Ganeshprasad

Pranam

 

 

————————————————————————————————

 

I hope you find my explainations are authoritative,

Bhaktajan

 

Thanks but no thanks for the explanation, those are opinions and they do vary according to ones preceptor.

 

I was only responding to a blatant headline lie that read as such.

 

‘What does the Bhagavad-gita say about who not to worship?’

 

I hope I have provided the facts as said by Krishna and not someone opinion.

 

There is no condemnation of worship of Devas in Bhagvat Gita

 

The sloka that has been quated is way different from the tranlation I read

 

"Men of small intelligence worship the demigods, and their fruits are limited and temporary. Those who worship the demigods go to the planets of the demigods, but My devotees ultimately reach My supreme planet." (Bhagavad-Gita 7.23)

 

Note

 

There is no word 'worship and Deva' in the first two lines.

 

Now compare

 

Such (material) gains of these less intelligent human beings are temporary.

The worshipers of Devas go to Devas, but My devotees come to Me. (7.23)

 

 

antavat tu phalam tesam

tad bhavaty alpa-medhasam

devan deva-yajo yanti

mad-bhakta yanti mam api

 

 

BG as it is, is not so as it is I am afraid, if you read Sanskrit you may be able to see,

The translation I have provided is much near to what Lord Sri Krishna is saying.

 

 

Jai Shree Krishna

Pranam

 

 

What does the Bhagavad-gita say about who not to worship?

"Men of small intelligence worship the demigods, and their fruits are limited and temporary. Those who worship the demigods go to the planets of the demigods, but My devotees ultimately reach My supreme planet." (Bhagavad-Gita 7.23)

 

When we read such verse in isolation and with heavily biased tranlation little wonder we make such onerous conclusion.

Read what the same Gita says, who is also to be worshiped and I quote

 

Nourish the Devas with Yajna, and the Devas will nourish you. Thus nourishing one another you shall attain the Supreme goal. (3.11)

 

Men in the mode of goodness worship the devas; those in the mode of passion worshipthe demons; and those in the mode of ignorance worship ghosts and spirits. (17.4)

 

The worship of Devas, Braahmana, guru, and the wise; purity, honesty, celibacy, and nonviolence; these are said to be the austerity of deed. (17.14)

 

Jai Shree Krishna

Pranam

 

 

Really surprising from your part.

 

It's an example often cited by greats.

 

About the rare example; it's really rare from your part to make such useless comment.

 

Concerning Vidura he was subjected to the same misinterpretation of Varna System as today. Truth he only knew.

 

I do admit that ones birth is not an accident it is based on guna karma, but that does not mean it is a mandatory criteria.

 

I don’t know why you find my stand on varna a surprise and useless but you are entitled to your opinion. Vishvamitra example is the best known but as to Parsuram I can not except, he never aspired to become a kstriya, he simply made the world without them. I have never heard, until today that he changed his varna or any one called him a kstriya.

Even for Vishvamitra,simply put his birth status is still there, he is still refered as kstriya who became Brahmrishi, he achieved that after a very long time doing tapsya where else someone becomes a Brahmin through a medium of tape recoding is really laughable.

Vidura Maharaj never was disturbed by his position and there never was a misinterpretation of varna in his case, he belonged in kings household yet his dasi putra status was well known.

No less a personality as Arjun called Karan a sutputra because of his apparent birth even though his Kstriya ability was well known. And even after heinous murder by Asvasthama Dropadi called him a bramana.

This days in the name of equality every thing goes and the real understanding of varna is clouded and the baramans are blamed for all the ills of India.

There can not be any better criteria but birth and death to sort out the varna of any individual fair and square, without any ambiguity.

 

However,

In saMnyAsa itself, there is no distinction, and the saMnyAsa dIkshA involves the renunciation of varNa and every previous Ashrama ~ indeed, saMnyAsa involves the renunciation of attachment to the three worlds!

 

The highest knowledge of saMnyAsAshrama declares that all men are equal in the eye of god, and that varNa, Ashrama, and ultimately even dharma, are superfluous constructs. But this esoteric wisdom has unfortunately become exoteric dogma in some non-brAhmaNa circles, and the dismissal of varNAshrama dharma is especially favored by aspirants who were born without dvija varNa (by Sarbhnga)

 

Jai Shree Krishna

Pranam

 

 

 

I do have an example, Parashram was born is a Brahman family but turned out to be a kshatriya and also Vishwamitra was born in a Kshatriya family but became a Brahmana.

.

 

Pardon me but your example of Parshuram is well off, he never became a Kshatriya but got rid off Kshatriya 21 times.

 

Vishvamitra is a very rare example.

 

Vidura a great mahatma, was still known as dasi putra, ones identity is always established by ones birth always has been, ones birth is not an accident it is based on guna karma.

 

Jai Shree Krishna

 

 

 

There is a tendency on the part of some scholars to indicate that the word Hindu might have been created from Sindhu (in Sanskrit meaning ocean or river, especially in the west of India) due to lack of certain letters in old (Vedic) Sanskrit. Another misconception is that when certain foreigners (Greeks, Arabs and Persians) first arrived in India, they were unable to pronounce the word Sindhu properly and their mispronunciation of Sindhu led to the creation of Hindu. Thus it is quite common to come across different stories about the origin of the name Hindu. This article discusses why Hindu could not have evolved from Sindhu and looks into other explanations for Hindu and Hindu dharma.

 

It is difficult to imagine that Vedic Sanskrit, due perhaps to a lack of certain letters and sounds in its alphabet, caused Sindhu to change into Hindu. Since the letters (sounds) 's' and 'dh' in Sanskrit have existed right from the outset, there would be no need to replace them, respectively, with 'h' and 'd' thus transforming Sindhu into Hindu. Moreover, because the words Sindhu and Hindu continued to coexist simultaneously even after the supposed transformation, clearly indicates that such change never occurred. Had such a substitution really taken place, the word Sindhu would most likely disappear. Thus it is clear that the word Hindu was not derived from Sindhu due to any deficiency in the Sanskrit alphabets.

