Guest guest Posted April 28, 2003 Report Share Posted April 28, 2003 > > Narasimha P.V.R. Rao [pvr] > Saturday, April 26, 2003 8:46 AM Dear Sri Narasimha-jI, I hope you don't mind this post in this series. > Giving quotes from a Purana showing that God X is superior to God Y serves no purpose. Quotes from puranas > are a double edged sword! If a Vaishnava gives a quote from Garuda Purana saying that Vishnu is supreme, a > Shaiva can give a quote from Linga Purana saying that Shiva is supreme. What more, a shaiva can quote even Vaishnava purANas as well. Like the Padma Purana, that is said to be a sAttvik, considers the Lord bowing to Shiva. In the Mahabharata, it is Lord Krishna who gives the Shiva sahasranama. Yet despite all that, the conclusion of Shiva and Vishnu being equal or whatever is a flawed and arises primarily out of leaving out logic and scriptures. These two are more important than any secularistic feelings, I hope. All schools place Vedas above Puranas, itihAsa and other Vedangas. This is because Vedas are apaurusheya. In case of any conflict between the Vedas and any other text, the former are to be taken and others, for, being paurusheya (let the author be anybody; buddha, krishna, chaitanya), are to be discarded. I hope you don't disagree here. Vedas do talk of Vishnu's supremacy. Vishnu's supremacy is not at all harmed by the fact that his hymns come late in the RgVeda (as claimed by Chandrashekar-jI), for, these hymns were collected and redacted later by people such as kAtyAyana (anukramaNikAs is a proof of this idea). In any case, Vedas themselves do not claim any correspondence between order of appearance of hymns and the level of deity. The very appearance of other deities being praised is also not a hindrance; other Gods are indeed to be worshipped for various other benefits. For example, Shiva is the abhimAni-devatA for manas (mind); unless the kind Lord of Uma showers his benefience, there is not one chance that a man will be able to convert his bitterest enemy to his best friend. However, these devatAs, be it Shiva or Indra or Agni or Pushan, are all substitutes to Vishnu, who is Brahman. Consider this from RgVeda (7th Mandala): asya devasya mILhuSo vayA viShNoreShasya prabhR^ithe havirbhiH | vide hi rudro rudriyaM mahitvaM yAsiSTaM vartirashvinAvirAvat.h || This one clearly says that Rudra got his 'rudratva' from Vishnu. Even Sayanacharya (who is otherwise obsessed with giving mImAsa readings everywhere) reads it thus (though he does damage to the portion on Ashvini devatas). (Chandrasekhar-jI, pls get the sanskrit mUla instead of translations. We have already been plagued by non-vaidikas translating the Vedas left, right and centre). Consider this from the kAThakAraNyaka (100): Here, the devatas interact with a Being, whose identity they seek to know. That Being says 'ahaM rudro.ahamindro.ahamAdityo.ahaM sarvasyAvayA haraso divyasyeti'. He later clarifies what this means by the following statements: 'yadruvanna abhyadvadattatrudrasya rudratvam.h' and 'sa shivo.abhavat.h | tachChivasya shivatvam.h'. He proclaims Himself to be the possessor of all guNas known as possessed by other devatas. Note that absolute identity between Shiva or Indra with that Being cannot be made out; for, the statement, 'shivasya shivatvaM' or 'rudrasya rudratvaM' would be nonsense then (Also, Indra is one of the deities having a conservation with the Being). Needless to say, this being is different from Rudra and Indra. That He is none other than Vishnu is known by the later proclamations where he is said to be 'sarvasya adhipati' AND that He is the yajamAna of all yaj~nAs (The Shatapatha Brahmana says -- yajamAno vai viShNuH). Ofcourse, the first line from Mahopanishad is there: eko nArayaNa AsInna brahmA neshAno nAgnIshomau neme dyAvapR^ithivI | This clearly says that it is Lord Narayana who existed at that point of time, when there was niether Brahma nor Shiva, Agni, Chandra, these heavens and earth. So, why not conclude that it is Narayana whose different forms are Brahma, Shiva, Agni, Surya etc, just like Rama and Krishna are? The reason is again in the scriptures. These other Gods are said to be the control, are said to be born and even die, are said to be afraid of Brahman (R.V 2.38.9, Taittiriya Upanishad 2-8). It is plain common sense that one is not afraid of oneself. It cannot be even that one form is ignorant of other (how can that be, if they are all 'pUrNa' brahman, that is praised in the muNDakopanishat as 'sarvaj~naH' omniscient?). Consider kAThaka araNyaka 206. This relates to Indra beheading Rudra ('etadrudrasya dhanuH | rudrasyatveva dhanurArtniH shira utpipeSha | sa pravargyo.abhavat.h'). This appears in Taiitariya Aranyaka also. All these deities are said to be under the control of ambhraNI, the seer of ambhraNI sUkta (some call it devI sUkta): ahaM rudrebhir vasubhir ..... yaM kAmaye taM ugraM kR^iNomi taM brahmANaM taM R^iShiM taM sumedhaM. Here, she says that whomsoever she pleases, will be made Rudra, Brahma, a sage or a wiseman. She proclaims that she had given the bow to Rudra to cut off one of the five heads of Brahma (for chanting a Vedic verse wrongly): ahaM rudrAya dhanurAtanomi etc. Later, the same lady says that the source of her powers is the Being on the ocean (mama yoni apsu antaH samudre). Multiple Puranas, smriti, itihasa give the etymological meaning of the word 'Narayana' as the being who rests on the Oceans. Why, even the Mahanarayana Upanishad says that it is Vishnu who is the being on the Ocean and who is the goal of the wise. How can it be that one form is the source of her powers, yet, other forms are under control? Simple commonsense says that they are all different from each other. So far two points have been established: Vishnu being the supreme and others being subject to flaws. Statements such as 'ekaM sad.h viprA bahudhA vadanti' is no obstacle. That is because Vishnu is the primary referrent of all names of devatas. So says the Bhallaveya shruti: nAmAni sarvAni yamAvishanti taM vai viShNuM paramamudAharanti (This shruti is not extant. However this verse is quoted in Sri Madhva's works. The same work is referred by Sureshvara in his brihadvArtikA). The direct reading is anyway flawed because the shruti will have to bear the accusation of being flawed; the specific flaw in this case being punarukti: notice the no. of times agni is referred in the verse. Thus, it is Vishnu, who is primarily praised in the verses where others are praised. Vishnu is called as Shankara because He does auspicious works; He is called Brahma because He is infinite so on. (These etymological meanings are given by Shiva in Harivamsha, Bhavishya parva, 87/88th adhyaya). The Vishnusahasranama is another proof of this: Bhishma makes an important point before revealing the names: yAni nAmAni gauNAni: I shall narrate those names, that reveal Vishnu's attributes. Thus, names such as 'shiva', 'rudra', 'indra' reveal Vishnu's innate qualities (that are bestowed to other Gods: tachChivasya shivatvaM). Similarly, the namaka chamakaM or the shvetashvatara Upanishad do not pose a problem. The rudra mentioned there is Shiva in a secondary sense and Vishnu in a primary sense. Even the 'Om Namo Bhagavate Rudraya Vishnave Mrityorme Pahi' praises Vishnu only (notice the absence of a conjunctive cha). At this point, one might ask: Why interpret in terms of primary and secondary, why not take the direct reading that all these Gods are indeed equal to themselves? The answer is that these devatAs are subject to control, birth and death, but not Vishnu (which is impossible in identity). So, why not interpret such shruti statements in a different way instead of giving up the identity of Vishnu and other gods? Even the shrutis talk of 'ahaM brahmAsmi' and 'tat tvaM asi'. The answer to this is such shrutis are 'niravakAsha' (incapable of giving any other explanation). It is impossible to explain fear, control, birth and death when the main principle is that of identity. On the other hand, 'sarvabhUtAnAmadhipatiH' or 'devesha' or 'sa brahma sa shivaH sendraH' admit a different explanation: Just like a Project leader