Raguraman

Cite the verse and the context fully and we will see.

 

 

Hi Raghu Pandit.

 

I have always admired your brilliant logic. As per you EKO RUDRO DVITTIYA NA TASHTHU refers to Narayana alone. I agree.

 

So, Narayana must be sinful since He was alone. He gave birth to Brahma from whom sinful Rudra was born.

I think you can understand better if you read my entire arguments properly. I cannot teach you like a kid. I think you are old enough and capable of thinking by yourself. Please read my posts very carefully and fully.

This is not what I concluded as you allude. My point was based on Shatapatha Brahmana verses, which very clearly states that Lord BrahmA gave birth to RudrA. Hence Svetasvatara Upanishad points to Lord Narayana by the word RudrA. In Svetasvatara it does not refer to Umapati by the word RudrA but to Narayana only. There are indications. One point is giving birth to BrahmA, possessing thousands of parts etc.

One may ask why Narayana is mentioned as RudrA. The answer is in Bhallaveya Sruti and Visvakarma SuktA. I have explained this logically more than 3 times. Is this so difficult to understand as opposed to be accepted ? Atanu, I am sure you are not that incapable. No point in beating around the bush. If you have the honesty and courage, face the truth as stated in Vedas.

If one interprets as you do, then one will also have to come to the conclusion that Vedas state contradictory things and that Brahman is anapahatapaapma(This is not my conclusion, it is yours).

That is path of Yoga. Which you can't follow nor understand. It is not a path of arguments to start with. It is Vedic.

All your claims are yours alone. Whether something is vedic or not, one has to know by reading Vedas.

Advaita is the most anti-Vedic teaching, in the sense it is daimetrically opposed to Vedic teaching.

As for Yoga, it is a process taught in Vedas, tha requires the right knowledge to accompany that process. Without that right knowledge from study of Vedas, whatever you do is a waste of your time.

Yes whose indweller is Narayana, but who himself every yuga Rudra is also in the heart of Narayana. The atma of Narayana (!)

 

......

YES this is important. BUT it is both ways. Narayan the indweller of Rudra and Rudra the indweller of Narayana! This is the truth Raghu. See it.

 

Whio cares about your faulty and wrong opinions ?

The verses are clear that Lord Narayana aka Shri Krishna is the Soul of Universe. As per Shatapatha Brahamana, Shiva is not.

This is not a simple quote. And not to be understood simply. It points to the same line as ahambrahmasmi.

Aham Brahmasmi is said by Brahman here and in Upanishads. This is a separate issue.

Still you cannot explain or accpet the Shatapatha Brahmana verses where Lord Rudra himself says that he is sinful(anapahatapaapma).

Can you ? You cannot, because there truth is very explicit unlike diametrically opposed to your fallacious premise.

I can fairly understand your logic Raghu.

 

LOL! You reject Mahabharata as something concocted when it comes to Anushasana Parva just to disprove my point, saying itihas is tempered with, but when it comes to proving your own point, you copy paste a long part of the same Mahabharata just to prove impound your own point!! That is logic?

This point itself shows that you did not understand anything about my logic.

So let me repeat again.

1. If any verse from smriti, Itihaasas, Puranas contradict Vedas ie Sruti they are to be discarded, as there is a possibility of being concocted.

2. Point no 1 does not imply that entire Mahabharata is discarded. It is only those portions that contradict Sruti are to be discarded.

3. Now go and read the verses from Mahabharatha where Shri Krishna clears your doubts.

4. Shatapatha Brahmana, being Sruti cannot be sidelined. It is a death blow to claimants of advaita, Shivites etc. If you have anything more logical to explain please do write.

If you are truthful and honest guy, you would think about this verse from Shatapatha Brahmana. But I do not think I can expect any better from guys like you.

Since you already disapproved Mahabharata as a mere concoction and not real, then this whole long post submitted by you is not to be considered seriously at all. You yourself discredited it in teh first place! Now you can't use Mahabharata as a reference dude! This was about your logic.

Read my above argument carefully. I never said entire Mahabharatha is to be discarded. I said certain verses in Mahabharatha are probably concocted when they contradict Sruti. Regardless if whether being concocted or not, those verses that contradict Sruti is to be discarded.

So now do me a favor. Go and read those verses from Mahabharatha I copy pasted as it is relevant to your question. There Lord Krishna clearly explains that he worships only HiMSELF and NOT RUDRA, Umapati.