 

The idea that the word Hindu was used for the first time by Alexander the Great and his soldiers during their invasion of India seems quite absurd. It is said that the invading Greeks and Macedonians found it difficult to pronounce the word Sindhu, and therefore dropped S at the beginning of Sindhu in favor of H giving rise to Hindu. It is hard to believe that any native speaker of Greek, a language having at least the letter Sigma for 's' sound, would experience any difficulty or uncertainty in pronouncing Sindhu with 's' sound. Moreover, these foreigners must already be familiar in the use of structurally, linguistically and phonetically more complex words (names) in their native Greek than the simple Sindhu. Thus they would have no reason or need to invent the word Hindu, accidentally or otherwise.

 

Similarly Muslims (Arabic or Persian speakers) would not suddenly, upon their arrival in India for the first time, start calling Sindhu River as Hindu River. Being quite familiar with 's' sound (expressed by letters Sad and Sin in their native languages), they would have no problem correctly pronouncing the word Sindhu.

 

Note that whenever a person goes to a different place or a country, his first communications with the locals are generally of verbal nature using words and sounds. These utterances (indicating names, places etc.) are usually imitated or copied while trying not to distort the original words in any manner. Therefore a foreigner (ancient Greek, Arab or Persian), who was quite familiar with 's' sound, would not be confused or encumbered into pronouncing Sindhu as Hindu after arriving in India and hearing it from the locals.

 

 

Thus it is clear from the above that the word Hindu has been there for a long time (perhaps since the beginning) and was not derived from Sindhu, and its roots lie elsewhere in ancient rituals and yajnas. The Moon (also known as Indu) and its light, for example, long ago used to be considered as the enhancer (or catalyst) of quality (taste and aroma etc.) and quantity of juices in plants -- including those from which Soma-juice was derived. Indu was thus a name given to Soma-juice<SUP>+</SUP> and nectar in addition to being used for the Moon. As several Vedic hymns suggest, Soma-juice (Indu) was also the libation for Vedic rituals, yajnas and worships. It was offered to God, and consumed afterwards by people (worshippers etc.) for health, life, prosperity and progeny. Moreover, its use would imply propitiation for the user or Hindu -- a person propitiated by Indu (the Vedic libation). Note, Hindu -- a compound word with Sanskrit roots (i.e. H + indu) -- indicates a liaison between H (sounding 'H' as in Hut, and implying auspiciousness or delight) and Indu or indu (meaning Vedic libation). Thus note that indu was a normal soma juice. Offering it (indu or soma juice) as libation to God (during a Vedic yajna or sacrifice) made it auspicious, and its use (drinking / accepting by people) afterwards signified a person as Hindu . someone propitiated by indu (Vedic libation).

 

Similarly, dharma was considered long ago as a person's duty or commitment. Moreover, he would undertake or try to fulfil (properly complete) his obligations preferably in the witness of or as a dedication to a deity (such as indicated also in the Gita: Ch. 18 - V. 66). This association with deity most likely gave rise to the divine aspect in one's dharma. Note also in this regard that religion essentially involves relying on or being in obligation to god and living and acting accordingly. Thus, dharma and religion seem somewhat similar in meaning and function, and may even be used interchangeably.

 

Religion (dharma) based on the Vedas (and involving Vedic rituals, practices, customs and way of life since the very beginning of civilization) has long been identified as the Vedic dharma. Moreover, note that as the knowledge contained in the Vedas has withstood the test of time, it is considered eternal (sanatan): these scriptures are therefore considered as divinely inspired and dharma based on them as the Sanatan dharma (eternal religion). There have also been other names used for this religion. For example, it was once also called Bhagvata dharma after the Vedic god Bhaga or Bhagvan -- the bestower of auspicious blessings and possessing the power of goodness (Ref.: Indian Philosophy, Vol. 2, S. Radhakrishnan, Oxford University Press, 1999, p. 667). Similarly, it is known as Hindu dharma (Hindu religion or Hinduism) because of its association with Hindu (people expiated by Indu -- libation in Vedic rituals and practices). Needless to say, Hindu dharma (dharma associated with Hindu) has its roots in the Vedas and is truly the Vedic dharma. It is clear therefore that Vedic dharma (dharma according to the Vedas), Sanatan dharma (dharma based on the Sanatan or eternal knowledge of the Vedas) and Hindu dharma (dharma representing the Vedic dharmic rituals, practices and expiation etc.) are interchangeable expressions.

 

Finally, it is clear from the above that the word Hindu (not signifying any particular area or region) was in existence for a long time before the foreigners arrived in India. Moreover, even the word Hindustan (meaning the area or land belonging to the Hindu) could have been easily created by the locals (living in the present-day India) or the outsiders by simply adding stan or sthan (area) to the pre-existing local word Hindu. Likewise, the word Hind (or the land of Hindu) was most likely also rooted in the word Hindu -- with u (sounding as 'oo' in tooth) dropped from it.

 

By: Dr. Subhash C. Sharma

Jai Shree Krishna

Pranam

 

As to how and when the word Hindu came about makes no difference.

Taking a dip in Ganga or Ganges the result would be the same.

Following Dharma is important and the rest is just academic.

 

This Objection of Hare Krsna's, frankly speaking is wearing a bit thin.

If the Hindus knew half the truth of what went on and is still going on in Iskcon, i doubt very much if Hindus them self would want any thing to do with the Organisation.

To be honest Hare Krsna's should stop fleecing the Hindus and stop running to them every time they get in to legal problems.

 

Jai Shree Krishna

"On all sides, Soma, thou art our life-giver: aim of all eyes, light-finder, come within us.

