Is this all true?

[kimfelix 0]

Raghu, there are a number of verses in which the Shvetashvatara Upanishad names the Deity as Hara (1.10), Rudra (3.2, 4.5, 4.12, 4.21) and Shiva (3.5, 4.14, 5.14). The words Girishanta and Giritra (3.5-6) would seem to refer to Shiva's abode in Kailasa.

 

The theology of the Upanishad is rather similar to that of the Bhagavad Gita, which quotes it on occasion, but it is equally similar to the Shaiva Siddhanta. I don't see much within it that would make me think it is a Vaishnava text.

[shvu 1]

 

Raghu, there are a number of verses in which the Shvetashvatara Upanishad names the Deity as Hara (1.10), Rudra (3.2, 4.5, 4.12, 4.21) and Shiva (3.5, 4.14, 5.14). The words Girishanta and Giritra (3.5-6) would seem to refer to Shiva's abode in Kailasa.

 

Shiva as a deity is not a problem for Vaishnavas. The problem is with Shiva as supreme.

 

 

The theology of the Upanishad is rather similar to that of the Bhagavad Gita, which quotes it on occasion, but it is equally similar to the Shaiva Siddhanta. I don't see much within it that would make me think it is a Vaishnava text.

 

You should check a Vaishnava interpretation of the text in that case.

 

Cheers

[raghu 2]

 

Raghu, there are a number of verses in which the Shvetashvatara Upanishad names the Deity as Hara (1.10), Rudra (3.2, 4.5, 4.12, 4.21) and Shiva (3.5, 4.14, 5.14). The words Girishanta and Giritra (3.5-6) would seem to refer to Shiva's abode in Kailasa.

 

The theology of the Upanishad is rather similar to that of the Bhagavad Gita, which quotes it on occasion, but it is equally similar to the Shaiva Siddhanta. I don't see much within it that would make me think it is a Vaishnava text.

 

There are numerous instances throughout shruti in which Brahman is referred to by names that are ordinarily associated with anya-devatas that are in the same sources and elsewhere regarded as subordinate entities. One has to use context to infer whether it is para Brahman that is being referred to or a subordinate deity. This is the principle laid down in the Vedanta-sutras.

 

Of course, as you say, Shaivites will have their interpretation, and one may reasonably question why one cannot assume that names like Rudra/Hara/Maheshvara etc in this case cannot refer to Shiva. But then again, the same Upanishad begins with an invocation to Sri Hari, and it speaks of the Deity as the one from whom Brahma was born and instructed in knowledge. That is clearly Vishnu. Even in the Vishnu Sahasranama there are names like Rudra, etc that also belong to Shiva. Hence, context must be used to determine who is being referred to.

 

Any interpretation will eventually fall under the weight of its assumptions. If Shvetashvatara Up. is a Shaivite text, then how would those Shaivites interpret the Rig Veda mantra 1.22.20 which refers to the param padam of Vishnu? How would they interpret Rig Veda 7.40.5 which states that Rudra got his power by propitiating Vishnu? If Rudra in the Shv. Up. means Shiva then why shouldn't Rudra in RV also mean Shiva? If the Shaivites say that Rudra can only mean Shiva in some contexts, then they also agree with the logic of using context to determine which Deity is referred to by the name, rather than assuming the most common reference. In that case why not the more consistent Vaishnava interpretation?

 

If only Shv Up. is authoritative and other shrutis like Rig Veda are not, then the question is why. If the Shaivites hold that there is irreconciable contradiction even between different shrutis, then there is no sense in trying to interpret any of them, and any view based on such interpretations is ultimately self-defeating.

[Dark Warrior 0]

 

Dark Warrior, as you say, there are apparent contradictions. I was just querying your earlier statement that there is not even the hint of any contradiction. An apparent contradiction would seem to be a hint at least.

 

What separates the Vedas from man made scripture is the fact that they do not reveal who is Brahman instantaneously. Indeed, a scientific method is needed to obtain the truth. Narayana does not reveal Himself so easily.

 

 

The Kena Upanishad states 'tad eva brahma tvam viddhi nedam yad idam upasate' whilst the Gita on several occasions urges upasana. Similarly, in the Brihad Aranyaka Upanishad, Yajnavalkya says that worship of anything separate from oneself must be based on notions of duality and hence is ruled out. The Gita seems to suggest that worship of a separate Deity is the highest path.

 

You are not looking deeper into the Vedas. As mentioned before, they have three meanings: 1)Internal, 2) External, 3) Spiritual.

