Worship of Siva versus Worship of Lord Vishnu

July 21, 2005

`sarvotkarshhe devadevasya vishhNor-

mahAtAtparyaM naiva chAnyatra satyam.h |

avAntaraM tatparatvaM tadanyat.h

sarvAgamAnAM purushhArthastato.ataH ||' iti paiN^gishrutiH |

"The Supremacy of Vishnu, the Deity-of-deities, is the supreme purport, and not otherwise -- this is true; other purports than this of all Agama-s are inferior, because of the supreme purushhArtha," says the Paingi-shruti.

this Paingi-shruti is accepted as a pramana by Sankara, Ramanuja as well as Madhva.

Rig Veda 7:46

imaá rudraáya sthirádhanvane gíraH kSipréSave DEVAAYA svadhaávne

áSaaLhaaya sáhamaanaaya vedháse tigmaáyudhaaya bharataa shRNótu naH

dear atanu,

note the word in caps. Vedas have accepted Rudra to be a DEVA. so u cannot say that Rudra is not a deva or that he is not considered as deva.

Aitareya Brahmana(1.1.1) states

Agnir vai devAnAm avamo Visnuh paramas, tadantarena sarvA anyA devatA

Meaning:

Agni is the lowest and Visnu is the Supreme among the Devas. In between them lie the other devas.

the sruti(vedas) clearly point out hierarchy among the devatas in terms of Supremacy and it says that Visnu is the Supreme of them all. Also Vedas themselves call Rudra as DEVA and so Rudra is also mentioned here and he too occupies a position in between Agni and Visnu.

this vakya also makes it clear that all devas are not the same and that all devas are not equal to one other. In fact no other deva is equal to or greater than Visnu.

July 21, 2005

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

And it is not only Tat Purusha but :

Mahanarayana Up

purushhasya vidmahe sahasraakshasya mahaadevasya dhiimahi . tanno rudraH prachodayaat.h .. 22..

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

Atanu just does not understand.

Purusha and TatPurusha both refer to Parama Purusha.

Garuda GAyatri also contains 'tatpurusha' but Garuda is not Parama Purusha.

in these gAyatris the aim is to attain(know) Parama Purusha for which the deities are meditated upon.

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

Mahanarayana Up

pa~nchasaptatitamo.anuvaakaH .

namo rudraaya vishhNave mR^ityurme paahi .. 1..

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

the meaning of this verse will be :

"salutations to Rudra and Visnu. Guard me from death."

or else,

"salutations to all-pervading Rudra. Guard me from death."

as Shiva dwells in Pancha bhUtAs(5 of his 8 sthAnAs) he too can be called all pervading.

it cannot mean "Rudra who is Visnu". the word 'yashcha' is clearly absent here.

do not give ur own thoughts and say that they are conveyed by Sruti.

also Vedic mantras have different meanings and each of them is true and they do not contradict each other.

the concept of 'Slesha' is well known and MadhvachArya says that each mantra has 3 meanings and it is not declined by any prominent AchArya.

then u keep on repeting ur wrong translations inspite of being proved wrong.

[moderator note: edited to keep page from going off screen]

July 21, 2005

once again wrong translation and wrond inferences. why r u always doing this, atanu?

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

Book 5 HYMN LXXXVII. Maruts.

1. To Visnu, to the Mighty whom the Maruts follow let your hymns born in song go forth, Evayamarut;

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

Look at the Sanskrit verse properly.

the correct translation would be:

"Evayamarut,let ur hymns(born from Evayamarut) in song to Visnu,the Mighty whom Maruts follow, go on"

but u do not understand. please learn Sanskrit before ever trying to translate the verses into English.

[moderator note: edited to keep page from going off screen]

July 21, 2005

9.23 - "Arjuna, even those who, endowed with faith, worship other deities worship Me alone, THOUGH WITH A MISTAKEN APPROACH."

9.24 - "For I am the enjoyer and the Lord of all sacrifices; but they know me not in reality, HENCE THEY FALL BACK."

note this, Atanu. those who worship other deities fall back in to Samsara. only those who worship Krishna attain moksha.

those who worship other deities are in a wrong way('Mistaken approach').

July 21, 2005

There is no need to further discuss. And I do not read anything that you write. Because what you write exposes only senseless attachment to ego concepts.

Paingala

vishhNuH pradhaanapurushho ---- tasmaadaatmana aakaashaH sambhuutaH

You do not understand what is Atma. Atma is the Self. And you have killed Vishnu's Self through Indra, through Vishnu and also through Devi.

You do not understand the Cidakasha -- the eternal undecaying, un born source of everything. That Cidakasha is the real Vishnu/Krishna.

To me Shambhu and Vishnu are ONE and adorable.

Bye. Others will benefit from this thread.

Paingala

vishhNuH pradhaanapurushho ---- tasmaadaatmana aakaashaH sambhuutaH

July 22, 2005

in fact there is no scope for further discussion because all ur posts are useless rumblings of ignorance and u keep on repeating them inspite of being proved wrong time and again.

Yes it is from Visnu Himself that all the pancha bhUtAs were born

Paingala

vishhNuH pradhaanapurushho ---- tasmaadaatmana aakaashaH sambhuutaH

Paingi Shruti:

`sarvotkarshhe devadevasya vishhNor-

mahAtAtparyaM naiva chAnyatra satyam.h |

avAntaraM tatparatvaM tadanyat.h

sarvAgamAnAM purushhArthastato.ataH ||' iti paiN^gishrutiH |

"The Supremacy of Vishnu, the Deity-of-deities, is the supreme purport, and not otherwise -- this is true; other purports than this of all Agama-s are inferior, because of the supreme purushhArtha," says the Paingi-shruti.

this Paingi-shruti is accepted as a pramana by Sankara, Ramanuja as well as Madhva.

Rig Veda 7:46

imaá rudraáya sthirádhanvane gíraH kSipréSave DEVAAYA svadhaávne

áSaaLhaaya sáhamaanaaya vedháse tigmaáyudhaaya bharataa shRNótu naH

dear atanu,

note the word in caps. Vedas have accepted Rudra to be a DEVA. so u cannot say that Rudra is not a deva or that he is not considered as deva.

Aitareya Brahmana(1.1.1) states

Agnir vai devAnAm avamo Visnuh paramas, tadantarena sarvA anyA devatA

Meaning:

Agni is the lowest and Visnu is the Supreme among the Devas. In between them lie the other devas.

the sruti(vedas) clearly point out hierarchy among the devatas in terms of Supremacy and it says that Visnu is the Supreme of them all. Also Vedas themselves call Rudra as DEVA and so Rudra is also mentioned here and he too occupies a position in between Agni and Visnu.

this vakya also makes it clear that all devas are not the same and that all devas are not equal to one other. In fact no other deva is equal to or greater than Visnu.