Indu, of one accord with thy protections both from behind and from before preserve us." RV (Book 8 - Hymn 48.15)

"Give us our portion (Soma) in the Sun through thine own mental power and aids;

And make us better than we are." RV (Book 9 - Hymn 4.5)

"The Tree whose praises never fail yields heavenly milk (juice) among our hymns,

Urging men's generations on." RV (Book 9 - Hymn 12.7)

"With stones they press the Soma forth, the Strong conducted by the strong:

They milk the liquor out with skill." RV (Book 9 - Hymn 34.3) "Whose coloured sap they drive with stones, the yellow meath-distilling juice,

Indu for Indra, for his drink." RV(Book 9 - Hymn 85.8)

 

Jai Shree Krishna

Pranam

 

 

No demi-god/god who wears cobras all around his body is great. Perhaps supreme in another way.

 

What a display of ignorance, you are an embarrassment to Hindu Dharma,

Perhaps you never noticed Lord Narayan lying on Adisesh nag with thousand of hoods, if you did you would never make such a stupid statement.

Jai Shree Krishna

Pranam

 

As the saying goes, those who live in glass house should not throw stones,

I was once told to p---off for using the word 'it'

 

what a joke!

 

Jai Shree Krishna

 

To answer Ganeshprasad: Yes, just because it says suitable for vegetarians/vegans doesn't mean it doesn't contain animal by products. So be careful. Read the label or in doubt , ask the manufacturers; most big companies are honest about their products ingredients ánd they will tell you.

 

In Australia I buy the brand Nimbin for cheese because they use plant enzyme to process it. Of course I can't say it's 100% sterile (no microorganisms). That's the same with all vegetarian food we take.

 

Radhe Radhe

 

Pranam Malati dasi ji and all

 

Thank you , it seems there is nothing scared, how can they be honest if they say suitable for vegetarian/ vegan yet it may contain animal products in it. Thankfully I have very little use for process food, yes cheese once or twice a month, I will have to be more careful and watch out for lactic acid.

 

Spare a thought for those vegetarian who eat out side, out of necessity, if it contains cheese how are they going to verify the cheese used. I guess in this age of Kali we have no other refuse but to chant the holy names and the mantra before food, even if it is just a thanks for the food that has been provided.

 

Thanks guys for the education on lactic acid.

 

Jai Shree Krishna

Pranam

Yes I saw this article from Wikipaedia.

Since I only buy products that are marked suitable for vegetarian am I right to assume lactic acid is ok here, or should I be worried?

Jai Shree Krishna

Pranam

 

 

I always do check... for lactic acid, too!

 

Pardon my ignorance why lactic acid?

 

 

Jai Shree Krishna

Pranam

 

 

Ganeshprasad needs to answer these questions to gain credibility:

 

- If this Rudra is Agni, then why does the Aitreya Brahmana say that 'Agni is the lowest Deva'? After all, this Kumara became Mahadeva, so he is not lowest!!

 

- Rig Veda mentions that any Deva, be he Indra, Brahma, Rudra, can be called Agni. Why does Ganesha ignore this?

 

- I have provided etymological explanations for why Agni is referred to here. Why does Ganeshprasad ignore this?

 

Typical. Selective interpretation of shruti.

 

 

 

 

 

Let me tell you why because when the truth stares in your face you have to rely on refuting it with vivid imeginations, you have to accept some parts and reject the most, you have to rely on Bramha being deluded, Vyasdev ji did not know what he wrote in Other purans, he forgot to tell the readers reject this Tamsic or Rajsic purans of mine, I don’t know why took time to wright them in the first place.

 

My ista deva is Lord Krishna but I can not bare see denegrate of Lord Shiva, I copy and paste how a Shiva bhakta see their Lord, think what you like, I am going to take break now for a while.

 

Vedic Shaivism

"Be gracious unto us, o Rudra, bring us bliss!" (Rigveda, I.114.2).

Out of 6 main Shaiva-sampradayas five are Agamic and one is Vedic. This one is Pashupata-shaivism (see G.V.Tagare, "Saivism: Some Glimpses", Delhi, 1996, p. 3). Pashupatism is the earliest Hindu cult that survived till present time.

Worship of Shiva (as Bhava, Rudra or Pashupati) was prominent already in Vedic times. Rigveda (I.43.5) calls Rudra "luminous like the Sun, gratifying like gold, best among the Gods".

The famous Mrityunjaya-mantra of Shiva occurs both in Rigveda ( VII.59.12) and Yajurveda. The great mantra of Shiva, Panchakshari, appears already in Yajurveda, in the Rudradhyaya section of Taittiriya-samhita (IV.5.7) and Satarudriya of Vajasaneyi-samhita (Ch. 16,18).

Five mantras of Shiva, corresponding to five letters of Panchakshari, are found in Taittiriya-aranyaka ( 17.1-5); Sayanacharya, a famous Rigveda commentator, regards that the first words of these mantras are the names of the five Shiva's faces. Parts of these five mantras were taken by Lakulisha (100 B.C.E.), a Pashupata-shaiva teacher and reformer, into his Pashupata-sutra ( 1.40-44).

Rudra is identified with Indra and Agni, main deities of Rigveda. Maitrayani-samhita of Samaveda (II.1.10) and Shatapatha-brahmana of Yajurveda (VI.1.3.10) say "agnirvai rudraH", while Rigveda (II.33.3 ) and Atharvanaveda ( IV.28.3; II.2.7; X.1.23) describe Him as a thousand-eyed God, a holder of vajra and a killer or Vritra, i.e. Indra.

Vedas identify Rudra with Rigvedic (X.90) primal Purusha. Taittiriya-aranyaka (X.14 ) calls Purusha as Bhutanamadhipati, i.e. Rudra; Yajurveda (Taittiriya-samhita, IV.5.1) describes Him in a same manner as a Virat-Purusha, and same is repeated in Shvetashvatara-upanishad (which belongs to Taittiriya-brahmana).

Sayanacharya while commenting upon the verse IV.28.1 of Atharvanaveda, tells us that the Lord is called Bhava for having everything coming out of His body, and that He is called Sarva because of His destructive character at the time of dissolution.

