vide hi rudro rudriyaM mahitvaM yAsiSTaM vartirashvinAvirAvat"
With offerings I propitiate the branches of this swift-moving God, the bounteous Visnu. Hence Rudra gained his Rudra-strength: O Asvins, ye sought the house that hath celestial viands.
makes it clear that Rudra attains his powers from Lord Vishnu.
-
Haribol
Well, i do not like to play these games where you change the context to somewhere else. The original context was from Mahabharata which is already answered in the scripture as quoted before.
As for your quotes from Sri Rudram, it is to be noted that in the tenth anuvaka the sage asks Rudra to pray to the Deity who resides in the cave of heart (who is Lord Nrsimha as given in Nrsimha-tapaniya-upanishad). Then Rg-Veda 7.40.5 says that Rudra gets his Rudratva from Sri Hari, birth of Rudra in numerous sruti statements, that Sri Hari is the inner controller of all etc.
btw in reply to your statement
Oh yes. You do not understand Self. Instead of interpreting based on puranic concepts embedded in thoughts have an open mind. Shiva is the Self of all, including Vishu.
one can say:
Oh yes. You do not understand Brahman. Instead of interpreting based on your own concepts embedded in thoughts have an open mind. Vishnu is the Paramatma in all, including Shiva.
so its best to avoid making them.
-
Hare Krishna
Yogkriyaji:
The translation, to which you have an objection, is such because of context.
ahnaH kShaye lalAtAchcha suto devasya vai tathA
krodhAviShTasya sa~njaGYe rudraH saMhAra kArakaH
etau dvau vibudhashreShThau prasAdakrodhajau smR^itau
At the end of the day, the Lord [present as antaryAmi of Brahma] created
Rudra out of Krodha-guNa, to enable him to be the 'samhAra-kartA'. Thus,
these two 'fine-among-wise', Brahma and Rudra, are known to have been born
out of grace and anger respectively.
tadAdeshita panthAnau sR^iShTi saMhAra kArakau
nimittamAtraM tAvatra sarvaprAni varapradau
Thus, they carry out the instructed tasks of creation and destruction.
However, they, the givers of boons to all the creatures, are just the
agents.
Here Brahma and Shiva are mentioned as agents of Lord Narayana who carry out these tasks. Thus the interpretation given later where it refers to Brahma and other gods is consistent (since Shiva is one of the gods). Such interpretations are common and accepted because scriptures do not contain repititions like in usual literature.
It is to be noted that unlike yourself we do not consider one part of Mahabharata as overriding the others (and resort to silly interpretations like guru, shishya, bhavas which only you seem to know about and what not). When Lord Krishna prays to Mahadeva, He has already explained it to be:
tasminhi pUjyamAne vai devadeve maheshvare
sampUjito bhavetpArtha devo nArAyaNaH prabhuH
It is the Lord, the prabhu, the Narayana IN Maheshvara (the worshippable,
the lord of the devas), who is actually worshipped.
The varaha purana says that Shiva obtained the boon from Narayana of being worshipped in His incarnations. This and the already given quote that:
na hi viShNuH pranamati kasmai chidvibudhAya tu
R^ita AtmAnameveti tato rudraM bhajAmyaham
Indeed Vishnu does not bow to any one and [even when He bows to Himself],
for what sake, but for the sake of showing the path to the wise. Therefore,
it is the truth that I worship myself even when I worship Rudra.
... provides a consistent interpretation. If you have chosen to ignore the given quotes (because it is in guru bhava or something) then there is no more discussion that we can have on this.
Haribol
-
-
Hare Krishna
This may be somewhat misleading. I could not locate this exact reference, can you provide the verse numbers so that we may check the translation -- thanks. Anyway, one should read Mahabharata as a whole. This and other instances where Lord Krishna prays to Mahadeva is explained by the Lord Himself in Shanti Parva verses 12.328.5 onwards. I have highlighted the important verses.
Arjuna uvAcha
bhagavanbhUtabhavyesha sarvabhUtasR^igavyaya
lokadhAma jagannAtha lokAnAm abhayaprada
yAni nAmAni te devakIrtitAni maharShibhiH
vedeShu sapurANeShu yAni guhyAni karmabhiH
teShAM niruktaM tvatto.ahaM shrotumichChAmi keshava
na hyanyo vartayennAmnAM niruktaM tvAmR^ite prabho
Addressing the Lord, Arjuna says, O Lord Keshava, the Lord of Past and
future, the Creator of All, the Changeless Being, the Supporter and
indweller of the universe, the Lord of the universe and grantor of refuge to
[all the deserving beings of] the universe, I wish to know the etymology of
your names, which are extolled by [the Devas and] the Maharishis, which are
in the Vedas and the Puranas and are hidden from the [undeserving beings]
and beyond the reach of actions. There does not exist a greater truth or
divine law apart from the true meaning of your names, my Lord.
shrIbhagavAn uvAcha
R^igvede sayajurvede tathaivAtharva sAmasu
purANe sopaniShade tathaiva jyotiShe.arjuna
sA~Nkhye cha yogashAstre cha Ayurvede tathaiva cha
bahUni mama nAmAni kIrtitAni maharShibhiH
The Lord says:
My names are sung by the Maharishis in the RgVeda, YajurVeda, Atharvaveda,
Samaveda, in the purANa, in the Upanishad, in the Jyotish Vidya, in the Sankhya, in the Yogashastra, and in
the Ayurveda.
gaunAni tatra nAmAni karmajAni cha kAni chit
niruktaM karmajAnAM cha shR^iNuShva prayato.anagha
kathyamAnaM mayA tAta tvaM hi me.ardhaM smR^itaH purA
O Destroyer of opponents, in those texts, some names are indicative of my
qualities (Gunas), while some extol my actions. Listen to the etymology of
these names. Earlier, I have told some of these to you.
namo.ati yashase tasmai dehinAM paramAtmane
nArAyaNAya vishvAya nirguNAya guNAtmane
yasya prasAdajo brahmA rudrashcha krodhasambhavaH
yo.asau yonirhi sarvasya sthAvarasya charasya cha
astAdasha guNaM yattatsattvaM sattvavatAM vara
Glories to the extremely famous, the Paramatma Narayana, who is nirguna
(devoid of prakritic attributes) and full of auspicious qualities. Glories
to that Being, out of whose grace was Brahma born and out of whose anger was
Rudra born; Glories to Him who is the origin of all; the moving and
stationery. Glories to Him, who has the eighteen excellent virtues and who
is the true essence and strength of all living beings.
prakR^itiH sA parA mahyaM rodasI yogadhAriNI
R^itA satyAmarAjayyA lokAnAmAtmasa~nj~nitA
tasmAtsarvAH pravartante sarga pralaya vikriyAH
Everything; creation, destruction and all other changes; arises out of the
Prakriti (Lakshmi), Who is the wife of Narayana. [Among all dependent
beings], she is the most knowledgeable, effulgent, powerful and victorious.
She does all this with my grace and she is known as "AtmA" of the entire
universe [after Paramatma].
tato yaGYashcha yaShTA cha purANaH puruSho virAt
aniruddha iti prokto lokAnAM prabhavApyayaH
Thus such Lord is spoken of as yaj~na (the worship) and the worshipper. (God
takes all the fruits of yaj~na and He instigates the worshipper.) He is the
most ancient (anAdi and controller of all) and greatest one. No one is His
Lord and He is unstoppable. He is the creator and annihilator of all the
worlds.
brAhme rAtrikShaye prApte tasya hyamitatejasaH
prasAdAtprAdurabhavatpadmaM padmanibhekShaNa
tatra brahmA samabhavatsa tasyaiva prasAdajaH
In the Brahma muhurta, at the end of the night, due to the mercy of the
extremely brilliant Lord, a lotus emerged from His navel and in that lotus,
Brahma was born, ofcourse, due to His grace.
ahnaH kShaye lalAtAchcha suto devasya vai tathA
krodhAviShTasya sa~njaGYe rudraH saMhAra kArakaH
etau dvau vibudhashreShThau prasAdakrodhajau smR^itau
At the end of the day, the Lord [present as antaryAmi of Brahma *] created
Rudra out of Krodha-guNa, to enable him to be the 'samhAra-kartA'. Thus,
these two 'fine-among-wise', Brahma and Rudra, are known to have been born
out of grace and anger respectively.
*: This interpretation is necessary because in the later sections of
Moxadharma, Brahma addresses Rudra as a son.
tadAdeshita panthAnau sR^iShTi saMhAra kArakau
nimittamAtraM tAvatra sarvaprAni varapradau
Thus, they carry out the instructed tasks of creation and destruction.
However, they, the givers of boons to all the creatures, are just the
agents.
kapardI jatilo mundaH shmashAnagR^ihasevakaH
ugravratadharo rudro yogI tripuradAruNaH
dakShakratuharashchaiva bhaga netraharastathA
[Rudra has] braided hair with knot of an ascetic and rest of the head bald.
He dwells in the home of graveyard, steadfast on vigorous penance as a yogi.
He is ferocious to tripurasuras, destroyed daxayaj~na and took away the eyes
of Bhaga.
nArAyaNAtmako GYeyaH pANDaveya yuge yuge
O Arjuna, know that in every yuga, Rudra is 'nArAyaNAtmaka'. This phrase can
mean: one whose indweller is Narayana, one who is always immersed in
Narayana.
tasminhi pUjyamAne vai devadeve maheshvare
sampUjito bhavetpArtha devo nArAyaNaH prabhuH
It is the Lord, the prabhu, the Narayana *IN* Maheshvara (the worshippable,
the lord of the devas), who is actually worshipped.
ahamAtmA hi lokAnAM vishvAnAM pANDunandana
tasmAdAtmAnamevAgre rudraM sampUjayAmyaham
yadyahaM nArchayeyaM vai IshAnaM varadaM shivam
AtmAnaM nArchayetkashchiditi me bhAvitaM manaH
O Son of Pandu, I am, indeed, the Atma, the indweller of this universe and
the worlds. Therefore, I worship myself first, even when I worship Rudra. If
I did not worship Rudra, the bestower of boons, in such a way (i.e.,
worshipping the indwelling Lord first), some would not worship me, the
indwelling Lord, at all - this is my opinion.
mayA pramANaM hi kR^itaM lokaH samanuvartate
pramAnAni hi pUjyAni tatastaM pUjayAmyaham
Whatever I follow and give due worth as a pramANa, the world follows that.
Such pramANAs have to be duly followed; therefore I follow them.
yastaM vetti sa mAM vetti yo.anu taM sa hi mAm anu
rudro nArAyaNashchaiva sattvamekaM dvidhAkR^itam
loke charati kaunteya vyakti sthaM sarvakarmasu
Whoever knows him, knows Me. Whoever follows him, follows me. (Though) the
world, in all its actions, worships two Gods Rudra and Narayana, it is
actually One only who is worshipped.
na hi me kenachid deyo varaH pANDavanandana
iti sa~ncintya manasA purANaM vishvamIshvaram
putrArthaM ArAdhitavAn AtmAnaM aham AtmanA
O Son of Pandu, there is, of course, nobody who can grant me boons. Knowing
that well, I worhip myself, Who am the beginningless and universal power,
known as Sarveshvara, for the sake of getting sons.
na hi viShNuH pranamati kasmai chidvibudhAya tu
R^ita AtmAnameveti tato rudraM bhajAmyaham
Indeed Vishnu does not bow to any one and [even when He bows to Himself],
for what sake, but for the sake of showing the path to the wise. Therefore,
it is the truth that I worship myself even when I worship Rudra.
sabrahmakAH sarudrAshcha sendrA devAH saharShibhiH
archayanti surashreShThaM devaM nArAyaNaM harim
The Brahmas, the Rudras, the Indras, the Devatas, all the Rishis worship the
best among the Gods, Narayana, Hari.
bhaviShyatAM vartatAM cha bhUtAnAM chaiva bhArata
sarveShAmagraNIrviShNuH sevyaH pUjyashcha nityashaH
Always, of all the past, future and present, it is first, Vishnu who is to
be propitiated and worshipped.
namasva havyadaM viShNuM tathA sharaNadaM nama
varadaM namasva kaunteya havyagavya bhujaM nama
[You] bow to Lord Vishnu, Who grants the material for oblations [so that the
devotee can perform worship]. Bow to One, Who gives refuge to the devotees.