However, on a more serious note, I have no problem at all accepting both the Shanti Parva and Anushasan Parva. And I have no problem accepting Lord Vishnu as Supreme and Lord Shiva as Supreme too.

How does it matter what you think. Prove from Srutis.

I suggest, you study Advait Vedanta along with your own davait bhava for a more complete understanding.

I have read enough. Advaita is FALSE as per Vedas.

Why not just Narayana as you claim? And the secret is not easy to understand if you research with a God positioning agenda. Again. I accept both the views and not just one view. I can't belittle Shiva in any way or consider him any lower than Narayana/Hari. AND CERTAINELY NOT A MERE DEMI-GOD! Whatever scriptures I have studied are enough to prove that to me. And after all, its also a matter of personal belief. I like your way of proving. But still on the basis of scriptural study alone, you can't realize even the self. Forget Narayana/Hari. All you can do is assume. Nothing more. Just a belief. But no realization.

So what. If somebody says I have realized that S is same as V, should I agree with him. How do you know if he/she is realized ?

1. you should be realized

2. There should be some basis for ordinary people to find it out.

The basis for us is Vedas. That is why the special status for Vedas as apaurasheya. So let us stick to logic instead of irrelevant topics like my realization or yours. It can easily backfire on you.

By your logic(not mine), since you are not realized you are not in any position to tell others whether they are correct or wrong. Such arguments are unproductive for you.

The same Lord Hari explains his Gita to Arjuna - greatest of the yogis, one after the other chapter and still Arjuna fails to completely understand unless Hari finally openes his agya chakra with shaktipaat kriya and shows him the universal form in him. And then no arguments are needed anymore. Hearing is not seeing. Sorry. And I assume you have not seen Shiva nor Narayana.

Mindless opinions based on one's own opinions and arrogance. Base your arguments on Sruti. Otherwise every tom, dick and harry can say anything they want and the end result is chaos as we today have in so called Hinduism that strayed far away from Vedas even to such an extent as to reject Vedas. The case in point is Lingayats.

I'm not a vedantin engaged in verse warfare proving, disproving. I'm a sadhak and way of sadhna means everything and is indeed everything. Because without sadhna there is nothing. There is Narayana, but you can't realize him without sadhna. You can't get his mercy without earning it first either. No matter how much you jump up and down and shout with arguments from scriptures.

Who told you that scriptural study does not constitute Sadhna ? Why else there are scriptures provided ?

Though a lawyer can prove false as true or otherwise, it doesn't change things really. And the truth cannot be realized without sadhna. It comes on a different level. Not on a level of reading scriptures. Scripture reading is important too. But not everything. Only "gyan" brings to liberation. And "gyan" is not theory alone. Theory is knowledge. This is what you are engaged into and are flaunting. But it is when you apply this in life and get results from it, that is gyana. Anyways... dismiss this post as irrelevant.

Jnana means knowledge. So whatever you start with wrong knowledge, you are not going to get anything. All your questions have been answered clearly from Scriptures. If you still want to follow your own path fine.

No and nor are you.

I didn't say I don't recognize the Srutis. If you developed better understanding, you would start noticing that I do not recognize this one sided positioning agenda. Because this is not totally Vedic either. As you mentioned Srutis are contradictory and equally important, they hail both Narayana and Rudra/Shiva as Supreme. Why?

I just thought you do not read fully, but you are real dull if you cannot understand what I have said.

I said either we have to conclude that Srutis contradict each other or we have to interpret Sritis differently as per point 2.

Is that difficult for you to understand. I choose point 2 instead of doubting the infallibility of Srutis.

Sorry, incorrect.

 

In Judaism, ONLY Elders of the Community and THEY will decide which is to follow and which is not. They are like Brahmins in Hindusm.

In Hinduism, we do not follow what Brahmins say, but what Vedas say. If the so called Brahmins do not follow Vedas, we will reject them.

As for Judaism, there were(pharisees, sadducees, essene etc.) and there are(hasidic, reform, orthodox etc.) so many sects with their own interpretation of texts similar to Hinduism.

You know, your statement that Hindus not killing each other means that there is no problem is LAUGHABLE. Fact remain that there is NO UNITY among Hindus.