Shatapatha-brahmana ( VI.1.3.17) says that Ishana, the highest form of Rudra, is same as Aditya. Shvetashvatara-upanishad clearly describes Rudra as the Supreme God, Maheshvara (IV.10), Purusha of Rigveda and Vishvakarman who is seated in the hearts of all human beings ( IV.17). Thus, Rigvedic Vishvakarma-daivata hymn (X.81) also describes Rudra and no other god. Rudra is identical to Soma, who was worshipped in a pillar, very similarly to Shivalinga worship.

Mandukya-upanishad (verse 7) names the fourth, the highest pada of Brahman, as Shiva.

Mahabharata mentions Krishna's initiation into Pashupatism (Anushasana-parvan, 14.379-380). In the same chapter Yajnavalkya and Vedavyasa are said to have been Pashupata-shaivas. Gautama and Kanada, founders of Nyaya and Vaisheshika schools respectively, were Pashupatas (see Prof. R.K. Siddhantashastri, "Saivism Through the Ages", Delhi, 1975, p. 99).

To conclude with, Shaivism is essentially Vedic religion (as Pashupatism), which later got developed with the independent Agamic revelation. This Agamic revelation is considered to be the essence of Vedas.

In Bhairava-Agamas Shaivism takes a Shakta form, but this Agamic Shaktism has its root in Vedas again. Shakta-Agamas view Vedic Agni (who is said to be all Gods together: Aitareya-brahmana, II.6.3) as Devi, Durga, Bhairavi or Kundalini. Durga is invoked with Vedic Rik ( I.99.1) connected with Agni. In Devi-upanishad, also known as Devyatharva-shirsha (verse 9), Durga is called Agnivarna and Tapasa-jvalanti.

Agni and Soma of Vedas (invoked in pair, for example, in Rigveda, I.93), or Agni and Indra (similarly coming in pair: Rigveda, I.21), are Shakti and Shiva of Tantras.

Sri Bhaskararaya in Lalitasahasranama-bhashya (Name 407) quotes Shruti: "One Rudra hidden in all beings, he is with Maya, with parts and without parts. He is Devi herself, and is not separated from her. By knowing this, one attains immortality."

Supreme Shakti of Tantras was known in Vedic times as Aditi, mother of gods, and her manifestations were Sarasvati, Ushas ("Face of Aditi" — Rigveda, I.113.19) and alike. Rigveda (I.89.10) says: "Aditi is Heaven, Aditi is Mid-region, Aditi is Mother (Earth), Father and Son. She is all the Gods; she is the Five peoples. Aditi is all that is born and what is to be." In Rigvedic Devi-sukta ( X.125.3-4) the Goddess says: "The Queen, I am the dispenser of wealth; conscious, I am the first among the Gods… They that ignore me run to ruin."

Kena-upanishad (which belongs to Tandya or Jaimini-brahmana of Samaveda) shows Uma revealing the knowledge of Brahman to the gods (according to Mahavasishtha, "Uma is so called because it contains the essence of the Pranava").

In Muktika canon there are eight Upanishads devoted specifically to Shakti: Bahvricha, Bhavana, Devi, Saubhagyalakshmi, Savitri, Sita, Tripura, Tripuratapini.

The worship of Shakti as the Yoni has also got Vedic roots: Aitareya-brahmana ( II.6.3) says that "Agni is the womb of the Gods"; Shvetashvatara (V.5) calls Rudra as "Yoni"; and Brihadaranyaka (Kanva VI.4.2) refers to worship of women's Yoni by Prajapati. Both Brihadaranyaka (Kanva VI.4.3; VI.2.13) and Chandogya ( II.13.1-2) view ***ual act as holy practice. Tantric doctrine of divine nature of women also finds support in Vedic Shruti (Brihadaranyaka, Kanva III.9.11).

"May the Goddesses favour us with increase and great happiness!" (Rigveda, I.22.11).

Regards

Prasanna Kumar

Pāñcākshara recalls (in reverse order) both the Pāñca Brahma of the Taittirīya Āranyaka and the Pāndavas (Pāñca Deva ~ Five Lords) of the Mahābhārata. And these Five Heads of Brahma reveal the Five Faces of the Śiva Linga.

The Pāñcabrahma Mantra is the Brahmaśiras (Head of Brahma) weapon that Śiva gave to Arjuna, which came to be known as the Pāśupatāstra (Weapon of the Lord of Animals).

Ya is known as Sadyojāta (First Born) or Mahādeva (Great Lord), the Eastern Face of the Śiva Linga; and it corresponds with Yudhishthira (Steady in Battle).

 

 

sadyoj

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Jai Shree Krishna

 

 

 

Pranam

 

 

Back again?

Cant let you get away with telling lies about Lord Shiva.

 

 

Read my sentence properly. I said, Valmiki should be used as standard for recognising authenticity of Puranas, and not vice versa.

Yes but then you used varah puran to explain this quote from Avinash In Mahabharat it is written that Krsna prayed to Shiva to which you replied Easily explained.

 

1) Varaha Purana explains that Shiva had asked the Supreme Lord Krishna for a boon,

 

So purana is now explaining Ithihasas yes.

 

 

 

 

Shruti mentions that Isana-Mahadeva was born from the forehead of Narayana,

and then you quote

 

 

And how can a sentient being be created through the mind? Use common sense

So why don’t you use common sense.

 

 

Very good statement though, just as how Rudra appear from Narayan head, common sense just don’t apply in the realms of Gods.

If Lord Shiva is born, which is contentious, death of Lord Vishnu is clearly mentioned, that’s is why I did not want to go there. We make apradh of huge proportion without self realisation.

 

 

How can a jiva put life into Rudra without an atma? It contradicts the basic purport of Vedanta that beings can be born from Brahma, the material creator, and exist without an atman.

 

Krishna says, 'Never was there a time when you or I, or any sentient being did not exist'. So, it means that Rudra, Agni, Vayu, etc. are all sentient beings (since they have life), and must have existed as well before they were created by Brahma.

You are simply letting your imagination running wild, and just loosing the plot.

 

 

Hence, it is inferred that Brahma creates bodies. Narayana forces the atman into them.

Your inference is wild and not supported anywhere.

