Supremacy of Visnu

[Guest guest]

We should not hide behind this and compound the problem

--it is not something that we can solve as a social problem.. discussions are unavoidable because differences are even in the absolute. We have only to advance spiritually and we'll be able to be different and peaceful simultaneously

 

However good our intentions are, we only succeed further antagonizing some one who think different then you.

--i am not mayavadi, i do not think that all is relative.. i accept the fact that if i hear someone offending something that i consider valuable, i have (intellectual) antagonism agains him and i desire that he stops to blaspheme. It is love... love for the offended and for the offender

 

In other words your statement of mistaken identity was not very honest.

--please explain...

 

If some one honestly believe in the supreme Brahman as the only reality he is not making war with the other devtas he is reconciling every thing within that one supreme reality.

---maybe he does not realize what he's saying.. but actually he's considering all deities as illusory. So he is funny when he is unhappy with vaishnavas who think that shiva is yes subordinated to vishnu, but he's also a real satcitananda supreme entity and individual.

That's a case of followers who actually despise the one who they are following. Human make mistakes, there's no problem, but it is our duty to say it to make them think about it

 

Where does Krishna say that brahman realisation is making war or an offence?

--when bismadeva asks to krsna to see mahavishnu instead of Him before leaving the body in kuruksetra, he was not asking because he believe that krsna is not the supreme..

 

A Bhakta never see an enemy in any soul

--but a-bhaktas dressed as shaivites and mayavadis see the first enemy in the personality if god and his associates..

 

 

[thiruvengadam 0]

iam a pure saivite and according to me (note:"according to me".....)Shiva is supreme but at the same time i believe in advaita.....

in advaitam shiva and vishnu dont disappear into Brahman....in advitam shiva and vishnu are the same cos when HE (Brahman) when protecting is visnu and while dissolving is rudra...saivites call this Brahman as shiva and that is why the linga worship (which stands for the truth that God is formless) is famous.....that is why we say every thing starts from shiva and ends into shiva....shiva is Brahman for us....but i mean no disrespect to visnu for vishnu is shiva when he protects....simple....

now tell me how can shiva and vishnu become illusions....?

 

if ur further confused there is one more example...

 

to ur parents ur a son, to ur wife a husband and at office ur an employee.....then who ru actually? will i offend u when i call u an employee of ur company or that ur a hunsband of ur wife? when i call u by ur name does that mean that u beeing a husband/employee/son is all illusion?

 

before u criticize sect/religion try to understand it very clearly....know what it exactly says....

 

if there is no concept of brahman then what does the veda means by saying

"God, verily, is one, though variously described since the functions are manifold and His divine attributes many. Compareed to Him, we, the tiny little selves, are infinitesimals whilst He is Infinity in all positive parameters. To this divine one, ....., in the words of the Vedic texts, offers invocations in various adjectivals and adveribials, according to His attributes and functions. So often, we prefer to call Him agni, the foremost adorable, sometimes indra, the most resplendent, sometimes varuNa, or the most venerable, sometimes as aryaman, the supreme law-giver; He alone is the divine virility and vitality in us, and is therefore known as rudra; He verily, is the savitR, since everything is born of Him; He is divya, or effulgent; He is the law-abider, and hence is known as yama; He alone is the measure and a benevolent friend to us, and hence, His name is mitra; He is the supreme Lord and therefore bRihaspati and brahman; He pervades the entire universe and hence He is viShNu; He is blissful and hence known as soma and on account of His benevolence and kindness, He is called, shiva, shankara and mayaskara"

 

do u dare say that the Rigveda is wrong?

 

u r trying to confine God with in sketches....he is beyond ur imaginations.....He is the concept of all concepts.....

[Guest guest]

----------

iam a pure saivite and according to me (note:"according to me".....)Shiva is supreme but at the same time i believe in advaita.....

-----------------------

saivites call this Brahman as shiva and that is why the linga worship (which stands for the truth that God is formless) is famous.....

-----------------------

 

if u have conviction in advaita no probs.....but dont say Saivites treat Shiva as Brahman.......they say 'shiva is supreme' and nothing else........dont try to merge shavism into advaita.........

[thiruvengadam 0]

there are 6 schools for saivism...they are

"Saiva Siddhanta, Pashupata Saivism, Kashmir Saivism, Vira Saivism, Siva Advaita and Siddha Siddhanta. "

 

reference:http://www.hinduismtoday.com/archives/1994/3/1994-3-07.shtml

 

of which advaitam is one of the well known schools

 

if u dont know then please dont comment.....

