Krishna and Ram were advaithis..proof from mahabharath

[Guest guest]

Krishna is an advaithi…not vishistathvaidhi

 

Advaitha is the truth said in Vedas and Geetha. Only an advaithi will agree with every stanza, every line given in Vedas, Geetha , ithihasas and puranas. A vishistathivadhi or shaivite will not accept every single word in these books. That too veera vaishnavas and veera shaivites will go to such an extent that they will say that “the stanzas praising the ‘other gods’ are false”. They will say that Vedas are partially false.

 

Now let us analyze this question. Were lord Krishna and lord rama advaithis or vishistathvaidhis? Did they wear viboothi or thiruman(namam?) Let us analyze it.

 

What is the true concept given in Vedas? Scholars refuse to accept shavism, vaishnavism ,saktham etc as vedic religion. In fact many learnt rishis have separated these religions from vedic religion. Let us see the proof for it.

 

Veda vyasa himself has said that vaishnavism and shaivism aren’t vedic religions. In vyasa bharatha in anussasana parva Bhishma mentions names of five religions. He said “ sangyam yoga; pancharathram vedha ;pasupatham dhatha” >In mahabharatha times the whole bharat had only one religion, vedic religion. So why did bheeshma give five religions names? In fact he has separated vedic religions name and given it separately as “veda”. This means that he did not consider the other religions vedic.

 

Some of you might be happy that bheeshma has included pasupatha, worshiping shiva also in non vedic list. Yes, worshiping shiva alone and saying Krishna is a demigod is also un vedic. Bheeshma clearly says “panchrathra”. Panchrathra says that “only Vishnu is parabhramman”. Pasupatha says that “Only shiva is parabhramman and all others are secondary”. Veda vyasa and bheeshma who lived during lord krishna’s time said so in one of the holiest books of vaishnavites.

 

Is any other proof needed? Not even the staunchest of vaishnavites will say that bheeshma and vyasa lied. So what is the answer?

 

Pushpathantha was another die hard shaivite. He wrote the most famous “shiva mahimne stothram”. Such a die hard shaivite also said

“thrayee sangyam yoga: pasupathi matham vaishnavam ithi”.

 

Pushpathantha was a staunch shaivite. But he was a gandharva earlier. Such a man separated pasupatham also from vedic religion. He also separated vaishnavam from this list. He calls vedic religion as “thrayee” meaning religion of 3 vedas.

 

Forgetting this list we can see another person who said so. He was a poet. He wrote a book called as “naishatham”. His name was sree harsher. When he mentions the swayamvaram of damayanthi with nalan he talks about five religions. Indhra, varunan, yama , agni and nalan went to damayanthis swayamwara. All appeared as nalan by maya. Damayanthi could not identify the real nalan.

 

In this place sree harsha said “like how people cannot indentify the true advaithic religion among 5 religions damayanthi could not identify the real nalan among the other 5 look alikes”

 

“panchama koti mathre…mathanam advaithathva iva sathyatharabe loga”

 

Advaithis are called as “smarthas” meaning the ones who follow smirithis. They are also called as “shasthris” meaning “one who follows shasthras”. They also add the name “sharma” with their names .All such surnames are vedic. And one interesting aspect is that “Advaithis don’t have any identifying marks on their body like vishisthathvaidhis or dwaidhis or shaivites”.

 

Just ask any vishisthathvaidhis. They will say that “Mere birth alone will never make a person vaishnava. You have to do ‘muthratharanam’. Else you are not a vaishnava. That is you have to mark chakkar and conch in your body. Else you are not a vaishnava.

 

Is any such thing mentioned in Vedas? Did lord Krishna and lord ram do muthratharanam? No. And if you argue that Krishna and ram are avathars and they don’t need muthratharanam you are mistaken. They followed everything given in Vedas like an ordinary man. They got upanayan, vedhjatyanam etc like an ordinary man. But can anybody prove from ramayan or mahabharatham that they had muthratharanam? None can. So what does that mean? They were advaithis. Since one who didn’t do muthratharanam wasn’t a vaishnavite Krishna and ram were advaithis. Not only them but great epic figures like veda vyasa, mother yashotha, balaram, bheeshma, arjun etc were all advaithis since they dint do any muthratharanam.

