Anu geeta- The proof of Narayana supervising Krishna?

[ganeshamylord]

Namaste
Can any vaishnava followers explain to me the significance of Anu gita which occurs in the Ashwamedha parva of Mahabharata?
I see some traditions particularly the gaudiya traditions calling Krishna as the origin of Vishnu and they always quote the Bhagavad Gita as a reference to support their claim. Also in chaitanya charitamrita it is said that Mahavishnu incarnates as Advaita acharya to serve the feet of Krishna in the form of Sri Chaitanya. Can non gaudiya vaishnavas especially sri vaishnavas throw some light on this perspective?

However if we read Anugita we would understand that the Brahman whom Krishna referred to in the Bhagavad Gita is Narayana or Bhagavan. And that is the reason why it is called Bhagavad Gita and not Krishna Gita.

Arjuna, the son of Pandu, having surveyed with delight that lovely palace, in the company of Krishna, spoke these words: ‘O you of mighty arms! O you whose mother is Devaki! when the battle was about to commence, I became aware of your greatness, and that divine form of yours. But that, O Kesava! which through affection (for me) you explained before, has all disappeared, O tiger-like man! from my degenerate mind. Again and again, however, I feel a curiosity about those topics. But (now), O Madhava! you will be going at no distant date to Dvaraka

Krishna, possessed of great glory, replied in these words after embracing Arjuna.
Vasudeva said:
From me, O son of Pritha! you heard a mystery, and learnt about the eternal (principle), about piety in (its true) form, and about all the everlasting worlds. It is excessively disagreeable to me, that you should not have grasped it through want of intelligence. And the recollection (of it) now again is not possible (to me). Really, O son of Pandu! you are devoid of faith and of a bad intellect. And, O Dhananjaya! it is not possible for me to repeat in full (what I said before). For that doctrine was perfectly adequate for understanding the seat, of the Brahman. It is not possible for me to state it again in full in that way. For then accompanied by my mystic power, I declared to you the Supreme Brahman.

_______________________________________________________________

Please study carefully the last sentence. Krishna says He was accompanied by "mystic power" or "yoga yukta" back then in Kurukshetra. And hence it is impossible for Him to repeat Bhagavad gita. Which means that "mystic power" is none but Bhagavan Narayana who spoke through Krishna hence the gita is called Bhagavad Gita and not Krishna gita.
This proves the pansophical aspect of Lord Vishnu. He is also present as Krishna just as He is present in all the atoms as Paramatma, Also my point in strengthened specifically when Krishna says not only can He not repeat Bhagavad Gita but also cannot recollect it. So the fact Lord Krishna forgets His own geeta and tells Arjuna that He isnt "sufficient with yoga" anymore to recite Bhagavad gita and goes ahead giving another geeta shows that the yoga He was talking about was none but complete awareness about His own position as Narayana and that it was Bhagavan Narayana speaking through Lord Krishna.

Any more comments to support or refute my view?

[hinduism♥krishna]

It is not possible for me to state it again in full in that way. For then accompanied by my mystic power, I declared to you the Supreme Brahman

I've read this in Sanskrit. I think, There "Yoga-Yukta" word is mentioned for Mystic Power. But what's this yoga-yukta actually meant for?

[Amrut]

Namaste,

Anything that denies supremacy of Vishnu is an interpolation to 'some' vaishnavas ;)

Hari OM

[lalit1000]

One who thinks one god in Vedic Religion is superior to another is still living like a frog in the well.He havent attained any God yet.

We Hindus regard both Siva and Vishnu as the same and this is evident from the fact that in the ecstasy of our devotion, whether were are alone or are in groups, we exclaim " Haro-Hara" and "Govinda-Govinda", which(whose) names come to our lips spontaneously. The holy days of Sivaratri and Janmashtami are divided from each other by exactly 180 days, and this seems to indicate that God in His aspect as Siva protects us during one-half of the year, and in His aspect as Vishnu, in the other half. The traditional practice of boys and girls collecting oil for their vigil on Sivaratri and Janmashtami nights, singing in chorus a song which means that Sivaratri and Sri Jayanti are the same, is another pointer to the identity of these two manifestations of the Divine. Apachaaranivrtti must precede Anugraha - eradication of sins must precede blessings. So God as Hara destroy the sins of His devotees, while as Govinda, He protects them from harm. The expressions Hara -Hara and Govinda-Govinda come to children effortlessly. It is significant that Sri Sankara composed Bhaja Govindam when he was a child and Sri Sambandar sang that Hara naama should envelop the world, when he too was a child. The Upanishads speak of God as Uma-sameta-Parameswara, and it is worthy of note that all children refer to God as Ummachi, which is obviously a contraction for Uma-Maheswara. Thus, in the language of children, there is no difference between Siva and Vishnu.

The sense of religious toleration is not a modern conception. It can be traced to very ancient times. The Kural proclaimed that all teachings referred only to one Porul or Object. Sri Sankara and Sri Sambandar saw the same God worshipped in the six systems to which they referred. Arhat, the name by which Jains call the Supreme Being, is a Vedic name identified with Siva. Other religions also speak of one God.

All troubles in rthis world start only when attempts are made to wean away people from their native religion to convert them to a new faith, by holding out the temptation that people can attain salvation only if they embrace that new faith. This is more than what any sensible person can swallow. Since every religion speaks of God, to ask a person to give up the religion in which he is born is tantamount to asking him to give up God and is a sin against God. It is the duty of every person to follow the religion of his ancestors. If a non-Hindu finds that he had Hindu ancestors, its up to him to revert to Hinduism after performing the prescribed Praayaschitta(purificatory ceremony).

While there is propaganda for other religions, there is none for the Hindu religion. Propaganda is a prescribed duty for other religions, while in respect of Hinduism, it is enjoined that one should not tell unasked-Ma Aprshtah Kasyachit Brooyat. It is noteworthy that so may continue to profess Hindu religion even without preaching and propaganda. The cause of the stability of Hindu religion is that each practised his prescribed Dharma. If each person does his appointed duty, then our religion will be strengthened both in its Vedic foundations and in its ceremonial practices. It is only that way the Vedic religion has survived down the ages.

[brahma jijnasa]

Namaste

I do not understand what is the problem here?
It is well known fact that Krishna is Lord Vishnu Himself, and also Supreme Brahman. So He is both, Lord Vishnu and Brahman.
I do not see how Narayana (Vishnu) can supervise Lord Krishna.
That would be like saying Lord Vishnu is supervising Lord Vishnu. :D


regards

[ganeshamylord]

Namaste

I do not understand what is the problem here?
It is well known fact that Krishna is Lord Vishnu Himself, and also Supreme Brahman. So He is both, Lord Vishnu and Brahman.
I do not see how Narayana (Vishnu) can supervise Lord Krishna.
That would be like saying Lord Vishnu is supervising Lord Vishnu. :D


regards
Namaste
Whatever i quoted is not my opinion and is from the itihasa Mahabharata which is considered more authentic than the puranas.
Moreso since you are more interested in the pauranic versions il give you a snap from the esteemed Bhagavata itself
SB 10.89.57
vavanda ātmānam anantam acyuto
 jiṣṇuś ca tad-darśana-jāta-sādhvasaḥ
tāv āha bhūmā parameṣṭhināṁ prabhur
 beddhā�jalī sa-smitam ūrjayā girā
Lord Kṛṣṇa offered homage to Himself in this boundless form, and Arjuna, astonished at the sight of Lord Mahā-Viṣṇu, bowed down as well. Then, as the two of them stood before Him with joined palms, the almighty Mahā-Viṣṇu, supreme master of all rulers of the universe, smiled and spoke to them in a voice full of solemn authority.

Here Lord Krishna takes Arjuna to Mahavishnu and bows His head unto Him. So it doesnt mean He is inferior to Mahavishnu but He is bowing down unto His own self.

SB 10.89.58 (http://vedabase.com/en/sb/10/89/58) —
dvijātmajā me yuvayor didṛkṣuṇā
 mayopanītā bhuvi dharma-guptaye
kalāvatīrṇāv avaner bharāsurān
 hatveha bhūyas tvarayetam anti me
Lord Mahā-Viṣṇu said:I brought the brāhmaṇa’s sons here because I wanted to see the two of you, My expansions, who have descended to the earth to save the principles of religion. As soon as you finish killing the demons who burden the earth, quickly come back here to Me.
Here Lord Mahavishnu clearly states that both Arjuna and Krishna are His Amshas or Kalas. And He orders them to come back to Him quickly
All these arent my versions but are directly from scriptures:)


But what i feel is unacceptable is when some gaudiya followers tell me that Mahavishnu took His avatar as Acharya Advaita just to serve Sri Chaintanya who was Krishna because He was so enthusiastic in serving Krishnas feet? I think that view is not accepted by any other vaishnava sampradaya as Truth or for that matter vedic.

[ganeshamylord]

I've read this in Sanskrit. I think, There "Yoga-Yukta" word is mentioned for Mystic Power. But what's this yoga-yukta actually meant for?

Namaste
Yes even i was wondering how Krishna who is all pervading cannot be situated in yoga at that particular time? Is it His contact with His own Maya that made Him say that? Yoga i think is realization of the self as eternal and since Krishna was self realized right from birth this "yoga yukta" word even perplexes me

[Amrut]

Namaste,

According to Mahabharata and Yoga Vasista, Arjuna and Krishna are avatars of Nara and Narayana respectively. Nara will pass through all the joys and sorrows but Narayana will be aware of his Self. I cant remember exact verses.

I do not go too deep and take things too seriously and literally to the pUrvabhumikA-s. They are created so as to create an atmosphere before giving new updeshas.

Krishna rooted in Brahman said that I am Brahman. At times he said as ISvara too in gItA.

It shows importance of gItA. Krishna also gave 3 more instructions, 3 to arjuna, Bhagavad Gita, Anu Gita / Brahmana gita (part of Anu Gita), Uttara Gita (mostly independent text, with commentary by Gaudapadacharya) and last upsdesha is given to Uddhava in the form of Uddhava Gita. All these are for the good of us. IF we do not stick to Brahman as 'person' lots of problems can be neutralized.

Just my two cents.

Hari OM

[hinduism♥krishna]

hello/namaste


Uttara Gita (mostly independent text, with commentary by Gaudapadacharya)

Hari OM

I would like to read it as I'm really impressed by his commentary on Mandukya Upanishada. What an excellence in logics and Knowledge ! Just perfect ! Some of his logics are exactly same as mine, may be in my previous births I was a follower of Gaudapada :)

[brahma jijnasa]

Namaste

Here Lord Krishna takes Arjuna to Mahavishnu and bows His head unto Him. So it doesnt mean He is inferior to Mahavishnu but He is bowing down unto His own self.

Yes, but then why would that mean that Narayana (Vishnu) is supervising Krishna?

EDIT:

Here Lord Mahavishnu clearly states that both Arjuna and Krishna are His Amshas or Kalas. And He orders them to come back to Him quickly
All these arent my versions but are directly from scripturesIt's just their conversation. I do not see how this would mean that He orders them, or that Narayana (Vishnu) is supervising Krishna.


But what i feel is gross concoction of vedas is when some gaudiya followers tell me that Mahavishnu took His avatar as Acharya Advaita just to serve Sri Chaintanya who was Krishna because He was so enthusiastic in serving Krishnas feet? I think it is unauthorized self indulgent self serving lies like these which destroy sanatana dharma and make the followers antivedic.I do not want to comment on this because you obviously do not understand many of the attitudes that are represented in the Gaudiya vaishnava tradition.
Besides it is not wise idea to come here to the Vaishnava forum and then talk "I think it is unauthorized self indulgent self serving lies ...". It could easily happen you become banned. Watch out!


regards

[ganeshamylord]

Namaste


Yes, but then why would that mean that Narayana (Vishnu) is supervising Krishna?

EDIT:
It's just their conversation. I do not see how this would mean that He orders them, or that Narayana (Vishnu) is supervising Krishna.

I do not want to comment on this because you obviously do not understand many of the attitudes that are represented in the Gaudiya vaishnava tradition.
Besides it is not wise idea to come here to the Vaishnava forum and then talk "I think it is unauthorized self indulgent self serving lies ...". It could easily happen you become banned. Watch out!


regards

Namaste
It is obvious you didnot understand the intent of the thread.

Now coming to your question. How is Narayana supervising Krishna? See the statement made by Krishna. He says He cannot recollect the Bhagavad Gita in the ashwamedha parva.. Why do you think so? He then says He was "yoga yukta" in the battle field. Which indirectly means He cannot recollect or repeat the Gita once again because He is obviously not yoga yukta at the moment. Now that yoga yukta means "sufficient with yoga" and that yoga is obviously the knowledge of Narayana the supreme Brahman or awareness of oneness/nonduality with Narayana in this particular context.

I quoted the Srimad Bhagavatam specifically because it proves that Krishna is a Kala of Mahavishnu contrary to what you said in your post. And the text specifically stressing on Mahavishu speaking to them with a voice of authority means He is ordering them because you dont use authority in normal conversations and neither would anyone bow their heads in normal conversations.

And if you have anything productive to share feel free to do so.
Is there anything else you didnt understand? And if you can throw light on why Krishna says that he cannot recollect the gita id be grateful to you

[ganeshamylord]

Namaste,

According to Mahabharata and Yoga Vasista, Arjuna and Krishna are avatars of Nara and Narayana respectively. Nara will pass through all the joys and sorrows but Narayana will be aware of his Self. I cant remember exact verses.

I do not go too deep and take things too seriously and literally to the pUrvabhumikA-s. They are created so as to create an atmosphere before giving new updeshas.

Krishna rooted in Brahman said that I am Brahman. At times he said as ISvara too in gItA.

It shows importance of gItA. Krishna also gave 3 more instructions, 3 to arjuna, Bhagavad Gita, Anu Gita / Brahmana gita (part of Anu Gita), Uttara Gita (mostly independent text, with commentary by Gaudapadacharya) and last upsdesha is given to Uddhava in the form of Uddhava Gita. All these are for the good of us. IF we do not stick to Brahman as 'person' lots of problems can be neutralized.

Just my two cents.

Hari OM

Thanks a lot Amrutji for your two cents is worth a thousand for me:)

[hinduism♥krishna]

Namaste
Yes even i was wondering how Krishna who is all pervading cannot be situated in yoga at that particular time? Is it His contact with His own Maya that made Him say that? Yoga i think is realization of the self as eternal and since Krishna was self realized right from birth this "yoga yukta" word even perplexes me

PranAm,

I think Yog-Yukta means one with Brahman. It can be meant that 'I' of Bhagavad Gita is actually Brahman. However many times 'I' is also mentioned for Vishnu's form like in case of describing Bhakti and worship.


This is supported by a fact that some times Krishna mentioned Ishwara and Brahamn as a third person.

[lalit1000]

Hello,
A fundamental question quite relevant with this thread:


It is said that in the beginning God, who was one, wanted to become many and enjoy himself. As the first step to creation he created Devi – the total cosmic Female force, also called Prakriti. For the male part, out of his left he created Shiva, out of his middle he created Brahma and out of his right he created Vishnu. That is why many regard the Devi as more powerful than the Trinities and hence She is called Parashakti or Paradevi – Para meaning beyond . Brahma created the universe. Vishnu controls and runs the universe. Shiva along with Shakti is engaged in the eternal dissolution and recreation of the universe.
So A)Parabrhma(supreme Godhead) creates B)ParaSakthi and himself gets divided onto
A1)Brahma,A2)Vishnu and A3)Shiva.

Then how an amsa avatar of A2) can be A) himself where, in him, he clearly lacks the A1) and A2) attributes of A).
Is the conception only because of Srimad Bhagwat Gita?Pardon my ignorance regarding my knowledge of scriptures and sastras. :)
Taking hints from this thread , Lord Krishna mentions that he was Yoga yukta in Kurushetra while he was speaking Srimad Bhagawat Gita.Could that be it was Parabrahma himself speaking in Kuruksetra & not an avatar of A2)?.Because Lord Krishna mentions clearly that among the 11 Rudras he is sankara and among the 12 Adityas he is Vishnu.So how can Lord Vishnu be thought of as A)? Also how can an avatar of A2) says that he is A2 among the 12 Adityas?Arent these contradictory unless we conclude that it was the Supreme God head ,who is beyond A 1,2 and 3 s,was speaking in the battlefield and not an avatar of A2) ?


