PDA

View Full Version : Mahapashupatastra blog



satay
19 November 2013, 01:03 PM
http://mahapashupatastra.blogspot.in/

Viraja
19 November 2013, 01:34 PM
I'm sorry, I am a very emotional person, maybe I will get banned again for saying this - which I don't mind. In a recent spiritual discourse by Sri Velukkudi Krishnan swami (in his Sri Ramanin Padhayil, a VijayTV Telecast), he actually says that 'It is not Sri Shiva who grants mukthi, but only Sri Vishnu. Life on earth which commenced as 7 lifetimes as a vegetation, then another 7 as an animal, then next 7 lifetimes as a human but an athiest, then another 7 as a human who worships Sun, then another 7 as worshiper of Shiva and the last 7 as worshiper as Vishnu when he, (Vishnu) in the end grants liberation, just as a creeper cannot be at the top of a pole in the very beginning but will climb the bottom rungs of the pole first, so also a devotee will first worship Shiva and then only will he be granted ascension to worship Sri Vishnu who grants mukthi'. I know this sounds insulting to Shiva devotees. So also, I find the blog given in the OP insulting to Vaishnava faith. (He is calling 'Bhagawatam' as BOGUS and he says things like Sita is above Sri Lakshmi because she is Tripura Sundari, that Sri Vishnu is actually Shiva's wife, etc, based on his own interpertation of Stotras is quite insulting for a Vaishnava to read on... )

With so much to accomplish on 'one's own' spiritual journey, why can't people let other devotees have their time with their chosen murthy, be it Shaiva or Vaishnava?

Webimpulse
19 November 2013, 01:47 PM
Namaste Viraja,

I'm sorry, but I feel I have to point this out - just because Satay posts a link to something doesn't automatically mean he endorses its content. If all of us were held to that internet standard, we'd all sound like hypocrites, no exceptions!

Please give Satay the benefit of a doubt here. I'm sure he meant no harm.

Sahasranama
19 November 2013, 01:57 PM
Debates between Shaivas and Vaishnavas are tiresome. The blog author has written many inaccuracies in the past about the Bhagavatam and Mahabharata. Vaishnavas are also wrong trying to hijack the Srirudram. Sectarian hostility between Vaishnavas and Shaivas has caused Hinduism much harm. Getting into the nitty gritty of these debates is a huge waste of time.

Sudas Paijavana
19 November 2013, 04:12 PM
Pranam-s,

"What shall we sing to Shri Rudra? He, who is most strong, most bounteous, excellently wise, that shall be dearest to his heart?" (R.V.1.43.1)

^That is Shruti. Shrutim eva jayate! Rudram eva jayate!

ps - I am not a Vaishnava nor a Shaiva.

Sudas Paijavana
19 November 2013, 04:49 PM
Pranam-s,

But, Shruti is also keen on exclaiming:

"Three times strode forth this God in all his grandeur over this Earth bright with a hundred splendors. Foremost be Vishnu, stronger than the strongest: for glorious is his name who lives for ever." (R.V.7.100.3)

I hope people get the gist of what Shruti is trying to say. If not, check this out:

“O’ Gods, not one of you is small, none of you is a feeble child: All of you are verily great!” (R.V.8.30.1)

If sectarians still don't agree, they might as well concede their futile appropriations to the following:

“Dear friends, glorify no other God, so no sorrow troubles you. Praise only mighty Shri Indra.” (R.V.8.1.1)

brahma jijnasa
19 November 2013, 05:53 PM
Namaste

Here I have to agree with Sahasranama.
Srirudram can easily be interpreted in both ways, Shaiva and Vaishnava.
Actually from what I understand Gaudiya vaishnavas consider that there are two different forms of Lord Shiva. One is a jiva soul known as guna avatara whose task is to destroy the world (he is one of three gods: Brahma, Vishnu, Shiva), while the other is known as Lord Sadasiva who is eternal Lord in Vaikuntha. Lord Sadasiva is Lord Vishnu (vishnu tattva) just like any other form of Lord Vishnu such as Narayana, Rama, Krishna, Narasimha, Varaha etc.
This Lord Sadasiva may have the same or similar physical characteristics of personal appearance just like guna avatara Lord Shiva: three eyes ... etc, his wife is also called goddess Uma, he has Nandi, his bull carrier, etc., but the difference between these two forms of Lord Shiva is huge. One of them, guna avatara Lord Shiva, is just a jiva soul with a small power that he got from Lord Vishnu to fulfill the task of destroying the world, and his life is temporary, while the latter, Lord Sadasiva is not a jiva soul but is eternal Supreme Lord identical to Lord Vishnu.

regards

satay
19 November 2013, 06:26 PM
namaste,
It's just a link to a blog. Take it with a grain of salt as we should do with everything on the Internet. If you are insulted don't revisit it.

isavasya
19 November 2013, 06:35 PM
Namaste

Thanks for putting up this blog, though I had visited it before.

Even though I don't know whether God exists or not, I will love Shiv Parvati till eternity. As a follower of Sanatan Dharm I do see these differences as a positive thing (until it doesn't gets irrational). We Sanatan dharmis are different from rest in that we are not stuck on a particular definition of truth. Samkhya, Yoga, Advaita, Nyaya etc etc are great philosophies which have come from tolerant and truth seeking values of santan dharm.

satay
19 November 2013, 06:37 PM
namaste

Debates between Shaivas and Vaishnavas are tiresome.
+1, true that.:cool1:

Sri Vaishnava
20 November 2013, 01:50 AM
Pranam-s,

"What shall we sing to Shri Rudra? He, who is most strong, most bounteous, excellently wise, that shall be dearest to his heart?" (R.V.1.43.1)

^That is Shruti. Shrutim eva jayate! Rudram eva jayate!

ps - I am not a Vaishnava nor a Shaiva.