 

And one more question arises. Did Krishna and ram wear thiruman (namam) during their times? No. During their times all hindus wore only the ash from the yagna fire. That is all of them, wore only viboothi. Ram conducted aswametha yagna and definitely he should have worn the ash since that is a must for conducting that yagna. Krishna too participated in the rajasoorya yagna and ashwametha yagna done by pandavas so he must also have worn viboothi. It is a compulsory ritual to be followed.

 

So it goes on like this. Bheeshma and veda vyasa said that vaishnavism isn’t vedic religion. Ram and Krishna did not even hear about namam and they wore viboothi. They did not do muthratharanam.

So they were advaithis to the core.

 

[Guest guest]

have you ever read these books?

(very funny, for you yasodamata or radharani do not love krishna, they love the brahman beyond him, the same for arjuna who does not speak with krishna but with brahman.. the same for sita and hanuman with ramachandra

 

and krishna who says "i am a product of brahman" not "i am the source of impersonal brahman

 

wich books you have read? walt disney? tolkien?)

[Guest guest]

devoteeji, why are you always yelling "advaitham" ? i have already told umteen times that "Shuddha-advaitha" is the original sampradaya. its been accepted by all. its the earliest sampradayas of all. no one has proved it false.

 

but kevala-advaitha of shankara is incomplete philosphy & has been proved false.

 

if you are seeing something in gita/mahabharatha/ramayana supporting advaitham, then it is actually supporting "shuddha-advaitham" not the kevala-advaitham of shankara.

 

so again dont yell "advaitham". if you wanna yell, then yell as "Shuddha-advaitham". Shuddha-advaitham is vaishnava sampradaya.

[Guest guest]

Hello Guest,

 

Did Krishna say that He was the source of impersonal Brahman or did He say that He was the impersonal Brahman?

 

Will you throw some light?

 

"wich books you have read? walt disney? tolkien?"

 

I did not know that they have written about Rama and Krishna? Very funny indeed. Have you yourself read Mahabharata and Ramayana?

 

Priya Vaishnava is factually correct. Both Vira Shaivism and Vira Vaishnavism limit their Gods. And Vishnu and Shiva wont like that.

 

 

"very funny, for you yasodamata or radharani do not love krishna, they love the brahman beyond him, the same for arjuna who does not speak with krishna but with brahman.."

 

Nothing very funny. Krishna being the Self Realised Brahman loves all as the Self. But others under delusion of separateness will love Krishna as a personality only.

 

Krishna teaches Arjuna "One who meditates on me with his whole heart, eventually merges with me".

 

Atanu

[Guest guest]

Did Krishna say that He was the source of impersonal Brahman

••yes.. bhagavad gita

 

Have you yourself read Mahabharata and Ramayana?

••yes

 

Both Vira Shaivism and Vira Vaishnavism limit their Gods. And Vishnu and Shiva wont like that.

••if you say that they are charachters or forms shown by impersonal brahman you are not limiting them, you're attempting to kill them. Personality is more than impersonality .

 

Krishna being the Self Realised Brahman

••krsna being the supreme absolute personality of godhead... isvarah paramah krsnah, sat cit ananda vigrah

 

Krishna teaches Arjuna "One who meditates on me with his whole heart, eventually merges with me".

••... comes to me... not merges.. If you come to me, to my house for dinner you are not merged in me.. trust me

[Guest guest]

Both Rama and Krishna were not either vaishnavites or shiavites. They followed the Vedic religion as did other characters from mahabharata and ramayana.

Vaishnavism and Shaivism are all later developments.

[Guest guest]

vaishnava parampara starts with krsna at the head of the dinasty...