July 22, 2005

Great work by Madhvas in exposing the hollowness in Advaita and Shivite arguments.

Time and again Atanu's inability to understand or write logically was clearly exposed.

Hope all the misled devotees of Narayana will read it and escape from veiled Buddhistic teachings of advaita.

July 22, 2005

thanks for ur compliment.

I belong to Sri sampradaya of Ramanuja and i amnot a Madhva. but then I respect Madhvacharya and do quote often from his citations to prove Visnu's supremacy.

July 22, 2005

What you thought?

*********

Yes it is from Visnu Himself that all the pancha bhUtAs were born

Paingala

vishhNuH pradhaanapurushho ---- tasmaadaatmana aakaashaH sambhuutaH

*********

Yes. Srinivasa, it was a trap to elicit your response on Paingi.

Your three stock statements are: “wrong translation”, or that “it is work of Shaivaites”, or that “Rudra/shiva refers to someone else” --.

But you have now validated Paingi for all of us and you cannot use your stock statements for Paingi now.

Yes. Srinivasa, you have to accept the Paingi now.

Yes, it is from Visnu the pancha bhUtAs are born. You have confirmed it. But Vishnu comes from Hiryanagarbha.

pai~Ngalopanishhat.h .. shukla_yajurvediiya

iishaadhishhThitaavaraNashaktito rajodriktaa mahadaakhyaa vikshepashaktiraasiit.h . tatpratibimbita.n yattaddhiraNyagarbhachaitanyamaasiit.h . sa mahattattvaabhimaanii

spashhTaaspashhTavapurbhavati . hiraNyagarbhaadhishhThitavikshepashaktitastamodriktaaha~Nkaaraabhidhaa

sthuulashaktiraasiit.h . tatpratibimbita.n

yattadviraaTachaitanyamaasiit.h . sa tadabhimaanii spashhTavapuH

sarvasthuulapaalako vishhNuH pradhaanapurushho bhavati .

1-5.From the power of concealment controlled by Isha arose the Power of Projection called Mahat. What is reflected in it is the consciousness of Hiranyagarbha. He has the conceit of ownership as regards Mahat and has a body partly manifest and partly unmanifest.

I-6. From the projective power controlled by Hiranyagarbha arose the gross power called the ego, with the preponderance of Tamas. What was reflected in it was the consciousness of Virat. That Virat who has conceit in the Ego, a manifest body, and is the Chief Person, Vishnu is the protector of all gross things. From that Self (Virat) arose ether; from the ether, air; from air, fire; from fire, water; from water, earth. These five root-elements are composed of the three Gunas.

End of Citation

“THAT VIRAT WHO HAS CONCEIT IN THE EGO, A MANIFEST BODY, AND IS THE CHIEF PERSON, VISHNU”

SO. BABY. ISHA PROJECTS MAHAT. MAHAT PROJECTS HIRAYANAGARBHA. HIRYANAGARBHA PROJECTS VISHNU.

Yajni Upanishad (Narayana Upanishad) krishna-yajurvede taittiriya-aranyake

1.21.112

purushhasya vidmahe sahasraakShasya mahaadevasya dhiimahi |

tanno rudraH prachodayaat.h ||

itaH paraM teshhu teshhu desheshhvativilakShaNaH || 113||

-------

sadaashivoM sa evaahaM bhavaami parameshvaraH || 351||

REPEAT

sadaashivoM sa evaahaM bhavaami parameshvaraH || 351||

Some egoists kill off Parameshara on account of their attachment to mental concepts.

shvetaashvataropanishhat.h

tR^itiiyo.adhyaayaH .

eko hi rudro na dvitiiyaaya tasthu\-

rya imaa.nllokaaniishata iishaniibhiH .

pratyaN^ janaastishhThati saJNchukochaantakaale

sa.nsR^ijya vishvaa bhuvanaani gopaaH .. 2..

2

Rudra 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.

vishvatashchaxuruta vishvatomukho

vishvatobaahuruta vishvataspaat.h .

saM baahubhyaa.n dhamati saMpatatrai\-

rdyaavaabhuumii janayan.h deva ekaH .. 3..

3

His 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.

yo devaanaaM prabhavashchodbhavashcha

vishvaadhipo rudro maharshhiH .

hiraNyagarbha.n janayaamaasa puurva.n

sa no buddhyaa shubhayaa sa.nyunaktu .. 4..

4

He, the omniscient Rudra, the creator of the gods and the bestower of their powers, the support of the universe, He who, in the beginning, gave birth to Hiranyagarbha—may He endow us with clear intellect!

Yajur Veda i. 8. 6. d Rudra alone yieldeth to no second.

Om Namah Vasudevayya

Om Namah Sivayya

July 24, 2005

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

1-5.From the power of concealment controlled by Isha arose the Power of Projection called Mahat. What is reflected in it is the consciousness of Hiranyagarbha. He has the conceit of ownership as regards Mahat and has a body partly manifest and partly unmanifest.

I-6. From the projective power controlled by Hiranyagarbha arose the gross power called the ego, with the preponderance of Tamas. What was reflected in it was the consciousness of Virat. That Virat who has conceit in the Ego, a manifest body, and is the Chief Person, Vishnu is the protector of all gross things. From that Self (Virat) arose ether; from the ether, air; from air, fire; from fire, water; from water, earth. These five root-elements are composed of the three Gunas.

End of Citation

“THAT VIRAT WHO HAS CONCEIT IN THE EGO, A MANIFEST BODY, AND IS THE CHIEF PERSON, VISHNU”

SO. BABY. ISHA PROJECTS MAHAT. MAHAT PROJECTS HIRAYANAGARBHA. HIRYANAGARBHA PROJECTS VISHNU.

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

wah! people should lean how to make wrong inferences from u, Atanu.

ur inference was expected by me and hence I had already given the correct translation in the form of hints.

here 'virAt' refers to 'andavirAt'(space - material universe) and 'chaitanya' refers to 'conciousness'. thus 'virAtachaitanya' refers to the conciousness of andavirAt.

virAt purusha is not created by anyone. if u take the meaning of this mantra in the way as u have then it will contradict the Purusha Sukta which clearly states that VirAt Purusha is ever existent.

also note the absence of the word 'Purusha' in this mantra. it does not say 'virAtpurushachaitanya'. but still u fail to understand. 'virAt' refers to 'andavirAt'.

the Purusha Sukta says:

"tasmAt virAt ajAyatha| virAjo adhi pUrushah|"

meaning:

"From the Parama Purusha space(andavirAt) was born and also was born Brahmadeva(virAja) who is the adhipathi(adhipUrusha) of andavirAt(space)."

note that 'VirAja' is a name of Brahmadeva.

also tripAdvibhUti mahAnArAyana Upanishath says:

2.16 - 'nArAyanAd andavirAt jAyate|'

so kindly note the correct meaning.

also the word 'Isha' in this mantra refers to Narayana.

