when SriVaishnavism and Shaivism formed

[Guest guest]

Namaste Dear vasuji

< My profound namaskarams to all. I have a question in my mind for a

long time. Why Vaishnavism does not accept the supremacy of Lord

Shiva when Advaita School teaches both are one. Why our fellow

Vaishnava Bandhus differ with us on this view point. >

This is only because of ignorance or Ajnana and moreover people dont want to

listen to Vedas or Upanshads but just to follow what other Acharyas have said.

It is said in Skanda Upanishad that "Yatha Sivamayo vishnuh Evam vishumayah

sivah". "Just like how vishnu is full of Shiva so is Shiva full of Vishnu".

We speak of Badrinath and Kedarnath together not alone.

We speak of Kashi and Rameshwaram together.

Vaishnavas and Saivas are there -- just remember this is nothing but MAYA --

"That which does not exist in reality".

Adi Sankaracharya says abt MAYA "Yuktaheena prakashasya Sanjya Maya". Maya is

that which cannot be determined by Yukti or Logic because even Intellect is a

part of Maya only.

As Swami Vivekananda says "These diff sects of people are like frogs in a well.

They think that their well is the biggest and there is nothing greater than

that..They dont know that the Sea is much much bigger than the well".

In order to follow the path of Adi Sankaracharya --- Just make the intellect

conviction that there is only one Brahman -- the one without the second. This is

the same as the Self. It is of the nature of Sat, Chit and Ananda.

Ramana says Why bother abt wat others say or do...Find out first the answer of

the qn "Who I Am", then everything else will vanish off

Sorry that I dont have much knowledge about the other diff schools.....Maybe

some other member can explain about that.

 

OM NAMAH SHIVAYA

 

Thanks

Hariram S

[Guest guest]

Dear Shri Hariramji

 

First and foremost my profound Namaskarams to you. I agree with you

Sir. I feel happy that if they pray Vishnu without lowering Lord

Shiva. Because for Advaita Vadins there is only one Parabrahman, one

may consider it Lord Vishnu, Lord Shiva, Maa Shakti, Lord Ganapat or

Lord Surya Bhagawan. He sees his Ishta Devata in that.

 

But my question is that some people are there who are misguided that

only one of them is great either Lord Vishnu or Lord Shiva.

 

Anyway, I request other members too to guide me.

 

Once again forgive me for taking your valuable time and sparing some

time to read and answer my query please.

 

Hari: Om!

[Guest guest]

Any philosophy that rests on personified forms of God naturally leads to

the notions of supremacy of that form of God over the other forms?

Ignorance starts with the first part. Vedas-s glorify many forms and

that itself should lead to correct understanding that formless form

includes all forms - but then that lead to advaitic understanding. But

if one gives more importance to the Bheda vaakya-s than abheda vaakya-s,

the ignorance continues leading to fanatism. We have both veera

vaiShNavates and we have veera Saivates too. If you listen to ISKAN

group they will tell you that Krishna alone is Para Brahman and all

others are demigods whose powers are borrowed from the supreme ones.

 

If you look at Purushasuukta - there is addendum that some do not chant

- it says that Purusha is - hRiischyate laxmiischa patnou - aho raatre

paarSve. Thus identifying that Purusha as the husband of Laxmi. The

whole Naarayanopanishad which Shankara also quotes is centered on

Narayana as the supreme Lord. ISKAN people even argue that Shankara

after teaching Advaita many years realized his mistake and hence wrote

'Bhajagovindam' in his old age to show that govinda is the ultimate

truth. Most of the dvaitins and vishiShTadvaitins takes the literary

meaning in many of B.G. slokas that says as I am the goal and I am the

one who gives salvation -daiviim eShaa guNamayi mama maaya duratyayaa,

maam evaye prapadyante maayaametam tarantite| This maya of mine is of

divine nature and is difficult to cross unless one surrenders to me.

Hence the surrender through bhakti towards Lord Narayana is the only

means of salvation - I am the one who gives moksha - 'sarva dharmaan

parityajya maam ekam... " by surrendering to me alone ..

 

If one takes the word meaning, it does imply Krishna as the supreme god

and further confirmed by the whole of 11th chapter - viswaruupam. If

you go to rudram and Shiava puraaNa-s - the emphasis is different.