 

so krsna and krsnaites (or vaishnavas) are contemporary.. and before the coming of krsna in dvapara yuga there's vishnu worshipping, rama, matsya, kurma worshipping and so on

 

nanda maharaja himself has a varaha murti in his home, gargamuni worships vishnu when krsna baby steals the offerings and the Muni understand that krsna is the source of the vishnu he's worshipping and so on...

 

there was also the sculpting and worshipping of krsna murtis (statues) while krsna was present in this world

 

(the main temples of vrindavan have or had murtis sculpted by vajranabha great grandson of sri krishna for worship when krsna was still in this world.. some of these very fampus murtis are in vrindava, many were brought in rajastan at the time of aurangzeb's persecutions)

 

vedas, adoration of shiva, adoration of vishnu are contemporary.. sanatana dharma is eternal

 

advaita is not eternal.. but a (right and saint) reaction to buddhism then updated and superated by dvaita when the task was completed

[maadhav]

<< Krishna and Ram were advaithis..proof from mahabharath >>

 

the above is an oximoron.

an advaiti se separate from god, but thinks he is god, and eventually wants to merge in god.

 

god is not separete from god, knows hie is god, and cannot merge in himself.

 

ram and krishna, god himself, did lila as a kings, acting as if they were human. this makes some think they were not god. they will need a few more birth to realize the truth.

 

 

[Guest guest]

Vedas talk about both dwaidham and advaitham. I don&#8217;t think they mention anything called as &#8220;keval advaitham&#8221; or &#8220;shuddh advaitham&#8221;. It is just advaitham.

 

Vedic quotes can be given in proof of both dwaidham and advaitham. It only vindicates the path that shankara gave to men. You start with dwaidham, do your duty as a son, husband and reach advaitham at the end of your life. If you start your life as an advaithi you wont marry, earn money or do your duties. So in first stage it is dwaidham, then you get a guru and go to vishishthathvaidham and finally you attain advaitham.

 

This is what Krishna also said in Geetha. He said duty , devotion and enlightenment. Duty is dwaidham, bhakthi is vishishthathvaidham and last stage jnana is advaitham.

 

To say shankara found advaitham is equal to saying that Ramanuja founded vishisthathvaidham. These great men did not find any new religion. They interpreted Vedas in different ways. Shankara did so before 2500 years, ramanuja before 9 centuries.

 

Shankaras interpretation was based wholly on Vedas. He accepted dwaitha and vishishthathvaidha in stages and said that advaitham is the final stage. It is the only concept which accepts every single word in Vedas. No vishistathvaidhi will accept the verses in Vedas claiming shiva as parabhrammam.

 

Mandukya Upanishad says so crystal clear &#8220; after 3 stages universe goes to shivam. That is the final stage, highest goal. That is ADVAITHAM. That omgaram is athma. He who knows this is wise&#8221;

 

It clearly mentions so. &#8220;Advaitham is the final stage&#8221; how clearly can Vedas explain more? But if we see how dwaitham is given in brahatharanyaham (2.4 14.4, 5.15) &#8220;when things LOOK LIKE dwaitham in that stage one feels another, sees another and knows others. But at the stage when dwaidham goes and becomes athma what will he see, what will he smell, what will he know? The one that makes you know all these things, what will you know that thing with?&#8221;

 

&#8220;yathrahe dwaitham bava ithe&#8221;- meaning &#8220;looks like dwaidham&#8221; When you say looks like dwaidham, it isn&#8217;t dwaidham.

 

Dhaithriya says &#8220; If one mixes dwaidham with bhramman immediately fear arises&#8221;

 

&#8220;dwaidha creates fear and sorrow&#8221;&#8212;many Upanishads say so.

 

The inner meaning of this is clear. To avoid fear stop seeing things dwaidhic. But that is also the last stage. Initially you want dwaidham, then vishisthathvaidham. But last stage is advaitham.

 

I am still awaiting word by word answer to these vedic quotes and mahabharatha quotes. The mahabharatha quotes I gave are from vyasa bharatha &#8220;anusana pharva&#8221;.