I suggest you also check out the interpretation for that mantra here. It is mantra 107 of the mahAnArAyaNa upanishad, which is the same as this rg vedic mantra :

http://narayanastra.blogspot.in/p/blog-page.html

For vedAntins (ie, vaishnavas), that mantra refers to srI rAmA, who is known as the destroyer of the disease of samsara, who is an ascetic as he is always meditating on ways to save the jivAs and possesses the quality of "tapas" to lead the jivAs out of samsArA, who is intelligent as he understands the sufferings of the jivAs very well and bestows purushArthams to all.

Sri Vaishnava
20 November 2013, 01:57 AM
. Vaishnavas are also wrong trying to hijack the Srirudram.

The Rudram, Rg Vedic Rudra Suktam, etc have never been "hijacked" by us. All traditional commentators have used it as a name of nArAyaNa only and I just highlighted that here. The narasimha tApanIya upanishad clearly identifies the deity of the Rudram, Rudra Suktam, etc as Narasimha.

Just because people like you didn't know we used the Rudram before (which is always chanted at all vishNu temples as well) doesn't mean we "hijacked" it.

namastE astu bhagavan vishveshvarAya mahAdevAya tryaMbakAya
tripurAntakAya trikAgnikAlAya kAlAgnirudrAya nIlakaNThAya
mRtyuJNjayAya sarveshvarAya sadAshivAya shrIman mAhAdevAya ||

I salute bhagavan (narasimha), who is full of perfections and without blemishes (vishveshvara), who is greater than Brahma, Rudra, etc (mahAdeva), who is 3 eyed (Tryambaka), who destroys the triguNas sattva, rajas, tamas (tripurAntaka), who is the upAyam (trikAgni kAla), the destroyer of samsAra dukham who is like kAlAgni to samsAra tApam (kAlAgni rudrA), who is distinctly black necked (nIlakaNTha), who is the victor over samsArA known as mrtyu for his devotees (mrtyunjaya), who is the lord of all (sarvEshvara), who is nirdosha and eternally auspicious (sadAshiva), who attains his devatvam due to his association with srI lakshmi devi, ie, he is mahAdeva because he is sriya pati: (sriman mahAdevA).

Anirudh
20 November 2013, 04:48 AM
Namaste Viraja,



I find the blog given in the OP insulting to Vaishnava faith. (He is calling 'Bhagawatam' as BOGUS and he says things like Sita is above Sri Lakshmi because she is Tripura Sundari, that Sri Vishnu is actually Shiva's wife, etc, based on his own interpertation of Stotras is quite insulting for a Vaishnava to read on... )


I am not commenting on the honesty blogger or on the OP or even on Sri Velukkudi Krishnan swami. However I will be glad if you can provide the link to that particular lecture.

I saw your post in a different light and thought of sharing my ideals with you. Since you have quoted Sri Velukkudi Krishnan swami, my assumption is your faith is Sri Vaishnavism. I am not educated enough to advise you, also my intentions were not to advise you. I am sharing my experience and understanding hoping that it might be some help to you.

The goal of a Sri Vaishnavist is to reach the lotus feet of Sreeman Naaraayana, and for human like us who can not follow the Bhakti maarga (like followed by Bhakta Prahallad) Prapatti maarga is advised.

According to me the most challenging pre requisite for Prapatti maarga is the unflinching faith / loyalty (Mahaa Vishvaasa) on Sreeman Naaraayan. Quite recently due to sudden turn of events in my personal life got introduced to Sri Velukkudi Krishnan swami, and through his lectures understood if my faith on Shreeman Naaraayan is unbreakable then nothing can harm me.

Likewise no matter who writes what, if your faith on Shreeman Naaraayan is as strong as mountain nothing can insult you as well.

Again I reiterate that, I am just sharing my personal lessons which life has taught me to a fellow Naaraayana lover.

Anirudh
20 November 2013, 05:05 AM
Namaste Sudas,



“O’ Gods, not one of you is small, none of you is a feeble child: All of you are verily great!” (R.V.8.30.1)


My understanding on the pantheon of gods in SD is similar to hierarchical functional managers we see in our work places. The ultimate being the owner of the organization. All elements of the Organization report to the owner either directly or indirectly.

Your quote negates my understanding.

I would like to know whether my understanding is wrong? If it is not then, how can all gods be equal? If my understanding is incorrect kindly explain the reasons behind the existence of different gods.

Kindly share your wisdom.

Sudas Paijavana
20 November 2013, 06:40 AM
Namaste Sudas,

My understanding on the pantheon of gods in SD is similar to hierarchical functional managers we see in our work places. The ultimate being the owner of the organization. All elements of the Organization report to the owner either directly or indirectly.

Your quote negates my understanding.

I would like to know whether my understanding is wrong? If it is not then, how can all gods be equal? If my understanding is incorrect kindly explain the reasons behind the existence of different gods.

Kindly share your wisdom.

Pranam-s,

Not my quote, dear Anirudh. It is a revelation of the Rig Veda.

The most noble and most high Rig Veda cannot be applied a sectarian dissection. To do so would be dishonorable, and here is why:

The Shri Rig Veda, like the rest of the Shri Shrutic Vedas, has its own theology, it is after all: a Shruti of paramount importance.

Each Su-ukta praises a certain Shri Deva as Supreme in His or Her own right. And, there are many Su-ukta-s that praise many Shri Devas as Supreme all together.