[Guest guest]

u people bluff something and the link u showed also should be by a lunatic........

 

ha haaah haaaaaaa good sense of humour to connect saivism and advaita.........all glories to Adhi Shankara....

[thiruvengadam 0]

this post is not for sensible vaisnavites....i apologise prer to those noble souls if this post hurts u and i asure u that i dont mean what i have posted.....but for those fanthoms in vaisnavism this post will make sense

 

-----

u people bluff something and the link u showed also should be by a lunatic........

 

ha haaah haaaaaaa good sense of humour to connect saivism and advaita.........all glories to Adhi Shankara....

-----

hahahaha good sense of humour when u vaishnavites say that krishna is god head inspite of the vedas being neutral and the puranas having equal number of works for both the gods.........hahahahaha all the quotes u quote to claim that must be lunatic.....all glory to prabupat (founder of ISCON) hehehehe.....ofcourse in a group of mad men the man with sense is mad....cant help it....

 

SHAME ON U Mr.GUEST

 

[Guest guest]

iam a pure saivite and according to me (note:"according to me".....)Shiva is supreme but at the same time i believe in advaita.....

--"at the same time" is wrong.. because you do not believe that Sri Shiva and Brahman are simultaneous and equally trascendental, but you believe that absolute, god, is formless.. that's what you say: "which stands for the truth that God is formless". So being Shiva a transcentental form (satcitananda rupa) you put lord Shiva in a position of subordinate.. and that's not enough.. in a position of "relative".. "maya".. "illusory"...

 

to ur parents ur a son, to ur wife a husband and at office ur an employee.....then who ru actually?

--all these thing simultaneously

 

do u dare say that the Rigveda is wrong?

--no rigveda is not wrong.. it is you in my opinion who is wrong

 

u r trying to confine God with in sketches....he is beyond ur imaginations

--so accept that in god form and non form can be simultaneous and equally trascendental. God is supreme, he can be various and one simultaneously... that's beyond our imagination. It is the concept of "brahman supreme and vishnu and shiva illusory forms" who's human and limited

[Guest guest]

stop these sweeping comments. if u say that advaita is Shaivism then show me a single sentence from Adi Sankara's Brahmasutra Bhashya where he accepts Shiva as the supreme deity. he accepts only Vishnu as the Saguna Brahman in his Prasthanatraya(Gita,Upanishad & Brahma sutras) Bhashyas.

while he holds that in reality(devoid of maya) only there is one single Brahman and nothing else. Nowhere he accepts shaivism. Infact in his Brahma Sutra Bhashya, he rejects Pasupatha(shaivite)Religion as non-vedic.

 

so no shaivism in Advaita.

[Guest guest]

the line in Narayana Sukta

'shivam achyutam' does not mean Shiva and Achyuta are same but it means that Achyuta is shivam where in 'Shivam' means 'Mangalam'.(refer a Sanskrit dictionary)

 

also it says 'Narayana Parabrahma, Tatvam Narayana Parah'

 

it does not say about Shiva in that way.

 

also in Vishnu Sahasranama there occurs 'sarva sharva shiva sthanur...' and Adi Shankara interprets the word shiva saying that Narayan has Mangala Swaroop. if u have any doubt refer to his bhashya on Vishnu sahasranamam.

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

You are true in the concepts of the lord .I support you.

- Atanu is completely wrong about concepts of Lord. Cuz there are 3 level's of Absolute Truths understanding - understanding of impersonal brahman, paramatma and Bhagavan - Supreme Personality in Goloka Vrindavana.

 

Lord Siva combined with mother Sakthi manifests into this universe(this is just my philosophy)

- do not make her your own philosophy. This is offence against lord Shiva - The vaishnava Nr. 1.

 

Brahma,Vishnu,Rudra,Ishwara,Sadashiva all are the lord's various forms only.

- One more offence against lord Shiva. Tell your kids, that their are just various forms of impersonal sperma - this will be very offencive!

 

[Ganeshprasad 0]

Jai Ganesh

 

Re

(---i am not mayavadi, i do not think that all is relative.. i accept the fact that if i hear someone offending something that i consider valuable, i have (intellectual) antagonism agains him and i desire that he stops to blaspheme. It is love... love for the offended and for the offender)

 

I respect you for what you are, your love for the lord should not be clouded by the worship of some one else in what ever form or formless it may be.