Another question though not relevant to this thread:

Since Guru is saksat Parabrahma ,worshipping him would be worshipping the Supreme Godhead A) which in turn means worshipping all the deties.
So in this way we will have less fights and arguments regarding who is superior and who is inferior among Gods etc.Am i right or wrong?
Regards.

[brahma jijnasa]

Namaste

Hello,
A fundamental question quite relevant with this thread:


So A)Parabrhma(supreme Godhead) creates B)ParaSakthi and himself gets divided onto
A1)Brahma,A2)Vishnu and A3)Shiva.

Then how an amsa avatar of A2) can be A) himself where, in him, he clearly lacks the A1) and A2) attributes of A).
Is the conception only because of Srimad Bhagwat Gita?Pardon my ignorance regarding my knowledge of scriptures and sastras. :)
Taking hints from this thread , Lord Krishna mentions that he was Yoga yukta in Kurushetra while he was speaking Srimad Bhagawat Gita.Could that be it was Parabrahma himself speaking in Kuruksetra & not an avatar of A2)?.Because Lord Krishna mentions clearly that among the 11 Rudras he is sankara and among the 12 Adityas he is Vishnu.So how can Lord Vishnu be thought of as A)? Also how can an avatar of A2) says that he is A2 among the 12 Adityas?Arent these contradictory unless we conclude that it was the Supreme God head ,who is beyond A 1,2 and 3 s,was speaking in the battlefield and not an avatar of A2) ?

Excellent observation!
You noticed something that many people can not understand even after many years of studying the scriptures (I would even say after many lifetimes of studying the scriptures). :)

For starters let we ask the question: Who is Parabrahman?
Lord Krishna is God (deva) and Brahman often called Parabrahman (paraḿ brahma) or the Supreme Brahman. This is confirmed in the Bhagavad gita 10.12: paraḿ brahma paraḿ dhāma ... ādi-devam ajaḿ vibhum.
Lord Krishna is nobody's avatara and He himself has all the attributes. He even has the attributes of all of them (Brahma, Vishnu, Shiva) because they all are His avataras and parts (aṁśa). You noticed that very well!
Someone who is a complete whole in its entirety can not be anyone's part (aṁśa) or avatara! It is precisely Lord Krishna this complete whole to the maximum completeness and therefore He can not be anyone's part (aṁśa) or avatara!
I explained why this is so in another thread, if you're interested see all my posts there beginning with post #12, also go through the links that I left there: http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?t=12984&page=2



Another question though not relevant to this thread:

Since Guru is saksat Parabrahma ,worshipping him would be worshipping the Supreme Godhead A) which in turn means worshipping all the deties.
So in this way we will have less fights and arguments regarding who is superior and who is inferior among Gods etc.Am i right or wrong?
Regards.

Not so. Guru is not a God but is a servant of God and a soul surrendered to God.
Reverence and bhakti (devotion, love) should be offered to both, The Supreme Lord and guru who is a soul surrendered to The Supreme Lord. This is confirmed in the Shvetasvatara Upanishad, the last verse in there says:


yasya deve parā bhaktiḥ yathā deve tathā gurau

"we should feel the highest devotion (bhakti) for God, and for Guru as for God" ;)

----------
PS. Bhagavad gita quote see at BBT, vedabase


regards

[Amrut]

Hello,
A fundamental question quite relevant with this thread:


So A)Parabrhma(supreme Godhead) creates B)ParaSakthi and himself gets divided onto
A1)Brahma,A2)Vishnu and A3)Shiva.

Then how an amsa avatar of A2) can be A) himself where, in him, he clearly lacks the A1) and A2) attributes of A).
Is the conception only because of Srimad Bhagwat Gita?Pardon my ignorance regarding my knowledge of scriptures and sastras. :)
Taking hints from this thread , Lord Krishna mentions that he was Yoga yukta in Kurushetra while he was speaking Srimad Bhagawat Gita.Could that be it was Parabrahma himself speaking in Kuruksetra & not an avatar of A2)?.Because Lord Krishna mentions clearly that among the 11 Rudras he is sankara and among the 12 Adityas he is Vishnu.So how can Lord Vishnu be thought of as A)? Also how can an avatar of A2) says that he is A2 among the 12 Adityas?Arent these contradictory unless we conclude that it was the Supreme God head ,who is beyond A 1,2 and 3 s,was speaking in the battlefield and not an avatar of A2) ?


Another question though not relevant to this thread:

Since Guru is saksat Parabrahma ,worshipping him would be worshipping the Supreme Godhead A) which in turn means worshipping all the deties.
So in this way we will have less fights and arguments regarding who is superior and who is inferior among Gods etc.Am i right or wrong?
Regards.

Namaste,

In Ganesha Gita (tika by Nilakanthacharya), it is said that Ganesha is everything. In Shiva Gita (commentary by Sripad Pandit Aradhya, and 2 advaita acharyas) says that Shiva is everything. Krishna in Gita says he is everything. There are slokas which say Kapila is everythng, Vishnu is evrything, Narayana is supreme, Rama is supreme. If we take all of them as person, then what is the truth?

ISvara is always rooted in Brahman and hence can appear it in different forms.

Do you practice Japa?

If the mind sinks in the origin of mantra, the form of Lord vanishes. Try to keep the image of lord in front of you (in mind) and do japa. When mind is fully concentrated in mantra, form drops automatically. If we take the Lord as formless, then many problems are solved. But if we take it as person and something emanating from something is a part of former, then problems arise.

If Krishna is original godhead, then why not upanishads simply mention Krishna. Why they use the word Brahman. Is there any vedic mantra dedicated to Krishna? If we take the real nature of Krishna, Shiva, Ganesha as formless (not need to take attributeless :) ), we find a consistency. So whenever it is said, 'I am supreme', we can take this 'I' as Brahman.

In the similar way, it is Guru Tatva is parabrahman and not Guru as person, which is different from the trinity.

Hari OM

[axlyz]

Namaste
Can any vaishnava followers explain to me the significance of Anu gita which occurs in the Ashwamedha parva of Mahabharata?
I see some traditions particularly the gaudiya traditions calling Krishna as the origin of Vishnu and they always quote the Bhagavad Gita as a reference to support their claim. Also in chaitanya charitamrita it is said that Mahavishnu incarnates as Advaita acharya to serve the feet of Krishna in the form of Sri Chaitanya. Can non gaudiya vaishnavas especially sri vaishnavas throw some light on this perspective?

However if we read Anugita we would understand that the Brahman whom Krishna referred to in the Bhagavad Gita is Narayana or Bhagavan. And that is the reason why it is called Bhagavad Gita and not Krishna Gita.

Arjuna, the son of Pandu, having surveyed with delight that lovely palace, in the company of Krishna, spoke these words: ‘O you of mighty arms! O you whose mother is Devaki! when the battle was about to commence, I became aware of your greatness, and that divine form of yours. But that, O Kesava! which through affection (for me) you explained before, has all disappeared, O tiger-like man! from my degenerate mind. Again and again, however, I feel a curiosity about those topics. But (now), O Madhava! you will be going at no distant date to Dvaraka

Krishna, possessed of great glory, replied in these words after embracing Arjuna.
Vasudeva said:
From me, O son of Pritha! you heard a mystery, and learnt about the eternal (principle), about piety in (its true) form, and about all the everlasting worlds. It is excessively disagreeable to me, that you should not have grasped it through want of intelligence. And the recollection (of it) now again is not possible (to me). Really, O son of Pandu! you are devoid of faith and of a bad intellect. And, O Dhananjaya! it is not possible for me to repeat in full (what I said before). For that doctrine was perfectly adequate for understanding the seat, of the Brahman. It is not possible for me to state it again in full in that way. For then accompanied by my mystic power, I declared to you the Supreme Brahman.

_______________________________________________________________

Please study carefully the last sentence. Krishna says He was accompanied by "mystic power" or "yoga yukta" back then in Kurukshetra. And hence it is impossible for Him to repeat Bhagavad gita. Which means that "mystic power" is none but Bhagavan Narayana who spoke through Krishna hence the gita is called Bhagavad Gita and not Krishna gita.
This proves the pansophical aspect of Lord Vishnu. He is also present as Krishna just as He is present in all the atoms as Paramatma, Also my point in strengthened specifically when Krishna says not only can He not repeat Bhagavad Gita but also cannot recollect it. So the fact Lord Krishna forgets His own geeta and tells Arjuna that He isnt "sufficient with yoga" anymore to recite Bhagavad gita and goes ahead giving another geeta shows that the yoga He was talking about was none but complete awareness about His own position as Narayana and that it was Bhagavan Narayana speaking through Lord Krishna.

Any more comments to support or refute my view?

Not sure if this was stated already, but I do not think that is the intent of Krishna. First of all, there is no difference between Narayana and Krishna. Therefore, all names of Narayana are Krishna's names as well and vice versa. Plus, when Krishna speaks in the Bhagavad Gita, it is not "Sr Krishna Uvacha", but "Sri Bhagavan Uvacha", meaning that Bhagavan is also a name of Krishna. Therefore, Lord Narayana did not "speak" through Krishna, but came on this earth as Krishna. Secondly, my thoughts on that verse you gave is that I don't think Krishna is saying that he can't recite the entire Gita. It is similar to when a father tells his child "You have already spent $300 wastefully, and so I cannot give you $300 again". It is not that the father cannot give the money, it is just that he doesn't want it to be wasted again. I think that the last sentence just states that Krishna used his mystic potency and gave some to Arjun so they could go through the Bhagavad Gita in a matter of moments.

This is a strictly Vaisnava interpretation, and since I am a beginner Vaisnava, I would appreciate criticisms/comments. Regards :)

[ganeshamylord]

. First of all, there is no difference between Narayana and Krishna. Plus, when Krishna speaks in the Bhagavad Gita, it is not "Sr Krishna Uvacha", but "Sri Bhagavan Uvacha", meaning that Bhagavan is also a name of Krishna. . It is similar to when a father tells his child "You have already spent $300 wastefully, and so I cannot give you $300 again". It is not that the father cannot give the money, it is just that he doesn't want it to be wasted again. I think that the last sentence just states that Krishna used his mystic potency and gave some to Arjun so they could go through the Bhagavad Gita in a matter of moments.

This is a strictly Vaisnava interpretation, and since I am a beginner Vaisnava, I would appreciate criticisms/comments. Regards :)

Namaste
But Krishna says He cannot recollect the gita,... He doesnt say He doesnt want to impart the knowledge again.

Krishna is an amsha of Narayana... if you read Bhagavatam and also the 6th post in this thread you will get there

Third i dont understand if are you trying to say Gita is like 300$ money which will perish if given (as far as i know knowledge grows as it is given) or if Arjuna wasted it because if Arjuna is a person who wastes it, it means he is ignorant and if arjuna is ignorant then his statement "para brahma param dhama pavitram" is also ignorance

Yes its not Krishna uvacha but Bhagavan uvacha because it is Bhagavan Narayana speaking through Krishna. And regarding Krishna being amsha or total Narayana we have a thread by hinduismkrishna where he quoted the Vishnu purana where Krishnas body gets burnt in the pyre along with His wives. Now Narayana cannot be burnt neither does He have a body.

Fourth yes thats what is the intent of the thread. If the "mystic potency" that Krishna used is subordinate to Him why isnt He able to use it again?

And the 300$ theory is your personal interpretation and if it was that simple Krishna would have said "I dont want to tell you the Gita again because you dont deserve it" but He instead says "I am not well equipped in yoga at the moment so i cannot recollect it so i cant impart it again as it is beyond my ability to retell it"

[axlyz]

Namaste
But Krishna says He cannot recollect the gita,... He doesnt say He doesnt want to impart the knowledge again.

Krishna is an amsha of Narayana... if you read Bhagavatam and also the 6th post in this thread you will get there

Third i dont understand if are you trying to say Gita is like 300$ money which will perish if given (as far as i know knowledge grows as it is given) or if Arjuna wasted it because if Arjuna is a person who wastes it, it means he is ignorant and if arjuna is ignorant then his statement "para brahma param dhama pavitram" is also ignorance

Yes its not Krishna uvacha but Bhagavan uvacha because it is Bhagavan Narayana speaking through Krishna. And regarding Krishna being amsha or total Narayana we have a thread by hinduismkrishna where he quoted the Vishnu purana where Krishnas body gets burnt in the pyre along with His wives. Now Narayana cannot be burnt neither does He have a body.

Fourth yes thats what is the intent of the thread. If the "mystic potency" that Krishna used is subordinate to Him why isnt He able to use it again?

And the 300$ theory is your personal interpretation and if it was that simple Krishna would have said "I dont want to tell you the Gita again because you dont deserve it" but He instead says "I am not well equipped in yoga at the moment so i cannot recollect it so i cant impart it again as it is beyond my ability to retell it"

Narayana is Krishna. To say that there is a difference between various manifestations of the Lord is ignorance. So, if Lord Narayana is supreme in his four hands form, then he is supreme in his Krishna form with 2 hands. This has been accepted by every Vaisnava. My interpretation just said that Krishna was simply disappointed that Arjuna had forgotten everything, and so he didn't want to talk then. That is why he chastises Arjun as having a bad intellect and bad devotion. The Bhagavad Gita was very confidential, so he could not just repeat it again. Just like $300 is a lot, you cannot just keep giving it. Saying that Narayana spoke though Krishna is wrong, as Krishna is Narayana. Arjuna calls Krishna as Krishna. Lord Narayana did speak the Gita, but not through Krishna, but AS Krishna.

Lord Krishna has been called the Purna avatar of Lord Narayana, therefore he is just as powerful as Lord Narayana. It does not matter if Lord Narayana is the avatari, fact remains is that Lord Krishna is purna avatar. Claiming that Krishna is lower than Narayana (in terms of power, intelligence, etc) makes no sense to any Vaisnava.

The verse from the Vishnu Purana, here is what I think. When Lord Krishna left, he simply left his maya form, or material form. This is the consensus of Vaisnavas, although I cannot quote scriptures to reinforce this because I do not have Vishnu Purana. But if you accept Lord Narayana's body as eternal and spiritual, you have to accept Lord Krishna's body as the same. Not doing so results in an offence against Lord Narayana.

What Arjun said during the Gita was perfect, it is just that he forgot everything. Reason is that Lord Krishna gave Arjuna some of his yogic abilities in order for Arjuna to understand everything. No mortal can see the Vishwaroop without being blessed by the Lord.

Note what Krishna says. He says "MY mystic potency", not anyone else's.

I do not know what you are trying to prove. You claim that people who see Lord Vishnu and Lord Shiva as different are demons, but you fail to see that claiming that Lord Narayana and Lord Krishna are different is just as wrong and demonic.
Forgive my inaccuracies and offences.
Regards.

[ganeshamylord]

Narayana is Krishna. To say that there is a difference between various manifestations of the Lord is ignorance. So, if Lord Narayana is supreme in his four hands form, then he is supreme in his Krishna form with 2 hands. This has been accepted by every Vaisnava. My interpretation just said that Krishna was simply disappointed that Arjuna had forgotten everything, and so he didn't want to talk then. That is why he chastises Arjun as having a bad intellect and bad devotion. The Bhagavad Gita was very confidential, so he could not just repeat it again. Just like $300 is a lot, you cannot just keep giving it. Saying that Narayana spoke though Krishna is wrong, as Krishna is Narayana. Arjuna calls Krishna as Krishna. Lord Narayana did speak the Gita, but not through Krishna, but AS Krishna.

Lord Krishna has been called the Purna avatar of Lord Narayana, therefore he is just as powerful as Lord Narayana. It does not matter if Lord Narayana is the avatari, fact remains is that Lord Krishna is purna avatar. Claiming that Krishna is lower than Narayana (in terms of power, intelligence, etc) makes no sense to any Vaisnava.

The verse from the Vishnu Purana, here is what I think. When Lord Krishna left, he simply left his maya form, or material form. This is the consensus of Vaisnavas, although I cannot quote scriptures to reinforce this because I do not have Vishnu Purana. But if you accept Lord Narayana's body as eternal and spiritual, you have to accept Lord Krishna's body as the same. Not doing so results in an offence against Lord Narayana.

