Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Avinash

  1. In English when you use the word "somebody", then it is not clear whether it is masculine or feminine. If you want to refer to both, then you use the plural "they" as you have done. There was a time when English grammarians considered it bad because somebody is singular and they is plural. But now many grammarians have started accepting it.

    However, there is no such flexibility in Sanskrit. In Sanskrit, using plural pronoun for singular noun is incorrect.

  2. I am giving translations in Sanskrit. Even for Sanskrit, I have used Roman script, so that you know how to pronounce. Below, I am giving various translations. Pick the one you want. Then I will write that in Devanagri script. As you can see, I have used "set him/her free" instead of "let them go", because that is what actually you intend.


    1. English: If you love somebody, then set him free. If he comes back, then he is yours. Otherwise, he was never yours.

    yadi tvam kashchid janam snehiyasi tadaa tam vimucha

    yadi sah aavartate tadaa sah tava anyathaa sah kadaachana tava naasit


    2. English: If you love somebody, then set her free. If she comes back, then she is yours. Otherwise, she was never yours.

    yadi tvam kashchid janam snehiyasi tadaa tam vimucha

    yadi saa aavartate tadaa saa tava anyathaa saa kadaachana tava naasit

    3. English: If you love somebody, then set him free. If he comes back, then he was yours. Otherwise, he was never yours.

    yadi tvam kashchid janam snehiyasi tadaa tam vimucha

    yadi sah aavartate tadaa sah tava aasit anyathaa sah kadaachana tava naasit

    4. English: If you love somebody, then set her free. If she comes back, then she was yours. Otherwise, she was never yours.

    yadi tvam kashchid janam snehiyasi tadaa tam vimucha

    yadi saa aavartate tadaa saa tava aasit anyathaa saa kadaachana tava naasit

    5. English: If you love somebody, then set him free. If he comes back, then he was always yours. Otherwise, he was never yours.

    yadi tvam kashchid janam snehiyasi tadaa tam vimucha

    yadi sah aavartate tadaa sah sarvadaa tava aasit anyathaa sah kadaachana tava naasit

    6. English: If you love somebody, then set her free. If she comes back, then she was always yours. Otherwise, she was never yours.

    yadi tvam kashchid janam snehiyasi tadaa tam vimucha

    yadi saa aavartate tadaa saa sarvadaa tava aasit anyathaa saa kadaachana tava naasit



    Whether Vyasa wrote it or not, it is rejected because it is against Shruti.

    You are saying that it is possible that something is written by Vyasa in Mahabharata but it is wrong. As you yourself said, Mahabharat (an itihasa) is a better pramana than any purana (including sattvik). Therefore, if Vyasa could write something wrong in Mahabharata, it is possible that he wrote something wrong in a sattvik purana also?

    You have said earlier that if some verse in a sattvik purana contradicts shruti, then that verse should be rejected. Fine, no problem.

    But consider a verse from a sattvik purana, which neither supports nor contradicts shruti. In other words, shruti does not say anything about it? Should we accept or reject? So far, you have been accepting it. But why can't it be wrong?

    If Vyasa can write something wrong in sattvik purana, then even if some verse does not contradict shruti, it may be wrong.

    Padma Purana calls Shiva Purana as tamasic. Such a thing is nowhere there in shruti. So, why should we accept it?

    Do not say that it does not contradict shruti, so it is pramana. It does not contradict shruti, but it does not support shruti either.


    Avinash, the phrase in 11.15 is brahmanam isham kamalasana-stham.

    Kimfelix, did you notice something? The word is brahmanam and not brahmaam. Lord Brahma is pronounced as brahmaa. So, the object form of this should be brahmaam. But the verse contains brahmanam, which means that the corresponding noun is brahman. If we say brahmanam here refers to Lord Brahma, then it would mean that Arjuna called Lord Brhama as brahman.


    I said, stop quoting the Mahabharata.

    Excellent! You quote from Gita, which is a part of Mahabharata, but you prevent people from quoting from Mahabharata.

    You say that Itihasa > Purana. You agree that Mahabharata is itihasa and Bhagavatam is purana. You quote from Bhagavatam but you say not to quote from Mahabharata.

    If you are able to find any verses in Mahabharata where it is written that Krishna worships Himself, when worshipping Shiva, then you quote it. But, if somebody else quotes from Mahabharata, then you stop him.


    And Isana is identified as Mahadeva, Pasupati, Ugra, Rudra in Satapatha brahmana.

    BG 11.15 uses the word isam and not isanam. It is in object i.e. karma karaka. If we convert it into subject i.e. karta karaka, then we find that BG 11.15 refers to Isa and not to Isana. So, saying that this verse refers to Lord Mahadev means that the word Isa refers to Lord Mahadev.

  7. I know Sanskrit to some extent. Based on that knowledge, I agree that as per Sanskrit grammar, narayaNa (with second N as murdhanya N) refers to a specific person.



