Supremacy of Visnu

[Ganeshprasad 0]

Jai Ganesh

 

Re

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

 

Simply going round in circle

 

 

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

 

Fortunately Dharma is not depanded on our likes and dislike.

 

RE

( ••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.)

 

You are defeating your argument.

 

 

Re

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

 

I respect your unfortunately you dispises others.

 

Re

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

 

Such was the style of people like Hitler.

 

Re

(••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)

 

Now who is playing with words. I say all different paths are in search of the the supreme, they are all valid in their on right, now where did I say they are all the same?

But Krishna does confirm they all lead to me, just like streams on the mountain taking different route all end up in the ocean.

 

Re

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

 

Weapons in the form of abuse, what we say spills over on the ground reality.

Have you heard of pen being mightier than the sword?

 

 

((No, tolerance for all.))

Re

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

 

Tolerance is a virtue no condition.

 

Jai Shree Krishna

 

 

[Ganeshprasad 0]

 

Jai Ganesh

 

Namaste Saranathan ji

 

RE

(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.)

 

That is nice Sankara is a Vaishnava as well as advaita.

 

 

Re

(Krishna also says that He is Skanda, He is Arjuna etc. then can we take that even Skanda and Arjuna are the Supreme Purusha.)

 

I know Skanda is worshiped as supreme in some places and if you take Arjun as Amsha of Indra it is not very difficult to make connection. Vedas speak of Indra but we will just ignore that.

 

Re

(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.)

 

Yes we can always twist a verse and apply to others, when the reality is Lord Krishna is answering to Arjuns Queries as to in which various forms may I Worship you.

 

Re

(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 understand what you are trying to say weather I agree with you or not is another story.

 

 

Re

(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. )

 

I do not need to search for another meaning when Narayana says I am Rudra.

When Atri Muni formost among the knower of Brahman approached the supreme was surprised I can understand why others are, or do not wish to understand.

 

 

Sri Bhagvat 4.1-28Atri Muni desiring a son like him called upon the Bhagvan thinking of him only. But although he is far beyond the mental speculation of man, all three of you have come here. Kindly let me know how you have come, I am greatly bewildered about this.

4.1/30 –31

AS you willed, precisely so it must happen; it could not otherwise. For it was your will, O Bahmana- you, who are so true of resolve. We three (taken together) represent the truth on which you cotemplated. Now there will be born to you, may you be blessed, three sons embodying our rays, who will themselves be celebrated throughout the world; O dear sage, and shall spread your fame too.

 

Or when Lord Vishnu says this

 

4.7/50-54 The lord said: The supreme cause of the universe, I am also Brahma (the creator) and Lord Shiva (the destroyer of the universe). I am the self, the lord and the witness, self effulgent and unqualified. Embracing my own Maya, consisting of the three gunas, it is I who create, protect and destroy the universe have assumed names appropriate to my functions, O Brahmana! It is in such a Brahman, the supreme sprit, who is one without a second, that the ignorant fool views Brahma, Rudra and other beings as distinct entities. Just as a man never conceives his own head, hands and other limbs as belonging to anyone else, even so he who is devoted to me does not regard his fellow creatures as distant from himself.

He who sees no difference between Us three (Brahma, Rudra and Myself)-who are identical in essence and the very selves of all living beings-attains peace, O Daksa.

 

 

narayanat param nasti.

 

Yes there is noting beyond Narayan or else he is not God.

 

 

Re

(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.)

 

I am sorry I mislead you again though not deliberately.

I meant for Atanu to defend his statements.

You for changing the word.

 

Jai Shree Krishna

 

[sporkubus 0]

He who sees no difference between Us three (Brahma, Rudra and Myself)-who are identical in essence and the very selves of all living beings-attains peace, O Daksa.

 

** If we aren't supposed to see a difference between them, then wouldn't arguing about who is "greater" be making a HUGE mistake?

[Guest guest]

Fortunately Dharma is not depanded on our likes and dislike.

••no .. it depends on us if we are dharmis or adharmis

 

You are defeating your argument.

••that's not a defeat... if i say "you are defeated" it does not means that you are.. or not?

 

I respect your unfortunately you dispises others.....Such was the style of people like Hitler.

••again you are unable to answer

 

I say all different paths are in search of the the supreme,

••i say that it is to be examined.. not accepted because they say it.. Everyone has the right to worship in the way he likes, everyone has the right to consider him vedic, unvedic, dharmic, adharmic and so on... and to express his opinion. And someone like you can express his opinion that all opinions are right minus mine. If you like pluralism, i am also inside pluralism, where's the problem?

 

Weapons in the form of abuse, what we say spills over on the ground reality.

Have you heard of pen being mightier than the sword?

••so there's no possibility to say anything if something wrong on shiva and krsna is said, because who said it can become sad by it..

 

Tolerance is a virtue no condition.

••answering is not intolerance

 

please say something creative... all this waste of energy to say that who hear something wrong about krsna and shiva has to be silent because krsna has said that all paths lead to him

 

why you respect krsna only when he says this? defend krsna's image, and do something when he's blasphemed... give your opinion to give a good image of the lord to newcomers and visitors of this site and discuss with criticizers for the same reason

 

 

 

 

 

[Ganeshprasad 0]

Jai Ganesh

 

((Fortunately Dharma is not depanded on our likes and dislike.))

Re

(••no .. it depends on us if we are dharmis or adharmis)

 

Make sure self clear is dharma depended on us?it does not matter if we are dharmi or Adharmi it is independent not dependent on your likes or dislike.

 

 

((You are defeating your argument.))

Re

(••that's not a defeat... if i say "you are defeated" it does not means that you are.. or not?)

 

If you keep contradicting your self you defeat your self that was the point.

 

 

((I respect your unfortunately you dispises others.....Such was the style of people like Hitler.))

Re

(••again you are unable to answer)

 

Unfortunately you are unable to see your intransigent.

 

 

((I say all different paths are in search of the supreme,))

 

Re

(••i say that it is to be examined.. not accepted because they say it.. Everyone has the right to worship in the way he likes, everyone has the right to consider him vedic, unvedic, dharmic, adharmic and so on... and to express his opinion. And someone like you can express his opinion that all opinions are right minus mine. If you like pluralism, i am also inside pluralism, where's the problem?)

 

Please do not twist my words I have never said all opinions are right.

Respect all, follow yours, were is the problem?