 

 

((In other words your statement of mistaken identity was not very honest.))

Re

(--please explain...)

 

For example if I were to say the boss is Shiva and the secretary is Krishna in your eyes it would be a mistake on my part, but it would not be a mistake on your part, if you were to think Krishna is the boss and Shiva is the secretary

 

 

Re

(---maybe he does not realize what he's saying.. but actually he's considering all deities as illusory. So he is funny when he is unhappy with vaishnavas who think that shiva is yes subordinated to vishnu, but he's also a real satcitananda supreme entity and individual.)

 

May be you do not understand what they are saying.

 

Re

(That's a case of followers who actually despise the one who they are following. Human make mistakes, there's no problem, but it is our duty to say it to make them think about it)

 

Our duty is first to understand dharma and perfect it and explain it to someone who wants to know, meantime we may talk about it but to despise some one who has opposite view is not a good quality of a bhakta.

 

((Where does Krishna say that brahman realisation is making war or an offence?))

Re

(--when bismadeva asks to krsna to see mahavishnu instead of Him before leaving the body in kuruksetra, he was not asking because he believe that krsna is not the supreme..)

 

This does not make sense please explain.

 

((A Bhakta never see an enemy in any soul))

Re

(--but a-bhaktas dressed as shaivites and mayavadis see the first enemy in the personality if god and his associates..)

 

This is your view or has some one told you this?

 

A true Shiva Bhakta would never speak ill of other Devas and an Advaita would want to see Brahman in every thing where is the question of being an enemy.

You see if you call someone an enemy that some one can not do anything about it. He can not defend your allegation.

 

Jai Shree Krishna

[Ganeshprasad 0]

Jai Ganesh

 

(the line in Narayana Sukta

'shivam achyutam' does not mean Shiva and Achyuta are same but it means that Achyuta is shivam where in 'Shivam' means 'Mangalam'.(refer a Sanskrit dictionary))

 

Be honest where does it says achyuta?

you could twist the same meaning other way round.

 

Jai Shree Krishna

 

[Guest guest]

For example if I were to say the boss is Shiva and the secretary is Krishna in your eyes it would be a mistake on my part, but it would not be a mistake on your part, if you were to think Krishna is the boss and Shiva is the secretary

-yes... different ideas, different concept of what is wrong and what is right.. where's the problem?

 

(---maybe he does not realize what he's saying.. but actually he's considering all deities as illusory. So he is funny when he is unhappy with vaishnavas who think that shiva is yes subordinated to vishnu, but he's also a real satcitananda supreme entity and individual.)

May be you do not understand what they are saying.

-of course i think i have understood.. otherwise i were not discussing

 

Our duty is first to understand dharma and perfect it and explain it to someone who wants to know

-yes.. and to say that something is a mistake it is part of this service..

 

(--when bismadeva asks to krsna to see mahavishnu instead of Him before leaving the body in kuruksetra, he was not asking because he believe that krsna is not the supreme..)

This does not make sense please explain.

-the sense is that no spiritual position is dharmic if the supremacy of sri krsna is criticized.

 

(--but a-bhaktas dressed as shaivites and mayavadis see the first enemy in the personality if god and his associates..)

This is your view or has some one told you this?

-have you a better objection?

 

A true Shiva Bhakta would never speak ill of other Devas and an Advaita would want to see Brahman in every thing where is the question of being an enemy.

-a true shiva bakta does not think that shiva is an "appearance" of the brahman and a true advaitist recognizes that there's no dualism between transcendental oneness and transcendental variety.. and recognizes that the higher level of absolute is simultaneously brahman, bhagavan, paramatma... not only brahman.. otherwise he's offensive to brahman himself

 

[Guest guest]

patiM vishvasya aatmaa IshvaraM shaashvataM "shivam achyutam"|

naaraayaNaM mahaaGYeyaM vishvaatmaanaM paraayaNam ||

 

Sri Ganesh Prasadji, can u now see for urself where the word 'achyutham' is.

 

if u say that

************************************************

you could twist the same meaning other way round.

*************************************************

 

then u have to show a pramana that atleast Adi Sankara has accepted such an interpretation. Sankara should have accepted 'achyuta' as a name of Shiva.