What makes you think so ? Without Hindu unity, we could not have survived as one country after being invaded for over 1400 years. We are still one country for ony one reason ie. Hindu unity. I do not understand what is laughable here. Atleast we were still holding on to our country unlike jews who lost their country for about 2000 years.

And how to get them interested in Hindusm when some group like Vaishnavists could come, claim anyone who belief what they believe will get Moksha while the rest will continue to suffer?

For your information, that is what our scriptures say. It does not mean we Hindus will not help each other during crisis times or even happier times. Infact all schools of Hinduism belonging to diametrically opposing schools cooperate even today when Hindu society is attacked as it had before. We Hindus are not fools.

The actual problem is lack of information and disinformation by anti Hindus. Hindus will wake up then.

"God is One but Sages calls Him by different Name" - THIS is teaching of Hindusm. What Vaishnavists follow is just a mixture of Christian egoism and Secular Hindus belief.

You do not even know where the alleged verse incorectly quoted by you is given. Given that you are an unbeliever in Vedas I would not even bother to correct you. But for the benefit of other Hindu readers, the vedic verse does not state that. It means that all the names of Devatas(such as Indra, Rudra, Brahma etc.) actually refer to the one supreme Lord, ie. Narayana. If one reads the verses in context, then it becomes clear.

As for what Vaishnavites say, they are right. Since you do not know an iota of Hinduism, you should desist from making utterly ridiculous statements about the position of Vaishnavites. These statements only betrays your ignorance of issues here.

It is better for you to go and learn your religion well. What is Jewish guys interest in Hindus and Hinduism here anyway ?

Go home and teach Judaism to Jews, instead of telling us what Hinduism teaches.

Raghu,

So one Shatapatha Brahmana verse replaces everything else in the Vedic spiritual culture as well as at least 50 thousand years of Vedic history???

I understand your eagerness to 'prove' Lord Shiva a mere Demi-God. And address him as some sort of a "being".

These are illogical statements. Every statement of Sruti is infallible and equally important. You have no capacity to understand logic properly.

The Shatapatha Brahmana verses explain very clearly and cannot be interpreted in any other way. It is clearly talking about Umapati Rudra Deva or Lord Shiva and none else.

While in Shvetasvatara Upanishad verses there is no such indication. Apparently it talks about a being called RudrA who gave birth to HiranyagarbhA. There is also mention of this being possessing thousands of parts which is similar to Purusa Sukta. Purusa Sukta talks about Narayana which is confirmed explicitly in Tatittiriya Aranyaka as Lord of Sree and Hree. Now one can ask why Narayana is mentioned by the name Rudra in Svetasvatara Upanishad. The answer is Visvakarma Sukta of Rig Veda and Bhallaveya Sruti where it is implicitly and explicitly mentioned that Narayana is the real owner of all Devatas names.

Besides Isavasya Upanishad clearly mentiones Brahman is without defects, while Lord RudrA is mentioned as anapahatapaapma in Shatapatha Brahmana. Hence Lord RudrA is not Brahman. Case closed. You can jump, shout, cry, throw insults, do whatever you want. As per Vedas Lord RudrA is not Brahman and hence that is the truth period.

BUT, you neverthless failed to explain the real life examples of the high souled Shiva devotees down the ages that I mentioned in previous mails. You simply brushed off the whole Mahabharata as a mere concocted nonsense!! This is not accepted! Not accepted anywhere!

Itihaasas are secondary when compared to Srutis, ie. they are authored by somebody. Besides itihaasas can be, were and are being tampered with unlike Vedas. Hence when they oppose Vedas they are to be rejected as unauthorized rendering of scriptures.

It is irrelevant if Lord Shiva's devotees are high souled here. The truth remains truth regardless of what people become and what people do.

My question is still valid, why would Rama, Krishna worship Lord Shiva with so much devotion?

Please read fully and carefully, especially the verse in bold red.

http://www.dvaita.org/list/list_44/msg00112.html

Public username and password: dvaita

Reference: Shanti Parva of Mahabharata. Verses 12.328.5 onwards

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(**Any idea why the singular is

used?**), 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] (as she appoints and manages Brahma, Rudra and

other deities as per the command of the Lord).

Note: The thoughts expressed in the above 3 lines are the same as reflected

in "AmbhR^iNI sUkta" and 7th adhyaya of Dvadashastotra.