 

Re

(••so there's no possibility to say anything if something wrong on shiva and krsna is said, because who said it can become sad by it..)

 

Yes it makes me sad, a lot of things makes me sad, people are killing each other senselessly, poor animals are being slaughtered to fill the belly for taste and others are going hungry when there is enough.

You want to further divide people on religious ground just because they think different from you although in practice of dharma they practically follow the same shastra. For one who understand the concept of karma there is nothing to tell, for he understands that he is making his on destiny.

 

 

 

 

 

Re

(please say something creative... all this waste of energy to say that who hear something wrong about krsna and shiva has to be silent because krsna has said that all paths lead to him

why you respect krsna only when he says this? defend krsna's image, and do something when he's blasphemed... give your opinion to give a good image of the lord to newcomers and visitors of this site and discuss with criticizers for the same reason)

 

I see a lot of people doing a fine job here defending God using abusive language just because they differ in their concept, a fine example one sets in a open forum. A Dharma that can not withstand the criticism of other can not be dharma, I like to think Hindu (Vedic ) dharma is above that or else we would be issuing fatva and I would not want to do any thing with it.

Gods image is nicely pressented by one who follows and sets an example by his behaviour for other to emulate.

 

samo 'ham sarva-bhutesu

na me dvesyo 'sti na priyah

ye bhajanti tu mam bhaktya

mayi te tesu capy aham

The Self is present equally in all beings. There is no one hateful or dear to Me. But, those who worship Me with devotion, they are with Me and I am also with them.(9.29)

 

If there is no one hateful to krishna why are you getting worked up, if you follow someone you also have to become like them.

Krishna also says one who is free from desires and hate come to me.

 

Jai Shree Krishna

 

 

[Guest guest]

namaste!

(That is nice Sankara is a Vaishnava as well as advaita.)

yes Sankara is a vaishnava and an advaita. i have already told the reason : he has accepted only Narayana as Saguna Brahman("only Narayana").not any other deity. neither did he say that every deity is a Saguna Brahman.(as probably u try to say) there is another reason for me to quote Sankara. shaivites claim themelves to be advaitins normally. to prove the fallacy of their claim, I quote him.

 

(Yes we can always twist a verse and apply to others, when the reality is Lord Krishna is answering to Arjuns Queries as to in which various forms may I Worship you.)

but He also does say that only those who worship Him attain Moksha while those praying to other devatas will attain them and then have to take birth again.

also he says

"sarvadharman parityajya mam ekam sharanam vraja

aham tva sarva papebyo moksha ishyami ma shucha"

 

Resigning all duties unto me, surrender to 'Me Alone'. I will clean u of all ur sins and offer u Moksha, worry not.

 

If every deity can be called Supreme, then there is no need for Him to say 'Me Alone'. he will offer Moksha only if u surrender to Him alone. it is a condition specified in this sloka. if Moksha can be attained by worshipping any of His so called 'forms'(as u told) there is no need to add this condition.

 

(..........if you take Arjun as Amsha of Indra it is not very difficult to make connection. Vedas speak of Indra but we will just ignore that.)

well as far as i know, Arjun is the son of Indra as statd in Mahabharata. one cannot consider Arjun as Indra for He is not an avatar of Indra.

 

(4.7/50-54 The lord said: The supreme cause of the universe, I am also Brahma (the creator) and Lord Shiva (the destroyer of the universe). I am the self, the lord and the witness, self effulgent and unqualified. Embracing my own Maya, consisting of the three gunas, it is I who create, protect and destroy the universe have assumed names appropriate to my functions, O Brahmana! It is in such a Brahman, the supreme sprit, who is one without a second, that the ignorant fool views Brahma, Rudra and other beings as distinct entities. Just as a man never conceives his own head, hands and other limbs as belonging to anyone else, even so he who is devoted to me does not regard his fellow creatures as distant from himself.

He who sees no difference between Us three (Brahma, Rudra and Myself)-who are identical in essence and the very selves of all living beings-attains peace, O Daksa.)

 

(It is in such a Brahman, the supreme sprit, who is one without a second, that the ignorant fool views Brahma, Rudra and other beings as distinct entities.)

note the word other entities.here He means eveyone - even me and u. but Narayana sukta says 'Atma Ishvaram'- Lord of all Souls.Let me explain it.

 

(Just as a man never conceives his own head, hands and other limbs as belonging to anyone else)

the example he gives is the body.(...as belonging to anyone else) it means just as the body belongs to the soul within everyone from Brahma to animals and plants belong to him. the souls(we) identify the body as ourself. similarly Narayana being the Antaryami of everyone identifies the bodies(Brahma to animals and plants) as himself.

 

(He who sees no difference between Us three (Brahma, Rudra and Myself)-who are identical in essence and the very selves of all living beings-attains peace, O Daksa.)

now with the above explanation it is easy to understand this. while Narayana is everything He is expressing His Supreme powers from within Brahma, Rudra and Himself. they are identical in essence that they express Supreme powers unlike others and yes the Trinity form the very selves of all living beings because everything begins, sustains and ends with them.

 

these need not mean that they are one and the same. Narayana has cleared it by giving the example of soul owning the body. this is what we call Vishista advaita.

the soul and the Supersoul(Supreme)are different yet they are same as the soul is the body of the Supreme because he is the Antaryami of everything.

 

VishNu PurAnam ( 1.9.59 )

YannAyam BhagavAn BrahmA jAnAthi Paramam padham

tannathA: sma JagaddhAma Tava sarvagathAchyutha

 

Oh Achyutha! Oh all pervasive Sarva VyApi ! We salute Your Svaroopa that is the supreme abode of the Universe and its entities and which is not known even by BrahmmA as the most lofty PrApya.

 

note this : "BrahmA jAnAthi" - Brahma does not know.if He is the Supreme just like Narayana(as u took it in the verse u quoted) how can it be that Brahma does not know.

 

also all the vakyas of the Vedas are to be taken in such a meaning that they do not clash with one another because each and every word of it is true.

Maha Upanishad(1) says, "Before Creation, only Narayana was there neither Brahma nor Rudra ...."

it goes on to asy that Rudra came from the middle of the brws of Narayana. he was created. how can it be that someone who was created be the Supreme Purusha.

Narayana Upanishad(2) says "........shuddho deva eko narayanah na dvithiyosthi kashchit" - the purest deva is Narayana alone. there is no second like Him.