 

Sankara has accepted that Shiva is one among the 1000 names of Visnu and has given the meaning of that name in his Bhashya on Visnu Sahasranama.

 

shaivaites, first of all, read the prasthanatraya bhashyas of Sankara. there is no philosophical basis for Shaivism.

 

 

[Ganeshprasad 0]

Jai Ganesh

 

Pranam Saranathan

 

Re

(Sri Ganesh Prasadji, can u now see for urself where the word 'achyutham' is.)

 

I did not doubt for a minute the word achyutham to be there, I only commented because you substituted achyutham to “achyuta” with my limited knowledge of Sanskrit I know the word takes a different meaning all to gather.

 

Re

 

(Sankara has accepted that Shiva is one among the 1000 names of Visnu and has given the meaning of that name in his Bhashya on Visnu Sahasranama.)

 

We interpret many things to suit our philosophy even if we do not follow Sankra.

 

Re

(shaivaites, first of all, read the prasthanatraya bhashyas of Sankara. there is no philosophical basis for Shaivism.)

 

I don’t think shaivism or any other ism needs approval, and I am not qualified to speak on their behalf but if shaivism is anything to do with worship of Lord Shiva than there is no basis for your statement, simply because his worship is known throughout the world, infect the oldest temple found is dedicated to him.

 

 

Jai Shree Krishna

[Ganeshprasad 0]

Jai Ganesh

 

Re

(-yes... different ideas, different concept of what is wrong and what is right.. where's the problem?)

 

No problem for me, so remain true to your statement, different concept, different ideas, extend the same curtsey to all, one who is on the path of self realization there is no loss.

 

Re

 

(-of course i think i have understood.. otherwise i were not discussing)

 

Discussion is nice; it brings harmony to understand each other not animosity.

 

 

 

Re

(--when bismadeva asks to krsna to see mahavishnu instead of Him before leaving the body in kuruksetra, he was not asking because he believe that krsna is not the supreme..)

This does not make sense please explain.

-the sense is that no spiritual position is dharmic if the supremacy of sri krsna is criticized. )

 

I still do not see the connection of Bhismadev, mahavishnu and Krishna but never mind.

I like to bring back my point of your honesty, you said no problem is someone mistake the boss as sectary yes.

Now read your above statement no spiritual position is dharmic if the supremacy of Krishna is criticized.

You like to contradict your self.

 

 

((--but a-bhaktas dressed as shaivites and mayavadis see the first enemy in the personality if god and his associates..))

((This is your view or has some one told you this?))

 

Re

(-have you a better objection?)

 

You have to defend your statement, do you see them as enemy or do they regard you as enemy?

 

Re

 

(-a true shiva bakta does not think that shiva is an "appearance" of the brahman and a true advaitist recognizes that there's no dualism between transcendental oneness and transcendental variety.. and recognizes that the higher level of absolute is simultaneously brahman, bhagavan, paramatma... not only brahman.. otherwise he's offensive to brahman himself)

 

You are gauging everything through your yard stick, you are objecting without any foundation, you create offence where there is none, as I said before brahman can never be offended, it is sat chit anand.

 

Jai Shree Krishna

 

[Guest guest]

different concept, different ideas, extend the same curtsey to all, one who is on the path of self realization there is no loss.

••different opinions also on who's in a path of self realization or who is not

 

I still do not see the connection of Bhismadev, mahavishnu and Krishna but never mind.

••bismadeva, at the moment of death, knows that krsna is supreme... and he asks to Him to show his narayana form. So he has preferences, but he knows who's the "boss"

 

I like to bring back my point of your honesty, you said no problem is someone mistake the boss as sectary yes.

Now read your above statement no spiritual position is dharmic if the supremacy of Krishna is criticized.

••i don't kow if i said "no problems"... but it does not matter.. i can simply explain my idea.

Krsna is Supreme...

 

so there's a big problem that is to think that supreme is not a person, this is most offensive because krsna (and shiva, devatas, spiritual masters, devotees and so on) are considered fake images, illusions..

 

there's a big problem if someone thinks that absolute is a persons, he thinks that this person is shiva and he fights against krsna to declare the supremacy of shiva..

 

there's no problem if someone likes shiva, and he simply worships him with love and devotion..

 

i can live peacefully with everyone but i have my preferences

 

..

 

You have to defend your statement, do you see them as enemy or do they regard you as enemy?

