BinduMadhav

Ah, my dear Ravilochan . Continuing our tradition of bashing the Smartas, right? Keep at it, my friend. One day you will convert everyone to the Sri Krishna Sampradaya or you will understand that great scholars like Shankaracharya saw no difference between Vishnu and Shiva. Both are born out of our fertile imaginations. But hey, each to his own. If you feel the same compulsion that Christian Missionaries feel about making this world fall in love with Jesus Christ and no one else, more power to you. Of course, in your case, you are trying to make everyone fall in love with Vishnu or Krishna. Not that it makes any difference to me. I already love Krishna. Bindu Madhav

Chant Krishna's name every day any time you want to. Why bother about the day of the week? Why worry about its efficacy? The pleasure you get out of chanting it should be reward enough. Once you truly understand the pleasure of becoming immersed in Krishna, you will not have any problem concentrating on Him; the problem will be getting out of that mode.

Sri Krishna might have had bluish tinge (I would like to meet the person who remembers seeing him) but he had dark skin. That is why he was called Krishna. In Samskrit, Krishna stands for 'dark' male, Krishnaa is a dark skinned female; Draupadi was called Krishnaa. Heard of Krishna Yajurveda versus Shukla Yajurveda? Krishnaveni is a woman with dark braid.

According to my friend Rajashekhar Sharma, Hinduism does not recognize the week. That is a purely Judeo-Christian concept and somehow it found its way into Hinduism. Hinduism does not need a week since we use Lunar calendar with the phases of the moon indicating the day of the Krishna Paksha or Shukla Paksha. That being said, the modern day Hindus have translated Sunday, Monday etc into Bhaanuvaara (Or Ravivaara), Somavaara etc. Various customs and rituals have developed around the system of weekdays. What days of the week are most religious? For devotees of Shiva, the Monday is most important; for devotees of Lalitha, Friday is the most important. Similarly, the devotees of Hanumaan, Krishna and others have adopted their own special day for their deities.

Krishnaaya Vishvaroopaaya Devakinandanaayacha Shivabhaktaaya Mitraaya Gitaamritaduhe Namah Please explain the above verse and please give the source. ------------------------- The source is myself. Do you still need an explanation? Here it is. To Krishna, the One with Viraat Roopa or Vishva Roopa (since He represents the whole universe), Who makes Mother Devaki happy; The One who is a great devotee of Shiva (according to Mahabharath, Anushaasana Parva), Our greatest friend, and One who provided the sweet milk of Gita (in the form of Bhagavad-Gita), I salute. Krishna is my most favorite. He was a mortal, no matter what fundies believe (I read a funny note from someone that said he stopped aging at 16 or 24 or something like that); and He was, in His mortal life a great devotee of Lord Shiva. His greatness is truly brought down by no less than His own devotees, who have described Him variously of having illicit relations with Radha, having a thousand wives, etc etc. All a bunch of lies. Krishna was the greatest mortal ever to be born on earth and the only mortal worth worshipping. Read one of my earlier articles on Shiva and Vishnu.

Sephiroth wrote: _________ Arresting them won't work. The Terrorist orginizations simply recruits another and Police will take too much time tracking one person down. During that time, bombs will go and people will die. Solution :- 1. KILL all Suspected Terrorist. 2. Arrest and convicts with heavy jail sentences to those who help terrorists - like family members. 3. Stop wasting time with trials. I don't see what is the use of trials when terrorists boldly admit their actions to preach Islam. Just carry the sentences whenever and whereever they are found. Law and Order is for people to be Humane with each other. But when dealing with people who do not care whether they die or not or whether innocent people are hurt, Law and Order is not needed - Swift hand of JUSTICE is needed. -------------------------- Wow, my good man, I really think you have shown your true colors today. I always suspected that something is wrong with you, but today you proved it. Kill all suspected terrorists? What if they suspect you too?