 

According to Sripad Ramanujacharya, there is indeed Non-Dualism. The Self is considered to be the body of Brahman, ie, the antaryami (Paramatma to the Gaudiyas) is the indweller of every soul. The Universe is the body of Brahman. So, He is in us and we are in Him. This is qualified non-Dualism, ie, Vishishtadvaita.

 

Hence, it ties with the fact that worship of a separate deity, as you call it, is indeed the best path. But the Self, rather than being identical to Brahman (as proposed by advaitins), is the sariram (body) of Brahman. The Brihadaranyaka Upanishad also describes it properly.

 

Thus, He is separate and has His own identity, but He is within us. So, Self Realisation means to realise the Brahman within you.

 

 

Of course these 'apparent contradictions' can be explained from a number of perspectives, which is why Shankara's Gita Bhashya is so different from those of Vaishnavas such as Ramanuja. But I still think 'there is no hint of any contradiction' is an overstatement. The issue of 'apparent contradiction' is one that must be taken very seriously.

 

Actually, there is no contradiction at all. It is only veiled in so called contradictions. And the fact is, the upanishads can be interpreted differently, and each interpretation is absolutely valid in its own sphere.

 

Here is pramana from Upanishads:

 

Pramana no 1.

"yo Brahmanam..mumukshurvai saranamaham prapadye"

(sweta asvatara Upanishad)

 

Meaning:

("First of all Sriman Narayana created Brahma. He taught him the

entire Vedas. He has given me the clear knowledge with reference to

Him. I take refuge under Him desiring salvation" says Veda Purusha.)

 

Pramana no 2.

"Tasmath Nyasa mesham Tapasam Atriktham Ahu:"

(Taitriya Narayana - 50)

 

Meaning:

("Therefore this Nyasa namely Saranagathi excels all other penances")

 

Pramana no 3.

"Nyasa Ithyahuhu maneeshino Brahmanam"

 

(Taitriya Narayana - 50)

Meaning:

(Wise men declare that Saranagathi is the Brahman (Sriman Narayana)

Himself)

 

Pramana no 4.

"Nikshepa aparaparyayo Nyasa: Panchangasamyutha

Sanyas: styaga ithyuktha saranagathirithyapi"

(Lakshmi Tantram 17-74)

 

Meaning:

(Surrendering to God (nikshepa) has five accessories. The

word "nikshepa" has several synonyms like Nyasa, Sanyasa, thyaga and

Saranagathi.

 

 

 

kimfelix]

Raghu, there are a number of verses in which the Shvetashvatara Upanishad names the Deity as Hara (1.10), Rudra (3.2, 4.5, 4.12, 4.21) and Shiva (3.5, 4.14, 5.14). The words Girishanta and Giritra (3.5-6) would seem to refer to Shiva's abode in Kailasa.

 

The theology of the Upanishad is rather similar to that of the Bhagavad Gita, which quotes it on occasion, but it is equally similar to the Shaiva Siddhanta. I don't see much within it that would make me think it is a Vaishnava text.

 

 

This clearly shows that you are not a vedantin, but a layman.

 

All acharyas, whether they are advaitin, dvatin or vishishtadvaitin, no matter what their philosophy is, accept that Narayana is Brahman. This is based on the following:

 

1) Narayana is mentioned to be existing eternally. No Brahma or Shiva before Creation.

 

2) Whenever a deity is praised as the Supreme, it should be taken that the prayers go to Narayana alone.

 

Why do we say this? Because:

 

1) All these devas are shown to possess many faults.

 

2) Narayana Suktam establishes that Narayana is alone Brahman.

 

3) Purusha Suktam establishes that the wives of the Purusha are Sri and Hri, showing Vishnu to be Supreme.

 

4) Shathapatha Brahmana shows that Rudra is a jivatma. When he was born, he cried and asked Brahma to remove his sins. Brahma then named him isvara, maheswara, etc.

 

5) The Vedas, at one point say Rudra is Supreme or that Shambhu is Supreme, or Hiranyagarbha created the Universe, etc. These are explained as follows:

 

- Rudra does not indicate Mahadeva. Rudra means 'howler' or ;destroyer of evil'. Hence, it should be taken in grammatical context because the deva Rudra has been mentioned to be a jiva in Shathapatha Brahmana already. Hence, Rudra is also a name of Vishnu (see Vishnu Sahasranama).

 

- Shambhu means 'blissful'. Certainly, Narayana is Blissful.