 

thus taking into account all these things it can be accepted that only Narayana is the Supreme. if Rudra and Brahma are no different from Narayana in Paratva then the Vedas which have hymns on these deities separately would not have told "there is no second like Him"

 

Narayanat param nasti.

yes that is what I say He is the Supreme Person, only Deity worthy of being addressed as God.

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Make sure self clear is dharma depended on us?

--our being dharmic or adharmic depends on us

 

Please do not twist my words I have never said all opinions are right.

--so what you want?

 

Yes it makes me sad, a lot of things makes me sad

--your sadness turns in happiness if who blasphemes is never disturbed by someone's opinion?

 

You want to further divide people on religious ground just because they think different

--religion is a matter of thoughts.. if there's different thought there's already division. Let us live this division without violence or let us not unite by not caring if deities are criticized or offended

 

although in practice of dharma they practically follow the same shastra

--demonstrate that everyone who says "i follow the shastra" is really following such shastra.

 

For one who understand the concept of karma there is nothing to tell

--so why are you discussing?

 

I see a lot of people doing a fine job here defending God using abusive language

--so your position is to not defend but to defend the offenders.. everyone has to be defended but to defend our lord(s) is fanaticism

 

Gods image is nicely pressented by one who follows and sets an example by his behaviour for other to emulate.

--in a forum the only behaviour possible is to write... so who writes nice things about the lord sets an example

 

Krishna also says one who is free from desires and hate come to me

--so let us speak against the desire to hate krsna

 

speak against bad behaviours, not against difference of opinions..

 

set an example

 

[Ganeshprasad 0]

Jai Ganesh

 

Re

(--our being dharmic or adharmic depends on us)

 

So why are you arguing this point? did I say any different, here is what I said, Fortunately Dharma is not depanded on our likes and dislike.

 

((Please do not twist my words I have never said all opinions are right.))

 

Re

(--so what you want?)

 

a bit of respect, opinion vary according to what one reads and understands.

 

 

Re

(--your sadness turns in happiness if who blasphemes is never disturbed by someone's opinion?)

 

First the word blasphemes is alien to Vedic people, the Lord is beyond the gunas he never gets effected.

And rhis is what the lord wants us to be amongst many other thing.

 

yasman nodvijate loko

lokan nodvijate ca yah

harsamarsa-bhayodvegair

mukto yah sa ca me priyah

The one by whom others are not agitated, and who is not agitated by others; who is free from joy, envy, fear, and anxiety; is also dear to Me. (12.15)

 

One who is free from desires; who is pure, wise, impartial, and free from anxiety; who has renounced (the doership in) all undertakings; and who is devoted to Me, is dear to Me. (12.16)

One who neither rejoices nor grieves, neither likes nor dislikes, who has renounced both the good and the evil, and who is full of devotion, such a person is dear to Me. (12.17)

The one who remains the same towards friend or foe, in honor or disgrace, in heat or cold, in pleasure or pain; who is free from attachment; and (12.18)

 

 

Re

(--religion is a matter of thoughts.. if there's different thought there's already division.)

 

Everyone is an individual, thoughts are endless unity is in one supream brahman.Vedic thought.

 

 

((although in practice of dharma they practically follow the same shastra))

 

Re

(--demonstrate that everyone who says "i follow the shastra" is really following such shastra. )

 

Imposible for me, everyone is responsible for their own Karma

 

 

Re

(--so why are you discussing?)

 

Take the sentence out of context we get different meaning all together.

Discussion is healthy.

 

 

((I see a lot of people doing a fine job here defending God using abusive language))

 

Re

(--so your position is to not defend but to defend the offenders.. everyone has to be defended but to defend our lord(s) is fanaticism)

 

The whole idea of spiritual life is to realize the lord, he does not need our defending, and what is the offence? He has spoken of different paths, he has spoken of Ayakta realization, he is all pervasive so some wants to see him in every thing, why do you make that an offence, and if according to some Sankracharya deliberately mislead then blame the one who mislead.

God does not need defense against his own philosophy.

By all means defend your position, if anyone wants to stop your worship defend that, if anyone wants to destroy you mandir or your practice defend that. We did that very successfully at Bhaktimanor Dham every one joined in no one asked what denomination you came from.

 

Re

(--in a forum the only behaviour possible is to write... so who writes nice things about the lord sets an example)

 

What we write makes a big impact.

 

`

 

((Krishna also says one who is free from desires and hate come to me))

 

Re

(--so let us speak against the desire to hate krsna)

 

That is not what Krishna saying above.

 

 

Re

(set an example)

 

I am trying, forgive me if I do not meet you’re standard.

 

Jai Shree Krishna

 

[Ganeshprasad 0]

Jai Ganesh

 

namaste!

 

 

 

Re

(but He also does say that only those who worship Him attain Moksha while those praying to other devatas will attain them and then have to take birth again. )

 

O yes so what is this

 

devan bhavayatanena

te deva bhavayantu vah

parasparam bhavayantah

sreyah param avapsyatha

sreyah--benediction; param--the supreme; avapsyatha--do you achieve.

 

Nourish the Devas with Yajna, and the Devas will nourish you. Thus nourishing one another you shall attain the Supreme goal. (3.11)

 

The thing is if we are honest we would understand the meaning that when Krishna says those who worship others devas impelled by desires. (7.20)

 

Such (material) gains of these less intelligent human beings are temporary. The worshipers of Devas go to Devas, but My devotees come to Me. (7.23)

 

So it is the desires of the individual the lord is making possible nothing to do with Moksha.

 

 

 

 

Read this may be you might change your mind, note saintly person desiring libration.

 

SB 8.7.20: The devas observed Lord Śiva sitting on the summit of Kailāsa Hill with his wife, Bhavānī, for the auspicious development of the three worlds. He was being worshiped by great saintly persons desiring liberation. The devas offered him their obeisances and prayers with great respect.

 

SB 4.6/45 O most auspicious lord, you have ordained the heavenly planets, the spiritual Vaikuntha planets and the impersonal Brahman sphere as the respective destinations of the performers of auspicious activities. Similarly, for others, who are miscreants, you have destined different kinds of hells which are horrible and ghastly. Yet sometimes it is found that their destinations are just the opposite. It is very difficult to ascertain the cause of this.