BhAllavEya shruti clearly says that Visnu is 'Sarva shabda VAchya'. and also Rudra's names were given to him by Brahmadeva. they are not his natural names. but u still do not understand.

also ur argument that Visnu comes from Hiranyagarba has no place in this mantra. the mantra says:

'vishhNuh pradhAna purusho 'bhavati'"

the mantra says 'bhavati'. It nowhere says 'jAyate' or 'Aseet' as it tells about Hiranyagarba.

ur wrong inference is based on considering 'virAt' as 'virAt purusha'.

learn Sanskrit. don't write whatever that comes to ur mind.

now let me give the correct translation:

"1-5.the power of concealment controlled by Isha formed the Power of Projection called Mahat, with the preponderence of Rajas. Its reflection formed the consciousness of Hiranyagarbha. He became the owner as regards Mahat with a body partly manifest and partly unmanifest."

"1-6. The projective power controlled by Hiranyagarbha formed the gross power called the ego, with the preponderance of Tamas. Its reflection formed the conciousness of space(virAt) . Visnu Himself, the PradhAna Purusha, became the owner(abhimAni dEvata) of that VirAt with a complete manifest body and the protector of all this universe."

this translation proves to be right from the following points:

1. the word 'PradhAna Purusha' is used for Visnu to stress the point that He is not an ordinary deity. note that Hiranyagarbha is not called by any such name which makes him superior to other deities. also by calling Visnu as 'PradhAna Purusha' the mantra indirectly states that Visnu is the Isha who is talked about in the beginning.

2. Hiranyagarbha is referred to as 'sa mahatattvAbhimAni' while Visnu is referred as 'sa tad AbhimAni' where 'tad' refers to 'VirAt' which is just spoken of before the vAkya and not to Ego which is not spoken of in the previous sentence.

3. thus from 'point 2' it is clear that Visnu is the owner of virAt and there by the virAt here is different from virAt Purusha. the virAt is space. conciousness of space refers to the consciousness in this material world where by we feel things.

4. similarly the word 'tasmaad AtmAna' means from Visnu(tasmAd) Himself(AtmAna).

the verses are very clear as it makes several distinctions between the nature of Hiranyagarbha and Visnu.

so Atanu once again u make wrong translations.

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

shvetaashvataropanishhat.h

tR^itiiyo.adhyaayaH .

eko hi rudro na dvitiiyaaya tasthu\-

rya imaa.nllokaaniishata iishaniibhiH .

pratyaN^ janaastishhThati saJNchukochaantakaale

sa.nsR^ijya vishvaa bhuvanaani gopaaH .. 2..

Rudra 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.

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

another example of shaivite misinterpretation.

the 'Rudra' here does not refer to Rudradeva.why did u stop with 3.4, Atanu? is it so because 3.5 clearly states that the 'Rudra' does not refer to Rudradeva.

Readers,

note the art of Shaivites. this is their way of bending the meaning and not accepting the truth even when it stares at their face.

SvEtAshvatAra Upanishad:

3.5 - "yA te rudra shivA tanUra gOra pApakAshinI|

thayA nas thanuvA shantamayA 'girishanthA'bhicha ashIhi||"

meaning:

"O Rudra, the destroyer of the disease of samsAra, THE CREATOR OF GIRISHA(Rudradeva)(girishantha), shine out to us with the body of Yours that is most agreeable on accoun of causing happiness, and which is auspicious, which is not terrible and which is of the nature of burning all sins."

3.5 - "yAmishum 'girishantha' haste bhibharshyastavE|

shivAm giritra tAm kuru mA himsIh purusham jagat||"

meaning:

"O Creator of Girisha(Ruradeva), O Lord, who is propounded in the Vedanta (giritra), shoot that auspicious arrow You hold in Your hand (to destroy the obstacles to my knowledge of Brahman). Do not cause injuy to the JivAtmA who is migrating in the samsAra (purusham jagat)."

Atanu,

note the word 'Girishantha' in both the mantras.

'Girishantha' means 'Creator of Girisha(Rudradeva)'.

'Girishanatha' - 'girisham thanothIthi girishantah|"

also note that the term is 'Girishanta' and not 'GirIshanta'.

so only the above meaning given could hold true. because 'Girisha' will refer to Rudradeva and not to any other mountain. 'GirIsha' will refer to 'Himalayas' as well. but 'Girisha' will not refer to any mountain and is one of the prime epithets of Rudradeva.

so the Rudra who is talked about here is not Rudradeva but the Supreme Lord who created Rudradeva.

therefore the term 'eko hi rudro...' which is found in this Upanishad also refers to that Supreme Lord and not to Rudradeva.

'who is this 'Supreme Lord'?' is the next question.

the answer is 'nArAyana param brahmah'.

July 24, 2005

Following are vakyas from Shatapatha Brahmana of Yajur Veda,

"Bhootanam ca Prajapatis samvatsaraya dikshitah | Bhootanam pathir gruhapathir aaseet |

"The pati of bhoota and praja, Brahma deva, underwent diksha for one year. He was a Grihasta. His wife was Usha. …….. Brahma deva let his veerya ( ‘rodho(a)sinchat’) to Usha. In a year, a son was born. The son cried. Brahma asked him, “ Son! Why are u crying. I got u as child after tough tapasya. The son said, “ I am not cleansed of sins. To wipe out my sins give me names. Brahma again told him, “ Let your name be Rudra.” …….. Rudra, Bhava, charva, Isana, Pathi(pasupathi), Bhima, Ugra – these seven names (were given by Brahma deva)"

From the above it is clear that Rudra has a normal birth from a woman’s womb and his birth is ‘Karmavash’. Because he says, “I am not cleansed of my sins” – which means that he is not a person whose birth is determined by himself but by his karma as he was afraid of his sins and wanted to wipe them out. this again means that when he took birth, he was bound by Karma (known from ‘sins’).

Hence Rudra is a normal Jivatma and He cannot be the Parama Purusha of Purusha Sukta nor can he be an avatar of Narayana as his birth is determined by karma while the avatar of Narayana is determined by Himself.

also SubAla Upanishad says:

"esha sarvabhUtAntarAtma apahatapApmA divyo deva eko NArAyanah|"

thus Visnu is untouched by sins(ApahatapApma) while Shiva is not cleansed of sins by nature(AnapahatapApma).

hence Shiva and Visnu cannot be equal or same.

Visnu is definitely superior to Shiva.