 

 

You, of course, may say, 'Rudra, Agni, etc.' were born of Brahma's mind, and hence it makes them special, like an avatar or something. This is refuted by the fact that Brahma, Adityas, Vasus, Rudras, etc. are mentioned as distinct beings created by Narayana.

 

It follows that they are all Jivas.

Good and Vishu is one of the Aditya!

 

 

 

- Shruti says Brahma created Rudra.

 

- Shruti also says Narayana created Rudra.

Which can only mean Brahma and Narayana are not distinct, and Rudra appears out of their mind hardly a common birth as you might have all believe.

 

 

 

Hence it means, Rudra was created by Brahma, and the indweller injected an atma into the material body of Rudra.

You are simply stretching your imagination.

 

 

Brahma only creates material body.

Now that’s a first

 

 

Yes, the boy was born with sin. To ward of this sin/evil, Brahma gave him names like Rudra, Isana, Pasupati, Mahadeva, etc. which are asupicious names. It makes perfect sense.

That is your misunderstanding there is no sin and just because he got them names does not mean it is lord Shiva, when it clearly says this is eight forms of Agani.

 

 

Your english translator, of course, literally interprets 'Agni'. And a guy named 'Eggbert' or whatever is not an expert on Vedanta.

Yes master

 

 

 

It is clear as daylight that you will never understand the basic rules of Vedanta. Why are you so unwilling to learn etymology?

You mean rules that governs your understanding yes.

 

 

You have to stop taking words literally all the time. If you do, it leads to clashes within shruti itself.

 

Oh yes we will except every thing we like and reject everything else because it clashes with srutis, well that is your problem but srutis it self says

Ekam sad, vipra bahudha vadanti - RSi dirghatamas, Rig Veda I.164.46

truth is one, sages call it variously.

 

 

 

 

- Agni is mentioned to be the lowest of Devas. So, how can he be Mahadeva?

You will shoot your self in foot every time by your logic Agni is lowest and Vishnu is highest deva, but then there is only one Mahadeva.

 

 

 

 

 

There is no bone of contention or whatever. Shruti clearly says Rudra is sinful. Shruti calls Rudra as 'Agni' to denote two things 1) He was born of a sacrifice, 2) He is the 'foremost person'...'foremost' among devas, ie, Umapati Sankara.

 

No-one has ever denied this argument. No-one who knows Shruti, that is.

 

No this kumar who is born had no sins, Shathapatha Brahmana does not say so, it says To him (Agni) when built up (kita) he gives a name: whereby he keeps away evil from him.

Your saying, the boy is born with sin is pure mischief, see what Shathapatha Brahmana say,

 

6:1:3:99. Pragâpati said to him, 'My boy, why criest thou, when thou art born out of labour and trouble?' He said, 'Nay, but I am not freed from (guarded against) evil; I have no name given me: give me a name!' Hence one should give a name to the boy that is born, for thereby one frees him from evil;--even a second, even a third (name), for thereby one frees him from evil time after time.

 

Note names are given to ward off evil

 

6:1:3:1010. He said to him, 'Thou art Rudra 2.' And because he gave him that name, Agni became suchlike (or, that form), for Rudra is Agni: because he cried (rud) therefore he is Rudra. He said, 'Surely, I am mightier than that: give me yet a name!'

6:1:3:1111. He said to him, 'Thou art Sarva.' And because he gave the him that name, the waters became suchlike, for Sarva is the waters, inasmuch as from the water everything (sarva) here is produced. He said, 'Surely, I am mightier than that: give me yet a name!'

6:1:3:1212. He said to him, 'Thou art Pasupati.' And because he gave him that name, the plants became suchlike, for Pasupati is the plants: hence when cattle (pasu) get plants, then they play the master 3 (patîy). He said, 'Surely, I am mightier than that: give me yet a name!'

6:1:3:1313. He said to him, 'Thou art Ugra.' And

p. 160

because he gave him that name, Vâyu (the wind) became suchlike, for Ugra is Vâyu: hence when it blows strongly, they say 'Ugra is blowing.' He said, 'Surely, I am mightier than that: give me yet a name!'

6:1:3:1414. He said to him, 'Thou art Asani.' And because he gave him that name, the lightning became suchlike, for Asani is the lightning: hence they say of him whom the lightning strikes, 'Asani has smitten him.' He said, 'Surely, I am mightier than that: give me yet a name!'

6:1:3:1515. He said to him, 'Thou art Bhava.' And because he gave him that name, Parganya (the rain-god) became suchlike; for Bhava is Parganya, since everything here comes (bhavati) from the rain-cloud. He said, 'Surely, I am mightier than that: give me yet a name!'

6:1:3:1616. He said to him, 'Thou art Mahân Devah (the Great God).' And because he gave him that name, the moon became suchlike, for the moon is Pragâpati, and Pragâpati is the Great God. He said, 'Surely, I am mightier than that: give me yet a name!'

6:1:3:1717. He said to him, 'Thou art Îsâna (the Ruler).' And because he gave him that name, the Sun became suchlike, for Îsâna is the Sun, since the Sun rules over this All. He said, 'So great indeed I am: give me no other name after that!'

 

Isn’t funny this boy who is self aware, having given those names, one by one then Agni, Vayu, Asani and so on, became such like and finally stops at Isana, because isana is aditya, hey don’t let me stop you because Isana is non other then Aditya.

 

Just listen to what below is saying that’s all.

6:1:3:1818. These then are the eight forms of Agni. Kumâra (the boy) is the ninth: that is Agni's threefold state 1.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Funny, if Adi Sankara had no problem accepting it, I do not know why Ganesha Baby has any problems.

Did Adi Sankara say brahma was deluded or Vyasdev did not know srutis?

 

 

 

Jai Shree Krishna

Pranam all

 

 

Valmiki Ramayan says that it was Brahma, who took the form of a boar and raised the Earth out of water. Context: -Sage Jabali tells says that rituals are of no use. Rama gets angry. Then Vashistha tells Rama that Jabali is saying this only because he wants Rama to come back to Ayodhya. After that Vashistha says some other things - one of which is that Brahma lifted Earth out of water.