Thus, in a certain hymn, a certain Shri Deva will be lauded as Supreme. In other words: One God at One Time. And, if Many are collectively lauded (as the Rig Vedic quote that you quoted shows), then Those Gods at One Time. For example, Shri Deva Vishwakarma is lauded as Supreme in a certain hymn, while Shri Deva Agni will be lauded as Supreme in another. Them being Supreme in Their own right does not mean the Shrutic revelation is unsound. In fact, it's of utmost sound, because it is a revelation of Shruti! It can't get any Vedic than that, now can it?

Theologically, this is known as Kathenotheism. However, the staunch Vaishnava will see every Shri Deva/Devi as having origins in Shri Vishnu, while the staunch Shaiva will see every Shri Deva/Devi as having origins in Shri Rudra. Sectarian-wise, this is understandable. But, Mother Shruti, Herself, does not ask this nor does She command such dissection.

These theological differences is the pure reason why we have Sampradaya-s, Vedic Shākhās, etc. Because, no one group seems to agree on something particular. However, Vedic Shākhās are the number one authorities on how the Four Shruti Noble Vedas are to be understood. Unfortunately, not many survive anymore, due to forced conversions by outsiders. In fact, only a sparsely few of them remain.

A noble argument by various Sampradayic members is that the Upanishadic BrahmAn is what is speaking through those Su-ukta-s. And, when other Shri Gods are lauded as Supreme, it is, according to them, either a Vaishnavite BrahmAn or a Shaivite BrahmAn in orientation that is "speaking". However, if such a BrahmAn states that Friends "should not praise any other God, but only Shri Indra" (R.V.8.1), that nullifies both a Vaishnavite and Shaivite orientational argument, does it not?

Furthermore, sectarianism is not supported in Shruti, as per the most high and most noble Rig Veda. Because, the Shri Rig Veda, in its last hymn, in its last Mandala, is keen on concluding with a very important revelation: "let us be of one accord". Well, how can we be of "one accord" if there are such sectarian dissections that harshly create a hierarchy of the Shri Vedic Devas and contestation amongst Hindu brothers and sisters?

Viraja
20 November 2013, 07:49 AM
I am not commenting on the honesty blogger or on the OP or even on Sri Velukkudi Krishnan swami. However I will be glad if you can provide the link to that particular lecture.


Namaste Anirudh,

This place (http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=EL9j1shKw6Ie8)holds the list of all Season 1 Ramanin Padhayil episodes. Swami mentions what I said in one of the videos before the show was stopped and resumed again after sometime. The last show before this pause had been the one on 09/22/13. My best guess is that this is the one that holds the comment. (It is also likely it was the show before 09/22, ie, the one on 09/15).

And thank you immensely for your wisdom. I agree completely.

Best regards.

Anirudh
20 November 2013, 08:18 AM
Namaste Sudas Paijavana,

Thanks for answering my queries ....



Not my quote, dear Anirudh.

Well I didn't mean that way ... :)

I think have understood your reply.

How ever want to confirm with you whether I understood your post or not? I have given my understanding in bold...


In nutshell you are saying ...

Vedic literature treats every Deva and Devi as equal and they are great in their own function(s). ie Agni Deva is as good/great/noble as Vaayu Deva. That also means Vedic literature does not treat our Gods as hierarchical.

You also have said that sectarian dissection is dishonorable to Vedic literature.


Your reply has raised few more questions (to ask you), but that depends on whether I have understood your reply or not?

Anirudh
20 November 2013, 08:40 AM
Namaste Viraja,

Recently I listened to these upanyaasams made by Sri Velukkudi Krishnan Swami ji. I listened in these orders because he says to get Sreeman Naaraayan's blessing we need Shree Lakshmi's anugraha...

1. Lakshmi Kadaaksham (http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLeeHBfMo3pkz8Yc4mnH3GdVwiec9hZqW2)
2. Sri Baashyam (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GOhUrW9PNyA)
3. VisistAdvaitham (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zs44gCexmBQ)

You can choose your own order depending on your convenience. Lakshmi Kadaaksham series is eight in numbers almost eight and half hours in total ... The rest are each 1+ hour


I am just sharing what I have received from this forum...



This place holds the list of all Season 1 Ramanin Padhayil episodes ...

Thank you very much for the link and the clue to search.

brahma jijnasa
20 November 2013, 10:46 PM
Namaste

However, Vedic Shākhās are the number one authorities on how the Four Shruti Noble Vedas are to be understood. Unfortunately, not many survive anymore, due to forced conversions by outsiders. In fact, only a sparsely few of them remain.

A noble argument by various Sampradayic members is that the Upanishadic BrahmAn is what is speaking through those Su-ukta-s. And, when other Shri Gods are lauded as Supreme, it is, according to them, either a Vaishnavite BrahmAn or a Shaivite BrahmAn in orientation that is "speaking". However, if such a BrahmAn states that Friends "should not praise any other God, but only Shri Indra" (R.V.8.1), that nullifies both a Vaishnavite and Shaivite orientational argument, does it not?

Not necessarily. Even you yourself have mentioned various vedic shakhas. There is one article on wikipedia which gives us a brief description of shakhas: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shakha


"A shakha (Sanskrit śākhā, "branch" or "limb"), is a Hindu theological school that specializes in learning certain Vedic texts, or else the traditional texts followed by such a school.
...
Each school would learn a specific Vedic Saṃhita (one of the "four Vedas" properly so-called), as well as its associated Brahmana, Aranyakas, Shrautasutras, Grhyasutras and Upanishads."