Shiva was born of Brahmadeva and Usha.

also ShailAli Brahmana says that Shiva was born of Brahmadeva's semen while Sata Rudriya itself says that Shiva was born from Brahmadeva's tears. Maha Upanishad and NArAyana Upanishad say that Shiva was born from Narayana.

thus various forms of birth of Rudradeva are given which means that Shiva was born in various manners in various Kalpas which in turn means that Shiva is a JIvAtmA which he himself confirms by saying that he is 'anapahatapApma'.

combine it with the vAkyas given below:

Paingi Shruti:

`sarvotkarshhe devadevasya vishhNor-

mahAtAtparyaM naiva chAnyatra satyam.h |

avAntaraM tatparatvaM tadanyat.h

sarvAgamAnAM purushhArthastato.ataH ||' iti paiN^gishrutiH |

"The Supremacy of Vishnu, the Deity-of-deities, is the supreme purport, and not otherwise -- this is true; other purports than this of all Agama-s are inferior, because of the supreme purushhArtha," says the Paingi-shruti.

Rig Veda 7:46

imaá rudraáya sthirádhanvane gíraH kSipréSave DEVAAYA svadhaávne

áSaaLhaaya sáhamaanaaya vedháse tigmaáyudhaaya bharataa shRNótu naH

dear atanu,

note the word in caps. Vedas have accepted Rudra to be a DEVA. so u cannot say that Rudra is not a deva or that he is not considered as deva.

Aitareya Brahmana(1.1.1) states

Agnir vai devAnAm avamo Visnuh paramas, tadantarena sarvA anyA devatA

Meaning:

Agni is the lowest and Visnu is the Supreme among the Devas. In between them lie the other devas.

the sruti(vedas) clearly point out hierarchy among the devatas in terms of Supremacy and it says that Visnu is the Supreme of them all. Also Vedas themselves call Rudra as DEVA and so Rudra is also mentioned here and he too occupies a position in between Agni and Visnu.

this vakya also makes it clear that all devas are not the same and that all devas are not equal to one other. In fact no other deva is equal to or greater than Visnu.

Readers,

now let us see from where Atanu derives his translations. He normally does not give the sanskrit verses and just gives the (wrong)translations. He will even say that he does not interpret anything. yes he is right. His authority and Parama Pramanika is:

Ralph T.H. Griffith.

yes. a great Acharya(?) who knows all the rules governing the translation and interpretation of Vedic mantras and who is considered as the authority by Atanu. Shame on him.

true Atanu has not made misinterpretations and it is Griffith who makes it.

the translations of Westerners are known for their wrong translations and misinterpretations and Atanu uses them.

for him Sayana, Sankara, Bhaskara, Madhva, Ramanuja etc. are not pramanikas for he has not found one among them.

http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/rigveda/

in the above page you can see the translations.

infact even spelling mistakes are repeated.

in the page,

http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/rigveda/rvi10.htm

instead of writing as 'HYMN CXIII. Indra.'

it is written as 'HYMN CXTII. Indra.'.

the same 'CXTII.' is found in atanu's quotations.

let him change his attitude atleast now.

I was wondering as to from where Atanu was getting his wrong translations which do not to the various canons of interpretations. now i have got it. readers, beware of such people who misguide u with such wrong translations.

July 24, 2005

Funny. Elsewhere he says Rudra is a mere deva. Now he cites Divyo Deva Eko Narayanah. So Narayanah is also deva and eko.

And Rudra is also eko. So there are two ekos. Ha. Ha.

**********

virAt purusha is not created by anyone. if u take the meaning of this mantra in the way as u have then it will contradict the Purusha Sukta which clearly states that VirAt Purusha is ever existent.

*********

Funny really. Now Virat has become Viratpurusha. Now you are talking Advaita. Good it suits me.

The Purusha Hymn is below:

RV Book 10 HYMN XC. Purusa.

1. A THOUSAND heads hath Purusa, a thousand eyes, a thousand feet.

On every side pervading earth he fills a space ten fingers wide.

2 This Purusa is all that yet hath been and all that is to be; The Lord of Immortality which waxes greater still by food.

3 So mighty is his greatness; yea, greater than this is Purusa. All creatures are one-fourth of him, three-fourths eternal life in heaven.

4 With three-fourths Purusa went up: onefourth of him again was here.Thence he strode out to every side over what eats not and what eats.

5 From him Virat was born; again Purusa from Virat was born.As soon as he was born he spread eastward and westward o'er the earth.

Note:

From him Virat was born; again Purusa from Virat was born

I have been telling that Atma has Visvarupa as heart and Visvarupa as atma as heart. One gives rise to other.

You know the Visvarupa part alone. You do not know how Rudra transforms Visvarupa into Purusa—one who has burned down everything before him. We know the ekam atma – that is the reality.

YOUR LIES ARE EXPOSED.

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

another example of shaivite misinterpretation.

the 'Rudra' here does not refer to Rudradeva.why did u stop with 3.4, Atanu? is it so because 3.5 clearly states that the 'Rudra' does not refer to Rudradeva.

Readers,

note the art of Shaivites. this is their way of bending the meaning and not accepting the truth even when it stares at their face.

SvEtAshvatAra Upanishad:

3.5 - "yA te rudra shivA tanUra gOra pApakAshinI|

thayA nas thanuvA shantamayA 'girishanthA'bhicha ashIhi||"

meaning:

"O Rudra, the destroyer of the disease of samsAra, THE CREATOR OF GIRISHA(Rudradeva)(girishantha), shine out to us with the body of Yours that is most agreeable on accoun of causing happiness, and which is auspicious, which is not terrible and which is of the nature of burning all sins."

3.5 - "yAmishum 'girishantha' haste bhibharshyastavE|

shivAm giritra tAm kuru mA himsIh purusham jagat||"

meaning:

"O Creator of Girisha(Ruradeva), O Lord, who is propounded in the Vedanta (giritra), shoot that auspicious arrow You hold in Your hand (to destroy the obstacles to my knowledge of Brahman). Do not cause injuy to the JivAtmA who is migrating in the samsAra (purusham jagat)."

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

I am not a Saiva. Get rid of your illusions and attachment to ego.

What is Ruradeva? When one adds as per whims such happens. More you try more your lies are exposed. Under number 3.5, you have given two different verses 3.5 and 3.6. It happens when one is untrue; when one is a liar. The pressure does it. God does it.

And check out. You are distorting Sanskrit. It is not girisantha but girisanta.

And funnily, you say Rudra and Rudra Deva are two different things. Well I know only Rudra, who as manifested, is a self dependent deva, but he is pure atma -- Avimukta. And we know that Lord himself has become Umamahesvara – ardhanarisvar. So, what is the great deal?

