atanu

Became tired Guest Ji?

Pranam Pranam

 

 

You say:

 

-------“That may be true for you and Barney. This is because you espouse a philosophy that is inconsistent, and which you can only defend by attacking the character of your opponents.”

 

 

My statement

 

See who is attacking the character.

 

 

You say:

 

In reply to:

--

 

Maya is Maya. It has no reality for the uneluded ones. But it is eternal and has no cause as the beginning.

--

 

 

 

You said:

 

“Ascribing contradictory properties to dependent entities is a fatal flaw in any philosophy.

 

You say maya has no reality, yet you say it is eternal. This is contradictory.

 

The Bhagavad-giitaa makes no such allowance for unreal things which are eternal:

 

nAsato vidyate bhAvo nAbhAvo vidyate sataH |

ubhayor api dRSTo 'ntas tvanayos tattvadarshibhiH || 2:16 ||

 

This verse clearly explains that those things which are real exist eternally, while those which are not real do not exist eternally. These are the only two categories of entities admitted by bhagavad-gItA. Your opinion of a "maya" which is unreal, yet eternal, is therefore in contradiction with shAstra. “

 

 

I say:

 

There is no contradiction. The unreality of Maya is a reality and is eternal. The reality of Maya is unreality and is eternal. Brahman’s power of veiling is reality and eternal.

 

 

 

 

 

You say

 

----“Advaita holds that only one entity exists - Brahman, and this Brahman has no qualities. “

 

My statement

 

You do not know. Brahman is Nirguna and Saguna all.

 

 

You say

 

“------Given this, you have not answered the question at all. If Brahman has maya, then this posits the existence of two entities - Brahman, and the thing which it posesses, which is contradictory to Advaita.”

 

If you say Maya is not an independent entity, but rather a property of Brahman, then you ascribe qualities to Brahman -- also inconsistent with Advaita.”

 

 

My statement

 

All qualities that you see in this Universe comes from Brahman. Brahman is Nirguna and Saguna.

 

 

 

You say

 

“Hence, we see that Advaita will not stand, given even a minor degree of logical scrutiny.”

 

 

My statement

 

Advaita is standing on Gita.

 

 

 

 

You say

 

 

 

 

In reply to:

 

 

--

A red hot iron ball is not Agni but has as if acquired Agni. Red hot iron ball is insentient, unintelligent. Similarly, a dress (mind-body) by reflection acquires the intelligence of Bhava but due to operation of Maya of the same mind gets deluded that intelligence is of the body and mind. Knowledge of this is a step towards liberation. And experiencing that what you call I is not the body-mind but Bhava observing the insentient Body-Mind is Liberation.

--

 

-----“Proof by analogy is not proof of anything.”

 

 

My statement

 

You have neither analogy nor shastra.

 

 

 

You say

 

“----You say that "knowledge of this is a step towards liberation." But liberation from what? If only Brahman exists, then what is it getting liberated from? There is nothing else according to Advaita, so liberation is not a sensible concept.”

 

 

My statement

 

Brahman exists eternally. All other are non eternal appearances. The knowledge of discrimination is Liberation ( which finally is Maya since there is no bondage to begin with).

 

 

 

 

 

You say

 

---“You refer to "knowledge" as the step towards liberation. But who or what is doing the knowing? If it is Brahman, then where is the question of knowing, since Brahman has no qualities? If you say that Brahman has qualities (in contradiction to Advaita), and Brahman is omniscient, then why would it not know how to get liberation? “

 

 

My statement

 

Advaita says (and I have already stated the same in this thread) that liberation is Maya since there is no bondage in the first place.

 

 

Your point does not hold.since

 

 

 

 

You say

 

“There is no shAstric pramAna which states that the jIvAtma dissolves or loses its individuality. This is nothing more than an imagination invented by you.”

 

 

My statement

 

Not by me baby. By Vashishtha.

 

 

 

I quoted:

 

“Gita 18.61 The Lord resides in the hearts of all, O Arjuna, revolving all creatures by prakriti as if mounted on a machine”

 

 

 

You say against above quote:

 

“Not only is this NOT what the gItA says, there is nothing in the above which refers to any "dissolving" of individuality.”

 

 

My statement

 

Then what does Gita say? Why don’t you reproduce from your CD?

Moreover, I did not quote this passage as proof of dissolution of individuality but as effect of Prakriti.

 

Why do you lie?

 

 

 

 

You say

 

“In reply to:

--

Brahman is nor Sat and nor Asat.

--

 

This is again illogical. An entity which neither exists nor does not exist defies common sense. “

 

 

My statement

 

Yes it is. It was a mistake. Brahman is both Sat and Asat. And so Brahman is nor Sat and nor Asat.

 

 

 

You say

 

“In reply to:

--

 

Trying to define something infinite through our finite thought is faulty.

 

--

 

Therefore, we accept what is stated in shruti, which is beyond the realm of finite thought, as it is apaurusheya. “

 

 

My statement

 

You don’t accept anything. All your arguments stem from one motive: to show who the Supreme is. Naïve really

.

 

You say

 

“In reply to:

--

I can understand a report written by me but my report cannot understand Me.

--

 

A very poor example. A report is not sentient, while a jIvAtma is. Unacceptable. “

My statement

 

Raghu Ji, you say this is a wrong example since the report is insentient while we are intelligent.