is also referred to as the leader, so too other Gods are called sarvabhUtAnAmadhipatiH or deveshaH. Verses such as 'sa brahma sa shivaH sendraH' etc can be interpreted as Vishnu being the bestower of their positions and powers to those Gods. The advaitic meaning to 'tat tvaM asi' is clear to those, who have left context and logic to air. Why, Vachaspati Mishra himself says that none of the 9 illustrations that Uddalaka gives to Shvetaketu is indicative of actual identity (I can get the exact quote if needed). The same holds with 'ahaM brahmAsmi'. The Vedas never attribute birth or death to Vishnu. Some people, on the strength of bahvR^ichA upanishad, quote the devi creating Vishnu. But that is a bogus upanishad. The Bahvricha Upanishad is said to be a part of Aitereya Aranyaka and the whole upanishad is missing there. So, from whence did this upanishad get prominence? That is from another bogus one: MuktikA Upanishad. This upanishad is bogus because it claims to belong to a RgVedic shAkha that is absent in the 21 RV shakhas. You know, none of the authors prior to Upanishad Brahmendra Yogi, ever quoted muktikA as the authoritative text containing the list of Upanishads, while enlisting the 'vidyAsthAnAni'. Actually that renders many texts, considered as upanishads, bogus. Texts like vAsudevopanishad (that details the application of gopI-chandana over one's body; a concept denounced by advaitins such as Appaya Dikshita), bahvricha, skanda, dattatreya (and host others at the Sanskrit Documents site) have "become" upanishads only in the last two centuries. Thus, it is clear, atleast to me, that Vishnu is the Supreme and others are not. Puranas or Mahabharata have to be accepted or discarded based on this. Many purANas contradict the apaurusheya shruti. Valmiki Ramayana is just as bad; Mahabharata is not so. For example, consider the thing about Krishna begetting a son from Shiva after a rigorous penance. Krishna himself gives the explanation in Mokshadharma (shanti parva: 12.328.5): ahamAtmA hi lokAnAM vishvAnAM pANDunandana | tasmAdAtmAnamevAgre rudraM sampUjayAmyaham | yadyahaM nArchayeyaM vai IshAnaM varadaM shivam | AtmAnaM nArchayetkashchiditi me bhAvitaM manaH O Son of Pandu, I am, indeed, the Atma, the indweller of this universe and the worlds. Therefore, I worship myself first, even when I worship Rudra. If I did not worship Rudra, the bestower of boons, in such a way (i.e., worshipping the indwelling Lord first), some would not worship me, the indwelling Lord, at all - this is my opinion. (Later) na hi viShNuH pranamati kasmai chidvibudhAya tu R^ita AtmAnameveti tato rudraM bhajAmyaham | Indeed Vishnu does not bow to any one and [even when He bows to Himself], for what sake, but for the sake of showing the path to the wise. Therefore, it is the truth that I worship myself even when I worship Rudra. Similarly the one from Ramayana where Rama is said to have installed the Shiva linga. The Ramopanishad (some refer to it as rAmatApanIyopanishad) makes it clear that Rama was never stained by any karmaphala (so, the idea of getting brahmahatyApataka is bogus). Also, it speaks of Shiva having done rigorous penance for thousands of years to get Rama's vision. The antiquity of Puranas is known by the fact that they are referred in the Chandogya Upanishad. (Chandrashekhar-jI, the author of article you pasted is simply unaware of this). Chandogya is considered as one of the oldest Upanishads; so the idea that Puranas were written later than that is wrong. Even the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad (another old Upanishad) talks of the Supreme Being breathing out the fifth Veda: Puranas and Itihasa. In both these verses, the Puranas are referred in singular. That is because the original Purana was one, but it was latter classified into 18 (as Matsya and Brahmanda Puranas clarify). The following incident from Linga Purana > Linga purana says that Vishnu, Brahma and the entire universe came from Shiva. It also contains an > interesting story. According to that story, an argument arose between Brahma and Vishnu on who was superior. > *Shiva* who is the supreme one! Shiva then appeared in front of them and taught them,"we three are part of > the same supreme Parabrahman that pervades this universe. We three have three specific roles. We should not > fight with each other on who is superior." is contradicted by the shruti that refers to that Vishnu, in the form of varAha: 'uddhR^itAsi varAheNa kR^iShNena shatabAhunA' , who lifted the entire universe. There is no shruti that considers Shiva linga to be outside the universe or being aprAkritic. Btw, the story in Linga purana has it that Vishnu and Brahma took the forms of varaha and hamsa respectively. Another shruti (kAThakAraNyaka, if I remember it right) talks of Brahma, in the form of a swan, flying over the entire universe. > Vishnu has been depicted as a worshipper of Shiva. His avataras such as Rama and Krishna also worshipped > Shiva. Shiva, on the other hand, has been depicted as a great worshipper of Vishnu. The name "Shiva" appears > in Vishnu's 1000 names. The names "Vishnu" and "Hari" appear in Shiva's 1000 names. All these things and > the contradictory scriptural references should make one think. Certainly. > Overall, looking at all the scriptural references, we can conclude the following: > > Vishnu is superior to Shiva. Shiva is superior to Vishnu. Vishnu worshipped Shiva and was blessed by > Shiva. Shiva worshipped Vishnu and was blessed by Vishnu. Vishnu is a superset of Shiva. Shiva is a superset > of Vishnu. > > Does it make sense? Or, does it sound contradictory? If so, perhaps you need to change your way of > thinking. After all, every assertion made above has scriptural support!! Not really. Read further on. > To enable you to come to terms with the apparent contradiction, I'll go back to my favorite analogy. Even > though it sounds simplistic, it's very profound and is the perfect analogy here. > > In the world of finite numbers, x > y, x = y and x < y cannot be true simultaneously. Only one of them can > be correct. But, in the world of infinite numbers, they all can be true simultaneously! If x and y are two > infinite numbers, then x can be greater than y, equal to y and less than y, all at the same time! Narasimha-jI, you think that makes sense? Two infinite numbers can be considered lesser than or greater than each other? Just that we say Infinity + Infinity = Infinity, you think the one of the terms of LHS is less than RHS? That's a mathematical mistake and it applies to the scenario you have sought to solve. The problem can be solved in a simpler way: atleast one of them is wrong. That shruti considers Vishnu as supreme serves as the guiding light. The Puranas give some idea on how to treat such contradictory ideas (which hopefully you won't ignore, lest you contradict your own accusation of Sri Gauranga Das as 'ignoring some scriptures'): For example, Padma Purana Uttara khaNDa, 235 to 237 adhyAyas. Here, Rudra talks of creation of tAmasa purANAs to delude the demons. Adding to that, Vishnu also says that he too, in his avataaras, will worship Shiva. (ahamapi avatAreShu tvAM cha rudraM mahAbala | tAmasAnAM mohanArthaM pUjayAmi yuge yuge | matamevaM avaShTabhya patantyeva na saMshayaH |) Or see this from the same purANa (6.71.114): paramo vishhNurevaikastajj~nAnaM moxasAdhanam.h | shAstrANAM nirNayastveshha tadanyanmohanAya hi || j~nAnaM vinA tu yA muktiH sAmyaM cha mama vishhNunA | tIrthA.adimAtrato j~nAnaM mamA.adhikyaM cha vishhNutaH || abhedashchAsmadAdInAM muktAnAM hariNA tathA | ityAdi sarvaM mohAya kathyate putra nAnyathA || (This one clarifies that they both should NOT be considered equals!) Varaha purANa also makes a note of that: eSha mohaM sR^ijAmyAshu yo janAn.h mohayiShyati | tvaM cha rudra mahAbAho mohashAstrANi kAraya || atatthyAni vitatthyAni darshayasva mahAbhuja | prakAshaM kuru chA.atmAnamaprakAshaM cha mAM kuru || The Matsya Purana also makes a note (I think it is in the 53rd adhyAya; I can give the reference if needed) that holds sAttvika Puranas as that extolling Vishnu, rAjasica as those extolling brahma