And since when anta is creation? Meanings are as below:

anta

ánta m. end, limit, boundary, term

• whole amount

• border, outskirt (e.g. grāmânte, in the outskirts of the village)

• nearness, proximity, presence

• inner part, inside

• condition, nature

• in the inside

and girisanta means

○santa mfn. (= -sa) inhabiting mountains (Rudra-Śiva)

Lies create such inconsistencies as yours. Keep on trying and more you will be exposed. Hatred can make a person mad. Similarly by mistranslating you killed off Rudra in an earlier post. You killed what is immortal and the Lord of immortality.

Two sets of translations are given for 3.5 and 3.6 as below:

3.5

O Rudra, Thou who dwellest in the body and bestowest happiness! Look upon us with that most blessed form of Thine, which is auspicious, unterrifying and all good.

6

O Dweller in the body and Bestower of happiness, make benign that arrow which Thou holdest in Thy hand ready to shoot, O Protector of the body! Do not injure man or the world!

Another translation is as below:

3.5. O Rudra, thou dweller in the mountains, look upon us with that most blessed form of thine which is auspicious, not terrible, and reveals no evil!

6. O lord of the mountains, make lucky that arrow which thou, a dweller in the mountains, holdest in thy hand to shoot. Do not hurt man or beast!

Yes, giri is the chest – raised part in all beings.

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

so the Rudra who is talked about here is not Rudradeva but the Supreme Lord who created Rudradeva

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

You are out of mind or what? This is like saying black is not black but white. You are truly a Mayavada. First create a Rudra Deva separate from Rudra and then say Rudra is not Rudra but another.

Desperation shows. God is great.

And how does it matter whether Rudra creates Girisa or not? The truth is:

tR^itiiyo.adhyaayaH .

eko hi rudro na dvitiiyaaya tasthu\-

rya imaa.nllokaaniishata iishaniibhiH .

pratyaN^ janaastishhThati saJNchukochaantakaale

sa.nsR^ijya vishvaa bhuvanaani gopaaH .. 2..

THERE IS NO SECOND. THE QUESTION OF ONE EKO REFERRING TO ANOTHER DOES NOT ARISE.

YOUR NA-NA LOGIC IS .. TRULY IT IS NA-NA.

And the truth is:

pai~Ngalopanishhat.h .. shukla_yajurvediiya

iishaadhishhThitaavaraNashaktito rajodriktaa mahadaakhyaa vikshepashaktiraasiit.h . tatpratibimbita.n yattaddhiraNyagarbhachaitanyamaasiit.h . sa mahattattvaabhimaanii

spashhTaaspashhTavapurbhavati . hiraNyagarbhaadhishhThitavikshepashaktitastamodriktaaha~Nkaaraabhidhaa

sthuulashaktiraasiit.h . tatpratibimbita.n

yattadviraaTachaitanyamaasiit.h . sa tadabhimaanii spashhTavapuH

sarvasthuulapaalako vishhNuH pradhaanapurushho bhavati .

1-5.From the power of concealment controlled by Isha arose the Power of Projection called Mahat. What is reflected in it is the consciousness of Hiranyagarbha. He has the conceit of ownership as regards Mahat and has a body partly manifest and partly unmanifest.

I-6. From the projective power controlled by Hiranyagarbha arose the gross power called the ego, with the preponderance of Tamas. What was reflected in it was the consciousness of Virat. That Virat who has conceit in the Ego, a manifest body, and is the Chief Person, Vishnu is the protector of all gross things. From that Self (Virat) arose ether; from the ether, air; from air, fire; from fire, water; from water, earth. These five root-elements are composed of the three Gunas.

End of Citation

“THAT VIRAT WHO HAS CONCEIT IN THE EGO, A MANIFEST BODY, AND IS THE CHIEF PERSON, VISHNU”

Purusa and Virat and are different. Purusa is the cause (minuter than the tip of hair) and Virat the effect (unlimited expanse). But one becomes another in cycle. The effect goes to sleep in the cause at the end of kalpa.

And again the truth is:

RV Book 10 HYMN XC. Purusa.

1. A THOUSAND heads hath Purusa, a thousand eyes, a thousand feet.On every side pervading earth he fills a space ten fingers wide.

Yajni Upanishad (Narayana Upanishad) krishna-yajurvede taittiriya-aranyake

1.21.112

purushhasya vidmahe sahasraakShasya mahaadevasya dhiimahi |

tanno rudraH prachodayaat.h ||

itaH paraM teshhu teshhu desheshhvativilakShaNaH || 113||

-------

sadaashivoM sa evaahaM bhavaami parameshvaraH || 351||

You are wasting your precious time. Please do one thing. Cite from Samhitas one clear verse, which mentions param (and not param padam) as below:

Yajur Veda

namo astu nIlagrIvAya sahasrAxAya mIDhushhe |

atho ye asya sattvAno .ahaM tebhyo .akaraM namaH ||

salutations be to the blue-throated, He who has a thousand eyes -----

pramuJNcha dhanvanastvamubhayorArtniyorjyAm.h |

yAshcha te hasta ishhavaH parA tA bhagavo vapa ||

O Bhagavan! You are endowed with supreme lordship and worship by others. Untie the bow string from the two ends of Your bow. Abandon the arrows in Your hand.

Isha, Para, Bhagavo

I NEED ONLY A CITATION FROM THE SAMHITAS. No interpretations please.

July 26, 2005

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

Funny really. Now Virat has become Viratpurusha. Now you are talking Advaita. Good it suits me.

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

u have not read my post properly. I have clearly said that 'VirAt' does not refer to 'VirAt Purusha'(Parama Purusha).

VirAt refers to space(universe).

tripAd VibhUti mahA NArAyana Upanishad says:

2.16 - "....nArAyanAt andavirAt swarUpo jAyate|...."

so this VirAt(Space) is created.

but u tried to take the word 'virAt' as referring to Visnu(VirAt Purusha) and hence I said that VirAt Purusha cannot be created and hence such an interpretation is wrong.

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

5 From him Virat was born; again Purusa from Virat was born.As soon as he was born he spread eastward and westward o'er the earth.

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

keep ur Griffith with urself. this is nothing but wrong translation.

now the mantra - 5 reads:

"tasmAt virAta jAyata| 'virAjo' adhi pUrushah|..."

meaning:

"From Him space(virat) and VirAja(BRahmadeva), the adhipathi(adhipUrusha) of space were born."

'VirAja' refers to Brahmadeva.

but Atanu ur Griffith considers 'VirAja' and 'VirAt' as one and same where in 'VirAt' is space while 'VirAja' is Brahmadeva.

we have given this translation even before but u still keep on posting the wrong translations.

u just waste ur time as well as mine and that of other readers by doing so.

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

What is Ruradeva? When one adds as per whims such happens. More you try more your lies are exposed. Under number 3.5, you have given two different verses 3.5 and 3.6. It happens when one is untrue; when one is a liar. The pressure does it. God does it.

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

oh i feel pity upon u. u have nothing to offer and hence just brooding over the typo.

let us now see all ur interpretations based on ignorance.