 

Rig Veda 7.59.12

 

Maha Mrituyonjaya Mantra

 

We Worship Tryambaka, Who spreads Fragrance and Increases nourishment, May He release me, like the cucumber from its stem, from Mortal life, and give me Immorality.

Lord Shiva is very mercyful he accepts all.

 

 

 

SB 4.6.42: Lord Brahma said: My dear Lord Shiva, I know that you are the controller of the entire material manifestation, the combination father and mother of the cosmic manifestation, and the Supreme Brahman beyond the cosmic manifestation as well. I know you in that way.

 

Re

(also he says

"sarvadharman parityajya mam ekam sharanam vraja

aham tva sarva papebyo moksha ishyami ma shucha"

 

Resigning all duties unto me, surrender to 'Me Alone'. I will clean u of all ur sins and offer u Moksha, worry not.)

 

Please also read why Krishna spoke Gita to Arjun, He was confused about his Dharma (dharma sankat). It is only natural he reassure him to do his duty surrendering on to him. Or else why should he say I come to re establish dharma.

sreyan sva-dharmo vigunah

para-dharmat svanusthitat

svabhava-niyatam karma

kurvan napnoti kilbisam

saha-jam karma kaunteya

sa-dosam api na tyajet

sarvarambha hi dosena

dhumenagnir ivavrtah

 

One's inferior natural work is better than superior unnatural work. One who does the work ordained by one's inherent nature (without selfish motives) incurs no sin (or Karmic reaction). (See also 3.35) (18.47)

 

 

 

One's natural work, even though defective, should not be abandoned; because all undertakings are enveloped by defects as fire is covered by smoke, O Arjuna. (18.48)

 

 

 

Therefore, let the scripture be your authority in determining what should be done and what should not be done. You should perform your duty following the scriptural injunction. (16.24)

 

 

Re

 

(If every deity can be called Supreme, then there is no need for Him to say 'Me Alone'. he will offer Moksha only if u surrender to Him alone. it is a condition specified in this sloka. if Moksha can be attained by worshipping any of His so called 'forms'(as u told) there is no need to add this condition.)

 

what you brush aside so calusly as so called forms are his manifetation

let us examin what he says again

 

aham atma gudakesa

sarva-bhutasaya-sthitah

aham adis ca madhyam ca

bhutanam anta eva ca

He says I am beginning middle and the end

Then he says I am Vishnu in the next verse

And the next verse he says Veda (Brahma the creator who gave Veda)

And the next verse He says I am Shankra.

 

Now consider this from Bhagvat

 

(4.7/50-54 The lord said: The supreme cause of the universe, I am also Brahma (the creator) and Lord Shiva (the destroyer of the universe).

23. O lord, you are self-effulgent and supreme. You create this material world by your personal energy, and you assume the names Brahma, Visnu and Mahesvara when you act in creation, maintenance and annihilation.

 

24. You are the cause of all causes, the self-effulgent, inconceivable, Supreme Brahman. You manifest various potencies in this cosmic manifestation.

These are prayers offered to Lord shiva by prajapati

 

 

 

Re

(It is in such a Brahman, the supreme sprit, who is one without a second, that the ignorant fool views Brahma, Rudra and other beings as distinct entities.)

note the word other entities.here He means eveyone - even me and u. but Narayana sukta says 'Atma Ishvaram'- Lord of all Souls.Let me explain it.)

 

What you fail to apreciate is the lord is saying I am brahma and shiva it is I who create, protect and destroy the universe have assumed names appropriate to my functions.

 

If you cosider this in conjuction you might where I am coming from

 

 

 

SB 4.6.42: Lord Brahma said: My dear Lord Shiva, I know that you are the controller of the entire material manifestation, the combination father and mother of the cosmic manifestation, and the Supreme Brahman beyond the cosmic manifestation as well. I know you in that way.

(4.7/50-54 The lord said: The supreme cause of the universe, I am also Brahma (the creator) and Lord Shiva (the destroyer of the universe).

23. O lord, you are self-effulgent and supreme. You create this material world by your personal energy, and you assume the names Brahma, Visnu and Mahesvara when you act in creation, maintenance and annihilation.

 

 

Re

(VishNu PurAnam ( 1.9.59 )

YannAyam BhagavAn BrahmA jAnAthi Paramam padham

tannathA: sma JagaddhAma Tava sarvagathAchyutha )

 

Oh Achyutha! Oh all pervasive Sarva VyApi ! We salute Your Svaroopa that is the supreme abode of the Universe and its entities and which is not known even by BrahmmA as the most lofty PrApya.)

 

Consider this from Vishnu puran

Vishupuran say this 5.33-46 yo harih sa siva saksad yah sivah sa svayam harih ye tayor bhedam ati sthan narak aya bhave narah.

Whoever is lord hari, he himself is lord shiva indeed any human being mistake both the lords to be different,he/she surely goes to hell

 

yatha siva mayo vishnuh

Sivasya hrdyam Visnur Visnoz ca hrdayam Sivah(Skanda puran)

Just as Lord Vishnu is pervaded by Lord Shiva,

Similarly, in Shivas heart Vishnu resides and Vishnus heart is abode of Shiva.

 

Re

(note this : "BrahmA jAnAthi" - Brahma does not know.if He is the Supreme just like Narayana(as u took it in the verse u quoted) how can it be that Brahma does not know.)

 

Brahma who gave us the vedas if he does not know as you state, then we have no chance after all we are guided by his words. Such is the nature of our understanding we learn the vedas given by the creator then doubt if he knows. I rest my case.

Jai Shree Krishna

 

[Guest guest]

(--our being dharmic or adharmic depends on us)

So why are you arguing this point?

•••i am not arguing

 

(--so what you want?)

a bit of respect

••so ask respect to the people who are not respectiful

 

First the word blasphemes is alien to Vedic people

••translate with aparadha and you'll be satisfied. You can also stop to explaining that god never gets affected by offence, because it is useless, no one believes it. The reasons why blaspheming is to be avoided are others and already explained

 

The one by whom others are not agitated, and who is not agitated by others; who is free from joy, envy, fear, and anxiety; is also dear to Me. (12.15)

••so let us say to the "agitators" who are uselessly criticizing lord, gods, and saints to stop... in this way everyone will practice in peace

 

thoughts are endless unity is in one supream brahman

••everyone gives his interpretation of the meaning of your very vague statement

 

(--demonstrate that everyone who says "i follow the shastra" is really following such shastra. )

Imposible for me

•••so there's no reasons to delegitimate discussions and opinion's differences

 

The whole idea of spiritual life is to realize the lord

••to realize the lord means also to learn, to teach and to share knowledge... a forum like this is meant to share knowledge. To share means to discuss and to use our opinion's difference in a creative way, not to repress it..

