Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Raguraman

  1. Hare Krishna,



    Krishan dies as in mahabharat.You might have a different stroy which might satisfy your philosophy.You cannot limit almighty to a shape and a form when he says he is omnipresent.



    When Lord Krishna says that HE is the Brahman and Lord to Arjuna in Bhagavad Gita, how can HE(Lord Krishna) die. May be the verse in Mahabharatha is added to delude people like you.

  2. Hare Krishna,



    Pl go back and read all my post , where is the place that i have tried to prove the supremacy of rudra. You didnt answere me , why are you worshipping the form of krishna . Krishna died at the end of that yuga. Brahman is also vishnu if you want to name it one. Dont name me as an advaiti try to answere my queries.



    Lord Krishna does not die. HE is the BRAHMAN. Oneneeds to read Bhagavad Gita to see it.


    Advaita is a wrong philosophy.

  3. Hare Krishna,



    You have a wrong perception about me. Iam not vouching for Shiva here as well. Why does the scriptures say "Aham brahmashmin" ,"tat twam asi","pragnyanam brahma ", etc



    I don't think I had any wrong perception here. An advaiti wants to prove that Lord Rudra is supreme to prove his advaitic point of view.


    As for Abheda Srutis, it does not point to Jiva, but those words like Aham, Tvam etc. point to Brahman(Lord Vishnu)



    that's why hare krishnas are not hindus.. we do not want to be mixed with your conception, not because you are a bad person, but because we do not want any confusion with advaitism when we preach



    and we Vaishnavas want to make it clear that Advaita is wrong period and that advaita is nothing but Buddhism. So what about Vaishnava sects ? They also teach that advaita is mayavada.

  4. Hare Krishna,


    Omniscience and free will of Bhagavan:


    The classic atheist attack on theism.


    Omniscience means Bhagavan knows everything that is to happen. It implies therefore that Bhagavan does not choose among different things. Now one has to also understand that Bhagavan is PERFECT or Purnam. It means HE has no needs or desires to be fulfilled. So HE does not need to choose. But Bhagavan is Omnipotent. Everything happens as per HIS WILL. Is it not ? So the WILL is back again. Here WILL means not a choice but Bhagavan's own NATURE and not HIS needs.

  5. Hare Krishna,



    Me according to you is krishna, Me according to me is Brahman. There is a contradiction in which we understand the same scripture again.



    Just an example of blinded advaitists.


    Hear again My supreme word, the most secret of all. You are very dear to Me, therefore, I shall tell this for your benefit. (18.64)


    Fix your mind on Me, be devoted to Me, offer service to Me, bow down to Me, and you shall certainly reach Me. I promise you because you are very dear to Me. (18.65)


    The above two verses are direced to Arjuna. Note the use of words Lord Krishna uses like "my friend" etc. It is clearly the reference to the PERSON KRISHNA.


    According to advaita. Brahman is the only reality. Since Lord Krishna is realized, whom is HE talking to. Advaita is self-contradictory here.

  6. Hare Krishna,





    Doesnt Krishna himself says in Gita that for a wise man , vedas is like well in place already sorrounded by water. So vedas are not necessary to reach mukthi . Then why hold on to that .



    You are wrong. Vedas themselves say that Vedas are necessary to understand TRUTH. Vedas are unauthored and that is why it is called Sruti and Veda(source of Knowledge). The point Lord krishna makes is that it is not necessary for a Self(GOD)-Realized person. That is why Vedas are necessary for you and me. Vedas truly show WHO is GOD, that it is LORD VISNU and not Lord Rudra.


    To a Self-realized person the Vedas are as useful as a reservoir of water when there is flood water available everywhere. (2.46)



    All these puranas u mentioned are made by the vaishanavas so surely it will contain what they need. For a seeker of truth all this will not help.



    The same can be told about Shiva puranas and the quote of Lord Rama praying to Lord Shiva. That all these were created by advaitists and Shivites to confuse simple people.