Bhagavatam clearly says that Vishnu took the form of boar. So, one contradicts the other.

 

Satapatha Brahmana (14.2.1.11) says that Prajapati took the form of boar.

 

To which our great preceptor answers as quote

 

 

1) Puranas say that Brahma meditated on Narayana, and Varaha came out of Brahma's nostril to defeat the asura. Hence, it is taken to mean that Narayana, the indweller literally became Varaha.

 

 

In Mahabharat it is written that Krsna prayed to Shiva and as a result got Samb as son.

It is also written in Mahabharat that Bhisma tells Yudhisthira that Krsna got powers from Shiva.

 

to that he states

 

 

Easily explained.

 

1) Varaha Purana explains that Shiva had asked the Supreme Lord Krishna for a boon, that Krishna would worship Shiva for something. Krishna fulfills it.

 

The standard is Shruti > Ithihasas > Puranas. Hence, Puranas must be compared to Valmiki and not vice versa.

 

 

Note he wants to explain srutis and Ithihas by using Purana if any one else does it he is dimwit, moron and god knows what other abusive language he has used.

 

He can explain Satapatha Brahmana ,but no body else can, we have listen to his outrageous claim that Shiva is born with sins, when there is no such thing.

 

 

Satapatha Brahmana

 

 

Brahma creates the material bodies. The atma cannot come from Brahma's mind. By tapas, he attains Isana as his son. When Brahma does tapas, Narayana forces an atma into the body of Isana-Rudra, created by Brahma.

 

What a glorious explanation! But let us see what Satapatha Brahmana is saying

 

6:1:2:66. By his Mind (manas) he entered into union with Speech (vâk): he became pregnant with eight drops. They were created as those eight Vasus 1: he placed them on this (earth).

6:1:2:77. By his Mind he entered into union with Speech: he became pregnant with eleven drops. They were created as those eleven Rudras 2: he placed them in the air.

6:1:2:88. By his Mind he entered into union with Speech: he became pregnant with twelve drops. They were created as the twelve Âdityas 3: he placed them in the sky.

p. 150

6:1:2:99. By his Mind he entered into union with Speech: he became pregnant. He created the All-gods: he placed them in the quarters.

 

6:1:2:1010. And so they say, 'After Agni having been created, the Vasus were created: he placed them on this (earth);--after Vâyu, the Rudras: (he placed) them in the air;--after the sun, the Âdityas: (he placed) them in the sky;--after the moon, the All-gods 1: he placed them in the quarters.'

 

Note all gods created through his mind. No mention here of Narayana forces an atma, we are really ask to stretch our imagination

Later a kumar is born and he cries like all baby would, to give name is to ward off evil, that what we learn if we read without any bias not that the boy is born with sin as some would have us believe and the verse is absolutely clear as to who this boy is.

 

6:1:3:1919. And because there are eight forms of Agni--

p. 161

the Gâyatrî consisting of eight syllables--therefore they say, 'Agni is Gâyatra.' That boy entered into the forms one after another; for one never sees him as a mere boy (kumâra), but one sees those forms of his 1, for he assumed those forms one after another.

 

6:1:3:2020. One ought to build him (Agni, the fire-altar) up in (the space of) a year, and recite for a year. 'For two (years),' however, say some; 'for in one year they laid the seed, and in one year that boy was born, therefore let him build for two (years), and recite for two (years).' Let him, however, build for a year only, and recite for a year; for the same seed which is laid is brought forth; it then lies changing and growing: hence let him build for a year only, and recite for a year. To him (Agni) when built up (kita) he gives a name: whereby he keeps away evil from him. He calls him by a bright (kitra) name 2, saying, 'Thou art bright;' for Agni is all bright things.

 

It is clear as day light the names are given to ward of evil and all those name denotes the eight form of Agni and Agni is such like the names given.

 

 

First you say that Satapatha Brahmana mentions birth of Prajapati. Then you say that Prajapati is Vishnu here. If we combine these two statements, then we find that Satapatha Brahmana mentions birth of Vishnu.

 

 

Satapatha Chapter on Pravargya or the birth of kumar will always be bone of contention.

 

To some brahma is deluded or Vyasdev does not know srutis but he gave those so called tamsic puranas any way.

 

We may refer this matter to an expert (but again I fear that experts are themselves of many kinds, driven by their predilections.) The point is very clearly explained in Brihadaraynaka: "What did Brahman know that it became all?" Resolution of such debates is never possible. Ending of questions is never possible -- new doubts will be ever cropping up. Those with hierarchy problem will never be able to resolve so call contradiction.(because egos will always persists).

 

 

Jai Shree Krishna

Pranam

 

For those who are interested can read Satapatha Brahmana 6:1:3:1- 6:1:3:2:0 and form your own opinion.

As i said i will not quote the ones that hurt my own feelings so i will let that drop, but it is there if one wants to do their own research.

 

Jai Shree Krishna

Pranam all

 

I am going to end my participation on this thread, for Brahman who is ever indivisible, there is no beginning and no end, So when some one quotes in the beginning there was only Narayan, there position will only rebound on them, how can there be "In the Beginning"?

 

My advise for those who want to quote Satapatha Brahmana please don’t go there, your logic will turns against your own premises when the full verses and the contexts are checked. For a start from what little I have read the Kumar who is given all those name is none other then Agni. If one reads chapter before this the 8 Vasus 11 Rudras and 12 Adityas have already appeared from parajapatis mind.if we were to read on, it does open up a can of warms, one would not like to see.

I am not in to cutting my nose to spite the face.

Jai Shree Krishna

Pranam

 

 

There is a difference between Lord Sadashiva and Lord Rudra, I hope we all understand that here.

 

Although i might have slight different take on it, but it is not important.

 

here it is what you are saying

 

Mahanarayana Upanishad

ekavi.nsho.anuvaakaH .