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(i.e. Narayana, the indweller of Rudra) 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.

But you said - Srutis are fallible.

The conclusion can be either 1 or 2. In that same post I mentioned that no 2. is right. I adid not say anything about 1. Learn to read properly first.

Not really. I don't recognize this as the highest authority.

How does it matter if you recognize or do not recognize Srutis ? You are not that important.

2. Too many groups break apart from mainstream Hindusm and claim theirs is the correct one (eg Vaishnavists). This leads to disunity among Hindus.

Really. Yet in Judaism we have orthodox jews doing the same.

I do not think this is a problem among Hindus at all as there are no Hindus killing each other. The real problem is majority Hindus are uninformed and disinterested in the welfare of their religion and society.

Hare Bolo!

 

Good to hear from you - how's it going? Well I hope!

 

Hari Aum Prabhu,

Good to hear you too.

Hope everything is good.

Did Sri Krishna created Vaishnavism OR did those who followed Vedas in the past called themselves Vaishnavists?

Those who followed Vedas followed Shri Krishna, who is none other than Vishnu.

Svet. Up.

yo devaanaaM prabhavashchodbhavashcha

vishvaadhipo rudro maharshhiH

hiraNyagarbha.n janayaamaasa puurva.n

sa no buddhyaa shubhayaa sa.nyunaktu .. 3.4..

3.4. He, the creator and supporter of the gods, Rudra, the great seer, the lord of all, he who formerly gave birth to Hiranyagarbha, may he endow us with good thoughts.

Rudra is progenitor of Hiraynagarbha and not son of Brahma. What you say is like saying that a wall was the progenitor of Nrisimha. And please note that Rudra is prayed to open up the Buddhi. No wonder that some intellects are clogged.

Hari Aum,

Aum Nama Shivaya,

If you have read the Shatapata Brahmana verses properly, you will not get confused like this.

In Shatapatha Brahmana, BrahmA gives his child names one after another when his child cries and claims to be sinful (anapahatapaapma). The names are Rudra, Sarva, Pasupati, Ugra, Usana, Bhava, Mahadeva, Ishana. All the above names given to the child indicates that the child is unmistakably Lord Shiva, Umapati. There is no single reason to think otherwise in this particular verse.

Now it is also important to note that here this child(who is Lord Shiva) claims to be sinful (anapahatapaapma) in nature when born and cries and requests BrahmA to cleanse his sins by giving above names.

By putting both points together we can conclude Lord Shiva is not Brahman or supreme.

All we know in Svetasvatara Upanishad is that, a being named RudrA is mentioned. Yet this upanishad mentions RudrA giving birth to BrahmA.

So the conclusion should be

1. Srutis contradict each other and hence Srutis are fallible

2. Shvetasvatara Upanishad mentions a different being by the name RudrA.

No 2 is the right conclusion. Also Svetatara mentions about this being RudrA possessing 1000s of heads, etc. which is similar to Purusa Sukta Verses. We also know that Purusa Sukta verses refer to Lord of Shri and Hree from Tatiriya Aranyaka.

Also we know from Bhallaveya Sruti and Visvakarma Sukta of Rig Veda that all the names of Devatas belong to Narayana. Besides it is well known that Isavasya Upansihad refers to Yajna(avatara of Narayana) as beyong impurities.

Hence RudrA in Svetasvatara upanishad refers to Narayana, while Umapati RudrA is (anapahatapaapma) as per Shatapatha Brahmana.

Therefore all your claims are iirelevant and illogical.

You could give no answer to all I've written, simply dismissing it as emotional rant!

What Rudra are you talking about?

When Vedas mention RudrA in singular, it refers to only Lord Shiva, the dweller of Kailasa, Umapati.

There are thousands of Rudras!!!

There are only 11 Rudras as per Vedas, including Lord Shiva, Umapati.

Brahma says that about one Rudra, but look what Brahma says elsewhere while worshipping Lord Siva!!! He hails Shiva as the top most deity to be worshiped and recognizes him as the master of the universe too!! You don't quote that! Why not?

Nonesense and proven wrong by the same Shatapatha Brahmana verses.

Are you really talking about Lord Sadashiva? We are talking about Shiva here! I dare you show me one place where Krishna - your top most object of worship says that Lord Sadashiva is a mere "Demi-God"!