I emphasized with bold which tells us that each shakha specializes in learning certain Vedic text with its associated Brahmana, Aranyakas, Shrautasutras, Grhyasutras and Upanishads!
For example, some tradition was devoted to the study of one particular branch (Sanskrit śākhā, "branch" or "limb") of Rig Veda, but they have not studied Samhita text of Rig Veda only but also texts that are associated with Rig Veda, namely Brahmanas, Aranyakas, Shrautasutras, Grhyasutras and Upanishads belonging to Rig Veda.
Each Veda has its corresponding texts Samhitas, Brahmanas, Aranyakas, and Upanishads, but also Shrautasutras and Grhyasutras. So to properly understand the purport of Rig Veda, a person needs to go through them all and not through Samhita text only! This means that it is practically impossible to properly understand the meaning of some of the Vedas until one has studied all associated texts. Now, I do not believe that some shakha thought that there was some discrepancy or contradiction in the purport between Samhita and let's say an Upanishad. All the texts has a unique purport. Since this is so, it is not appropriate to interpret some statement of Rig Veda Samhita contrary to what is said in the Upanishads because it simply does not make sense.
If you're trying to figure out the meaning of the statement "should not praise any other God, but only Shri Indra" without taking into account what is said in Brahmanas, Aranyakas, and Upanishads, then you can end up in some very strange conclusions.
Very strange indeed. In fact the real questions are: What is the true purport of Vedas? Who can help us to find it out? Which scriptures can help us to learn that?

regards

Sudas Paijavana
20 November 2013, 11:09 PM
Pranam-s, Jijnasa:

Thank you for your valuable post.
I do not have any contestations with innocent and well-devoted sectarian applications or appropriation of Vedic hymns. I am only concerned/worried when they get radical.

Jaskaran Singh
21 November 2013, 02:59 PM
Pranam-s, Jijnasa:

Thank you for your valuable post.
I do not have any contestations with innocent and well-devoted sectarian applications or appropriation of Vedic hymns. I am only concerned/worried when they get radical.
What about the following verse at the very beginning of the Aitareyabrāhmaṇam:

अग्निर्वै देवानामवमो विष्णुः परमस्।
तदन्तरेण सर्वा अन्या देवता॥१.१.१॥

Sudas Paijavana
21 November 2013, 04:53 PM
What about the following verse at the very beginning of the Aitareyabrāhmaṇam:

अग्निर्वै देवानामवमो विष्णुः परमस्।
तदन्तरेण सर्वा अन्या देवता॥१.१.१॥


Pranam-s,

What about it?

It's in line with the following revelation:

"I will declare the mighty deeds of Vishnu, of him who measured out the earthly regions, who propped the highest place of congregation, thrice setting down his footstep, widely striding." (R.V.1.154.1)

But, it's in contestation with the following:

"“O’ Gods, not one of you is small, none of you is a feeble child: All of you are verily great!” (R.V.8.30.1)

So, theologically Rig-Vedic-wise, that brAhmaNa's verse is not "sound" (<-- it was, after all, composed and commented on by humans).

brahma jijnasa
21 November 2013, 10:34 PM
Namaste

Some additional thoughts on shakhas and Vedas. Continued from my last post.

Not only do they require a person needs to go through all the associated texts, but a person needs to understand that all the texts belonging to some Veda has a unique purport, and also a person needs to learn how to recognize and understand exactly this unique purport in individual texts, ie one needs to learn how to interpret apparently mutually contradictory statements of the scriptures that seem like they do not have this unique purport!
There is a specific book that helps the student of the Vedas in this regard. It is called Vedanta sutra (Brahma sutra). This book is designed in a special way as to resolve doubts about the contradictory statements of the shruti scriptures and helps us to find unique purport.
High importance of the Upanishads are often emphasized in Vedic traditions. This can be easily seen from the fact that of all the texts associated with Vedas, Upanishads are called Vedanta or "end of the Vedas". Upanishads are the last word of the Vedic learning. It is said that one in his last stage of the spiritual life, sannyasa, should dedicate himself with a special attention to the study of the Upanishads. With the help of the Upanishads one reaches the final and highest end. Thus it is precisely the Upanishads those texts that enables a person to penetrate the mystery and nature of Brahman, and when this is done a person achieves liberation.

There are many acaryas who wrote comments on Vedanta sutra, Upanishads, Bhagavad gita, Puranas such as Srimad Bhagavatam, etc. With the help of all of them, acaryas, traditions (sampradayas), shakhas (branches specialized in learning certain Vedic texts), great sages such as Narada who wrote numerous smriti scriptures, Vedic knowledge should be studied.

regards

brahma jijnasa
22 November 2013, 12:16 AM
Namaste

So, theologically Rig-Vedic-wise, that brAhmaNa's verse is not "sound" (<-- it was, after all, composed and commented on by humans).

What you mean by "it was, after all, composed and commented on by humans"?

regards

Amrut
22 November 2013, 01:15 AM
Namaste,


namaste

+1, true that.:cool1:

+2 I would second that :cool1: Hello Sahasranama :)

If you was to accept NArAyaNa is supreme, then there is no problem whatsoever. But if you want to 'Prove' NArAyaNa is supreme, then the 'Game' - 'My Daddy Strongest' begins :)

Same is true for a Shaivite.

I remember a TV ad of Dhara cooking oil in which the ad ends up with a girl shouting 'My Daddy Strongest'

Two astras NArAyaNa and MahApaSupatastra collides and produces heat.

Friction generates heat. Is it a solution?

Hi Sri Vaishnav. I hope you had a wonderful Pilgrimage.

Aum

Sri Vaishnava
22 November 2013, 02:04 AM
Namaste,


If you was to accept NArAyaNa is supreme, then there is no problem whatsoever. But if you want to 'Prove' NArAyaNa is supreme, then the 'Game' - 'My Daddy Strongest' begins :)

Same is true for a Shaivite.



My last post on these forums since the moderator obviously doesn't allow my posts to go through without moderation. And even if he doesn't allow this post, atleast he can get a good glimpse of this.

With reference to the point at hand, what gives you the moral high ground here? Equality of all devas is a philosophy that is newer than the 16th century. And it is just as much a sectarian belief as the rest. Worse, because it only remains a belief; the other two have some philosophical arguments at least and are a level above mere faith or belief.

Your so-called "daddy strongest" argument shows your lack of understanding of sAlambaNa yOgA and subhAsrayatva delineated by the Veda. To someone who has not studied either system, this will never be clear. To those who have a knowledge of the guNams, astrabhUshaNa adhyAya of vishNu purAna, sAlambaNa yOgA and tattva-darshaNa, the difference is vast.

Shaivas are not vedAntins and never claimed to be so, hence they never had any quarrel with vaishnavas (who alone were vedAntins) other than some exceptions like Dikshita.

Pseudo-sanctimony is nothing but ignorance. Like a tamil phrase, "the cat closes its eyes and thinks the whole world is blind". First get a proper knowledge of all philosophical systems before commenting.

I am done with these forums.

Anirudh
23 November 2013, 07:03 PM
Namaste Sri Vaishnava,



I am done with these forums.


You may not reconsider your decision but the knowledge you share via your post on Sri Vaishnavism indeed helps. I am taking toddler steps in my Sri Vaishnavism journey...

You can still share your views as a service to Sreeman Naaraayana even through others opinion might not go with yours. I am saying this because this forum has become a repository of wisdom (through the debates) and many can benefit.

Last but not the least, may I suggest you to read the Tamil phrase you mentioned one last time....

Apologize if I offended any ones sentiments and beliefs ....

Viraja
26 November 2013, 10:54 AM
Namaste friends,

The author of this blog seems to be a very knowledgeable and pleasant mannered person. Despite outrageous claims such as the ones mentioned in my reply which is post #1 in this thread, I kept reading his blog because he had done a tremendous amount of research work that is new and novel, such as what Sri Vamana avatara's 3 strides mean, the significance of Tirumala Tirupathi and what Seshachalam, the Tirupathi Hills means spiritually, and of Sri Sita-Rama 's significance and who they are spiritually. Vaishnavas will differ here and there on his opinions (such as calling Sri Rama as Shiva+Uma amsas, Sri Vishnu as Uma amsa and so forth), but the research work is genuine and gives a wide perspective as to the significance of various tattwas. I also would urge people to write to him with questions as he gets back promptly and has some deep knowledge.

So if we ignore some anti-Vaishnava sentiments and read on, we can gain pearls of wisdom from the blog. :)

Thanks.

Amrut
26 November 2013, 11:45 PM
Namaste friends,

The author of this blog seems to be a very knowledgeable and pleasant mannered person. Despite outrageous claims such as the ones mentioned in my reply which is post #1 in this thread, I kept reading his blog because he had done a tremendous amount of research work that is new and novel, such as what Sri Vamana avatara's 3 strides mean, the significance of Tirumala Tirupathi and what Seshachalam, the Tirupathi Hills means spiritually, and of Sri Sita-Rama 's significance and who they are spiritually. Vaishnavas will differ here and there on his opinions (such as calling Sri Rama as Shiva+Uma amsas, Sri Vishnu as Uma amsa and so forth), but the research work is genuine and gives a wide perspective as to the significance of various tattwas. I also would urge people to write to him with questions as he gets back promptly and has some deep knowledge.

So if we ignore some anti-Vaishnava sentiments and read on, we can gain pearls of wisdom from the blog. :)

Thanks.

Namaste Viraja,

I also take it same way. Instead of taking Vishnu as Adi Shakti, I would take it as
Shiva = Vishnu and Shakti = Laxmi i.e. substitute them.

Leaving aside some claims, this blog is very useful practically and gives good info.

I think that the author has written in bad mood / angry mood, else he would have done much justice.

You can leave aside the Bogus claim of Srimad Bhagavat. I too do not like to be a historian :)

If we keep thinking like historian, then we loose bhakti.

Not all accept 108 upanishads, but I have not seen a single upanishad giving negative teaching. You cannot apply each and every verse of all 108 upanishads in your life. You cannot apply all 700 verses of Gita in your life. Keep reading what suits you and neglect other verses. They may not may not be useful in future.

Meera bai and Radha chanted Krishna's name, they would not chant Rama Nama. When Krishna appeared in front of Hanuman, he requested Krishna to give darshan as Rama. We cannot even take names of all 24 avatars of Vishnu. Only one name is enough , only one is necessary. that is why we have Rama Sahasranama, Krishna Sahasranama, Laxmi-Narasimha Sahasranama and of course Vishnu Sahasranama. We have Vishnu suktam and Narayana suktam.though all avatars are technically one and the same, we concentrate one only one.

Take little that you need, leave the rest.

Aum

jignyAsu
27 November 2013, 06:59 AM
I too do not like to be a historian :)

If we keep thinking like historian, then we loose bhakti.

Actually, thinking historically has increased my Bhakti tremendously. At one point of time I too was receptive to a story as long as it made sense to me. But searching for a validity has helped me personally to relate to the incidents much better.

I do agree with you that over-analyzing/debating the historic incidents recorded by sages instead of experiencing them is a waste of time. But on the other extreme, if we do not keep in view basic validity of source, then we will be experiencing the wrong thing. So we need the right balance.

It is true that lots of hearsays are floating around in the name of our Hinduism but then with just a bit of effort we can gain a firm conviction about a lot of our materials. Remember, only the person who refused to believe the indologist speculations was able to excavate Dwaraka out of the ocean.

Standing in front of Govardhana Hill with the absolute conviction that Krishna has lifted this very Hill, whose eyes will fail to shed tears of joy? One should just read Sage Valmiki's description of Hanuman's flight to Lanka to realize why we call these itihAsAs. Can we ever repay the debt we owe to our great ancestors for giving these details to us with no expectation whatsoever in return? The only thing we can do is to repeat their golden words.

Amrut
27 November 2013, 09:01 AM
Actually, thinking historically has increased my Bhakti tremendously. At one point of time I too was receptive to a story as long as it made sense to me. But searching for a validity has helped me personally to relate to the incidents much better.

I do agree with you that over-analyzing/debating the historic incidents recorded by sages instead of experiencing them is a waste of time. But on the other extreme, if we do not keep in view basic validity of source, then we will be experiencing the wrong thing. So we need the right balance.

It is true that lots of hearsays are floating around in the name of our Hinduism but then with just a bit of effort we can gain a firm conviction about a lot of our materials. Remember, only the person who refused to believe the indologist speculations was able to excavate Dwaraka out of the ocean.

Standing in front of Govardhana Hill with the absolute conviction that Krishna has lifted this very Hill, whose eyes will fail to shed tears of joy? One should just read Sage Valmiki's description of Hanuman's flight to Lanka to realize why we call these itihAsAs. Can we ever repay the debt we owe to our great ancestors for giving these details to us with no expectation whatsoever in return? The only thing we can do is to repeat their golden words.

Namaste,

I fully agree with you. It all depends upon our nature. Some may get satisfaction after they are intellectually convinced, while some, may be of humbler intellect, will accept things with faith without much questioning.

A balance has to be created. A little enquiry is helpful, but do not let yourself to get drawn in that current.

On the other hand, one has to accept any good deed by an atheist or by our enemy / rival. Sri Rama sent Laxman to learn Niti Shastra from King Ravan.

We receive grace in proportion to our inner purity. I have realized this. My mother and father has habit of playing devotional songs daily in the morning. Before some years, say a decade, Bhajans or stotras would not produce any emotional change in me i.e. blossom bhakti, but the same bhajans would cultivate deep bhakti and ananda after certain years.

Faith, here does not mean blind faith. Again faith should not hurt others, nor should not spiritual practices.

The only way to pay debt is to reach or experience the essence of veda-s, as taught by our acharyas and if God wishes, then in turn, by his grace, teach them and alleviate them to the level we have reached. Before maturity if we keep fighting or start refuting rival schools, then I personally think, we do more harm, though we never do it intentionally i.e. it may be an impulsive outburst or a well planned grametized ;) attack.

It was Ishvara flowing through our acharyas that they were able to accomplish what they wanted to accomplish. If power of God is with you, nothing can stop you. All acharyas were undisputed during their time. Even the great compasionate Buddha only came out of his isolation after becoming the awakened (bodha), not before.

I feel the first thing to do is to reach the top and then guide others. Words also have profound effect if they are said effortlessly and have peethabala (backing of experience) of svAnubhava (Direct personal experience).

Both epics are granted special status of being itihAsa, which further separates them from PurANa-s, which also depict history, what happened in past.

In MohenjodAro, researchers have also found a 50 ft perimeter where the entire land is fused. This means rocks, sand, etc melt, fuse and form glassy layer / finish. This area also had high level of radioactivity. 44 skeletons lie buried in awkward position, some one over another, some holding hands and animals didn't eat them nor did the bones decomposed, all due to them being radioactive.

Similar effects were observed when America detonated first atom bomb in an inhibited lonely area as a test run. Hairs start to fall due to radioactive effect.

While the above discovery can produce faith, a simple human being can develop faith instantly when Standing in front of Govardhana Hill with the absolute conviction that Krishna has lifted this very Hill

Will he not shed tears of Joy?


Aum

Amrut
27 November 2013, 09:13 AM
Pranams,

Lastly I would add, that no matter what you do, the 'Goal' - the final destination should always remain prime and should not be forgotten at any time. We should also not loose faith in our Guru and continuously increase faith and surrender for our Guru.

|| Shri Guru SharaNam ||

Hari OM

Viraja
27 November 2013, 10:00 AM
Leaving aside some claims, this blog is very useful practically and gives good info.

I think that the author has written in bad mood / angry mood, else he would have done much justice.

Take little that you need, leave the rest.

Aum

Very true, research work such as presented under the section 'sampurna vishnu tattwam - demystifying the mystic vishnu' are very useful even to a Vaishnava, despite author's focus on establishing supremacy of Lord Shiva. I too think if he did not focus on this establishment but rather on his research work alone, there would not have been a need for the other blog 'Narayanastra.blogspot.com' (laughs). I agree completely with what you are saying.

Amrut
27 November 2013, 10:08 AM
Very true, research work such as presented under the section 'sampurna vishnu tattwam - demystifying the mystic vishnu' are very useful even to a Vaishnava, despite author's focus on establishing supremacy of Lord Shiva. I too think if he did not focus on this establishment but rather on his research work alone, there would not have been a need for the other blog 'Narayanastra.blogspot.com' (laughs). I agree completely with what you are saying.

Both did what they did :)

It is upto us to take what we want. It's always handy to keep a sieve.

Sudas Paijavana
27 November 2013, 10:50 AM
Pranam-s,

despite author's focus on establishing supremacy of Lord Shiva.


Both did what they did :)


But, is this what the Shri Gods want from us? To bicker and quarrel over which one of them is "supreme", even though they have given us the Four Noble Veda-s as the most important of all revelations that reveal that each of them is most important, that each of Them are verily great?

Why would the Shri Gods, the most high, worry about who we, as mere humans, see as supreme? Why do we divide amongst ourselves, from sister to brother, from mother to father, from cousin to friend? Is it so hard to unify ourselves under the indisputable authority of the Four Vedas? To unite as one with common prayers and oblations and be of one mind, of similar accord?

Anirudh
27 November 2013, 11:34 AM
Namaste

The difference lies between the following two statements...

#1. All roads lead to Rome.
#2. If all roads lead to Rome, then why not Abrahamic route.

If we believe #1 as true, then #2 is implicitly true.

If #2 is false, then #1 is also false.

If #1 is false, then All Devata's can not be equal.

Sudas Paijavana
27 November 2013, 11:50 AM
Namaste

The difference lies between the following two statements...

#1. All roads lead to Rome.
#2. If all roads lead to Rome, then why not Abrahamic route.

If we believe #1 as true, then #2 is implicitly true.

If #2 is false, then #1 is also false.

If #1 is false, then All Devata's can not be equal.

Namaste,

But, you're trivializing it though...

Anirudh
27 November 2013, 12:38 PM
Namaste Paijavana,



But, you're trivializing it though...


I am not trivializing it.
I was listening to a introductory lecture on Vishishtadvaita. In it the speaker questions, how can three Aacharyas come up with three different views about the same text(s)?
I found his Upanyaasam useful (http://srikrishnarpanam.blogspot.in/2013/06/vedanta-philosophy-vishishtadvaita.html).

And my comment was based on what I understood from his Upanyaasam.

Excerpts from his Upanyaasam



3 different Interpretation of Upanishad.
When people started interpreting these Upanishad's they started using their own brains. Azhwar says "Avaravar... ", As many number of people, that many number of brains and that many number of philosophies. I want to be independent and i want to discover something for me. Like what happened independence, freedom struggle this happened in philosophy too. The more the people learn, the more the Scholars and the Scholars started to quarrel among themselves. As per "Vidhwan vipashithu doshagya " A person who is a scholar will never agree with another scholar.He always wants to disagree with anyone else.
All these people mastered the shastras and interpreted in their own ways. So when i make this statement does it mean, Ramanujar was also an interpreter ? Did he talk with authenticity or he also thought on his own way and started interpreting veda's.This is where we have to note the difference now. Sankara interpreted, Madhva interpreted , Ramanuja interpreted. How can there be 3 different interpretations from the same original text? Text is the same. You need to give meaning to the text. How can you give 3 different meaning to the text ?


3 categories of text in Veda's - Bheda, Abheda, Ghataka
Because shastra comprises of 3 different categories of text - Bheda shruti, Abheda Shruthi, Ghataka Shruthi.


Bheda shruthi
Bheda Shruthi talks about absolute dualism. You are different, he is different, I am different, Paramatma is different from Jeevatma,anything and everything is separable, they are all different. This is absolute dualism. There is no connectivity between the two. Paramatma and Jeevatma are almost independent of each other. Bheda shruthi - bheda means dualism, all the sections of the Veda which advocate Bheda which advocate dualism and that portion is called Bheda Shruthi.


Abheda Shruthi
If veda's stopped only with that only Dvaitam only would have been in existence. Unfortunately, Veda has another portion called Abheda Shruthi which talks about non-dualism. Paramatma and jeevatma are the same. You the Jeevatma and HE the jeevatma are the same. Cat jeevatma and cow jeevatma are one at the same. Anyone who is able to look at differences will never attain moksham. He will only be going around and around in circles in this samsara. "Neha na n...". If i ever think i am different from you then i am always in samsara and i can never attain moksham. So this portion is called the Abheda shruthi.


Reason for these three types of text(Shruthi's) in Veda
Earlier we talked about Bheda shruthi which is absolute dualism and then it is Abheda shruthi which is absolute non dualism. There is a third portion of the veda. Veda took pity on us. It thought i have enough confused the human being, let me reconcile whatever i have told till now. So there is one portion which is totally contradicting to the other portion. Veda's comes up with new idea. Let me reconcile both. Why did veda advocate dualism ? why did veda advocate non-dualism ? It lays a connecting bridge between these two. Ghataka means connection, relationship. Veda's are not fools to advocate one at a time and then advocate something else later. Only human's do that, veda's don't do so. They reconcile themselves. They iron out the differences between the Bheda shruthi and abheda shruthi that is the third portion. These three philosophers advaitha sankaracharya focused only on the ABHEDA shruthi, dvaitha madhavacharya focused only on the BHEDA shruthi, Ramanujacharya focussed on the Ghataka shruthi. This is how all the 3 philosophies took birth from the same veda.
So it depends on what i like. It is the same sriman narayana, we see Rama, Krishna, Trivikraman. I can say Trivikarama is Narayana, Rama is Narayana, krishna is Narayana. A kid will question me "how can the say Narayana be three ?" it is not just 3 but more than 3000.. many avataras. Why many avataras ? if it is one avatar, people will not get attracted, if it is many many people get easily attracted. E.g For Krishna Jayanthi people prepare batchanam, nivediyam it is the same wheat flour, ghee and sugar. If it is mixed in different proportion we get mysore pak, thenkai burfi, milk burfi - different sweets. Each one likes different things. It is cater to the large mass and varied taste. Veda says "Loko bhinna ruchi...". Even our interest keeps changing - we want AC one day, don't want AC another day. My own taste differ from yesterday to today. Just a travel from badri to chennai people's taste vary. So it is the same veda which gave birth to all the three philosophies, but the difference is whether it is taken from Bheda Shruthi, Abheda Shruthi or Ghataka Shruthi.