Bhadramoorthi, You have written a nice reply. It is true that properly trained Hindus recognize only ONE God and all the forms that we worship, Shiva, Vishnu, Devi Parvathi, etc are all His manifestations (or our imaginations depending upon the perspective of the person). I also trust you when you say that you found this story in Jyothisha Rathnam. A few comments. Lalitha is always supposed to be a Shodashi (a 16 year old); when someone portrays her as a 8-year old, alarm bells for the accuracy of the tale toll for me. Secondly, I have studied Lalitha Sahasra Namam, Vishnu Sahasra Namam and the Shiva Sahasra Namam, the latter two from Mahabharatha. Among the three of them, I find Shiva Sahasra Namam to be the most beautiful and profound. It portrays God in the best possible way. This is just a comment on my own personal view; no one needs to agree with it. Thirdly, you write: "Eventhough Vishnu names have only one part in 1000000 of the greatness of Devi-names, it is enough for us humans.Hence Sankaracharya wrote ..." For your information, one million is still a finite number. But the number 1000 represents infinity in Hinduism.

Sephiroth says... "When Veda Vyasa interpreted Shivatees as Tamasic, it means that they live accepting Ignorance mode and overcoming it, NOT allowing it to overcome them." Can you please provide a reference here? I have read Mahabharatha several times and I don't remember Veda Vyasa calling Shaivites 'Tamasik'.

Ranga wrote: "Better you dont believe God,become a true atheist and say "Rama never existed" rather than cunningly barking at him." I like your standing up for Sri Rama, whom I greatly admire. But you are not thinking straight here. People may believe that Rama never existed and yet be Theistic. Rama's existence or non-existence has no bearing on whether God exists or not. Sri Rama was just a human being. I have to admit that he did have a few earthly faults. Why get upset at Rajashekharji for pointing them out? After all, he agrees that Lord Rama had many wonderful virtues that many of us can only aspire for.

Dvaitin wrote: ------------ Besides, who cares if India is majority Hindu. Are they majority Krishna bhaktas? If not, I couldn't care less whether India survives or not. India exists for Krishna's sake, not the other way around. As long as 'hindus' refuse to accept Krishna, I'll refuse to accept India and hindus. The reason why India has degraded is because they've given up on krishna, so Krishna has given up on them. ------------------------- I am a great devotee of Krishna myself, but such posts reek of disdain for others and should be condemned. If the majority of India do not worship Krishna, does it mean that India should be condemned? Then how about the rest of the world? Not too many people outside India worship Krishna; so shouldn't Krishna give up or destroy the destroy the rest of the world too? ----------------------- So I don't give a camel's a$$ if pakis thrash India, they prolly deserve it. ----------------------- Boy, you must be a caucasian ISKCONite male living in America not to care if Pakis thrash India. You know what is unforgivable? Posts such as yours.

Guest 2 wrote: ------------------------ I actually think that the Upanishads have more of an influence on modern Hinduism, that the Vedas (at least the samhitas and brahmanas). ------------------------ It is true that when Upanishads came about, they had a profound effect on the masses. As a result of this, the Karmakaanda was pushed to the background. Which really is not so bad because the Karmakaanda consisted of sacrifices with animals and some truly unacceptable practices. You are right that the Upanishads have had more of an impact on modern Hindus (and Non-Hindus alike.) But one cannot completely dismiss the Samhitas and Aranyakas. Many of the verses from the Samhitas are adopted into our Puja process. For Shaivites, Rudram (Namakam) is very important and they recite them with great devotion whenever an opportunity arises. Vaishnavites use verses like Purusha Suktam, Sri Suktam, Vishnu Suktam and many others that are directly from the Vedas. The Brahmanas are no longer used because they formed the Karma Kanda.

Atanu wrote: *****Atanu, specially, is so annoying with his cut-and-paste mode of communication without saying anything substantial.******** This is a good observation. Atanu should mend his ways. Thanks Guru Dasan. ------------------------- Somehow I missed Mr.Guru Dasan's note on how Atanu is boring. I could not disagree more. I think Atanu's posts are scholarly and a pleasure to read. So were Ravilochan's posts.

Atanu wrote: "It is amusing. You only said (in that infamous post of yours)that you imagine Narayana with a gada." I did, my dear Atanu. I like to imagine Lord Vishnu that way or Lord Krishna with a lovely flute creating lilting tunes. But I acknowledge that Sriman Narayana with his Shankha, Chakra, Gada and Padma is a lovely imagination in the fertile minds of our ancestors. Not likely our handsome Krishna, my most favorite. He was certainly a historical figure. I have to congratulate both Ravilochanan and you, Atanu, for the amazing amount of scholarly knowledge you both have displayed. It is marevelous and I have loved every post. Hope both of you will keep up the good work and help the rest of us improve our knowledge as well.