••a-bhaktas and mayavadis see the personality of godhead as an enemy for attaining ultimate consciousness because they want to say that the ultimate reality is that no one exist. So they declare that divine personality are helps for ignorants and obstacles for serious practitioneers

 

You are gauging everything through your yard stick, you are objecting without any foundation, you create offence where there is none, as I said before brahman can never be offended, it is sat chit anand.

••you are playing with words... the concept of aparadha is well known in all vedic paths. No one says that deities or devotees suffer for the offences... but the offenders are there and they disturb their own spiritual understanding, and they disturb non yet liberated spiritualists..

 

why are you bothering me examinating my way to express my opinions if for you offensive and not offensive is the same?

 

what's your point? that one can say anything about vishnu, shiva, krsna and so on, and that other have to be silent if they see something wrong and bad in what the first one has said?

 

tolerance only for blasphemers?

[Guest guest]

-----

other have to be silent if they see something wrong and bad in what the first one has said?

-----

that is why we are saying u to stop posting nonsense about godhead and other nonsense.....u r a fanatic, fundamentalist and a crazy guy.....go bang on a wall or jump from ur terrace......dare u talk less shiva or other Gods......if ur are a crazy fool then have ur foolishness with urself....

[Guest guest]

namaste sri Ganesh Prasad ji!

(I only commented because you substituted achyutham to “achyuta” with my limited knowledge of Sanskrit I know the word takes a different meaning all to gather.)

 

well i know the difference. but in the last post of page3 a shaivite had said

(shivam,achyutham,the rudra,the maheswara - one and same)

 

in order to clarify it i took the word achyutam as achyuta.

either way it does not make much difference.

achyuta - person who never deteriorates

achyutham - never deteriorating (an attribute)

 

the attribute 'achyutham' stands true only for achyuta.

the term comes in the Narayana Sukta which means the above attributes apply only to Narayana.

so,

(shivam,achyutham,the rudra,the maheswara - one and same)

does not make any sense. even if he takes shivam and achyutham as names it need not mean Rudra deva. this was what i wanted to mention.

 

(We interpret many things to suit our philosophy even if we do not follow Sankra.)

 

so the shaivites have accepted that they don't follow Sankara too. good to hear for Sankara has escaped.

then what is ur philosophy. what do u say about the Brahma sutras. there should be a commentary on it by one of u shaivites in order to prove shiva paratva.

 

(I don’t think shaivism or any other ism needs approval, and I am not qualified to speak on their behalf but if shaivism is anything to do with worship of Lord Shiva than there is no basis for your statement, simply because his worship is known throughout the world, infect the oldest temple found is dedicated to him.)

 

if shaivism is just about worshipping of lord Shiva, i am not going to argue with u. but essentially shaivism says that Rudra is the Supreme Person. when u say that and chant mantras from the vedas to worship Rudra then u have to prove beyond doubt that u are right.

 

Narayana Sukta says 'Narayana param brahmah'

 

show me such a clear cut quotation from the vedas to prove that Rudra is the Supreme.

 

(......the oldest temple found is dedicated to him.)

 

this does not mean or prove anything. first of all no one can say that a particular temple is the most ancient. even if it happens to be a shiva temple it need not prove Rudra Paratva. for the most ancient worship must have been made to the nature gods(agni,vayu,indra etc.) but it will not prove that these demigods are the Supreme.

try to argue on facts.

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

if you can answer only in such way.. who's fanatic?

[Guest guest]

Narayana Upanishad(1)says

“The Purusha, Narayana, desired to create living beings. And out of such desire (or vow), the living force of breath called “praana” stems out from the Supreme Being; the mind (manas) and all other sense organs come into being. Out of Narayana arises the Brahma, the deity who is the creator of all beings; and also the Indra, who is the ruler of all Devas. Out of Him comes Prajaapati, the deity who originates and controls the people, as well as the twelve Aadityaas, eleven Rudraas and eight Vasus."

Narayana Upanishad(2)

"Narayana is eternal.Brahma is Narayana. Shiva is Narayana. Indra(Sakra) is Narayana ....."

 

Maha Upanishad(1) states thus

Narayana, verily, was alone, there was no Brahma, no Isana(Lord Shiva), no water, no Agni and Soma, no heaven and no earth here, no stars, no Sun, but only he, the Nara (Purusa) alone

 

One can see that Narayana was the person who was at the beginning. He is also exalted as 'Purusha' in these Upanishads. Thus, it is clear that the Parama Purusha of Purusha Sukta is none but Narayana.