    That is why we take Vedas as Sruti. Vedas are unauthored and apaursheya. They confirm Lord Visnu's superiority.

  7. Hare Krishna,



    Reading any scripture literally you can make them sound like whatever you want. The meaning of "Jihad" is understood in wrong way and there is choas in this world now.So dont take literal meaning of anything and try to follow it. Since scriptures have come a long way lot of additions and modifications would have been made.




    Oh. So Sruti was altered. So how do you know what is the actual teaching of Vedas. The verse is clear about Lord Rudr's position.



    Are you following all that is said in Vedas. Are you following what is said about "Panchakavyam" in the vedas ?

    If shiva regained power from vishnu then y shld rama pray to him in rameshwaram. Next thing you would say is its "Tamasic" scriptures .





    The hArItasmR^iti (See P.S 2) says:


    yatra rudrArchanaM bhasmadhAraNaM prochyate budhaiH |

    tadabrahmaNyaviShayaM viprANAM tu na karhichit.h ||


    where Shivalingarchana and bhasmadhAraNA is prohibited for non-brahmin



    Also, the following smR^iti vAkya clarifies that Shiva is a kshatriya:

    yAnyetAni devatrAkshAtrANi indro varuNassomo rudraH parjanyo yamo

    mR^ityorIshAna'. But the statement 'yo vai svAM devatAmatiyajete' enjoins

    that one worship a deity befitting one's nature; so can the Purushottama

    Rama worship anybody?


    It cannot be said that shivArchana and shivalingArchana are allowed for

    Kshatriyas, just because Sri Rama worshipped Shiva. Such an argument would

    have been worthy only if it is not obstructed by other pramANAs. On the

    contrary, the 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.


    Moreover, the following statements:


    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.


    Thus the linga purANa's statements on Rama worshipping Shiva should be seen

    in the light of the boon granted to the latter by Vishnu. Also, just like

    Rama bowed to Vishvamitra, Bharadvaja, Agastya, so too, does Rama bowed to

    Shiva (with the above background kept in mind). Thus there is no obstruction

    to Lord Rama being the para-brahma!

  8. Hare Krishna,



    Lord Shiva a vaishnava ? Since when ?



    I don't know, but I think since HE gained all HIS powers after worshipping Lord Vishnu as per the following Sruti.


    Rig 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.



    ...because Adi Shankara did a selfless service and did not want to record them to blow his own trumpet.



    or may be Buddhists were non-existent during Sri Adi Shankara's time. Infact this is what is taught by advaitists themselves. You can check the teachings of Sri Chandrasekarendra Saraswati.

  9. Hare Krishna,



    Belief differs for your Prabhupada might be a guru.For me i dont think so . When he can comment on adi sankara and others then he has done the mistake which you say that i did by using his name. Further comparing prabhupada in the lineage of the great acharyas you mentioned is far-fetched.



    His comment was on advaita and not on sri Adi Sankara. Infact Gaudiyas and ISKCON believe that Sri Adi Sankara is Lord Shiva HIMSELF, the greatest Vaishnava. So I don't think Srila Prabhupada ever disrespected Sri Adi Sankara. You guys are imagining things.



    Especially when Adi Shankara single handedly established hinduism back in India by routing buddhism, that too without violence.


    If not for adi Shankara, we would all be chanting "Buddham Charanam Gacchhami, Dhammam Charanam Gachhami".


    And look at all the disrespect and abuses hindus are subjected to.



    There is almost no literature of Sri Adi Sankara on Buddhism. Why ?


    Because Buddhism was already dead. Go to Kanchi mutt website. You will find details.

  10. Hare Krishna,



    So Shankara was not a saint?

    It was Shankara who was subjected to disrespect first in this forum.


    And one of your followers called Swami Chinmayananda as " Some Chinmayananda" and " Mr. Chinmayananda"




    I do not disrespect any saint. I know Swami Chinmayananda and surely Sri Adi Sankara are great saints eventhough I do not think their philosophies are right.