Thiru wrote: -------------------------- just curious to know what brought this sudden change into Bindhu..... Bindhu i would be delighted if u could share ur experience which stood a cause for the change in u..... -------------------------- My dear Thiru, I have been taught by my (Vaishnavite) Acharya that Lord Vishnu is The Supreme. The stand taken by Ravilochan, myself and others is nothing unusual. But I always had doubts. Like I have said elsewhere, I read Rajashekharji's posts in considerable depth recently and began to see the big picture a little better. The seeds had been planted in my mind many moons ago. But they took root recently.

Ratheesh wrote: -------------------- god created humans and humans acknowledge god's existance (well, some of us do). In order to visualize or conceptualize god in our minds and lives, we conceptualize aspects of the sum totality Brahman and create versions of brahman which we called preserver and auspicious (vishnu and shiva) We have creatd the images of shiva and vishnu in order for us to see it in front of our faces and worship appiopriately. however, we must not forget that brahman is formless and we have given brahman a form by creating images that fit our neccessities for understanding. We make shiva and vishnu look as they do. there is no real man walking around looking like that, except the men who do it purposely to look like shiva or vishnu. -------------------------- I fully agree with the comments above. Good perception, Ratheesh. One of the 'Vachanas' or sayings of a Veerashaiva states: "According to one's Feelings And according to one's devotion, As one would like to see Him Appears Lord Shiva to him To devotees of Hari, He appears as Hari To devotees of Hara, He appears as Hara" Long time ago, I asked a Swamiji (Paramananda Bharati, if anyone can recognize the name) why Paraashara had to write Vishnu Puraana to create additional confusion among the Hindus. The Swamiji replied that Vishnu is one flavor of God, just as Parashiva is another and Mother Parvati is yet another. We are free to choose Saguna Brahman in the form that we particularly like. I had thought long and hard about his little lecture. Later, when I read Rajashekharji's very interesting posts, the jig-saw puzzle started falling in proper places. By Its very definition, Brahman does not need us. We need Brahman. I suspect He does not care whether we imagine Him in the form of Shiva or Vishnu. We derive the pleasure and benefit by worshipping Him in the form that we give Him. Since He is the Infinitely Mature and Powerful Being, He will, I am sure, perfectly understand our little prejudices and does not mind our calling Him Shiva or Vishnu or Devi. What bothered me considerably about the arguments between Ravilochan and Atanu was that they both were arguing for Vishnu and Shiva respectively; almost like little children saying 'My Daddy is Bigger than Yours'. I had plenty of fun both reading their posts and pointing out some of Atanu's faulty logic from a Vaishnavite's perspective; but at the same time, I was truly dismayed by Ravilochanan insisting that Vishnu is the Supreme Lord. I never expressed it because I was learning a lot during the whole process and I did not want to interrupt their thoughts. But I learnt a lot about the mindsets of Vaishnavites from Ravilochan and about the mindsets of Shaivites from Atanu, and for that, I am truly grateful. Human nature is exquisitely interesting and the aspect related to religion is even more complex. Ravilochan and Atanu, I found out, never stepped back from where they were standing to review their own standings. If they had done that (or are willing to do that even now), their visions will expand and they will see the big picture in a whole new light.