What Arjun said during the Gita was perfect, it is just that he forgot everything. Reason is that Lord Krishna gave Arjuna some of his yogic abilities in order for Arjuna to understand everything. No mortal can see the Vishwaroop without being blessed by the Lord.

Note what Krishna says. He says "MY mystic potency", not anyone else's.

I do not know what you are trying to prove. You claim that people who see Lord Vishnu and Lord Shiva as different are demons, but you fail to see that claiming that Lord Narayana and Lord Krishna are different is just as wrong and demonic.
Forgive my inaccuracies and offences.
Regards.

Well what im saying is i feel no real vaishnava especially shri vaishnava feels krishna is the origin of Narayana and my thread is to prove that when someone says krishna is the origin of Vishnu he is a liar and a fanatic:)
And vaishnava doesnt mean only iskcon:)
So the fact i quoted that Krishna is an amsha of Mahavishnu sets the point and that remains the truth whether you accept it or not and unlike yours i quoted from the scriptures and didnot give my opinion here:)
Yes Krishna left His maya form and once He leaves His maya form He becomes Narayana. But in this world,clubbed with maya He is an amsha of Narayana. Narayana never associates with maya:)
And differentiating not only Vishnu or Krishna or Shiva any one who differentiates between any soul in this creation thinking of that soul as different from the Brahman and propagates varnashrama caste system is an ignoramus.

[axlyz]

Well what im saying is i feel no real vaishnava especially shri vaishnava feels krishna is the origin of Narayana and my thread is to prove that when someone says krishna is the origin of Vishnu he is a liar and a fanatic:)
And vaishnava doesnt mean only iskcon:)
So the fact i quoted that Krishna is an amsha of Mahavishnu sets the point and that remains the truth whether you accept it or not and unlike yours i quoted from the scriptures and didnot give my opinion here:)
Yes Krishna left His maya form and once He leaves His maya form He becomes Narayana. But in this world,clubbed with maya He is an amsha of Narayana. Narayana never associates with maya:)
And differentiating not only Vishnu or Krishna or Shiva any one who differentiates between any soul in this creation thinking of that soul as different from the Brahman and propagates varnashrama caste system is an ignoramus.

Dear ganeshmylord,
Yeah, but as far I know, the Gaudiyas do not say that Vishnu came from Krishna as an incarnation, but that all roopas of the Lord came at the same time. Just as soon as you have a star, you have starlight. Any Gaudiya please feel free to point out my inaccuracies.

Scriptures only give Krishna the title of purnavatar, meaning he is Lord Narayana himself. I do not know why you cannot understand this. Narayana is not the origin of Krishna; that is like saying Narayana is the origin of himself. You could say that Narayana became Krishna, but you cannot say that Krishna is only an amsha of Narayana and he is just a "partial incarnation" of Narayana. Fact remains is that he was the only one who could display the powers of Narayana completely. Proof of this is that Narayana appeared in his original 4 armed to Devaki and Vasudeva, and then BECAME the baby Krishna after hearing their prayers. Also, there is a story where Krishna transformed himself into Narayana just to test the gopis' devotion to him. Plus, he had the discus of Narayana himself. To say he is just a "part" of Narayana is wrong when he is the full Narayana himself.

My opinion of that verse is the only one that makes sense, and I am sure Sri Vaishnava would back me on this. When Krishna is Narayana, he could have said the Bhagavad Gita again. But he didn't because the Gita is very confidential. To say that Krishna couldn't say the Bhagavad Gita again because he was lacking "yoga" is just as ludicrous as the claim that Shiva "spoke" the Bhagavad Gita through Krishna. :)

Also, are you trying to say that Krishna's body is made of maya? Because that is something that even Adi Shankara would condemn.


Scriptures clearly point out who is Supreme and who is not. Every major Vedantin has come to one main conclusion on who is God.

Forgive my offences and inaccuracies.
Regards

[ganeshamylord]

Namaste axlyz

Scriptures clearly point out who is Supreme and who is not. Every major Vedantin has come to one main conclusion on who is God.
_______________________________________________________
No they didnot unless you have been told a lie just like how gaudiyas changed the whole mahabharata( where they said shiva is a bhakta of krishna when its the other way round) and padma purana (where they removed shiva geeta) and also have their own ways of interpreting things like Sri chaitanyas wife died of a snake bite and then it came in the gaudiya text as "snake of seperation" LOL and many more.
And your line of thought can believe whatever is congenial to its faith just like how it believes the moon is farther away from the sun itself ,earth is flat, womans brain is half of a mans,women children dont deserve a birth etc:)



Also, are you trying to say that Krishna's body is made of maya? Because that is something that even Adi Shankara would condemn.
____________________________________________
It is one thing you made a God out of Sri chaitanya etc now can you also stop talking on behalf of someone who has a brain like Adi shankara?
Its one thing you live in your ignorant well can you stop destroying the credibility of intellect by talking on behalf of Adi shankara? And did you say adi shankara thinks Vishnu is superior to Shiva? I dont think so. According to his philosophy Brahma Vishnu Rudra lie at the feet of the wife of Shiva which again is not personal but just to state that the creation maintenance and dissolution are not even significant to the actual truth Parabrahma, . But thats not the point here and i dont want to even argue about intelligence with someone as superficial and dishonest as you

It is clearly mentioned in Vishnu purana that Krishnas body got burnt and irrespective of how you might whitewash it to suit your self indulgent lie that you call bhakti the fact is only a body with maya can get burnt by fire.
And again the fact that His body got burnt is from Vishnu Purana and not my pov.





My opinion of that verse is the only one that makes sense, and I am sure Sri Vaishnava would back me on this. When Krishna is Narayana, he could have said the Bhagavad Gita again. But he didn't because the Gita is very confidential. To say that Krishna couldn't say the Bhagavad Gita again because he was lacking "yoga" is just as ludicrous as the claim that Shiva "spoke" the Bhagavad Gita through Krishna. :)
____________________________________________________
Well if you say Krishna lacking yoga is ludicrous due to your ignorance fanaticism and failure to comprehend truth then you are calling Krishna ludicrous as that statement is not my pov but said by Krishna Himself:)And no Sri Vaishnava would agree that Narayana is inferior to Krishna and has "60" qualities vs 64 of Krishna
O Dhananjaya! it is not possible for me to repeat in full (what I said before). For that doctrine was perfectly adequate for understanding the seat, of the Brahman. It is not possible for me to state it again in full in that way. For then accompanied by my mystic power, I declared to you the Supreme Brahman.




Fact remains is that he was the only one who could display the powers of Narayana completely. Proof of this is that Narayana appeared in his original 4 armed to Devaki and Vasudeva, and then BECAME the baby Krishna after hearing their prayers. Also, there is a story where Krishna transformed himself into Narayana just to test the gopis' devotion to him. Plus, he had the discus of Narayana himself. To say he is just a "part" of Narayana is wrong when he is the full Narayana himself.
__________________________________________________
Fact for you might define as untruth and laughable for someone with commonsense .Did you think Narayana wasnt there in Vaikuntha while appearing as Krishna?? Then who do you think was maintaining the rest of the universe? With all due respect to your flimsy superficial understanding of God,,God is all pervading. Just because God appeared as Krishna doesnt mean He wasnt present in Vaikunta or anywhere else and either way whatever you blabbered is your pov. Il quote from SB

SB 10.89.58 (http://vedabase.com/en/sb/10/89/58) —
dvijātmajā me yuvayor didṛkṣuṇā
 mayopanītā bhuvi dharma-guptaye
kalāvatīrṇāv avaner bharāsurān
 hatveha bhūyas tvarayetam anti me
Lord Mahā-Viṣṇu said:I brought the brāhmaṇa’s sons here because I wanted to see the two of you, My expansions, who have descended to the earth to save the principles of religion. As soon as you finish killing the demons who burden the earth, quickly come back here to Me.
Here Lord Mahavishnu clearly states that both Arjuna and Krishna are His Amshas or Kalas. And He orders them to come back to Him quickly
All these arent my versions but are directly from scriptures:)






Yeah, but as far I know, the Gaudiyas do not say that Vishnu came from Krishna as an incarnation, but that all roopas of the Lord came at the same time. Just as soon as you have a star, you have starlight. Any Gaudiya please feel free to point out my inaccuracies.
_______________________________________________________\
And as far as i know i have read a godforsaken book which says Vishnu has "58" qualities and Krishna has "64" Narayana has "60" This came from the same self proclaimed devotees of krushna who dont know the shape of earth nor do they know reality of universe , who dont even know that moon is a satellite but went on to decide the qualities of Narayana who created everything in the universe.
and also they said that Krishna created Balaram and from balaram the Chaturvyuha comes out and from there Narayana comes out:P
And if all roopas came at one time then why are only 125 years described? Considering the age of the universe is trilllions of years why do you think only 125 years of dwapar yuga of this Manuvantara are described? Where was Krishna during the rest trillions of years??

P.S Feeble minds are indeed evil minds.



Scriptures only give Krishna the title of purnavatar, meaning he is Lord Narayana himself. I do not know why you cannot understand this. Narayana is not the origin of Krishna; that is like saying Narayana is the origin of himself.
____________________________________________
Hahaha Is this logic in accordance with your gaudiyas "absolute truth" of earth being flat oetc etc??
Purnavatar meaning complete with the qualities of Narayana or complete with realization of Narayana. But i suppose you dont have the same honesty in asking the same question when someone from your line tells that Krishna is the origin of chaturvyuha and Narayana

[hinduism♥krishna]

PranAm Bandhu.


And as far as i know i have read a godforsaken book which says Vishnu has "58" qualities and Krishna has "64" Narayana has "60"

This is interesting. I'd like to know is there any reference about this in our scriptures?

Now some questions, who's measured these qualities? What are those four extra qualities that are not present in Narayana?

I request someone, who claims such belief, to throw some light on this.

[axlyz]

Namaste axlyz
I didnot reply to your post in the other thread on equality b.w Vishnu and Shiva because you seem to have been brainwashed into thinking that Adi shankara and majority of "vedantins" are Vaishnavaites hahaha
I cant reply to such flimsy suppositions.
Anway heres my answer





Scriptures clearly point out who is Supreme and who is not. Every major Vedantin has come to one main conclusion on who is God.
_______________________________________________________
No they didnot unless you have been told a lie just like how gaudiyas changed the whole mahabharata( where they said shiva is a bhakta of krishna when its the other way round) and padma purana (where they removed shiva geeta) and also have their own ways of interpreting things like Sri chaitanyas wife died of a snake bite and then it came in the gaudiya text as "snake of seperation" LOL and many more.
And you can also believe whatever is congenial to your blind faith just like how you guys planned a vedic planetarium where the moon is farther away from the sun itself ,earth is flat etc And everything which is not truth seems congenial to you so if you are happy that way so be it.LOL
Also you can chose to live in your small well where a self titled acharya made a statement that the womans brain is half of a mans,women children dont deserve a birth, and child sex should start from 11years:)



Also, are you trying to say that Krishna's body is made of maya? Because that is something that even Adi Shankara would condemn.
____________________________________________
It is one thing you made a God out of Sri chaitanya etc now can you also stop talking on behalf of someone who has a brain like Adi shankara?
Its one thing you live in your ignorant well can you stop destroying the credibility of intellect by talking on behalf of Adi shankara? And did you say adi shankara thinks Vishnu is superior to Shiva? I dont think so. According to his philosophy Vishnu is one of the three gods who lie at the feet of the wife of Shiva. But thats not the point here and i dont want to even argue about intelligence with someone as superficial and dishonest as you

It is clearly mentioned in Vishnu purana that Krishnas body got burnt and irrespective of how you might whitewash it to suit your self indulgent lie that you call bhakti the fact is only a body with maya can get burnt by fire.
And again the fact that His body got burnt is from Vishnu Purana and not my pov.





My opinion of that verse is the only one that makes sense, and I am sure Sri Vaishnava would back me on this. When Krishna is Narayana, he could have said the Bhagavad Gita again. But he didn't because the Gita is very confidential. To say that Krishna couldn't say the Bhagavad Gita again because he was lacking "yoga" is just as ludicrous as the claim that Shiva "spoke" the Bhagavad Gita through Krishna. :)
____________________________________________________
Well if you say Krishna lacking yoga is ludicrous due to your ignorance fanaticism and failure to comprehend truth then you are calling Krishna ludicrous as that statement is not my pov but said by Krishna Himself:)And no Sri Vaishnava would agree that Narayana is inferior to Krishna and has "60" qualities vs 64 of Krishna
O Dhananjaya! it is not possible for me to repeat in full (what I said before). For that doctrine was perfectly adequate for understanding the seat, of the Brahman. It is not possible for me to state it again in full in that way. For then accompanied by my mystic power, I declared to you the Supreme Brahman.




Fact remains is that he was the only one who could display the powers of Narayana completely. Proof of this is that Narayana appeared in his original 4 armed to Devaki and Vasudeva, and then BECAME the baby Krishna after hearing their prayers. Also, there is a story where Krishna transformed himself into Narayana just to test the gopis' devotion to him. Plus, he had the discus of Narayana himself. To say he is just a "part" of Narayana is wrong when he is the full Narayana himself.
__________________________________________________
Fact for you might define as untruth and laughable for someone with commonsense .Did you think Narayana wasnt there in Vaikuntha while appearing as Krishna?? Then who do you think was maintaining the rest of the universe? With all due respect to your flimsy superficial understanding of God,,God is all pervading. Just because God appeared as Krishna doesnt mean He wasnt present in Vaikunta or anywhere else and either way whatever you blabbered is your pov. Il quote from SB

SB 10.89.58 (http://vedabase.com/en/sb/10/89/58) —
dvijātmajā me yuvayor didṛkṣuṇā
 mayopanītā bhuvi dharma-guptaye
kalāvatīrṇāv avaner bharāsurān
 hatveha bhūyas tvarayetam anti me
Lord Mahā-Viṣṇu said:I brought the brāhmaṇa’s sons here because I wanted to see the two of you, My expansions, who have descended to the earth to save the principles of religion. As soon as you finish killing the demons who burden the earth, quickly come back here to Me.
Here Lord Mahavishnu clearly states that both Arjuna and Krishna are His Amshas or Kalas. And He orders them to come back to Him quickly
All these arent my versions but are directly from scriptures:)






Yeah, but as far I know, the Gaudiyas do not say that Vishnu came from Krishna as an incarnation, but that all roopas of the Lord came at the same time. Just as soon as you have a star, you have starlight. Any Gaudiya please feel free to point out my inaccuracies.
_______________________________________________________\
And as far as i know i have read a godforsaken book which says Vishnu has "58" qualities and Krishna has "64" Narayana has "60" This came from the same self proclaimed devotees of krushna who dont know the shape of earth nor do they know reality of universe , who dont even know that moon is a satellite but went on to decide the qualities of Narayana who created everything in the universe.
and also they said that Krishna created Balaram and from balaram the Chaturvyuha comes out and from there Narayana comes out:P
And if all roopas came at one time then why are only 125 years described? Considering the age of the universe is trilllions of years why do you think only 125 years of dwapar yuga of this Manuvantara are described? Where are the rest trillions of years of Krishnas pastimes??

P.S Feeble minds are indeed evil minds.



Scriptures only give Krishna the title of purnavatar, meaning he is Lord Narayana himself. I do not know why you cannot understand this. Narayana is not the origin of Krishna; that is like saying Narayana is the origin of himself.
____________________________________________
Hahaha Is this logic in accordance with your gaudiyas "absolute truth" of earth being flat oetc etc??
Purnavatar meaning complete with the qualities of Narayana or complete with realization of Narayana. But i suppose you dont have the honesty in asking the same question when someone from your line tells that Krishna is the origin of chaturvyuha and Narayana

Namaste ganeshmylord ji,

You said, "Namaste axlyz
I didnot reply to your post in the other thread on equality b.w Vishnu and Shiva because you seem to have been brainwashed into thinking that Adi shankara and majority of "vedantins" are Vaishnavaites hahaha
I cant reply to such flimsy suppositions."