    As for refering a Swami by name is disprespect. You agree with that. Then why did you refer Srila Prabhupada with his name irreverently ? I know somebody else referred to Swami Chinmayananda irreverently ? The question is why did you follow that ? and even tried to defend that point while in case of Swami Chinamayananda I saw many advaitists jumping on Gokul.

  11. Hare Krishna,



    You are talking about a religion thet started in the 16th century.



    Perhaps you think Vedas were written in 16th century.



    Hinduism is eternal.



    What is Hinduism. It is a word coined by some foreigners. and most of the practises within this religion are not Vedic. Should I start,


    1. Damned caste system

    2. Tantric sex

    3. So called saints puffing ganja



    And if you are not a hindu, what are you doing here?

    This is not the place you are supposed to be. This websie is Hindu religion .net and not ISKON.net or somthing like that. So just pack off.



    If this site is about Hinduism, how come you are discussing about ISKCON ?

  12. Hare Krishna,



    Different philosophies were given at different time for need of the time. each philosophy is for people with that level of understanding. U need to grow from that level. Iam not ranting out of emotion .May be prabhupada got emotional when he said these words


    "Although posing as great scholars, ascetics, householders and swamis, the so-called followers of the Hindu religion are all useless, dried-up branches of the Vedic religion."



    The quote talks about truth. Are there not sanyasis(posing like sanyasis) puffing ganja in many holy places. Are there not the so called sanyasis making a living out of religion. Srila Prabhpada is talking about these fake people and why did you think he is insulting perhaps your guru ?


    As for refering a saint irreverently with his name is disrespect. Srila Prabhupada's life itself proves he is a saint.


    As for HIS comments on Hinduism, Srila Prabhupada has every right to comment on sects mis-interpreting Vedas.

  13. Hare Krishna,



    Saints dont talk so bad about anything. Further when he can comment on adi sankara and others as mayavadhi without any respect what they have done. Where does his respect go ?



    It is not just Srila Prabhpada who called Adi Shankara's teaching as Mayavadha. So did Ramanujacharya, Madhvacharya, Raghavendraswamy and every other Vaishnava saint. Their accusation is based on accurate knowledge of advaitam and not based on emotional rantings like you make.

  14. Hare Krishna,



    Indeed, God = Man - (false) ego, as Baba has said!



    I think advaitists are greatly confused.


    If the above is true, then how come "Brahman=God=Man - False EGO" is subject to birth and death. How come Brahman is subject to maya ?


    How come the ONE BRAHMAN is in all of us, both liberated and unliberated, and yet the ONE BRAHMAN is bound my maya in unliberated beings like me but the SAME ONE BRAHMAN is liberated in liberated beings(I understand as per advaitam liberated persons become ONE BRAHMAN) ?

  15. Hare Krishna,





    Don’t say these are Tamasic. Then better accept that you are not an adherent of Sanatana Dharma.



    Since every verse is found in Sruti except one, I am not going to claim anything like that.



    Many in this site deride Rudra out of ignorance (tamas), stating that Rudra is Tamas.



    I do not think anybody made this claim and definitely I did not see any Vaishnava make such a claim.



    They deride some Puranas similarly.



    This yes. I agree and also think so. Tamasic puranas go against Sruti.



    What they do not understand is that the He is the Lord of Tamas – a state most difficult to overcome.


    A Jiva seeped in Tamas will have no other resort but to fall at the feet of Siva-Rudra.


    It does not matter whether the non believers will ever believe or not. It is Lord’s will only. Some ripe Jivas may however derive knowledge.



    Lord Shiva is the Lord of Tamas. No doubt in it. It is HE(Lord Shiva) who releases a soul from avidya. Again no doubt. Lord Shiva afflicts Jivas with avidya and the only way to escape this is worship Lord Shiva. Again there is no doubt in this.


    But Lord Shiva is definitely not Bhagavan. This is confirmed in Sruti and there is no doubt in this as well.

  16. Hare Krishna,



    Below are given a few references from the Vedas to Rudra-Siva as the one Lord, who has become all.


