Guest guest Posted April 28, 2003 Report Share Posted April 28, 2003 Dear Shri Nomadeva, Simply Awe inspiring and Amazing :-(0). This is Gyana Vridda at work!!. Namaskaars.. sriram nayak Nomadeva Sharma wrote: > > > > 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. > > > > > > > > > ....... May Jupiter's light shine on us ....... > > > > Your use of is subject to Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 28, 2003 Report Share Posted April 28, 2003 Yes! All respects I cannot produce such volume of literature as Nomadeva!! Kasim >Sriram Nayak >vedic astrology >vedic astrology >Re: [vedic astrology] Nomadeva >Mon, 28 Apr 2003 15:07:10 +0530 > >Dear Shri Nomadeva, > >Simply Awe inspiring and Amazing :-(0). >This is Gyana Vridda at work!!. > >Namaskaars.. >sriram nayak > >Nomadeva Sharma wrote: > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > Archives: vedic astrology > > > > Group info: vedic astrology/info.html > > > > To UNSUBSCRIBE: Blank mail to vedic astrology- > > > > ....... May Jupiter's light shine on us ....... > > > > || Om Tat Sat || Sarvam Sri Krishnaarpanamastu || > > > > Your use of is subject to > MSN 8 helps ELIMINATE E-MAIL VIRUSES. Get 2 months FREE*. 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 , I do not understand the reason of your calling the references in Purana that ar not supportive of your theory as Bogus, much less the attack launched on PVR Narasimharaoji. In so far as my knowledge of scriptures is concerned, I had already stated in my opening post that I am not an expert in scriptures. However since you take great pleasure in relegating all gods other than Vishnu and Krishna to a secondary position and ask for original shlokas, I would like you to give your meaning of the following shlokas in "Shrimadbhagavadgita" and what meaning should be attributed to it. "Adhyaaya 3 shloka 14/15". Also since you treat Vishnu, Krishna and rama as different entities, will you explain the meaning of Shloka 5 and 6 of 4th Adhyaya, where the lord says that he has had many births and also that he is Ajanma and Avinaashi. Shloka 31 in the same adhyaaya refers to Sanataan Parabramha and not Vishnu or Krishna, now how do you interprete this shloka. In the same adhyaaya Shloka 34 tels Arjuna to go to Tatvadarshi Sages to seek knowledfge of Tatva.He further says in Shloka 36, 37 and 38 about Knowledge of the almighty being sufficient to grant place in Aatma. What is your interpretation of this? I would also like to understand why you , on one hand profess Vishnu and Krishna to be supreme and try not to understand what the Lord says in Adhyaaya5 Shloka 18, as it sums up the logic behind our argument that all Gods are Rupas of the same Paratman. I would definitely like to hear your logic behind trying not to understand the meaning of this statement of the Lord . Again if I may say so your reason behind giving different meaning to the verse,below, whose veracity you admit. You have said"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." If I remember my religion right, only Lord Shiva is called Bhootnath.Could you Quote where Vishnu is called SarvabhUaAnAmadhipatiH? Let me make it clear that I do not mean that Vishnu or Krishna is lesser than Shiva or for that matter any of the Gods as I believe that all gods are manifestation of the Superme that is the Parmatman. Our Diety is Tirupati Baalaaji, lest you turn the debate to Shaiva Vaishnava debate. Regards, Chandrashekhar. - Sriram Nayak vedic astrology Monday, April 28, 2003 3:07 PM Re: [vedic astrology] Nomadeva Dear Shri Nomadeva,Simply Awe inspiring and Amazing :-(0).This is Gyana Vridda at work!!.Namaskaars..sriram nayakNomadeva Sharma wrote:> > -----Original Message-----> > Narasimha P.V.R. Rao [pvr (AT) charter (DOT) net]> > Sent: 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>> > Do you ?> The New Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.> http://search.>>> Archives: vedic astrology>> Group info: vedic astrology/info.html>> To UNSUBSCRIBE: Blank mail to vedic astrology->> ....... May Jupiter's light shine on us .......>> || Om Tat Sat || Sarvam Sri Krishnaarpanamastu ||>> Your use of is subject to 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.