 

The problem is any bhakti involves a form and identification with the

form and ignoring the symbolisms involved in all forms, keeps one

narrow-minded and fanatic too. Some of the more subtle verses of the

Upanishads such as - yat chacchuSha na pasyati yena chachhumsi pasyati

tad eva brahman tvam viddhi nedam yadidam upaasate - that which eyes

cannot see but because of which the eyes have the capacity to see - know

that alone is Brahman, not this that you worship - are misinterpreted to

suite their models.

 

Fact of the matter is Bhakti without proper knowledge leads to fanatism

and knowledge without bhakti leads to arrogance. Hence it is a razor

path - xurasya dhaara duratyayaa durgam pathanaat kavayo vadanti - says

KaThopanishad - it is razer-edge path and is difficult to cross say the

wise.

 

Avaitic understanding alone takes one beyond any forms since all forms

are limited and cannot be Brahman. But forms are helpful to focus the

mind, if it is used properly. True Bhakti is beyond any forms - and that

forms the basis of knowledge.

 

Hari OM!

Sadananda

 

=====

What you have is His gift to you and what you do with what you have is your gift

to Him - Swami Chinmayananda.

 

 

 

SiteBuilder - Free web site building tool. Try it!

http://webhosting./ps/sb/

[Guest guest]

advaitin, kuntimaddi sadananda

<kuntimaddisada> wrote:

>

> Any philosophy that rests on personified forms of God naturally

leads to

> the notions of supremacy of that form of God over the other forms?

> Ignorance starts with the first part. >

> If you look at Purushasuukta - there is addendum that some do not

chant

> - it says that Purusha is - hRiischyate laxmiischa patnou - aho

raatre

> paarSve. Thus identifying that Purusha as the husband of Laxmi.

The

> whole Naarayanopanishad which Shankara also quotes is centered on

> Narayana as the supreme Lord.

 

Namaste,

 

For Kanchi Paramacharya's discourses on this theme :

 

http://www.kamakoti.org/acall/ac-godisone.html

 

http://www.kamakoti.org/miscl/namoh1.html (4 parts)

 

 

Regards,

 

Sunder

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "vasu145" <vasu145> wrote:

> Dear Bhagavatas,

>

> My profound namaskarams to all. I have a question in my mind for

a

> long time. Why Vaishnavism does not accept the supremacy of Lord

> Shiva when Advaita School teaches both are one. Why our fellow

> Vaishnava Bandhus differ with us on this view point.

>

> Kindly enlighten me. When Lord Shiva is there from the Vedas

period

> why can not be accepted by one group of devotees. They say that

all

> Shaiva Puranas are Tamasika Puranas.

>

> Kindly give guidance. I want to follow HH Shri Shri

Shankaracharya

> theory of one Parabrahman. But why and how difference of opinion

> arose like this. When Vedas itself give Pramanams for Shiva's

> supremacy why the other section of devotees can not accept this.

> Even why other section of devotees ISKCON people dont accept

Shiva's

> supremacy. Why they totally ignore Veda Shiva.

>

> Please forgive my ignorance of posting this kind of questions.

Since

> I am in dilemma, wanted to know.

>

> Expecting your reply as early as possible.

>

> Devotee

 

Namaste, Vasu-ji

When you want to follow Sri Shankaracharya theory of parabrahman,

and in the same breadth, ask "When Lord Shiva is there from the

Vedas period why can not he be accepted by one group of devotees?",

you are already begging the question. Neither Shiva nor Vishnu

dominates over the other. Because both are presentations of the

parabrahman. So long as you think it is Shiva that is ultimate and

not Vishnu or Mother parAshakti, so long as you think it is Shiva

that is ultimate and not Shiva or Mother parAshakti and so long as

you think it is Mother parAshakti and not Shiva or Vishnu, you have

not yet got into the spirit of advaita! Each purANa may glorify one

of these to the exclusion of the other two; but that is what exactly

what proves the advaita theory that all is One and the same, there

is no second! In mythological understanding, there are various

stories about these divine manifestations that so-and-so is the son,

so-and-so is the father, so-and-so is the daughter-in-law, and so

on. All these are only different roles of the same parabrahman. If

you do not understand this in this way, then you will find it hard

and impossible not to get stuck with an impossible genealogy of

Shiva, Parvati, Vishnu, Subrahmanya, Brahma and Saraswati with their

proper 'relationships'. Once for all we have to be convinced that

there is no 'duality' or 'relationship' or 'superiority' among these

manifestations. Then only we may be said to have the right frame of

mind to get into advaita philsophy or to practise Hindu religion in

both letter and spirit! Only that right frame will lead us to

recognise there is no difference among Rama, Krishna, Jesus, Allah,

Shiva and Vishnu.And that is the supreme need today of both the

educated world and their uneducated brethren of the world.