Do tell me why Shankara says in his Gita Bhashya

"There is none who is equal to you, and when that is the case, how even can there be any who is superior to You in any of three worlds, Oh Lord, who is of unrivaled power?" (Bhag. G 11.43)

"(Lord Krishna says) 'I, the Supreme Parabrahman known by name as vAsudeva, am the source of the whole world. From Me alone evolves the whole universe in all its changes, including existence and dissolution, action, effect, and enjoyment'" (Bhag. G 10.8)

You are obsessed with hate of Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu and Gaudiya Sampradaya. It is hilarious when you speak of Gaudiya's changing the Mahabharata. Not even Adi Shankara can agree that Shiva is the lord of Krishna (as shown in his bhashya). Read them carefully.

I have been "brainwashed"? Please, I was born to parents who were not vaishnavas and thought Shiva=Krishna. I actually had to think before I became a Vaishnava, so I wasn't brainwashed.

I can agree on one point on the 64 qualities thing. I personally think it doesn't make sense. If we are talking about the Gaudiya perspective, then it should at least be that Vishnu is 100% God and Krishna is 110%. But your comment doesn't bother me because I believe that Vishnu came on this earth as Krishna, but I don't think one is greater than the other. So Krishna=Vishnu.

Do not accuse me of saying that "Krishna is the source of chaturvyaha and vishnu etc" when I do not believe that. I believe Vishnu is the source of all. And regarding your claim that I thought Vishnu wasn't in Vaikuntha etc. Vishnu is always in Vaikuntha, he probably took an expansion of himself and displayed it to Devaki and Vasudeva. I didn't say that Vishnu became Krishna and only lived on Earth. If I did, then forgive me because I didn't mean that.

And regarding Adi Shankara, here's a few quotes to get you thinking.

"Supreme Lord with with the name nArAyaNa" (Brihadaranyaka Upanishad bhAShya, 3.7.3)

"Vishnu, or Ananta, who is the primordial being, who has all the three worlds for His body, and who is the in-dwelling Soul of all the beings" (Mundaka Upanishad bhAShya, 2.1.4)

"The all-pervading Brahman, the Supreme Soul, known by the name vAsudeva" (kaTha upaniShad bhAShya, 1.3.9)

In his Git Bhashya for 9.25, he says that Vaishnavas attain the highest state of liberation. Not any other god's devotee.

The mahopanishad itself says "eko ha vai nArAyaNa asIt, na brahma nEshana."

The Narayanopanishad says "nArAyaNat rudrO jAyatE."

Adi Shankara also quotes this "Vishnu is sung everywhere at the beginning, middle, and end of the Vedas, the holy rAmAyaNa and the mahAbhArata, O Best of the lineage of Bharata!" (Harivamsa, 3.132.95). (Sources: Narayanastra Blog)

The Vedas themselves say that Agni is the lowest and Vishnu is the highest, and that the devas always look the to supreme abode of Vishnu.

Madhusudhana Sarasvati was a parama Vaishnava himself, as he was a great devotee of Krishna. I did not look at the poem that he composed supposedly praising Krishna and Shiva, but here is what this site has to say.

"Mahimnastotratika and Harilila-vyakhya are commentaries on Pushpadanta’s Sivamahimnastotra and Bopadeva’s Harilila respectively for proclaiming the wonderful qualities of Sri Krishna. He has exhibited his great skill by interpreting the slokas in praise of Siva as praising Lord Krishna." (http://www.kamakoti.org/kamakoti/articles/Preceptors%20of%20Advaita%20-%2041.html)

Saying that Krishna is Shiva's devotee contradicts the Vedas, Puranas, and Adi Shankara who has agreed in the Gita that Lord Krishna is the Lord of Lords.

"Purnavatar meaning complete with the qualities of Narayana or complete with realization of Narayana."

Complete with realization of Narayana? You mean to say that he "got knowledge" of Narayana and that's why he was an elevated person? Wow.

If you want to try to refute the Gaudiya view that Krishna > Vishnu, then go ahead and do it. I will have no problem because I myself don't agree with that. If that was the intent of this blog, then fine. But it appears that you are trying to display Krishna as some weak demigod. Because he is Narayana. This has been confirmed in the Mahabharata and Bhagavata Purana.
Regards.

[ganeshamylord]

PranAm Bandhu.



This is interesting. I'd like to know is there any reference about this in our scriptures?

Now some questions, who's measured these qualities? What are those four extra qualities that are not present in Narayana?

I request someone, who claims such belief, to throw some light on this.

Namaste bandhu

I have read it in most of the translations of iskcon and specifically a book written in kaliyuga called chaitanya charitamrita.
Am unsure if that is a scripture or a figment of imagination because it says Lord Mahavishnu who structures the whole cosmos takes His birth as someone called advaita acharya and prays to Lord Krishna to take His birth as Chaitanya.
i was amused by the amount of shallow superficiality and the feeble understanding of Lord Narayana in it when i saw that the standard rating of gaudiyas is as follows
1)Bhagavad Gita(which actually contains the jist of the real brahman) as 10th class:P
2)Srimad Bhagavatam(which is a purana and is lower than Bhagavad Gita which is a part of Mahabharata an itihasa) as graduate degree:P:P
3)Chaitanya charitamrita(book written by a person born in kaliyuga in kaliyuga) as the highest post graduate level:P:P

[hinduism♥krishna]

Namaste

I have read it in most of the translations of iskcon and specifically a book written in kaliyuga called chaitanya charitamrita.

PranAm Ganesha Bandhu

The belief of qualities can not be accepted from such regional scripture. I've read entire Bhagavata and Vishnu Puruna yet I didn't find any distinction based on qualities.


Am unsure if that is a scripture or a figment of imagination because it says Lord Mahavishnu who structures the whole cosmos takes His birth as someone called advaita acharya and prays to Lord Krishna to take His birth as Chaitanya.

So absurd ! How would any intelligent believe in this.



1)Bhagavad Gita(which actually contains the jist of the real brahman) as 10th class:P
2)Srimad Bhagavatam(which is a purana and is lower than Bhagavad Gita which is a part of Mahabharata an itihasa) as graduate degree:P:P
3)Chaitanya charitamrita(book written by a person born in kaliyuga in kaliyuga) as the highest post graduate level:P:P

No brother, All vaidik scriptures (Not non-vedik) are at the same level. Nothing is greater or lower as all scriptures talk on the essence of Upanishada. Prabhu, Bhagavata is my soul itself and is not different from Krushna. This Bhagavata is the masterpiece of Advaita Bhakti and explains the highest knowledge of Upanishada. It's nectar of krishna's last discourse to uddhava. So How can it be lower than any scripture? In fact precious Jewell of Uddhava Gita makes Bhagavata above all. :)

[ganeshamylord]

,Namaste axlyz


"There is none who is equal to you, and when that is the case, how even can there be any who is superior to You in any of three worlds, Oh Lord, who is of unrivaled power?" (Bhag. G 11.43)
____________________________________________________
Narayana is ofcourse the Supreme Paramatma and when was i disagreeing with this?



"(Lord Krishna says) 'I, the Supreme Parabrahman known by name as vAsudeva, am the source of the whole world. From Me alone evolves the whole universe in all its changes, including existence and dissolution, action, effect, and enjoyment'" (Bhag. G 10.8)
_____________________________________________________
This is a standard statement foretold in all the gitas including devi gita,shiva gita(padma purana) ganesha gita.



You are obsessed with hate of Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu and Gaudiya Sampradaya. It is hilarious when you speak of Gaudiya's changing the Mahabharata. Not even Adi Shankara can agree that Shiva is the lord of Krishna (as shown in his bhashya). Read them carefully.
______________________________________________
Disagreeing with them doesnt mean hating them. Also you wont understand it due to your deep rooted self indulgent ignorance.
May be you havent read the mahabharata
Mahabharata
Rudra Bhakthya Thu Krishnena Jagat Vyaptham Mahathmana,
Tham Prasadhya Thadha Devam Bhadaryam Kila Bharatha.
Arthath Priya Harathwam Cha Sarva Lokeshu Vai Yadhaa,
Prapthavaaneva Rajendra Suvarnaakshan Maheswaraath.
Meaning:
The Great Lord Krishna, due to His devotion to the Supreme Lord Rudra,has Spread All Over The Universe, Oh Bharatha, Lord Shiva pleased by His penance in Badri granted Him the boon due to which He has Attained The State Of Being More Dear,Than All The Worlds And All Aspects Of Knowledge.

Yuge Yuge Thu Krushnena Thoshitho Vai Maheswara,
Bhakthya Paramaya Chaiva Prathi Sruthwa Mahatmana.
Meaning :
Lord Maheshwara becomes pleased and happy Yugas After Yugas, By this Krishna who is THE SUPREME DEVOTEE Of Lord Shiva which is accepted by mahatmas.

So Krishna worships Shiva in all yugas in all His incarnations . Am sure you do know that the sudarshana chakra was granted to Him by Shiva. and it doesnt mean He is inferior. Just indicates that the Brahman worships His own self:) and so should we.





I have been "brainwashed"? Please, I was born to parents who were not vaishnavas and thought Shiva=Krishna. I actually had to think before I became a Vaishnava, so I wasn't brainwashed.
_______________________________________
you need to redefine the term "think"





I can agree on one point on the 64 qualities thing. I personally think it doesn't make sense. If we are talking about the Gaudiya perspective, then it should at least be that Vishnu is 100% God and Krishna is 110%. But your comment doesn't bother me because I believe that Vishnu came on this earth as Krishna, but I don't think one is greater than the other. So Krishna=Vishnu.
_____________________________
You cant agree on one thing and disagree on other. That is the whole point here. And spirituality doesnt recourse itself on my view or yours. Neither is god a part of any organisation and God doesnt mould Himself to cater to your belief or my belief or any cult belief.




Do not accuse me of saying that "Krishna is the source of chaturvyaha and vishnu etc" when I do not believe that. I believe Vishnu is the source of all. And regarding your claim that I thought Vishnu wasn't in Vaikuntha etc. Vishnu is always in Vaikuntha, he probably took an expansion of himself and displayed it to Devaki and Vasudeva. I didn't say that Vishnu became Krishna and only lived on Earth. If I did, then forgive me because I didn't mean that.
______________________________________________
Well my matter of contention is with certain school of thought and not with you. You can agree with some and disagree with another thats your pov and it carries no honesty or worth from my pov





"Supreme Lord with with the name nArAyaNa" (Brihadaranyaka Upanishad bhAShya, 3.7.3)
________________________________
You should read svetasvatara kaivalya jabala upanishads and also shri rudram of the vedas



"Vishnu, or Ananta, who is the primordial being, who has all the three worlds for His body, and who is the in-dwelling Soul of all the beings" (Mundaka Upanishad bhAShya, 2.1.4)
________________________________________________
You should read the shri rudram commentaries too. vishnu is not a sectarian name and is also a name for shiva and ganesha and devi(As vaishnavi)



"
The mahopanishad itself says "eko ha vai nArAyaNa asIt, na brahma nEshana."
The Narayanopanishad says "nArAyaNat rudrO jAyatE."
______________________________
svetasvatara says the same thing about rudra and kalagnirudra upanishad says the same thing



Adi Shankara also quotes this "Vishnu is sung everywhere at the beginning, middle, and end of the Vedas, the holy rAmAyaNa and the mahAbhArata, O Best of the lineage of Bharata!" (Harivamsa, 3.132.95). (Sources: Narayanastra Blog)
____________________________________
Adi shankara also wrote the saundarya lahari and propagated sri chakra philosophy much more than anything else and i didnt know i should now start listening to this narayanastra blog guy who now kind of became the upholder of hindu dharma:) Personally when Krishna worships Shiva i better accept the view of Krishna while you accept Narayanastra guy and get into the razzle dazzle of forms and names and think God is as childish as you are and that He thinks in the same line and fights with others over supremacy issue:)



The Vedas themselves say that Agni is the lowest and Vishnu is the highest, and that the devas always look the to supreme abode of Vishnu.
_______________________________________________________
No they dont. You are like a small kid shouting its dad is the best. Hopefully that dad will give you intelligence soon



I did not look at the poem that he composed supposedly praising Krishna and Shiva, but here is what this site has to say.
______________________
exactly and thats the point you dont look at real points but cherry pick from whatever you deem is convenient




Saying that Krishna is Shiva's devotee contradicts the Vedas, Puranas, and Adi Shankara who has agreed in the Gita that Lord Krishna is the Lord of Lords.
___________________________________________
Krishna didnot even exist in the vedas so you are partly true because contradiction doesnt apply to things that dont even exist.
and once again Krishna worshipped shiva if you read mahabharata anushasana parva and krishna was the one who sang the shiva sahasranama to yuddhistira and calls shiva as para brahma.
In bhagavata krishna tells vasudeva not to worship indra but He Himself worships Shiva and Ambika that itself means something'



If you want to try to refute the Gaudiya view that Krishna > Vishnu, then go ahead and do it. I will have no problem because I myself don't agree with that. If that was the intent of this blog, then fine. But it appears that you are trying to display Krishna as some weak demigod. Because he is Narayana. This has been confirmed in the Mahabharata and Bhagavata Purana.
_______________________________________________
No i never told, not even for a second that Krishna is a weak demigod. Infact i am against the demigod thing. And id say the same thing to any shaivaite who calls Krishna a demigod too.
But due to your fanaticism you areNOT able to appreciate the truth but that is none of my business:)



In his Git Bhashya for 9.25, he says that Vaishnavas attain the highest state of liberation. Not any other god's devotee
____________________________________________________________________________________________________ _________
Frankly this statement takes the cake:) You think upamanyu,tandi,gautama,kapila,parashurama,dadhichi,nandi, bhringi, etc etc didnot attain liberation?
http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m13/m13a018.htm Mahabharata

Kapila, avatar of vishnu who gave us the Sankhya said,--I adore Bhava with great devotion for many lives together. The illustrious Deity at last became gratified with me and gave me knowledge that is capable of aiding the acquirer in getting over rebirth.


Valmiki, addressing Yudhishthira, said,-- the sin of Brahmanicide, O Bharata, possessed me. I then, for cleansing myself, sought the protection of the sinless Isana who is irresistible in energy. I become cleansed of all my sins.

Jamadagni's son, Parashurama--I was afflicted with the sin, O eldest son of Pandu, of Brahmanicide for having slain my brothers who were all learned Brahmanas. For purifying myself, I sought the protection, O king, of Mahadeva.

Viswamitra said,--I was formerly a Kshatriya. I paid my adorations to Bhava with the desire of becoming a Brahmana Through the grace of that great Deity I succeeded in obtaining the high status of a Brahmana that is so difficult to obtain.

Rishi Asita-Devala, said,--In former days, O son of Kunti, through the curse of Sakra, all my merit due to the acts of righteousness I had performed, was destroyed. The puissant Mahadeva it was who kindly gave me back that merit together with great fame and a long life.

Vasudeva,said,--Mahadeva of golden eyes was gratified by me with my penances. the illustrious Deity said unto me,--Thou shalt, O Krishna, through my grace, become dearer to all persons than wealth which is coveted by all. Thou shalt be invincible in battle. Thy energy shall be equal to that of Fire. Thousands of other boons Mahadeva gave unto me on that occasion. In a former incarnation I adored Mahadeva on the Manimantha mountain for millions of years. Gratified with me, the illustrious Deity said--Blessed be thou, do thou solicit boons as thou wishest. Bowing unto him with a bend of my head, I said--If the puissant Mahadeva has been gratified with me, then let my devotion to him be unchanged, O Isana! Even this is the boon that I solicit.--The great God said unto me,--Be it so--and disappeared there and then.'

Meditating on the highest Lord, allied to Uma, powerful, three-eyed, blue-necked, and tranquil, the holy man reaches Him who is the source of all, the witness of all and is beyond darkness (i.e. Avidya). Lord SHiva says "For me there is neither earth, nor water, nor fire, nor air, nor ether. Thus realising the Paramatman, who lies in the cavity of the heart, who is without parts, and without a second, the Witness of all, beyond both existence and non-existence – one attains the Pure Paramatman Itself."25. He who studies the Shatarudriya, is purified as by the Fires, is purified from the sin of drinking, purified from the sin of killing a Brahmana, from deeds done knowingly or unawares. Through this he has his refuge in Shiva, the Supreme Self. One who belongs to the highest order of life should repeat this always or once (a day).Kaivalyopanishad the upanishad of liberation

[hinduism♥krishna]

PranAm,


Namaste ganeshmylord ji,

Do tell me why Shankara says in his Gita Bhashya

"There is none who is equal to you, and when that is the case, how even can there be any who is superior to You in any of three worlds, Oh Lord, who is of unrivaled power?" (Bhag. G 11.43)

Narayana and Brahman are indifferent. That's why he is called as supreme. Because he's established himself one with Brahman while telling Gita. Upanishads too say there's nothing as compared to Brahman, it is above all and also says that this self is none other than Brahman.


