Rajashekhar

If one thinks deeply about it, both Shiva and Vishnu are imaginations in the minds of our ancestors. Shiva was conceived in the minds of the sages who sat in the mountain ranges of Himalayas contemplating the divine. They saw the Sun rise regularly and provide warmth. So they first called Surya, the great God. Then Surya became indistinguishable from Rudra. Then the concept of Rudra grew. First they equated Rudra with Surya. Then they looked at the blue sky (although they had no idea why it was blue) and they imagined the divinity to be blue-throated, with the earth in His belly. They looked at the dark clouds and imagined Him with a snake around His neck. They decided that Surya and Chandra were His eyes; then they added a third eye of Knowledge (or Power) to Him (Agni) and called Him Virupaaksha. They saw the rain water pouring down from the heavens and imagined Ganges to be in His matted head. The shloka: "Brahmaanda Vyaaptha Deha.." in the Laghunyasa was composed. Other sages saw the mountains being washed by the rain water and viola, the Linga and Rudra-Abhishekam idea came about. Vishnu was conceived in a similar manner, although Krishna was the primary driving force for the birth of Vishnu concept in the minds of Parashar and Badarayana Vyasa. Vishnu was conceived much much later. And the devotees were first all dedicated to Shiva and later there were devotees of both Shiva and Vishnu. The devotees of Shiva portrayed Him as a humane divinity, who is easily pleased (Ashuthosha) is fierce (Ghora) as well as calm (Aghora), but is always auspicious (Shiva). The devotees of Vishnu portrayed Him as a slayer of Asuras and a tricky personality that does not worry too much about the means to the end, as long as the end is reached. Devotees of Vishnu portrayed Him as a slayer of Asuras, protector (at any cost) of Indra. There were too many quarrerls between Shaivites and Vaishnavites so Skandopanishad makes the famous statement: Shivaaya Vishnuroopaaya Shivaroopaaya Vishnave... Hence we should not be thinking whether Shiva is greater or Vishnu that is greater. The real question is: Were the Shiva devotees smarter or the Vishnu devotees smarter. Apparently the Shiva devotees were a lot smarter bunch. Think about it: Shiva Sahasranaama states: "Devaasura Vinirmaatha ... Devaasura Guruh... Devaasura Namaskrithah...." Shiva is pictured as being bowed down to by Devas and Asuras. He is the Guru for both gods and demons, and He alone created both gods and the demons. Only the truly Supreme Being creates, teaches, protects and is worshipped by both Devas and Asuras. Unfortunately the devotees of Vishnu could not conceive such brilliant ideas. In the meanwhile, the Vaishnavites came about and portrayed Shiva as Bhola (slow-witted) and thus inferior to Vishnu. Tulasidas did a great job in making Shiva a devotee of Vishnu, although there are innumerable instances in the Puranas that prove that Vishnu was a devotee of Shiva. But the bottom line is that the Shiva devotees were a lot smarter group. They portrayed Shiva in the proper light. Vishnu-Bhakthas failed to do this.

"You don't know. "I can the Vedas in not authoratative after all huh?" I am sure you know very well, my good friend Govindaram. You seem so self-satisfied. Do you believe everything written in the Vedas? How about Puranas? Do you believe them too? Or do you agree that they are mere mythological stories?

Some person who wants to remain anonymous wrote: [Then this is your opinion. Individual opinions are theirs alone and not factual. [Gita and Vedas are apouresheya and are considered as prime pramanas. Their verdict is final. According to Vedas Krishna or Narayana is GOD. ] The standing opinion is that the Vedas are Apourasheya. The Vedas are their own Pramana and do not require any other Pramana. But Gita is not Veda. Gita, which is basically a summary of the Upanishads, is Smrithi. The Vedas are considered Shruthi. The Vedas do not say Krishna is God, although there are upanishads like Narayana, Krishna or Vasudeva Upanishads have made such comments. But they are not considered major Upanishads either. Many such Upanishads were added to the Vedanta much later, many years after the demise of Krishna. On the other hand, there are also Upanishads like Ramopanishad that talk about Rama being the Supreme Lord. The bottom line of each text glorifying some aspect of divinity is to show what Rudra - Namaka has basically taught; that God is everywhere.