 

 

Can you identify which is the intelligent part of you?

 

Keno Upanishad analyses that this thoroughly.

 

Chapter 1

By whose commands this mind works? By whose will the life's breath circulates? Who is responsible for man's speech? What intelligence does lead the eyes and the ears?

 

 

It is the ear of the ear, the mind of the mind, the speech of the speech. Also the life of all life, and the eye of the eye. The wise abandon the sensory world and become immortal.

 

 

There the eyes cannot travel, nor speech nor mind. Nor do we know how to explain it to the disciples. It is other than the known and beyond the unknown. So were we taught by our ancients.

 

 

That which the speech cannot reveal, but causes the speech to flow, know that alone to be Brahman, not this whom people worship here (through mantras).

 

 

That which the mind cannot conceptualize, but by which the mind does conceptualize, know that alone to be Brahman. Not the one whom people worship here.

 

 

That which the eye cannot see, but by which the eyes are able to see, know that alone to be Brahman. Not this whom people worship here.

 

 

That which the ear cannot hear, but by whom the ear can hear, know that alone as Brahman, not this which people worship here.

 

 

That which one does not breath, but by whom air is breathed, know that to be Brahman, not that which people worship here.

 

 

Chapter II

 

If you think you know It well, you indeed know It very little. That whom you see in the beings and gods, you see but very little (portion) of It.

 

 

----------

 

 

So, Raghu ji, Brahman is the One and only intelligent conscious part of you and it is Maya that you think that you as your mind is intelligent and conscious.

 

 

The example of the report is apt.

 

You say

 

In reply to:

--

Brahman is un-definable in absolute terms without also limiting His infinite-un-limited nature. Brahma Sutra defines Brahman as that from which proceed acts of creation, sustenance and destruction. But Brahma Sutra does not venture to say what Brahman absolutely is. Advaitins simply say that Brahman is all.

--

 

Again, a contradiction. You say Brahman is undefineable, yet you conceed that Brahma-sUtra defines it.

 

 

My statement

 

 

I have already answered it. Brahma Sutra definition is tentative about what comes from HIM but not actually what HE is..

 

 

 

You say

 

In reply to:

--

Brahman is not the same living entity in different bodies. Who told you that?

--

 

 

You yourself just did. Your own words:

 

"Similarly, a dress (mind-body) by reflection acquires the intelligence of Bhava but due to operation of Maya of the same mind gets deluded that intelligence is of the body and mind."

 

Do you wish to repeal them now?”

 

 

My statement

 

Oh. No. Again you quote only what suits you. Why do you lie?

 

I said:

 

Brahman is indivisible. Brahman pervades all. No space (so called) is not devoid of Brahman. The dresses that seem to divide Brahman are unreal. In Brahman’s perspective there are no bondage and liberation; no death and birth, no creation and destruction.

 

You say

 

In reply to:

--

Sages also say that in this process a time comes when the ego vanishes. And then the sage abides in Sahaja Samadhi though apparently appearing to partake in karma. Like a Brahmin actor who acts the role of a Soldier in a play. He knows that it is Prakriti who is acting and I is sthanu -- the seer.

--

 

The fact that ahankAra disappears does not make indivudality disappear. You are confusing ego with individuality. There is no shAstric pramAna which states that one's individuality disappears.

 

 

My statement

 

Well you have conceded the point. What is individuality? Have you seen yourself without the I sense? Ahankara means the sense of Aham.

 

 

Please show me your I. Show me what runs your body-mind. If you can show I will accept you.

 

 

 

To my reference to the following two verses of Rig Veda:

 

“RV Book 1

 

10 Aditi is the heaven, Aditi is mid-air, Aditi is the Mother and the Sire and Son.

Aditi is all Gods, Aditi five-classed men, Aditi all that hath been born and shall be born.

 

 

Book 2 HYMN XLIII. Rudra.

 

1 --------

2 That Aditi may grant the grace of Rudra to our folk, our kine, Our cattle and our progeny;

 

 

You say:

 

Not only are such statements nowhere to be found in shruti, they do not in any way support your poorly constructed arguments.”

 

 

My statement

 

Punditji, please reproduce the original Sanskrit and translate it. Let us see what meaning you derive.

 

We have already seen many examples of distorted translation, insertions, and purports.

 

 

You say

 

“In reply to:

--

 

Ekam evadvitiyam brahma: Brahman is one, without a second

 

--

 

 

This does not prove that the jIva-s are brahman. All this is saying is that there is no other who is equal to brahman. Or in otherwords, Brahman is one of a kind. “

 

My statement

 

Now, is it not foolish? Brahman is one without a second. Where from Jiva comes in?

 

 

 

--

“Tat tvam asi: That is what you are

--

 

 

This is not correct. The actual Sanskrit from the chandogya is:

 

 

sAtmAtattvamasiSvetaketo

 

... which is correctly parsed as:

 

sa AtmA atat tvam asi Svetaketo

 

which means: "That Brahman, you are not that, Shvetaketo."”

 

 

My statement

 

Is it computer programming that you are parsing. This kind of parsing is the hallmark of ------. I do not want to name.

 

I can reproduce 5 other translations that give the meaning as what I have given.