 

- Siva means 'auspicious'. Narayana is auspicious. Om is Shiva, ie, auspicious.

 

- Similarly, when Vedas say Narayana is Brahma, Siva, it means that either Brahma is endowed with the intelligence of Narayana, or that Siva has auspiciousness. But these devas do not possess all the traits of Narayana. Conversely, it can be said that Narayana is auspicious and intelligent.

 

- Narayana is Vishnu because the two names are etymologically related. Narayana Vidmahe Vasudevaya Dimahe tanno Vishnu Prachodayat.

[kimfelix 0]

Namas te, Dark Warrior. This is the problem isn't it? If one has a particular preconception and then finds an Upanishad doesn't match that preconception, it is necessary to come up with an interpretation to show that the text doesn't actually mean what it appears to mean; there is a hidden meaning.

 

When a text names its Deity as Shiva, Rudra and Hara I take it as meaning just that, and is therefore Shaivite. I can fully appreciate that this poses problems for Vaishnavas, but I am still inclined to accept what the Upanishad actually says and not what others would like it to say.

 

If the Upanishad wants to teach us that Narayana is the Supreme Deity, why does it say that it is Rudra who is devanam prabhavas chodbhavas cha?

[theist 1]

 

Namas te, Dark Warrior. This is the problem isn't it? If one has a particular preconception and then finds an Upanishad doesn't match that preconception, it is necessary to come up with an interpretation to show that the text doesn't actually mean what it appears to mean; there is a hidden meaning.

 

And here is the reason no one can understand by the mind alone. We all have particular preconceptions rather known to us or not. This is what is meant that one cannot understand transcendental science by books alone.

 

Best to take sastra as it comes to us through the mind of a Bhaktivedanta and not rely on our present minds.

 

The mind is maze.

 

[Ganeshprasad 0]

Pranam

 

 

Namas te, Dark Warrior. This is the problem isn't it? If one has a particular preconception and then finds an Upanishad doesn't match that preconception, it is necessary to come up with an interpretation to show that the text doesn't actually mean what it appears to mean; there is a hidden meaning.

 

When a text names its Deity as Shiva, Rudra and Hara I take it as meaning just that, and is therefore Shaivite. I can fully appreciate that this poses problems for Vaishnavas, but I am still inclined to accept what the Upanishad actually says and not what others would like it to say.

 

If the Upanishad wants to teach us that Narayana is the Supreme Deity, why does it say that it is Rudra who is devanam prabhavas chodbhavas cha?

 

My sentiment exactly, as rightly pointed out when one operates from preconceive ideas then any thing that don’t fit in has to be interpreted, to the extent that Devadhi Dev Mahadev is reduced to mere Jiva

What can be more clear then when Lord Krishna says amongst Rudra I am Shiva, when Puranas speak of their oneness, what was Sri Vyasdev thinking when he wrote Puranas eulogising Lord Shiva, oh no these are Tamsic! Wait amala Bhagvat puran also says so, but we will ignore that.

"They call him Indra, Mitra, Varuna, Agni, and he is heavenly nobly-winged Garutman.

To what is One, sages give many a title they call him Agni, Yama, Matarisvan." RV (Book 1, Hymn 164.46)

You are Vaayu, Yama, Agni, Varuna, Shashaanka, and Brahmaa as well as the father of Brahmaa. Salutations to You a thousand times, and again and again salutations to You. (11.39)BG

 

Svet. Up. Can make perfect sense in light of them being the same entity, but no we shell claim all names belong to Vishnu therefore Rudra Hara mention here is Vishnu they claim, but ask them if they would chant those names which some boldly claim to be of Vishnu, oh no that is naam aparadh.

Jai Shree Krishna

[bhaktajan 0]

Originally Posted by kimfelix

Namas te, Dark Warrior. This is the problem isn't it? If one has a particular preconception and then finds an Upanishad doesn't match that preconception, it is necessary to come up with an interpretation to show that the text doesn't actually mean what it appears to mean . . .

 

....................................................................................................

....................................................................................................

NOTE:

1) The Upanisads are composed of expostions on the aspect(s) & ramifications of impersonal conceptions of Godhead's existance.

2) The Bhagavad-gita is considered to summary of all the Upanisads.

3) Sri Isopanisad is connected to the Yajur-veda, and, is also considered one of the 11 most important of the 108 upanisads.

 

Sri Isopanisad #13:

It is said that one result is obtained by worshiping the supreme cause of all causes and that another result is obtained by worshiping what is not supreme. All this is heard from the undisturbed authorities, who clearly explained it.