Om Namah Sivayya wrote: _________ You agreed that nothing is outside Lord. If Vaishnavas disturb you then why? If Saivas disturb Vaishnavas then why? Who is disturbed? The real "I", or the ego "i"? And finally, where is the ego from? Did Rajsekhar create it for himself? So, who is disturbing you and why? I feel that going above the ego is the ultimate. And Rudra Deva helps his children in this (sometimes painfully). I also feel that Rama is unequalled. He is an example of poise, calmness, and dhriti in the face of trouble. What did he enjoy in his earthly life? Please do not judge with earthly perceptions. And also please do not judge influenced by what overzealous Vaishnavas say. Your actions are reactions to overzealous efforts of some others. And reaction is not good. Lord has said that He loves the wise. And I felt that you would be able to overcome reactive tendencies. Thats why I intervened. May be you are already above that. I am not sure. And from your post I can make out that you know better than many as to why Lord Rama is Lord. But disturbing other peoples sensitivity is not a good idea. Ha. Ha. I am acting holier than thou, whereas I also disturb others and get disturbed in the process. _________ Sir - The difference between you and me is that you are of the opinion that 'great' people like 'Rama' can do no wrong. I disagree with that opinion. I don't know whether Rama is an incarnation of Lord Vishnu, although I don't believe Rama is any more an incarnation of Lord Vishnu than you or I; but I see a problem when the problem exists. Rama as well as Krishna had problems with their character. For your further information, neither Vaishnavites nor Shaivites affect my equanimity. On the other hand, I believe that if we don't speak up when we see something wrong going on, we should be blamed as well. One should speak the truth calmly and forcefully (in a discussion group) and one should take decisive action (if one sees a crime in progress).

Govindram wrote: [ only called you this to show how ignorant you only are. [You don't accept Krishna, yet read the Gita and process to know it. I suggest you burn all your Gitas. For you they are all usless books. And so are you. You have been infected with Mayavadi and don't even know it. Maybe and I wish that you met a pure devotee of Krishna, who can guide you further<<< Seeya later. ] Why would I want to burn the Gita? There is some truth in it. There is some truth in every religious book, including the Koran and the Bible. But no religion has a proprietary right to the Untruth. Let's face it: All religions have some Untruth, or false bases. Hinduism is no exception. Except Hinduism probably has more truth than many other religions. Trust me, if I met a pure Krishna devotee, I would not pay him any more attention than to a pure Jesus Christ devotee. To me, Krishna and Rama were both humans, just like Jesus Christ was.

My dear Govindraj, As I have tried to explain several times, the concept of Maya is a theory; so are the concepts of rebirths, that of Karma and everything that organized religion has created. Advaitins believe that Maya was created by Ishvara to continue the cosmic activities. Dvaitins believe that there is no such thing as Maya. I will wait to pass judgement on all these theories until after I kick the bucket. In the meanwhile, there are only two things that sound very plausible to me: That there is Ishvara of some sort, and, that there is some form of continuation of life after death.

[Raj Sekhar ji, [it is none of my business but i still feel impelled to intervene.] Please feel free to intervene as many times as you want. This is a discussion group. [Are Vaisnavas outside the Lord? Are Shaivas outside the Lord. Or are Christians outside? [These are all perspectives of samr thing. AS Ganesh ji says: two sides of the same coin.] The Vaishnavas etc are not outside the Lord. I don't remember making that statement or implying it. As Brahma Suthras explain, if God is not all-pervading, then He is a limited God; this means that He is no God. I don't know what you imply by saying 'two sides of the same coin', but when someone sees falsity in something, he/she should speak up. Anyway, if you explain how you felt compelled to make this statement, I will understand better. [Nirgun does not mean devoid of qualities as we understand. But nirgun means that which cannot be defined and thus limited. That is why the only proper definition is neti neti. [And also Brahma Sutra has a definition: [brahman is that from which proceeds the functions of creation, maintenance and destruction. Brahma sutra does not say that creation, maintenance and destruction are functions of Brahman.] Guna means attribute. Nirguna is one without attributes. The Neti-Neti line of thought does arrive at this conclusion. The old-time philosophers understood the one problem with Nirguna Brahman: that a Nirguna Brahman cannot create, just has to be inert. Therefore they came up with the concept of Ishvara, or Saguna Brahman. Ishvara generally means Lord, although mostly it signifies Shiva. It is Ishvara that creates, sustains and destroys. And, of course, later they went a little further and made Ishvara just an all-pervasive but inert Lord and created the concept of Shakti, His Power, who is responsible for the translation of an inert Shiva into an Ishvara that is capable of creation, sustenance and destruction (I am quoting Shankara here).