 

PraNAms to all advaitins.

profvk

[Guest guest]

Your article is really an eye-opener. Understood. Thanks for all

highly divine souls for sparing your valuable time for me.

 

Thanks once again,

 

Bye

[Guest guest]

namaskar vasu ji,

in shiva purana shiva & vishnu both declare that one who thinks that

shiva & vishnu are different never gets moksha.

in skanda purana there is a shloka which says that in shiv linga,

linga portion is shiva and the base(peetha) is vishnu & ravana got

destroyed just because he worshipped the linga portion of shiv linga

and not the complete linga.

namah shivaaye is a vedic mantra & no veda is taamasik.

in mandukypnishad the fourth state(turiya) has been referred to as

shiva (chathurtam shivam shaantam advaitam). how can the fourth state

which is beyond the three modes of prakriti can be taamasik?

the difference of opinion is due to prakriti.one worships vishnu and

says he is supreme and another worships shiva and he says shiva is

supreme. it's like one wants to show that my brother is the best

brother, in the same way one wants to show that i worship the best

deity. it's the ego of the people which has given rise to vaishnavism

& shaivism.

the best thing is worship anyone but respect others too taking all of

them as different forms(roopas) of one tattva & to achieve moksha.

moksha is liberation from the cycle of birth and death. only brahman

is not bound by the cycle of birth and death & once one recognises

that i am brahman only then there is moksha.it's like if one wishes

that everything one touches gets burnt then one should become the

fire.so when one recognises that i am brahman one is automatically

liberated because brahman is always liberated.

with regards,

gautam.

[Guest guest]

My profound Namaskarams to Madanji,

 

Respected Devotee, yes, could not understand how Shri Shri Ramanuja

could interpret that Shiva Tattva is Tamasika. Rudra is better

explained since the Vedas period. Though I strictly follow Shankara

Advaita, it is again my mind that throws into the dilemma.

 

Thanks for your very logical answer. Today I heard from Samavedam

Shanmukha Sharma (in ETV) who is also great spiritual personality

saying that there is indifference between Shiva and Vishnu.

 

He answered that some Vaishnavites claim that Mahrshi Valmiki did not

mention in Ramayana about Lord Rama's worship of Shiva Linga. He

said Ramayana is not a Purana, it is a Kavya. Kavya need not mention

all the important things. It goes according to its own Kavya

lakshanas. So Valmiki ignored this aspect. Shri Shanmukha Sharma

also explained that Valmiki himself worshipped Shiva.

 

In this way we can not any difference between Shiva and Vishnu.

 

Thanks for replying,

 

A Devotee

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "vasu145" <vasu145> wrote:

> He answered that some Vaishnavites claim that Mahrshi Valmiki did

not

> mention in Ramayana about Lord Rama's worship of Shiva Linga. He

> said Ramayana is not a Purana, it is a Kavya. Kavya need not

mention

> all the important things. It goes according to its own Kavya

> lakshanas. So Valmiki ignored this aspect. Shri Shanmukha Sharma

> also explained that Valmiki himself worshipped Shiva.

 

Namaste,

 

Is the story of Rama installing the Siva-Jyotirlinga at

Rameshvaram not a part of Ramayana? (in fact one made by Sita, and

another brought by Hanuman from Kailasa).

 

http://www.sacredsites.com/2nd56/126.html

 

 

Regards,

 

Sunder

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "Sunder Hattangadi" <sunderh>

wrote:

> advaitin, "vasu145" <vasu145> wrote:

>

> > He answered that some Vaishnavites claim that Mahrshi Valmiki did

> not

> > mention in Ramayana about Lord Rama's worship of Shiva Linga. He

> > said Ramayana is not a Purana, it is a Kavya. Kavya need not

> mention

> > all the important things. It goes according to its own Kavya

> > lakshanas. So Valmiki ignored this aspect. Shri Shanmukha

Sharma

> > also explained that Valmiki himself worshipped Shiva.