Ravilocahanan and Atanu are going round and around in circles. It should be apparent to anyone who has read the thread that I started about worship of Shiva versus worship of Vishnu, that the two positions don't have a meeting point and there is no mid-ground between Vaishnavites and Smartas. Vaishnavites believe that Lord Vishnu or Krishna is the Supreme Lord, with everyone else including Goddess Lakshmi, Lord Shiva, Goddess Parvati and all others being subservient to Him. The school of Shaivites belonging to Adi Shankara believe that there is only one Lord who manifests Himself in many forms; whether He is worshipped in the form of Vishnu or Shiva, it is immaterial. After considerable thinking and self-analysis, I have concluded that Mr.Rajashekhar's view that Vishnu, Shiva etc are all figments of one's imagination is the most logical one. The kind of puerile arguments between Ravilochan and Atanu are somewhat demeaning to Hindus. Let's analyze this a bit here. The Vedas may talk about Vishnu, one of the Adityas, and Rudra, another minor god; but the Vedic Rishis had the forethought to believe and put it in writing: Ekam Sath Vipraah Bahudhaa Vadanti. The same sentiment is expressed in "Sarvadeva Namaskaarah Keshavam Pratigachhati". Oh yes, Vaishnavites may say Keshava is Vishnu; but if they do, they will be wrong. Keshava is one with luxurient hair; it could be Vishnu or it could be Shiva. Lord Shiva's hair has its own name: Kapardah, just as his bow is called Pinaka. Don't think that Shiva's hair is imagined to be less luxuriant than that of Vishnu. In truth, Vishnu is not necessarily the deity with Shankha, Chakra, Gadaa and Padma. Vishnu is one that pervades everything; it is an attribute of Brahman. Rudra is another attribute (Janaah Rodayanti iti Rudrah: He makes the relatives cry at the time of death of a dear one). Shiva is another attribute (Shivam Bhadram Kalyanam Mangalam Shubham). Shankara is another (Sham dadaati athavaa Kuruti iti Shankarah: He blesses us with the pure happiness, thus is called Shankara). I can go on but will stop here. The bottom line is that Hara, Keshava, Hari are all attributes of One True God. So did the Vedic Rishis see battles between Indra and his enemies? Did they see Rudra and Vishnu with their own eyes and decided that Vishnu is Superior? That is nonsense. No one in this mortal world has seen God with the mortal eyes. Obviously Vishnu and Shiva/Rudra are both the figments of their imagination. Some like Pushpadanta, Shvetaashvatara, Gautama, Aghora loved the concept of Shiva, so they praised God in the form of Shiva; some others like Valmiki loved God in the form of Vishnu and chose Vishnu or one of his supposedly Avataaras like Rama or Krishna. This is why there can be arguments in favor of both Shiva being Supreme or Vishnu being Supreme. Thirdly, and this is the most interesting but poignant argument of Mr.Rajashekharji, why would a Shiva go around with a moon on his head, a snake or two around his neck, Ganges in his hair etc? Apparently, the concept of Shiva is born, again I am pointing to Rajashekhar Sharma as the source for this argument, by looking at Mother Nature. A blue sky formed His neck, the half moon above the neck (thus his head), which is also bedecked with water in the form of clouds (Ganges) and we are in His tummy. Great imagination, but do we really have to believe that Shiva is walking on Earth in this manner? And a similar argument can be made for Vishnu. Whatever Ravilochan and other Vaishnavites may say, an argument that separates Shiva and Vishnu and makes one (Vishnu) superior to the other (Shiva) is not pure Hinduism. Or Vedantism. Or logical, scientific, acceptable. Whether one loves, adores and worships Brahman in the form of Shiva or Vishnu or Ganesha or a Parabrahman devoid of attributes, it really does not matter. One will derive the benefit of staunchly believing in God, which includes improvement in one's quality of life, one's longevity, one's peace of mind and one's acceptance of what one cannot change. So, Gentlemen, I thank you for the great entertainment, but I will stick to my beliefs: Shiva and Vishnu are nice, beautiful concepts but let's not get carried away by trying to prove one superior to another. A group of Rishis come up with a long list of stories and two thousand years later, a couple of men with plenty of time on their hands, argue which is the true hero of the stories. Ha! There is, in truth, no difference between Vishnu and Shiva, to quote Skaandopanishad. Shivaaya Vishnuroopaaya Shivaroopaaya Vishnave Shivasya Hridayam Vishnuh Vishnoscha Hridayam Shivah Yathaa Shivamayo Vishnu Evam Vishnumayah Shivah Yathaantaram Na Pashyaami Tathaa Me Svastiraayushi. (To Shiva with Vishnu's form, To Vishnu with Shiva's form (I bow) Shiva's Heart is verily Vishnu, just as Vishnu's Heart is Shiva Himself Just as Vishnu is full of Shiva, So is Shiva full of Vishnu As I don't consider any difference between Them, may prosperity and well being be mind.) And to quote my favorite verse of Kalidasa: Vaagarthaaviva Sampriktou Vaagarthah Pratipattaye Jagathah Pitarou Vande Paarvathee Parameshvarou. (I bow down to Paarvati and the Supreme Lord, the world's parents, who like word meaning are unified, that I may attain right knowledge of word and sense) And to quote the beautiful piece of Pushpadanta, probably the most significant among all of Hindu Theistic literature: Tava Tattvam Na Jaanaami Keedrshosi Maheshvara Yaadrshosi Mahaadeva Taadrsaaya Namo Namah O Lord (Shiva), I do not know the true nature of Thy being - of what ind Thou art. Of whatever nature Thou may be, O Great Lord of the gods, to That Form, my salutations again and again. I sign off, folks, thanking you all for giving me fresh insight into the concept of God. I end with my traditional remembrance of Lord Krishna, my most favorite, who lived and died a superb hero, whatever other people may say. In all likelihood, Lord Krishna was a devotee of Lord Shiva in his life, but so what? He was an extraordinary scholar, warrior, philosopher, friend, protector of humans and a great human being who showed humanness and great character that deserves our true Bhakti.