    Rig Veda tells:

    ‘Rudra by day, Rudra at night we honour with these our songs, the Universe's Father.

    Him great and lofty, blissful, undecaying let us call especially as the Sage impels us.’



    6.049.10 Exalt Rudra, the parent of the world, with these hmns by day; (exalt) Rudra (with them) by night; animated by the far-seeing, we invoke him, mighty, of pleasing aspect, undecaying, endowed with felicity, (the source of) prosperity.


    I do not know how the above verse proves anything of the claims made by advaitists or shivites.



    Yajur Veda:

    iv. 5. 9.

    a ----------.

    p Homage to you, sparkling hearts of the gods




    Again this verse talks about position of Rudras and does not imply that Lord Shiva is God.



    yo rudro agnau yo apsu ya oshhadhIshhu

    yo rudro vishvA bhuvanA.a.avivesha

    tasmai rudrAya namo astu


    Prostrations to that Rudra who exists in fire, water, and air, herbs and all the worlds



    This verse is not found in Yajur Veda Samhita.



    From Rig Veda


    Rig Veda 7.46.2


    To Rudra bring these songs, whose bow is firm and strong, the self-dependent God with swiftly-flying shafts, The Wise, the Conqueror whom none may overcome, armed with sharp-pointed weapons: may he hear our call.


    He through his lordship thinks on beings of the earth, on heavenly beings through his high imperial sway. Come willingly to our doors that gladly welcome thee, and heal all sickness, Rudra, in our families.


    Note that “To Rudra bring these songs” – The Rig Veda is a song of Rudra

    Again note “his lordship thinks on beings of the earth, on heavenly beings through his high imperial sway”




    Did you forget Rig Veda 7:40:5 and Devi Sukta. Lord Rudra's lordship is not over Lord Visnu or MahaLakshmi or even Lord Vayu.

  17. Hare Krishna,



    Rudra is the soul of the Gods.



    Last time you made this claim, I showed there is no Sruti verse to support this.



    Rudra is the “Bhargo” in the Gayatri. He is Agni. He is the soul of Savitar who manifests Agni. Agni when thus brought down is Visnu.



    Each letter in Gayatri Mantra refers to a deity at one level and to Bhagavan at another level.






    As for Lord Visnu, it is clearly stated in Vedas that HE always existed and even before Lord Rudra took birth from Lord Brahma's Head.


    1.156.02 He who presents (offerings) to Vis.n.u, the ancient, the creator, the recent, the self-born; he who celebrates the great birth of that mighty one; he verily possessed of abundance, attains (the station) that is to be sought (by all). [s'ravobhir yujyam cidabhyasat, by food, or by fame, he attains whatsoever is to be joined with; to complete the ellipse: annairyuktah san sarvair gantavyam tat padam gacchati].


  18. Hare Krishna,



    Sabka Malik Ek


    It is puerile and naïve to disagree that The Lord is one.



    Nobody(much less a Vaishnava) refutes that Bhagavan is one. The question is what Vedas teach.



    He appeared as a fire column to Moses to hand over instructions and he appears as fire column to us also.



    It is of no consequence to us Hindus if moses and jews ever saw Bhagavan or not.


    We Hindus should depend on Vedas and nothing else. Gaining knowledge is ok, but to depend on some other scripture(that goes against Vedas) to validate Vedas is a mark of weakness.



    When Veda says


    ‘For the glory of thee, O Rudra, the life powers make bright thy birth into a richly manifold beauty. When that highest step -- The supreme plane of the three -- of Vishnu is founded within, thou guardest by it the secret name of the Ray cows. '



    Again the verse refers to Lord Agni.


    The actual translation of the verse is


    5.003.03 tava shriye maruto marjayanta rudra yat te janima cAru citram |

    padaM yad viSNor upamaM nidhAyi tena pAsi guhyaM nAma gonAm


    For your glory the Maruts sweep (the firmament), when your birth, Rudra, is beautiful and wonderful; the middle step of Vis.n.u has been placed, so you cherish the mysterious name of the waters. [Your birth is beautiful and wonderful: Agni as the lightning; cherish the mysterious name of the waters: pa_si guhyam na_ma gona_m = udaka_na_m

    guhyam na_ma_ni ra_ks.asi].