>

> Namaste,

>

> Is the story of Rama installing the Siva-Jyotirlinga at

> Rameshvaram not a part of Ramayana? (in fact one made by Sita, and

> another brought by Hanuman from Kailasa).

>

> http://www.sacredsites.com/2nd56/126.html

 

 

Namaste,

 

Much to my surprise, this story is not in the Valmika Ramayana!

 

However, in Chapter 107 of Yuddha Kanda (Ramayana Critical

edition) < http://sanskrit.gde.to/mirrors/ramayana/valmiki.htm >

an episode is described where Shiva brings Dasharatha from heaven to

meet Rama and Lakshmana. [The Gita Press, Gorakhpur, edition of

Ramayana has this chapter as No. 119 ].

 

 

Regards,

 

Sunder

[Guest guest]

Namaskar Sunderji,

 

Actually, it has no place in original Valmiki Ramayana.

 

If I am wrong please correct me

 

Regards

[Guest guest]

namaskaar vasu ji & sunder ji,

i am astonished at this fact that valmiki ramayana has no mention

about rama worshipping shiva and about Rameshwar's linga. but, in

yoga vasistha, for a large no. of times sadashiva word is used & this

grantha is also by valmiki ji. lord rama being told by sage vasistha

there exists nothing but sadashiva.

rameshwar's linga is mentioned in skanda purana the link being

http://www.urday.com/bk.htm

 

with regards,

gautam.

[Guest guest]

Clear DayDear friends,

 

As Sri Vasuji has said all these are Saguna upasana where a Bhakta indulges in

the Lord the way he wants to. When the Bhakti matures into gnana and his sadana

ripens into nirvikalpa samadhi then concept of advaita comes into picture. At

that point, whether a vaishnavait or shaivait will experience oneness with

Brahman. Therefore it is immaterial if a vaishanvait does not believe in Shiva.

 

In the lighter vein I would like to add that it is vaishnavit's problem if they

don't believe in Lord Shiva.

 

As Shri Sadananajai puts it "all forms are limited and cannot be Brahman".

 

As for as Baja govindam is concerned it exposes the myth of the seemingly real

world ( prate bhasika sathyam ). Through out the 31 stanzas, Sankara teaches us

not to get trapped in the maya but to realize the Brahman thro bhakti. It was

only incidental that the word Govindam was mentioned in the first stanza. The

word Govindam fell into the place more as a mark of his respect to his guru ( as

kamahi paramacharya has mentioned in one of his discourses). The essence of

the sloka would not have been watered down if the phrase Baja Govindam was

replaced by "baja sambashivam, baja sambashivam". the sandals would have neen

same.

 

Like to have critical comment

 

Sundara Rajan

 

--

>From <vasu145

 

Dear Shri Hariramji

 

First and foremost my profound Namaskarams to you. I agree with you

Sir. I feel happy that if they pray Vishnu without lowering Lord

Shiva. Because for Advaita Vadins there is only one Parabrahman, one

may consider it Lord Vishnu, Lord Shiva, Maa Shakti, Lord Ganapat or

Lord Surya Bhagawan. He sees his Ishta Devata in that.

 

But my question is that some people are there who are misguided that

only one of them is great either Lord Vishnu or Lord Shiva.

 

kuntimaddi sadananda <kuntimaddisada replied

 

Any philosophy that rests on personified forms of God naturally leads to

the notions of supremacy of that form of God over the other forms?

Ignorance starts with the first part. Vedas-s glorify many forms and

that itself should lead to correct understanding that formless form

includes all forms - but then that lead to advaitic understanding. But

if one gives more importance to the Bheda vaakya-s than abheda vaakya-s,

the ignorance continues leading to fanatism. We have both veera

vaiShNavates and we have veera Saivates too. If you listen to ISKAN

group they will tell you that Krishna alone is Para Brahman and all

others are demigods whose powers are borrowed from the supreme ones.

