RE: Vishnu and Shiva (To Nomadeva)

[Guest guest]

>

> Narasimha P.V.R. Rao [pvr]

> Wednesday, April 30, 2003 8:45 AM

 

> Dear Nomadeva,

>

> > Let's see: We are both faced with the problem of

some

> > texts praising Shiva to be greater than Vishnu,

some holding them to

> > be same and some holding Vishnu to be greater than

Shiva.

> >

> > Your approach: All are correct (you don't mean

this

> > though you say it), both are infinity, so it is OK

to

>

> I take an exception. What on earth do you mean by

saying that I don't

> mean this though I say it?

>

> Let us leave the judgment on what I "mean" to me,

shall we?

 

Oh no, I meant that though you claim that, by your

approach, all puranas are correct, it is not so. Even

in your approach, more than 2/3rd of puranas will be

wrong. I should have said 'it is not implied though

you say it'.

 

> And, my objections are objections to JUST A FEW

VERSES which may have

> been inserted after Vyasa wrote Puranas.

>

> On the other hand, you are objecting to A WHOLE SET

of puranas and

> "ignoring" them. You think you are doing it because

you have the sanction of puranas,

> but you are ignoring thousands of verses based on a

handful of verses. OTOH, I am ignoring

> (or interpreting loosely) a handful of verses so

that I need not ignore thousands of verses.

> If my objections are dismissed, your objections

should be dismissed much more strongly on the basis of

 

> ignoring many puranas altogether.

 

1. I am interested in knowing how you can interpret

those verses 'loosely'.

 

2. Your objection is based on a statistical approach.

It is unwarranted because you are imposing your

personal preferences over how purANas should be

interpreted. Btw, I am not objecting to a 'WHOLE SET'

of purANas as you make it to be. It is only where

Vishnu is shown to be less or equal to any other God

OR having some flaw. If you allow 'loose

interpretations', it will nomore be a 'WHOLE SET' of

Puranas that I am ignoring.

 

3. The idea that these verses are interpolations

simply because they disagree with the 'general tenor

of Hinduism' (as defined by Advaitins!) is not

agreeable. Advaita holds that it is the

Panchamahavakyas that can give abhedajnAna. Most of

the Vedic literature is not in jnAnakANDa. And even in

jnAnakANDa, a lot of passages (with vidyA, upAsana

related stuff) relate to the saguNa brahman. So, the

passages revealing nirguNa brahman are fewer. And even

in those, if we take Shankara's interpretation of AtmA

in Brahmasutra 1.3.1 (that it refers to the Paramatma

primarily), the no. of passages giving knowledge of

nirguNa brahman will come down to a paltry 5

statements (if grammatical and contextual liberty is

allowed, let's say in 10 other statements). So, would

it be OK to consider such 'abhedavAkyAs' as

interpolations?

 

> infinities are incomparable. I agree you cannot say

X > Y or X = Y. However, if somebody says

> X > Y (with X > and Y being infinite), you cannot

disprove it.

 

No, Your words are sufficient to disprove it: They are

incomparable.

 

> Why is it not possible that in a different space

that covers divinity,

> X > Y, X = Y and X < Y can be

> simultaneously true? The analogy of infinity is not

exactly there,

> but almost there.

 

That is an excuse for lack of logic. Just imagine

somebody writing an answer '2+3 = 1000 in some other

realm of existence!

 

In other words, we have to draw the line somewhere

between accepting anything (esp self-conceived

notions) in the name of divinity vs holding up

everything to some logic.

 

Regards,

Nomadeva

 

 

 

The New Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.

http://search.