or devi or sarasvatI and tAmasic as those extolling Shiva or Agni. Garuda purana also makes an important point that some sAttvik portions can be found in tAmasic purANas and vice-versa (which is why, padma purANa, pUrva khaNDa is considered tAmasic). (Btw, Garuda Purana has three parts: karma kANDa, dharma kANDa, brahma kANDa. Some publishers have given it as pUrva and uttara khaNDa. Notice the difference between kANDa and khaNDa. Anyway, the subject matter is nearly same. Brahma kANDa can be found in the uttara khaNDa of GP). Notice that here is a mention of, NOT what or who is greater but, a guideline as to how puranas should be read. You just cannot wish away these as interpolations. That makes the whole thing easier: Some texts are tAmasic. The stuff therein has to be ignored. This position, being based on support from shruti and actual purANic quotes is better than your (incorrect) solution of considering everybody infinite (in which case, only those purANas that consider them equal should be held correct). > (2) Shiva represents tamas, as he is completely devoid of passion. But it does not mean worshipping Shiva > is tamasik. I am not holding such a position; But worshipping Shiva as the supreme is definitely incorrect. > Often people talk about only moksha (BTW, Shiva can grant moksha too. He grants moksha as Maheswara). That contradicts his statement elsewhere to Markandeya: ahaM bhogaprado vatsa mokshadastu janArdana. Anyway, the Ramatapaniyopanishat says that Shiva gives the rAma-tAraka mantra to his devotee in Kashi, knowing which, the devotee will obtain moksha. This aligns with other shruti -- tamevaM vidvAnamR^ita iha bhavati | nAnyaH panthA vidyate.ayanAya | ===== > The only reason I spoke out is that some so-called-Vaishnavas who to a fanatic school of thought > that ignores the basic Vaishnava traits of compassion and humility are unfairly creating a feeling of > guilt among sincere Shiva devotees on this list with their constant barrage of biased scriptural quotes that > belittle Shiva worship one way or the other. ===== My objective here is none of that. Shiva worship is not a sin, as Lord Krishna himself says that it should be done. Shiva should indeed be worshipped. Namaka-chamaka, Shatarudriya all are important; Yamasmriti enjoins chanting of Shatarudriya (but Nrisimha-tApanIyopanishad holds that one chanting of nR^isimha gAyatrI is equivalent to chanting shatarudrIya 100 times), but the right perspective is important. I am sorry if all this has created or increased the guilt (I doubt that) of any worshipper of Shiva. But the matter as it exists must be told. Keeping quiet with wrong knowledge is as much a sin as ignorance itself (as Ishavasya Upanishad says). If you disagree with my conclusions, I have no problems. But most of the times, the disagreement has been more or less on the lines of 'Do you think our ancestors could not figure out that much'? In addition to pointing out that I haven't not mentioned anything on my own but only those that are mentioned by ancestors, I would also point out that such a remark is hardly a logical reply. > while Vedas put the ultimate truths > in a crisp language without any compromises or creative liberties. The Mahabharata says that the Vedas are afraid of an uninformed person, who sets out to read the Vedas without the help of Puranas and Itihasa. itihAsapurANAbhyAM vedaM samupabR^iMhayet.h | bibhetyalpashrutAd vedo mAmayaM pratariShyati || kArShNaM vedamimaM vidvAJNshrAvayitvArthamashnute | bhrUNahatyAkR^itaM cApi pApaM jahyAnna saMshayaH || Whosover interprets the Vedas without the help of Puranas, is equivalent to having murdered the Vedas and would incur sins; there is no doubt in that (let the brinjals of Maharashtrian sayings be in those sayings). Regards, Nomadeva The New Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo. http://search. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 28, 2003 Report Share Posted April 28, 2003 Dear Nomadeva, >From the Keno Upanishad: Yadi manyase subedeti dabhramebapi nunam tvam bettha brahmani rupam Yadasya tvam yadasya debeshbatha nu mimamsyameva te manye viditam bold">(If you think “I know it”- verily you have known very little of it; that which you consider as Brahman, whether it is this god or that god-this has to be correctly debated upon. bold">) Naham manye subedeti no na vedeti veda cha Yo nastadveda tadveda no na vedeti veda cha bold">(I do not take it as well known; nor do I consider it as unknown. He who has realized it knows it in truth; and, he who has not realized it knows it not.) Garamond"> >From the Katha Upanishad: Ashabdamsparshamrupamabyayam Tatharasam nityamgandhabancha Anadyanantam mahatma param dhruvam Nichayya tanmrityumulhatpramuchyate (The supreme Brahman is inexpressible by words; it cannot be felt by the sense of touch; it is beyond name and form, taste and smell. It is eternal, without beginning and end. Realizing this Supreme, man frees himself from the jaws of samsara.) font-weight:bold"> From the Mundaka Upanishad: Na tatro surya bhati na chandratarakam Nema vidyuto bhanti kutoyamagnih Tvameva bhantamanubhanti sarvam Tasya bhasa sarvamidam vibhati font-weight:bold">(Neither the sun, nor the moon, nor the stars--what to speak of the ordinary fire--can illumine the Atman. The Atman illumines all and everything else shines after it.) font-weight:bold"> Brahmairvedamamritam purastat Brahma pashchadbrahma dakshinatshcauttarena Adhoshchaurdham cha prasritam Brahmaivedam vishwamidam varishtham font-weight:bold">(This Brahman is the everlasting; It pervades everything from all the quarters – the north, east, west and south – from above and from below. Nay, it is everything. It is the Supreme.) font-weight:bold"> 12.0pt;font-family:Garamond;font-style:italic">Translations by Swami Gambhirananda Best regards, Garamond;color:navy;mso-color-alt:windowtext"> mso-color-alt:windowtext"> Sarbani mso-color-alt:windowtext"> Garamond"> 10.0pt;font-family:Tahoma;color:black"> Nomadeva Sharma [nomadeva ] Monday, April 28, 2003 2:40 PM To: vedic astrology RE: [vedic astrology] Vishnu and Shiva (To Narasimha jI) 12.0pt"> > mso-fareast-font-family:"Courier New";color:black"> > Narasimha P.V.R. Rao [pvr (AT) charter (DOT) net] > Saturday, April 26, 2003 8:46 AM Dear Sri Narasimha-jI, I hope you don't mind this post in this series. > Giving quotes from a Purana showing that God X is superior to God Y serves no purpose. Quotes from puranas > are a double edged sword! If a Vaishnava gives a quote from Garuda Purana saying that Vishnu is supreme, a > Shaiva can give a quote from Linga Purana saying that Shiva is supreme. What more, a shaiva can quote even Vaishnava purANas as well. Like the Padma Purana, that is said to be a sAttvik, considers the Lord bowing to Shiva. In the Mahabharata, it is Lord Krishna who gives the Shiva sahasranama. Yet despite all that, the conclusion of Shiva and Vishnu being equal or whatever is a flawed and arises primarily out of leaving out logic and scriptures. These two are more important than any secularistic feelings, I hope. All schools place Vedas above Puranas, itihAsa and other Vedangas. This is because Vedas are apaurusheya. In case of any conflict between the Vedas and any other text, the former are to be taken and others, for, being paurusheya (let the author be anybody; buddha, krishna, chaitanya), are to be discarded. I hope you don't disagree here. Vedas do talk of Vishnu's supremacy. Vishnu's supremacy is not at all harmed by the fact that his hymns come late in the RgVeda (as claimed by Chandrashekar-jI), for, these hymns were collected and redacted later by people such as kAtyAyana (anukramaNikAs is a proof of this idea). In any case, Vedas themselves do not claim any correspondence between order of appearance of hymns and the level of deity. The very appearance of other deities being praised is also not a hindrance; other Gods are indeed to be worshipped for various other benefits. For example, Shiva is the abhimAni-devatA for manas (mind); unless the kind Lord of Uma showers his benefience, there is not one chance that a man will be able to convert