 

He has spoken of different paths, he has spoken of Ayakta realization, he is all pervasive so some wants to see him in every thing, why do you make that an offence

••that's not an offence... offence is to state that the personal aspect is maya and only omnipervasive aspect is reality. An offence is also the opposite

 

and if according to some Sankracharya deliberately mislead

••also according to me.. it is a sign of the greatness of the lord and of sri shankara acharya

 

God does not need defense against his own philosophy.

••no, it is us who need o hear philosophy without misinterpretation and it is us who should have desire that everyone know the real philosophy

 

(--so let us speak against the desire to hate krsna)

That is not what Krishna saying above.

••krsna says to be without hate... we speak against the hate for krsna.

 

I am trying, forgive me

••there's nothing to forgive.. only use your energy against who is really against the peace and civil discussion

[Guest guest]

i have not seen anyone against peace and civil discussions in this thread....then who do u address? now that my brain is not as big as urs, i request ur highness to elaborate on ur statement......let the enlightend enlight others.....

 

did u refer to the people of other religion or those who 'according to u' who pray to demi gods like shiva against peace and civil discussions? i want a clear yes/no answer.....for u know iam not as brainy as u and i want u to help me by giving clear cut answer so that my little brain can understand it....

 

thanks to u in advance.....

[Guest guest]

 

The correct translation is "Salutatins to Rudra and to Visnu".

*********

As always Lord takes care when you proclaim something as correct translation.

 

There is no word such as "Salutatins".

 

These are your translations and obviously wrong.

 

 

 

Blind belief. That is why no logical answers, only allegations and acting silly.

 

 

When the light has risen, there is no day, no night, neither existence nor nonexistence; Shiva (the blessed One) alone is there.' (Svet. Up. IV. 18.)

 

 

As stated before, there is no proof Rudra here refers to umapati.

 

On the other hand there is enough proof that the Purusa refered in this upanishad is Narayana because of the following 2 points.

 

1. Mention of giving birth to Hiranyagarbha

2. This Purusa having eyes, hands, faces everywhere. This is similar to Purusa Sukta.

 

In Pursusa Sukta, Narayana is directly identified as Lakshmi pati.

 

Atanu pointed out that that Rig Veda does not mention this. He is right.

 

But Atanu does not know that Purusa Sukta is mentioned in taittiriya Aranyaka.

 

Verse 3-13-02 of Taittiriya Aranyaka mentions the Pursusa in Purusa Sukta explicitly as Lakshmi pati.

 

 

Well Rig Veda proves nothing. But your unknown Upanishads tell everything?

 

Do not give us what is not in Vedas. You understand? You are well known to alter scriptures as per your convenience. Purusha Suktam contains what is not there in Rig Veda. Everyone knows that. Do not expose yourself.

 

 

The case of Purusa SuktA is explained above. As for your reerence to Mahamrityunjaya mantra, JabAlasruti is mentioned by Shanakaracharya as well.

 

It is not some unknown Sruti. You guys are good at deeating yourselves.

 

Jabalaopanishad is clear that Rudra gives Brahmataraka mantra to departing person. Ramopanishad further clears that Brahmataraka mantra is Rama mantra. Further it clears that Rudra sought a boon from Sri Rama.

 

So it is clear that Rudra is not capable of giving mukti independently.

[Guest guest]

 

This fellow is reckless. He will do anything. The correct translation remains as below:

 

YV iv. 3. 9.

a Thou art the portion of Agni, the overlordship of consecration, the holy power saved, the threefold Stoma.

b Thou art the portion of Indra, the overlordship of Visnu, the lordly power saved, the fifteenfold Stoma.

 

 

"overlorship of Visnu" means here "sovereign power belonging to Visnu". As explained in my previous post, this explanation is clear through sanskrit and grammar. Here 'of' means 'belonging to' and not 'lordship over'.

 

Here every statement only referred has only the similar meaning as stated above, in each case.

 

I do not expect from atanu any logical refutation, except useless allegations and empty statements.

 

 

Else friends, Maruts become overlord of Adityas. And Pusan becomes overlord of Aditi. What foolishness.

It is hallmark of this reckless fabricator to alter scriptures without seeing the whole. And in the process He makes Maruts the Lords of Adityas. Be it so. It suits him well.

 

 

As usual your intellect at work. The verses do not imply lordship of any devata over others. It simply points what the portions of sacrifice are to each devata. Read the whole verse and try to understand the context, intead of making emotional and wrong statements.

[Guest guest]

 

Yes I see it quite clearly bibharmy, only you fail to see it says ahám mitraáváruNobhaá bibharmy ahám indraagnií ahám ashvínobhaá I support both Mitra and Varun.a, Agni and Indra, and the two As'vins.Talk about honesty, where does it say power over all Devtas?

 

 

Read the whole explanation. Any person with iota of intelligence can understand from context that Devi is establishing supremacy over all devatas. Ridiculously foolish arguments like the above have no explanation.

 

 

Bg [Ch.10 Text 21]: Of the Adityas I am Visnu, Ch.10 Text 23]: Of all the Rudras I am Lord Siva; why should I believe what you say?

 

 

Krishna also says that those who worship anya devatas go to devatas, but those who worship me come to me. Bheda and supremacy of Lord Krishna is clearly established in Gita.

 

 

1.003.10 May Sarasvati_, the purifier, the bestower of food, the recompenser of worship with wealth, be attracted by our offered viands to our rite. [sarasvati_ = va_g-devata_, divinity of speech].

 

1.003.11 Sarasvati_, the inspirer of those who delight in truth, the instructress of the right-minded, has accepted our sacrifice.

1.003.12 Sarasvati_, makes manifest by her acts a mighty river, and (in her own form) enlightens all understandings. [sarasvati_ is the river in this hymn: dvividha_ hi sarasvati_ vigrahavaddevata_ nadi_ru_pa_ ca, tatra sarasvati_tyetasya nadi_vaddevata_vacca nigama_ bhavanti (Nirukta 2.23)].