 

also it is stated that Brahma,Shiva,Indra are Narayana. it is also said that Narayana created Brahma,Indra etc.

 

therefore,it is even more clear that Narayana on creating the demigods, made them powerful, by giving them powers residing as the Antaryami in them.

It can be known from the following verse that Rudra got powers by worshipping Visnu.

 

7:40:5

asyá devásya miiLhúSo vayaá víSNor eSásya prabhRthé havírbhiH

vidé hí rudró rudríyam mahitváM yaasiSTáM vartír ashvinaav íraavat

 

Meaning:

I get my desires granted, by offering in sacrifices ( ie worshipping) to that Visnu, ishwara (controller), who is present in all these(asyA) devatas (devAsya).

On account of knowing this (Vide hi), Rudra Deva(Rudro) gained his Rudra-Strenth(Rudriyam mahitvam). The Ashvini brothres have come to our abode with abundant sacrifical food.

 

It can be understood from the above that Narayana is the Supreme and the names of the Devatas can be taken as His names for He is everything. especially in certain situations the names of anya devatas actually mean Narayana.

For example, in Bhoo Suktam (one of the pancha suktas),

the following lines occur -

"Indra patnim vyapini..............

Vishnu patnim mahim devim madhavim madhava priyam

Lakshmim priya sakim devim namami achyuta vallabham"

 

It can be seen that in the first place, Bhoomi is referred to as the wife of Indra(Indra patnim) while the words 'Vishnu patnim', 'madhava priyam' & 'achyuta vallbham' refer to her as the consort of Visnu.

 

Sayana has translated the word 'Indra Patnim' as wife of Visnu, saying that the word 'Indra' in that place refers to the Supreme Lord,Narayana.

 

----------

Svet. Up. Chapter III

1The non—dual Ensnarer rules by His powers. Remaining one and the same, He rules by His powers all the worlds during their manifestation and continued existence. They who know this become immortal.

2Rudra is truly one; for the knowers of Brahman do not admit the existence of a second, He alone rules all the worlds by His powers. He dwells as the inner Self of every living being. After having created all the worlds, He, their Protector, takes them back into Himself at the end of time.

3His eyes are everywhere, His faces everywhere, His arms everywhere, everywhere His feet. He it is who endows men with arms, birds with feet and wings and men likewise with feet. Having produced heaven and earth, He remains as their non—dual manifester.

---------

Taking cue from the above mentioned translation made by Sayana,

 

In the above verses of Sve. Upanishad, the word ‘Rudra’ refers not to Umapati Rudra but to the Supreme Purusha, Narayana, who is the antaryami of Rudra Deva(Umapati).

 

If u shaivites still persist that the Parama Purusha of Purusha Sukta is Rudra Deva then read this.

In the Narayana Anuvaka, which begins with the words "Adhbhyas sambootha...." and which is chanted along with Purusha Sukta comes the words

"vedahamedham purusham mahantam aditya varnam tamasa parastat"

a near very repeat of a verse in Purusha Sukta.in this Anuvaka, towards the end are the words "hreeshchate lakshmishcha patnyou" which means

Hree(Bhoomi) and Lakshmi are your wives.

Thus it is clear that the Parama Purusha is none but Narayana.

 

Narayanath param nasti.

 

 

 

 

[Ganeshprasad 0]

Jai Ganesh

 

namaste sri Saranathan

 

Re

 

(well i know the difference. but in the last post of page3 a shaivite had said

(shivam,achyutham,the rudra,the maheswara - one and same)

in order to clarify it i took the word achyutam as achyuta.

either way it does not make much difference.

achyuta - person who never deteriorates

achyutham - never deteriorating (an attribute)

 

To try and delibratly mislead is very unvedic.

 

I let Atanu defend his statement, I think he is out on business until next week.

 

 

((We interpret many things to suit our philosophy even if we do not follow Sankra.))

 

Re

(so the shaivites have accepted that they don't follow Sankara too. good to hear for Sankara has escaped.

then what is ur philosophy. what do u say about the Brahma sutras. there should be a commentary on it by one of u shaivites in order to prove shiva paratva.)

 

I think you have misunderstood me on my statement in double bracket, it was meant for you I could safely assume you are a Vaishnava but do not mind using Shankara even though you do not agree with him.