 

And have read Chandogya? Anyone who reads the whole will get the perspective: “That Brahman You are” and you are not the body-mind.

 

What is the use of arguing with you? Whatever does not suit is either wrong or Tamasic.

 

 

 

You say

 

“In reply to:

--

Ayam atma brahma: Atman and brahman are the same

--

 

 

Actually, it's "ayam AtmA brahma"

 

Sure, the paramAtma and brahman are same. Nowere in the above do I see anything saying that the jIvAtma is the same as brahman. “

 

 

My statement

 

Same hallmark of yours. Just negate and close eyes. Tell lies. There is no param atma in this verse. You insert whatever is suitable to you.

 

 

You say

 

“In reply to:

--

Aham brahmasmi: I am Brahman”

--

 

You say:

 

But the speaker of this is Lord Vishnu, not a jIva. How is it that when Vishnu says "I am Brahman," that you take this to mean jIva is brahman? “

 

 

My statement

 

You are a liar. This dictum is from the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad. In the sentence, 'Aham Brahmasmi,' or I am Brahman, the 'I' is that which is the One Witnessing Consciousness, standing apart form even the intellect, different from the ego-principle, and shining through every act of thinking, feeling, etc. This Witness-Consciousness, being the same in all, is universal, and cannot be distinguished from Brahman, which is the Absolute. Hence the essential 'I' which is full, super-rational and resplendent, should be the same as Brahman. This is not the identification of the limited individual "I" with Brahman, but it is the Universal Substratum of individuality that is asserted to be what it is. The copula 'am' does not signify any empirical relation between two entities, but affirms the non-duality of essence.

 

 

The dictum does not mean a small “I” (e.g. Atanu or better still Raghu) claiming to be Brahman. It is the affirmation that the real I is Brahman. Raghu just thinks that he is an “I”.

 

You may read Keno Upanishad again.

 

 

 

 

You say

 

“In reply to:

--

Sarvam khalvidam brahma: All of this is brahman

--

 

Of course all this is Brahman, since Brahman pervades everything. It makes no sense to say that Brahman pervades everything if there existed nothing else that was not Brahman. For one thing A to pervade another thing B, and thus to equate them, they have to be different in the first place. “

 

 

My statement

 

If all is water, then where is solid in it? Do not use your purports. There are better people to do that. In this passage there is no pervading. Again you insert something which is not there.

 

 

You say:

 

“How would you know? You can't even read Sanskrit. I doubt if you have even read the Upanishads from which these came.”

 

 

My statement

 

Raghuji, I am not a blind and liar pundit. The way you have distorted “Tat tvam asi” it is clear that you have not read Chandogya.

 

 

Moreover, if one reads all the Mahavakyas, the meaning becomes clear.

 

 

 

 

You say:

 

“No, there are no shlokas in the Rig Veda. Those are mantras. There is a difference. Shloka is a poetic form found in certain smriti texts.”

 

 

My statement

 

Thank you for the correction.

 

 

In reply to:

--

RV Book 1

 

10 Aditi is the heaven, Aditi is mid-air, Aditi is the Mother and the Sire and Son.

Aditi is all Gods, Aditi five-classed men, Aditi all that hath been born and shall be born.

 

--

 

You say:

----“I see no shrutis quoted in the above text. Everyone knows that shrutis are in Sanskrit.”

 

 

My statement

 

So, why do not you translate above two “Mantras” from Rig Veda and teach us? Simply claiming will not convince anyone.

 

 

Basically you are now negating Rig Veda.

 

 

You say:

 

----“Atanu, you are really losing this argument big time. Is this the best argument you can give?”

 

 

My statement

 

I would love to lose an argument since that would mean that I am learning something new. But I am very sad to say that you have not contributed a bit.

 

And if I were to lose I would do it gracefully. Not like you – negating all evidences as false.

 

 

May be I may be losing this argument – by way of loss of precious time that I should really employ to seek the I. But you have lost it ---- many times over.

 

The funniest thing is that you have negated 5 mahavakyas and two Rig Veda shlokas (oops Mantras). What more you will negate?.

 

It may be just easier to negate your small I.

 

 

 

 

Atanu

"••of course krsna is also brahman.. go to preach to the ones who do not think that krsna is param brahman but a human"

 

 

No Hindu thinks that krsna is a human who dies. Only some Bhaktas seek solace in His manifested form alone, forgetting His sthanu root which He reminds us again and again.

 

 

 

“..the impersonalist hundus who believe that they are god or that they will became god they're actually not united with anything divine.”

 

 

“ ----If you were The Self, the supreme, you were not illuded by maya”

 

 

WRT to the first statement: No Advaitin believes that they are god. God cannot be “are”. It is foolish. For same reasons, no Advaitin also believes that they will become god.

 

WRT to both the first and the second statements:

 

Lying is sin.

 

Show where I have said: I am the Self -- the Supreme?. You create your own points and counterpoints.

 

 

I am this non-eternal maya created body and mind. That is why I feel pain and I argue. My body still subsists on various vasanas and kama towards which the mind goes hither and thither. But I know that the eternal indweller is the Lord. He is all the time there smiling and as a seer. He sees the play of Prakriti bothering this body-mind and He smiles.

 

Krishna has said that He is in everyone. So, you cannot deny this.