 

Now I am not saying like you do that this is conclusive proof that this is only Mata Sarasvati spoken off in VAC because I am firm believer of trinity so all the devis must travel in the form of sakti with their respective partners, it is not as if Devi in her personal form of Laxmi bent the bow for Rudra that does not make sense but Rudra deva bends it with his sakti and we all know who she is.

 

 

Ridiculous arguments. There is no conection between the quoted verses and Ambrani SuktA. Further it is clear from AmbrAni SuktA, that BrahmA is referred twice.

 

 

10.125.05 I verily of myself declare this which is approved of by both gods and men; whomsoever I will, I render him Ugra(one of the names of Rudra), I make him BrahmA(Chaturmukha), a r.s.i, or a sage. )

 

 

Note the use of BrahmAnAm and BrahmAdvise with a long A in the verses referred before. These words do not refer to priest(brAhmanas).

 

In Vedas, the word BrahmA refer only to chaturmukha BrahmA. All learned people agree to this.

 

 

What is not so evident as you like to put is that she is creating any being, she is saying whom I Kamaye(love or desire or wish) make Ugra (mighty, fearful) not Rudra he is self dependent un born undecaying,

tam a priest rishi or a wiseman.

 

It make sense to make some one mighty

 

 

Yes it might mean that. But one thing is clear that BrahmA can only refer to ChatutmukA as explained above. The logical conclusion about the word 'ugrA' then is that it can refer to only RudrA. Since Devi established supremacy over BrahmA(ChaturmukhA), it is very logical SHE establishes supremacy over RudrA(UgrA) too. Even if you still do not agree, then the next few verses make it clear that SHE has superior strength over Rudra, Since it is SHE who actually bends RudrA's bow and in the end destroys RudrA too.

 

'BrahmAdvise' refers to RudrA who cut off one of the Chaturmukha BrahmA's head.

 

 

10.125.07 I bring forth the paternal (heaven) upon the brow of this (Supreme Being)(Moksha is meant here), my birthplace is in the midst of the waters; from thence I spread through all beings, and touch this heaven with my body.)

 

I am not convinced by your answers, who the devi is and who is the father.

 

 

 

As explained before, it refers to BrahmA or all the forefathers or our ancestors.

[Guest guest]

 

JABALOPANISHAD BELONGING TO THE SUKLA-YAJUR-VEDA

 

 

-1. Brihaspati (the preceptor of the gods) asked (the sage) Yajnavalkya: (Which is) the Kurukshetra, (the famous holy place that destroys sins and protects the good, (the place) where the gods perform sacrifices and which is the abode of Brahman in all beings ? (Yajnavalkya replied): Avimukta is the Kurukshetra, (the place) where the gods perform sacrifices to deities and which is the abode of Brahman in all beings (i.e. the middle of the eye-brows). Hence wherever one goes one shall think thus: This is the Kurukshetra, the place where the gods perform sacrifices to the deities and which is the abode of Brahman in all beings. This is the spot(what spot ? Kurukshetra also called avimukta) where, when the vital airs depart from the living person, Rudra imparts the Taraka Brahman mantra to him by which, becoming immortal, he attains liberation (final beatitude). Hence one shall resort to the Avimukta; shall not desert the Avimukta. (Brihaspati approved of the statement saying): ‘So it is, Yajnavalkya’, verily it is so, O, revered one ! ‘It is so Yajnavalkya’.

 

II-1. Thereafter the sage Atri (son of the creator Brahma) asked of Yajnavalkya: ‘How am I to realize the Self which is infinite and unmanifest ?’ (To this) Yajnavalkya replied: That Avimukta Lord Siva as the redeemer is to be worshipped; the Self which is infinite and unmanifest, is established in the Avimukta Ishvara, possessed of attributes.

 

II-2. ‘Which is that (place) where Avimukta is established ?’ ‘He is established in between varana and nasi’. ‘What is (meant by) varana and what (by) nasi ?’ ‘The varana is so called as it wards off all the faults committed by the (ten) organs (of perception and action). The nasi is so named as it destroys all sins committed by the (ten) organs. (The place between the varana and the nasi is the meeting place of the upper part of the nose and the centre of the eye brows). ‘Which is the seat of that (Avimukta) ?’ ‘That, which is the (well known) juncture of the eye brows and the nose, is the juncture of heaven (in the form of the crown of the head) and this world (in the form at the end of the chin). The knowers of the Veda worship indeed this juncture (Samadhi) as Sandhya (in their daily worship). That Avimukta is to be worshipped. He who knows this thus (the true nature of the Avimukta), imparts the wisdom of the Avimukta (that the individual Self is no other than the attributeless Brahman, to his disciples).

 

III-1. Then the discipline students (Brahmacharins of Yajnavalkya) asked him: ‘Pray, tell us, what is that mantra by reciting which one attains immortality ?’ He replied: ‘By (reciting) Satarudriya’. These mantras are indeed the names of (Rudra to achieve) immortality. By (reciting) these (mantras) one becomes immortal.

 

 

 

Repeat: He replied: ‘By (reciting) Satarudriya’. These mantras are indeed the names of Rudra to achieve immortality. By these mantras one becomes immortal.

 

 

Atanu,

 

I do not think you understood anuthing from the upanishad.

 

Avimukta here refers to Varanasi ie Kasi, the punya shetra of Lord Shiva. This further strengthens my point that Kasi is punya Kshetra only because Rudra Deva asked from Lord Rama a boon as mentioned in Ramopanishad.

 

Further note the mention of Avimukta present inbetween Vara and Nasi. These are the two rivers in Varanasi. That is why Varanasi is called so. In puranas Kasi is called as avimukta, meaning one should not forsake this place.

 

Also note again that Rudra is explicitly mentioned to impart Brahma taraka mantra to departing souls who dies in avimukta. Ramopanishad again mentions that Lord Shiva imparts the Brahma Taraka mantra to departing devotees of Lord Shiva in Kasi or Avimukta.

 

The satarudriya merely refers to devotional aspect towards Lord Shiva. Lord Shiva still must impart Brahma Taraka(as mentioned in this upanishad) mantra as mentioned before to enable jiva to attain mukti.

 

That is why, Lord Shiva cannot award mukti by himself.

[Guest guest]

did u refer to the people of other religion or those who 'according to u' who pray to demi gods like shiva against peace and civil discussions? i want a clear yes/no answer.....