"(Lord Krishna says) 'I, the Supreme Parabrahman known by name as vAsudeva, am the source of the whole world. From Me alone evolves the whole universe in all its changes, including existence and dissolution, action, effect, and enjoyment'" (Bhag. G 10.8)

Yes, Krushna is Vasudeva. Because He's more than just form. 'Vasudeva' means vasu-rested everywhere ie all pervading & deva- ruler of the world ie origin of all. Krishna never said in Gita that his form is Brahman. Just quote even a single reference where form is mentioned as Brahman.


Please, I was born to parents who were not vaishnavas and thought Shiva=Krishna.

What do you mean? Vaishnawa doesn't think shiva=vishnu? Read Bhagavata Purana to know the real vaishnawism. Real vaishnawas (Advaitian) don't see any difference between shiva and Vishnu and such vaishnawa only attains Brahman, other vaishnawas don't attain Brahman.


And regarding Adi Shankara, here's a few quotes to get you thinking.
"Supreme Lord with with the name nArAyaNa" (Brihadaranyaka Upanishad bhAShya, 3.7.3)

"Vishnu, or Ananta, who is the primordial being, who has all the three worlds for His body, and who is the in-dwelling Soul of all the beings" (Mundaka Upanishad bhAShya, 2.1.4)

"The all-pervading Brahman, the Supreme Soul, known by the name vAsudeva" (kaTha upaniShad bhAShya, 1.3.9)

Narayana is Brahman. Even Shukadeva and Narada are also mentioned as Brahman. Besides Atma/Jiva itself is mentioned as Brahman. Thus these all facts refutes the notion of Brahman has form. Nowhere in any scripture form is mentioned as Brahman.


In his Git Bhashya for 9.25, he says that Vaishnavas attain the highest state of liberation. Not any other god's devotee.

What an ignorant statement. This reflects poor knowledge on scriptures. For adi Shankara vishnu is not limited to form. He's all pervading formless. The devotion to ganesha or Shiva is not different from Vishnu's worship. Moreover In padma Purana krishna himself says " worshippers of all gods attain me' In Narada puruna, Narada mentioned Ganesha as a giver of Moksha. So what do you mean by this?



Adi Shankara also quotes this "Vishnu is sung everywhere at the beginning, middle, and end of the Vedas, the holy rAmAyaNa and the mahAbhArata, O Best of the lineage of Bharata!" (Harivamsa, 3.132.95). (Sources: Narayanastra Blog)

He's glorified in his true nature which is all-pervading formless nature. Veda doesn't glorify Krishna's form.


The Vedas themselves say that Agni is the lowest and Vishnu is the highest, and that the devas always look the to supreme abode of Vishnu.

Vishnu here is referred to supreme abode, not to a limited form of God. Formless and Akshara is the highest abode of Vishnu. bhagavan has declared this in Gita.



Saying that Krishna is Shiva's devotee contradicts the Vedas, Puranas, and Adi Shankara who has agreed in the Gita that Lord Krishna is the Lord of Lords.

LoL, how krishna is devotee of Shiva contradicts with Veda? :D In fact the distinction between Shiva and Vishnu contradicts with Veda. I think, one who's highly influenced by duality and form, can't comprehend Adi Shankara's teachings.


"Purnavatar meaning complete with the qualities of Narayana or complete with realization of Narayana."

Krishna is amsha avatara of Vishnu, not purna avatara. Purna avatara is vague belief. If you don't think so cite the references where Krishna is purna avatara. BtW, Amsha doesn't mean that he's really a part and lower. Amsha is imagined as compared to Infinite Brahman. Krishna form is like compressed form of Infinite Brahman Vishnu. So he's mentioned as Amsha of Vishnu.

[axlyz]

Dear ganeshmylord,

You said "Narayana is ofcourse the Supreme Paramatma and when was i disagreeing with this?"

-Really? When you say things such as Krishna worshiped Shiva etc, how can you exactly think that Narayana is supreme?

You said, "This is a standard statement foretold in all the gitas including devi gita,shiva gita(padma purana) ganesha gita. "

Yeah, but only Bhagavad Gita is considered the most authentic and the perfect knowledge. Did Adi Shankara comment on Devi Gita, Shiva Gita, etc?
Only Bhagavad Gita has been considered the root of all knowledge.

You said, "]Disagreeing with them doesnt mean hating them. Also you wont understand it due to your deep rooted self indulgent ignorance."

-Right. So that basically means that you will continue to condemn people who have devoted their whole lives to Chaitanya Mahaprabhu's movement (hari-naam sankirtan).

Krishna only worshiped Rudra because Rudra asked Vishnu to worship him so Shiva would get more respect. Krishna himself says that whenever he worshiped Rudra, he was actually worshiping Himself.

Krishna has never worshiped Rudra in any of his incarnations. Did you know that the Valmiki Ramayana has no mention of Lord Ram worshiping Rudra?

You said, "you need to redefine the term "think"

-Okay, if you say so. My family continued to harass me because of my new lifestyle (vegetarian, etc) and my religion. They also accused Ramanuja, Madhva, and Chaitanya to be "polluters of Hinduism" and that they were more Christian than Hindu. I hope you can see what kind of environment I was raised in and how much effort it took me to realize what the truth was.

You said, "You cant agree on one thing and disagree on other. That is the whole point here. And spirituality doesnt recourse itself on my view or yours. Neither is god a part of any organisation and God doesnt mould Himself to cater to your belief or my belief or any cult belief"

Why can't I? I was only interested in the hari-naam sankirtan and the life of Chaitanya when I meant I was interested in Gaudiya Vaishnavism. I am not one, just so you know.

Agreed, God is not a part of any organization. However, Vaishnavas have just been following what the Gita, Vedas, and Puranas have been saying.

You said, "You should read the shri rudram commentaries too. vishnu is not a sectarian name and is also a name for shiva and ganesha and devi(As vaishnavi)"

-Okay, I don't know too much about Vishnu naam, but Narayana naam is only for Vishnu and the Vedas themselves say that Narayana is Parabrahman. Hence no Shiva, Ganesha, nor Devi.

When Krishna says that all the Vedas praise him, then everything must be a praise to Vishnu/Narayana.

You said, "svetasvatara says the same thing about rudra and kalagnirudra upanishad says the same thing"

-I don't know which verses you are referring to. Either way, Rudra is also a name of Narayana and hence denotes Vishnu. Rudra is a common noun, unlike Narayana.

You said, "Adi shankara also wrote the saundarya lahari and propagated sri chakra philosophy much more than anything else and i didnt know i should now start listening to this narayanastra blog guy who now kind of became the upholder of hindu dharma:) Personally when Krishna worships Shiva i better accept the view of Krishna while you accept Narayanastra guy and get into the razzle dazzle of forms and names and think God is as childish as you are and that He thinks in the same line and fights with others over supremacy issue:)"

-Lahiris are not authentic. When Shankara himself says so clearly in his Bhashyas (which are universally regarded as his) that only Narayana is supreme compared to all devatas, he could not have changed his philosophy while writing the Lahiris and whatnot.

The Narayanastra Blog person is only echoing the message of Ramanuja, Madhva, Vedanta Desika, Yamuna, etc. Do you think you are smarter than those people?

You said, "No they dont. You are like a small kid shouting its dad is the best. Hopefully that dad will give you intelligence soon"

-agnirvai devanamavamo vishnuh paramah tadantara sarva devatah
"Agni is the lowest and Vishnu is the highest among devas. All other gods occupy positions that are in between." (Aitareya Brahmana 1.1.1)

You said, "exactly and thats the point you dont look at real points but cherry pick from whatever you deem is convenient"

-Well I did not know much about Madhusudhana but Adi Shankara makes things pretty clear that he regards Narayana as supreme. I doubt you even read the article.

You said, "Krishna didnot even exist in the vedas so you are partly true because contradiction doesnt apply to things that dont even exist.
and once again[SIZE=2][FONT=Times New Roman] Krishna worshipped shiva if you read mahabharata anushasana parva and krishna was the one who sang the shiva sahasranama to yuddhistira and calls shiva as para brahma."

-Look...Krishna is just Vishnu in a different form. Yes, Krishna is not mentioned but Vishnu/Narayana is.

Shiva Sahasranama is not authentic. No single major Vedantin has ever commented on it, whereas Vishnu Sahasranama has been praised and commented by even Adi Shankara. Why did Adi Shankara write a commentary on Vishnu and not Shiva Sahasranama? Because the Shiva Sahasranam didn't exist back then. Either way, Vedas use Narayana to denote Brahman and your Shiva Sahasranam doesn't even have it.

You said, "In bhagavata krishna tells vasudeva not to worship indra but He Himself worships Shiva and Ambika that itself means something'"

Krishna worshiped Himself when we was supposedly worshiping Shiva. Plus, in the Bhagavata Purana, Shiva and his family tries to fight with Krishna and get demolished. When they can't even defeat him, why should he worship them??

You said, "No i never told, not even for a second that Krishna is a weak demigod. Infact i am against the demigod thing. And id say the same thing to any shaivaite who calls Krishna a demigod too.
But due to your fanaticism you areNOT able to appreciate the truth but that is none of my business:)"

-Lol...so you think that all Gods are equal and the same? Not only is that illogical, but has no support from scriptures. Shiva and Narayana cannot both be God for many reasons.
1) Vedas claim Narayana is supreme
2) Narayana and Rudra have had many fights, with Narayana always winning
3) All major acharyas believe in the Supremacy of Vishnu, including Shankara.

Narayana is a proper noun. It cannot be used for anyone else than Vishnu. With that observation, any quotes that have different names for Parabrahman, ie "rudro vai purusho" just refer to Narayana.

Regards

[Amrut]

Namaste axlyz ji,

Brother, I humbly request you that if you wish to be open minded, please do not follow Narayanaastra Blog. Sure that guy has knowledge of shastras and sanskrit grammar. No denying it. But he is strongly attached to Sri Vaishnava SampradAya and has a BIG Ego. Finally that thread was deleted. He didnt wished to discuss, didnt want to listen and had also put commentary on his blog.

This discussion had taken place here on HDF. That guy has no tolerance even to listen to anyone.

I had requested him, not to interpret Adi Sankara from Vaishnava POV, but all in vain.

Sorry for sidetracking this thread.

Hari OM

[axlyz]

Namaste axlyz ji,

Brother, I humbly request you that if you wish to be open minded, please do not follow Narayanaastra Blog. Sure that guy has knowledge of shastras and sanskrit grammar. No denying it. But he is strongly attached to Sri Vaishnava SampradAya and has a BIG Ego. Finally that thread was deleted. He didnt wished to discuss, didnt want to listen and had also put commentary on his blog.

This discussion had taken place here on HDF. That guy has no tolerance even to listen to anyone.

I had requested him, not to interpret Adi Sankara from Vaishnava POV, but all in vain.

Sorry for sidetracking this thread.

Hari OM


Dear Brother,
I am trying to be open minded. I simply posted quotes of Shankara and asked people what Shankara meant if he didn't believe that Vishnu was ultimate. I do not intent to disturb or insult anyone here when I say that Shankara was a Vaishnava. I was only trying to show quotes that apparently show that he was one, and I was hoping more enlightened Advaitins would correct me on this. Any way, the Narayanastra Blog person is not the first one to interpret Shankara from a Vaishnava POV. Vedanta Desika has called Shankara a Vaishnava, as well as many previous advaitins have showed this too. Either way, I will stop talking about Shankara and Vaishnava in this forum in case it will offend someone. Forgive me if I may have acted very arrogant/closed-minded etc. I did not intent to act like this (even though I am convinced).
Regards

[hinduism♥krishna]

Namaste Sure that guy has knowledge of shastras and sanskrit grammar. No denying it.

PranAm Amrut..

I don't think so. Bhagavan Krishna says " Those who don't realise the notion of 'I'm Brahman', their study on scriptures is useless and is equal to not reading anything " :)



I had requested him, not to interpret Adi Sankara from Vaishnava POV, but all in vain.

:D Some Vaishnawas think that he was just like them. But they don't know that he was real vaishnawa. Because Real vaishnawa are always Advaitians. There are so many examples of such true vaishnawas, like Tulsidas, Tukaram, Namadeva, Dnyaneshwara, Eknath. All were topmost devotees of Vishnu & were realised. Some of them were Avatara of Vishnu himself.

[Amrut]

PranAm Amrut..

I don't think so. Bhagavan Krishna says " Those who don't realise the notion of 'I'm Brahman', their study on scriptures is useless and is equal to not reading anything " :)

Pranams HLK,

AS far as sampradAya-s are concerned, they take viShNu as person. That guy follow Ranga Ramanuja muni a 17-18 century Vaishnava scholar who wrote commentaries on main upanishads. thats why he is called as upanishad bhASyakAra. rAmAnuja has not written verse-by-verse commentary on upanishads, but has written an essence vedAnta samgrah. Even vedAnta deSika, a renowned Vaishnava scholar has written commentary only on ISA Up.

It was ranga rAmAnuja muni who interpreted Saiva upanishads like Panch Brahman Up, Atharvashirasa, AtharvaSikA, and other upanishads in convoluted way always taking 'rudra' as and atribute' and not person. they take it as common noun, but not proper noun / personal noun. Only NArAyaNa is taken as proper noun because of 'Na' factor and then they map this with viShNu.

nArAyaNa means 'that in this everything lie'
nArAyaNa means 'the one resting on waters' - this one when used can be mapped to viShNu
viShNu means 'all-pervading'
Siva accoridng to unAdi sukta means 'in which all things lie'
Siva also means 'auspiciousness'

so unless you take nArAyANa as 'one in whom all things lie' the problem do not arise. But that guy keeps repeating the defeat of Appaya Dikshita. Just because he was not able to give reply, does not mean that reply does not exist :)

So both as same meaning.

Detailed explanation:

nArAyaNa becomes proper noun because of the 'Na' in the end.


nArAyaNa is made up of two words, nAra+ayana.


नारायण = नार + अयन
nArAyaNa = nAra + ayana


Notice here that in the word 'ayana', 'na' is small 'na' (न) and not 'Na' (ण)


According to maharShi pAnini, when there are two words that combine to form a bigger word, then if the last syllable of the first half word with "ra" and the first syllable of the second word does not start with "ga", then the weak sounding "na" in the second word will transform into a stronger sounding "Na" . If this happens, this would mean only one person (that is a proper noun and not a common noun).


In our case, the last syllable of first word nAra (नार) is 'ra' (र)
first syllable of second word ayana (अयन) is 'a' (अ) and not 'ga' (ग)


When two words are joined, according to pAnini's grammar, it becomes nArAyaNa (नारायण) and not nArAyana (नारायन)


Each sanskrit word has many meanings and nArAyaNa is no exception. nArAyaNa means the one who gives shelter to nAra (jIva-s). This meaning is called as 'yougika' (यौगिक) meaning. It is a raw meaning of the word and does not point it to any particular identity. yougika meaning the meaning derived by joining two words (yOga).


There is another meaning called as rUDhi (रूढि) meaning. It means the obvious meaning.


When we say surpaNakhA. nakha means nail. surpaNakhA means the one which big nails (long nails). This is the yougika (यौगिक) meaning. But by saying surpaNakhA, we only and only mean rAvaNa's sister and not any other identity. In other words, whenever surpaNakhA is used, it 'obviously' means rAvaNa's sister surpaNakhA. this obvious meaning is called as rUDhi (रूढि) meaning.


In the sUrpaNakhA analogy sUrpaNakhA can mean 'anyone with long nails but the 'Na' indicates that Surpanakha is Ravana's sister'. But this is not valid if sUrpaNakhA is interpreted to mean something other than 'a person who has long nails'.


Similarly, nArAyaNa being a person (puruSa) and none other than viShNu is valid only if 'nArAyaNa' is interpreted as 'he who resides on the waters'.

But if Narayana is interpreted as 'That in which all things inhere' the above rule does not apply and one cannot say that nArAyaNa is none other than viShNu. Hence there is no contradiction. The problem does not arise. We can take Siva as nArAyaNa

Interestingly all three words mean the same.