 

If you look at Purushasuukta - there is addendum that some do not chant

- it says that Purusha is - hRiischyate laxmiischa patnou - aho raatre

paarSve. Thus identifying that Purusha as the husband of Laxmi. The

whole Naarayanopanishad which Shankara also quotes is centered on

Narayana as the supreme Lord. ISKAN people even argue that Shankara

after teaching Advaita many years realized his mistake and hence wrote

'Bhajagovindam' in his old age to show that govinda is the ultimate

truth. Most of the dvaitins and vishiShTadvaitins takes the literary

meaning in many of B.G. slokas that says as I am the goal and I am the

one who gives salvation -daiviim eShaa guNamayi mama maaya duratyayaa,

maam evaye prapadyante maayaametam tarantite| This maya of mine is of

divine nature and is difficult to cross unless one surrenders to me.

Hence the surrender through bhakti towards Lord Narayana is the only

means of salvation - I am the one who gives moksha - 'sarva dharmaan

parityajya maam ekam... " by surrendering to me alone ..

 

If one takes the word meaning, it does imply Krishna as the supreme god

and further confirmed by the whole of 11th chapter - viswaruupam. If

you go to rudram and Shiava puraaNa-s - the emphasis is different.

 

The problem is any bhakti involves a form and identification with the

form and ignoring the symbolisms involved in all forms, keeps one

narrow-minded and fanatic too. Some of the more subtle verses of the

Upanishads such as - yat chacchuSha na pasyati yena chachhumsi pasyati

tad eva brahman tvam viddhi nedam yadidam upaasate - that which eyes

cannot see but because of which the eyes have the capacity to see - know

that alone is Brahman, not this that you worship - are misinterpreted to

suite their models.

 

Fact of the matter is Bhakti without proper knowledge leads to fanatism

and knowledge without bhakti leads to arrogance. Hence it is a razor

path - xurasya dhaara duratyayaa durgam pathanaat kavayo vadanti - says

KaThopanishad - it is razer-edge path and is difficult to cross say the

wise.

 

Avaitic understanding alone takes one beyond any forms since all forms

are limited and cannot be Brahman. But forms are helpful to focus the

mind, if it is used properly. True Bhakti is beyond any forms - and that

forms the basis of knowledge.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sundara Rajanji.

 

This may not be a critical comment as I would like to laugh this

Shaiva - Vaishnava conflict away as an unnecessary botheration.

 

Bhaja Govindam was authored by Shankara. Shankara is a name of

Shiva. Isn't that enough to satisfy our Shiva fans?

 

I am a Devi bhaktA. I like female company where both the

masculinities and other male chauvinists are strictly barred entry.

Incidentally, the Devi hooked me after I took to advaita. To me, She

is the Consciousness of advaita and my love for Her is the same as an

advaitin's 'indulgence' in Consciousness. I notice that you have

called the ripening of it nirvikalpa samadhi. If, therefore, Devi

upAsanA is sagunA, then Consciousness upAsanA is also sagunA as there

is an element of objectification involved in both.

 

Am I right, Sir?

 

PraNAms.

 

Madathil Nair

________________

 

advaitin, "S.Sundara Rajan" <sudarshan3@v...>

wrote:

> As Sri Vasuji has said all these are Saguna upasana where a Bhakta

indulges in the Lord the way he wants to. When the Bhakti matures

into gnana and his sadana ripens into nirvikalpa samadhi then

concept of advaita comes into picture. ....................

>

> As for as Baja govindam is concerned ........ It was only

incidental that the word Govindam was mentioned in the first stanza.

The word Govindam fell into the place more as a mark of his respect

to his guru ( as kamahi paramacharya has mentioned in one of his

discourses). The essence of the sloka would not have been watered

down if the phrase Baja Govindam was replaced by "baja sambashivam,

baja sambashivam". ........>

> Like to have critical comment

[Guest guest]

Namaste Madathalji,

 

 

advaitin, "Madathil Rajendran Nair"

<madathilnair> wrote:

> I am a Devi bhaktA. I like female company where both the

masculinities and other male chauvinists are strictly barred entry.

> Incidentally, the Devi hooked me after I took to advaita. To me,

She is the Consciousness of advaita and my love for Her is the same

as an advaitin's 'indulgence' in Consciousness. I notice that you

have called the ripening of it nirvikalpa samadhi. If, therefore,

Devi upAsanA is sagunA, then Consciousness upAsanA is also sagunA as

there is an element of objectification involved in both.

> Am I right, Sir?

>

> PraNAms.

> Madathil Nair

 

 

 

Dear Madathilji, your words are sweet to my ears. I had denied Her,

and She pulled me up and said: "What! Do you deny your own Mother?"

She is Lalithambika, the Mother of the universe, and She plays with

us in diverse ways. She is the shadow of death that lies beneath the

insensate world, and She is the light of Life that enshrines the

world with consciousness. She is my ego, my thought, my world. She is

my arrogance and She is my humility. She makes me a thief or a

monarch with the merest flourish of her Leela. How shall I deny Her

when She is the denial itself? That Brahman is Ardhanarishwara, and

She is That Brahman. Isn't She the Earth and we Her children?

 

 

Know that the blood that runs in thee

Is born of the blood

Of thy Earthly Mother.

Her blood falls from the clouds,

Leaps up from the womb of the earth,

Babbles in the brooks of the mountains,

Flows wide in the rivers of the plains,

Sleeps in the lakes,

Rages mightily in the tempestuous seas.

 

Know that the air which thou dost breathe

Is born of the breath

Of thy Earthly Mother.

Her breath is azure

In the heights of the heavens,

Soughs in the tops of the mountains,

Whispers in the leaves of the forests,

Billows over the cornfields,

Slumbers in the deep valleys,

Burns hot in the desert.

 

Know that the hardness of thy bones

Is born of the bones

Of thy Earthly Mother,

Of the rocks and of the stones.

Know that the tenderness of thy flesh

Is born of the flesh

Of thy Earthly Mother,

She whose flesh waxeth yellow and red

In the fruits of the trees.

 

The light of thy eyes,

The hearing of thy ears,

These are born

Of the colours and sounds

Of thy Earthly Mother,

Which doth enclose thee about,

As the waves of the sea enclose a fish,

As the edifying air a bird.

 

Thou art one with the Earthly Mother;

She is in thee and thou art in her,

Of her wert thou born,

In her dost thou live,

And to her shalt thou return again.

He who hath found peace

With his Earthly Mother

Shall never know death.

 

(From the Essene book of Jesus

by Edmond Bordeaux Szekely)

 

 

My Pranams to all Advaitins

Chittaranjan

[Guest guest]

Many Pranams to all;

I would like to join Madathilji with a bellowing laughter.

Not just at Shiva Vs. Vishnu debaters but at all people who

believe they are in the spiritual path and yet like to carry

deep prejudices and carry on a variety of fights- Shiva Vs. Vishnu,

dwaita Vs. Advaita, Muslims Vs. Hindus, Iskcon Vs.other Missions,

Sahaja Yogis Vs. Others...... the list is endless despite great

saints like Kabirdas, Shirdi Saibaba, Shankara ( His first commentary

was on Vishnu Sahasranama!)proclaiming and live a life transcending

all possible differences.

 

If I may refer to speech I had heard from Bill Clinton ( I can hear

some Groan.... oh! off all people clintonji!!). He referred to the

phenomenon where people like to live in boxes. A Hindu box, A

christian box, a doctor box, a middle class box, a Brit box, a White

box, A Afro American box etc. There are people who like to travel

between boxes and transcend the limited conditioned perspective

their box provides. They are hated not by the people in the box they

are travelling to but by core people in their own box who feel

insecure as they have built their identity by being aggressively

blind to the world of people in other boxes. Thus Gandhi was murdered

by a Hindu, Martin Luther king by a fellow Afro American, Abraham

Lincoln by a white and so on ( I forget the other instances he quoted

but we could probably examine this - again my knowledge of history is

poor, i am open to corrections if i have some facts wrong).

 

It just seems that entering the spiritual path is not enough

guarantee for progress. There are many more inner demons to vanquished

provocations to be handled and distractions to be ignored. There is

nothing wrong with being in a box as in worshipping a formless god or

one with form, being a hindu, muslim , christian or buddhist ,

following dwaita or advaita etc. It does give a focus. It is

important not to develop an intolerance for someone in some other box

as then one looses sight of why one got into the chosen spiritual

path in the first place.

 

Personally speaking, born a vaishnavite, I am fortunate enough to

enjoy the rapturous experience of chanting Vishnu Sahasranama or

singing Arunachala Shiva. They don't have a problem with eachother,

it is a misguided section of their 'followers' who do.

 

Many pranams all

Sridhar

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "asridhar19" <asridhar19> wrote:

> Many Pranams to all;

> I would like to join Madathilji with a bellowing laughter.