All these verses are concocted and must be rejected as it opposes Sruti. By the way, there is no SadaShiva etc. which some schools have manufactured. Perhaps you should try to answer or give an argument against the Sruti verse logically intead of giving more emotional rants.

I will reply only to logical replies from now.

..oops someone just woke up in the US to decide the position of Lord Shiva!

Lord Shiva who while blinks an eyelid - several of Brahma's nights pass... One Brahma's day is the complete cycle of all yugas.. Now we have someone who can finally give a verdict on Lord Shiva. Great!!

Instead of deciding who woke up or not, you must contend with the Sruti verse which states very clearly that Lord Shiva is a demogod and is below BrahmA in position. Note that the verses are from Vedas(Sruti) and I dare you explain this verse, where RudrA(Lord Shiva) himself states that he is sinful.

Can you give any logical arguments without any personal attacks.

Also all your statements in Mahabaratha are concocted or mistranslated simply based on the vedic verse quoted from Shatapatha Brahmana.

The point to note is that SRUTI is a higher authority than Itihaasas.

Hence RudrA Deva is a demigod period. Your emotional rants are irrelevant.

Shiva is definitely a "demi-God" as propagated by some bogus fanatics.

Lord Shiva is most definitely a Demigod.

The quoted verses from Mahabharata are to be rejected as concocted or included in Mahabarata for the simple fact that these verses are in direct opposition to Veda Pramanas.

Shatapatha Brahmana (6.1.3.3-20) clearly state that RudrA being born of BrahmA. In addition, RudrA in these verses cries and asks BrahmA to eradicate his sins by giving him names. Thereafter BrahmA gives RudrA seven names as UgrA, RudrA etc.

6.1.3.9

tam prajApatirabraviit | kumaara kíM rodiSi yachrámaattápasó 'dhi jaato 'siíti so& 'braviidánapahatapaapmaa vaá asmyáhitanaamaa naama ma dhehiíti tásmaatputrásya jaatásya naáma kuryaatpaapmaánamevaa&sya tadápahantyápi dvitiíyamápi tRtiíyamabhipUrvámevaa&sya tátpaapmaánamápahanti

Rudra is anapahatapaapmaa i.e. Rudra is not freed from EVIL

In Ishavasyaupanishad, Lord Narayana (Yajna an avatara of Narayana )is explained as without any doshas or evil.

Hence by this verse alone(Veda being the highest paramana or authority), RudrA Deva is not the Supreme being.

Hmph ... the answer is in your Avatar (of Sri Ganesha) and you asking me for answers.

 

How did Sri Ganesha go around such a big World?

May be you should look for a burning bush somewhere around a synogogue or some hill and bring in some more commandments printed on some stone tablet.

Or may be look for idol worshipeers among jews and ask their borthers to kill them.

This may be a solution.

Hmph ... 50 years ago, there was no group named Vaishnavism. Which part of it suppose to be considered Hindusm which sprung for the past 5,000 years?

Vaishnavism was there existing atleast for last 1600 years as per history.

Ignorant people do not even know that Vaishnavism is what Vedas are themselves teach, Bhagavad Gita teaches.

I am disturbed by the Mayavada teaching that denies the individuality and preciousness of each jiva-soul.

 

I heard the Padma Purana predicted that the Mayavada teaching would come and spread, and it was taught by Lord Shiva who incarnated as Shankara. He taught this distorted version of Vedantic philosophy to save people from Buddhist lies, for one thing, and return the people of Bharat back to the Vedic religion, even if it was in a distorted form. It was a form of Vedanta that could "convince" those of a Buddhist bent, to turn away from Buddhism. Is this correct? Correct me if I am wrong on anything I said.

 

Who composed the Padma Purana, and where can I read it?

I am calling this bluff of Sankara being Lord Shiva's avatara.

There is not a single verse that can prove this hoax. The so called verses claimed by ISKCON is false. There is no such verse in Padma Purana.

On the other hand there is enough evidence and verses from scriptures that prove Sankara is a Daitya called Manimantha from Garuda Purana, Vayu Purana etc.

I quote some of them here.