[it is really more coherent to refuse everything, because it is not possible to demonstrate that puranas are false while upanishads, because there's no stories, but only philosophy, is true [if i believe that when you speak stories about your life you are a lie, and when you speak philosophical statements you say the truth is simply stupid.. or simply reveals that we do want to build our own religin picking here and there..] I have difficulty understanding your objections (I suppose they are objections), but it sounds like you are stating that (a) Puranas are all true, and (b) We should believe in EVERYTHING that Hinduism tells us? Is this true?

We should stick to discussions or arguments, not specialize in abusing others. I agree.

[you can have answered in a way that seems you a funny way.. but the problem is still there: be careful to not blasphemy.. or you will suffer] This is almost childish. I did not see anything offensive in the statement "Compare this with your synonyms and you will see the falsity." made by the gentleman who calls himself "Om Namah Sivayya". My recommendation is not to threaten others with consequences ('you will suffer' sounded like a threat to me), or abuse ('Dear Fool', for example) just because they point out an error or disagree with your point of view.

[well i think the time has come that we have to act together to protect our religion. the main problem is that we are not united, we should start telling people about the importance of hinduism, all evil sources from various countries have entered hindustan and it is very clear in our day to day life we forget to perform our duties. please let us act together, lets stop talking and do it.] Stop talking and start protecting our religion? How do you propose we go about doing it? Please enlighten us.

Govindram wrote: "Are you serious? I feel like I am talking to some half-wit now. Krishna didn't age past 26. if you want to talk about Vedas, please talk in a coherent manner. You are simply being offensive now. I don't wish any further talks with you. Please understand everything I have said. And accept Brahman CAN have form, and be formless at the same time. This is achintya.." Krishna dod not age past 26, eh? And you are saying I am half-wit? My good Sir, Krishna was a human being. Which is why he died. In the meanwhile if you believe that he grew up to be 26 and stopped aging at 26, I have a piece of land on the moon I want to sell you. Apparently you are not on the path of discovering truth. You think you already have the truth in your possession. So I will leave you to enjoy the dream-world you have occupied.

["I sure do. By the very definition of the word Brahman, a Prabrahman or Brahman has to be devoid of attributes."] "param means supreme... it is an attribute" I meant Para, not Param. The typo was my mistake. Anyway, therein lies the philosophical problem with the concept of Brahman. When someone defines Brahman as one without attributes, Brahman is already defined, and therefore the Brahman is no longer Brahman.

"If Param Brahman is Nirguna where did Maya come from? You say Brahman has NO qualities, if this is the case [being formless] then Brahman must be a person with Qualities. A great big sky has NO desire, only a person possess desire. Therefore Maya emanates from a Person." First of all, it is not Param Brahma, it is Parabrahma. Small error, pardon me for pointing it out. According to stories, the Maya was created to sustain the universe. Think about it: If everyone became a realized soul, the world would come to an end. Are you not glad that your parents were not realized souls? Because if they were, you and I would not be here exchanging ideas. I don't understand what you are saying here: Brahman has no qualities so Brahman has to be a person with qualities? There is no rhyme or logic to this statement. Please sort out your ideas a little better and explain your dilemma because you are hitting on something important: The birth of the idea of Ishvara.