    Note: Some people remind me that this hymn is for Agni. It is true that the hymn is for Agni. But these people cannot digest that Agni is Rudra. Soul of all Gods is Rudra.



    Now the advaitists and people who propound that Lord Shiva is Bhagavan have to first prove that Lord Shiva is Bhagavan and the soul of all beings through Sruti. Unless they do that one cannot take the above claim seriously.



    Some people (same set of people) again say that Siva is mentioned as the Supreme Lord in the Tamasic Puranas only. This is a blatant lie, perpetuated either due to ignorance or willfully.



    Well, this is according to Padma Purana itself. It is not any individuals imagination. Besides we can also see that the claim of advaitists opposes sruti and so it is called Tamasic.



    Some people have also stated that Vedas are the source of all contradictions and hence they want Krishna out of the folds of Sanatana Dharma. They forget that the contradictions are in their minds and their so-called Ego (Maya).



    Hmmm... I do not know who made this claim and hae not seen anyone believing in Vedas do so.



    In fact, Puranas only name Brahman as Maha-Visnu, Rama, and Krisna. In Vedas and Vedanta, Brahman is all – the root being Rudra.



    In Vedanta, surely it is stated "Brahman is all". I don't think that anything about Lord Rudra being the Brahman is stated.



    In Vedas there is no Maha-Visnu. The followers of Sanatana Dharma see no contradiction in this. They know that One Supreme Being only manifests as everything. Vedas declare that: “To the earthly beings, Brahman will be known as Rama”. Serious minded ones may please read the whole of Rig Veda to find this sloka.



    There are lot of verses explicitly stating Lord Visnu is Bhagavan and source of everything. You can refer my previous post.





    Some people (same set of people again) say: well Rudra drank the poison with the help of Vayu and Rudra derives his strength from Visnu. Both the statements are true but the interpretations are funny since they are biased. My daughter derives strength through Horlicks, so Horlicks is the Lord. My daughter derives prana through Vayu, so Vayu is the Lord. That my daughter’s soul is the Lord is forgotten.



    Hmmm...I did not surely talk about horlicks and I do find the comparison of Lord Vayu to horlicks rational(although it amuses me a bit). Prana(Lord Vayu) here refers to life force that drives everything in prakriti including great Deities like Lord Rudra.


    and one thing, surely your daughter's soul is a Jiva and not Bhagavan.

  19. Hare krishna,


    If any one can translate the verses from Chhandogya Upanishad.


    Paragraph: 6

    Sentence: 1 tad dhaitad ghora angirasah krsnAya devakI-putrAyoktvovAca \

    tad+ + dha+ etad+ ghora+ Angirasah krsnAya devakI-putrAya+ uktvA + uvAca \


    Sentence: 2 apipAsa eva sa babhUva \

    a-pipAsa+ eva sa+ babhUva \


    Sentence: 3 so ntavelAyAm etat trayam pratipadyetAksitam asya acyutam asi prAnasamSitam asIti \

    so+ + anta-velAyAm etat trayam+ pratipadyeta+ a-ksitam asya a-cyutam asi prAna-samSitam asi+ iti \


    Sentence: 4 tatraite dve rcau bhavatah\\317.6\

    tatra+ ete dve rcau bhvatah\\317.6\


    Paragraph: 7

    Sentence: 1 Adit pratnasya retasah\

    Ad-it pratnasya retasah\


    Sentence: 2 ud vayam tamasas pari \

    ud+ vayam+ tamasas+ pari \


    Sentence: 3 jyotih paSyanta uttaram \

    jyotih paSyanta+ uttaram \


    Sentence: 4 svah paSyanta uttaram \

    svah paSyanta+ uttaram \


    Sentence: 5 devah devatrA sUryam aganma jyotir uttamam iti jyotir uttamam iti \\317.7\

    devah+ devatrA sUryam aganma jyotir+ uttamam iti jyotir+ uttamam iti \\317.7\


  20. Hare Krishna,



    Muzhu Poosanikkaya Sothula Maraikka mudiyadhu. Which means, you cannot hide a full uncut ash guard in a pile of rice.