Garuda Purana:

maNimAnnAma daityastu shaN^karAkhyo bhaviShyati |

sarveShAM saN^karaM yastu kariShyati na saMshayaH || 3:16:70

tena shaN^karanAmA.asau bhaviShyati khageshvara |

dharmAn.h bhAgavatAn.h sarvAn.h vinashyati sarvathA || 3:16:71

A Demon by name maNimAn will come into being as Shankara, who will, no doubt, pollute everything. This is why, O King of birds (Garuda), his name will be Shankara; he will pollute and destroy all BhAgavata Dharmas.

There are no demi-gods in hinduism...all gods are one...they are the many aspects of the supreme godhead ... whom you call krishna or narayana....god is one...for the creation he divided himself into various aspects. Shakti or power in other words is the goddess...is the very power of god. dont make futile arguments saying...worship of demigods is wrong etc...in hinduism there are only various aspects of god...he is know to various people by various names period.

 

there is no wrong way or right way. do what makes u feel close to the divine

About 99% of Hindus in India have not read anything from Vedas or sastras and yet think they know better than others.

In gita Shri Krishna clearly states that none is equal to HIM and none is above HIM. Scripturally all your claims are FALSE and are merely your ignorant emotional rants.

Bhagavad Gita:

O Arjuna, even those devotees who worship demigods with faith, they too worship Me, but in an improper way(i.e. not in the prescribed way). (9.23)

Because I alone am the enjoyer of all Yajna, and the Lord. But, people do not know My true transcendental nature. Therefore, they fall (into the repeated cycles of birth and death). (9.24)

Vedas are also very clear as to who is the Lord. Lord Visnu is declared the Supreme and above all other Devatas including, Lakshmi Devi, Lord BrahmA, Lord Shiva, Parvati Devi etc. who are given in the order of superiority from highest to lowest. Lakshmi Devi is highest, followed by BrahmA, Saraswati Devi, Rudra or Shiva, parvati Devi in that order.

Even Lakshmi Devi cannot be compared Lord Narayana.

Question about Lord Ram allegedly worshipping Lord Shiva:

Please do a reading of scriptures rather than arguing by seeing some TV serials and movies. Knowing religion involves studying carefully.

http://www.dvaita.org/list/list_50/msg00078.html

Public Uername and password: dvaita

Padma purana says:

ahamapyavatAreShu tvAM cha rudra mahAbala |

tAmasAnAM mohanArthaM pUjayAmi yuge yuge ||

in the 'tAraka-brahma-rAja-samhitA', Vishnu says that he would,

for the sake of deluding the tAmasAs, worship Rudra in his

avatArAs and people will be deluded by such an adhArmic act.Shiva seeks:

anyadevaM varaM dehi prasiddhaM sarvajantuShu |

martyo bhUtvA bhavAneva mama sAdhaya keshava ||

mAM bhajasva cha devesha varaM matto gR^ihANa cha |

yenA.ahaM sarvabhUtAnAM pUjyAtpUjyataro.abhavam.h ||

Vishnu says:

devakAryAvatAreShu mAnuShatvamupeyivAn.h |

tvAmevArAdhayiShyAmi mama tvaM varado bhava ||

in the Rudra-gItA section of the varAha purANa (and a similar

incident in the kUrma purANa) narrate Shiva's obtaining the

boon of being worshipped by the Lord in his incarnations.

Thus, just like the Lord granted the boon of being the

charioteer to Arjuna, here too, his bestowing such a boon

should be seen as an indication of His easy accessibility to

his devotees (Ashrita-saulabhya-pradarshAnarthatvena) and not

as a hindrance to his being the parameshvara.

Hare Krishna,

Your Spiritual eyes are not open yet. That is why Jesus Said "Let those who have Ears hear".

This is the reply to your mail

 

 

I too feel the same about you. So why not read your gospels first where jesus tells umpteen number of times that he is no god.

YOU SAID - Men cannot become a god

 

Obviously men cannot become God. We all agree contrary to some hindus who feel that after innumerable rebirths men can become gods [devtas]

 

 

Devatas are not GOD as per Vaishnavism. So your statement makes no point at all. Besides your understanding is completely flawed.

Yes so true A dead Man cannot be called God. God is living Like Jesus who rose up to declare that he is God.

 

 

So jesus died first to rise up again. GOD does not die at any time. Only pretend gods die.

Yes it is not necessary for God to become human and die like Humans. But God knew that the only way to redeem man was to present Himself as a sinless sacrifice to wash away the sins of man. so that whoever believes in his sacrifice will have eternal life with him in heaven after this physical death.