"No i am looking at the facts as presented by Valmiki rishi, Tulsidas Goswami, Vyasdev and many saints,Shree Ram is proclaimed through the ages by many as parabrahman,he is above the gunas there is no objectivity there but you know all about that dont you." I sure do. By the very definition of the word Brahman, a Prabrahman or Brahman has to be devoid of attributes. Rama does has attributes. For example he is "Seethaapathi", "Raaghava", "Slayer of Vali", "Teaser of Shurpanakhi", "Deserter of Sita" etc etc. It is a myth to think of Rama or Krishna or any human or animal as Brahman, as long as they were inside their mortal bodies.

"If you accept this point, then you will also accept that if it is indeed only temporary. But you say it is Maya. Because you say it is Maya, you believe anybody who comes into this world is ALSO Maya. You DO NOT accept the fact that The Pure Spiritual Soul can have a Spiritual Body. You DO NOT accept the fact that God Cannot be covered by maya. Therefore your a Mayavadi. Anything you say is covered with thoughts of simply Illusion. " The Atman, according to Hinduism, is not Maya. Maya refers to the lack of knowledge about mutable nature of objects. Because of Maya, the person thinks that there is no difference between the body and the Atman. Like Brahman, the Atman does not change. But the bodies change. Even Rama's and Krishna's bodies aged and eventully they died. Lord Shiva is called "Mayavi" in the Shiva Sahasranaama and as a Mayavi, He is outside of the Maya that He creates. Now where did you hear about a Spritual Body for the "Pure Spritual Soul"? Can you provide references? Don't quote a 18th or 20th Century Vaishnavite. It has to be from Shruthi.

"no hindu takes something that is not a truth. hindus have shortcut ways to know the truth." Really? I can offer dozens of examples of Hindus (including my own kith and kin) accepting what is not the truth. Don't defend Hindus when we are wrong. "no. as far as we hindus know, it is for all the mankind for all the times and places, and peoples. Yeah, right. When do we start dividing Americans, Europeans or even the Arabs according to their Varnashrama Dharma? When do we start telling them, "Na Stree Svaathantryam Arhathi"? "i have seen people who study vedas and upanishads just to find ways how to riducule or find faults in hinduism." The Vedas and Upanishads don't have too many things to ridicule. I hope you have studied and appreciated the brilliance in the Samhita Kandas as well as the Vedantas. The Brahmanas with the animal sacrifices are another story but hey! that is religion for you. The truly ridiculous items appear in the Hindu literature in the form of Puranas like Krishna Leela or Rama Charitha Manasa.

"Objectively speaken I have to say that Vaishnavism and Krishna are famous for its double standards. In this way there is always an excuse to explain and justify everything. Picture this: whenever he acts "normal " it is said: "wow great, he acts as a normal beeing to show us the way , Krishna acts according to shastra. He is an example for us, blablaba "" Very well put. The lovers of Rama and Krishna defend their "god" with their double standards constantly. When Krishna marries many wives, it is Krishna Leela. If a modern Sheikh maintained a huge harem, it would be 'sick'. One statement I have heard from Vaishnavas is that one "should listen to Krishna's advice but follow Rama's example", since even staunch Vaishnavites believe that Krishna's dalliances with Radha and all other women was disgusting. But I disagree with that statement too. Follow Rama and throw out my wife if she is falsely accused of something? No way!

"Aham Brahmaasmi means I am Brahman I do not deny, but it doesn't say anywhere that this means Param brahman, you take it as impersonal, everything is one. We take ..." My good man: Brahman IS "Para". It is this universe which is visible that is Apara. Although Parabrahman is commonly used nomenclature, everyone that has studied Samskrit knows that the word "Para" is redundant. Other nomenclature used are: Nirguna Brahman (to represent Brahman) or Saguna Brahman (to represent one with attributes). Brahmaa is the creator god. We use Parashiva to denote Brahman and to differentiate that entity from Shiva, which is a Saguna entity. Which 4 texts are you referring to? And how come everyone in this discussion group thinks that he/she knows so much about what I belive in, or know, or whether I am a Hindu or not? Dont make assumptions about me and make a 'fool' of yourselves like the gentleman who is fond of addressing people who disagrees with him as "Dear Fool". Finally, I don't accept anything except the Truth. "Sambhavaami Yuge Yuge" is a grandiose statement made by Badaraayana but not necessarily truth.