According to the UṇAdi-sUtra i, 153, from verbal root √śī (“in whom all things lie”); perhaps connected with √śvi;

In simple words Siva means 'in whom all things lie'


viShNu is rooted in the word '√vis' which means 'all pervading' or 'to pervade'


nArAyaNa as we have seen also means ''That in which all things lie'


Hence it is not wrong to say Siva is nArAyaNa.




:D Some Vaishnawas think that he was just like them. But they don't know that he was real vaishnawa. Because Real vaishnawa are always Advaitians. There are so many examples of such true vaishnawas, like Tulsidas, Tukaram, Namadeva, Dnyaneshwara, Eknath. All were topmost devotees of Vishnu & were realised. Some of them were Avatara of Vishnu himself.

Yes, thats why they do not created a sampradAya. There is no conversion process like the established Vaishnava sampradhayas. Unless you are not 'officially' converted, you technically do not belong to that sampradaya.

In vedas, according to Kanchi Paramacharya, there is only one initiation process for starting our vedic studies - upnayana sanskara. Adi Sankara didnt established any sampradAya.

Infact it is said that Buddhists and Jains while referring to Adi Sankara's advaita simply referred to as 'vedAnta'

honeslty, I am still confused as to which sampradaya is correct. Starting point can be different, but the end, final destination, has to be same. All 5 philosophies are different and preach different position of Jiva w.r.t. to ISvara. Which one is the correct one? There has to be a common end, a final ultimate state that cannot be many, but just ONE.

There might be some purpose behind their teachings, which we do not know or may be with passage of time, their teachings are corrupted due to shastra wars ;), who knows the truth. Just saying, dont mind :)

Hari OM

[hinduism♥krishna]

There might be some purpose behind their teachings, which we do not know or may be with passage of time

PranAm, Whatever it is, but those teachings itself are contradictory to the path of Vaishnawism and are barrier for attaining Brahman.

Non-Advaita Vaishnawa believe in multiplicity of Atma. However as I think, there's no hope for Moksha for those who believe in multiplicity of souls. This is not just my view. Krushna himself said this.

Krishna says :

" There is multiplicity of atma so long as there is inequality among the three Gunas and while this multiplicity of atma doesn't get vanished from the mind , the Jeeva remains in bondage forever . " (BP 11.10.32)

So those Sampradaya may have any any other purpose but it's very clear that Moksha is impossible for those who do not see one Atma and do not contemplate on it as Brahman. :) Shastra repeatedly say that without giving up all dualities Jiva can't attain Brahman ever.

As I believe, Dvaitian Vaishnawism is a first step towards true vaishnawism ie Advaitian Vaishnawism.

Thank You

[Amrut]

Krishna says :

" There is multiplicity of atma so long as there is inequality among the three Gunas and while this multiplicity of atma doesn't get vanished from the mind , the Jeeva remains in bondage forever . " (BP 11.10.32)

Thank You

Thank You
dhanyavAd :)

[yajvan]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~
namasté

The fragrance of pride is beginning to erupt within this string. It is inches away from being closed.

iti śivaṁ

[Viraja]

Yes, thats why they do not created a sampradAya. There is no conversion process like the established Vaishnava sampradhayas. Unless you are not 'officially' converted, you technically do not belong to that sampradaya.

In vedas, according to Kanchi Paramacharya, there is only one initiation process for starting our vedic studies - upnayana sanskara. Adi Sankara didnt established any sampradAya.

Hari OM

Namaste friends,

Please let us not forget Srimad Ramanujacharya, the creator of SriVaishnava sampradaya is not an ordinary you and I, he is a saint. (If he is ordinary person, he wouldn't have the insight or intellectual acumen to have written the bhashyam to the Brahma Sutras in 1 night). Let us remember he walked 1000's of miles to get the meaning for the Ashtakshari from his acharya Thirukoshtiyur Nambi, all for giving away to the poor irrespective of caste for free. So let us all have this in mind and not convey as if sampradaya to have been created by this saint is a mistake. If this understanding of mine is incorrect, I apologize. :)

Thank you.

[ganeshamylord]

Namaste axlyz



-Really? When you say things such as Krishna worshiped Shiva etc, how can you exactly think that Narayana is supreme?
_________________________________________________
When will we realize that when a form of God worships His own self it is not called inferiority but humility?



Yeah, but only Bhagavad Gita is considered the most authentic and the perfect knowledge. Did Adi Shankara comment on Devi Gita, Shiva Gita, etc?
Only Bhagavad Gita has been considered the root of all knowledge.
__________________________________________________
Please? I thought God decided who we are but going by your say it seems like we decide who God is. So the number game that we attribute to our success in everyday life applies to God too? Also in vedas its explicitly mentioned to read purusha and rudram and not Gita for liberation. Gita gained popularity in the past century due to the British. Eitherway Shri rudram and svetasvatara upanishads are also considered supreme scriptures.



-Right. So that basically means that you will continue to condemn people who have devoted their whole lives to Chaitanya Mahaprabhu's movement (hari-naam sankirtan).
_____________________________________________________
Brother. I mightnot be as emotional as you are. So if chaitanyas wife dies of a snake bite i dont twist it and write a new story as a snake of seperation bit her and she leaves her body to goloka. Just because someone dedicates his entire life to anything doesnt make others any lesser nor does it carry any worth if they dont realize the brahman because of that.


Krishna only worshiped Rudra because Rudra asked Vishnu to worship him so Shiva would get more respect. Krishna himself says that whenever he worshiped Rudra, he was actually worshiping Himself.
____________________________________________
Exactly.The last sentence is correct. But your first sentence is gross materialistic and indicative of childish superficial attitude. Dont think Gods fight like you and me over supremacy issues. You do realize that God is nirguna and He is not like us who want respect and hurt others if they dont etc etc. So "to that shiva would get more respect" is a shallow misinterpretation and trust me i couldnt help but burst out laughing.



Krishna has never worshiped Rudra in any of his incarnations. Did you know that the Valmiki Ramayana has no mention of Lord Ram worshiping Rudra?
______________________________________
I just stated and even quoted from Mahabharata in the previous post where Krishna Himself states that He worships Shiva in all incarnations. Its not my pov and neither do i want your pov


-Okay, if you say so. My family continued to harass me because of my new lifestyle (vegetarian, etc) and my religion. They also accused Ramanuja, Madhva, and Chaitanya to be "polluters of Hinduism" and that they were more Christian than Hindu. I hope you can see what kind of environment I was raised in and how much effort it took me to realize what the truth was.
_________________________________________________________
You personal life is none of my business and if differentiation and fanaticism is the "truth" you "realized" id sincerely pray to Krishna to give you atleast basic intelligence:)





Why can't I? I was only interested in the hari-naam sankirtan and the life of Chaitanya when I meant I was interested in Gaudiya Vaishnavism. I am not one, just so you know.
______________________________________________________
This is not a gaudiya vaishnava thread. Second did i ask you to leave chaitanya and his movement? I was quoting some facts and you didnot like to hear the truth which is typical of emotional indoctrination.But you are free to believe whatever is convenient to your belief but just dont make statements like others dont get liberated but a shallow person like you without understanding the equality of Brahman will become liberated just because he is a fanatic:)



Agreed, God is not a part of any organization. However, Vaishnavas have just been following what the Gita, Vedas, and Puranas have been saying.
______________________________________
I asked you to show me one quote that asks to differentiate between hari and hara. Why dont you just show me that and il end this here.





-Okay, I don't know too much about Vishnu naam, but Narayana naam is only for Vishnu and the Vedas themselves say that Narayana is Parabrahman. Hence no Shiva, Ganesha, nor Devi.
_____________________________________________
Vedas also says Rudra is Parabrahma so does Mahabharata. Puranas are later works. In the Shree rudra the devata is mentioned as Parabrahma Rudra. So i dont need your conviction. While Narayana Paramashiva Hree devi Surya and Mahaganesha are all the names of the same Paramatma.
You will get there once you open your mind and remove your ignorance


When Krishna says that all the Vedas praise him, then everything must be a praise to Vishnu/Narayana.
__________________________________________________
If Narayana is everything how can Shiva not be Narayana
?



-I don't know which verses you are referring to. Either way, Rudra is also a name of Narayana and hence denotes Vishnu. Rudra is a common noun, unlike Narayana.
_______________________________________________________
You better read them then. On the contrary Narayana is a common noun and rudra is specific. Shiva is praised as Narayana in shiva purana. Shivas names have vishnu,krishna,gopala in them




-Lahiris are not authentic. When Shankara himself says so clearly in his Bhashyas (which are universally regarded as his) that only Narayana is supreme compared to all devatas, he could not have changed his philosophy while writing the Lahiris and whatnot.
______________________________________________________
Thats your pov. Now you forget that shri chakras are installed all over india. But again what is authentic and what is not is not for you or me to decide. This is the problem with cherry picking



The Narayanastra Blog person is only echoing the message of Ramanuja, Madhva, Vedanta Desika, Yamuna, etc. Do you think you are smarter than those people?
_________________________________________________
Do you think you are smarter than Agastya,Krishna,Dadhichi,Markandeya, Adi shankara, Abhinavagupta?




-agnirvai devanamavamo vishnuh paramah tadantara sarva devatah
"Agni is the lowest and Vishnu is the highest among devas. All other gods occupy positions that are in between." (Aitareya Brahmana 1.1.1)
_________________________________________________________
What is aitreya brahmana? in that case you should read shree rudram and svetasvatara upanishad too.



-Well I did not know much about Madhusudhana but Adi Shankara makes things pretty clear that he regards Narayana as supreme. I doubt you even read the article.
_____________________________________________________
hUH? You obviously havent read his other bhasyas. You didnot read shiva sutras nor anything else but based on one or two you already decided and you are happy thinking you will get liberated?




-Look...Krishna is just Vishnu in a different form. Yes, Krishna is not mentioned but Vishnu/Narayana is.
__________________________________
doesnt matter when we talk of vedas stick to vedas. dont pull in puranic stories in b.w


Shiva Sahasranama is not authentic. No single major Vedantin has ever commented on it, whereas Vishnu Sahasranama has been praised and commented by even Adi Shankara. Why did Adi Shankara write a commentary on Vishnu and not Shiva Sahasranama? Because the Shiva Sahasranam didn't exist back then. Either way, Vedas use Narayana to denote Brahman and your Shiva Sahasranam doesn't even have it.
____________________________________________________
Huh? Alright? Many of adi shakaras works have been fabricated by fanatical sects. But either way i dont think anybodys bhashya would make anything right. Because God isnt created by the people who give commentaries. And i have seen practical examples of gaudiyas and how they are in real life so im better off being not like them




Krishna worshiped Himself when we was supposedly worshiping Shiva. Plus, in the Bhagavata Purana, Shiva and his family tries to fight with Krishna and get demolished. When they can't even defeat him, why should he worship them??'_
\_______________________________________________
Thats a feeble story and that story by itself makes me doubt the authenticity of puranas. And a similar version comes up in other scriptures when Vishnu tries to protect daksha but is defeated by Virabhadra. Not that i believe that shallow story too





-Lol...so you think that all Gods are equal and the same? Not only is that illogical, but has no support from scriptures. Shiva and Narayana cannot both be God for many reasons.
1) Vedas claim Narayana is supreme
2) Narayana and Rudra have had many fights, with Narayana always winning
3) All major acharyas believe in the Supremacy of Vishnu, including Shankara.
___________________________________________________________
Like i said you are free to believe whatever you want to and like all puranas foretell i hope you dont end up in eternal hell

SB 4.7.54 ORIGINAL statement --- Lord Vishnu tells King Daksha (father of Sati) --- “He who of the three ((Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva)) having ONE NATURE, verily, of the Supersoul in all beings, DOES NOT SEE THE SEPARATENESS, o brahmin, realizes the peace others donot.”

SHIVA PURANA.“ The FOOLISH PERSON who sees separateness among the three of us, DEFINITELY remains in HELL for the time as long as the moon and the stars are in the sky.

Devi Bhagavata He who shews any difference (superiority or inferiority) between the devotees of Visnu and those of other Devas, is said to commit Brahmahattya. The difference between the offerings to Hari and Hara leads to Brahmahattya. He who shows any difference between Krisna and who is Ishana, is said to commit, indeed, the Brahmahattya




Narayana is a proper noun. It cannot be used for anyone else than Vishnu. With that observation, any quotes that have different names for Parabrahman, ie "rudro vai purusho" just refer to Narayana.
_______________________________________________
No Narayana is used for shiva too

ShivaStotra by Vishnu and Devas
Maheswaraaya Devaaya Namastey Paramatmaney,
Naraayanaaya Sharvaaya Brahmaney Brahmarupiney

[grames]

Dear

Sri Vaishnavaism has been there even before Sri Ramanuja and the sampradaya records that, Sri Nammalvar is the actual preceptor of this Darshana originating from Shri Herself.

Here, people who are so strongly believe in Advaita are posting so many verdicts with least information and with tons of ego and bias and these are not useful in a "Vaishnava" forum!

We have someone who believe they know better than "Appaya Dikshitar" or even "Shri Shankara" does not add value to their very own argument because totality of your current awareness and knowledge is deep rooted in these advaita stalwarts! Dikshitar knew all the grammars better than anyone of today and give respect to your own witness first! There is no way you can interpret "NarayaNa" especially if you take all the context where this very name appears ( if you ought to believe someone writing on this forum has masted all the occurrences than APPaya Dikshita, you should take shelter at their feet and ignore everything else).

This entire thread is based on a composition which is not acceptable to any authentic traditions as "AnuGita" is not repeat of Bagavat Gita and those who put so much weight behind "Authentic" etc. not sure why run behind what is not acceptable? You have every right to believe what you want to believe but when you want to argue and throw judgement, you have to establish that based on common grounds and not purely based on your personal wisdom or ignorance or mix of both together.

One statement says, He is the refuge for every jiva and another statement in the very forum says, you go to Eternal Hell if you believe in Narayana! This is height of bias and ignorance all at once.

Hare Krshna!

[ganeshamylord]

Dear

One statement says, He is the refuge for every jiva and another statement in the very forum says, you go to Eternal Hell if you believe in Narayana! This is height of bias and ignorance all at once.

Hare Krshna!


Namaste so to say now you call original puranas as biased and ignorance just because you are pained hearing the truth:) Kindly note that one of those quotes is from Srimad Bhagavtam. And none are my povs but direct pauranic verses. So please direct your anger unto Vyasa and Vishnu who gave those statements also hell iis not for those who believe in Narayana but for those who dont see the real Narayana in everything:) Nobody becomes a believer in Narayana unless he realizes Narayana in everything

[grames]

Dear Ganeshmylord.,

Your very statement is nice to read and understand but not the way how you think i should! I do believe Narayana is everything and everywhere but i do also have every possibility to identify the "jiva" as an dependent entity who is utterly helpless with out that Narayana.

There are no "unreal" or Mayic Narayana here and not sure what you mean by "real" Narayana! ( Your meaning of "real" Narayana is "YOU" yourself...but for a vaishnava, that's an aparada - as soon as you think and equate yourself with higher beings, you loose the chance to progress - even in this life or next life is vaishnava concept). Try it if you want first hand experience - act like your boss or house owner or bank manager who gave you loan and see for yourself how they feel and react towards you!

There are Vedic, upanishadic statements, there are puranic statements and ithihasas who also claim Shri Vishnu is Supreme (not being able to digest that, here we are reading a new grammatical explanation for the word Narayana)

ahaM rudro.ahamindro.ahamAdityo.ahaM sarvasyAvayA haraso divyasyeti

Why this 'ahaM' identifies itself as Rudra, Indra etc? When such identification is by the "realized", there is no scope for Rudra, Indra etc. ( Why such simplishtic statements are not breaking the assumed conclusion of "EkaJiva" Vada? Since, realization removed duality and in such advaitam, there is on Rudra, Indra etc.)

Very majestically this statement claims He is the master of all... (all has to be true for Him to be the master - if 'all' is unreal and maya, this very statement is meaningless and that is your exact explanations and position here.)

yajamAno vai viShNuH

And yes He always sees this world, ie His very own creation

svayambhUH yAthAtathyato.arthAn.h

Look at the words here... is there a room for you to say, you are that One who is seeing out of your ignorance?