 

 

He has also said:

 

Because of perceiving the (same) Self (abiding) in all beings and all beings (abiding) in the (same) Self; a yogi, who is in union with the Self, sees everybeing with an equal eye. (6.29)

 

Those who see Me in everything and see everything in Me, are not separated from Me and I am not separated from them. (6.30)

 

He has also said:

 

Those who are free from pride and delusion, who have conquered the evil of attachment, who are constantly dwelling in the Supreme Self with all Kaama completely stilled, who are free from the dualities known as pleasure and pain; such undeluded persons reach the eternal goal. (15.05)

 

 

The goal (of nirvana) should be sought reaching which one does not come back; thus thinking: In that very primal spirit I take refuge from which this primal manifestation comes forth. (15.04)

 

 

So, I want to be “a yogi, who is in union with the Self”. This is also stated to be the Nirvana in all Upanishads.

 

 

 

 

So, why do you lie that I claim to be the Supreme? Indweller in you is watching -- smiling and telling silently to you: “You have a long way to go”.

 

 

9.22 To those, however, who dwell on Me in single minded worship I guarantee fulfillment of needs and security

 

10.10 To them ever steadfast in loving worship, I give the yoga of understanding by which they attain Me.

 

10.11 Out of compassion for them, I, dwelling in their heart, destroy the darkness born of ignorance with the effulgent light of knowledge.

 

and,

 

5.16 But in those whose unwisdom is destroyed by wisdom, that wisdom like the sun, reveals the Supreme (Param)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(..many opinions and many paths... how can they belong to the same dharma?)

 

 

Well that is the strength and uniqueness. All paths are known and traversed.

 

And with onset of maturity all paths are respected and loved.

 

Since all paths are to One Lord who is the object and subject of LOVE.

 

 

Jaya Shri Ganesh Prasad Ji Jaya

 

Jaya Shri Guest Ji

 

"The Sankhyasastra calls it Vicitrarupa, Visvatma and Ekasara. Hiranyagarbha prepared all the things forming this world and occupied those himself. Thus he himself turned into many forms and hence got the name Visvarupa and Bahurupa. He generates himself in innumerable forms and becomes visible. This change from invisible to visible or unmanifest to manifest is named as Vidyasarga."

 

Shiva is not Jyoti Rupa alone. He is Carva.

 

 

I am not the author. A revered sage who was also the teacher of Rama is the speaker.

 

If you lighly make fun of such passages you make fun of Vashishtha.

 

Please be careful.

 

 

Neverheless, please tell me truthfully are you the same guest who is debating Ganesh Prasad Ji in "Why Do WE Fight"?

"if there was complete identity between me and krsna i were not conditionated by maya, bhagavd gita is to be understood and studied honestly and faithfully "

 

What is the reason of the birth? Is it not conditioning by Maya. If one was not Maya deluded, one would always be in Heaven.

 

So, do not ever imagine that one can still be Maya conditioned if one desired union with Krishna. That will be the surest way to return soon.

 

Yes, I am trying to be honest. Why do you pre suppose that I am not honest and faithful?

My friend you say:

 

"obviously if your purpose is to twist bhagavad gita meanings to make it an impersonalist/mayavadi teaching the definition of yogi as krsna conscious is for you most disturbing"

 

Nothing is disturbing to me. I abide in the Self.

 

I have just pointed out a simple instance wherein a word which is not there in the original is inserted.

 

There is actually no problem in this provided devotees are mature. For example, Christ said: I am the Light, I am the Path. No one goes to Him unless through Me.

 

Now Christians do not believe that Hindus have Union with Him. Similarly, many junior devotees of Krishna believe that abidance in Self is Krishna conciosness only and there is no other way.

 

You can have similar arguments with Muslims.

 

Whereas Krishna did show all paths.

 

And Upanishads and Brahma Sutras have shown all paths before.

 

The strength of Sanatana Dharma is that all paths are well known and traversed.

People are not so low that they will be obfuscated by you, however hard you try.

 

 

Show me the word merging in my thread. Instead you can see union in 6.29.

 

And I said that fulfills my objective.

 

 

I will take your translations.

 

 

 

6.29 Because of perceiving the (same) Self (abiding) in all beings and all beings (abiding) in the (same) Self; a yogi, who is in union with the Self, sees every being with an equal eye.

 

 

 

6.30 Those who see Me in everything and see everything in Me, are not separated from Me

 

 

In 6.29, please note “Union with the soul” and in 6.30 please note: “Those who see Me in everything and see everything in Me, are not separated from Me”

 

 

 

That completes my objective.

 

 

Friends, please also note the following:

 

 

TEXT 29

 

sarva-bhuta-stham atmanam

sarva-bhutani catmani

iksate yoga-yuktatma

sarvatra sama-darsanah

 

SYNONYMS

 

sarva-bhuta-stham--situated in all beings; atmanam--the Supersoul; sarva--all; bhutani--entities; ca--also; atmani--in the self; iksate--does see; yoga-yukta-atma--one who is dovetailed in Krsna consciousness; sarvatra--everywhere; sama-darsanah--seeing equally. "

 

 

Friends please note how the word "yoga" is transformed to yukta-atma--one who is dovetailed in Krsna consciousness"

 

 

 

You have again started the commonly known technique of pushing in words that were not used.