Ravilochan wrote: "thus with the above posts, I end my arguments on this thread. I have to pursue my studies to face my exams about a month from now. i hope that i have given enough citations to pove the Supremacy of Visnu and to establish that Rudra is neither equal nor superior to Visnu." Ravilochanan, I have followed all your posts and I think you deserve accolades for a superb job done. I commend you for your knowledge and superior intellect. Good luck with your exams (although with the thorough attention to detail that you have displayed, I really doubt if you need any luck with the preparation for and face-off of the exams).

{Damn India.} With this, you have gone too far. Now I know where you come from! But I don't understand the irrational enragement. I argue with other Saivites about whether Siva is supreme according to scriptures or Vishnu is supreme. In what way does that hurt you? Why do you have to say 'Damn Saivite'? What have the Saivites done to you? All right, assuming that you would ask Rama, Krishna and Agastya, about which is the oldest tradition - Saivite or Vaishnavite, they would probably give different answers. And then what? Do you know that there is such a great concept as diversity? Let's celebrate our diversity. But at the same time, let's continue to argue. When it is time to take action, let's forget our arguments and plunge into action. Against a possible Paki amidst the Hindu Forum.

---------- Hence we can conclude that Monotheism is not inherently an advanced concept than Polytheism or vice-versa, they are just different types of concepts and no need for Hindus to be defensive. ---------- The last time I checked, we Hindus called Sanatana Dharma a purely Monotheistic religion. "Ekam Sath ViprAh BahudhA Vadanti". Just because we believe God manifests Himself in many forms does not make us a polytheistic belief system.

Atanu wrote: {Your soul is my friend.} My dear Atanu: That is sweet. You are welcome to make friends with it. When you learn to exchange messages with my soul, let me know and I will also try to befriend my soul. The bottom line is this, Atanu: You cannot communicate with my soul, your own soul, or your friend Ganeshprasad's soul. My brain is talking to your brain here. No matter what the Truth is, our souls need our bodies to communicate with each other at this point in time and space. {You are deluded since you cannot even imagine ONE LORD in all and All in ONE LORD.} I do. All Vaishnavites do. The only thing is that we call Him Sriman Narayana and imagine Him to be with four arms, with Shankha, Chakra, GadA and Padma. After understanding this, go back and see if you think I am engulfed in ego. You are welcome to imagine Him as Rudra or Siva. I personally don't have any problems with it. But the bottom line is: You have not proved your arguments that God in the form of Siva is the Supreme Reality as espoused by the Vedas. I know that I have irritated you so much that you don't care for my compliments, but here, I offer you one. Although we (meaning I and other Guests) have proved to you over and over again that Lord Vishnu is the Supreme Lord, you have never resorted to denigrating Him. That is a good quality in human beings. At the same time, you are a steadfast Saivite. This does not come as a suprise to me. Once a person has been conditioned (to use a Bertrand Russell terminology) during formative years, one continues to believe steadfastly in his/her beliefs.