 

 

Fairy tales. So who said GOD had no other choice than to offer HIMSELF as sacrifice. Your bible is fallible and makes ignorant comments as any other man made book. Besides how is it righteous to punish one being for another being's faults. This is unrighteousness and demonic to the core. All animal sacrifices or human sacrifices for somebody's intentional or unintentional sins are really demonic in nature. Hence your pretend god's human sacrifice itself is based on unrighteousness and hence cannot save anybody much less jesus himself.

Do you think GOD is limited that HE was forced to offer HIMSELF as sacrifice to save others ? For us GOD(Krishna) has unlimited powers. HE(Krishna), the LORD, by HIS mere thought can save everybody. Man suffers only because of his follies, and GOD has nothing to do with it. When man turns to GOD(Krishna) with real understanding, HE saves them by HIS powers. HE does not need to die, physically or otherwise, like some pretend man gods.

YOU - HE can save all living beings merely by HIS thought.

 

That is not true and it is not backed by any scripture so dont create your own scriptures.

 

 

and yet you yourself are following one man made scripture, written by men called bible.

This is what I said. You think that GOD is limited in powers. The very thought is blasphemous. Remember that GOD is omnipotent. Besides VEDAS affirm what I said. Upanishads say that Narayana(Krishna) offers salvation to whom HE chooses. This shows that by HIS mere thought HE offers salvation to deserving devotees. Note that this does not imply HIS(Krishna's) limitations.

God does not go back on his own rules - THE WAGES OF SIN IS DEATH - is the rule in Gods kingdom. And so man had to die {Physical as well as spiritually]

 

 

Man's death is only physically and not spiritually. Now you are following a man made scripture full of fallacies here.

but god so loved the world that he created a way for man to have eternal life through the sinless sacrifice of his son Jesus Christ.

 

 

Two words. Fairy tales. Your belief does not even follow old testament. No wonder Jews rejected jesus and christianity as well.

YOU - He does not cry like a helpless human being and call for another god at any time.

 

You dont understand yet. He came on earth in human form to die as a human Once for All [for it is impossible for God to die].

 

 

So here you agree that GOD cannot die. Whether jesus id god or not is another story. Jesus never said he was god, also jesus affirms he is not god, which you proved in your own words below.

He lived in the flesh and bore all the sufferings of humans as a man.

 

 

By your own words you admit the corruptible nature of your pretend man god called jesus.

You say that jesus was born in flesh. If this is true then jesus, your pretend god, could be killed or harmed or atleast has the potential to be harmed or destroyed. Note that this is a defect in your pretend god.. Hence your pretend god jesus is NOT OMNIPOTENT or atleast jesus is defective and therefore only shows that jesus is god only in name and not any truth.

True GOD is OMNIPOTENT and COMPLETELY DEFECTLESS.

But because he had to be sinless he was conceived by the Holy Spirit and not man. because if a man were to conceive him he would be born in sin and sin would be in his nature.

 

 

If jesus was truly God, then it should not matter whether he is born to a man or holy spirit. jesus' sinless nature should be intact in both cases. This statement of yours shows jesus' corruptible nature and further elucidates that jesus is a pretend god and nothing more.

He cried out because he was in pain just like any other human. he was flesh and blood.

 

 

very human indeed, and not anywhere near GOD.

and it was the shedding of his blood that cleanses us from sin.

 

 

Fairy tales

He was human and he called out to God The Father. His father, Our father, Our Creator.

 

 

Exactly. That is what I also said. Jesus was human, a man, who cried in pain like any other man and called to GOD, the father(Krishna). Jesus then died like a human also after this.

So you should not retract the statement that you made before where you agreed that men do not become GOD. Since jesus was a man, he too cannot become GOD. Case closed. You yourself stated here that Jesus was a man.

YOU - HE does not possess material body like human beings or like your fake man god.

 

Yes God does not possess material body like humans. But you see Jesus was born as a human for a purpose. And that purpose was to die for the world.

 

 

Nice story....May be good material for writing a novel. GOD is always GOD and never becomes human at any time unlike your pretend god jesus.

Even when God made the world he knew that man would be disobedient to him and therefore sin would creep into the world.

 

 

So your god made men who are imperfect, and therefore your pretend god is also imperfect. Why worship such imperfect pretend god.