 

 

Show where the word "merging" has been used by me in the thread.

 

You set up your own trap by being biased in advance and jumping to comment with that biased bent of mind.

 

 

You have only one agenda: the hierarchy.

Your point “Ignorance of Purnas in this matter is revealed by poor advaitis. Some verses in Veda Samhitas can be understood fully and only in light of puranas. I have demonstrated this to Atanu before like the verse from Vayu Sukta where Lord Vayu reduces the potency of Visha to make it edible for lord Shiva.

 

When Lord Shiva is lower in relation to Lord Vayu then it is ridiculous to claim Lord Shiva is equal or greater than Lord Visnu.”

 

 

 

 

My comments: Raghuramji you believe that others will fall for your childish arguments. Does your sentence “where Lord Vayu reduces the potency of Visha to make it edible for lord Shiva” support the next statement that you make: “When Lord Shiva is lower in relation to Lord Vayu”

 

 

How one sentence leads to another?

 

Vayu is a Tattva. And Shiva is the Lord of pancha tattva. He creates them and whenever he requires He uses them. It is childish to assign Vayu a higher status.

 

 

If paracetamol reduces my fever does it become higher than me?

 

 

 

No one is ignorant of Puranas. But you only insisted that Shruti evidences be given.

 

 

 

Since you have now started quoting Puranas and Mahabharata read the followings.

 

Mahabharatha on Siva

 

In Maharashtra, Drona Parva Adhyaya 201, Vyasa writes thus :-

Narayana performed strenuous Tapa when the Highest God of the world, the origin of the Universe and the parent of the worlds, visualized himself before Narayana. That God is Known as Sambhu, Hara or Rudra. He is smaller than paramanu and greater than anything greatest.

 

He is the cause of vitality in all the living things. Every thing or non-living originates from him. He can never be seen by ordinary people. He has engulfed the whole world. He is the limit of the Time. He has no birth, no death. He is invisible, unmanifest. He is the soul of the soul. He has no passion at all.

 

Mahabharata Drona. A.202 states-" all the gods including Brahma, Visnu and Rudra have originated from him. He is Citswarupa and is present in all the bodies and controls all the bodies. The whole universe is His Body.

He is the master of all and hence is called as the Great God, Mahadeva. He is also known as Sthanu. He is the Soul of the Universe. He is the creator of the Universe and is theUniverse Himself. He is the self-made (Swayambhu). He is full of the knowledge and can be understood only by the knowledge. He is the source of the light. Everything in the world is his form." He has got (Anusasana 17,)four heads, five heads, and thousands of heads. He has three eyes. He is known as Hiranyagarbha, Suksmatma and Sutratma. All these three names are very important. He is the first of all and has no end. The seed originates from him. He enjoys sixty elements of the world, and these elements are his own parts.

Sasthibhaga. He is Prajabeeja, Mahattatva and later coming Ahankara. He is called; Vansakar because he produces generations .

 

In Mahabharata Santi Parva A. 302 there is included a dialogue between Vasistha and Janaka. Here, Vasistha tells that twelve thousand Divine year make one Yuga. Four such Yugas make one Kalpa. That comes to 48 millions of Divine years. This is only one day of Brahmadeva together makes 96 millions of Divine years. Please note that these are divine years; and one divine day is equal to one human year. Hence we have to multiply 96 millions by 360. It comes to 34560 million human years. Vasistha says that after the interval of 34560 million human years Isana, Jyotirupa, Avyaya, Sambhu (all names of Siva) starts his work.

 

First of all Sambhu creates Hiranyagarbha, also known as Visvarupi or Mahan or Bhootagraja which means the first thing in the world. Vedanthis call his Hiranyagarbha as Sutratma. Yogasastra calls it ‘Mahan’ or ‘AJA’. The Sankhyasastra calls it Vicitrarupa, Visvatma and Ekasara. Hiranyagarbha prepared all the things forming this world and occupied those himself. Thus he himself turned into many forms and hence got the name Visvarupa and Bahurupa. He generates himself in innumerable forms and becomes visible. This change from invisible to visible or unmanifest to manifest is named as Vidyasarga. (Please note that the real sense of

the words Vyakta and Avyakta cannot be translated into English appropriately.)

Hiranyagarbha gives rise to Ahankara and Virat Prajapati. This

process is called as Avidyasarga. From Ahankara all the microscopic things evolved.( Suksma-Bhuth-Sristi).

Then arose five Mahabhutas-Akas, Vayu, Teja, Apah, Prthvi and its subjects namely Sabda, Sparssa, Rupa, Rasa, Gandha. After this the last of fifth generation evolved with five sense organs and the mind.

 

Siva Sambhu is not having any figure or form like that of a man or animal to possess any sex organ. He is Jyotirupa, that means He is energy. He has no end, no destruction.

Energy has no destruction. He gave rise to Hiranyagarbha, which is the first living creature of structure and is named Bhutagraja. Visvavupa that means he is present in all the living things and non-living things also. He is Suksma that means smallest, microscopic, and Sthanu that means an atom which is always present

 

 

What is the meaning of your thread header?