 

Namaste,

 

To quip: The Atheists are lost in the Joke, and

the Joke is lost on the Believers!

 

 

Regards,

 

Sunder

[Guest guest]

Hari Om!

 

Just wanted to remind you that today we can laugh out easily about Shaiva

and Vaishnava conflict. But how many of us would be in a position to

believe that more than a Million people killed in the battles that took

place between Saivites and Vaishnavites! It is true. Some centuries ago

there was a Saiva saint, lived in India in Karnataka region. He declared

"convert all of them to saivisam. If they do not accept Siva -- kill them",

and his disciples faithfully carried out his word through the means of a

trishu (or a sword - how does it matter)!

 

Fanaticism is not just a new phenomenon. It is known to the world and India

is not excluded out of it. History reminds us... They fought so bitterly

in India - Hindus among themselves, many lives were lost.

 

That is one of the reasons why Sri Adishankara tried to bring peace among

saivites and vaishnavites - that is why he is also called Shatmata

sthapakacharya (founder of six schools of religion). He tried to tell

people to come out of their nonsensical thinking. In my humble opinion: if

at all today in India we live peacefully --- as Hindus --- feel comfortable

about the religion we are born in, then we owe that to Sri Adishankara and

his brilliant propagation of Nondualism.

 

The idea is understand the reality of life, not the expression of it. An

actor put many different faces -- he can put a sorrow face, a happy face, a

confused face, as only so long he is alive! All the faces are part of

expression. But at the end it is the actor who consciously made a choice of

expression. We have life, and we are all making conscious choices of

expression. Our religion is our expression.

 

Regards,

Madhava

 

 

 

Message: 2

Sun, 08 Feb 2004 05:02:18 -0000

"Madathil Rajendran Nair" <madathilnair

Re: when SriVaishnavism and Shaivism formed

 

Namaste Sundara Rajanji.

 

This may not be a critical comment as I would like to laugh this Shaiva -

Vaishnava conflict away as an unnecessary botheration.

 

Bhaja Govindam was authored by Shankara. Shankara is a name of Shiva.

Isn't that enough to satisfy our Shiva fans?

 

I am a Devi bhaktA. I like female company where both the masculinities and

other male chauvinists are strictly barred entry.

Incidentally, the Devi hooked me after I took to advaita. To me, She is the

Consciousness of advaita and my love for Her is the same as an advaitin's

'indulgence' in Consciousness. I notice that you have called the ripening

of it nirvikalpa samadhi. If, therefore, Devi upAsanA is sagunA, then

Consciousness upAsanA is also sagunA as there is an element of

objectification involved in both.

 

Am I right, Sir?

 

PraNAms.

 

Madathil Nair

[Guest guest]

Namaste,

>Just wanted to remind you that today we can laugh out

>easily about Shaiva and Vaishnava conflict. But how

>many of us would be in a position to believe that more

>than a Million people killed in the battles that took

>place between Saivites and Vaishnavites! It is true.

 

 

Wow! I had totally swallowed the line that Hinduism was blessedly

free of the conflicts and intolerance found in Semitic religions.

 

Are you sure of this? It might be some left-wing propaganda...

 

Hari Om!

Benjamin

[Guest guest]

Namaste Chittaranjanji.

 

Thanks for your post - a relief away from competing masculinities.

 

I didn't know She has bewitched you too. Ramji, beware, She is

hijacking Advaitin!

 

What you wrote vibes well with what I know and like of Her. She is

so naughty that She is the cause, the knower, the operator and the

cure of everything (viswamAtA, jagaddhAtrI, bhAvagnA,

bhavacakrapravartinI and bhAvaghnI in LalitA sahasranAmAvali). It is

a pleasure to walk after Her as She goes her rounds with the keys of

the universe tightly tucked in the sari fold and wonder what She will

next open! After all, isn't She the yajamAnaswarUpinI and the very

Consciousness that keeps unfolding incessantly in front of us?

Better therefore to leave everything to Her and follow Her. The food

will be ready and the bed will be made. Mother is around. Be the

child. YOgakshEmam vahamyaham!

 

Thanks for the poem. It connects well with the stuti in the fifth

chapter of DEvI MAhAtmyA. Mother is everything. May She keep us

reminded of it always and verily be everything that we see and

experience.

 

PraNAms.