If you are after higher taste, you seek the proper framework and philosophical grounds on which the entire veda, upanishad, purana and ithihasas can be rendered with out attributing any flaws! Faith is different from the philosophy that you believe you know....at least do not pollute a Vaishnava thread with your least understanding of the strength of Vaishnava System - as you cannot with stand any knowledge based arguments, philosophy of Vaishnavas!

Hare Krshna!

[Amrut]

Dear Brother,
I am trying to be open minded. I simply posted quotes of Shankara and asked people what Shankara meant if he didn't believe that Vishnu was ultimate. I do not intent to disturb or insult anyone here when I say that Shankara was a Vaishnava. I was only trying to show quotes that apparently show that he was one, and I was hoping more enlightened Advaitins would correct me on this. Any way, the Narayanastra Blog person is not the first one to interpret Shankara from a Vaishnava POV. Vedanta Desika has called Shankara a Vaishnava, as well as many previous advaitins have showed this too. Either way, I will stop talking about Shankara and Vaishnava in this forum in case it will offend someone. Forgive me if I may have acted very arrogant/closed-minded etc. I did not intent to act like this (even though I am convinced).
Regards

Namaste axlyz,

I am not denying that Adi Sankara's ISTa devatA was viShNu, but he did consider Siva-viShNu abheda. Sure Adi Sankara praised viShNu (and kruShNa) as supreme Brahman. No denying it. But there is basic difference in 'line of thinking' of an advaitin and a vaishnava following any of the authentic Vaishnav sampradAya-s. You will know when you actually meditate the advaita way and God gives you experience of detachment. My many doubts were cleared in a flash when I had that experience. There is no substitute for experience.

Anyways, further discussion on Adi Sankara would derail the thread.

Sure one can have their own opinion, but one has to calmly discuss. Again, when a point is reached, we should finally agree to disagree if a common ground is not reached.

Namaste Viraja di,

Nice to see you back. Hope everything is fine.

Regarding sampradAya-s, I didn't say that rAmAnuja created a new philosophy. I only said that there is a conversion process. I am open to correction. I didnt blame anyone, but said I am confused which sampradAya is the true one as I feel that truth is one.

I would also like to say that not all Vaishnavas adhere to the sampradAya-s. There are many who do not belong or associate with sampradAya-s. An example is dasAsrimAlI VAishnava.

I never disrespect any of the acharya-s. They were all avatars and humans ,like me, can never understand their real divine purpose behind their divine acts. But the problem is that we fight in their name :)

Anyways, if I have done it unintentionally, I pray for unconditional apology.

---

As for the thread, it is in Vaishnava sub-forum and not in VA / Sri Vaishnava.

But as Yajvan ji has said "The fragrance of pride is beginning to erupt within this string. It is inches away from being closed."

Wise say taht we should not disturb anyone's faith, but at times I get carried away. Please accept my apologies.

I would prefer to stay as spectator.

Hari OM

[grames]

There is no "ritualistic" conversion that makes you any vaishnava and it is the complete understanding of the practices and the philosophy after learning/practicing/understanding/built faith is what makes you a vaishnava. Incidentally, such rituals are called "initiation"!

The ultimate destiny doesn't have to be "same" ( One, here is a confusing thing for anyone other than "Advaitin" - So, confusion is your proprietary and not for others) and the vaishnava sampradayas do not promise "Same" results but promises the association of Lord as the destination. Whether you will catch that feet as a Servant, shoulder as a friend, heart as a lover, rage as enemy are the different verity that is suitable for every individual jiva according to their individual bhava!

[ganeshamylord]

Dear Ganeshmylord.,

Your very statement is nice to read and understand but not the way how you think i should! I do believe Narayana is everything and everywhere but i do also have every possibility to identify the "jiva" as an dependent entity who is utterly helpless with out that Narayana.

There are no "unreal" or Mayic Narayana here and not sure what you mean by "real" Narayana! ( Your meaning of "real" Narayana is "YOU" yourself...but for a vaishnava, that's an aparada - as soon as you think and equate yourself with higher beings, you loose the chance to progress - even in this life or next life is vaishnava concept). Try it if you want first hand experience - act like your boss or house owner or bank manager who gave you loan and see for yourself how they feel and react towards you!

There are Vedic, upanishadic statements, there are puranic statements and ithihasas who also claim Shri Vishnu is Supreme (not being able to digest that, here we are reading a new grammatical explanation for the word Narayana)

ahaM rudro.ahamindro.ahamAdityo.ahaM sarvasyAvayA haraso divyasyeti

Why this 'ahaM' identifies itself as Rudra, Indra etc? When such identification is by the "realized", there is no scope for Rudra, Indra etc. ( Why such simplishtic statements are not breaking the assumed conclusion of "EkaJiva" Vada? Since, realization removed duality and in such advaitam, there is on Rudra, Indra etc.)

Very majestically this statement claims He is the master of all... (all has to be true for Him to be the master - if 'all' is unreal and maya, this very statement is meaningless and that is your exact explanations and position here.)

yajamAno vai viShNuH

And yes He always sees this world, ie His very own creation

svayambhUH yAthAtathyato.arthAn.h

Look at the words here... is there a room for you to say, you are that One who is seeing out of your ignorance?

If you are after higher taste, you seek the proper framework and philosophical grounds on which the entire veda, upanishad, purana and ithihasas can be rendered with out attributing any flaws! Faith is different from the philosophy that you believe you know....at least do not pollute a Vaishnava thread with your least understanding of the strength of Vaishnava System - as you cannot with stand any knowledge based arguments, philosophy of Vaishnavas!

Hare Krshna!


Namaste gramesji

To say advaita is not a part of vaishnavism due to deep rooted ignorance and to say there is no advaitic vaishnavism is simply due to your failure to accept the truth. Have you read of the sankirtanas by Talapaaka Annamacharya who belongs to sri vaishnavism who wrote the famous "brahman okkate" ie brahman is one?
Your self centred beliefs might make you rigid to others but why do you say i pollute the thread when it was started by me and i do know i love Narayana and i am a vaishnava too irrespective of what fanatics might expect me not to be,
The statements you made can be found in every gita where every one among the Five main Gods say the same thing.
The maya Narayana is when His body got burnt in a pyre when lit by Arjuna.
Just because advaitins who worship Vishnu dont cater to your stringent limited beliefs doesnt mean they are any less bhaktas than you are.
I thought Vaishnava forum is for all as Vishnu is the father of all. You dont have to give your povs on who pollutes the thread or not because for me fanatics of any religion cult are just a pain to the society and pollute all that is left of peace,
And likewise it just could be that you are limiting Vishnu to your level and expect Him to fight like you over supremacy and have grudges on others like you and hate others like you just because they dont agree to you pov. If thats your knowledge and philosophy then i dont understand that because for me Vishnu is everywhere and He is nirguna and bestows peace and happiness and not fanaticism:)

[axlyz]

Namaste axlyz



-Really? When you say things such as Krishna worshiped Shiva etc, how can you exactly think that Narayana is supreme?
_________________________________________________
When will we realize that when a form of God worships His own self it is not called inferiority but humility?



Yeah, but only Bhagavad Gita is considered the most authentic and the perfect knowledge. Did Adi Shankara comment on Devi Gita, Shiva Gita, etc?
Only Bhagavad Gita has been considered the root of all knowledge.
__________________________________________________
Please? I thought God decided who we are but going by your say it seems like we decide who God is. So the number game that we attribute to our success in everyday life applies to God too? Also in vedas its explicitly mentioned to read purusha and rudram and not Gita for liberation. Gita gained popularity in the past century due to the British. Eitherway Shri rudram and svetasvatara upanishads are also considered supreme scriptures.



-Right. So that basically means that you will continue to condemn people who have devoted their whole lives to Chaitanya Mahaprabhu's movement (hari-naam sankirtan).
_____________________________________________________
Brother. I mightnot be as emotional as you are. So if chaitanyas wife dies of a snake bite i dont twist it and write a new story as a snake of seperation bit her and she leaves her body to goloka. Just because someone dedicates his entire life to anything doesnt make others any lesser nor does it carry any worth if they dont realize the brahman because of that.


Krishna only worshiped Rudra because Rudra asked Vishnu to worship him so Shiva would get more respect. Krishna himself says that whenever he worshiped Rudra, he was actually worshiping Himself.
____________________________________________
Exactly.The last sentence is correct. But your first sentence is gross materialistic and indicative of childish superficial attitude. Dont think Gods fight like you and me over supremacy issues. You do realize that God is nirguna and He is not like us who want respect and hurt others if they dont etc etc. So "to that shiva would get more respect" is a shallow misinterpretation and trust me i couldnt help but burst out laughing.



Krishna has never worshiped Rudra in any of his incarnations. Did you know that the Valmiki Ramayana has no mention of Lord Ram worshiping Rudra?
______________________________________
I just stated and even quoted from Mahabharata in the previous post where Krishna Himself states that He worships Shiva in all incarnations. Its not my pov and neither do i want your pov


-Okay, if you say so. My family continued to harass me because of my new lifestyle (vegetarian, etc) and my religion. They also accused Ramanuja, Madhva, and Chaitanya to be "polluters of Hinduism" and that they were more Christian than Hindu. I hope you can see what kind of environment I was raised in and how much effort it took me to realize what the truth was.
_________________________________________________________
You personal life is none of my business and if differentiation and fanaticism is the "truth" you "realized" id sincerely pray to Krishna to give you atleast basic intelligence:)





Why can't I? I was only interested in the hari-naam sankirtan and the life of Chaitanya when I meant I was interested in Gaudiya Vaishnavism. I am not one, just so you know.
______________________________________________________
This is not a gaudiya vaishnava thread. Second did i ask you to leave chaitanya and his movement? I was quoting some facts and you didnot like to hear the truth which is typical of emotional indoctrination.But you are free to believe whatever is convenient to your belief but just dont make statements like others dont get liberated but a shallow person like you without understanding the equality of Brahman will become liberated just because he is a fanatic:)



Agreed, God is not a part of any organization. However, Vaishnavas have just been following what the Gita, Vedas, and Puranas have been saying.
______________________________________
I asked you to show me one quote that asks to differentiate between hari and hara. Why dont you just show me that and il end this here.





-Okay, I don't know too much about Vishnu naam, but Narayana naam is only for Vishnu and the Vedas themselves say that Narayana is Parabrahman. Hence no Shiva, Ganesha, nor Devi.
_____________________________________________
Vedas also says Rudra is Parabrahma so does Mahabharata. Puranas are later works. In the Shree rudra the devata is mentioned as Parabrahma Rudra. So i dont need your conviction. While Narayana Paramashiva Hree devi Surya and Mahaganesha are all the names of the same Paramatma.
You will get there once you open your mind and remove your ignorance


When Krishna says that all the Vedas praise him, then everything must be a praise to Vishnu/Narayana.
__________________________________________________
If Narayana is everything how can Shiva not be Narayana
?



-I don't know which verses you are referring to. Either way, Rudra is also a name of Narayana and hence denotes Vishnu. Rudra is a common noun, unlike Narayana.
_______________________________________________________
You better read them then. On the contrary Narayana is a common noun and rudra is specific. Shiva is praised as Narayana in shiva purana. Shivas names have vishnu,krishna,gopala in them




-Lahiris are not authentic. When Shankara himself says so clearly in his Bhashyas (which are universally regarded as his) that only Narayana is supreme compared to all devatas, he could not have changed his philosophy while writing the Lahiris and whatnot.
______________________________________________________
Thats your pov. Now you forget that shri chakras are installed all over india. But again what is authentic and what is not is not for you or me to decide. This is the problem with cherry picking



The Narayanastra Blog person is only echoing the message of Ramanuja, Madhva, Vedanta Desika, Yamuna, etc. Do you think you are smarter than those people?
_________________________________________________
Do you think you are smarter than Agastya,Krishna,Dadhichi,Markandeya, Adi shankara, Abhinavagupta?




-agnirvai devanamavamo vishnuh paramah tadantara sarva devatah
"Agni is the lowest and Vishnu is the highest among devas. All other gods occupy positions that are in between." (Aitareya Brahmana 1.1.1)
_________________________________________________________
What is aitreya brahmana? in that case you should read shree rudram and svetasvatara upanishad too.



-Well I did not know much about Madhusudhana but Adi Shankara makes things pretty clear that he regards Narayana as supreme. I doubt you even read the article.
_____________________________________________________
hUH? You obviously havent read his other bhasyas. You didnot read shiva sutras nor anything else but based on one or two you already decided and you are happy thinking you will get liberated?




-Look...Krishna is just Vishnu in a different form. Yes, Krishna is not mentioned but Vishnu/Narayana is.
__________________________________
doesnt matter when we talk of vedas stick to vedas. dont pull in puranic stories in b.w


Shiva Sahasranama is not authentic. No single major Vedantin has ever commented on it, whereas Vishnu Sahasranama has been praised and commented by even Adi Shankara. Why did Adi Shankara write a commentary on Vishnu and not Shiva Sahasranama? Because the Shiva Sahasranam didn't exist back then. Either way, Vedas use Narayana to denote Brahman and your Shiva Sahasranam doesn't even have it.
____________________________________________________
Huh? Alright? Many of adi shakaras works have been fabricated by fanatical sects. But either way i dont think anybodys bhashya would make anything right. Because God isnt created by the people who give commentaries. And i have seen practical examples of gaudiyas and how they are in real life so im better off being not like them




Krishna worshiped Himself when we was supposedly worshiping Shiva. Plus, in the Bhagavata Purana, Shiva and his family tries to fight with Krishna and get demolished. When they can't even defeat him, why should he worship them??'_
\_______________________________________________
Thats a feeble story and that story by itself makes me doubt the authenticity of puranas. And a similar version comes up in other scriptures when Vishnu tries to protect daksha but is defeated by Virabhadra. Not that i believe that shallow story too





-Lol...so you think that all Gods are equal and the same? Not only is that illogical, but has no support from scriptures. Shiva and Narayana cannot both be God for many reasons.
1) Vedas claim Narayana is supreme
2) Narayana and Rudra have had many fights, with Narayana always winning
3) All major acharyas believe in the Supremacy of Vishnu, including Shankara.
___________________________________________________________
Like i said you are free to believe whatever you want to and like all puranas foretell i hope you dont end up in eternal hell

SB 4.7.54 ORIGINAL statement --- Lord Vishnu tells King Daksha (father of Sati) --- “He who of the three ((Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva)) having ONE NATURE, verily, of the Supersoul in all beings, DOES NOT SEE THE SEPARATENESS, o brahmin, realizes the peace others donot.”

SHIVA PURANA.“ The FOOLISH PERSON who sees separateness among the three of us, DEFINITELY remains in HELL for the time as long as the moon and the stars are in the sky.

Devi Bhagavata He who shews any difference (superiority or inferiority) between the devotees of Visnu and those of other Devas, is said to commit Brahmahattya. The difference between the offerings to Hari and Hara leads to Brahmahattya. He who shows any difference between Krisna and who is Ishana, is said to commit, indeed, the Brahmahattya




Narayana is a proper noun. It cannot be used for anyone else than Vishnu. With that observation, any quotes that have different names for Parabrahman, ie "rudro vai purusho" just refer to Narayana.
_______________________________________________
No Narayana is used for shiva too

ShivaStotra by Vishnu and Devas
Maheswaraaya Devaaya Namastey Paramatmaney,
Naraayanaaya Sharvaaya Brahmaney Brahmarupiney

Dear ganeshmylord,

You said, "When will we realize that when a form of God worships His own self it is not called inferiority but humility?"

First of all, Krishna/Vishnu are not forms of God. They are God themselves. When I said he worshiped Himself, I meant he worshiped the paramatma of Rudra, ie Himself. He didn't worship Rudra and believe he was worshiping himself.

You said, "Please? I thought God decided who we are but going by your say it seems like we decide who God is. So the number game that we attribute to our success in everyday life applies to God too? Also in vedas its explicitly mentioned to read purusha and rudram and not Gita for liberation. Gita gained popularity in the past century due to the British. Eitherway Shri rudram and svetasvatara upanishads are also considered supreme scriptures."