You are assuming too much I have never said I am shaiva or Vaishnava.

 

 

Re

(if shaivism is just about worshipping of lord Shiva, i am not going to argue with u. but essentially shaivism says that Rudra is the Supreme Person. when u say that and chant mantras from the vedas to worship Rudra then u have to prove beyond doubt that u are right.)

 

Beyond whose doubt yours or mine? I have no doubt because apart from other source I accept what Krishna says off Rudra I am Shankra.

 

Re

(Narayana Sukta says 'Narayana param brahmah')

show me such a clear cut quotation from the vedas to prove that Rudra is the Supreme.)

 

I have no problem accepting above but some seem to have a problem accepting when Narayana says I am Rudra.

Instead of accepting that, one goes all the length and trouble to prove that Rudra is subordinate, and in the process forget the real goal of life to actually attain the supreme.

Without Shivam what value is achyutam?

 

 

((......the oldest temple found is dedicated to him.))

 

Re

this does not mean or prove anything. first of all no one can say that a particular temple is the most ancient. even if it happens to be a shiva temple it need not prove Rudra Paratva. for the most ancient worship must have been made to the nature gods(agni,vayu,indra etc.) but it will not prove that these demigods are the Supreme.

try to argue on facts.)

 

Look at the facts and in which context I had said the above, you contended that Shaivism is not vedic. Well the vedic people of past must have had funny idea of worshiping Lord Shiva.

 

Jai Shree Krishna

 

[Ganeshprasad 0]

 

Jai Ganesh

 

Re

(••different opinions also on who's in a path of self realization or who is not)

 

Such an opinion leads only to war.

accept what Krishna Says bg4.11

ye yatha mam prapadyante

tams tathaiva bhajamy aham

mama vartmanuvartante

manusyah partha sarvasah

 

All of them--as they surrender unto Me--I reward accordingly. Everyone follows My path in all respects, O son of Prtha.

 

 

 

Re

(I like to bring back my point of your honesty, you said no problem is someone mistake the boss as sectary yes.

Now read your above statement no spiritual position is dharmic if the supremacy of Krishna is criticized.

••i don't kow if i said "no problems"... but it does not matter.. i can simply explain my idea.

Krsna is Supreme... )

 

Your ideas keep changing

Krashna is supreme for that there is no problem, but you fail to apreciate the same supreme is worshiped by others differently, do not make them your enemy.

 

Re

(so there's a big problem that is to think that supreme is not a person, this is most offensive because krsna (and shiva, devatas, spiritual masters, devotees and so on) are considered fake images, illusions..)

 

For those who worship the unmanifest espect of the supreme see eveything as one such a concept is not denied by the lord so why make enemy, he sees no enemy,

 

Re

(there's a big problem if someone thinks that absolute is a persons, he thinks that this person is shiva and he fights against krsna to declare the supremacy of shiva..)

 

 

Children fighting in the play ground, all are fighting about the father they have not seen, one call him by one name other by some thing else. One says he is creating and loving and the other says he is destructive and strong and some one else says he is neither he is beyond all that or may be not at all cause I can not see him. So don’t fight explore and find out.

Re

(there's no problem if someone likes shiva, and he simply worships him with love and devotion..

 

i can live peacefully with everyone but i have my preferences)

 

Your preferences are honoured, but you seem to cotradict your self one minute you say you can live peacefully and the next he is an enemy.

 

Re

(••a-bhaktas and mayavadis see the personality of godhead as an enemy for attaining ultimate consciousness because they want to say that the ultimate reality is that no one exist. So they declare that divine personality are helps for ignorants and obstacles for serious practitioneers)

 

So let them live in their paradise.

 

Re

(••you are playing with words... the concept of aparadha is well known in all vedic paths. No one says that deities or devotees suffer for the offences... but the offenders are there and they disturb their own spiritual understanding, and they disturb non yet liberated spiritualists..)

 

So now I am playing with words, such is the nature of this world we get disturbed all the time, one who remains tranquil cross over.

 

Re

(why are you bothering me examinating my way to express my opinions if for you offensive and not offensive is the same?)

 

If you like we stop discussing, your opinion are welcome your alegation are baseless.

 

Re

(what's your point? that one can say anything about vishnu, shiva, krsna and so on, and that other have to be silent if they see something wrong and bad in what the first one has said?)