 

“This is another instance of fraud or ignorance. If you know, Sri Rudram begins with 4:5:1 of Taittiriya Samhita of Yajur Veda. Ther verse cited above is in no way related to Lord Rudra”

 

 

It is very easy to label others as fraud. Actually one who calls others fraud is of doubtful integrity.

 

 

 

 

First, none claimed that the verse cited is Shree Rudram. Can you show the claim?

 

 

 

The verse cited is from a group dedicated to Agni:

 

 

Yajur Veda

 

iv. 4. 7.

a Thou art the furtherer; thou art the maker of wide room; thou art the eastern; thou art the zenith; thou art the sitter in the atmosphere, sit on the atmosphere.

b Thou art the sitter on the waters; thou art the sitter on the hawk thou art the sitter on the vulture; thou art the sitter on the eagle; thou art the sitter on the vault.

c In the wealth of earth I place thee; in the wealth of the atmosphere I place thee; in the wealth of the sky I place thee; in the wealth of the quarters I place thee; giver of wealth I place thee in wealth.

d Protect my expiration; protect my inspiration; protect my cross-breathing [1]; protect my life; protect all my life; protect the whole of my life.

e O Agni, thy highest name, the heart,

Come let us join together,

Be thou, O Agni, among those of the five races.

f (Thou art) the Yavas, the Ayavas, the courses, the helpers, the Sabda, the ocean, the firm one.

 

 

iv. 4. 8.

(Thou I art) all overcoming through Agni; self-ruling through the sun; lord of shakti 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.

 

Please note: “creator with the bull” and “Lord of Shakti” in the verse above

 

 

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.

 

Now also read from several Rig and Yajur Veda verses that Agni is a form of Rudra. And so is Pusan. I reproduce only one here.

 

 

Yajur Veda i. 3. 14.

 

a Thou, O Agni, art Rudra, the Asura of the mighty sky,

Thou art the host of the Maruts, thou art lord of food;

Thou farest with ruddy winds, blessing the household;

Thou, as Pusan dost, protectest thy worshippers with thyself.

b Rudra, king of the sacrifice,

True offerer, priest of both worlds,

Agni before the dreadful thunder,'

Of golden colour, win ye for help.

 

 

 

Indra is Rudra’s mind.

 

RV Book 6 HYMN XIII. Indra.

1. INDRA, when Soma juices flow, makes his mind pure and meet for lauds.

He gains the power that brings success, for great is he.

2 In heaven's first region, in the seat of Gods, is he who brings success,

Most glorious, prompt to save, who wins the water-floods.

3 ---------

20 That mind of Rudra, fresh and strong, moves conscious in the ancient ways, With reference whereto the wise have ordered this.

 

 

Visnu derives strength from Indra

 

RV Book 8 HYMN XII. Indra.

 

14 Aditi also hath brought forth a hymn for Indra, Sovran Lord: The work of sacrifice for help is glorified.

 

27 When Visnu, through thine energy, strode wide those three great steps of his, Then thy two beautiful Bay Steeds carried thee on.

 

 

 

Indra is the overlord of Visnu

 

Yajur Veda iv. 3. 9.

 

a Thou art the portion of Agni, the overlordship of consecration, the holy power saved, the threefold Stoma.

b Thou art the portion of Indra, the overlordship of Visnu, the lordly power saved, the fifteenfold Stoma.

 

Note that RUDRA IS BOLT OF INDRA AND THE WIDE STEPS OF VISNU AS WELL

 

 

Yajur Veda i. 8. 15.

 

a Thou art the bolt of Indra, slaying foes; with thee may he slay his foe.

b ------

c Thou art the stepping of Visnu, thou art the step of Visnu, thou art the stride of Visnu

d On the instigation of the Maruts may I conquer.

e Be mind ready.

f May I be united with power and strength. (Rudra and Shakti)

g Thou art the spirit of cattle; like them may my spirit be.

h ------------

 

 

 

And finally the crowning glory of the Vedas:

 

 

Rig Veda HYMN LXXXIX. Visvedevas.

--------

 

10 Aditi is the heaven, Aditi is mid-air, Aditi is the Mother and the Sire and Son.

Aditi is all Gods, Aditi five-classed men, Aditi all that hath been bom and shall be born.

 

 

 

Now note that Aditi grants Rudra’s grace

 

Yajur Veda iii. 4. 11.

 

a Long life thou givest, O Agni,

-----

e With our hymns to-day we choose

The god of all, the lord of the true,

Savitr of true instigation.

--------.

g That Aditi may accord

To our cattle, our men, our kine,

To our offspring, Rudra's grace.

-----------.

 

Raghu Ji forget all differences, Can you answer the followings?

 

Why Aditi is the Heaven, Sire, and the Son?

And why Aditi grants Rudra’s grace?

 

 

The ultimate instruction ----

 

 

3.43 Thus knowing Him who is beyond the intellect, O mighty armed, control your self by the Self and slay the enemy in the form of desire, hard though it may be.

 

5.16 But in those whose unwisdom is destroyed by wisdom, that wisdom like the Sun, reveals the Supreme (Param)

 

6.29 One who is thus integrated in yoga sees all with equal eye, seeing himself in all beings all beings in himself.

 

7.17 The foremost of these is the wise one (jnani) who is ever steadfast and devoted to the One. Very dear am I to the Jnani and he to Me.