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

And funnily, you say Rudra and Rudra Deva are two different things.

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

this shows that u r incapable of understanding Vedas. I said 'Rudra' name does not refer to Rudradeva. I never said Rudra and Rudradeva are different entities. also as I had quoted from bhAllavEya sruti - Visnu is the primary referrant of all names. Rudra's names were given to him by Brahmadeva(shatapatha). but u turn a blind eye towards it.

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

And check out. You are distorting Sanskrit. It is not girisantha but girisanta.

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

now the letter that u write as 'ta' is written as 'tha' by me and similarly what u write as 'tha' is written as 'thha' by me. So i have written the correct word and have not distorted anything. so don't get agitated.

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

anta

ánta m. end, limit, boundary, term

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

see u have given the correct meanings. but it seems u do not know their usage.

anta = limit.

the lord who is called as 'Girisanta'(let me go by ur spelling) is the one who forms the limit(birth place) of Girisa.

the word 'anta' in its meaning limit will refer to the starting point / birth place. if u have any doubt ask a Sanskrit scholar. he will discard ur doubts.

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

and girisanta means

○santa mfn. (= -sa) inhabiting mountains (Rudra-Śiva)

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

now why do you remove 'sa' in ur interpretation?

this is what we call as deliberate misinterpretations.

'Girisa' is the name/epithet of Shiva. refer the dictionary that u referred for 'anta'.

I had clearly given the meaning of 'Girisanta' inSanskrit terms:

'Girisanta' = "girisam tanotIti girisanta.h"

Girisanta = one who created Girisa.

inspite of being spoon fed, u keep on repeat ur idiotic translations which r against the Vedas themselves.

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

Yes, giri is the chest – raised part in all beings.

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

pure guess. this is what u provide. u just write whatever that comes to ur mind. the Lord is said to reside in heart and not in chest. even then 'Giri' will in no way refer to chest.

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

I-6. From the projective power controlled by Hiranyagarbha arose the gross power called the ego, with the preponderance of Tamas. What was reflected in it was the consciousness of Virat. That Virat who has conceit in the Ego, a manifest body, and is the Chief Person, Vishnu is the protector of all gross things. From that Self (Virat) arose ether; from the ether, air; from air, fire; from fire, water; from water, earth. These five root-elements are composed of the three Gunas.

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

ur interpretation was clearly wrong. still u repeat and this makes u unfit to enter into arguments. so stop doing such nonsense.

(note: in 'sa tad..', 'sa' refers to 'Visnu pradhAna Purusho' while 'tad' refers to 'virAt chaitanya'. thus Visnu, the PradhAna Purusha, is the abhimAni deva of virAt chaitanya.

this interpretation is proved right by the fact that in

"sa mahattattvaabhimaanii spashhTaaspashhTavapurbhavati"

no name of Hiranyagarbha is mentioned and hence 'sa' will refer to 'Hiranyagarbha chaitanya' and also that it says 'mahattattva' and does not say 'tad'. for 'tad' will refer to 'Hiranyagarbha chaitanya' only in this place. the Sruti is very clear about its readings.

also note that 'pradhAna Purusha' is an equivalent term os Parama Purusha and will refer to Parama Purusha and thus it says that Visnu is Parama Purusha. thereby it highlights the Supremacy of Visnu.)

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

THERE IS NO SECOND. THE QUESTION OF ONE EKO REFERRING TO ANOTHER DOES NOT ARISE.

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

yes there is no second. One EKO cannot refer to another and that eko is 'NArAyana'.

"esha sarva bhUtAntarAtma apahatapApmA divyo deva eko nArAyanah|"(SubAla Upanishad)

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

YOUR NA-NA LOGIC IS .. TRULY IT IS NA-NA.

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

once again u show ur ignorance. 'Narayana' name attains its form only when it refers to Lord Visnu. but u fail to understand.

infact it is ur stance which is completely unacceptable as u say that a JIvAtma who is not cleansed of sins is the Supreme Lord. ur argument is nothing but hypocrisy.

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

I NEED ONLY A CITATION FROM THE SAMHITAS. No interpretations please.

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

this very request of urs shows that u r absolutely unfit to argue on Brahman.

first, by requesting to cite only from Samhita, u prescribe to the theory that only Samhita is 'apaurusheya' which is unacceptable and unVedic.

second, Supreme Brahman can be identified clearly only from Upanishads as Brahma Sutras(which explain about Supreme Brahman) cites ONLY Upanishads.

(those Upanishads which have been cited by prAmAna AchAryas alone can be considered as pramAna Upanishads.)

so ur very request shows that u r ignorant of Vedic tradition.

then even Samhita by itself is incomplete. Samhita, Brahmana and Aranyaka together form the KarmakAnda.

so let me quote the popular vakya from KarmakAnda:

Aitareya Brahmana(1.1.1):

"Agnir vai devAnAm avamo Visnu paramas| tadAntarena anya devata|"

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

Elsewhere he says Rudra is a mere deva. Now he cites Divyo Deva Eko Narayanah. So Narayanah is also deva and eko.

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

'deva' means divine person. 'deva' refers not only to the devatas who reside in Swarga but also to Visnu, Brahmadeva and Rudradeva.

I did not say that Rudra is a deva. I had quoted from Rg Veda. in fact from ur favourite Samhita.

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

You are out of mind or what? This is like saying black is not black but white. You are truly a Mayavada. First create a Rudra Deva separate from Rudra and then say Rudra is not Rudra but another

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

this shows ur iognorance. Visnu is the primary referrant of all names. 'Rudra' name was given to Rudradeva and hence he has no monopoly over it. my arguments are very clear. but u fail to understand.

July 26, 2005

the following is a quotation from Bhaallaveya shruti. this is also accepted as a pramaana by prominent Achaaryaas and has been often quoted by them.

`nAmAni vishvA.abhi na santi loke yadAvirAsIdanR^itasya sarvam.h |

nAmAni sarvAni yamAvishanti taM vai viShNuM paramamudAharanti |'

iti bhAllaveyashrutiH |

Which says that only VISNU IS THE PRIMARY REFERRENT OF ALL NAMES.

THESE VERY LINES ARE CITED BY MADHVACHARYA IN HIS BRAHMA SUTRA BHASHYA.

thus when we say that 'Rudra','Shiva','Shambhu' etc refer to VIshnu when they r used to speak about the Supreme Lord, it is based on Sruti itself.

THEREFORE NOTE THAT WHEN WE SAY 'EKO HI RUDRO...' REFERS TO VISNU, IT IS BASED ON THIS SRUTI. WE SAY THAT 'RUDRA' IN SUCH PLACES REFERS TO VISNU. IT IS ABSOLUTELY RIGHT AND IS IN TANDEM WITH THIS SRUTI QUOTED.

so let Atanu understand atleast now that only Visnu is Supreme and hat everyone else,including Rudra deva, is inferior to him.