 

iishaanaH sarvavidyaanaamiishvaraH sarvabhuutaanaaMbrahmaadhipatirbrahmaNo.adhipatirbrahmaa shivo me astu sadaashivom.h

 

XXI-1: May the Supreme Lord who is the ruler of all knowledge, controller of all created beings, the preserver of the Vedas and the one overlord of Hiranyagarbha, be auspicious to me. I am the Sadasiva described thus and denoted by Pranava.

 

Jai Shree Krishna

Pranam Dark Warrior

 

It is abundantly clear from your abusing posts, your character reflect on what ever you are supposedly following, I am not going to lower my self to reach your standard.

 

There are srutis and smriti that extol Rudra as supreme but you will not accept that, at face value.

 

Instead you will spend lifetime refuting it with your opinions and bhasya.

and you will contradict yourself over and over if your two post below is anything to go by.

 

 

Valmiki wrote down what he saw. And who said he didn't call Rama god?

 

 

There you go. If you think Ramayana is a mythological story of a heroic man, then why would the author go to the extent of 'hiding' this hero's godly status, rather than highlighting it, as most poets do?

 

I am not into reconciling apparent contradictions where there are none, i read the verse as it is, so good luck.

 

Jai Shree Krishna

Pranam

 

 

It is Non-Vedic literature.'Vedic Literature' includes the original Valmiki Ramayana. It does not include devotional works like Ramacharitramanas and Kamba Ramayana, which are products of devotees.

 

 

Tulasidas is a bhakta, and hence his work is devotional. It is not authoritative Shruti or Smriti.

 

There is a lot difference saying something is Non -Vedic against what you explain now.

 

I am sure Tulsidas received far more hostilities in his time, the fact that his work of devotional literature inspired far more people and which continues to do so now and that without setting up any separate sampraday of his own, speaks volume. so it makes no difference if you call it Non-Vedic.

 

 

 

 

Valmiki Ramayana does not contain any instance of Rama worshipping Shiva. According to Valmiki, Rama worshipped only Lord Ranganatha (Himself), who is currently residing in Srirangam.

That may be so, worshiping himself make no sense.

but since we have Rameshvram speaks volume.

 

 

 

Quote:

<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=12 width=624 border=0><TBODY><TR><TD vAlign=center bgColor=#ffffff height=43>I certainly would not take lesson from you, on what is Vedic. Your way is saying, you can choose any colour so long as it is black.

 

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

 

Because you know nothing about the Vedas or the purport of our texts.

 

I know enough to know that I can not agree with it.

 

 

 

Especially the Puranas, which were revealed by Brahma in his Sattvik, Rajasic and Tamasic periods. Therefore, the tales told by Brahma need to be measured by Shruti, to acknowledge its validity. Brahma in his rajasic and tamasic moods gives misleading information.

 

Again just you opinion, anybody reading this would be forgiven to think the puranas and lot of Hindu literatures is full of mistakes, why read it at all.

 

 

Veda Vyasa composed the Puranas for people to understand the essence of Shruti. So that means, the basic qualification of a Purana is that it MUST be in accordance with Shruti.

 

Do you really understand what you are saying here? Did he write any thing that is not in according to srutis? Was he prone to making mistakes?

 

 

 

 

Shruti cannot be rejected because it was not even authored by Krishna. It is eternal. Smriti, however, is authored by fallible personalities like Brahma. Its validity needs to be checked.

 

And not all of the srutis are with us so how are you going to reconcile every thing.

If Brahma is prone to making mistakes what makes your judgment of srutis and smriti perfect?

 

 

 

Quote:

<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=12 width=624 border=0><TBODY><TR><TD vAlign=center bgColor=#ffffff height=62>They all had their own reason, from their point of realisation, but I am going to use your own yardstick here, they can’t be any more Vedic than The maha Kavya of Tulsidas Goswami’s Ramacharitramanas.

 

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

 

I see. So, you consider yourself to be above the acharyas, who have extensively studied Vedanta, and shown how Smriti also echoes the same philosophy.

 

You are good deflecting the point made, some how the bhasyas of your acharyas are all Vedic but Tulsidas Kavya (bhasya) Is not, he did not study srutis.

 

 

 

 

Valmiki Ramayana was written by Valmiki in the Treta Yuga. Tulasidas' Ramayana was written in the 16th century.

 

Assuming Valmiki Ramayan is with us in its pristine state, and I am not disputing it.

But Tulsidas never claim to write Ramayan his is writing Ram Charitra based on several source while Valmiki does not reveals Ram identity as god, Tulsidas is full of worship of Ram as god from the very beginning. To call it Non- Vedic I mean what can I say.

 

 

 

 

1) Shiva is not Vishnu. That he is a Jiva is supported by Shruti, and by Smriti, which shows him to possess some failings of ego and lust. Bhrigu judged him, if you remember.

 

2) Parasurama is an amsa avatar of Vishnu. He is not Vishnu, but a Jiva empowered with some fighting skills of Vishnu. Therefore, Parasurama may not be a perfect being, merely an empowered being.

 

3) Balarama and Krishna were playing around, but Shiva openly tried to kill Krishna in the Banasura episode. This shows that even the best of Jivas are often deluded by the Lord's potency.

 

Again you are sifting the goal post, you had contended that how can they be one since they are fighting.

 

 

 

That is why Krishna says, 'Fools contemplate distinction'. Shiva had thought Krishna was a person distinct from him. Krishna was chastising Shiva, reminding him that Krishna is the indweller of Shiva, and hence, shares that oneness.

 

So who are this fools?

 

Any way i am done here you can have your last word if you wish and good luck, sorry to have irritated you

 

Jai Shree Krishna

 

 

 

I see, and didn't you argue that Rama worshipped Shiva because it is in the Ramacharitramanas?

 

That I might have had at some point, but I request you to stick to point of discussion, your allegation was that Ramacharitramanas is Non- Vedic.

 

 

Quote:

<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=12 width=624 border=0><TBODY><TR><TD vAlign=center bgColor=#ffffff height=24>And how does Non-Vedic got changed in to pramana?are this two words interchangeable.

 

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

 

Boy, are you confused.

 

Is it possible to get a straight answer from you?