God knows the end from the beginning. He knew that if man lives in sin man cannot be in His company since evil and God cannot have communion.

 

 

No comments except that this makes a good speculation about what GOD thought. It may be even biblical speculation. Note that you cannot use this argument against Hindus or Vaishnavas. We believe that all souls or Jivas existed eternally and still exists eternally along with the real GOD(Krishna).

But God wanted to save the fellowship of man whom he created so he decided to even at the time of creation Jesus agreed to later go down as a man and sacrifice his life as a sinless sacrifice and therefore defeat the devil and death anad grant man eternal live. Jesus came to reconcile man to God.

 

He is not a fake man god. He is a loving God who came in the form of MAn to reconcile Man with God [The Father]. He said Me and My father we are One.

 

 

Nice story...

Still GOD(Krishna) is always GOD and never becomes a man, nor does HE die like a man. Since GOD existed independently before creation, HIS BODY is transcendental to all MATERIAL nature. HIS BODY is PURE TRUTH, PURE and complete CONSCIOUSNESS and PURE BLISS. No defects(like death) touch HIM or HIS BODY as both HIMSELF and HIS BODY are identical. HE is OMNIPOTENT and is not LIMITED under any circumstance, place or time. All these reside in HIM and HE is not limited by them. Please suurender to such a GOD(Lord Krishna) and try to understand the TRUTH.

Fake gods cannot help themselves or others. They can only die either once or thousand times and yet will not be able to help themselves, not to mention others.

Hare Krishna,

DAR MAX

 

ALL I HAVE TO SAY TO YOU MAX IS THAT KRISHNA IS FICTION…

YOU ARE LIVING IN A DECEPTION…

JESUS IS THE ONLY REALITY.

 

 

Men cannot become a god, neither can a dead man be called a god. GOD does not become helpless like humans nor is it necessary for HIM to die like humans. HE can save all living beings merely by HIS thought. He does not cry like a helpless human being and call for another god at any time. HE does not possess material body like human beings or like your fake man god.

Hare Krishna,

It is obvious. Vaishnavas and Muslims believe in one god, one book, one prophet, one way.

 

 

Vsihnavas do believe in one GOD and Oneness of GOD.

One book ? No several, Vedas, Bhagavad Gita, Puranas (Bhagavatha Purana in particular), Pancaratra, so many more.

One prophet ? I do not think you are a Hindu. If you are you would not give such an erroneous statement. I suspect that you are an advaiti or christian.

As for your question, there are many Gurus.

One way. Yes only through Bhakthi. All other ways attain their purpose is fulfilling and creating Bhakthi(Devotion).

They hate polytheism, ridicule every other system of thought, and throughout history, have indulged in 'holy wars' against infidels. And whenever they are faced with fierce opposition, they form tactical alliances to defeat the infidels.

 

 

 

Infidel:

There is no concept of infidel equivalent to islamic tradition in Vaishnavism.

Jihad:

Vaishnavism does not teach or ask their devotees to go on war and kill infidels. There is no teaching like jihad etc. anywhere in Vedas or Gita. Instead what Gita teaches is that the duties of a king, soldiers and rulers of a country. How these duties are to be performed keeping a clear spiritual objective. When a society is overcome by evil rulers, what to do. Here "evil rulers" imply those that act with selfishness, unethically, immorally harming innocent people, women, children, men and even animals etc. Ins short Bhagavad Gita gives instructins for individuals and society to act responsibly in material and spiritual sphere. It does not deal or even mention about different belief systems or believers outside of Vedic System.

All in all, it is clear that they have a common aim: to semitize the world, according to their monotheistic principles. And they will do whatever it takes-defame infidels, occupy their lands, forcible conversions-to make it happen. It is really amazing that Vaishanvas and Muslims have so much in common. No wonder, most vaishanvas secretly sympathize with 9/11 hijackers.

 

 

 

Please mention one incident from history where Vaishnavas indulged in war with non-vaishnavas or any kind of terrorist incident.

The question is why. And also, when did this relationship exactly flower?

 

Superman

 

 

Your question is illegitimate as you are asking about non-existing things.

You name must be superdull, not superman.

Hare Krishna,

The greatest discovery of the century. Boy! A medal of disgrace for the master of Vedas

 

 

Do you have anything useful to contribute Barney, or only slanderous statements that you learnt from your mayavadi guru.