Bow to One, Who gives boons to the devotees. Bow to One, Who consumes all
the oblations and milk, curds, etc.
chaturvidhA mama janA bhaktA evaM hi te shrutam
teShAmekAntinaH shreShThAste chaivAnanya devatAH
ahameva gatisteShAM nirAshIH karma kAriNAm
ye cha shiShTAstrayo bhaktAH phalakAmA hi te matAH
sarve chyavana dharmANaH pratibuddhastu shreShTha bhAk
brahmANaM shiti kanthaM cha yAshchAnyA devatAH smR^itAH
prabuddhavaryAH sevante eSha pArthAnukItritaH
bhaktaM prati visheShaste eSha pArthAnukIrtitaH
There are four kinds of devotees. Among them the best are the "ekanta
bhaktas" like the gods. I am their refuge, who do action interested in
nothing except me. The other three kinds are desirous of fruits of action.
They move on the path of Dharma, enlightened share their knowledge with
others. They worship Brahma, Rudra and other
gods, with their own enlightenment. O Partha, they go unto the god, they
worship.
Also relevant in this context are Bhagavad-Gita verses 7.23, 8.16, 9.23, 10.2, 14.14-14.18 etc.
Haribol
-
Yogkriyaji wrote:
Quote:Originally Posted by Yogkriya
Om Namah Bhagawate Vasudevaya!
Because he is the destroyer of the Universe? But then he is the sustainer and creator too. He himself says this to Rama and Rama confirms it.
Sumedh: Please provide evidence for this statement.
Yogkriya: Sumedh I have provided more than enough evidence on this issue earlier. But the problem is that no other scripture holds any authority for u except SB and BG. You can find it in the scriptures. Everything is there. If you would opt to read outside of what SPP said, you will find it.
I am sorry, but i could not find that in this or other threads. If you could reproduce that it shall be convenient. However, because such a statement is contradicted by many sruti statements it would not be accepted unless it some other consistent interpretation of the sruti and other vedic scriptures is provided. Actually we have to be very careful here because of hidden meanings of vedic scriptures, and also because there have been many interpolations in the puranas. Additionally in many places the puranas contradict themselves (such as the well known episode of Lord Nrsimha and Hiranyakashyapu) and only the version given in the sattvic puranas is accepted and ultimately the version of sruti is accepted. For instance different versions are offered in puranas of the episode of drinking of poison by Lord Shiva during samudra-manthan, but only the versions consistent with the version of Rig Veda are accepted.
One clarification: Srila Prabhupada has stated that Lord Sadashiva refers to one of the incarnations of Vishnu and Lord Shiva is different from Him.
Caitanya-Charitamrta Adi Lila 6.79:
Rudra, who is an expansion of Sadasiva and who appears in unlimited universes, is also a gunavatara [qualitative incarnation] and is the ornament of all the demigods in the endless universes.
PURPORT
There are eleven expansions of Rudra, or Lord Siva. They are as follows: Ajaikapat, Ahibradhna, Virupaksa, Raivata, Hara, Bahurupa, Devasre
stha Tryambaka, Savitra, Jayanta, Pinaki and Aparajita. Besides these expansions there are eight forms of Rudra called earth, water, fire,
air, sky, the sun, the moon and soma-yaji. Generally all these Rudras have five faces, three eyes and ten arms. Sometimes it is found that
Rudra is compared to Brahma and considered a living entity. But when Rudra is explained to be a partial expansion of the Supreme Personalit
y of Godhead, he is compared to Sesa. Lord Siva is therefore simultaneously an expansion of Lord Visnu and, in his capacity for annihilatin
g the creation, one of the living entities. As an expansion of Lord Visnu he is called Hara, and he is transcendental to the material quali
ties, but when he is in touch with tamo-guna he appears contaminated by the material modes of nature. This is explained in Srimad-Bhagavata
m and the Brahma-samhita. In Srimad-Bhagavatam, Tenth Canto, it is stated that Lord Rudra is always associated with the material nature whe
n she is in the neutral, unmanifested stage, but when the modes of material nature are agitated he associates with material nature from a d
istance. In the Brahma-samhita the relationship between Visnu and Lord Siva is compared to that between milk and yogurt. Milk is converted
into yogurt by certain additives, but although milk and yogurt have the same ingredients, they have different functions. Similarly, Lord Si
va is an expansion of Lord Visnu, yet because of his taking part in the annihilation of the cosmic manifestation, he is considered to be ch
anged, like milk converted into yogurt. In the Puranas it is found that Siva appears sometimes from the heads of Brahma and sometimes from
the head of Visnu. The annihilator, Rudra, is born from Sankarsana and the ultimate fire to burn the whole creation. In the Vayu Purana the
re 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 Sadasiva (Lord Sambhu) is an expansion from the Sadasiva in the Vaikuntha planets (Lord Visnu) and that his consort, Mahamaya,
is an expansion of Rama-devi, or Laksmi. Mahamaya is the origin or birthplace of material nature.
-
Gokulrji wrote:
Theres no word such as Sankara / advaitha occuring in original text :-krsne bhakti kara----ihaya sabara santosa
vedanta na suna kene, tara kiba dosa
Moreover "purport" is just personal interpretration of a guru who doesnt accept advaitha or shankara's philosophy.
So it cant be accepted as statement againt Shankaracharya.
May all glories go to "Sri Shankaracharya" & "Sri Nimbarkacharya".
Jai RadheKrishna
Anyone who has read Chaitanya Charitamrta even a little would know that it clearly denounces Shankaracharyas kevala-advaita in multiple places. For instance (Madhaya-Lila 6.166-183):
The transcendental form of the Supreme Personality of Godhead is complete in eternity, cognizance and bliss. However, you describe this transcendental form as a product of material goodness.
One who does not accept the transcendental form of the Lord is certainly an agnostic. Such a person should be neither seen nor touched. Indeed, he is subject to be punished by Yamaraja.
The Buddhists do not recognize the authority of the Vedas; therefore they are considered agnostics. However, those who have taken shelter of the Vedic scriptures yet preach agnosticism in accordance with the Mayavada philosophy are certainly more dangerous than the Buddhists.
Srila Vyasadeva presented the Vedanta philosophy for the deliverance of conditioned souls, but if one hears the commentary of Sankaracarya, everything is spoiled.
The Vedanta-sutra aims at establishing that the cosmic manifestation has come into being by the transformation of the inconceivable potency of the Supreme Personality of Godhead.
The touchstone, after touching iron, produces volumes of gold without being changed. Similarly, the Supreme Personality of Godhead manifests Himself as the cosmic manifestation by His inconceivable potency, yet He remains unchanged in His eternal, transcendental form.
Sankaracarya's theory states that the Absolute Truth is transformed. By accepting this theory, the Mayavadi philosophers denigrate Srila Vyasadeva by accusing him of error. They thus find fault in the Vedanta-sutra and interpret it to try to establish the theory of illusion.
The theory of illusion can be applied only when the living entity identifies himself with the body. As far as the cosmic manifestation is concerned, it cannot be called false, although it is certainly temporary.
The transcendental vibration omkara is the sound form of the Supreme Personality of Godhead. All Vedic knowledge and this cosmic manifestation are produced from this sound representation of the Supreme Lord.
The subsidiary vibration tat tvam asi ["you are the same"] is meant for the understanding of the living entity, but the principal vibration is omkara. Not caring for omkara, Sankaracarya has stressed the vibration tat tvam asi.
Thus Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu criticized Sankaracarya's Sariraka-bhashya as imaginary, and He pointed out hundreds of faults in it. To defend Sankaracarya, however, Sarvabhauma Bhattacarya presented unlimited opposition.
The Bhattacarya presented various types of false arguments with pseudo logic and tried to defeat his opponent in many ways. However, Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu refuted all these arguments and established His own conviction.
Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu continued, "The Supreme Personality of Godhead is the central point of all relationships, acting in devotional service to Him is one's real occupation, and the attainment of love of Godhead is the ultimate goal of life. These three subject matters are described in the Vedic literature.
If one tries to explain the Vedic literature in a different way, he is indulging in imagination. Any interpretation of the self-evident Vedic version is simply imaginary.
Actually there is no fault on the part of Sankaracarya. He simply carried out the order of the Supreme Personality of Godhead. He had to imagine some kind of interpretation, and therefore he presented a kind of Vedic literature that is full of atheism.
"[Addressing Lord Siva, the Supreme Personality of Godhead said:] 'Please make the general populace averse to Me by imagining your own interpretation of the Vedas. Also, cover Me in such a way that people will take more interest in advancing material civilization just to propagate a population bereft of spiritual knowledge.'"
"[Lord Siva informed goddess Durga, the superintendent of the material world:] 'In the Age of Kali I take the form of a brahmana and explain the Vedas through false scriptures in an atheistic way, similar to Buddhist philosophy.'"
Sarvabhauma Bhattacarya became very much astonished upon hearing this. He became stunned and said nothing.