{Why would a perfect God create an imperfect world?} Before you ask any sane person to answer this question, you need to explain why, in your views, this is an imperfect world.

Atanu wrote: --------------- Guest and Bindu are same He abuses as guest and he acts sweet and mature (condenscending) as Bindu. ---------------- My dear Atanu, You are wrong. Again. Although it does not bother me what you think of me, I want to advise you, again, that I post my messages as BinduMadhav and not as anyone else. Sheer anger has clouded your judgement.

Atanu Bhaiyya, You started out referring to my "Sinful insolence" and then you declare: "You have insulted protector of Visnu. You have insulted Visnu." I lovingly call you Atanu Bhaiyya all the time. Why this irrational anger? You should stop being so angry. Is such anger always part and parcel of devotees of Rudra Deva? Alternatively, do you love Rudra Deva because you have such short temper? I have not insulted any protector of Vishnu. Because Lord Vishnu does not need any protectors. He alone is the creator, sustainer and destroyer of all visible and invisible world. {Kaivalyopanishad, included in the Krishna-Yajur-Veda} Bhaiyya, you have to understand that many Saivites have corrupted our Vedanta by writing untruth, Siva-oritented Upanishads. Kaivalya is one of them. Even Sage ShvetAshvatara was no exception, although he has compiled some very good observations in his Upanishad. ----------------- 25. He who studies the Shatarudriya, is purified as by the Fires, is purified from the sin of drinking, purified from the sin of killing a Brahmana, from deeds done knowingly or unawares. Through this he has his refuge in Shiva, the Supreme Self. ----------------- All one has to do, to cleanse oneself of PApakarmas is to recite Lord Vishnu (a.k.a. Sri RAma, Lord Krishna Vasudeva, Sriman NArAyana and other beautiful names). Why recite the Shatarudriya? --------------- Oh. Nice. What insolence? Your little piece is that only, a little piece. Which Veda your muck is based on? You have insulted the universal guru. You will pay for your insolence. --------------- Bhaiyya, please refrain from getting your blood pressure high on such debates. It is not good for your health. It is downright stupid to get angry over such arguments. Please note that I am not calling you stupid, I am saying that getting angry over such arguments, the very process, is stupid. For you, Siva is the greatest. For us Vaishnavites, Lord Vishnu is the Supreme. It does not matter that we are right. If you want, you can declare victory over the kid, BinduMadhav, if it satisfies your ego, although in reality, you have not won against us Vaishnavites. Atanu Bhaiyya, you will never win this argument. Do you know why? Because Shrutis, Smritis and Puranas all declare Sriman Narayana Vasudeva as the Supreme Lord and all other creatures worship Him alone. I cannot take such an opinion as a personal victory either. It is the sages including Adi Shankara that deserve all the credit for singing the praises of Lord Vishnu. I will stop here, because I don't want to be the cause of someone's health problems. Thank you and may the Lord bless you.

Vaishnavism is the oldest tradition belonging to the true Sanatana Dharma. The Saivite traditions are NOT the oldest ones. But that asides, the truly significant question is which is the best tradition. Not the oldest. Most Hindus agree that the worship of Lord Krishna Vasudeva is the best tradition.

Priya_Vaishnavaa wrote: ----------- What did ram and Krishna wear on their forehead?certainly they did not wear the "Namam" which vaishnavites wear today.This Namam originated with Ramanuja. Before that every vedic religion follower wore only the holy ash. So Lord Ram and Krishna must have defenitely worn the holy ash in their forehead, which is so despised by their worshippers today. How ironic,isnt it? ------------ Very clever, are you not, my good Saivite with a sweet name? Nice trouble-maker /images/graemlins/grin.gif. In the older days, the kings almost always wore Gandha (sandal paste). Even now, young Brahmacharis, even Saivite ones at that, wear the sandal paste, not Vibhuti. Plus, not all Vibhuti-dhAris are worshippers of Siva /images/graemlins/cool.gifand not all NAmadhAris are lovers of Siva. I know several Ayyangars who love and worship Siva /images/graemlins/mad.gif.