 

Madathil Nair

____________________

 

advaitin, "Chittaranjan Naik"

<chittaranjan_naik> wrote:

> She is Lalithambika, the Mother of the universe, and She plays with

> us in diverse ways. She is the shadow of death that lies beneath

the

> insensate world, and She is the light of Life that enshrines the

> world with consciousness. She is my ego, my thought, my world. She

is

> my arrogance and She is my humility. She makes me a thief or a

> monarch with the merest flourish of her Leela. How shall I deny Her

> when She is the denial itself? That Brahman is Ardhanarishwara, and

> She is That Brahman. Isn't She the Earth and we Her children?

[Guest guest]

Respected Benjamin,

 

Is there any proof for your claim. I dont think it happened.

Centainly there were quarrels between these two groups. But can

believe what you are saying.

 

Thanks and regards,

 

Hari Om !

[Guest guest]

Namaste Vasu145,

 

I made no such claim. I was replying to someone else and expressing

my own doubts and asking for proof. That's why a portion of my

message had little arrowheads like this '>' at the beginning of the

lines. It means I was quoting someone else (just as I am quoting you

below). Are you new to email?

 

Benjamin

 

>Respected Benjamin,

>Is there any proof for your claim. I don't think it happened.

>Centainly there were quarrels between these two groups.

>But can believe what you are saying.

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "S.Sundara Rajan" <sudarshan3@v...>

wrote:

> Clear DayDear friends,

>

> As Sri Vasuji has said all these are Saguna upasana where a Bhakta

indulges in the Lord the way he wants to. When the Bhakti matures

into gnana and his sadana ripens into nirvikalpa samadhi then

concept of advaita comes into picture. At that point, whether a

vaishnavait or shaivait will experience oneness with Brahman.

Therefore it is immaterial if a vaishanvait does not believe in

Shiva.

>

> In the lighter vein I would like to add that it is vaishnavit's

problem if they don't believe in Lord Shiva.

>

> As Shri Sadananajai puts it "all forms are limited and cannot be

Brahman".

>

> As for as Baja govindam is concerned it exposes the myth of the

seemingly real world ( prate bhasika sathyam ). Through out the 31

stanzas, Sankara teaches us not to get trapped in the maya but to

realize the Brahman thro bhakti. It was only incidental that the

word Govindam was mentioned in the first stanza. The word Govindam

fell into the place more as a mark of his respect to his guru ( as

kamahi paramacharya has mentioned in one of his discourses). The

essence of the sloka would not have been watered down if the phrase

Baja Govindam was replaced by "baja sambashivam, baja sambashivam".

the sandals would have neen same.

>

> Like to have critical comment

>

> Sundara Rajan

 

 

Dear Sri Sundara Rajan,

 

To reiterate that Sankaracharya sees no difference bewteen Siva and

Vishnu, you may look at other verses in Bhaja Govindam:

 

"Bhagavadgeeta kinchita deeta...sahrdapi yena muraari samarchaa.."

 

and

 

"geyam geeta naama sahasram dhyeyam sreepati roopam ajasram"

 

 

Harih Om!

 

Neelakantan

[Guest guest]

Namaste Benjamin,

 

It is a mistake on my part. Since your message is lates I have read

it first. Immediately I reacted to that.

 

Once again sorry for that. For your kind information for last 8

years I am using e-mail.

===============================

>

> Namaste Vasu145,

>

> I made no such claim. I was replying to someone else and

expressing

> my own doubts and asking for proof. That's why a portion of my

> message had little arrowheads like this '>' at the beginning of the

> lines. It means I was quoting someone else (just as I am quoting

you

> below). Are you new to email?

>

> Benjamin

>

>

[Guest guest]

--- Neelakantan <pneelaka wrote:

> The

> essence of the sloka would not have been watered down if the phrase

> Baja Govindam was replaced by "baja sambashivam, baja sambashivam".

> the sandals would have neen same.

> >

> > Like to have critical comment

> >

> > Sundara Rajan

>

>From the spirt of the discussion, that is true - but from metrical point

baja gOvindam baja gOvindam - cannot be replaced by

baja sambashivam baja sambashivam ...

Hari OM !

Sadananda

 

 

 

=====

What you have is His gift to you and what you do with what you have is your gift

to Him - Swami Chinmayananda.

 

 

 

Finance: Get your refund fast by filing online.

http://taxes./filing.html