 

Only vishisthathvaidhis started many new habits like namam. I don&#8217;t have any objectios in wearing vishnu&#8217;s feet in my head. I also don&#8217;t object imprinting conch and chakkar in my shoulders. But are these things vedic? Can anyone show any verse in Vedas asking you to do so? Vedic tradition supersedes Krishna and rama. They themselves worshipped shiva and lord ganesh. The huge temple standing in rameshwaram is ample proof that Ram worshipped shiva to remove his bhramahathi sin. The huge temple standing in thirvannamalai is ample proof that Vishnu and bhramma searched for the feet and head of shiva and failed.

 

If you call those stahalpurans as lies, then you are refuting Hinduism. The ayyapan temple is proof enough that shiva ran away from bhasmasura and Vishnu saved him. So Vedas and purans are clear. Each god worshipped other god and considered other god as great(if not equal). No god said &#8220;That god is inferior to me&#8221;. No vishisthathvaidhis will refuse that ram and Krishna wore viboothi. Then why don&#8217;t you wear that too?

 

This muthratharanam you do is very new. When ramanuja and mathva founded new ways, and broke away with their supporters they created new samprathayas like muthratharanam. But shankara never said anything new. He wrote the greatest vaishnava songs baja govindham and kanakathara stothram. He accepts vaishnavism, shaivism everything but said that the final stage is advaitham. You wont find bhramins called as iyers or iyengars or raos anywere in Vedas. Earlier all hindus were called as smarthas. This is how even advaithis are called even now. To become an advaithi you need not do any muthratharanam. Everey hindu born is advaitha unless he converts like getting muthratharanam or shiva deeksha.

 

Maya concept is clearly given in Vedas. If I write it here it will become lengthy. Will do so in next mail. And don&#8217;t insult advaitha by calling it as suddha advaitha and keval advaitha. If shuddha advaitha accepts Vishnu only as parabhramman it isn&#8217;t advaitha. It is dwaidha.

 

[Guest guest]

if you are happy to say these nonsenses go on like this

[Guest guest]

"Vedic quotes can be given in proof of both dwaidham and advaitham. It only vindicates the path that shankara gave to men."

 

"This is what Krishna also said in Geetha...last stage jnana is advaitham"

 

"Shankaras interpretation was based wholly on Vedas...It is the only concept which accepts every single word in Vedas"

 

"Advaitham is the final stage&#8221; how clearly can Vedas explain more?"

 

"I am still awaiting word by word answer to these vedic quotes and mahabharatha quotes. The mahabharatha quotes I gave are from vyasa bharatha &#8220;anusana pharva&#8221"

 

"Only vishisthathvaidhis started many new habits like namam. I don&#8217;t have any objectios in wearing vishnu&#8217;s feet in my head. I also don&#8217;t object imprinting conch and chakkar in my shoulders. But are these things vedic? Can anyone show any verse in Vedas asking you to do so? Vedic tradition supersedes Krishna and rama."

 

Illusioned Priya /images/graemlins/frown.gif

 

 

"No vishistathvaidhi will accept the verses in Vedas claiming shiva as parabhrammam."

 

Shankar doesn't accept Girisha as Parabrahma ! He accepts him as Sagun Brahman inferior to Nirgun Brahman, a view which has absolutely no support in Vedas. The Vishistadvaita interpretation is supported wholly with Vedic evidence.

 

"Maya concept is clearly given in Vedas."

 

And you think Shankars maya concept is same as Vedas'? Poor priya /images/graemlins/frown.gif

[gokulkr]

I have already told dont tell Shankaras Advaitham.

 

Whatever you are telling are only supported in "Shudha-advaitam" by vishnuswami.

 

if you still cling on ur fact that it is kevala-advaitham supported instead of shuddha-advaitham then you are just a ignorant.

 

FIRST OF ALL DO U KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT "SHUDDHA-ADVAITHAM" ?