"answer: When surpanaka approached Rama he refused her in decent words.She kept on insisting him and he directed him to his brother laxmana.Laxmana too rejected her.Till this moment both of them were decent to her. In stage 2,surpanaka sees seetha and says ...." It is apparent that you (and others like Ganeshprasad) look at the story from a defensive position or almost protective position, while I am looking at it somewhat objectively. When the drama is playing out, everyone is a human. A few thousand years later, some of the players of the drama may assume a legendary, or even divine status. That is what has happened to Rama, Krishna and Jesus Christ. Apparently, religion affects man very strongly and for a religious person, his/her hero can do no wrong. But if you read a story of a rich man living in New Delhi, whose wife is accused of infidelity and because of that the rich man throws her out (although she is pregant), I am sure your good senses would prevail and you would condemn the rich man. However, in the case of Rama, apparently other motives like Kshathriya Dharma come into play and Rama is relieved of all burdens except the ruling of the kingdom (although there were NO enemies trying to invade Ayodhya) and he is free to throw his pregnant wife out. But you are correct that it is in Uttara Kanda that this story is explained; but in Valmiki Ramayan, Uttara Kanda is part and parcel of the main text. Other explanations you give (such as a monkey is fit to be hunted) are totally unacceptable. Rama was not hunting Vali; he was aiming for him, with the intention of killing him so he could install Sugriva as the King of Kishkindha. Rama even offers another explanation that you have not mentioned: That as a rep of Bharatha, he has to restore 'Dharma'. To me, such an attitude from a hermit who is in the forest for a purpose sounds oddly egotistic and opportunistic.

"You say the world is false. But we say its only temp manifested. Like a dream state. Even though a dream is false, your body still exists and you still exist. But the body is Not you. So in the same way your body in this world still exists and YOU still exist. But in a dream like state. The fact that this world is false is in the sense that we don't belong here. But factually anything that has been produced of the Energy of Krishna cannot be factually called False. The energy of Krishna here in this world is called Temporary only because everything in this World is temp manifested and nothing can ever be permanent in this world." Govindram, I did not say the world is false. The word Sathyam does not mean, in this context, the truth. The word Sathyam has two meanings. One is "Truth" and the other is "Immutability". It is Immutability I was referring to. The material creation we encounter every day mutates continuously. If you are familiar with old Greek philosophy (which is very similar to Hindu thoughts), Heraclitus proposed that one cannot step into the same river twice; this is because the river changes continuously. You can never see the same sunset twice, our bodies change, the world around us changes, continuously. What does not change is Sathyam. Thus "Brahma Sathyam Jagath Mithya" statement. In Vedanta, two examples are offered to explain what is Sathyam. A goldsmith may melt a gold ornament and make another out of it; or, a pot make a pot out of clay. When you melt the ornament and produce another, the gold itself is the same, just re-arranged in a different way. Thus the ornament is mutable but the original gold atoms are Sathyam. The world is not false. It is only temporary and ever-changing. That is what is Maya.

The concept of Maya is not well understood by many Hindus. Sathyam: refers to that which does not change. The word essentially means Immutability. Which is why the statement "Brahma Sathyam Jagath Mithya" came about. Since Atman is indistinguishable from Brahman, Atman is also Sathyam. According to Advaithic point of view, an Atman who is trapped inside a mortal body and bound by Karmaphala thinks that the Jagath, which is Mithya (or continuously changing) is Sathyam, instead of Atman or Brahman. I have not read or heard that Brahman is affected by Maya. The premise of the dialogue in the original post by Govindaram is not exactly accurate.

"Rajashekar may a name in Hinduism, but what is your real name pal. May identity is not your issue. If you need a answer why not mention your real name ? Talk about fear." Rajashekhar IS my real name, my good confused friend. This is the last reply I will be writing on this subject, since I don't consider this a useful or interesting discussion. Like I said, if you have any points to make, do it; or hold your peace.