-We do not decide who God is. It is clear that the Acharyas and scriptures say it. Why didn't he comment or even give a reference to "Shiva Gita" and why have most Acharyas not done so? Because it is a tamasmic section. And your comment on how it is said to mentioned to read purusha and rudram and not gita is completely wrong. Yes, it is good to read Purusha and Rudram (which all proclaim the supremacy of Narayana) but Gita is the summary of knowledge of all Upanishads. Even Adi Shankara said so. And either way, Shri Rudram and Scetasvatara Upanishad only talk about Narayana.

You said, "Brother. I mightnot be as emotional as you are. So if chaitanyas wife dies of a snake bite i dont twist it and write a new story as a snake of seperation bit her and she leaves her body to goloka. Just because someone dedicates his entire life to anything doesnt make others any lesser nor does it carry any worth if they dont realize the brahman because of that."

-I don't know too much about this, so I'll leave a Gaudiya to answer this. I will say that it is completely possible that his wife went to Vaikuntha because of being husbands with such an elevated Vaishnava (who was probably Krishna himself).

You said, "Exactly.The last sentence is correct. But your first sentence is gross materialistic and indicative of childish superficial attitude. Dont think Gods fight like you and me over supremacy issues. You do realize that God is nirguna and He is not like us who want respect and hurt others if they dont etc etc. So "to that shiva would get more respect" is a shallow misinterpretation and trust me i couldnt help but burst out laughing."

-Please. This is found in the Padma Purana
Shiva speaking to Narayana

anyadevaM varaM dehi prasiddhaM sarvajantuShu |martyo bhUtvA bhavAneva mama sAdhaya keshava ||mAM bhajasva cha devesha varaM matto gR^ihANa cha |yenA.ahaM sarvabhUtAnAM pUjyAtpUjyataro.abhavam.h ||

"Please give me this boon. By incarnating on Earth, Oh Lord, worship me and get boons from me. From this, I will become worship-worthy to all the beings.

What is your explanation?

Gods never fight over supremacy issues. Narayana is always supreme. It is just that Shiva and sometimes other devas like Indra get clouded and then they think they are supreme. There are AT LEAST 3 cases from Sattvik Purana and Mahabharata that show Narayana and Shiva fighting

1) Narayana Rsi strangling Rudra in Badrikashrama (Mahabharata)

2) Krishna demolishing Shiva and his family in the Banasura episode (Bhagavata)

3) Vishnu and Shiva fighting in Ramayana

There are probably more.

And forget about Niguna Brahman. We are not talking about Advaita here. In the Vyāvahārika level, only Vishnu is regarded as Saguna Brahman.

You said, "I just stated and even quoted from Mahabharata in the previous post where Krishna Himself states that He worships Shiva in all incarnations. Its not my pov and neither do i want your pov"

Please, that is neither mine nor Krishna's POV; it is POV of the person who did the interpolation. This section has not even been quoted by ancient acharyas, while many verses showing the Supremacy of Vishnu are there.

And plus, you did not tell me any other Avatar who supposedly worshiped Shiva. If he didn't then this whole verse is incorrect.

You said, "You personal life is none of my business and if differentiation and fanaticism is the "truth" you "realized" id sincerely pray to Krishna to give you atleast basic intelligence:)"

-I just wanted to show you that I wasn't brainwashed and lived in a pretty hostile environment. And thinking Vishnu is supreme is differentiation? How?
And it is typical of people like you to say Vaishnavism is fanaticism, even though you subscribe to stupid stories like Krishna worshiped Devi, etc and in Bhagavata Purana said that Devi, etc are all him.

You said, "I asked you to show me one quote that asks to differentiate between hari and hara. Why dont you just show me that and il end this here."

-I don't understand what you mean by differentiation. I can give you many quotes that say Hari is greater than Hara.

You said, "This is not a gaudiya vaishnava thread. Second did i ask you to leave chaitanya and his movement? I was quoting some facts and you didnot like to hear the truth which is typical of emotional indoctrination.But you are free to believe whatever is convenient to your belief but just dont make statements like others dont get liberated but a shallow person like you without understanding the equality of Brahman will become liberated just because he is a fanatic:)"

-Then why do you keep repeating nonsensical stuff about Chaitanya etc when I am not fully a Gaudiya? What are you trying to prove here?? What facts did you tell me? All you did was probably quote from some tamas puranas who haven't been quoted by people like Shankara as well. By saying Shiva is not the Absolute Truth does not limit Brahman. Just like me and you are not the Absolute Truth, neither is Shiva. By saying he is not Brahman doesn't limit Brahman at all. Vishnu doesn't need anyone else to add to his glory, he can do it himself. Call me shallow, fanatic, etc. But you are evading direct responses that refute your ideas.

You said, "Vedas also says Rudra is Parabrahma so does Mahabharata. Puranas are later works. In the Shree rudra the devata is mentioned as Parabrahma Rudra. So i dont need your conviction. While Narayana Paramashiva Hree devi Surya and Mahaganesha are all the names of the same Paramatma.
You will get there once you open your mind and remove your ignorance"

-Puranas were first recited by Brahma to the Rsis. They were then written down by Vyasa into 18 different Puranas. They were not created in the Kali-Yuga. And yes, in Shree Rudra the devata is certainly Uma pati, but that doesn't mean it doesn't refer to Narayana. Remember Krishna's quote where he said that wherever Rudra is worshiped, it is actually his antaryami that is worshiped. Narayana is a name only for Vishnu. Every acharya has accepted that besides for the Neo-Advaitins of this time. Appayya Dikshit failed to equate Narayana and Shiva, but failed. So he tried to show that Shiva was greater than Narayana, which failed of course. Shows that what Appayya Dikshit failed at, you think you can mend it.

Yes, all those name refer to the one and only Paramatma, Vishnu. It is stated that Brahman has all of the devas name. If I call you names such as intelligent, handsome, hard-working, I am not referring to a person in the world whose actual name is Intelligent, Handsome, Hard-working. So just like that, all names are Narayana in the vedas and do not refer to the devatas.


You said, "If Narayana is everything how can Shiva not be Narayana"

-Shiva has some qualities of Narayana, but he is not Narayana himself. Many people are beautiful, but Narayana is the most beautiful. Many people are strong, but Narayana is the strongest. Many people are wealthy, but Narayana owns everything. Therefore, Shiva is not completely Narayana, but is a part of Narayana, like you and me.


You said, "Thats your pov. Now you forget that shri chakras are installed all over india. But again what is authentic and what is not is not for you or me to decide. This is the problem with cherry picking"

-It does not matter. Shankara was also depicted as wearing ashes etc when it had no basis whatsoever. All of his original maths were located near Vaishnava shrines. NO ONE before the 15th century has even referenced The Lahiris and such things. When they have commented on his Bhashyas, but not his Lahiris. Please. Cherry Picking LOL. You keep saying "that's your POV so it cannot be right!" Just because it is my POV (and it's not, many Sri Vaishnavas will support me here), that doesn't mean its wrong. You interpret all the scriptures and Acharyas by your biased mind instead of looking at what it says directly.


You said, "You better read them then. On the contrary Narayana is a common noun and rudra is specific. Shiva is praised as Narayana in shiva purana. Shivas names have vishnu,krishna,gopala in them"

-Shiva Purana is tamasmic, so no reason to talk about it here. Are you kidding me?? Narayana is a proper noun according to Panini's rules. There is no getting around this. Rudra is a common noun according to grammar. And are you talking about Shiva Sahasranam? LOL. Not even Saiva acharyas have quoted it before the 14/15th centuries. While Vishnu Sahasranama has been quoted by the maha-bhagavata himself, Adi Shankara.

You said, "Do you think you are smarter than Agastya,Krishna,Dadhichi,Markandeya, Adi shankara, Abhinavagupta?"

-I'm not even going to talk about Krishna because he is God himself. Markandeya became a Vaishnava. In the Bhagavata Purana he sees Narayana swallowing everything, including Brahma and Rudra. I do not know what all those other people have to say. Either way, you cannot contradict the statements of Krishna in the Gita that says he is the supreme Lord.


You said, "hUH? You obviously havent read his other bhasyas. You didnot read shiva sutras nor anything else but based on one or two you already decided and you are happy thinking you will get liberated?"

-Why are you so concerned with liberation?? Maybe it appears that you just worship all gods so you get the benefit of the doubt...hmm. Moksham icchet Jadardanat. Please give me a quote that he says that it doesn't matter which God you worship or that SHiva is proclaimed Supreme Lord.

You said, "Huh? Alright? Many of adi shakaras works have been fabricated by fanatical sects. But either way i dont think anybodys bhashya would make anything right. Because God isnt created by the people who give commentaries. And i have seen practical examples of gaudiyas and how they are in real life so im better off being not like them"

Yep, fanatical Advaitins who had a clear envy for Vaishnavism made those Lahiris and etc in his name. Please. If Shiva was also supreme, Shankara would have said so. Please show me a quote where he says so from his BHASYAS. God isn't created by commentaries, but commentaries do explain God. And Gaudiyas at least know the absolute truth is Krishna and they have actually understood the Vedas unlike you.


You said, "Thats a feeble story and that story by itself makes me doubt the authenticity of puranas. And a similar version comes up in other scriptures when Vishnu tries to protect daksha but is defeated by Virabhadra. Not that i believe that shallow story too"

-Shows your bias. You arbitrarily quote where it supposedly says that Vishnu and Shiva are equal but you won't accept the Banasura episode. Nice. Anyway, that story of Vishnu and Virabhadra is found in tamasmic puranas while in Bhagavata it says that Vishnu had already left for this supreme abode before the fight would start.

You said, "Like i said you are free to believe whatever you want to and like all puranas foretell i hope you dont end up in eternal hell

SB 4.7.54 ORIGINAL statement --- Lord Vishnu tells King Daksha (father of Sati) --- “He who of the three ((Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva)) having ONE NATURE, verily, of the Supersoul in all beings, DOES NOT SEE THE SEPARATENESS, o brahmin, realizes the peace others donot.”

SHIVA PURANA.“ The FOOLISH PERSON who sees separateness among the three of us, DEFINITELY remains in HELL for the time as long as the moon and the stars are in the sky.

Devi Bhagavata He who shews any difference (superiority or inferiority) between the devotees of Visnu and those of other Devas, is said to commit Brahmahattya. The difference between the offerings to Hari and Hara leads to Brahmahattya. He who shows any difference between Krisna and who is Ishana, is said to commit, indeed, the Brahmahattya"

-There is no eternal hell. Even people who refuse to see Narayana as the absolute truth still get chances to rectify themselves. That is all his mercy. And nowhere am I saying that Shiva is to be ignored or disrespected. He is a parama Vaishnava himself, and he should be worshiped as such. Not on par with Vishnu. Devi Bhagavata and Shiva Purana has tamasic puranas. And even if the Srimad Bhagavata says that, you still need to reconcile the obvious points where Shiva is shown as subordinate to Krishna/Vishnu.

ANd Narayana is never used for Shiva. If such a verse happens, then Shiva has to be interpreted as a name for Narayana. It is just not possible.

Regards.

[grames]

How does your above message makes you not a "Fanatic"?

Also, i am not saying there are no "Vaishnavas" who can be Advaitin! In fact, in general we call "Vaishavaism" as faith and "Advaita, "Dvaita" etc as philosophies. You can be vaishnava or shaiva in your faith and also can choose to know/believe advaita or dvaita etc.

The questions thrown at you is due to your own accuse of "other" vaishnavas being fanatic that is coming out loudly in this message and "that is what is" pollution to 'other' vaishnavas!

Hope you understand that!

[ganeshamylord]

How does your above message makes you not a "Fanatic"?

Also, i am not saying there are no "Vaishnavas" who can be Advaitin! In fact, in general we call "Vaishavaism" as faith and "Advaita, "Dvaita" etc as philosophies. You can be vaishnava or shaiva in your faith and also can choose to know/believe advaita or dvaita etc.

The questions thrown at you is due to your own accuse of "other" vaishnavas being fanatic that is coming out loudly in this message and "that is what is" pollution to 'other' vaishnavas!

Hope you understand that!
Namaste
"in general" has exceptions too because not all cater to the general populace.
I dont know how else one defines fanaticism if i dont ascribe it to someone who tells me on my face that others dont get liberated but he will just because of his "faith"
Well and that is subject to pollution too!!

[axlyz]

Namaste
"in general" has exceptions too because not all cater to the general populace.
I dont know how else one defines fanaticism if i dont ascribe it to someone who tells me on my face that others dont get liberated but he will just because of his "faith"
Well and that is subject to pollution too!!

Krishna tells that EVERYONE will eventually get liberation. There is no eternal hell that you accuse on me. If you don't accept Krishna's statements, then you will not go to hell. But many births will have to be taken in order to achieve liberation. Vaishnavism is not Christianity or Islam.

[grames]

Your statement has merit and that requires a good solution. Since you don't care about someone agreement for your faith and belief, how or what makes you believe in anyone's advertisement or verdict that you don't get liberation? Why are you choosing their own style when you disagree and feel uncomfortable with such approach in first place? You are not very different and you are repeating and committing same mistake isn't?

[axlyz]

Namaste axlyz,

I am not denying that Adi Sankara's ISTa devatA was viShNu, but he did consider Siva-viShNu abheda. Sure Adi Sankara praised viShNu (and kruShNa) as supreme Brahman. No denying it. But there is basic difference in 'line of thinking' of an advaitin and a vaishnava following any of the authentic Vaishnav sampradAya-s. You will know when you actually meditate the advaita way and God gives you experience of detachment. My many doubts were cleared in a flash when I had that experience. There is no substitute for experience.

Anyways, further discussion on Adi Sankara would derail the thread.

Sure one can have their own opinion, but one has to calmly discuss. Again, when a point is reached, we should finally agree to disagree if a common ground is not reached.

Namaste Viraja di,

Nice to see you back. Hope everything is fine.

Regarding sampradAya-s, I didn't say that rAmAnuja created a new philosophy. I only said that there is a conversion process. I am open to correction. I didnt blame anyone, but said I am confused which sampradAya is the true one as I feel that truth is one.

I would also like to say that not all Vaishnavas adhere to the sampradAya-s. There are many who do not belong or associate with sampradAya-s. An example is dasAsrimAlI VAishnava.

I never disrespect any of the acharya-s. They were all avatars and humans ,like me, can never understand their real divine purpose behind their divine acts. But the problem is that we fight in their name :)

Anyways, if I have done it unintentionally, I pray for unconditional apology.

---

As for the thread, it is in Vaishnava sub-forum and not in VA / Sri Vaishnava.

But as Yajvan ji has said "The fragrance of pride is beginning to erupt within this string. It is inches away from being closed."

Wise say taht we should not disturb anyone's faith, but at times I get carried away. Please accept my apologies.

I would prefer to stay as spectator.

Hari OM

Dear sir,
You have done no harm. You are only doing your part by defending your philosophy and Acharya. I do sincerely hope that you continue to participate in this forum at least in the non-Shankara parts. Maybe you can correct me or someone else which will help us all.
Regards

[ganeshamylord]

Your statement has merit and that requires a good solution. Since you don't care about someone agreement for your faith and belief, how or what makes you believe in anyone's advertisement or verdict that you don't get liberation? Why are you choosing their own style when you disagree and feel uncomfortable with such approach in first place? You are not very different and you are repeating and committing same mistake isn't?


Because while people might disagree on the looser ends of the spiritual thread the core reality remains the same. The fact that God doesnt have a form and is one worshipped by different faiths according to different cultural impacts goes along well with my line of thought and also commonsense. Second thing is i have Krishna backing me up when i talk of non duality. And since no where has it been mentioned to differentiate between hari and hara i feel supremely vindicated. While different philosophers might give their own inputs no where in puranas has it been mentioned to differentiate between Hari and Hara. While philosophies are subject to change i dont think core scriptures are. So while people who talk of differentiation between souls get their support not from vedanta but from bhashyas i get my support from both vedanta and bhasyas. So if i mention people who differentiate between Them go to hell that is from a scripture but when you say they dont its your pov and the pov of the philosopher. So i am asking a simple question. To all people who differentiate between souls show me one quote that fortifies your statement from the puranas or vedas or anything else. Dont show me quotes where shiva worships vishnu or vishnu worships shiva because they worshipping each other doesnt give us a right to call either demigods. So i want an explicit statement which asks us to differentiate between Them just like how i showed you explicit statements that prescribe hell to those who do.