 

Purport by Bhaktivedanta Swami:

. . . Nowhere in authentic scriptures is it said that one will ultimately reach the same goal by doing anything or worshiping anyone. Such foolish theories are offered by self-made “spiritual masters” who have no connection with the parampara, the bona fide system of disciplic succession. The bona fide spiritual master cannot say that all paths lead to the same goal and that anyone can attain this goal by his own mode of worship of the demigods or of the Supreme or whatever.

. . . “I am the source of all spiritual and material worlds. Everything emanates from Me. The wise who perfectly know this engage in My devotional service and worship Me with all their hearts [bG 10.8].”

Here is a correct description of the Supreme Lord, given by the Lord Himself.

 

. . . The Upaninads indirectly draw our attention to the primeval Lord, Sri Krsna, but the Bhagavad-gita, which is the summary of all the Upaninads, directly points to Sri Krsna.

 

Therefore one should hear about Krsna as He is by hearing from the Bhagavad-gita or Srimad-Bhagavatam, and in this way one’s mind will gradually be cleansed of all contaminated things.

 

Srimad-Bhagavatam (1.2.17) says, “By hearing of the activities of the Lord, the devotee draws the attention of the Lord. Thus the Lord, being situated in the heart of every living being, helps the devotee by giving him proper directions.”

[kimfelix 0]

Namas te bhaktajan. The Isha Upanishad is a very difficult text and the verse you have quoted is one of the most difficult to understand. The translation you give renders sambhava as the 'cause of all causes' but I am not sure that is the right meaning. Moreover in verse 12 it is stated that one who worships sambhava (sambhuti) enters into the darkest ignorance. What is the meaning of the three verses (12-14)? It states that sambhuti and asambhuti both lead to darkness when worshipped separately and hence one should worship them both together. But what is meant by sambhuti and asambhuti? The latter is equated with vinasha in v14. Shankaracharya's commentary on v14 is highly contentious, showing the problems he had in finding a viable solution.

 

Despite the word Isha in the title, the Isha Upanishad does not seem to present a theist or personalist doctrine and nowhere does it recommend worship of the Isha.

 

This discussion of Upanishads seems a bit out of place on this thread, so apologies for that. It is an interesting topic, however.

[bhaktajan 0]

 

Namas te bhaktajan. The Isha Upanishad is a very difficult text and the verse you have quoted is one of the most difficult to understand. The translation you give renders sambhava as the 'cause of all causes' but I am not sure that is the right meaning. Moreover in verse 12 it is stated that one who worships sambhava (sambhuti) enters into the darkest ignorance. What is the meaning of the three verses (12-14)? It states that sambhuti and asambhuti both lead to darkness when worshipped separately and hence one should worship them both together. But what is meant by sambhuti and asambhuti? The latter is equated with vinasha in v14. Shankaracharya's commentary on v14 is highly contentious, showing the problems he had in finding a viable solution.

 

Despite the word Isha in the title, the Isha Upanishad does not seem to present a theist or personalist doctrine and nowhere does it recommend worship of the Isha.

 

This discussion of Upanishads seems a bit out of place on this thread, so apologies for that. It is an interesting topic, however.

 

What is absent from your above post is "Authority to do accessments of sastra Verses"

"Isha" is the is the (dhatu) root of the of "ISVARA --God as the CONTROLER".

So a book named "Stool-upanisad" would not be about stool?

Obviously your saying that instructions for reading sastra was missing from your edition--[maybe the dingo ate your baby]

 

The "ISHO" spelling is as per sandhi rules of sanskrit spelling.

Despite the Title you find the topic is something different. [bhagavad-Gita, The song of God or Bhagavatam-Purana ~ 'despite the Title' means "to send me your cash reserves"?]

.......................................................................................

.......................................................................................

 

Soooo, for your edification I will show you the translation I have acquired from the Jagat-guru [whose mastery of sanskrit will put your heart to rest] at whose feet all the Masters will sit:

 

Sri Isopanisad verse 12: "Those who are engaged in the worship of demigods enter into the darkest region of ignorance, and still more so do the worshipers of the impersonal Absolute."

 

Purport:

The Sanskrit word asambhüti refers to those who have no independent existence. Sambhuti is the Absolute Personality of Godhead, who is absolutely independent of everything. In the Bhagavad-gita (10.2), the Absolute Personality of Godhead, Sri Krsna, states:

 

“Neither the hosts of demigods nor the great sages know My origin or opulences, for in every respect I am the source of the demigods and sages.”