    Similarly, we take it to mean that 'Rudra' here pertains to the soul of Rudra, ie Vishnu.

    If you read my earlier posts, I have clearly written that calling Rudra is an aspect of Supreme Brahman. Therefore, calling Rudra as Supreme means that Brahman is supreme. I also wrote in another post that calling Rudra as supreme means that Brahman dwelling within Rudra is supreme. I do not remember whether in those posts I used the word "Rudra" or "Mahadev", but it does not matter because the meaning is the same.

    I am saying that it is Brahman within Rudra. You agree with this. But you also say that it is Vishnu dwelling within Rudra. Combining the two statements means that the word Brahman and Vishnu are synonyms. Vishnu means all pervading one. Therefore, it is perfectly all right to say that Brahman is Vishnu i.e. Brahman is all pervading. But, the problem I am facing in explaining my point is because there are so many aspects of Vishnu. Let me talk about Lord Vishnu, who lives in Vaikunth Dham with Laxmi or in ocean of milk, and who takes incarnations as Rama, Krishna etc.

    So, one meaning of Vishnu is all-pervading. Another meaning is Lord Vishnu (of the trinity). If it is proved that Shruti uses these two words as synonyms, then your point is established.

    But, there is another way to look at it: -

    Rudra is supreme means that Brahman is supreme. Since Brahman is Vishnu i.e. all pervading, it means that Vishnu (i.e. all pervading Brahman) is supreme. Here, we both agree.

    But now consider the statement: -

    Lord Vishnu (of the trinity) is supreme. It can have two meanings. One meaning is that Lord Vishnu is same as Brahman. This is what you are saying.

    However, there is yet another meaning: -

    Vishnu dwelling within Vishnu is supreme. In this sentence, I am using the first Vishnu to mean Brahman, who is all pervading and the second Vishnu to mean Lord Vishnu of the trinity. In other words, Brahman dwelling within Lord Vishnu (of the trinity) is supreme. If you read my previous posts, you will find that earlier also I said the same.


    Both of you need to first explain the verses that denigrates Rudra.

    I can say that you first need to explain the verses that glorify Rudra as supreme. You are explaining by saying that the word Rudra is used for Lord Vishnu in these verses. And the verses, which calls Rudra as sinful, refers to Lord Mahadev. I agree that the same word can have different meanings. But the context also must be different. If the word Rudra is used in two places in the same context, then it is quite logical to think that the meaning in the two places is the same.

    The verse of Shvetashavara upanishad, which calls Rudra as supreme and the verses, which call Rudra as "lord of the mountains" are in the same context. Therefore, if Rudra here refers to Lord Vishnu, it means that Lord Vishnu is referred to as "Lord of the mountains". But, it is known that Lord Mahadev is called as the Lord of the mountains, and mountain here is Kailash.

    Of course, it is quite possible to call Lord Vishnu also as Lord of the mountains. Being omnipresent, He exists everywhere including mountains. But, usually, the title "Lord of the mountains" refers to Lord Shankara.


    I see. Then why did Sri Hari delude as Buddha and Mohini?

    Buddha wanted to stop people from killing animals in the name of religion. Mohini wanted to give nectar to gods because, if demons has drunk it, then being of evil nature, they would have created havoc.



    Because asuras like Avinash, who are tamasic in nature, are not cleansed of Karmas to understand Hari.

    You are saying that Vishnu does not want tamasic people to be cleansed of karmas. In other words, if somebody is tamasic, Vishnu wants him to remain tamsic. Does not sound like a good God.:( Even if it is believed, as you say that, tamasic Puranas were written for people like me, then you should be happy that I am giving importance to tamasic Puranas also (together with other Puranas). After all, the purpose of tamasic Puranas is getting served.:deal:


    Where did I say Vishnu cannot be called Rudra? He can.

    Read my message again. I never said that you said Vishnu cannot be called as Rudra. I know you said that He can. To repeat what I wrote: -


    "You may claim that Lord Vishnu can be called as Rudra but, Lord Shiva i.e. Mahadev cannot be called as Vishnu according to Sanskrit grammar."

  11. Let me add that Shiva Purana lists 1008 names of Lord Shiva, in which the name "Vishnu" is included. You may argue that Shiva Purana is tamasic, and therefore, does not contain correct information. But here I am not talking about the correctness of information but about the usage of Sanskrit grammar.

    Take an analogy. Suppose that I make the following statement: -

    "I am a doctor."

    The above statement is a lie. But it uses English grammar correctly. But if you say that as per Sanskrit grammar, the title "Vishnu" cannot be used for Lord Shiva, then you are trying to say that Shiva Purana uses Sanskrit grammar incorrectly.

    I know you want to say that Ved Vyas has given incorrect statements in Shiva Purana. But, do you want to say that he has used Sanskrit grammar incorrectly in this Purana? As I explained above by giving an example, there is diffrence between a statement being factually incorrect and the statement being grammatically incorrect.