July 26, 2005

Following are vakyas from Shatapatha Brahmana of Yajur Veda,

"Bhootanam ca Prajapatis samvatsaraya dikshitah | Bhootanam pathir gruhapathir aaseet |

"The pati of bhoota and praja, Brahma deva, underwent diksha for one year. He was a Grihasta. His wife was Usha. …….. Brahma deva let his veerya ( ‘rodho(a)sinchat’) to Usha. In a year, a son was born. The son cried. Brahma asked him, “ Son! Why are u crying. I got u as child after tough tapasya. The son said, “ I am not cleansed of sins. To wipe out my sins give me names. Brahma again told him, “ Let your name be Rudra.” …….. Rudra, Bhava, charva, Isana, Pathi(pasupathi), Bhima, Ugra – these seven names (were given by Brahma deva)"

From the above it is clear that Rudra has a normal birth from a woman’s womb and his birth is ‘Karmavash’. Because he says, “I am not cleansed of my sins” – which means that he is not a person whose birth is determined by himself but by his karma as he was afraid of his sins and wanted to wipe them out. this again means that when he took birth, he was bound by Karma (known from ‘sins’).

Hence Rudra is a normal Jivatma and He cannot be the Parama Purusha of Purusha Sukta nor can he be an avatar of Narayana as his birth is determined by karma while the avatar of Narayana is determined by Himself.

July 26, 2005

Paingi Shruti:

`sarvotkarshhe devadevasya vishhNor-

mahAtAtparyaM naiva chAnyatra satyam.h |

avAntaraM tatparatvaM tadanyat.h

sarvAgamAnAM purushhArthastato.ataH ||' iti paiN^gishrutiH |

"The Supremacy of Vishnu, the Deity-of-deities, is the supreme purport, and not otherwise -- this is true; other purports than this of all Agama-s are inferior, because of the supreme purushhArtha," says the Paingi-shruti.

July 26, 2005

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

bhootanam pathis samvatsara ushasi rodho(a)sinchat

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

IT MUST BE 'REDHO(A)SINCHAT' not 'rodho(a)sinchat'

a typo.

July 26, 2005

Rig Veda 7:46

imaá rudraáya sthirádhanvane gíraH kSipréSave DEVAAYA svadhaávne

áSaaLhaaya sáhamaanaaya vedháse tigmaáyudhaaya bharataa shRNótu naH

dear atanu,

note the word in caps. Vedas have accepted Rudra to be a DEVA. so u cannot say that Rudra is not a deva or that he is not considered as deva.

Aitareya Brahmana(1.1.1) states

Agnir vai devAnAm avamo Visnuh paramas, tadantarena sarvA anyA devatA

Meaning:

Agni is the lowest and Visnu is the Supreme among the Devas. In between them lie all the other devas.

the sruti(vedas) clearly point out hierarchy among the devatas in terms of Supremacy and it says that Visnu is the Supreme of them all. Also Vedas themselves call Rudra as DEVA and so Rudra is also mentioned here and he too occupies a position in between Agni and Visnu.

this vakya also makes it clear that all devas are not the same and that all devas are not equal to one other. In fact no other deva is equal to or greater than Visnu.

July 26, 2005

How do you view this thread, when you have written in another thread regarding Mauna.

Mauna can sustain only with viveka.

July 26, 2005

it is an utter waste to argue with persons like Atanu who keep on repeating the misinterpretations inspite of being proved wrong and also considers a Westerner like Griffith as the pramanika.

so let me take leave now. i am still a student and acnnot afford for a non ending debate. infact it is so winding because of Atanu:

1. he keeps on repeating the wrong translations inspite of being proved wrong.

2. he will by pass the strong quotations offered by me. he never tries to reinterpret them and thereby the most important nyaya that Vedas should not contradict is broken.

he fails to notice that most of his quotations have been correctly translated by us one time or other.

3. he concentrates more on English grammar which is irrelevant to the matter of discussion than on Sanskrit grammar which is very essentially a part of it as the Vedas are in Sanskrit.

4. he fails to understand the truth that the words 'para', 'bhagavo' etc alone do not make one the Supreme Brahman unless they say that he is 'para'(Supreme) to all other deities.or elae it will simply mean that the deva is Supreme to those below him just as 'Mahendra' means that Indra is Supreme to those below him. these words are used to praise a deity to get his blessings. it is the word 'Brahman' which identifies the Supreme Brahman. Such words used to refer to other deities as well in Rg Veda but they do not make them Supreme.

5. also Rudra is clearly shown to be 'AnapahatapApmA' - not cleansed of sins.

also Readers,

now let us see from where Atanu derives his translations. He normally does not give the sanskrit verses and just gives the (wrong)translations. He will even say that he does not interpret anything. yes he is right. His authority and Parama Pramanika is:

Ralph T.H. Griffith.

yes. a great Acharya(?) who knows all the rules governing the translation and interpretation of Vedic mantras and who is considered as the authority by Atanu. Shame on him.

true Atanu has not made misinterpretations and it is Griffith who makes it.

the translations of Westerners are known for their wrong translations and misinterpretations and Atanu uses them.

for him Sayana, Sankara, Bhaskara, Madhva, Ramanuja etc. are not pramanikas for he has not found one among them.

http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/rigveda/

in the above page you can see the translations.

infact even spelling mistakes are repeated.

in the page,

http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/rigveda/rvi10.htm

instead of writing as 'HYMN CXIII. Indra.'

it is written as 'HYMN CXTII. Indra.'.

the same 'CXTII.' is found in atanu's quotations.

let him change his attitude atleast now.

I was wondering as to from where Atanu was getting his wrong translations which do not to the various canons of interpretations. now i have got it. readers, beware of such people who misguide u with such wrong translations.

in fact it is absolutely useless to argue with a person like this. Atanu has to come to terms with Sruti.

unless and until Atanu learns the nuances in the interpretations of Vedas, it is useless to argue with him on this topic.

July 26, 2005

Hari Bol,

Dear Srinivas,

Good work.

But your explanation of Girisanta seems not convinving. I will state why.

The verses 3.5 and 3.6 from Svetasvatara Upanishad, are exactly a repetition of words from Rudram, Namakam(1st anuvaka) to be more specific.

Rudram, to my limited knowledge, explains the qualities of Rudra Deva. The above verses being a repetition of Rudram verses, how can your interpretation be right. May be I do not know correct translation of Rudram as well(I mean it). Please provide references of Svetasvatara Upanishad and Rudram from Vaishnava perspective or if possible can you type up a translation of Svetasvatara up. and Rudram completely.

Thank you.