his bitterest enemy to his best friend. However, these devatAs, be it Shiva or Indra or Agni or Pushan, are all substitutes to Vishnu, who is Brahman. Consider this from RgVeda (7th Mandala): asya devasya mILhuSo vayA viShNoreShasya prabhR^ithe havirbhiH | vide hi rudro rudriyaM mahitvaM yAsiSTaM vartirashvinAvirAvat.h || This one clearly says that Rudra got his 'rudratva' from Vishnu. Even Sayanacharya (who is otherwise obsessed with giving mImAsa readings everywhere) reads it thus (though he does damage to the portion on Ashvini devatas). (Chandrasekhar-jI, pls get the sanskrit mUla instead of translations. We have already been plagued by non-vaidikas translating the Vedas left, right and centre). Consider this from the kAThakAraNyaka (100): Here, the devatas interact with a Being, whose identity they seek to know. That Being says 'ahaM rudro.ahamindro.ahamAdityo.ahaM sarvasyAvayA haraso divyasyeti'. He later clarifies what this means by the following statements: 'yadruvanna abhyadvadattatrudrasya rudratvam.h' and 'sa shivo.abhavat.h | tachChivasya shivatvam.h'. He proclaims Himself to be the possessor of all guNas known as possessed by other devatas. Note that absolute identity between Shiva or Indra with that Being cannot be made out; for, the statement, 'shivasya shivatvaM' or 'rudrasya rudratvaM' would be nonsense then (Also, Indra is one of the deities having a conservation with the Being). Needless to say, this being is different from Rudra and Indra. That He is none other than Vishnu is known by the later proclamations where he is said to be 'sarvasya adhipati' AND that He is the yajamAna of all yaj~nAs (The Shatapatha Brahmana says -- yajamAno vai viShNuH). Ofcourse, the first line from Mahopanishad is there: eko nArayaNa AsInna brahmA neshAno nAgnIshomau neme dyAvapR^ithivI | This clearly says that it is Lord Narayana who existed at that point of time, when there was niether Brahma nor Shiva, Agni, Chandra, these heavens and earth. So, why not conclude that it is Narayana whose different forms are Brahma, Shiva, Agni, Surya etc, just like Rama and Krishna are? The reason is again in the scriptures. These other Gods are said to be the control, are said to be born and even die, are said to be afraid of Brahman (R.V 2.38.9, Taittiriya Upanishad 2-8). It is plain common sense that one is not afraid of oneself. It cannot be even that one form is ignorant of other (how can that be, if they are all 'pUrNa' brahman, that is praised in the muNDakopanishat as 'sarvaj~naH' omniscient?). Consider kAThaka araNyaka 206. This relates to Indra beheading Rudra ('etadrudrasya dhanuH | rudrasyatveva dhanurArtniH shira utpipeSha | sa pravargyo.abhavat.h'). This appears in Taiitariya Aranyaka also. All these deities are said to be under the control of ambhraNI, the seer of ambhraNI sUkta (some call it devI sUkta): ahaM rudrebhir vasubhir ..... yaM kAmaye taM ugraM kR^iNomi taM brahmANaM taM R^iShiM taM sumedhaM. Here, she says that whomsoever she pleases, will be made Rudra, Brahma, a sage or a wiseman. She proclaims that she had given the bow to Rudra to cut off one of the five heads of Brahma (for chanting a Vedic verse wrongly): ahaM rudrAya dhanurAtanomi etc. Later, the same lady says that the source of her powers is the Being on the ocean (mama yoni apsu antaH samudre). Multiple Puranas, smriti, itihasa give the etymological meaning of the word 'Narayana' as the being who rests on the Oceans. Why, even the Mahanarayana Upanishad says that it is Vishnu who is the being on the Ocean and who is the goal of the wise. How can it be that one form is the source of her powers, yet, other forms are under control? Simple commonsense says that they are all different from each other. So far two points have been established: Vishnu being the supreme and others being subject to flaws. Statements such as 'ekaM sad.h viprA bahudhA vadanti' is no obstacle. That is because Vishnu is the primary referrent of all names of devatas. So says the Bhallaveya shruti: nAmAni sarvAni yamAvishanti taM vai viShNuM paramamudAharanti (This shruti is not extant. However this verse is quoted in Sri Madhva's works. The same work is referred by Sureshvara in his brihadvArtikA). The direct reading is anyway flawed because the shruti will have to bear the accusation of being flawed; the specific flaw in this case being punarukti: notice the no. of times agni is referred in the verse. Thus, it is Vishnu, who is primarily praised in the verses where others are praised. Vishnu is called as Shankara because He does auspicious works; He is called Brahma because He is infinite so on. (These etymological meanings are given by Shiva in Harivamsha, Bhavishya parva, 87/88th adhyaya). The Vishnusahasranama is another proof of this: Bhishma makes an important point before revealing the names: yAni nAmAni gauNAni: I shall narrate those names, that reveal Vishnu's attributes. Thus, names such as 'shiva', 'rudra', 'indra' reveal Vishnu's innate qualities (that are bestowed to other Gods: tachChivasya shivatvaM). Similarly, the namaka chamakaM or the shvetashvatara Upanishad do not pose a problem. The rudra mentioned there is Shiva in a secondary sense and Vishnu in a primary sense. Even the 'Om Namo Bhagavate Rudraya Vishnave Mrityorme Pahi' praises Vishnu only (notice the absence of a conjunctive cha). At this point, one might ask: Why interpret in terms of primary and secondary, why not take the direct reading that all these Gods are indeed equal to themselves? The answer is that these devatAs are subject to control, birth and death, but not Vishnu (which is impossible in identity). So, why not interpret such shruti statements in a different way instead of giving up the identity of Vishnu and other gods? Even the shrutis talk of 'ahaM brahmAsmi' and 'tat tvaM asi'. The answer to this is such shrutis are 'niravakAsha' (incapable of giving any other explanation). It is impossible to explain fear, control, birth and death when the main principle is that of identity. On the other hand, 'sarvabhUtAnAmadhipatiH' or 'devesha' or 'sa brahma sa shivaH sendraH' admit a different explanation: Just like a Project leader is also referred to as the leader, so too other Gods are called sarvabhUtAnAmadhipatiH or deveshaH. Verses such as 'sa brahma sa shivaH sendraH' etc can be interpreted as Vishnu being the bestower of their positions and powers to those Gods. The advaitic meaning to 'tat tvaM asi' is clear to those, who have left context and logic to air. Why, Vachaspati Mishra himself says that none of the 9 illustrations that Uddalaka gives to Shvetaketu is indicative of actual identity (I can get the exact quote if needed). The same holds with 'ahaM brahmAsmi'. The Vedas never attribute birth or death to Vishnu. Some people, on the strength of bahvR^ichA upanishad, quote the devi creating Vishnu. But that is a bogus upanishad. The Bahvricha Upanishad is said to be a part of Aitereya Aranyaka and the whole upanishad is missing there. So, from whence did this upanishad get prominence? That is from another bogus one: MuktikA Upanishad. This upanishad is bogus because it claims to belong to a RgVedic shAkha that is absent in the 21 RV shakhas. You know, none of the authors prior to Upanishad Brahmendra Yogi, ever quoted muktikA as the authoritative text containing the list of Upanishads, while enlisting the 'vidyAsthAnAni'. Actually that renders many texts, considered as upanishads, bogus. Texts like vAsudevopanishad (that details the application of gopI-chandana over one's body; a concept denounced by advaitins such as Appaya Dikshita), bahvricha, skanda, dattatreya (and host others at the Sanskrit Documents site) have "become" upanishads only in the last two centuries. Thus, it is clear, atleast to me, that Vishnu is the Supreme and others are not. Puranas or Mahabharata have to be accepted or discarded based on this. Many purANas contradict the apaurusheya shruti. Valmiki Ramayana is just as bad; Mahabharata is not so. For example, consider the thing about Krishna begetting a son from Shiva after a rigorous penance. Krishna himself gives the explanation in Mokshadharma (shanti parva: 12.328.5): ahamAtmA hi lokAnAM vishvAnAM pANDunandana | tasmAdAtmAnamevAgre rudraM sampUjayAmyaham | yadyahaM nArchayeyaM vai IshAnaM varadaM shivam | AtmAnaM nArchayetkashchiditi me bhAvitaM manaH O Son of Pandu, I am, indeed, the Atma, the indweller of this universe and the worlds. Therefore, I worship myself first, even when I worship Rudra. If I did not worship Rudra, the bestower of boons, in such a way (i.e., worshipping the indwelling Lord first), some would not worship me, the indwelling Lord, at all - this is my opinion. (Later) na hi viShNuH pranamati kasmai chidvibudhAya tu R^ita AtmAnameveti tato rudraM bhajAmyaham | Indeed Vishnu does not bow to any one and [even when He bows to Himself], for what sake, but for the sake of showing the path to the wise. Therefore, it is the truth that I worship myself even when I worship Rudra. Similarly the one from Ramayana where Rama is said to have installed the Shiva linga. The Ramopanishad (some refer to it as rAmatApanIyopanishad) makes it clear that Rama was never stained by any karmaphala (so, the idea of getting brahmahatyApataka is bogus). Also, it speaks of Shiva having done rigorous penance for thousands of years to get Rama's vision. The antiquity of Puranas is known by the fact that they are referred in the Chandogya Upanishad. (Chandrashekhar-jI, the author of article you pasted is simply unaware of this). Chandogya is considered as one of the oldest Upanishads; so the idea that Puranas were written later than that is wrong. Even the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad (another old Upanishad) talks of the Supreme Being breathing out the fifth Veda: Puranas and Itihasa. In both these verses, the Puranas are referred in singular. That is because the original Purana was one, but it was latter classified into 18 (as Matsya and Brahmanda Puranas clarify). The following incident from Linga Purana > Linga purana says that Vishnu, Brahma and the entire universe came from Shiva. It also contains an > interesting story. According to that story, an argument arose between Brahma and Vishnu on who was superior. > *Shiva* who is the supreme one! Shiva then appeared in front of them and taught them,"we three are part of > the same supreme Parabrahman that pervades this universe. We three have three specific roles. We should not > fight with each other on who is superior." is contradicted by the shruti that refers to that Vishnu, in the form of varAha: 'uddhR^itAsi varAheNa kR^iShNena shatabAhunA' , who lifted the entire universe. There is no shruti that considers Shiva linga to be outside the universe or being aprAkritic. Btw, the story in Linga purana has it that Vishnu and Brahma took the forms of varaha and hamsa respectively. Another shruti (kAThakAraNyaka, if I remember it right) talks of Brahma, in the form of a swan, flying over the entire universe. > Vishnu has been depicted as a worshipper of Shiva. His avataras such as Rama and Krishna also worshipped > Shiva. Shiva, on the other hand, has been depicted as a great worshipper of Vishnu. The name "Shiva" appears > in Vishnu's 1000 names. The names "Vishnu" and "Hari" appear in Shiva's 1000 names. All these things and > the contradictory scriptural references should make one think. Certainly. > Overall, looking at all the scriptural references, we can conclude the following: > > Vishnu is superior to Shiva. Shiva is superior to Vishnu. Vishnu worshipped Shiva and was blessed by > Shiva. Shiva worshipped Vishnu and was blessed by Vishnu. Vishnu is a superset of Shiva. Shiva is a superset > of Vishnu. > > Does it make sense? Or, does it sound contradictory? If so, perhaps you need to change your way of > thinking. After all, every assertion made above has scriptural support!! Not really. Read further on. > To enable you to come to terms with the apparent contradiction, I'll go back to my favorite analogy. Even > though it sounds simplistic, it's very profound and is the perfect analogy here. > > In the world of finite numbers, x > y, x = y and x < y cannot be true simultaneously. Only one of them can > be correct. But, in the world of infinite numbers, they all can be true simultaneously! If x and y are two > infinite numbers, then x can be greater than y, equal to y and less than y, all at the same time! Narasimha-jI, you think that makes sense? Two infinite numbers can be considered lesser than or greater than each other? Just that we say Infinity + Infinity = Infinity, you think the one of the terms of LHS is less than RHS? That's a mathematical mistake and it applies to the scenario you have sought to solve. The problem can be solved in a simpler way: atleast one of them is wrong. That shruti considers Vishnu as supreme serves as the guiding light. The Puranas give some idea on how to treat such contradictory ideas (which hopefully you won't ignore, lest you contradict your own accusation of Sri Gauranga Das as 'ignoring some scriptures'): For example, Padma Purana Uttara khaNDa, 235 to 237 adhyAyas. Here, Rudra talks of creation of tAmasa purANAs to delude the demons. Adding to that, Vishnu also says that he too, in his avataaras, will worship Shiva. (ahamapi avatAreShu tvAM cha rudraM mahAbala | tAmasAnAM mohanArthaM pUjayAmi yuge yuge | matamevaM avaShTabhya patantyeva na saMshayaH |) Or see this from the same purANa (6.71.114): paramo vishhNurevaikastajj~nAnaM moxasAdhanam.h | shAstrANAM nirNayastveshha tadanyanmohanAya hi || j~nAnaM vinA tu yA muktiH sAmyaM cha mama vishhNunA | tIrthA.adimAtrato j~nAnaM mamA.adhikyaM cha vishhNutaH || abhedashchAsmadAdInAM muktAnAM hariNA tathA | ityAdi sarvaM mohAya kathyate putra nAnyathA || (This one clarifies that they both should NOT be considered equals!) Varaha purANa also makes a note of that: eSha mohaM sR^ijAmyAshu yo janAn.h mohayiShyati | tvaM cha rudra mahAbAho mohashAstrANi kAraya || atatthyAni vitatthyAni darshayasva mahAbhuja | prakAshaM kuru chA.atmAnamaprakAshaM cha mAM kuru || The Matsya Purana also makes a note (I think it is in the 53rd adhyAya; I can give the reference if needed) that holds sAttvika Puranas as that extolling Vishnu, rAjasica as those extolling brahma or devi or sarasvatI and tAmasic as those extolling Shiva or Agni. Garuda purana also makes an important point that some sAttvik portions can be found in tAmasic purANas and vice-versa (which is why, padma purANa, pUrva khaNDa is considered tAmasic). (Btw, Garuda Purana has three parts: karma kANDa, dharma kANDa, brahma kANDa. Some publishers have given it as pUrva and uttara khaNDa. Notice the difference between kANDa and khaNDa. Anyway, the subject matter is nearly same. Brahma kANDa can be found in the uttara khaNDa of GP). Notice that here is a mention of, NOT what or who is greater but, a guideline as to how puranas should be read. You just cannot wish away these as interpolations. That makes the whole thing easier: Some texts are tAmasic. The stuff therein has to be ignored. This position, being based on support from shruti and actual purANic quotes is better than your (incorrect) solution of considering everybody infinite (in which case, only those purANas that consider them equal should be held correct). > (2) Shiva represents tamas, as he is completely devoid of passion. But it does not mean worshipping Shiva > is tamasik. I am not holding such a position; But worshipping Shiva as the supreme is definitely incorrect. > Often people talk about only moksha (BTW, Shiva can grant moksha too. He grants moksha as Maheswara). That contradicts his statement elsewhere to Markandeya: ahaM bhogaprado vatsa mokshadastu janArdana. Anyway, the Ramatapaniyopanishat says that Shiva gives the rAma-tAraka mantra to his devotee in Kashi, knowing which, the devotee will obtain moksha. This aligns with other shruti -- tamevaM vidvAnamR^ita iha bhavati | nAnyaH panthA vidyate.ayanAya | ===== > The only reason I spoke out is that some so-called-Vaishnavas who to a fanatic school of thought > that ignores the basic Vaishnava traits of compassion and humility are unfairly creating a feeling of > guilt among sincere Shiva devotees on this list with their constant barrage of biased scriptural quotes that > belittle Shiva worship one way or the other. ===== My objective here is none of that. Shiva worship is not a sin, as Lord Krishna himself says that it should be done. Shiva should indeed be worshipped. Namaka-chamaka, Shatarudriya all are important; Yamasmriti enjoins chanting of Shatarudriya (but Nrisimha-tApanIyopanishad holds that one chanting of nR^isimha gAyatrI is equivalent to chanting shatarudrIya 100 times), but the right perspective is important. I am sorry if all this has created or increased the guilt (I doubt that) of any worshipper of Shiva. But the matter as it exists must be told. Keeping quiet with wrong knowledge is as much a sin as ignorance itself (as Ishavasya Upanishad says). If you disagree with my conclusions, I have no problems. But most of the times, the disagreement has been more or less on the lines of 'Do you think our ancestors could not figure out that much'? In addition to pointing out that I haven't not mentioned anything on my own but only those that are mentioned by ancestors, I would also point out that such a remark is hardly a logical reply. > while Vedas put the ultimate truths > in a crisp language without any compromises or creative liberties. The Mahabharata says that the Vedas are afraid of an uninformed person, who sets out to read the Vedas without the help of Puranas and Itihasa. itihAsapurANAbhyAM vedaM samupabR^iMhayet.h | bibhetyalpashrutAd vedo mAmayaM pratariShyati || kArShNaM vedamimaM vidvAJNshrAvayitvArthamashnute | bhrUNahatyAkR^itaM cApi pApaM jahyAnna saMshayaH || Whosover interprets the Vedas without the help of Puranas, is equivalent to having murdered the Vedas and would incur sins; there is no doubt in that (let the brinjals of Maharashtrian sayings be in those sayings). Regards, Nomadeva The New Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo. http://search. line-break"> windowtext"> color:black"> "Courier New";mso-fareast-font-family:"Courier New";color:black"> || Om Tat Sat || Sarvam Sri Krishnaarpanamastu || Your use of is subject to the Terms of Service. mso-color-alt:windowtext"> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 28, 2003 Report Share Posted April 28, 2003 Dear Sarbani, An escellent post. I hope His Holiness Chandrashekhar Sarasvati's explainations on Hindu Gods posted by Ranganathan settles these ridiculous arguments once and for all. Chandrashekhar. - Sarbani Sarkar vedic astrology Monday, April 28, 2003 5:35 PM RE: [vedic astrology] Vishnu and Shiva (To Narasimha jI) Dear Nomadeva, >From the Keno Upanishad: Yadi manyase subedeti dabhramebapi nunam tvam bettha brahmani rupam Yadasya tvam yadasya debeshbatha nu mimamsyameva te manye viditam (If you think “I know it”- verily you have known very little of it; that which you consider as Brahman, whether it is this god or that god-this has to be correctly debated upon.) Naham manye subedeti no na vedeti veda cha Yo nastadveda tadveda no na vedeti veda cha (I do not take it as well known; nor do I consider it as unknown. He who has realized it knows it in truth; and, he who has not realized it knows it not.) >From the Katha Upanishad: Ashabdamsparshamrupamabyayam Tatharasam nityamgandhabancha Anadyanantam mahatma param dhruvam Nichayya tanmrityumulhatpramuchyate (The supreme Brahman is inexpressible by words; it cannot be felt by the sense of touch; it is beyond name and form, taste and smell. It is eternal, without beginning and end. Realizing this Supreme, man frees himself from the jaws of samsara.) >From the Mundaka Upanishad: Na tatro surya bhati na chandratarakam Nema vidyuto bhanti kutoyamagnih Tvameva bhantamanubhanti sarvam Tasya bhasa sarvamidam vibhati (Neither the sun, nor the moon, nor the stars--what to speak of the ordinary fire--can illumine the Atman. The Atman illumines all and everything else shines after it.) Brahmairvedamamritam purastat Brahma pashchadbrahma dakshinatshcauttarena Adhoshchaurdham cha prasritam Brahmaivedam vishwamidam varishtham (This Brahman is the everlasting; It pervades everything from all the quarters – the north, east, west and south – from above and from below. Nay, it is everything. It is the Supreme.) Translations by Swami Gambhirananda Best regards, Sarbani Nomadeva Sharma [nomadeva ]Sent: Monday, April 28, 2003 2:40 PMvedic astrologySubject: RE: [vedic astrology] Vishnu and Shiva (To Narasimha jI) > > Narasimha P.V.R. Rao [pvr (AT) charter (DOT) net] > Saturday, April 26, 2003 8:46 AMDear Sri Narasimha-jI,I hope you don't mind this post in this series.> Giving quotes from a Purana showing that God X issuperior to God Y serves no purpose. Quotes frompuranas > are a double edged sword! If a Vaishnava gives aquote from Garuda Purana saying that Vishnu issupreme, a > Shaiva can give a quote from Linga Purana sayingthat Shiva is supreme.What more, a shaiva can quote even Vaishnava purANasas well. Like the Padma Purana, that is said to be asAttvik, considers the Lord bowing to Shiva. In theMahabharata, it is Lord Krishna who gives the Shivasahasranama.Yet despite all that, the conclusion of Shiva andVishnu being equal or whatever is a flawed and arisesprimarily out of leaving out logic and scriptures.These two are more important than any secularisticfeelings, I hope.All schools place Vedas above Puranas, itihAsa andother Vedangas. This is because Vedas are apaurusheya.In case of any conflict between the Vedas and anyother text, the former are to be taken and others,for, being paurusheya (let the author be anybody;buddha, krishna, chaitanya), are to be discarded. Ihope you don't disagree here. Vedas do talk of Vishnu's supremacy. Vishnu'ssupremacy is not at all harmed by the fact that hishymns come late in the RgVeda (as claimed byChandrashekar-jI), for, these hymns were collected andredacted later by people such as kAtyAyana(anukramaNikAs is a proof of this idea). In any case,Vedas themselves do not claim any correspondencebetween order of appearance of hymns and the level ofdeity.The very appearance of other deities being praised isalso not a hindrance; other Gods are indeed to beworshipped for various other benefits. For example,Shiva is the abhimAni-devatA for manas (mind); unlessthe kind Lord of Uma showers his benefience, there isnot one chance that a man will be able to convert hisbitterest enemy to his best friend. However, thesedevatAs, be it Shiva or Indra or Agni or Pushan, areall substitutes to Vishnu, who is Brahman.Consider this from RgVeda (7th Mandala): asya devasya mILhuSo vayA viShNoreShasya prabhR^ithehavirbhiH | vide hi rudro rudriyaM mahitvaM yAsiSTaMvartirashvinAvirAvat.h ||This one clearly says that Rudra got his 'rudratva'from Vishnu. Even Sayanacharya (who is otherwiseobsessed with giving mImAsa readings everywhere) readsit thus (though he does damage to the portion onAshvini devatas). (Chandrasekhar-jI, pls get thesanskrit mUla instead of translations. We have alreadybeen plagued by non-vaidikas translating the Vedasleft, right and centre).Consider this from the kAThakAraNyaka (100): Here, thedevatas interact with a Being, whose identity theyseek to know. That Being says 'ahaMrudro.ahamindro.ahamAdityo.ahaM sarvasyAvayA harasodivyasyeti'. He later clarifies what this means by thefollowing statements: 'yadruvannaabhyadvadattatrudrasya rudratvam.h' and 'sashivo.abhavat.h | tachChivasya shivatvam.h'. Heproclaims Himself to be the possessor of all guNasknown as possessed by other devatas. Note thatabsolute identity between Shiva or Indra with thatBeing cannot be made out; for, the statement,'shivasya shivatvaM' or 'rudrasya rudratvaM' would benonsense then (Also, Indra is one of the deitieshaving a conservation with the Being). Needless tosay, this being is different from Rudra and Indra.That He is none other than Vishnu is known by thelater proclamations where he is said to be 'sarvasyaadhipati' AND that He is the yajamAna of all yaj~nAs(The Shatapatha Brahmana says -- yajamAno vaiviShNuH).Ofcourse, the first line from Mahopanishad is there:eko nArayaNa AsInna brahmA neshAno nAgnIshomau nemedyAvapR^ithivI | This clearly says that it is LordNarayana who existed at that point of time, when therewas niether Brahma nor Shiva, Agni, Chandra, theseheavens and earth.So, why not conclude that it is Narayana whosedifferent forms are Brahma, Shiva, Agni, Surya etc,just like Rama and Krishna are? The reason is again inthe scriptures. These other Gods are said to be thecontrol, are said to be born and even die, are said tobe afraid of Brahman (R.V 2.38.9, Taittiriya Upanishad2-8). It is plain common sense that one is not afraidof oneself. It cannot be even that one form isignorant of other (how can that be, if they are all'pUrNa' brahman, that is praised in themuNDakopanishat as 'sarvaj~naH' omniscient?). ConsiderkAThaka araNyaka 206. This relates to Indra beheadingRudra ('etadrudrasya dhanuH | rudrasyatvevadhanurArtniH shira utpipeSha | sapravargyo.abhavat.h'). This appears in TaiitariyaAranyaka also. All these deities are said to be underthe control of ambhraNI, the seer of ambhraNI sUkta(some call it devI sUkta): ahaM rudrebhir vasubhir.... yaM kAmaye taM ugraM kR^iNomi taM brahmANaM taMR^iShiM taM sumedhaM. Here, she says that whomsoevershe pleases, will be made Rudra, Brahma, a sage or awiseman. She proclaims that she had given the bow toRudra to cut off one of the five heads of Brahma (forchanting a Vedic verse wrongly): ahaM rudrAyadhanurAtanomi etc. Later, the same lady says that thesource of her powers is the Being on the ocean (mamayoni apsu antaH samudre). Multiple Puranas, smriti,itihasa give the etymological meaning of the word'Narayana' as the being who rests on the Oceans. Why,even the Mahanarayana Upanishad says that it is Vishnuwho is the being on the Ocean and who is the goal ofthe wise. How can it be that one form is the source ofher powers, yet, other forms are under control? Simplecommonsense says that they are all different from eachother.So far two points have been established: Vishnu beingthe supreme and others being subject to flaws.Statements such as 'ekaM sad.h viprA bahudhA vadanti'is no obstacle. That is because Vishnu is the primaryreferrent of all names of devatas. So says theBhallaveya shruti: nAmAni sarvAni yamAvishanti taM vaiviShNuM paramamudAharanti (This shruti is not extant.However this verse is quoted in Sri Madhva's works.The same work is referred by Sureshvara in hisbrihadvArtikA). The direct reading is anyway flawedbecause the shruti will have to bear the accusation ofbeing flawed; the specific flaw in this case beingpunarukti: notice the no. of times agni is referred inthe verse. Thus, it is Vishnu, who is primarily praised in theverses where others are praised. Vishnu is called asShankara because He does auspicious works; He iscalled Brahma because He is infinite so on. (Theseetymological meanings are given by Shiva inHarivamsha, Bhavishya parva, 87/88th adhyaya). TheVishnusahasranama is another proof of this: Bhishmamakes an important point before revealing the names:yAni nAmAni gauNAni: I shall narrate those names, thatreveal Vishnu's attributes. Thus, names such as'shiva', 'rudra', 'indra' reveal Vishnu's innatequalities (that are bestowed to other Gods:tachChivasya shivatvaM). Similarly, the namakachamakaM or the shvetashvatara Upanishad do not pose aproblem. The rudra mentioned there is Shiva in asecondary sense and Vishnu in a primary sense. Eventhe 'Om Namo Bhagavate Rudraya Vishnave MrityormePahi' praises Vishnu only (notice the absence of aconjunctive cha).At this point, one might ask: Why interpret in termsof primary and secondary, why not take the directreading that all these Gods are indeed equal tothemselves? The answer is that these devatAs aresubject to control, birth and death, but not Vishnu(which is impossible in identity). So, why notinterpret such shruti statements in a different wayinstead of giving up the identity of Vishnu and othergods? Even the shrutis talk of 'ahaM brahmAsmi' and'tat tvaM asi'. The answer to this is such shrutis are'niravakAsha' (incapable of giving any otherexplanation). It is impossible to explain fear,control, birth and death when the main principle isthat of identity. On the other hand,'sarvabhUtAnAmadhipatiH' or 'devesha' or 'sa brahma sashivaH sendraH' admit a different explanation: Justlike a Project leader is also referred to as theleader, so too other Gods are calledsarvabhUtAnAmadhipatiH or deveshaH. Verses such as 'sabrahma sa shivaH sendraH' etc can be interpreted asVishnu being the bestower of their positions andpowers to those Gods. The advaitic meaning to 'tattvaM asi' is clear to those, who have left context andlogic to air. Why, Vachaspati Mishra himself says thatnone of the 9 illustrations that Uddalaka gives toShvetaketu is indicative of actual identity (I can getthe exact quote if needed). The same holds with 'ahaMbrahmAsmi'.The Vedas never attribute birth or death to Vishnu.Some people, on the strength of bahvR^ichA upanishad,quote the devi creating Vishnu. But that is a bogusupanishad. The Bahvricha Upanishad is said to be apart of Aitereya Aranyaka and the whole upanishad ismissing there. So, from whence did this upanishad getprominence? That is from another bogus one: MuktikAUpanishad. This upanishad is bogus because it claimsto belong to a RgVedic shAkha that is absent in the 21RV shakhas. You know, none of the authors prior toUpanishad Brahmendra Yogi, ever quoted muktikA as theauthoritative text containing the list of Upanishads,while enlisting the 'vidyAsthAnAni'. Actually thatrenders many texts, considered as upanishads, bogus.Texts like vAsudevopanishad (that details theapplication of gopI-chandana over one's body; aconcept denounced by advaitins such as AppayaDikshita), bahvricha, skanda, dattatreya (and hostothers at the Sanskrit Documents site) have "become"upanishads only in the last two centuries.Thus, it is clear, atleast to me, that Vishnu is theSupreme and others are not. Puranas or Mahabharatahave to be accepted or discarded based on this. ManypurANas contradict the apaurusheya shruti. ValmikiRamayana is just as bad; Mahabharata is not so. Forexample, consider the thing about Krishna begetting ason from Shiva after a rigorous penance. Krishnahimself gives the explanation in Mokshadharma (shantiparva: 12.328.5): ahamAtmA hi lokAnAM vishvAnAM pANDunandana |tasmAdAtmAnamevAgre rudraM sampUjayAmyaham | yadyahaMnArchayeyaM vai IshAnaM varadaM shivam | AtmAnaMnArchayetkashchiditi me bhAvitaM manaHO Son of Pandu, I am, indeed, the Atma, the indwellerof this universe and the worlds. Therefore, I worshipmyself first, even when I worship Rudra. If I did notworship Rudra, the bestower of boons, in such a way(i.e., worshipping the indwelling Lord first), somewould not worship me, the indwelling Lord, at all - this is my opinion.(Later)na hi viShNuH pranamati kasmai chidvibudhAya tu R^itaAtmAnameveti tato rudraM bhajAmyaham |Indeed Vishnu does not bow to any one and [even whenHe bows to Himself], for what sake, but for the sakeof showing the path to the wise. Therefore, it is thetruth that I worship myself even when I worship Rudra.Similarly the one from Ramayana where Rama is said tohave installed the Shiva linga. The Ramopanishad (somerefer to it as rAmatApanIyopanishad) makes it clearthat Rama was never stained by any karmaphala (so, theidea of getting brahmahatyApataka is bogus). Also, itspeaks of Shiva having done rigorous penance forthousands of years to get Rama's vision. The antiquity of Puranas is known by the fact thatthey are referred in the Chandogya Upanishad.