--there's no a yes/no answer.. because "civil" is not about opinions, "civil" is about the way of expressing opinions

 

simple

 

 

[Guest guest]

---

did u refer to the people of other religion or those who 'according to u' who pray to demi gods like shiva against peace and civil discussions? i want a clear yes/no answer.....

--there's no a yes/no answer.. because "civil" is not about opinions, "civil" is about the way of expressing opinions

------

 

and how do u express ur opinions............

 

 

[Guest guest]

you do not like my opinions not the way they're expressed

[Ganeshprasad 0]

 

Jai Ganesh

 

Re

(••so ask respect to the people who are not respectiful)

 

I do not consider having a different view from mine being disrespectful

 

Re

(••translate with aparadha and you'll be satisfied.)

 

Yes apradh is an act, blaspheme is a general term generally associated with follower who can not tolerate even a slightest bit of criticism. Fanatics use this to suppress the masses.

 

Re

(You can also stop to explaining that god never gets affected by offence, because it is useless, no one believes it)

 

The Self is present equally in all beings. There is no one hateful or dear to me. But, those who worship Me with devotion, they are with Me and I am also with them. (9.29)

 

So Krishna says this it is useless is it? Careful if you apply your standard it might be perceived as apradh.

 

Re

. (The reasons why blaspheming is to be avoided are others and already explained)

 

Back it up do not apply your standard.

 

The one by whom others are not agitated, and who is not agitated by others; who is free from joy, envy, fear, and anxiety; is also dear to Me. (12.15)

 

Re

(••so let us say to the "agitators" who are uselessly criticizing lord, gods, and saints to stop... in this way everyone will practice in peace)

 

Try to understand what Krishna is saying, is he asking us to tell others?

 

 

Thoughts are endless unity is in one supreme Brahman

••everyone gives his interpretation of the meaning of your very vague statement

 

Why don’t you read your own statement you said religion is matter of thoughts, so what you are saying your thoughts are supreme?

 

(--Demonstrate that everyone who says, "I follow the shastra" is really following such shastra.)

Impossible for me

•••so there's no reasons to delegitimate discussions and opinion's differences

I am sorry I just can not understand this.

 

Re

(••to realize the lord means also to learn, to teach and to share knowledge... a forum like this is meant to share knowledge. To share means to discuss and to use our opinion's difference in a creative way, not to repress it..)

 

Wonderful no one can argue with this.

 

Re

(••that's not an offence... offence is to state that the personal aspect is maya and only omnipervasive aspect is reality. An offence is also the opposite)

 

Offence by whose standard? One who see only Brahman can be excused for seeing Brahman in every aspect of the creation, if such a realization given in the Vedas how can then it becomes an offence.

 

And if according to some Sankracharya deliberately mislead

re

(••also according to me.. it is a sign of the greatness of the lord and of sri shankara acharya)

 

Such a greatness that they give you a path to follow and when you do, it becomes an apradh.

Please give me a break.

 

God does not need defense against his own philosophy.

Re

(••no, it is us who need to hear philosophy without misinterpretation and it is us who should have desire that everyone know the real philosophy)

 

Here lies the real problem we think we have the real philosophy therefor every one else is an apradhi now where have I heard this o yes Islam, Christians they things like this, consider what Krishna says

 

 

This (knowledge) should never be spoken by you to one who is devoid of austerity, who is without devotion, who does not desire to listen, or who speaks ill of Me. (18.67)

 

Even if you think you have more mercy then the lord so you will tell everyone, fine do it in such a way that you do not agitate them or else the result will be opposite.

 

 

Jai Shree Krishna

 

[Guest guest]

Yes apradh is an act

••aparadha is also speaking or writing

 

blaspheme is a general term generally associated with follower who can not tolerate even a slightest bit of criticism

••generally but not everytime

 

So Krishna says this it is useless is it?

••it is useless to state again that krsna is not offended, no one believes that krsna gets hurt by offences

 

Try to understand what Krishna is saying, is he asking us to tell others?

••you are telling to others by writing this verse in a forum. I am "other" and i've read it

 

Why don’t you read your own statement you said religion is matter of thoughts, so what you are saying your thoughts are supreme?

••i say that thinking is also to discriminate

 

I am sorry I just can not understand this.

••i understand that you use vedic statements very superficially. In this way you think to bring peace among hindus, but this peaceis done at the expenses of dharma. God is the center, not hindus..

 

offence is to state that the personal aspect is maya and only omnipervasive aspect is reality. An offence is also the opposite)

Offence by whose standard?

••simply who states that personal aspect of god is maya.. he's in maya... where's the difficulty?

 

One who see only Brahman

••if he sees only inpersonal brahman he has a dogmatic (=not experienced) and a partial vision of the truth..

 

if such a realization given in the Vedas how can then it becomes an offence.

••god is brahman, paramatma and bhagavan... who sees only an aspect has a partial vision of god's reality, who, to sustain his opinion needs to state that krsna, vishnu, shiva are maya and that there's something greater beyond them he's offending them.. This offence will fall over the offender. Why you do not want to help them explaining that it is not good to believe in such lies?

 

Such a greatness that they give you a path to follow and when you do, it becomes an apradh.

••buddhism is more offensive.. advaitism is a great advancement

 

Here lies the real problem we think we have the real philosophy

••you are boring... there's difference from being fanatic and being discriminative. If you think that every position is right why are you bothering me? Mine is a position.. or your antifanaticism is actually a fanaticism? (i am convinced of it)

 

This (knowledge) should never be spoken by you to one who is devoid of austerity, who is without devotion, who does not desire to listen, or who speaks ill of Me. (18.67)

Even if you think you have more mercy then the lord so you will tell everyone, fine do it in such a way that you do not agitate them or else the result will be opposite.

••i understand that you consider advaitist, shaivites, mayavadis and so on people who do not deserve to know the bhagavad gita, or to be objected when they speak wrong about the lord, because they're without devotion and because they speak ill of krsna...

 

now you've revealed your heart.. i think that there's much more space to communicate between people with opinion's difference

 

 

[Ganeshprasad 0]

Jai Ganesh

 

Re

(Read the whole explanation. Any person with iota of intelligence can understand from context that Devi is establishing supremacy over all Devatas. Ridiculously foolish arguments like the above have no explanation.)

 

What can I expect from people like you, by forcefully expressing an opinion, thinks will win an argument.