Ghataka Shruthi
Vishistadvaitha Ramanuja focussed on all the three shruthi's and more importantly the Ghataka Shruthi. Ghatakam is an important process. We talk about east and west and bridging between East and west. East alone is not going to flourish, west alone is not going to flourish. So Bheda alone or abheda alone will not flourish. One has to bridge the gap of BHEDA-ABHEDA and that was the work of the Ghataka Shruthi. Vishistadvaitha is the offshoot of this Ghataka Shruthi. I will tell you an example of all these three shruthi's. We will go one by one each..

Sudas Paijavana
27 November 2013, 12:40 PM
And my comment was based on what I understood from his Upanyaasam.


Namaste,

And, my posting was based on what the Rig Veda has revealed.

EDIT: But, we are all entitled to believe in what we want to believe in, as long as the belief doesn't cause harm to ourselves or to those around us. You have every right to believe that the Gods are not equal.

Anirudh
27 November 2013, 01:08 PM
Namaste,



we are all entitled to believe in what we want to believe in, as long as the belief doesn't cause harm to ourselves or to those around us.


I am not literate enough to understand Veda.

But I think there must be some valid reason behind the emergence of these philosophies. Sri Raamaanuja seem to be addressing the unanswered questions of other philosophies....

I am just a beginner, have a long way to go.

PS: I am not questioning your calibre, so kindly do not misunderstand my first statement in this post...

Sudas Paijavana
27 November 2013, 04:21 PM
Pranam-s,



I am not literate enough to understand Veda.

Neither am I, brother.


I am just a beginner, have a long way to go.

I, too, am just a beginner and have a long way to go.


PS: I am not questioning your calibre, so kindly do not misunderstand my first statement in this post...

You have every right to question my calibre; it is your inalienable right.

Amrut
28 November 2013, 12:03 AM
Pranam-s,


But, is this what the Shri Gods want from us? To bicker and quarrel over which one of them is "supreme", even though they have given us the Four Noble Veda-s as the most important of all revelations that reveal that each of them is most important, that each of Them are verily great?

Why would the Shri Gods, the most high, worry about who we, as mere humans, see as supreme? Why do we divide amongst ourselves, from sister to brother, from mother to father, from cousin to friend? Is it so hard to unify ourselves under the indisputable authority of the Four Vedas? To unite as one with common prayers and oblations and be of one mind, of similar accord?

Highest Pranam-s,

Human nature

Half glass filled, half glass empty

The way we perceive it.

When someone interprets veda-s, the explanation is more of author's understanding than the revelation of veda-s themselves. Hence different people interpret shruti-s in different ways.

Jai Shri Ram Anirudh ji,


#1. All roads lead to Rome.

correction

#1. All roads (as prescribed by shastra-s) leads to Rome (moksha).

If VA suits you, go ahead and good luck.

Here is an explanation by Shankaracharya Sri Abhinava Vidyatirtha Swamiji of Shringeri Math


I had an interesting discussion with Sri Abhinava Vidyatirtha Swamiji of Sri Sringeri Mutt, who is my Guru, about 40 years back.

I asked him that if The Veda is the Ultimate Authority, and if all the three Acharyas have taken the same three Mahavakyas to found their systems, why there is a difference in their conclusions?

He replied,

Acharyas know that the dispositions of the Individuals vary.

You will be able to follow things that suits your Nature.And as the Vedas say the Truth is One, but it is spoken of as Many’

(Ekam Sat Vipra bahudha vadanti)

Therefore the Acharyas have provided different approaches to reach God.

One may follow any of these.

There is no question of what is Right and What is Wrong.

That is left to reason, which is useless in Spiritual Development.

You follow what suits you and do not bother.

You are here to realize Brahman, not to prove One is Right and another is wrong”

Of these three approaches, Vaishnavism places importance on The Bhakti Yoga. The Path of Devotion.

The path of devotion is the total surrender to God.

Ramanuja systematized the Bhakti Yoga and popularised the Pancharatra system.

Source (http://ramanan50.wordpress.com/2013/09/01/what-is-pancharatra-of-sri-vaishnavism/)

Note: Rest article i.e. What is Pancharatra? onwards is a wikipedia copy paste.

Aum

brahma jijnasa
28 November 2013, 10:57 PM
Namaste

But, we are all entitled to believe in what we want to believe in, as long as the belief doesn't cause harm to ourselves or to those around us. You have every right to believe that the Gods are not equal.

There are both views. According to one all the Gods are equal, and another view is that Gods are not equal. In Rig Veda also we can see both views are supported.

regards

Anirudh
29 November 2013, 01:51 AM
Namaste IS Amrutji,



correction


I was not comparing the Shaakaas of Sanaatana Dharma but was comparing Sanaatana Dharma with Abrahamic religions.

The very existence of more than one (well accepted) philosophical findings of the same text is a proof that equality among the pantheon of Sanaatana Dharma Gods is an on going debate.

I stop at that point because my knowledge is limited as on date.

hinduism♥krishna
02 December 2013, 08:15 AM
Nice blog !

There is no any difference between vishnu and shiva . Rama himself says in ramayana " Those who worship me and don't worship shiva as well as those who worship shiva and don't worship vishnu , can not attain me (bramhan) ever ."

Vishnu and shiva are the manifestations of bramhan .So they are not different at all .
To discard the view of people who consider the duality between the god as a real thing , Upanishadas say " Those who see any diversity in bramhan goes from the cycle of birth and death again and again . "