(Chandrashekhar-jI, the author of article you pastedis simply unaware of this). Chandogya is considered asone of the oldest Upanishads; so the idea that Puranaswere written later than that is wrong. Even theBrihadaranyaka Upanishad (another old Upanishad) talksof the Supreme Being breathing out the fifth Veda:Puranas and Itihasa. In both these verses, the Puranasare referred in singular. That is because the originalPurana was one, but it was latter classified into 18(as Matsya and Brahmanda Puranas clarify). The following incident from Linga Purana > Linga purana says that Vishnu, Brahma and the entireuniverse came from Shiva. It also contains an > interesting story. According to that story, anargument arose between Brahma and Vishnu on who wassuperior. > *Shiva* who is the supreme one! Shiva then appearedin front of them and taught them,"we three are part of> the same supreme Parabrahman that pervades thisuniverse. We three have three specific roles. Weshould not > fight with each other on who is superior."is contradicted by the shruti that refers to thatVishnu, in the form of varAha: 'uddhR^itAsi varAheNakR^iShNena shatabAhunA' , who lifted the entireuniverse. There is no shruti that considers Shivalinga to be outside the universe or being aprAkritic.Btw, the story in Linga purana has it that Vishnu andBrahma took the forms of varaha and hamsarespectively. Another shruti (kAThakAraNyaka, if Iremember it right) talks of Brahma, in the form of aswan, flying over the entire universe.> Vishnu has been depicted as a worshipper of Shiva.His avataras such as Rama and Krishna also worshipped > Shiva. Shiva, on the other hand, has been depictedas a great worshipper of Vishnu. The name "Shiva"appears > in Vishnu's 1000 names. The names "Vishnu" and"Hari" appear in Shiva's 1000 names. All these thingsand > the contradictory scriptural references should makeone think.Certainly. > Overall, looking at all the scriptural references,we can conclude the following:> > Vishnu is superior to Shiva. Shiva is superior toVishnu. Vishnu worshipped Shiva and was blessed by > Shiva. Shiva worshipped Vishnu and was blessed byVishnu. Vishnu is a superset of Shiva. Shiva is asuperset > of Vishnu.> > Does it make sense? Or, does it sound contradictory?If so, perhaps you need to change your way of > thinking. After all, every assertion made above hasscriptural support!!Not really. Read further on.> To enable you to come to terms with the apparentcontradiction, I'll go back to my favorite analogy.Even > though it sounds simplistic, it's very profound andis the perfect analogy here.> > In the world of finite numbers, x > y, x = y and x <y cannot be true simultaneously. Only one of them can > be correct. But, in the world of infinite numbers,they all can be true simultaneously! If x and y aretwo > infinite numbers, then x can be greater than y,equal to y and less than y, all at the same time!Narasimha-jI, you think that makes sense? Two infinitenumbers can be considered lesser than or greater thaneach other? Just that we say Infinity + Infinity =Infinity, you think the one of the terms of LHS isless than RHS? That's a mathematical mistake and itapplies to the scenario you have sought to solve. The problem can be solved in a simpler way: atleastone of them is wrong. That shruti considers Vishnu assupreme serves as the guiding light. The Puranas givesome idea on how to treat such contradictory ideas(which hopefully you won't ignore, lest you contradictyour own accusation of Sri Gauranga Das as 'ignoringsome scriptures'):For example, Padma Purana Uttara khaNDa, 235 to 237adhyAyas. Here, Rudra talks of creation of tAmasapurANAs to delude the demons. Adding to that, Vishnualso says that he too, in his avataaras, will worshipShiva. (ahamapi avatAreShu tvAM cha rudraM mahAbala | tAmasAnAM mohanArthaM pUjayAmi yuge yuge | matamevaMavaShTabhya patantyeva na saMshayaH |)Or see this from the same purANa (6.71.114):paramo vishhNurevaikastajj~nAnaM moxasAdhanam.h |shAstrANAM nirNayastveshha tadanyanmohanAya hi || j~nAnaM vinA tu yA muktiH sAmyaM cha mama vishhNunA |tIrthA.adimAtrato j~nAnaM mamA.adhikyaM cha vishhNutaH|| abhedashchAsmadAdInAM muktAnAM hariNA tathA | ityAdisarvaM mohAya kathyate putra nAnyathA || (This one clarifies that they both should NOT beconsidered equals!)Varaha purANa also makes a note of that: eSha mohaM sR^ijAmyAshu yo janAn.h mohayiShyati | tvaMcha rudra mahAbAho mohashAstrANi kAraya || atatthyAni vitatthyAni darshayasva mahAbhuja |prakAshaM kuru chA.atmAnamaprakAshaM cha mAM kuru || The Matsya Purana also makes a note (I think it is inthe 53rd adhyAya; I can give the reference if needed)that holds sAttvika Puranas as that extolling Vishnu,rAjasica as those extolling brahma or devi orsarasvatI and tAmasic as those extolling Shiva orAgni. Garuda purana also makes an important point that somesAttvik portions can be found in tAmasic purANas andvice-versa (which is why, padma purANa, pUrva khaNDais considered tAmasic). (Btw, Garuda Purana has threeparts: karma kANDa, dharma kANDa, brahma kANDa. Somepublishers have given it as pUrva and uttara khaNDa.Notice the difference between kANDa and khaNDa.Anyway, the subject matter is nearly same. BrahmakANDa can be found in the uttara khaNDa of GP).Notice that here is a mention of, NOT what or who isgreater but, a guideline as to how puranas should beread. You just cannot wish away these asinterpolations.That makes the whole thing easier: Some texts aretAmasic. The stuff therein has to be ignored.This position, being based on support from shruti andactual purANic quotes is better than your (incorrect)solution of considering everybody infinite (in whichcase, only those purANas that consider them equalshould be held correct).> (2) Shiva represents tamas, as he is completelydevoid of passion. But it does not mean worshippingShiva > is tamasik.I am not holding such a position; But worshippingShiva as the supreme is definitely incorrect.> Often people talk about only moksha (BTW, Shiva cangrant moksha too. He grants moksha as Maheswara). That contradicts his statement elsewhere toMarkandeya: ahaM bhogaprado vatsa mokshadastujanArdana. Anyway, the Ramatapaniyopanishat says thatShiva gives the rAma-tAraka mantra to his devotee inKashi, knowing which, the devotee will obtain moksha.This aligns with other shruti -- tamevaM vidvAnamR^itaiha bhavati | nAnyaH panthA vidyate.ayanAya |=====> The only reason I spoke out is that someso-called-Vaishnavas who to a fanatic schoolof thought > that ignores the basic Vaishnava traits ofcompassion and humility are unfairly creating afeeling of > guilt among sincere Shiva devotees on this list withtheir constant barrage of biased scriptural quotesthat > belittle Shiva worship one way or the other.=====My objective here is none of that. Shiva worship isnot a sin, as Lord Krishna himself says that it shouldbe done. Shiva should indeed be worshipped.Namaka-chamaka, Shatarudriya all are important;Yamasmriti enjoins chanting of Shatarudriya (butNrisimha-tApanIyopanishad holds that one chanting ofnR^isimha gAyatrI is equivalent to chantingshatarudrIya 100 times), but the right perspective isimportant. I am sorry if all this has created orincreased the guilt (I doubt that) of any worshipperof Shiva. But the matter as it exists must be told.Keeping quiet with wrong knowledge is as much a sin asignorance itself (as Ishavasya Upanishad says). If youdisagree with my conclusions, I have no problems. Butmost of the times, the disagreement has been more orless on the lines of 'Do you think our ancestors couldnot figure out that much'? In addition to pointing outthat I haven't not mentioned anything on my own butonly those that are mentioned by ancestors, I wouldalso point out that such a remark is hardly a logicalreply.> while Vedas put the ultimate truths > in a crisp language without any compromises orcreative liberties.The Mahabharata says that the Vedas are afraid of anuninformed person, who sets out to read the Vedaswithout the help of Puranas and Itihasa.itihAsapurANAbhyAM vedaM samupabR^iMhayet.h |bibhetyalpashrutAd vedo mAmayaM pratariShyati ||kArShNaM vedamimaM vidvAJNshrAvayitvArthamashnute |bhrUNahatyAkR^itaM cApi pApaM jahyAnna saMshayaH ||Whosover interprets the Vedas without the help ofPuranas, is equivalent to having murdered the Vedasand would incur sins; there is no doubt in that (letthe brinjals of Maharashtrian sayings be in thosesayings).Regards,NomadevaDo you ?The New Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.http://search.Archives: vedic astrologyGroup info: vedic astrology/info.htmlTo UNSUBSCRIBE: Blank mail to vedic astrology-....... May Jupiter's light shine on us ....... Archives: vedic astrologyGroup info: vedic astrology/info.htmlTo UNSUBSCRIBE: Blank mail to vedic astrology-....... May Jupiter's light shine on us ....... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.