 

Dharma that can not withstand chalange from all angle can not be eternal, vedic dharma is voletary we do not issue fatva, if you are able to convince others fine but do not fight because he sees different from you.

 

Re

(tolerance only for blasphemers?)

 

No, tolerance for all.

 

Jai Shree Krishna

 

[Guest guest]

(••different opinions also on who's in a path of self realization or who is not)

Such an opinion leads only to war.

--only if you are not able to disagree and simultaneously to remain peaceful

 

All of them--as they surrender unto Me--I reward accordingly. Everyone follows My path in all respects, O son of Prtha.

••it is not a secret... everyone surrenders to Krsna. So he's Supreme... Spiritualists surrender to him voluntarily, materialists surrender to Him through the karma law

 

but you fail to apreciate the same supreme is worshiped by others differently, do not make them your enemy.

••if the supreme is worshiped differently i appreciate, i like it... if the supreme is not worshiped i do not...

 

For those who worship the unmanifest espect of the supreme see eveything as one such a concept is not denied by the lord

••i have already explained that you can be impersonalist because you simply prefere such aspect, and that you can be impersonalist justifying your position by saying that deities are maya. I can go in a big restaurant, i can go to the little restaurant but appreciating also the big one, i can go in the little one saying that the big one is bad.. It is not difficult.

 

Children fighting in the play ground

••yes fighting is childish... do not fight me because i have an opinion

 

" So they declare that divine personality are helps for ignorants and obstacles for serious practitioneers)

So let them live in their paradise."

••but with their mouth closed if possible to avoid to misguide people

 

So now I am playing with words

••yes you are playing... the utility of discussion, the nature of a forum, is to exchange ideas and to express opinions on them. This exchange is often based on the fact that someone judges that my idea is wrong and maybe offensive. So if he answers and criticize my idea defeating it, he's giving a service to everyone

 

If you like we stop discussing

••you're actually discussing with me about the opportunity to stop discussions trying to demonstrate that all approaches are the same... i see differences, i am not against discussing, so i have my place in a forum. If you believe that all is the same.. there's no need for you to discuss

 

if you are able to convince others fine but do not fight because he sees different from you

••wich weapons are in a forum if not the possibility to convince? have you seen guns and bombs somewhere?

 

(tolerance only for blasphemers?)

No, tolerance for all.

•• we tolerate if they tolerate krsna stopping their blaspheming.. otherwise we answer.. where's the problem? someone gets hurted?

 

[Guest guest]

namaste Ganesh Prasad ji!

((We interpret many things to suit our philosophy even if we do not follow Sankra.))

(..... it was meant for you I could safely assume you are a Vaishnava but do not mind using Shankara even though you do not agree with him.)

 

well i am a follower of Vishistadvaita. but that need not stop me from quoting Sankara, because it can be safely said that he was a Vaishnava as he too has accepted only Narayana as the Saguna Brahman in his Prasthanatraya Bhashyas.

 

(Beyond whose doubt yours or mine? I have no doubt because apart from other source I accept what Krishna says off Rudra I am Shankra.)

 

Krishna also says that He is Skanda, He is Arjuna etc. then can we take that even Skanda and Arjuna are the Supreme Purusha. actually what Krishna says is that there is His Amsha in everything that is great. it does not mean that the persons mentioned are verily avatars of the Supreme Purusha.

 

(Look at the facts and in which context I had said the above, you contended that Shaivism is not vedic. Well the vedic people of past must have had funny idea of worshiping Lord Shiva.)

 

try to grasp the difference between Shaivism and the worship of Shiva. Worship of Shiva is absolutely Vedic just as the worship of Indra,Agni,Vayu etc. But Shaivism as a philosophy is non-vedic as it claims Rudra Paratva. try to understand what i try to say.

 

(I have no problem accepting above but some seem to have a problem accepting when Narayana says I am Rudra.

Instead of accepting that, one goes all the length and trouble to prove that Rudra is subordinate, and in the process forget the real goal of life to actually attain the supreme.)

it is true that the goal is to attain the Spreme but who is the Supreme is the question and (Narayana says I am Rudra) does not mean that Rudra is an avatar of Narayana.

 

 

narayanat param nasti.

 

a small note:

(To try and delibratly mislead is very unvedic. )

 

I understand that the above sentence is meant for Atanu.

as i misunderstood a line from ur previous post, please clarify if the above sentence is meant for Atanu or not.

 

Narayana is the Supreme.