The purport of Adi-Lila 7.101 quoted by Puru dasji derives directly from Chaitanya Charitamrta itself and calling it a "personal interpretation" is insincere unless one shows that Chaitanya Charitamrta states otherwise. As mentioned later by Puru dasji, mayavada is condemned by Lord Shiva himself in multiple places in Padma purana and Shiva purana, so there is direct scriptural evidence for such statements.
Hare Krishna
-
Hare Krsna!
I don't even understand, why there is so much mentioning about the 'HIndu' thing in this article. What do Hare-Krsna movement and Hindus got in common except that they also pray to Lord Krsna? So why is the Hare-Krsna temple being called a Hindu temple there? A regular Hindu temple would have Shiva, Ganesh and Durga as well. A Hare-Krsna temple would never have that. Moreover, Prabhupada made it clear that our Hare-Krsna org has nothing to do with Hinduism!! Why this hypocrisy about??
Hari Bol!
Many "Hindu" temples in india dedicated to a god or other have only one deity, so your point about a "regular" Hindu temple is incorrect.
Moreover, it seems that your definition of Hinduism would leave out (among others) the two biggest Vedanta schools viz. Vishishtadvaita and Tattvavada out of Hinduism. In that perspective i do not think that the general populace of hindus would agree with you.
Srila Prabhupada said that his movement has got to do nothing with Hinduism rather only with Vedic religion, because the former does not represent anything specific.
Hare Krsna
-
Pranams
Prasthanathrya consist of Bhashya to three literature viz., Dashopanishad, Brahma Sutra and Bhagawath Geetha. All the three Achaaryas belonging to the three basic schools of philosophy viz., Advaita, Vishishtadwaita and Dvaita - Shri Shankaraacharya, Ramanujacharya and Madwacharya wrote commentaries on these three. And none of them wrote any commentary on Vedas.
Thanks, you are correct to some extent. Actually Upanishads are (part of) Vedas, and prasthana-traya refers to the scriptures themselves and not to their bhasyas. Some schools give importance to only the Upanishads in Vedas so only commentries to those were written (in fact they did not write commentries to all of them e.g. Sripad Ramanuja). However, the whole of sruti is flawless and are cited as evidence in their works. Madhva school considers the whole of Veda as part of prasthana-traya and Sripad Madhva also wrote commentry on portions of Vedic samhitas.
Hare Krishna
-
Pranams
So says Krishna to Lord Shiva after Shiva is pleased with his devotion to him!So also says Ramachandra to Lord Shiva after seeing his universal form - the Virrat Roop. Rama accepts the supreme personality of Godhead as lord SadaShiva. So whom shall I believe more? Rama or Prabhupada. I made my choice to to follow Rama! You have made yours!
This was stated elsewhere also without any evidence. Please provide evidence of this story. Note that the vishwaroop darshan of Krishna in Gita is accepted by all the vedantic schools and Gita is considered on par with the sruti as being flawless (the prasthana trayi accepted by all vedanta schools includes Vedas, Gita and Brahma Sutra), so this acceptance is universal and not unique to Srila Prabhupada.
Hare Krishna
Rising the Kundalini Force
in Spiritual Discussions
Posted
At this point, as a rational living being, it is your duty to quote the appropriate authorities to substantiate your point. There is not a single sruti statement in existence that talks about kundalini. On the other hand the vedas/upanishads talk about devotion etc. all over the place. If you are sincerely interested in those then i would be able to provide a long list of those quotes. As regards chanting being unscientific (as if these subjects fall in the realm of current material science), it is not clear what you mean; and that it is unvedic is a false statement because the mantras themselves come from sruti and smriti. All vedic vidhis involve chanting of the Vedic mantras. Or see Bhagavad Gita 9.13-14, 11.36 etc.
It will also be pertinent for you to quote the meaning of siddhis/sadhanas. The vedic siddhis all involve chanting of Vedic mantras. Indeed siddhi in vedas means siddhi of a vedic mantra.
It is true that Lord Krishna talks about dhyana in one place and thus it is accepted. However, unless you choose to ignore the rest of Bhagavad Gita, any unbiased reading will show that it is actually a Bhaki shastra. In fact Lord Krishna defines a yogi as one who is devoted to Him in multiple places. In other words dhyana, karma etc. are different limbs of Bhakti. It would have been natural for me to provide quotations to show this but for the fact that so far you have only shown insincerity and so those will be a real waste.