    I think there is some truth somewhere of some sort of invasion or migration or something like that.


    Even now North Indians look down upon south Indians.


    So let us not deny facts.


    North Indians still believe madrasis are lungiwallahs and are ridiculed. And they have made it a point to claim superiority of Hindi and impose hindi on tamil people.


    If we still keep saying aryan invasion was not there, we are overlooking something.



    Hmmm.. I have seen many mudaliyars, vanniyars etc. caste members treating scheduled caste like garbage. So by your logic, then these Tamilians should have also invaded. Perhaps the scheduled castes look upon certain tribes among themselves as lower. So we can conclude ad-infinitum that all peoples invaded each other. This is all nonsense. Foolish people keep insisting on Aryan Invasion Theory and fighting for language etc. I mean both sides(Hindi and Tamil) are at fault here. I am a Tamilian myself.


    Tell me, in Tolkappiyam the borders of Tamil country is clearly given as Vada Venkatam(Tirupati) and "Then Kumari"(Kanyakumari). There is no mention in our literature of any invasion by foreign people. Recently archaeologists have unearthed poompuhar mentioned in our literature as having been submerged by Indra. The date of the city was found to be 5000 B.C. while the supposed AIT took place in 1500 B.C. Please do some actual research before coming to conclusion based on emotions. The only basis for AIT is linguistics. But linguistics can never prove which direcion migration or invasion took place. On the other hand there is every proof for out of Inia migration of people, religion and culture. Even in Tirukkural we have mention of Vamana avatar(three steps). If you can see it is also mentioned in Vedas. Our alwars and Nayanmars all have praised Vedas. It is a sad event that stupid people belonging to dravida kalagam are spreading a lot of hatred through false propaganda.

  21. Hare Krishna,



    What was so special about Krishna of the Chandogya Upanishad?



    One can also ask what is so special about Svetaketu to mention him in a certain Upanishad ? My question was assuming that this is the same Lord Krishna will be a mistake, unless further proof is offered to verify this claim.



    Weren't the Upanishads written somewhere around 500 BC or something



    That is what indologists claim, just like they formulated AIT.



    Wasn't there a seal found at Dwaraka saying that Krishna lived there? or something like that. In which the Mahabharata accounted for with Krishna escaping with his people from Jarasandha and starting his own kingdom at Dwaraka, and the seal was given to him?



    I do not know about this seal being discovered. Jarasandha was to be killed by Bhima. So Lord Krishna did not finish him off. It is Lord Krishna's OWN WILL and not due to HIS inability.

  22. Hare Krishna,



    In one place in the Chhândogya Upanishad we find mention of Krishna, the son of Devaki, who received spiritual instructions from one Ghora, a Yogi. In the Mahabharata, Krishna is the king of Dwârakâ; and in the Vishnu Purâna we find a description of Krishna playing with the Gopis. Again, in the Bhâgavata, the account of his Râsalilâ is detailed at length.



    It is mentioned in Chhandogya Upanishad that a sage named Ghora belonging to Angirasa clan or gotra was the teacher of Krishna, son of Devaki.


    In Mahabharatha it is mentioned that SAndipani was Lord Krishn's Guru. There is no mention of any ghora in Mahabharatha to my knowledge. May be this Krishna(son of Devaki) is different from Lord Krishna who is also son of Devaki. Just a thought. I am not sure


    The other point is, mention of Gopis, cannot be equated with other things. In our own millenium we see Mira Bai who accpted Lord rishna as her HUSBAND. This has nothing to do with this wordly things. This realization came on Mira Bai, that Lord Krishna is GOD and so she surrendered.

  • Create New...