 

Thus Krsna is the origin of the powers delegated to demigods, great sages and mystics. Although they are endowed with great powers, these powers are limited, and thus it is very difficult for them to know how Krsna Himself appears by His own internal potency in the form of a man.

 

Many philosophers and great rishis, or mystics, try to distinguish the Absolute from the relative by their tiny brain power. This can only help them reach the negative conception of the Absolute without realizing any positive trace of the Absolute. Definition of the Absolute by negation is not complete.

 

Such negative definitions lead one to create a concept of one’s own; thus one imagines that the Absolute must be formless and without qualities. Such negative qualities are simply the reversals of relative, material qualities and are therefore also relative.

 

By conceiving of the Absolute in this way, one can at the utmost reach the impersonal effulgence of God, known as Brahman, but one cannot make further progress to Bhagavän, the Personality of Godhead.

.......................................................................................

.......................................................................................

 

Sri Isopanisad verse 14: "One should know perfectly the Personality of Godhead Sri Krsna and His transcendental name, form, qualities and pastimes, as well as the temporary material creation with its temporary demigods, men and animals. When one knows these, he surpasses death and the ephemeral cosmic manifestation with it, and in the eternal kingdom of God he enjoys his eternal life of bliss and knowledge."

 

Purport:

. . . In this mantra, Sri Isopanisad teaches that one must perfectly know both sambhuti (the Personality of Godhead) and vinasa (the temporary material manifestation), side by side. By knowing the material manifestation alone, one cannot be saved, for in the course of nature there is devastation at every moment (ahany ahani bhutani gacchantiha yama-layam). Nor can one be saved from these devastations by the opening of hospitals. One can be saved only by complete knowledge of the eternal life of bliss and awareness. The whole Vedic scheme is meant to educate men in this art of attaining eternal life. People are often misguided by temporary attractive things based on sense gratification, but service rendered to the sense objects is both misleading and degrading.

 

We must therefore save ourselves and our fellow man in the right way. There is no question of liking or disliking the truth. It is there. If we want to be saved from repeated birth and death, we must take to the devotional service of the Lord.

 

There can be no compromise, for this is a matter of necessity.

....................................................................................

....................................................................................

 

kimfelix, you are on a forum where Personalist/Thiests are to be found.

Most, especially myself went through the sastras that describe God as a formless cloud and/or temporary visiting devine form--but we Hare Krishna's have been rewarded by destinies with a Bone-fide Guru who first supplied us with transliterated sanskrit slokas from the Gita as it is.

 

Also, His Devine Grace A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami provided us fools with all the equipment needed by fools to succeeded in conquering samsara and the ego and Maya.

 

Thank you Srila Prabhupada, Thank you Bhaktivedanta Swami.

 

Please bless kimfelix with a plate of Maha-prasadam remnants.

Please bless kimfelix with the desire to seek the nectar of sanatana-Dharma.

Please bless kimfelix with a friend who is a good as Arjuna who was your cousin.

 

yours in Krishna's devotees' service,

Bhaktajan

[dipakpan 0]

 

Hello to you all. I am new to this forum but I have read a number of Swami Prabhupada's books and other Sanskrit scriptures. The problem I have is that I don't really believe the Srimad Bhagavatam is true and this seems to be a prerequisite. Without this first principle no other point of the philosophy seems to fall into place. Can anyone explain to me why I should believe that the Srimad Bhagavatam is an absolute authority? Sorry if this is a ridiculous request but I can't seem to get myself past this point.

 

Dear atmn

 

Books,examples,saints,etc can sometimes not true, but they are generated for mankinds to achieve the goal of selfrealisition,to achieve the bliss by using or understanding them. But if u do not respect them u will get nothing.If u r able to achieve the bliss and selfrealisation without any outan source of knowledege , they are nothing for u. But it never happens. So u have to take the help of the books,examples or saints to achieve the goal.so u have to heartly respect them otherwise u will always be far from the goal always discussing weather it is true or false.

[lamedvavnik 0]

Friend, Jus one point - actually u had started the thread - saying you dont believe in any philosophies..

 

If you believe you have 50% of chances to really see the truth.

 

If you dont believe anything - You have 100% of chances of knowing the truth...

 

The very fact that you are able to see that you dont believe in scriprures and philosophies shows that you are searching for the truth keenly.. Keep going.. you will reach HOME...