 

 

 

So, you reject the Shruti because it says Rudra is sinful? And only accept the Puranas?

 

There you go. Finally, you accept that your view is NOT vedic then.

 

Your primitive way of thinking shows that you don't even know one word of our literature. Smriti MUST be reconciled with Shruti. Otherwise, it is rejected.

 

I certainly would not take lesson from you, on what is Vedic. Your way is saying, you can choose any colour so long as it is black.

 

Who said ?smriti has to be reconciled with srutis, otherwise is to be rejected.

 

Did Vyasadev say this ? Did he not know srutis when he wrote puranas? Give me a straight answer not your opinion of it.

 

 

Quote:

<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=12 width=624 border=0><TBODY><TR><TD vAlign=center bgColor=#ffffff height=43>I much prefer to be dumb who like to accept What Veda Vyasadev have given to us on face value.

 

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

 

Then explain why so many acharyas took trouble to write Bhashyas.

 

I may ask you the same question, if only to be rejected, as Non -Vedic.

 

They all had their own reason, from their point of realisation, but I am going to use your own yardstick here, they can’t be any more Vedic than The maha Kavya of Tulsidas Goswami’s Ramacharitramanas.

 

 

 

Quote:

<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=12 width=624 border=0><TBODY><TR><TD vAlign=center bgColor=#ffffff height=62>He who sees no difference between Us three (Brahma, Rudra and Myself)-who are identical in essence and the very selves of all living beings-attains peace, O Daksa.

 

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

Quote:

<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=12 width=624 border=0><TBODY><TR><TD vAlign=center bgColor=#ffffff height=24>Again I don’t mind being stupid for accepting the above.

 

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

 

If you had even read the Upanishads before, you would know what this means. Do you know how complicated the explanation for this is? How can you take it at face value,

 

I just do if that a crime I blame Lord Vishnu for saying it.

 

 

when Puranas state elsewhere that Rudra has fought with Vishnu? How can Rudra and Krishna fight each other if they are the same? Are you so blind?

 

Yes I am blind, but that is my love for them both. Just think did Krishna play and fight with his brother Balaram, Did Parsuram wanted to fight With Ram.

 

Jai Shree Krishna

 

And according to him, Ramacharitramanas is a pramana because 'Morari Bapu' said so. Talk about being dumb.

 

Talk about misquoting, you are a master in that, here I quote exactly what you wrote and my answer to it

 

 

Ganeshprasad needs to understand the difference between Vedic Texts and Non-Vedic ones like Ramacharitmanasa.

Try telling that to Morari Bapu.

Now tell me where did I say, Ramacharitramanas is a pramana because Morari Bapu said it?

 

And how does Non-Vedic got changed in to pramana?are this two words interchangeable.

Typical style of logic only expected from your brand of philosophy which is for ever reconciling srutis to fit in with your little box.

 

I much prefer to be dumb who like to accept What Veda Vyasadev have given to us on face value.

 

 

He has also provided a pramana which quotes Vishnu as saying, 'Brahma and Shiva are Me just as the Head and Hands are part of the body', which proves that the Devas are angas/limbs of the Lord, just like us. And he thinks this pramana supports his theories. Stupidity at its zenith.

 

Typical case of quoting what we like but ignore later part which was highlighted here I quote again

He who sees no difference between Us three (Brahma, Rudra and Myself)-who are identical in essence and the very selves of all living beings-attains peace, O Daksa. Again I don’t mind being stupid for accepting the above.

Jai Shree Krishna

Pranam

 

 

Which means you accept that Shiva isn't supreme based on the Mohini, BakAsura, BanAsura, and similar incidents. Thank you!

 

What I accept is far from your mental concoction.

It is abundantly clear, you do not accept What Vyasadev says in Bhagvatam, What Atri muni realised, what Brahma is saying, what Prajapati prays, even what Lord Hari has said, or what Bhagvan Krishna says in Gita. Little wonder you want accept what Shiv puran has to say or for that matter From The Mahabharata, Anusasana Parva. All this given by Vyasdeva, so how much faith do you hold for him?

 

Jai Shree Krishna

Pranam

 

 

That's the question I am asking you. Do you believe Bhagavatam when it says Shiva's mind is filled with kazmala as mentioned 8.12.35? If you don't, you don't believe in bhagavatam. If you do, you do NOT accept him as supreme. So which one is it? Don't evade the issue.

 

You are incredible, I have said all along I accept what Veda Vyasdev has given (all puranas) unreservedly, you on other hand are ducking and diving, and I am not even asking you from other source. Bhagvatam has clearly said Lord Shiva is Bhagvan, not only that, it says those who thinks Umapati Mahadeva as lusty are shameless.

You have quoted a verse, which does not really say he is not God, but you are asking me to reject him based on your twisted logic which is not really any different from non Vedic people like Muslims who accuse Lord Krishna as lusty having 16000 wife’s and stealing other peoples wife.

So tell me do you accept everything that Vyasdev has written unreservedly?

Let me guess, no because it want fit in your little box.

Jai Shree Krishna

Pranam

 

 

My personal opinions or yours are immaterial here. What bhagavatam says is important. Bhagavatam is calling Shiva as one fooled by the Lord's Maya, and that his agitated mind is full of kazmala, filth. See 8.12.35 for reference. Now tell me, could this entity be supreme?

 

simple answer, YES

 

But why seek my opinion, don’t you believe Sri Vyasdev, when he writes , persons who do not know your austerity see you moving withUmā, they misunderstand you to be lusty.

 

 

Or When Lord Hari says who but you My Lord Sambhu can surpass my maya.

Or when Brahma says thus

SB 4.6.42: Lord Brahma said: My dear Lord Shiva, I know that you are the controller of the entire material manifestation, the combination father and mother of the cosmic manifestation, and the Supreme Brahman beyond the cosmic manifestation as well. I know you in that way.

So don’t seek my opinion just listen to what Veda Vayas has written, for the last times do you have faith in Bhagvatam and what Veda Vyas has written?

Jai Shree Krishna