 

 

8.21 The Supreme state is called the Unmanifest Imperishable (avyato akshara). That is my highest abode. For those who attain it there is no return

 

9.22 To those, however, who dwell on Me in single minded worship I guarantee fulfillment of needs and security

 

10.10 To them ever steadfast in loving worship, I give the yoga of understanding by which they attain Me.

 

10.11 Out of compassion for them, I, dwelling in their heart, destroy the darkness born of ignorance with the effulgent light of knowledge.

 

 

 

Do not try befudge. Out of compassion He will dispel your darkness.

 

 

But He also guarantees

 

 

5.16 But in those whose unwisdom is destroyed by wisdom, that wisdom like the Sun, reveals the Supreme (Param)

 

6.29 One who is thus integrated in yoga sees all with equal eye, seeing himself in all beings all beings in himself.

 

 

And

 

8.21 The Supreme state is called the Unmanifest Imperishable (avyato akshara). That is my highest abode. For those who attain it there is no return

 

 

 

Atanu

 

 

PS: Now do not say that this wrong translation.

 

Raghu sab, I did not want to comment because mostly discussions degenerate to ego level. Moreover, it is Barney ji’s thread.

 

 

Your understanding may be entirely different from my understanding but that should not make us attack each other at personal level. Differences should lead to greater appreciation of His infinite variety, splendor, and ways.

 

 

You worship the supreme One as Visnu. A Christian knows Him as Lord. A Muslim knows Him as Allah. Now if I were to denigrate Allah, I would be denigrating the same Lord whom I was worshipping. If Visnu was revealed through Shruti, Allah was also revealed through Shruti. The first chapter of Rig Veda has a verse that the Lord is One but sages perceive Him as different names.

 

 

 

I believe that you will read further with calm reason.

 

 

 

Your comment : “When examined closely, advaita is seen to be illogical and inconsistent. If there is indeed only one thing in existence, Brahman, which has no qualities, then how to explain the following:”

 

 

”- where does mAyA come from? it is an intrinsic property of brahman (if so, brahman now has qualities, contrary to advaita-vedAnta), or is it an entity apart from brahman (if so, now we have two things - brahman and mAyA)”

 

 

 

My comments: Maya is Maya. It has no reality for the uneluded ones. But it is eternal and has no cause as the beginning.

 

Like Agni has heat but is not heat and is not affected by heat so also Brahman has Maya but is not Maya and Brahman is not affected by Maya.

 

 

A red hot iron ball is not Agni but has as if acquired Agni. Red hot iron ball is insentient, unintelligent. Similarly, a dress (mind-body) by reflection acquires the intelligence of Bhava but due to operation of Maya of the same mind gets deluded that intelligence is of the body and mind. Knowledge of this is a step towards liberation. And experiencing that what you call I is not the body-mind but Bhava observing the insentient Body-Mind is Liberation.

 

In this state no trace of I ness will remain and ego dissolves.

 

 

Gita 18.61 The Lord resides in the hearts of all, O Arjuna, revolving all creatures by prakriti as if mounted on a machine

 

 

Note the “As if” in the above verse. We are mounted on machines and rotated because of desires, which we associate with I and not with Prakriti. Once you understand that I am not lusty but my prakriti makes I to seem lusty, many hurdles will be cleared.

 

Similarly, when you realize that Prakriti makes my mind lusty and I am the seer of this, again many hurdles will be cleared.

 

In essence, see yourself as desireless-unchanging Self and not as a mass of desires. This is only possible when you dissociate consciousness from your body-mind.

 

 

 

Your comment : ”- if brahman is a "conscious" principle, then this too is assigning a quality to brahman, in contrast to the advaita view that brahman has no qualities”

 

 

 

 

My comments: Brahman is nor Sat and nor Asat. It is indefinable in absolute terms. Maya is also indefinable in absolute terms. Trying to define something infinite through our finite thought is faulty. I can understand a report written by me but my report cannot understand Me. Brahman is un-definable in absolute terms without also limiting His infinite-un-limited nature. Brahma Sutra defines Brahman as that from which proceed acts of creation, sustenance and destruction. But Brahma Sutra does not venture to say what Brahman absolutely is. Advaitins simply say that Brahman is all.

 

 

 

 

Your comment: ”- if brahman is non-dual and the same living entity in multiple different bodies, then why do only some entities get liberation while others are not getting it? shouldn't liberation be simultaneous for all?”

 

 

 

 

My comments: Brahman is not the same living entity in different bodies. Who told you that? Brahman is indivisible. Brahman pervades all. No space (so called) is not devoid of Brahman. The dresses that seem to divide Brahman are unreal. In Brahman’s perspective there are no bondage and liberation; no death and birth, no creation and destruction.

 

 

 

It is the mind which has assumed the ownership of I (like a red hot iron ball assumes the ownership of Agni) that knows about bondage and liberation. This sense of bondage is Maya.

 

 

 

I will try to be solemn here in order not to attract fast comments. Please, I beg, read this with calm.

 

 

Thought of the mind is the bondage. A sage who remains thoughtless for appreciable extent of time (by singing praise of the Lord or by being immersed in meditation) is liberated to that extent.