If you were honest you would have given all of the verse

 

aháM rudrébhir vásubhish caraamy ahám aadityaír utá vishvádevaiH

ahám mitraáváruNobhaá bibharmy ahám indraagnií ahám ashvínobhaá

10.125.01 I proceed with the Rudras, with the Vasus, with the A_dityas, and with the Vis'vedeva_s; I support both Mitra and Varun.a, Agni and Indra, and the two As'vins.

 

If you are honest you could see very clearly whom she travels with and who she support.

 

You conveniently gave half the sloka so that you could fool everyone.

If you are able to prove to me that traveling with particular Devas and supporting the others means supporting all Devas then you have earned your right to call me a fool

 

You can not be taken seriously one moment you say Rudra got his strength by devi bending his bow and then you have gone completely bonkers and killed off Rudra deva (whom no one can concur) you can not have both, neither is correct because you are basing your whole argument to prove Rudra deva as inferior.

Vac is speech adhistatri Devi of speech is Sharasvati nothing you say has any strength but only envy.

You alleged no one else can give Moksa but Gita proves you wrong Srimadbhagvad proves you wrong Vedas prove you wrong,

I tell you why I can not take you seriously you alleged Brahma does not know.

Tell me if the giver of the Vedas does not know how would you studying them know the truth?

 

Jai Shree Krishna

 

[Guest guest]

 

What can I expect from people like you, by forcefully expressing an opinion, thinks will win an argument.

If you were honest you would have given all of the verse

 

aháM rudrébhir vásubhish caraamy ahám aadityaír utá vishvádevaiH

ahám mitraáváruNobhaá bibharmy ahám indraagnií ahám ashvínobhaá

10.125.01 I proceed with the Rudras, with the Vasus, with the A_dityas, and with the Vis'vedeva_s; I support both Mitra and Varun.a, Agni and Indra, and the two As'vins.

 

If you are honest you could see very clearly whom she travels with and who she support.

 

You conveniently gave half the sloka so that you could fool everyone.

If you are able to prove to me that traveling with particular Devas and supporting the others means supporting all Devas then you have earned your right to call me a fool

 

 

This is a sign of dullness of intellect.

 

Why is Devi travelling with Rudras, when SHE says that SHE supports certain other Devatas ?

 

What is meant by that verse ? By that verse DEVI clearly says that SHE supports Rudras too.

 

What is so great in telling that SHE, Devi, travels with Rudras? When SHE says so, it implies only one thing. That Devi is responsible for their every victory in wars as well as every wealth RUDRAS POSSESS.

 

Is it so difficult to understand that SHE, Devi, is establishing supremacy over other Devatas from the context.

 

Foolish people who blind themselves cannot see. Read the whole context.

[Guest guest]

 

You can not be taken seriously one moment you say Rudra got his strength by devi bending his bow and then you have gone completely bonkers and killed off Rudra deva (whom no one can concur) you can not have both, neither is correct because you are basing your whole argument to prove Rudra deva as inferior.

 

 

Empty statements. I have given my reason before. I am not going to argue with fools like you, who do not give any logical counter explanation. I find here only allegations.

 

As said beofore, BrahmAdvise means one who insulted BrahmA(ChaturmukhA). Whi is this, obviously RudrA who cut one of his heads. DEVI is clear that it is SHE who takes HER bow and destroys RudrA. Do you have any good explanation opposing this ? i do not think so ?

 

 

Vac is speech adhistatri Devi of speech is Sharasvati nothing you say has any strength but only envy.

 

 

Show me one place where the word 'vac' is mentioned Ambrani Sukta. As mentioned before BrahmAnAm refers to BrahmA(ChaturmukhA) only. So it is obvious that this Devi is not Sarasvati.

 

 

You alleged no one else can give Moksa but Gita proves you wrong Srimadbhagvad proves you wrong Vedas prove you wrong,

 

 

Empty wrong statements. No evidence.

 

Gita proves my point clearly.

 

There is a verse whhich says "Those who worship ghosts go to ghosts, those who worship ancestors go to ancestors, those who worship devatas go to devatas, but those who worship ME(Krishna) come to ME."

 

This clearly shows that only VISNU(Krishna) has the power to give mukti. The case of Shiva is explained through Jabala Sruti and Ramopanishad. This is explained in replies to Atanu.

 

 

I tell you why I can not take you seriously you alleged Brahma does not know.

Tell me if the giver of the Vedas does not know how would you studying them know the truth?

 

 

I have no idea what you are saying here.

 

I only hope that you are not claiming here to be BrahmA. Advaitis can make such ridiculous claims and I won't be surprised.

[Ganeshprasad 0]

Jai Ganesh

 

Re

(This is a sign of dullness of intellect.

 

Why is Devi travelling with Rudras, when SHE says that SHE supports certain other Devatas ?

 

What is meant by that verse ? By that verse DEVI clearly says that SHE supports Rudras too.

 

What is so great in telling that SHE, Devi, travels with Rudras? When SHE says so, it implies only one thing. That Devi is responsible for their every victory in wars as well as every wealth RUDRAS POSSESS.

 

Is it so difficult to understand that SHE, Devi, is establishing supremacy over other Devatas from the context.

 

Foolish people who blind themselves cannot see. Read the whole context)

 

 

You are making a very good example of your intelligence, the verse does not say support it says Charami if that means support then we are reading completely different dictionary. By trying to show your contempt for Rudra you are actually forgetting your self that she also travels with vashus adityas and visvadevas.

If the Shakti does not travel with their respective partners I do not know if any one else would. Vishnu is part of this adityas you so conveniently like to hide. No where does Devi says I support Rudra or aditya

Shakti and shaktiman travels to gather if you fail to see this simple logic the truth will escape you even if that stare in your face because you are governed by your envy.

If you can not be civil please do not bother to answer

 

Jai Shree Krishna

 

[Ganeshprasad 0]

Jai Ganesh

 

Re

(I have no idea what you are saying here.

 

I only hope that you are not claiming here to be BrahmA. Advaitis can make such ridiculous claims and I won't be surprised. )

 

i most definately not claiming to be Brahma, some one here as guest posted saying "Brahma does not know" if you still cant figure it out let me know.

 

i do not wish to futher argue with you since you do not have the common courtsey, i would not like come down to your standard.

 

you have contrdicted your self enough time, ther are holes in your arguments.

 

Jai Shree Krishna