  12. The gods were talking to Shiva. They were referring to him in second person and calling him supreme. Vishnu was nearby. If they had to pray to Vishnu, they could have done that. It was Shiva and not Vishnu who drank the poison on the request of gods. In spite of this, if somebody claims that the gods were praying to Vishnu dwelling within Shiva, then it is too much of strech of imagination. The claim that gods went to Shiva because Shiva is their guru holds no water. Guru is needed to approach God. When God is nearby, then there is nothing wrong in talking to God. Yudhisthir worshipped Krsna. He did not call Dronacharya or Kripacharya as supreme thinking that people will know he was calling Vishnu inside Drona or Kripa as supreme.

    Yes, there should be reconciliation, but not by forcibly interpreting verses to support one's point of view. We can say that both Vishnu and Shiva are different aspects of supreme Brahman.

    You are saying that Shiva called Vishnu as greater. So, what? In Shiva Purana, Vishnu calls Shiva as greater. Do not say that Shiva Purana is tamasic and hence not pramana. What did Ved Vyas gain by intentionally writing wrong things? If you believe that he can on purpose lie and mislead people, then how can you have trust in other works of his? How can you be sure that what he has written in sattvik puranas is correct. If he can write so many lies in tamasic puranas, then he could write lies in sattvik puranas also.

    Talking about Shruti, it is clearly written in Shvetashvatara Upanishad that Shiva is supreme. Those who claim that Shiva is a jiva argue that this upanishad calls Vishnu by the name of Rudra. Again, too much of strech of imagination!

    Let us see some verses from the upanishad: -

    "3.2 For there is one Rudra only, they do not allow a second, who rules all the worlds by his powers. He stands behind all persons, and after having created all worlds he, the protector, rolls it up at the end of time."

    When a verse says that there was only Narayan, one without a second, then you say that there was Lord Vishnu, one without a second. You may claim that Lord Vishnu can be called as Rudra but, Lord Shiva i.e. Mahadev cannot be called as Vishnu according to Sanskrit grammar. But, let us see verse 3.11 of Shvetashvatara Upanishad: -

    "3.11. That Bhagavat exists in the faces, the heads, the necks of all, he dwells in the cave (of the heart) of all beings, he is all-pervading, therefore he is the omnipresent Shiva."

    This verse uses the words omnipresent Shiva. You may claim that the word Shiva here refers to Lord Vishnu. But, we know that the word Vishnu etymologically means omnipresent. This verse uses the term "omnipresent Shiva". This means that etymologically there is no contradiction between the words Vishnu (omnipesent) and Shiva. I agree that Lord Vishnu can be called as Shiva. But we know that Lord Mahadev is also called as Shiva. Since, the verse uses omnipresent (i.e. Vishnu) and Shiva together, there cannot be anything etymologically wrong if it is said that Lord Mahadev is omnipresent.

    If I say that Lord Shankar is omnipresent, then how does it violate any rule of Sanskrit grammar?

    Consider verses 3.5 and 3.6: -

    "5. O Rudra, thou dweller in the mountains, look upon us with that most blessed form of thine which is auspicious, not terrible, and reveals no evil!"

    "6. O lord of the mountains, make lucky that arrow which thou, a dweller in the mountains, holdest in thy hand to shoot. Do not hurt man or beast!"

    In these verses, Rudra is called as "dweller in the mountains" and "lord of the mountains". It is well known that Lord Shiva dwells in the mountains (Kailash). Of course, Lord Vishnu also dwells there being omnipresent. But Shvetavashtra Upanishad uses only those titles for Rudra, which are almost always used for Lord Shiva. But, still claiming that these titles are used for Lord Vishnu in the upanishad is forcibly proving one's point.

  13. You call Bhagavatam as pramana. In Bhagavatam, it is written that devas called lord Shiva as supreme. You interpret it to mean that Vishnu dwelling within Shiva is supreme. When asked why devas did not go directly to Vishnu, then you argue that one should go to guru.

    I agree that one should approach God through guru. But if God is in front of me, then there is nothing wrong in talking to God directly. Vishnu was standing nearby. The devas could have easily talked to Vishnu.

    In Rajasuya yajna, when Sahdev suggested that Krishna should be worshipped, then Yudhisthir worshipped Krishna. He did not call Dronacharya or Krpacharya as supreme.

    And who drank the poison? Did Lord Shiva or did Lord Vishnu dwelling within Lord Shiva drink the poison?

  14. I never considered newspapers and TV serials as pramana. As I wrote very clearly, even on seeing Shiva mentioned as supreme in magazines and TV serials, I continued to think Vishnu as supreme. However, I do give importance to Shiva Purana and other scriptures. Your argument is that Ved Vyas knew that what he was writing in tamasic Puranas was wrong and still he wrote it. And you say that it was for good purpose. According to you, on purpose telling lies and misleading people is for good purpose.

  • Create New...