 

 

Sages also say that in this process a time comes when the ego vanishes. And then the sage abides in Sahaja Samadhi though apparently appearing to partake in karma. Like a Brahmin actor who acts the role of a Soldier in a play. He knows that it is Prakriti who is acting and I is sthanu -- the seer.

 

 

The sage will realize: I in everyone and everyone in I. That is, in essence He will realize that He is soul and all are soul and that the soul is all pervading.

 

 

 

I obtained a glimpse that body-mind cannot be the “I” at the death bed of my father. My father, after suffering for pain and fear of death for some 7 days, suddenly became calm and smiling 5 minutes before the end of the dress. Two questions arose in me and that was the turning point. I thought if the body and brain was my father then why can’t the body-brain decide for more life? I also thought, whether if I fed the dead dress with glucose water, the fingers would move again?

 

 

The answer was obvious: the senses, the body, the mind etc. are controlled by something deeper and that is the real Me.

 

 

Advaita, Dwaita and all other profound thoughts stipulate that love this power that runs everything. That is the real Me. The real I.

 

 

 

 

 

Now as further food for thought read these:

 

 

RV Book 1

 

10 Aditi is the heaven, Aditi is mid-air, Aditi is the Mother and the Sire and Son.

Aditi is all Gods, Aditi five-classed men, Aditi all that hath been born and shall be born.

 

 

Book 2 HYMN XLIII. Rudra.

 

1 --------

2 That Aditi may grant the grace of Rudra to our folk, our kine, Our cattle and our progeny;

 

 

 

 

Atanu

I forgot to answer the main question.

 

 

I am a Bengali by origin but I have been through most part of India due to nature of job. At present I am in Rajhmundry, AP.

 

May I also know about you?

"There is no greater ego than calling oneself as Brahman"

 

Raghu ji, I respect your erudition. But why do you repeat this. Whence has one claimed oneself as Brahman?

 

You know very well that till all traces of individual ego is removed, no one can attain God.

 

Calling oneself as Brahman is by one's mind. Till individual mind exists all affirmation of being Brahman will be fraud.

 

As Mano Nasha is the way so claiming something by Mind is the obstruction. So, I am also a Dasa.

 

 

I hope you will appreciate.

"Sri Bhagvat 4.1-28Atri Muni desiring a son like him called upon the Bhagvan thinking of him only. But although he is far beyond the mental speculation of man, all three of you have come here. kindly let me know how you have come, I am greatly bewildered about this.4.1-30 the three devas told Atri Muni, Dear brahmana you are perfect in your determination, and therefore as you have desired so it will happen, it will not happen otherwise. We are all the same person upon whom you were meditating, and therefore we have all come to you.

Vishupuran say this 5.33-46 yo harih sa siva saksad yah sivah sa svayam harih ye tayor bhedam ati sthan narak aya bhave narah.

Whoever is lord hari, he himself is lord shiva indeed any human being mistake both the lords to be different,he/she surely goes to hell

yatha siva mayo vishnuh

Sivasya hrdyam Visnur Visnoz ca hrdayam Sivah(Skanda puran)

Just as Lord Vishnu is pervaded by Lord Shiva,

Similarly, in Shivas heart Vishnu resides and Vishnus heart is abode of Shiva."

 

 

Let this be read again and again. Let us all unite -- some day.

 

Ganesh Prasad Ji,

 

I admire your and Guest Ji's discussions. It is immaterial that Guestji and I have differences.

 

There is certainly some misunderstanding. During my college years George Harrison's Sweet Lord was my favorite and still is. Most arguments seem to stem up from position of defence -- thinking that other person is trying to lower the status of my diety. Whereas, very much like you, I do not see Shiva and Vishnu as different.

 

It is like a Christian forgetting the essence of Christ's saying: I am the Light and the Path, and taking the surface meaning and then demeaning Hindu beliefs.

 

Similarly, Muslims and Christians both denigrate Hindu worship of idol. But these critics are greatest idolators since they worship their own and other people's bodies more than anything.

 

Tolerance, understanding, and dispassion are not easy commodities. It requires great strength to abide by these qualities. We must continously strive.

 

And that is why I admire Guestji and your discussions, since, in general, those discussions do not become personal.

 

All strength to you dear Ganesh Prasad Ji.

 

 

 

 

May be Madhav. May be you are correct.

 

But still, I am so convinced that all are children of One God, that I cannot generalize.

Regards to Ganshprasad ji and Guest ji

"Those who see Me in everything and see everything in Me, are not separated from Me and I am not separated from them. (6.30)"

 

 

Yes, you people do our job easy. Krishna says: Those who see Me in everything and see everything in Me, are not separated from Me and I am not separated from them.

 

So, why you talk about separation.

 

 

 

Yajur Veda iv. 4. 9.

 

(Thou art) ---------- Visnu when being taken down; ---------- 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.

 

 

Note: (Thou art) ---------- Visnu when being taken down;

 

 

 

Unlike you I do not have any intention of lowering the infinite Lords. Siva and Visnu are same. One manifests while coming and another manifests while going

 

 

And Yes, Rudra derives His strengh from Visnu becaiuse Visnu is Rudra Arrow.

 

Moreover, read other threads to learn that Visnu derives strength from Indra. Visnu prays to Indra. And Indra is ancient mind of Rudra.

 

I wish devotees read this lovingly