Corresponding Verses from Rudram(Exactly same as verses 3.5 and 3.6 from Svetasvatara Upanishad):

Ya te Rudra Shiva tanura ghora papakashini taya nastanuva shantamaya girisamta bhichakashihi ||

Lord Rudra, you who dwell on Mount Kailas and who confer happiness, by that form of yours which is not terrible, which will not injure us, and which is highly auspicious, behold and illuminate us.

Yamishum giri shamta haste bibharsya stave, shivam giritra tam Kuru ma himsih purusham jagate ||

My Lord who dwells on Mount Kailas and confers gladness to all! You, who fulfills your vow of protecting all who serve you and take refuge in you; that arrow of yours which you hold ready to let fly, withhold it and make it tranquil and auspicious.

July 27, 2005

"Funny. Elsewhere he says Rudra is a mere deva. Now he cites Divyo Deva Eko Narayanah. So Narayanah is also deva and eko.

"And Rudra is also eko. So there are two ekos. Ha. Ha."

Yes. Very funny indeed to see this! You have exposed their tricks. It is clear.

July 27, 2005

Dear Atanu,

first of all thanks for ur compliments.

SvetAshvatAra Upanishad has been translated by Sri Ranga Ramanuja Muni.

an English version of this translation is available.

the book is:

Principal Upanishads Volume - 1

edited and translated by Dr. N.S.Anantha Rangacharya

year of publication: 2003.

also I don't know about any Vaishnavite translation of Rudram in English though I know about one in Tamil.

as for ur doubt about the verses present in Rudram as well, the explanation, for all such doubts, offered by Vaishnavite Acharyas is very simple and clear.

the ultimate aim of vedas is to identify the Supreme. In the Samhita the vedas view Him as the Anataryami while praising the various deities and this is expressed by the fact that many deities are shown to be able to give Moksha while Purusha Sukta, the best of Vedas says that only by knowing the Parama Purusha one can attain Moksha. thus the earlier sentence refers to the antaryami Parama Purusha in all devatas and similar is the case for the verses that u have quoted from Rudram. in between Rudram, the Vedas praise Parama Purusha.

also u have given the term as 'girisamta' and there is difference between the terms 'girisamta' and 'girisanta'.

so even with this ur doubt can be cleared.(I have not referred to Rudram now, as i have notime and am posting from the library near my college).

July 27, 2005

BHAGAVAD GITA:

9.23 - "Arjuna, even those who, endowed with faith, worship other deities worship Me alone, THOUGH WITH A MISTAKEN APPROACH."

9.24 - "For I am the enjoyer and the Lord of all sacrifices; but they know me not in reality, HENCE THEY FALL BACK."

note this, Atanu. those who worship other deities fall back in to Samsara. only those who worship Krishna attain moksha.

those who worship other deities are in a wrong way('Mistaken approach').

11.15 - Arjuna said : Lord, I behold within Your body all gods and hosts of different beings, Brahma throned in his lotus seat, SIVA and all Rshis and celestial serpents.

note that Brahmadeva and Siva are also found in the body of Krishna in His virAt rUpa.

the superiority of Narayana is clearly established and this is accepted by Adi Sankara too in his commentary upon his verse.

tripAd vibhUti mahA nArAyana upanishad says:

1.1 - "....tvam eva brahmEshAna purandara purogamyr akilAmaryr akilAgamyr vimrugyah|..."

meaning:

"only You are searched upon by Brahmadeva, Shiva(Ishana), Indra(Purandara), all Vedas and Agamas."

note: Narayana is the Supreme Entity is clearly established by these lines.

also the word MAhAVisnu found in this verse refers to Lord Visnu and this is established by the fact that Nrsimha TApani Upanishad calls Nrisimha as:

"ugram vIram 'mAhAvisnum'...." (mantra raja expounded by this upanishad)

anyway, bye!!!

July 27, 2005

ur doubt about 'Girishanta' must be cleared by my earlier post if u try to understand the concept behind it.

also that SvetAshvatara refers to Visnu can be said based on the following Sruti itself:

the following is a quotation from Bhaallaveya shruti. this is also accepted as a pramaana by prominent Achaaryaas and has been often quoted by them.

`nAmAni vishvA.abhi na santi loke yadAvirAsIdanR^itasya sarvam.h |

nAmAni sarvAni yamAvishanti taM vai viShNuM paramamudAharanti |'

iti bhAllaveyashrutiH |

Which says that only VISNU IS THE PRIMARY REFERRENT OF ALL NAMES.

THESE VERY LINES ARE CITED BY MADHVACHARYA IN HIS BRAHMA SUTRA BHASHYA.

thus when we say that 'Rudra','Shiva','Shambhu' etc refer to VIshnu when they r used to speak about the Supreme Lord, it is based on Sruti itself.

THEREFORE NOTE THAT WHEN WE SAY 'EKO HI RUDRO...' REFERS TO VISNU, IT IS BASED ON THIS SRUTI. WE SAY THAT 'RUDRA' IN SUCH PLACES REFERS TO VISNU. IT IS ABSOLUTELY RIGHT AND IS IN TANDEM WITH THIS SRUTI QUOTED.

and also as the prime aim of Vedas is to praise Brahman, in Samhita where the various devas are praised, the vedas in between those verses praise the Brahman who i the antaryami of those devas.

the mantras(1.3 and 1.4) of Rudram are explained in the similar way.

also if consider the fact that Shiva is called as anapahatapapma, ur doubts will be cleared because one who is not cleansed of sins(ie. one who is bounded by sins) cannot be Brahman.

also Shatapatha belongs to KarmakAnda of Vedas and there is no difference in the readings of KarmakAnda. Even the Shaivite scholars recite those vAkyas when they recite Shatapatha.

also Shatapatha says that Shiva had no names by his nature and that his nameas were given ti him by Brahmadeva. keeping this in mind, 'isha', 'para', 'bhagavo' etc have to be translated. thus these are 'aupachArika' names of Rudra and not his natural names.

also, 'sadAshiva' is often quoted by some shaivites. but they fail to see that Rudram uses many such words not as names of Rudradeva but as characteristics of Rudra. 'sadAshiva' means 'ever auspicious'. and no old text in Sanskrit considers this term as a name of Rudradeva.

also note my quotations from Paingi shruti which says clearly that Supremacy of Visnu is the Supreme Purport and anything which goes against this are inferior.

also Aitareya Brahmana clearly states that

"Agni is the lowest and Visnu is the Supreme among devas and that all other devas lie in between these two."

so however be Rudradeva praised in the Vedas, still he occupies a position below Visnu.

the Supremacy of Visnu is clearly explained in the Vedas.

I'll be back only after 3-4 weeks.

bye!!!!!!!!

Sign In

Worship of Siva versus Worship of Lord Vishnu

Recommended Posts

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest