Jesus is an empowered incarnation of God

[satay]

Jesus is an empowered incarnation of God.

His message is no different to the message of Krishna in the Bhagavada-gita, it is simply presented in a different way to a different audience. The principles of Bhagavad-gita were spoken to Arjuna and to other highly elevated persons. They were highly advanced compared to ordinary persons in other parts of the world. Two plus two is a mathematical principle that is true both in the beginner's arithmetic class and in the advanced class as well. Still there are higher and lower mathematics. In all incarnations of the Lord, therefore, the same principles are taught, but they appear to be higher and lower in varied circumstances. There are many dictionaries on the market and they are all factually dictionaries but one may be a small pocket dictionary and another a large international version. Both are dictionaries and contain essentially the same information, however, the depth of knowledge is different.

http://www.krishna.org/sudarsana/a005.html

[Ablaze]

"incarnation of God" - do Hare Krishnas believe that Jesus is God in the flesh, like the Christians? :headscratch:

[satay]

I don't know but there are a number of ISKCON members here on HDF so hopefully someone will answer this.

[grames]

Jesus is accepted as incarnation of Lord by Gaudias and his original teachings ( unadultrated paulism - Teachings of Jesus with out the label christianity) are conveying the same message as Gita but in at a different level of abstraction and language.

[Sri Vaishnava]

Calling Jesus an avatar was one of Srila Prabhupada's conversion tactics. In a letter to his own non-white disciples, he reveals that he considers Jesus a jivatma.

Please, even great Mahadevas like Brahma and Siva are not equal to Vishnu. Why would a no-name Prophet from a cult that was popularised by the Roman Catholic Church be an incarnation?

Lord Buddha though, was an avatar not only because of His philosophy (which, on closer inspection, ties with the message of Lord Krishna), but also because He used the concepts of Dharma and Karma, as well as deriving from Vedic Texts.

The Abrahamic Religions speak of a tyrannical God and a Philosophy that cannot even be counted as a Nastika School of Thought, but a rather immature Philosophy, dominated by the Heaven and Hell concept.

[sarabhanga]

Namaste Sri Vaishnava,

Every Jivatma is a veritable incarnation of Lord Vishnu.

[Sri Vaishnava]

Yes, but that doesn't make us equal to Him. His Avatars are those that are only mentioned in the Texts.

Lord Buddha and Lord Rishabhadeva, the founders of Buddhism and Jainism are Incarnations.

So, major Religions which caused an impact, should be mentioned in Bhagavatam or other Puranas. Obviously, Christianity has made an Impact, but Jesus is not mentioned. Because those Religions are Non-Vedic and Man-Made. Jainism and Buddhism have truths in them, in contrast, albeit an incomplete truth.

Jesus believed in the Abrahamic God who threw stones at Women and Children and killed innocent First Borns. He was no God.

The way to Moksha is through Vishnu. Either you claim Lord Vishnu is supreme, or keep silent on who God is. Lord Buddha and Lord Rishabhadeva chose the latter. But Jesus and the other Prophets did not say Vishnu is supreme or that there exists truth in the Vedas. They believed in the Abrahamic God. So they should not be counted.

The life of Jesus is based on Pagan Myths. There is no proof that he ever did all that was said.

Accepted, every Jivatma is a manifestation of Vishnu. That would mean, Jesus is a normal human like us. In fact, going by the theory of Reincarnation, anyone of you could have been Jesus in a past life.

[yajvan]

Hari Om
~~~~~~

The way to Moksha is through Vishnu. Either you claim Lord Vishnu is supreme, or keep silent on who God is.

The life of Jesus is based on Pagan Myths. There is no proof that he ever did all that was said.

Accepted, every Jivatma is a manifestation of Vishnu. That would mean, Jesus is a normal human like us. In fact, going by the theory of Reincarnation, anyone of you could have been Jesus in a past life.

Namste Sri Vaishnava,
you speak with passion and conviction... I am happy for you that you are well grounded in your beliefs. Many if not all on HDF have great respect for Visnu, but have chosen a different Istadevata as Supreme.

Many here on HDF have various views on this matter and most notably speak openly about the notion of ones Ishta. While we recognize your suggestion to 'be silent on this matter' there is no intention from us to do so , so please do not be disapointed to see us talking of Siva, Rudra, of the Divine Mother, or of Sri, Brahman and the like.


The life of Jesus is based on Pagan Myths. There is no proof that he ever did all that was said
What if he did 1/2 or 1/3rd or 1/64th of what he said, does that change anything? Is it quantity? or Quality? Any one that says I and my Father are One, I must respect. If this does not pass your litmus paper test, that is fine, yet there are others that may think differently.

'He alone is the best devotee who sees his Adored One everywhere. For the devotee of Vishnu the Lord is omnipresent. He should see Lord Vishnu even in the images of Shankar, Devi, Ganesh and Surya etc. Likewise a devotee of Shankar, Devi etc. should visualize his Adored One omnipresent.' Sri Brahmananda Saraswati , Sankarachara of Jyotir Math between 1941 to 1953.

I am in hopes your passion and commitment bring you to the door of moksha rapidly and to the feet of Visnu.

pranams,

[satay]

namaskar sri vaishnava,


Calling Jesus an avatar was one of Srila Prabhupada's conversion tactics. In a letter to his own non-white disciples, he reveals that he considers Jesus a jivatma.


Do you have access to this personal letter of srila prabhupada? Please share if you do.



Please, even great Mahadevas like Brahma and Siva are not equal to Vishnu.


I will ignore this statement for now and encourage you to read the site rules listed under FAQ section.





Lord Buddha though, was an avatar not only because of His philosophy (which, on closer inspection, ties with the message of Lord Krishna), but also because He used the concepts of Dharma and Karma, as well as deriving from Vedic Texts.



I would like to have a discussion with you on this if your time permits in a separate thread.



Jesus believed in the Abrahamic God who threw stones at Women and Children and killed innocent First Borns. He was no God.



Do you have a source that I can check to confirm this.

I wasn't aware that jesus actually threw stones at women...where does it say that?

[Haridas]

I personally don't believe in Jesus mostly because of the documentary "The God Who Wasn't There".

[Znanna]

"Jesus" or "the Christ" ?

Isn't it perverse to confuse "man" with "Godz"?

The way to differentiate, IMO, is what is named and what is unspeakable.


ZN

[saidevo]

Namaste Znanna and others.



"Jesus" or "the Christ" ?
Isn't it perverse to confuse "man" with "Godz"?
The way to differentiate, IMO, is what is named and what is unspeakable.


We need to get a few things straight in a dispassionate, objective manner. Znanna's messages are always objective and dispassionate, sparkling in their brevity, and she keeps herself out of passionate debates unlike many of us.

1. If the term "Christ" is used for "Godz" as "what is unspeakable" as an equivalent/substitute for nirguNa Brahman, is there any verse in the Bible (OT/NT) that speaks about the nature of such nirguNa Brahman? I ask this question because the Christian God is believed to be the equivalent of only saguNa Brahman, a Personal God.

2. Christians believe Jesus (of Nazareth) as an incarnation of the Logos, the divine word of God. The Logos again is God manifested by speech: Logos derives from the Greek 'lego' meaning 'to say'. Hindu Upanishads speak of the universe as nothing more than manifestation of forms and names by Vac or speech over the Atman, which causes all the sorrow and sufferings in the world.

3. The term 'Christ' which is used by the Christians as a surname of Jesus (though it is a title) is derived from the Greek 'christos' which literally means 'The Anointed One'. Sarabhanga has pointed out in HDF how the Greek term itself derives from the Sanskrit 'kRSTa' meaning a ploughed field and a reference to the Christians of Jesus' times being mostly farmers.

The term 'anointment' has stark ritual and ceremonial connotations. Anointment with various substances (such as oil, fat and blood) was done in early history to preserve the dead bodies, to heal wounds, to muster courage and so on. In the Hindu ritual, anointment is done to the stone icons of personal gods in temples such as Anjaneya, Ganesha, etc., using oil, butter and sandal paste, as part of the daily rituals.

'Chrism' in Greek means 'perfumed oil'. 'Christos' in classical Greek usage could mean covered in oil, and is thus a literal and accurate translation of 'Messiah'. Interestingly, while the cognates of the Greek term retain their positive meanings, the cognates of their original English adaptation deteriorated (like the Western culture and civilization) into negative connotations in such terms as 'grisly, grim, grime, gizm and grease'!

4. If Jesus was nirguNa Brahman, surely he must have expressed his intrinsic nature in such lofty terms as found for Brahman in the Hindu Upanishads or in the Bhagavad Gita, whoever his audiences were, for at least one or two of his twelve apostles must have advanced to the expected spiritual level. When Jesus says 'I and my Father are One', it seems to me, he still has the duality of manifestation in mind, because otherwise he would have said 'I am the Father' and 'You are also the Father'.

I have no grudge in accepting Jesus as an incarnation of saguNa Brahman, the Personal God, whether Jesus of Nazareth was historical or mythical. But I certainly think it is erroneous to get Jesus above the Trinity, more so when--as Christians believe--Jesus sits at the "right hand of God the Father" in the heaven after his ascension.

(Sources for the analysis: Wikipedia)

[atanu]

---
The way to Moksha is through Vishnu. Either you claim Lord Vishnu is supreme, or keep silent on who God is. ----

Namaste Sri Vaishnava,

Christians also believe in Jesus's saying: 'I am the way. I am the Light', as strongly as you believe.

How do you discriminate your and their beliefs and how do you prove that only your statement is true? How your attainements are superior in physical and spiritual realms?

Om

[sarabhanga]

Namaste Saidevo,

Surely the Christian God is Jehovah (i.e. Yaweh, the Tetragrammaton YHVH) who is just as nirguNa and avyakta as the turya AUM.

YHVH (the Father) is equivalent with nirguNa nara, while Jesus (the Son) is equivalent with saguNa nArAyaNa.

When Jesus says “I and my Father are One”, he is speaking of his essential nature, his own AtmA.
The spirit of the Son is the same spirit of Father.
Jesus did not say “I and my Father are Two”, or “I and my Father are One and a half”.

Isha kRSNa and iSus (“ray of light”) kRSTis (“teacher”) would both agree that nArAyaNa and nara are one and the same sacred essence. Indeed, naranArAyaNa is another name for kRSNa, and the name of naranArAyaNa is effectively saying exactly the same thing as “I and my Father are One”.

And from the perspective of a ray of light, there is no difference between its self and its source (that apparent separation being imposed only by outside observers).

[sarabhanga]

And ...

Isha kRSNa was born among the pastoral yAdava clan, and
iSus kRSTis was born among the agrarian kRSTayas.

kRSTi refers to a member of the pañca kRSTayas ~ the five Aryan tribes, or (more generally) the inhabitants of cultivated lands.

And iSus (ray of light) is cognate with indu (drop of light).

iSus kRSTis was an indu, for sure. :)

[Sri Vaishnava]

Namaste,

The sastras of the yavanas, or meat-eaters, are not eternal scriptures. They have been fashioned recently, and sometimes they contradict one another. The scriptures of the yavanas are three: the Old Testament, the New Testament and the Koran.

Their compilation has a history; they are not eternal like the Vedic knowledge. Therefore, although they have their arguments and reasoning, they are not very sound and transcendental. As such, modern people advanced in science and philosophy, deem these scriptures unacceptable. (Cc Adi. 17,169 purport)

~ Srila Prabhupada.

So the comparative position of Vasudeva Datta is millions of times better than that of Lord Jesus Christ. A Vaishnava is so liberal that he is prepared to risk everything to rescue the conditioned souls from material existence.

~ Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Thakur.

Srila Prabhupada mentioned that the man-made Religions have a beginning. They are not eternal.

1) Jesus' name is not mentioned in the Shastras. He is no avatar.

2) Abrahamic Religions do have certain Vedic Influences. But that is because they are derived from Roman and Greek Mythologies, which in turn were derived from our Puranas. Lord Krishna indeed controls all that is Religion, but that doesn't mean the Religion is true.

Christ is borrowed from Kristos, which came from Krishna. But that doesn't mean Christ is Krishna.

The Concept of a dying and resurrecting god is not unique to Christianity.Pagan Religions have been incorporating it for ages. The story was probably ripped off from Pagans. Check this out:

Be well assured, then, Trypho, that I am established in the knowledge of and faith in the Scriptures by those counterfeits which he who is called the devil is said to have performed among the Greeks; just as some were wrought by the Magi in Egypt, and others by the false prophets in Elijah's days. For when they tell that Bacchus, Son of Jupiter was begotten by intercourse with Semele and that he was the discoverer of the vine; and when they relate, that being torn in pieces, and having died, he rose again, and ascended to heaven; and when they introduce Wine into his mysteries, do I not perceive that the devil has imitated the prophecy announced by the patriarch Jacob, and recorded by Moses?


3) Some people consider Siva or Brahma to be part of a Trinity, or as equal to Vishnu.Although I do not agree, I also do not mind that because both Siva and Brahma are names in the Vedic Literature that gives due importance to them. Jesus is not mentioned anywhere in the Vedic Scriptures, barring the controversial Bhavishya Purana.

4) Jesus did not preach, at any point, that one should even worship a God who is similar to Lord Vishnu or any other Deva. The Old Testament God was the one he believed in. And that God is tyrannical and most definitely was not Lord Vishnu, although Lord Vishnu ordains that all Religions are maintained by Him.

I am aware of the Abraham and Brahma, Om and Amen and other such hidden vedic similarities. But it is not our faith.

Jesus probably learnt some Hinduism and Buddhism. He spread some of it. Probably a Christian version of Sai Baba.

The Bible forbids worship of Images.


'He alone is the best devotee who sees his Adored One everywhere. For the devotee of Vishnu the Lord is omnipresent. He should see Lord Vishnu even in the images of Shankar, Devi, Ganesh and Surya etc. Likewise a devotee of Shankar, Devi etc. should visualize his Adored One omnipresent.'

I shall refrain from engaging in Vaishnavite vs. Shaivite debates.

Vaishnavites believe though, that 'Ishta Devta' pertains to only Lord Vishnu and His Devotees. Choose any Avatar for rendering devotional service.

However, Jesus is not part of the true Vedic History. He is a manufactured product of Kali Yuga. If you refer to Siva, Brahma, Devi, etc. as 'Ishta Devta', its fine, as they are a part of Vedic History and legitimate divinity.




I wasn't aware that jesus actually threw stones at women...where does it say that?

Read the antics of Jehovah in the Old Testament. Basically, 'God' is a spoilt child who throws tantrums if he doesn't get what he wants. Christians accept that he is the father, and Jesus as son, or both as the same. Whatever.


Christians also believe in Jesus's saying: 'I am the way. I am the Light', as strongly as you believe.

How do you discriminate your and their beliefs and how do you prove that only your statement is true? How your attainements are superior in physical and spiritual realms?

OK, let us assume that Jesus is Divine. Now, lets check Lord Krishna's crystal clear message. 'All Prayers Come to Me, Worship only Me, and you will come to Me'.

Jews don't accept Jesus was a prophet or god. Why must we go beyond the scope of what was given to us by the Supreme Lord?

Let us assume, although it is beyond the scope of the texts, that Jesus was an incarnation. But Lord Krishna was the Supreme Lord. And Krishna came here. He gave us a message. Clearly, Krishna is superior.

Lord Krishna is the truth. Because you yourself must know the divine revelations of the Vedas, the works of our Acharyas and the fact that our Scriptures are the oldest and have no origin.

Many of our Acharyas such as Shri Madhvacharya, Shri Chaitanya, Shri Ramanujacharya came in contact with people of other religions (mainly islam). None of the even bothered to study those religions. Although both Sankaracharya and Madhvacharya have named Buddha as an avatar, no Acharya has called Jesus one.

Christians believe Jesus is the 'way'. But that came long after many pagan myths had emerged, and most likely, it was a manufactured religion. Lord Krishna intended it to be, for He says in the Gita that He assigns different religions based on Sattvik, Rajas and Tamas qualities.

So it is likely that Jesus is not the only 'way', unless you say that everyone may have been christian in a previous birth, before becoming a Hindu. Then it is not the exclusive 'Way'. But Lord Krishna and the other Avatars of Vishnu came first, before anyone else.

Maybe, Christians die, and if they have remained true to their faith, they will be born again as devotees of Krishna.

In another 430,000 years, Jesus' name will be forgotten when Lord Kalki arrives.

[Nuno Matos]

Namaste Sri Vaishnava


" Read the antics of Jehovah in the Old Testament. Basically, 'God' is a spoilt child who throws tantrums if he doesn't get what he wants. Christians accept that he is the father, and Jesus as son, or both as the same. Whatever."

Maybe you are not acquainted with the fact that Jesus never called the almighty father by Jehovah . When Jesus wanted to call God he used the term Elloin which is the name in Aramaic for God in the Jesus tradition.

[Sri Vaishnava]

It is true, I am not acquainted with the Bible, although I like reading about Pagan Myths.

But Jesus, as well as Christians, accept the events of the Old Testament as the truth. Hence, the same God is also the God of the New Testament.

Here, you can see the reformation attempt by man. They decided to change the character of God from a jealous angry one to a kind and forgiving one. It is clearly a man-made product.

Worship Siva, Devi, Brahma, etc. I have no right to intrude. Worship even Jesus. The only thing that bothers me is Jesus being referred to as an avatar of the great Lord Vishnu, for he wasn't. The Scriptures would have given atleast one line of info. about him, if he was. After all, Christianity is a huge commodity in this age.

[atanu]

Namaste,

----
Maybe, Christians die, and if they have remained true to their faith, they will be born again as devotees of Krishna.

In another 430,000 years, Jesus' name will be forgotten when Lord Kalki arrives.

Namaskar Sri Vaisnava,

Though you extoll vedas, I did not see any vedic citation in your post.

Nevertheless, excellent arguments and citations. You leave no holes that any debate may be possible. And as allegory, who can engage evangelical christians??

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

For Shri Yajvan,

I hope you get the beef that links/unlinks science and religion? I reiterate that scientists are better karma yogis than ------.

Om

[Sri Vaishnava]

Namaskar Sri Vaisnava,

Though you extoll vedas, I did not see any vedic citation in your post.

Nevertheless, excellent arguments and citations. You leave no holes that any debate may be possible. And as allegory, who can engage evangelical christians??

Please give me ONE Citation from the Vedas or Shastras that hint Jesus to be an avatar.

As for my point, How about the Bhagavad Gita for starters? Does Krishna mention anywhere that Salvation can be gained by any other God?

There is no need for Vedic Citation, because Jesus is not mentioned in the Vedas. If you believe Shiva is the way to Moskha, good, because Shiva is named in the Vedas. If it is through Devi, fine. My only problem is how Hindus attempt to absorb Abrahamic Faiths into their culture.

As you can see, Material Wealth is clearly present more in the West than in India. All the temptations of Samsara are more pronounced in the West (Though sadly, India is getting that way too).

True Spiritual Wealth is in the East.

As for comparing me to an evangelical christian, that is not even proper. It would seem that you misunderstand my intentions.

[saidevo]

Namaste Sarabhanga.

I have no qualms in accepting your way of recognizing the Trinity in Christian theology, which probably is the esoteric truth. Yet, it is strange that as a God-incarnate Jesus says two directly opposite things!

In John 10:30 Jesus says "I and my father are one."

According to Matt 27:46 Jesus cried out on the cross, "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?"

How does one reconcile these two statements?

[atanu]

Namaskar Sri Vaisnava,

Please do not take offence. I am pointing to similarity in faith and not to you. It does not matter to me whether Jesus was an incarnate or not.


Please give me ONE Citation from the Vedas or Shastras that hint Jesus to be an avatar.

As for my point, How about the Bhagavad Gita for starters? Does Krishna mention anywhere that Salvation can be gained by any other God?


Is there any hint in Vedas that Shri Krishna is an incarnation? Only from Vedas please, no smriti, purana, or itihasa. I do not know it myself, so I am asking you.

If you say Lord himself says so in Gita, a Christian will point to Bible. These are conflicts of 'my faith' vs. 'their faith', which have no objectivity and no resolution.



--- If you believe Shiva is the way to Moskha, good, because Shiva is named in the Vedas.

This was not your earlier stand.


True Spiritual Wealth is in the East.


I agree but I will fail to substantiate it, if my claims are not different from claims made in the name of Christ. It will be words against words.

Om

[atanu]

Namaste Sri Vaishnava

" Read the antics of Jehovah in the Old Testament. Basically, 'God' is a spoilt child who throws tantrums if he doesn't get what he wants. Christians accept that he is the father, and Jesus as son, or both as the same. Whatever."

Maybe you are not acquainted with the fact that Jesus never called the almighty father by Jehovah . When Jesus wanted to call God he used the term Elloin which is the name in Aramaic for God in the Jesus tradition.

Namaste Nuno,

Subtly you bring out a simple yet the most fundamental point that nameless God's name is flavoured differently in different cultures.


Svet. Upanishad

V-14: That Supreme Divinity who created both Life and Matter, who is the source of all arts and sciences, who can be intuited by a pure and devoted mind – realizing Him, the blissful the incorporeal and the nameless, one is freed from further embodiment.
-----------------
The Self, who is absent from no place and no time and who has no second, is transcendentally good shivo and all pervasively immanent visno. This is universal, whatever name one uses.

Om

[yajvan]

Hari Om
~~~~~


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

For Shri Yajvan,
I hope you get the beef that links/unlinks science and religion? I reiterate that scientists are better karma yogis than ------.
Om

Yes, I see... devata are being picked as if they were a football team, I only root for my home team. My team is the one I adore,http://www.cybergifs.com/faces/pray.gif so that infers your team in inferior. Looking for the differences vs. the simularitiies increases mayiya mala.

pranams,

[yajvan]

Hari Om
~~~~~

Namaste Sarabhanga.
I have no qualms in accepting your way of recognizing the Trinity in Christian theology, which probably is the esoteric truth. Yet, it is strange that as a God-incarnate Jesus says two directly opposite things!

In John 10:30 Jesus says "I and my father are one."

According to Matt 27:46 Jesus cried out on the cross, "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?"

How does one reconcile these two statements?
Namste Saidevo,sarabhanga, et.al.

Yes I see your point... I have pondered this in the past, yet I see Chirst's resolve. You will find with some research on this matter, Jesus the Chirst was reciting prayers. .This is from Psalms 22.1 i.e. "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?".

We need to tell the whole story, yes? So lets finish his dialog. After he says this, he is seconds away from dropping the body. He then says

"Father, into Thy hands I commit my spirit". This is also a quote from Psalm 31:5, the impending departure from life, and a statement of trust in the Father. This does not sound like a being that infers he has been forsaken.

Now that said, I have great respect for Jesus the Christ. Am a Christian, nope. I also respect the Buddha, am I a Buddhist? Nope. Great people on this earth is what bhu loka needs. I applaud all those that support Dharma and the goal of improving the human condition. I am ok with great people [mahatma] coming from real estate other then India. All of them are part and parcel Brahman.

He who rules his spirit has won a greater victory than the taking of a city- Jesus

references to help: http://www.ichthys.com/mail-Psalm%2022.htm (http://www.ichthys.com/mail-Psalm%2022.htm)
http://biblia.com/jesusbible/psalms1.htm#Psalm%2022 (http://biblia.com/jesusbible/psalms1.htm#Psalm%2022)


pranams,

[Sri Vaishnava]

Namaskar Sri Vaisnava,Is there any hint in Vedas that Shri Krishna is an incarnation? Only from Vedas please, no smriti, purana, or itihasa. I do not know it myself, so I am asking you.

Namaste,

Why do you want to restrict it to the Veda? I was talking about the fact that Jesus is not mentioned in puranas as well. In any case,

"The Itihasas and Puranas are the fifth Veda." (Kauthumiya Chandogya Upanisad 7.1.4)

Lord Krishna says in the Bhagavad Gita, 'I am Sama Veda'. So know Krishna, you know Veda.

The Puranas are authentic, written by Vyasa.

When I say 'Scripture', I refer to the Bhagavad Gita and the Puranas as well. The Incarnations are not mentioned in Veda because the object of Veda is to offer details on the Divinity. The Vedas are concerned with hymns for the Devas and the nature of the Brahman.

The purpose of the Puranas is to mention the Pastimes of the Lord, ie, His incarnations.

The Vedas mention that Brahman is Sriman Narayana, anyway. And Krishna was Narayana Incarnate.

Nowhere in the Vedas or Puranas is Jesus mentioned.


If you say Lord himself says so in Gita, a Christian will point to Bible. These are conflicts of 'my faith' vs. 'their faith', which have no objectivity and no resolution.

You miss my point. My argument is not toward Christians. If they believe in Jesus, it is their faith. My argument is towards Hindus who consider Jesus to be an Incarnation of Krishna.

Hindus follow Bhagavad Gita. The Charama Sloka in Gita says, 'Abandoning all Religions (Dharmas), Surrender to Me alone. I will release you from all Sins. Do not fear.'

So, Christians can believe in Jesus. Not Hindus. The reason is this - The bible may contain some vedic truths. That doesn't mean it is Veda. the reason it contains truths is because the Veda has covered all possible truths. Even if a new religion is fabricated by man, most likely the truth may be in the Veda as well. But it was ordained for Christians by Krishna Himself. Not for Krishna Devotees.



This was not your earlier stand.

I do not believe Shiva is the way to Moksha. If others believe it, fine. You don't understand my point - I am saying, do not consider Jesus an incarnation of Vishnu. It is against Vaishnava Theology. If you want to worship Jesus, be a Christian. If you want to worship Krishna, be a Vaishnava. Do not be a Christianized Vaishnava.

I have no argument against those who claim Shiva is superior to Vishnu. Although I do not believe it, they are also following Vedic Scripture, so that is their interpretation. My interpretation is that Vishnu is Supreme. So, that is not my problem.

My argument is against those who believe that Jesus is Krishna. If they believe Shiva is supreme, I don't care. Just don't equate Vishnu with an Abrahamic God. Undoubtedly, the Abrahamic Religions derive from Veda, but they do not become Vedic simply because of that.

Jesus is for those who follow the Bible, or the Koran. Not for those who strictly adhere to the teachings of Krishna. Vaishnavas should adhere to the Bhagavatam and the Bhagavatam has given the names of the major Avatars.


I agree but I will fail to substantiate it, if my claims are not different from claims made in the name of Christ. It will be words against words.

Again, I am not targeting Christians. Only those believers of Vishnu who also claim that Jesus is Krishna.


that Supreme Divinity who created both Life and Matter, who is the source of all arts and sciences, who can be intuited by a pure and devoted mind – realizing Him, the blissful the incorporeal and the nameless, one is freed from further embodiment.

I have no problem if people regard Mahadeva Shiva as God, for I respect Rudra very much. I just do not consider him as God, according to my Sampradaya's Vedic Interpretations.

Doesn't mean Brahman is Incorporeal or Nameless. It means that His form and names are beyond all Material Imperfections. His Body is completely aloof from Material Conceptions, hence Materially incorporeal. The Vedas clearly say Brahman is Sriman Narayana and if you want, I can provide the verse. That itself is a name, isn't it? Then how come He is nameless?

Yes, He can exist as a formless entity, because He is capable of anything. But His true form is Personal and Transcendental.

The Vedas are Mystic Sciences. We cannot take them literally.

He has plenty of transcendental names. The Vishnu Sahasranama gives a 1000 of them.

His body, the four armed One with the Lotus, Chakra, Conch and Mace is transcendental. It is not a material body because He has no feelings that we have.


Self, who is absent from no place and no time and who has no second, is transcendentally good shivo and all pervasively immanent visno. This is universal, whatever name one uses.

Shiva here does not mean Mahadeva Shiva. The term Shiva means 'Auspicious'. Hence, it means the Self is eternally auspicious.

Vishnu means all-pervading, a term given only to Sriman Narayana. Hence, Sriman Narayana is Vishnu and He is Siva (auspicious), but Mahadeva Siva is not Vishnu.

In fact, Brahman, called Sriman Narayana, is also called 'Siva' in the Vishnu Sahasranama. Siva is His name because He is the most auspicious of all. The Mahadeva Shiva has named himself after the Brahman.

Mahadeva has names like Siva, Rudra, etc. But they are not his unique names. Narayana and Vishnu are unique names. And applied only to Brahman.

In the words of Srila Prabhupada, Vishnu is like Milk and Shiva is like Yoghurt. Milk can become Yoghurt, and Milk is the originator of Yoghurt. But Yoghurt, although having some Milky properties, cannot become Milk.

That is why Krishna says in the Bhagavad Gita, 'I am Sankara'. But Sankara does not say, 'I am Krishna'.

[sarabhanga]

Namaste Yajvan, Saidevo, et al.

“He who knows at the same time both the cause and the destruction, overcomes death by destruction, and obtains immortality through the true cause.” The penultimate words of the Isha provide the theme for Ishus’ crucifixion.

It is said that, as the mortal life of iSus kRSTi (“Jesus Christ”) was ending, he uttered the words of an ancient psalm:


“My God, my God, why hast Thou forsaken me?”

And, likewise, the Isha Upanishad closes with the prayers of a dying man:


“My breath reach everlasting Air! In ashes let my body end.
OM! Mind, remember thou me; remember thou my sphere; remember thou my deeds.”

And the sage is quoting the last lines from the ancient Yajurveda (“sacrificial revelation”).


My breath reach everlasting Air! In ashes let my body end.
OM! Mind, remember thou me; remember thou my sphere; remember thou my deeds.
By goodly path lead us to riches, Agni, thou God who knowest all our works and wisdom.
Remove the sin that makes us stray and wander: most ample adoration will we bring thee.
The Real’s face is hidden by a vessel formed of golden light.
The Spirit yonder in the Sun, the Spirit dwelling there am I.
OM! Heaven! Brahma!

[Sri Vaishnava]

Delve into Philosophy very deeply and you will see a connection in everything. I do not see much connection in this, as you do.

Jesus did not mention the Vedas. He did not mention Vishnu, Siva, Brahma, etc. He did not say he believed that the Upanishads contain secret truth. So, that makes him non-vedic, or as someone who wanted to fabricate his own teachings.

I said earlier, even if the Bible is a truth, it is only so because the Vedas have covered all aspects of the truth. Any truth thought up by man will not be novel or unique, because the Vedas possess all forms of truth.

Therfore, if I say, 'Oh, the Universe was created by Narayana' without looking or reading the Vedas, it is still not unique, as it was already mentioned in the Vedas.

Philosophical similarities does not make Jesus an avatar. In fact, there is enough proof that Buddhism was the major religion Christianity borrowed from, along with a few Pagan Myths.

However, Christians can woship Jesus, for he is their God. Hindus should worship their own, not because of 'our god vs. your god' thing, but because we know for SURE that the Vedas are the truth. Christianity is a mordern religion and definitely we shouldn't compromise ours to accomodate some other faith. When we have the WHOLE truth, why bother about the partial and incomplete truth in Christianity?

The Bhagavatam says, 'Liberation is achieved by chanting the names of Narayana'. The Biblical God's names are different, and hence will not provide Liberation. Only the given names of Narayana are potent.

[atanu]

Namaste Sri Vaishnava



Why do you want to restrict it to the Veda? I was talking about the fact that Jesus is not mentioned in puranas as well. In any case,
----
Nowhere in the Vedas or Puranas is Jesus mentioned.


Smriti, Purana and Itihsa are not shrutis that's why. Also, as per Christians, Vishnu is not mentioned in Bible. Also, show me from Vedas, where Shri Krishna is mentioned as Param Atman? Is it not just faith against faith as to what consitutes shruti?




"The Itihasas and Puranas are the fifth Veda." (Kauthumiya Chandogya Upanisad 7.1.4)


That is not what Chandogya says. Please. "– name alone is all this. Worship the name." The name is known as OM.




The Vedas mention that Brahman is Sriman Narayana, anyway. And Krishna was Narayana Incarnate.


Yes? Please show me the word Sriman Narayana from Veda Samhitas. I can show you from Vedas that it is Vishnu who is incarnate of Atman, called “I”.

Narayana is a name of Nara, from the time Nara creates waters. Narayana is BrahmA. Nara, the primeval Atman is ONE, who is named Narayana when it creates waters (Virya-Narah-Jivas-Atanu and you also etc.), since Nara is then the abode of this Virya.


And in this regard, it surprises me why Bhagawan of Vedas is not acceptable to you whereas only a part of Puranas is?

Shri Rudram 1.10

pramuJNcha dhanvanastvamubhayorArtniyorjyAm.h |
yAshcha te hasta ishhavaH parA tA bhagavo vapa ||

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

Shri Rudram 1.9

namo astu nIlagrIvAya sahasrAxAya mIDhushhe |
atho ye asya sattvAno .ahaM tebhyo .akaraM namaH ||


May my salutations be to the blue-throated, He who has a thousand eyes
and who showers/fulfills (all desires of His devotees) as Parjanya.
Also, I bow to His followers, the pramatha- gaNas





I have no problem if people regard Mahadeva Shiva as God, ---- I just do not consider him as God, according to my Sampradaya's Vedic Interpretations.


That shows that you do not follow the Vedas, which sing hymn to Mahadeva-Rudra Shiva as Bhagawan. Since Vedas are sanatana, so Bhagawan mentioned there is sanatana and not time constrained.




His body, the four armed One with the Lotus, Chakra, Conch and Mace is transcendental. It is not a material body because He has no feelings that we have.


Where is this transcendental body mentioned in Vedas? (Please realize that it is a conceptualization to help focus, love, and meditation).


Shiva here does not mean Mahadeva Shiva. The term Shiva means 'Auspicious'. Hence, it means the Self is eternally auspicious.

That is good. "---the Self is eternally auspicious". So, one name eminently suitable eternally and unique to Self is SHIVA -- the Good.

Who can ever say that the God I believe in is not Good? Is Narayana bad? Whereas Narayana refers to name of Nara, where Nara creates and becomes abode of many.

The Good is God.



Vishnu means all-pervading, a term given only to Sriman Narayana. Hence, Sriman Narayana is Vishnu and He is Siva (auspicious), but Mahadeva Siva is not Vishnu.


Yes. Rudra never sleeps and never becomes another. It is Rudra’s consort (the pure awareness called Girija) that has become the Maya for some. Why should Eko Lord have a need to pervade anything?



In fact, Brahman, called Sriman Narayana, is also called 'Siva' in the Vishnu Sahasranama. Siva is His name because He is the most auspicious of all. The Mahadeva Shiva has named himself after the Brahman.



You should say ‘BrahmA called as Sriman Narayana by my sampradaya’. This is correct. It is acceptable to me.




Narayana and Vishnu are unique names. And applied only to Brahman.


All words are Unique. Mental acrobatics does nothing to prove that only such and such name is applied to Brahman.

What is the need to apply any name to Brahman? Unfortunately Vedas do not record such unique logic. I see many people with names like Vishnu or Narayana. Hehe.



In the words of Srila Prabhupada, Vishnu is like Milk and Shiva is like Yoghurt. Milk can become Yoghurt, and Milk is the originator of Yoghurt. But Yoghurt, although having some Milky properties, cannot become Milk.


In the words of Sage Svetasvatara, Shiva is like Ghee hidden in milk, the essence hidden everywhere. Whom should I believe, Prabhupada, who calls other sages rascal etc., or Sage Svet?



That is why Krishna says in the Bhagavad Gita, 'I am Sankara'. But Sankara does not say, 'I am Krishna'.

Krishna also says “--- among Adityas I am Vishnu”. Sage Kapila also says so in Bhagavatam. Every Self Realised sage is entitled to say so. And every Self Realised sage is non-different from sanatana Bhagawan Sambhu.

Every Self Realised sage is Narayana – the abode of All – and then Eko, when Shivam is known.

Shankara even by mistake does not become another, so he cannot say “I am so and so”. He remains Atman.

Regards

Om

Note: It seems that the post has trolled itself. So, there might be a need to separate out threads.

[Sudarshan]

Delve into Philosophy very deeply and you will see a connection in everything. I do not see much connection in this, as you do.

Jesus did not mention the Vedas. He did not mention Vishnu, Siva, Brahma, etc. He did not say he believed that the Upanishads contain secret truth. So, that makes him non-vedic, or as someone who wanted to fabricate his own teachings.

I said earlier, even if the Bible is a truth, it is only so because the Vedas have covered all aspects of the truth. Any truth thought up by man will not be novel or unique, because the Vedas possess all forms of truth.

Therfore, if I say, 'Oh, the Universe was created by Narayana' without looking or reading the Vedas, it is still not unique, as it was already mentioned in the Vedas.

Philosophical similarities does not make Jesus an avatar. In fact, there is enough proof that Buddhism was the major religion Christianity borrowed from, along with a few Pagan Myths.

However, Christians can woship Jesus, for he is their God. Hindus should worship their own, not because of 'our god vs. your god' thing, but because we know for SURE that the Vedas are the truth. Christianity is a mordern religion and definitely we shouldn't compromise ours to accomodate some other faith. When we have the WHOLE truth, why bother about the partial and incomplete truth in Christianity?

The Bhagavatam says, 'Liberation is achieved by chanting the names of Narayana'. The Biblical God's names are different, and hence will not provide Liberation. Only the given names of Narayana are potent.

Namaste Sri Vaishnava,

Do you really think that God belongs to Hindus and to Indians? Why cant God incarnate in other parts of the world ( even the universe)?

Name of God is not important while chanting. All names in vedas refer to Vishnu only. So every name is auspicious. Bible is not composed in sanskrit. Aramic was the native language of Jesus, and hence he cannot be expected to call God by the same names - but does it change the God? In Tamil also you call Vishnu as tirumaal - is it found in Vishnu Sahasranama? So why do use that tamil name to denote vishnu?

God is known by his names that denote a specific quality of God. The name is only a symbol. It does not represent God any bit more than a stone represents God. The meaning of the word is what matters. Sometimes, the peculiar word structure in a mantra formed by its bIja is the potency. The name Jehovah means "I am that I am" or "he who will be, is, and has been". These names are roughly equivalent to the sanskrit names of 'ahaM brahmAsmi' and 'axara' , both denote Vishnu only. So the power of chanting lies not in the name itself - but the meaning of the word, its deeper significance and the faith with which one goes about it.

I am not saying that Jesus is an avatar. There is no proof for us. But there is no reason to disbelieve on the grounds that he talked about some other god. If jesus really existed, and he did teach something, then his god and your god are the same.

[sarabhanga]

Delve into Philosophy very deeply and you will see a connection in everything. I do not see much connection ...


mahat (the conception of multitude) is the infinite cause of nArAyaNa; and ahaMkAra (the conception of individuality) arises from nArAyaNa as the finite cause of nAra.

The pure Self-consciousness and creative individualization of shrI nArAyaNa, however, has an unfortunate tendency to egotism and self-consciousness, and destructive individualization, in the manas of nAra (mortal man).

[Sri Vaishnava]

Namaste Sri Vaishnava

Smriti, Purana and Itihsa are not shrutis that's why. Also, as per Christians, Vishnu is not mentioned in Bible. Also, show me from Vedas, where Shri Krishna is mentioned as Param Atman? Is it not just faith against faith as to what consitutes shruti?

But the Vedas say Sriman Narayana is Brahman. Puranas say Sriman Narayana incarnated as Rama, Krishna. So basically, you believe in Vedas, but not Puranas? That is an incorrect ideology. The Puranas are as authentic as the Vedas.

There is only one Divine Being - Narayana"
"Narayana is the inner soul of all beings,"
"He crosses the human bondage of samsara and reaches the Paramapada of Vishnu."
"Among the Devas, fire (Agni) is the lowest and Vishnu is the highest:
"He created Brahma as before and taught him the Vedas."
"From the Brahma's forehead, Rudra was born."
"The Universe is Narayana."

In any case, Lord Narasimha's name occurs in the Vedas. Lord Trivikrama's conquest of the 3 Worlds has been mentioned. But the purpose of the Vedas is not to enumerate the avatars, but to parise the divine. Hence, while the names 'Lord of 3 Worlds' and 'Narasimha' have cropped up, no mention of the exploits is given in the Vedas.

Vishnu's abode is called 'Paramapadam', Highest loka in the Vedas. It was Vishnu who conquered the 3 WORLDS as Trivikrama. Krishna was an avatar of Vishnu, who showed His Universal Form. Narayana and Vishnu are the same.

Vishnu is not in Bible. So Christians do not worship Vishnu. We have no mention of Jesus. So we should worship Vishnu. You said it.

And since Vishnu is the Supreme Brahman, He alone should be worshipped, as the Vedas are the ultimate authority. It is more potent than an indirect way by other religions.



That is not what Chandogya says. Please.
– name alone is all this. Worship the name." The name is known as OM.

Om is the transcendental sound of the Universe. But Om also means 'AUM'. Among many other definitions, AUM signifies A= Vishnu, the Brahman, U=Lakshmi, M=Jiva. Thus, a Jiva attains Vishnu through Lakshmi.

That is why every mantra begins with Om. Krishna says He enjoys all Sacrifices. By saying OM, You are acknowledging Vishnu's superiority before saying 'Nama Shivaay' or whatever. Ramanujacharya and other Vaishnava acharyas have interpreted it correctly. First read their works.


Yes? Please show me the word Sriman Narayana from Veda Samhitas. I can show you from Vedas that it is Vishnu who is incarnate of Atman, called “I”.

Eko ha vai Naaraayana Aasit? Na brahma nesaanaha" and "Apahatapaapma Divyo devaha Eko Naaraayana:" These verses clearly says that the supreme self called as "Sat", "Aatma" and "Brahman" is none other than "Naaraayana".

SrimAn nArAyaNA, who is akhilAnda koti brahmAnda nAyaka (the Lord of infinitely many universes), has multifarious manifestations. His form in His abode Sri Vaikuntha (the abode without any anxieties) is called para vAsudeva. From Him comes 4 priniple incarnations called vaibhava forms, namely vaibhava vAsudeva, sankarshana, pradyumna and anirudha. From Anirudha, many incarnations emanate as His sport and Mercy for conditioned people. As antaryAmi, He is present in every one\s heart and everything. He is all pervading and omnipresent. To enable His devotees to have His personal darshan (appearance), He mercifully incarnates as deities.

It says his abode is Vaikunta. Not Kailasa or Brahma Loka. It means He is also Vishnu. If He was Shiva, it would say, His abode is Kailasa. It doesn't. So, it means Shiva is a Deva, who resides in his own Loka.

If Shiva was a direct and full manifestation, it would have mentioned one of his manifestations is in Kailasa. Not there, is it? Vishnu is thus, an incarnate of atman, of Narayana. He is the FULL INCARNATION. Shiva is an aspect of Narayana.

Sriman Narayana is Supreme. From Sriman Narayana, comes Vishnu. But Vishnu is not different from Narayana, as He was not created, but is a Manifestation in Vaikuntha. From Vishnu's navel comes Brahma. From Brahma came Shiva. Both Brahma and Shiva are created.

Both Vishnu and Sriman Narayana are one and the same, but the others are aspects of Narayana, His amsas.


Narayana is a name of Nara, from the time Nara creates waters. Narayana is BrahmA. Nara, the primeval Atman is ONE, who is named Narayana when it creates waters (Virya-Narah-Jivas-Atanu and you also etc.), since Nara is then the abode of this Virya.

Narayana is Brahma, He is Rudra, He is Vishnu. Vishnu is Narayana Incarnate. Through Narayana comes the power of Brahma and Rudra. Without Narayana, there is no Brahma or Rudra.


And in this regard, it surprises me why Bhagawan of Vedas is not acceptable to you whereas only a part of Puranas is?

The Bhagavan of the Vedas and the Puranas are one and the Same. Narayana, Vishnu. That's it. I am not a scholar, I can only explain it to the best of my efforts. I suggest you read the Vaishnava Acharya's works.

Ramanujacharya and Madhvacharya established beyond doubt what the true meaning of the Vedas is.


Shri Rudram 1.10


pramuJNcha dhanvanastvamubhayorArtniyorjyAm.h |
yAshcha te hasta ishhavaH parA tA bhagavo vapa ||

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

Shri Rudram 1.9

namo astu nIlagrIvAya sahasrAxAya mIDhushhe |
atho ye asya sattvAno .ahaM tebhyo .akaraM namaH ||


May my salutations be to the blue-throated, He who has a thousand eyes
and who showers/fulfills (all desires of His devotees) as Parjanya.
Also, I bow to His followers, the pramatha- gaNas






That shows that you do not follow the Vedas, which sing hymn to Mahadeva-Rudra Shiva as Bhagawan. Since Vedas are sanatana, so Bhagawan mentioned there is sanatana and not time constrained.

Rudra here does not mean Shiva. Rudra is a common noun that means 'Howler' or 'Roarer' or 'Praiseworthy' or 'Destroyer of Evil'. Hence, Rudra pertains to Sriman Narayana only, as Sriman Narayana can be described as Rudra, as per the last two definitions.

Mahadeva Rudra is an aspect of Narayana, but He is not Narayana. Vishnu is endowed with all 6 qualities, He is Brahman.

Vishnu, however, is a Proper Noun. Vishnu and Narayana are etymologically related. To separate them would be to change the meaning of Veda. Hence, Vishnu is Rudra. Any praise to Rudra or Indra go to Vishnu-Narayana alone and to no-one else.

The Puranas mention Sriman Narayana is Vishnu. End of argument.


Where is this transcendental body mentioned in Vedas?
(Please realize that it is a conceptualization to help focus, love, and meditation).

He does have a form that is love and bliss. But those are the qualities that comprise His true PERSONAL FORM, which cannot be conceived by Humans. Yes, we can see him in his human-like form, with 4 arms. That is his real form. But what constitutes that body is not organic matter, but something we cannot conceive. By looking at His personal form, you feel love and bliss. You lookat His Lotus Feet, His Red Lips, His Great Limbs, etc. But it is NOT HUMAN. He may, for instance, eat with His eyes, or sing with His ears. That is the difference.

"the form of Lord that Arjuna sees resembles a human and the Lord's words that fools think that my body is like that of humans. Conclusion is simple: even if the Lord's form resembles that of humans in terms of hands, feet etc, the stuff His body is made of, is different from that of humans. See the ringing declaration in the Upanishads: AnandarUpaM, prANasharIro bhArUpaH (Chandogya). He, whose body is consciousness itself and form that of effulgence."



That is good. "---the Self is eternally auspicious". So, one name eminently suitable eternally and unique to Self is SHIVA -- the Good.

Shiva is a COMMON NOUN, not a PROPER NOUN. For instance, a person is called Will Smith, but Will and Smith have different meanings when used in a sentence. It is not hard to understand.

But then, it does not pertain to Mahadeva here.It says Brahman SRIMAN NARAYANA IS AUSPICIOUS. IE, Sriman Narayana is Vishnu, whose abode is called Paramapadam (highest Loka), who is the oldest Deva, and is Auspicious.

Vishnu is a proper noun in Sanskrit.

Nowhere does Mahadeva Rudra come into the picture.


Who can ever say that the God I believe in is not Good? Is Narayana bad? Whereas Narayana refers to name of Nara, where Nara creates and becomes abode of many.

The Good is God.[/quote]

God is Good and Shivo (Auspicious). He is Vishnu. Shiva is a devotee of Narayana-Vishnu. Period.



Yes. Rudra never sleeps and never becomes another. It is Rudra’s consort (the pure awareness called Girija) that has become the Maya for some. Why should Eko Lord have a need to pervade anything?

Narayana-Vishnu is in every atom. The Cosmos is WITHIN Him. He is Eko and everything is within, not distinct. Hence, he pervades. He is distinct from us and we are distinct from Him, but we are within Him, so in a sense we are also not distinct.


You should say ‘BrahmA called as Sriman Narayana by my sampradaya’. This is correct. It is acceptable to me.

The essence of the Veda and the Gita is that Vishnu is Narayana. Shaivism has no basis in the Vedas. It is not my fault that there are so many incorrect sampradayas like Smarta, Advaita, etc. Maybe not totally incorrect, but only partial in truth.



All words are Unique. Mental acrobatics does nothing to prove that only such and such name is applied to Brahman.

All Names apply to Brahman, who is Vishnu-Narayana. But all names do not specify Shiva. Even Isvara is a name adopted by Rudra. Vishnu is Sarva -Sarveshvara.

So say you. But the Acharyas say otherwise. The rules of Sanskrit say otherwise. If we took each word in the Vedas by face-value, we will probably end up with a very bizarre conclusion. Only the definition of the Vaishnava Acharyas makes absolute sense.


What is the need to apply any name to Brahman?
Unfortunately Vedas do not record such unique logic. I see many people with names like Vishnu or Narayana. Hehe.

The obvious answer is that God is Infinite and Indescribable, and can only be experienced, but cannot be translated into words and communicated from one to another. The Vedas conclude that God is neither accessible to words nor to mind (yato vacho nivartante aprapya manasa saha - Taittiriya Upanishad). In Isavasya Upanishad, it is said that you cannot reach (understand) the Paramatma with the human mind (reasoning) alone even if you spend all your life. This holds true even though mind can travel (think) faster than anything known to us, including the speed of light (anejadekam manaso javiyo.... ). Given this Infinite nature of the Paramatma who is not governed or constrained by any of the physical laws as we know them, the choice of a thousand names of Vishnu by Bhishma should be recognized as a representation of some of the better-known qualities of Sriman Narayana that are repeatedly described in our great epics, Vedas, Puranas, etc., and sung by the devout sages repeatedly.

The Mahadeva has named himself after Narayana, but he doesn't become Narayana.

He has names, and people do not realise it.



In the words of Sage Svetasvatara, Shiva is like Ghee hidden in milk, the essence hidden everywhere. Whom should I believe, Prabhupada, who calls other sages rascal etc., or Sage Svet?

Prabhupada was frustrated that many people misinterpret things. Oft, words that seem sour strike true. Just because He called some sages as Rascals doesn't mean He didn't know the truth.

Have you even read the Vaishnava Acharyas works? Read Ramanujacharya's commentary on the Brahma Sutras. Read Madhvacharya's works. prabhupada is simply following their works. Both Acharyas demolished Advaita, Jaina and Boudha.

Saivite gurus like Appaya Dikshitar and Srikanta were able to successfully misinterpret everything, but in the end, the one thing that foiled it all was the fact that Vishnu and Narayana are both Proper Nouns. Shiva and Rudra are common nouns. They couldn't get over it.



Krishna also says “--- among Adityas I am Vishnu”. Sage Kapila also says so in Bhagavatam. Every Self Realised sage is entitled to say so. And every Self Realised sage is non-different from sanatana Bhagawan Sambhu.[


Every Self Realised sage is Narayana – the abode of All – and then Eko, when Shivam is known.

Every Self realised person becomes LIKE Narayana. He becomes detached, blissful and attains the gunas that make him spiritual. But he does NOT become God, because He cannot create or destroy, nor will he have control over beings.

Sivam Eko...it means AUSPICIOUS, not Shiva. Please try to understand the nuances of Sanskrit.

Yes, among Adityas He is Vishnu. Among Rudras, He is Sankara. To enumerate His supremacy, He claims that He is best of the best. The Aditya Vishnu is different from Vishnu. Again, it is a case of naming oneself after Brahman.

Now, does Aditya say he is Vishnu? Or does Mahadeva Rudra say He is Vishnu? NEVER. It is always the opposite. Only Vishnu can say He is anybody, because He is.

'Rudras'...from here you can see that neither Sankara nor Aditya are unique. There is a Shiva and Brahma, an Indra and an Aditya for each universe. Vishnu is Unique.

How can the Self be equal to Brahman. We are minute, atomic portions of Brahman. If we were equal, wouldn't we have His powers?

Jagadvyaparavarjam prakaranadasannihitattvaccha ~ Brahma Sutra.

Truth can be realised. Advaita was devised to combat Buddhism by Adi Sankara. Its purpose was done, when the Vaishnava Acharyas came and defeated the other Scholars.


mahat (the conception of multitude) is the infinite cause of nArAyaNa; and ahaMkAra (the conception of individuality) arises from nArAyaNa as the finite cause of nAra.

The pure Self-consciousness and creative individualization of shrI nArAyaNa, however, has an unfortunate tendency to egotism and self-consciousness, and destructive individualization, in the manas of nAra (mortal man).

That isn't Narayana for them. For Jesus, it was 'God'. Saying God is not as potent as saying Narayana and Upanishads need not be consulted to arrive at such conclusions. Some western scholars like Spinazo and others in the 17th century made the same theories, but we aren't calling them avatars are we?

As for the question as to why God cannot incarnate in other lands...yes, he can and he may. But it is clear that the chanting Narayana's name is the most potent, and the greatest knowledge has been imparted to us. So, the other religions are a roundabout way of reaching Him. He wants us to chant His nams directly. Whether Jesus or Osiris is divine or not isn't our concern, because our texts don't mention them. Our main goal is the Lotus Feet of Sri Vishnu.

[atanu]

But the Vedas say Sriman Narayana is Brahman. -


Please show Shriman Narayana from Veda Samhita.



In any case, Lord Narasimha occurs in the Vedas.


The lion in the cave of heart is Rudra. There is Rig Vedic verse.


Vishnu's abode is called 'Paramapadam', Highest loka in the Vedas.

Vishnu is not another. When the unmanifest Brahman manifests it is Vishnu, who is known as Sumajjyana and born of Soma -- the movement.

The loka that sages look upto is still visible. Whereas, Brahman is not perceptible, since it is the source of all perceptions.



Om is the transcendental sound of the Universe. But Om also means 'AUM'. Among many other definitions, AUM signifies A= Vishnu, the Brahman, U=Lakshmi, M=Jiva. Thus, a Jiva attains Vishnu through Lakshmi.


Please refer to Mandukya Upanishad and learn that "M" the Pragnyaghana ( mind dense without any thought) is Sarvesvara. So, as per you, Jiva is Sarvesvara -- that is fine.


That is why every mantra begins with Om. Krishna says He enjoys all Sacrifices. By saying OM, You are acknowledging Vishnu's superiority before saying 'Nama Shivaay' or whatever. Ramanujacharya and other Vaishnava acharyas have interpreted it correctly. First read their works.

Why should I read Ramanuja when I can see in Mandukya Upanishad that Om is Shivo? And Bhagavatam teaches that Girsha is the support of OM.


The Puranas mention Sriman Narayana is Vishnu. End of argument.

Vedas do not mention Shriman at all. End of argument.

Om

[sarabhanga]

Please show me the word Sriman Narayana from Veda Samhitas.

Eko ha vai Naaraayana Aasit? Na brahma nesaanaha" and "Apahatapaapma Divyo devaha Eko Naaraayana"
These verses clearly says that the supreme self called as "Sat", "Aatma" and "Brahman" is none other than "Naaraayana".

“eSa sarvabhUtAntarAtmApahatapApmA divyo deva eko nArAyaNaH” and “tathA ca shAkhAntara eko ha vai nArAyaNa AsInna brahma neshAno neme dyAvapRthivI na nakSatrANIti sadbrahmAtmAdiparamakAraNavAdibhiH shabdairnArAyaNa evAbhidhIyata iti nishcIyate” are the words of rAmAnuja himself (from his vedArthasaMgraha) and NOT the words of the veda !

:(

[Sri Vaishnava]

[/size][/font]

Please show Shriman Narayana from Veda Samhita.

Sriman is an epithet. It is used to denote His consort, Lakshmi. I did not say it is in Vedas.

Narayanaya Vidhmahe.
Vasudevaya Dhimati.
Tanno Visnuh Pracodayat.

May we Know Narayana. May we Know Vasudeva. May Vishnu impel us towards Him.


The lion in the cave of heart is Rudra. There is Rig Vedic verse.

Rudra is a common noun. It can mean anything, but not the Mahadeva. Have I not explained it?

The Narasimha tapani Upanisad is named after Him. And I do not know if it is authentic. Even if it is not authentic, consider that Lord Vishnu has been named as Lord Trivikrama, the Conqueror of the 3 Worlds. That is enough.

Again, the purpose of the Vedas is not to enumerate His incarnations. That is why even Vishnu is not as prominent as His Narayana form. Only in the Puranas is it given in detail.


Vishnu is not another. When the unmanifest Brahman manifests it is Vishnu, who is known as Sumajjyana and born of Soma -- the movement.

The loka that sages look upto is still visible. Whereas, Brahman is not perceptible, since it is the source of all perceptions.[/quote]

Brahman is Vishnu, because His abode is Vaikunta. His pervasive form holds the cosmos togethher. Brahman has both Impersonal and Personal forms. His Impersonal Form is hard to perceive. Vishnu, the Personal form of Brahman, is the Lotus Eyed Lord, with the 4 arms, residing in two places - Vaikunta and the Ocean of Milk.

It contradicts Veda to say He has no form at all.


Please refer to Mandukya Upanishad and learn that "M" the Pragnyaghana ( mind dense without any thought) is Sarvesvara. So, as per you, Jiva is Sarvesvara -- that is fine.

My mistake. It must mean that 'AUM' signifies that A- Jiva, U- Lakshmi, M- Narayana. Since Vishnu is Sarveswara, yes, that is fine. I am no scholar, after all.



Why should I read Ramanuja when I can see in Mandukya Upanishad that Om is Shivo? And Bhagavatam teaches that Girsha is the support of OM.

OM IS SHIVO BECAUSE SHIVO, ACCORDING TO VEDIC GRAMMAR, MEANS 'AUSPICIOUS'. If you are unwilling to accept this simple rule, it is impossible for you to realise it.

Bhagavatam and other Sattvik Puranas also say that Vishnu is supreme, but you don't accept it. How then, do you choose one verse out of Bhagavatam and omit the majority of Verses that say Vishnu is the Lord of all?

You should read the Vaishnava Acharyas' works because they are devoid of Bias and are true to the nature of the Vedas.




[FONT=Times New Roman]Vedas do not mention Shriman at all. End of argument.

Om[SIZE=2].

They do mention that Vishnu's Loka is Paramapadam, and that from Narayana came Vishnu (not born or created, but came), who created Brahma and Shiva. So yes, it is indeed the end of argument.

[sarabhanga]

nArAyaNAya vidmahe vAsudevAya dhImahi
tanno viSNuH pracodayAt

And this praise of shrI nArAyaNa is from the taittirIya AraNyaka, not from the vaidika mantra saMhitA !

[sarabhanga]

[The Vedas] do mention that from Narayana came Vishnu (not born or created, but came), who created Brahma and Shiva. So yes, it is indeed the end of argument.

The veda saMhitA does NOT mention nArAyaNa at all !

[Sri Vaishnava]

Irrespective of mundane arguments, It is still a fact that Lord Vishnu is the Soul of the Vedas. Lord Vishnu is the Nectar of the Bhagavad Gita. Lord Vishnu is the Cream of the Puranas. He is the Paramatma, Sarva-Sarveshwara.

Whether Samhita state it or not, I have already provided enough examples. I told you, I am not a scholar. Refer the works of true Acharyas like Ramanujacharya.

And Bhishma, as well as Yudhishtira acknowledge the Truth.

Yudhishtira asks:

kimekam daivatam loke

In this universe who is the one Deva of all? (i.e., at whose command all beings function?, or who is God of all?)
kim vāpyekam parāyaṇam

Who is the one greatest refuge for all?


stuvantaḥ kam kamarcantaḥ prāpnuyurmānavāḥ subham

Who is the one Divinity by praising and by worshiping whom a man attains good?

ko dharmaḥ sarva dharmāṇām bhavataḥ paramo mataḥ




Which according to you is that highest form of Dharma (capable of bestowing salvation and prosperity on man)?
kim japan mucyate jantuḥ janmasamsārabandhanāt

What is that by uttering or reciting which any living being can attain freedom from cycle of births and deaths?Bhisma answers by stating that mankind will be free from all sorrows by chanting the Vishnu sahasranāma' which are the thousand names of the all-pervading supreme being Vishnu, who is the master of all the worlds, supreme over the devas and who is one with Brahman.

Added stress on the last part. Om Namo Narayanaya.

[Sudarshan]

[/SIZE][/FONT]

Please show Shriman Narayana from Veda Samhita.



The lion in the cave of heart is Rudra. There is Rig Vedic verse.



Vishnu is not another. When the unmanifest Brahman manifests it is Vishnu, who is known as Sumajjyana and born of Soma -- the movement.

The loka that sages look upto is still visible. Whereas, Brahman is not perceptible, since it is the source of all perceptions.

[/FONT]

Please refer to Mandukya Upanishad and learn that "M" the Pragnyaghana ( mind dense without any thought) is Sarvesvara. So, as per you, Jiva is Sarvesvara -- that is fine.

[/FONT]

Why should I read Ramanuja when I can see in Mandukya Upanishad that Om is Shivo? And Bhagavatam teaches that Girsha is the support of OM.

[FONT=Verdana][SIZE=2]

Vedas do not mention Shriman at all. End of argument.

Om

By the method of chAgapashu nyAya, and the 'pUrvapadAt samgyAyAm agaH' sUtra it is easily established that nArayaNa is the referrent of all vedic names and that all other gods get their name from him. The discussion is much more deeper than these two points, and in a forum of this kind( where you are not interested to learn but just cling onto preconcieved ideas ) I dont want to discuss more. Just invoking the name Shiva and Rudra are of no use because chAgapashu nyAya can be used to override the ruDyArtha of these words. Every name in the vedas is that of paramAtma only. Do you think you can point this to Shiva instead of nArayaNa? Yes, only if you forget all rules of grammar and contexts, and also obey 'gatisAmAnyAt.h'. Shiva is a name of nArayaNa; nArAyaNa is not the name of Shiva, because of many mimamsa tAtparya lingas and gramatical rules. This great difficulty has prevented AchAryas from writing Shaivite commentaries on the prastAnas. Compare the number of vedantic schools that establish vaishnavism and those that establish shaivism. Shaivism has to essentially depend on Agama for support.

Even Appayya dixita who tried to establish Shaivism shows his terrible frustration over the word nArAyaNa - which he simply cannot use for Shiva, so finally ends up concluding Shiva=Vishnu after attempting to derive shiva>nArayaNa. So Shaivites just end up equating Shiva and Vishnu and cant get beyond that. Vedas do not allow any reality higher to nArayaNa and shiva, rudra are simply synonyms for him.

Aitareya Aranyaka closes out the issue firmly:

Agnir vai devAnAm avamo vishNu paramas, tadantareta sarvA anyA devatA

Agni is the lowest among all gods, Vishnu is the highest; and all other gods fall in between. This not only demonstrates that not all gods are the same, but they have a clear hierarchy with vishnu at the helm.

nArayAna sukta is so clear nArAyaNa is param brahma:

naaraayanaa paro jyotiratma naaraayanaa paraah
naaraayanaa param brahmaa tattwam naaraayanaah paraah
naaraayanaa paro dhyaatah dhyaanam naaraayanah paraah


Apart from academic interests, I am not a very particular supporter of such idealogy. I respect all gods and think that shraddA and bhakti are more important than the name of the god. All worship certainly goes to Kesava only.

[Sudarshan]

It is amazing to see advaitins trying to prove that nArayaNa is not there in the vedas. Have they even read Shankara's own views? Ever read Gita Bhaashya of Shankara? Ever read Brahmasutra Bhashya of Shankara?

Shankara equates vishNoH paramam padaM to nirguNa Brahman( not Saguna Brahman) in his BSB ( 4.3.10). Please read your own AchAryas works before trying to making judgements on your own. Otherwise you run the risk of being branded asampradAyavit.

[Sri Vaishnava]

Nobody was disrespecting any Deva. I have the greatest respect for Mahadeva Rudra, but he shouldn't be considered supreme. It was he who drank Halahala at the command of Vasudeva. It was his own amsa avatar who was Lord Hanuman. It was Rudra's avatar who was Adi Sankara, as Rudra admits to Parvati in the Padma Purana that he had to incarnate to preach a half-truth in order to convert atheists to semi-theism. That is most likely Advaita Vedanta.

Finally, it is Rudra who tells Parvati that his ishta-devta is Lord Rama. He is a staunch Vaishnavite himself. He is just endowed with a few special powers of the Lord.

[Eastern Mind]

Hey, I just hate to break in. However, as a Saivite, Siva is Supreme to me. Krisna or Vishnu is supreme to Vaishnavites. The multitudes of scripture allow for many and varied views. Why argue? That just seems so pointless to me. Gridded intellect at its best I suppose. Aum Namasivaya

[sarabhanga]

Shaivism has no basis in the Vedas.

What complete nonsense !!!

Have you never considered the Yajur Veda ???



namah śambhave ca mayobhave ca
namah śankarāya ca mayaskarāya ca
namah śivāya ca śivatarāya ca

[Sri Vaishnava]

What complete nonsense !!!

Have you never considered the Yajur Veda ???



namah śambhave ca mayobhave ca
namah śankarāya ca mayaskarāya ca


namah śivāya ca śivatarāya ca


What you have been saying is complete nonsense.

Sankara, Shambhu and Siva are all names of Narayana. But again, it does not mean the Deva Shiva. So, it does not prove Shiva is Narayana.

Siva means auspicious. Hence, Narayana is auspicious. This is not the DEVA SHIVA.

Shambhu is derived from the term 'Asmaat Sam Bhavati iti Sambhu' meaning 'From Him/it, originates bliss. So Sambhu does not denote a particular deva, but someone who is the source of Bliss. Only the Supreme Lord is the source of bliss. The Vedas say the Supreme Lord is Narayana In this context, Narayana is the origin of bliss. Not deva shiva.

Even Sankaracharya admitted that Sambhu and Sankara can only be used for Vishnu/Narayana. Read Adi Sankara's commentary on Vishnu Sahasranama.

Bhagavad Gita, Sattvik Puranas, Ithihasas take further steps to demolish Shaivism and Advaita.

The 'NAkaara' at the end of the term 'Narayana' says that Narayana is a particular Noun indicating the Lord of Lakshmi, who is Vishnu. This is confirmed by the grammatical rule of vedas - Vyakyaanam and by panani grammatical treatise.

Vedas say Vishnu is the oldest and His abode is Paramapadam.

I repeat, Shaivism has no place in Vedas.

.

[Eastern Mind]

Until you realise it all from within, (not by reading or debating) one will never know. I suspect the Absolute Being is beyond words and names. Do I think the realised souls on the planet got their realisation by studying Vedas? No. But that's maybe just my opinion. Maybe the truth is in texts and books. I say go for it, if you must. Aum Namasivaya

[Sri Vaishnava]

Until you realise it all from within, (not by reading or debating) one will never know. I suspect the Absolute Being is beyond words and names. Do I think the realised souls on the planet got their realisation by studying Vedas? No. But that's maybe just my opinion. Maybe the truth is in texts and books. I say go for it, if you must. Aum Namasivaya

The purpose of the Vedas is to help one to realise the truth. But Sriman Narayana, being the most Supreme One, could not describe His own glory without adding a lot of confusing terms.

The meaning of Vedas should be understood for those who wish to cross Samsara. What have I to gain by stating blindly that Vishnu is all and Shiva is not? Nothing. Vishnu is your Lord as well. It has been proven by the Vedas.

Sankara, Siva, Sambhu, Rudra, etc. are all Common Nouns. They have a certain meaning like 'Bliss Giver', or 'Auspicious' or 'Praiseworthy'. Hence, they have been used to praise Narayana. The Vedas clearly say Narayana created Brahma and Brahma created Mahadeva Rudra. Hence, Rudra is not Narayana, but was created by Him. And Vedas say Vishnu is Oldest, Has the Highest Abode and is Trivikrama, the Lord who measured the 3 Worlds. The etymological relation between the names of Narayana and Vishnu is undeniable. Hence, Vishnu is Supreme.

Other texts verify it as well.

It is a logical conclusion that was made by the most realised mahatmas.

[atanu]

----
My mistake. It must mean that 'AUM' signifies that A- Jiva, U- Lakshmi, M- Narayana. Since Vishnu is Sarveswara, yes, that is fine. I am no scholar, after all.
---

Namaste Shri Vaishnava,

That is fine and that is my argument. Narayana is Pragnya -- M.

Turya is beyond and Turya Shiva -- sahasraksha is Narayana only, in phenomenal Universe. But He is not so truly, since He is always Turya -- transcendental.

Om

[Sudarshan]

What you have been saying is complete nonsense.

Sankara, Shambhu and Siva are all names of Narayana. But again, it does not mean the Deva Shiva. So, it does not prove Shiva is Narayana.

Siva means auspicious. Hence, Narayana is auspicious. This is not the DEVA SHIVA.

Shambhu is derived from the term 'Asmaat Sam Bhavati iti Sambhu' meaning 'From Him/it, originates bliss. So Sambhu does not denote a particular deva, but someone who is the source of Bliss. Only the Supreme Lord is the source of bliss. The Vedas say the Supreme Lord is Narayana In this context, Narayana is the origin of bliss. Not deva shiva.

Even Sankaracharya admitted that Sambhu and Sankara can only be used for Vishnu/Narayana. Read Adi Sankara's commentary on Vishnu Sahasranama.

Bhagavad Gita, Sattvik Puranas, Ithihasas take further steps to demolish Shaivism and Advaita.

The 'NAkaara' at the end of the term 'Narayana' says that Narayana is a particular Noun indicating the Lord of Lakshmi, who is Vishnu. This is confirmed by the grammatical rule of vedas - Vyakyaanam and by panani grammatical treatise.

Vedas say Vishnu is the oldest and His abode is Paramapadam.

I repeat, Shaivism has no place in Vedas.

.

Why do we say that devatA shiva is different from the Vishnu also called by the name Shiva?

Because shruti refers to two kinds of rudrA - one is rudrA, the param parastAd nArAyaNa. Another is rudrA, who is the consort of Uma, and called by the names mahAdeva, pasupati, ugra, bhava, Ishana, sarva etc is a jIvAtma because he is associated with karma(sin) as indicated in 6.1.3.9.

Thus Lord vishnu having names Shiva, Rudra, Shambu etc is paramAtma.

Lord Shiva having names Rudra, Mahadeva, pasupati, bhava, ugra etc is jIvAtma. Lord Shiva was born as the son to Lord Brahma, and cried during the time of his birth and requested to be given names so that his karma may be removed. The powers of Lord Shiva were boons given to him by Brahma.

There are many more pramANas to justify that there exist two different entities by the same name rudrA, one referring to paramAtma and one referring to jIvAtma. rudrA is mentioned to the kshatriya abhimAni devatA in Brihadarnyaka Upanishad. Rigveda also talks of rudrA obtaining his rudratvam from vishnu.



Please read Shatapatha Brahmana:

6:1:3:8. Now, those beings are the seasons; and that lord of beings is the year; and that Ushas, the mistress, is the Dawn. And these same creatures, as well as the lord of beings, the year, laid seed into Ushas . There a boy (kumâra) was born in a year: he cried.

6:1:3:9. Pragâpati said to him, 'My boy, why criest thou, when thou art born out of labour and trouble?' He said, 'Nay, but I am not freed from sin; I have no name given me: give me a name!' Hence one should give a name to the boy that is born, for thereby one frees him from evil;--even a second, even a third (name), for thereby one frees him from evil time after time.

6:1:3:10. He said to him, 'Thou art Rudra.' And because he gave him that name, Agni became suchlike (or, that form), for Rudra is Agni: because he cried (rud) therefore he is Rudra. He said, 'Surely, I am mightier than that: give me yet a name!'

6:1:3:11. He said to him, 'Thou art Sarva.' And because he gave the him that name, the waters became suchlike, for Sarva is the waters, inasmuch as from the water everything (sarva) here is produced. He said, 'Surely, I am mightier than that: give me yet a name!'

6:1:3:12. He said to him, 'Thou art Pasupati.' And because he gave him that name, the plants became suchlike, for Pasupati is the plants: hence when cattle (pasu) get plants, then they play the master (patîy). He said, 'Surely, I am mightier than that: give me yet a name!'

6:1:3:13. He said to him, 'Thou art Ugra.' And because he gave him that name, Vâyu (the wind) became suchlike, for Ugra is Vâyu: hence when it blows strongly, they say 'Ugra is blowing.' He said, 'Surely, I am mightier than that: give me yet a name!'

6:1:3:14. He said to him, 'Thou art Asani.' And because he gave him that name, the lightning became suchlike, for Asani is the lightning: hence they say of him whom the lightning strikes, 'Asani has smitten him.' He said, 'Surely, I am mightier than that: give me yet a name!'

6:1:3:15. He said to him, 'Thou art Bhava.' And because he gave him that name, Parganya (the rain-god) became suchlike; for Bhava is Parganya, since everything here comes (bhavati) from the rain-cloud. He said, 'Surely, I am mightier than that: give me yet a name!'

6:1:3:16. He said to him, 'Thou art Mahâ Deva (the Great God).' And because he gave him that name, the moon became suchlike, for the moon is Pragâpati, and Pragâpati is the Great God. He said, 'Surely, I am mightier than that: give me yet a name!'

6:1:3:17. He said to him, 'Thou art Îsâna (the Ruler).' And because he gave him that name, the Sun became suchlike, for Îsâna is the Sun, since the Sun rules over this All. He said, 'So great indeed I am: give me no other name after that!'

[Eastern Mind]

The purpose of the Vedas is to help one to realise the truth. But Sriman Narayana, being the most Supreme One, could not describe His own glory without adding a lot of confusing terms.

The meaning of Vedas should be understood for those who wish to cross Samsara. What have I to gain by stating blindly that Vishnu is all and Shiva is not? Nothing. Vishnu is your Lord as well. It has been proven by the Vedas.

Sankara, Siva, Sambhu, Rudra, etc. are all Common Nouns. They have a certain meaning like 'Bliss Giver', or 'Auspicious' or 'Praiseworthy'. Hence, they have been used to praise Narayana. The Vedas clearly say Narayana created Brahma and Brahma created Mahadeva Rudra. Hence, Rudra is not Narayana, but was created by Him. And Vedas say Vishnu is Oldest, Has the Highest Abode and is Trivikrama, the Lord who measured the 3 Worlds. The etymological relation between the names of Narayana and Vishnu is undeniable. Hence, Vishnu is Supreme.

Other texts verify it as well.

It is a logical conclusion that was made by the most realised mahatmas.

I am not here to argue, but rather to discuss. As I said before, I am Saiva so Siva is supreme to me, regardless of what the Vedas say. If you want to believe that I am actually worshipping Vishnu, go right ahead. That is your choice and right. To get a broader perspective, I read all the threads here, some with more interest than others. (Perhaps you could read the "I am Shiva" thread to grasp how we Saivas think.) The practical ones I like, the philosophical debates ones I find boring at times, but I often read them. I am no expert at all on philosophy, having never read the Vedas, or rather the translations of the Vedas, or much other scripture. All I know is Nataraja nailed me with energy I could not explain, and I feel incredibly comfortable in Saiva temples. I just don't get the same feeling from Smarta or Vaishnava temples.
Do the Vedas teach the following practical things?:
how to control anger and lust
how to discipline children
how to cultivate charity from within
how to see God in the eyes of every human on the planet
how to see God in even the "evilest" of acts.
etc.
I think not, but perhaps I error. Aum Namasivaya

[Sudarshan]

Until you realise it all from within, (not by reading or debating) one will never know. I suspect the Absolute Being is beyond words and names. Do I think the realised souls on the planet got their realisation by studying Vedas? No. But that's maybe just my opinion. Maybe the truth is in texts and books. I say go for it, if you must. Aum Namasivaya


Well, there are three ways to know the truth.

1. pratyaxa or direct perception: Does it teach you the truth about God? No!

2. anumAna or inference: Can you infer about God and his nature? On what basis? So no use with inference. Inference by itself is useful only if supported by pratyaxa or shruti.

3. shabda or shruti: This is scripture. In the absence of pratyaxa or anumAna not revealing the truth, God can be known only from scripture. Unlike other scriptures like bible or koran which were authored, vedas are unauthored and are eternal. So they are the eternal truth never changing with time.

So God and the means to attain God can be known only from scripture. The scriptural content must be understood through the aids of pratyaxa and anumAna to fully understand it. For eg, scripture sometimes says "the soil spoke-" . That does not mean soil speaks, but the abhimAni devatA in it speaks. Thus scripture must be understood in a way that is in tune with pratyaxa and anumAna.

The only other possibility of knowing God is if God could directly talk to you. But many of us are not there yet - and so scripture is the only way to know God. Speculations are of no use whatsoever. No use with politically motivated talks regarding God too - God is what the scripture says. Personal whims and fancies about God have no use.

[yajvan]

Hari Om
~~~~~



I repeat, Shaivism has no place in Vedas.


Namaste Sri Vaishnava,
My intent is not to change your mind - most people now are digging in their heals on this matter and only 'fur will fly' for some time now. I respect your opinion and your resolve, yet just don't find it congruent with the knowledge set I have.

Some examples of Rudra in the Ved: [more offered upon request]
RV 1.43.1 kad rudraya prachetase milhushtamaya
RV 1.43.2 Asks for Rudra's Grace
RV 1.43.4 Rudra as lord of hymms and master of yajya
RV 1.43.5 Rudra luminous like the sun
RV 1.114 Rudra's force in ~ 11 hymns
RV 1.43.4 as the best physician of physicians
RV 2.33.4 possessing a thousand medicines
RV 7.46.3 etc, etc.

Taittriya Samhita, part of the Krishna Yajurveda offers
TS 4.5 Shri Rudram or the Namakam
TS 4.7 The Chamakam

Siva as auspicious? Absolutely. and when we look at Vishnu's name;
Vishnuh -Veveshti Vyaapnoti iti Vishnuh - That which pervades everywhere is Vishnu; How is this different then Brahman? then Rudra? or Mother Divine?

It is the enlightened that can walk into any Mandir and bow to all, for His Love is in every atom, crevice and creek. As the Brihaharanaka Upanishad says,
the Self has entered here in all bodies up to their nail-ends ( or our fingertips and their nails) even as a razor into the razor case or fire in wood. [Purushavidha Brahmana]



pranams,

[atanu]

After so much hulla gulla, there is no proof from Samhitas that Brahman has a name called Narayana.

Nara is Eko. Narayana is abode of Narah, who are waters (Virya) of Nara. And abode is the mind. Name of Nara is Narayana.


Chandogya Upanishad
V-i-5: Verily, he who knows the abode, becomes the abode of his people. The mind is indeed the abode.


And the following shows who is the creator of whom.

RV Book 9 HYMN XCVI. Soma Pavamana

5 Father of holy hymns, Soma flows onward the Father of the earth, Father of heaven: Father of Agni, Surya's generator, the Father who begat Indra and Visnu.

Om

Note: This post has deviated much from the subject. Will it not be better to separate out this 'my idea of God is best part'?

[yajvan]

Hari Om
~~~~~

Well, there are three ways to know the truth.

1. pratyaxa or direct perception: Does it teach you the truth about God? No!

2. anumAna or inference: Can you infer about God and his nature? On what basis? So no use with inference. Inference by itself is useful only if supported by pratyaxa or shruti.

3. shabda or shruti: This is scripture. In the absence of pratyaxa or anumAna not revealing the truth, God can be known only from scripture. Unlike other scriptures like bible or koran which were authored, vedas are unauthored and are eternal. So they are the eternal truth never changing with time.

Namaste sudarshan,
your points make sense as I see them rooted in the Nyaya school, and part of the 16 padartha.

Let met me ask for clarification on point one. i.e. 'direct perception: Does it teach you the truth about God? No!'

I think there is a differentiation between ordinary and extraordinary perceptions. Ordinary observations within avidya-dosa will yield little results of the true nature of God;

Yet what of extraordinary? That of the individual possessed of SELF, of clarity of mind. [ IMHO this should be considered ordinary, and 'ordinary' should be considered pasu , but a conversation for another time ] i.e. the individual in kaivalya.

Would this in your opinion give different results on ones views of seeing Satyam, of being established in Ritam? and perhaps modify position 1 above?

pranams,

[Sudarshan]

Hari Om
~~~~~



Namaste Sri Vaishnava,
My intent is not to change your mind - most people now are digging in their heals on this matter and only 'fur will fly' for some time now. I respect your opinion and your resolve, yet just don't find it congruent with the knowledge set I have.

Some examples of Rudra in the Ved: [more offered upon request]
RV 1.43.1 kad rudraya prachetase milhushtamaya
RV 1.43.2 Asks for Rudra's Grace
RV 1.43.4 Rudra as lord of hymms and master of yajya
RV 1.43.5 Rudra luminous like the sun
RV 1.114 Rudra's force in ~ 11 hymns
RV 1.43.4 as the best physician of physicians
RV 2.33.4 possessing a thousand medicines
RV 7.46.3 etc, etc.

Taittriya Samhita, part of the Krishna Yajurveda offers
TS 4.5 Shri Rudram or the Namakam
TS 4.7 The Chamakam

Siva as auspicious? Absolutely. and when we look at Vishnu's name;
Vishnuh -Veveshti Vyaapnoti iti Vishnuh - That which pervades everywhere is Vishnu; How is this different then Brahman? then Rudra? or Mother Divine?

It is the enlightened that can walk into any Mandir and bow to all, for His Love is in every atom, crevice and creek. As the Brihaharanaka Upanishad says,
the Self has entered here in all bodies up to their nail-ends ( or our fingertips and their nails) even as a razor into the razor case or fire in wood. [Purushavidha Brahmana]



pranams,

All devatAs are praised in the vedas. It is a different matter who the paramAtma is. Everybody other than paramAtma have anAdi karma and are prone to sorrow one time or the other. This includes all dieites like Brahma, rudra, indra, vAyu, agni etc, who have all experienced suffering at some point. Brahma was overpowered by the mAyA of Krishna in Srimad Bhagavatam(stealing of cows etc). rudra is mentioned to be born with karma, in Shatapata Brahmana. Indra, Agni, vAyu etc are all seen to be ignorant in the Kena Upanishad. So what is the point of writing praises in favour of rudra, Indra, vAyu etc? Just because a diety is praised highly has nothing to do with paramAtma-ness. rudra became rudra by worshipping Vishnu.

asya devasya mILhuSo vayA viSNoreSasya prabhRthe havirbhiH
vide hi rudro rudriyaM mahitvaM yAsiSTaM vartirashvinAvirAvat || (RV 7.40.5 )

Some people have commented here that vishNu is not mentioned in the saMhita: A few of them:

idaM viSNurvi cakrame tredhA ni dadhe padam
samULhamasya pAMsure || RV 1.22.17 ||

trINi . vi cakrame viSNurgopA adAbhyaH
ato dharmANi dhArayan || RV 1.22.18 ||

tad viSNoH paramaM padaM sadA pashyanti sUrayaH
divIva cakSurAtatam || RV 1.22.20 ||

(note that viSNoH paramam padam has found its place in RV and this is the same expression used by Shankaracharya to denote moksha)

tad viprAso vipanyavo jAgRvAMsaH samindhate
viSNoryat paramaM padam || RV 1.22.21 ||

viSNornu kaM vIryANi pra vocaM yaH pArthivAni vimamerajAMsi
yo askabhAyaduttaraM sadhasthaM vicakramANastredhorugAyaH || RV 1.154.1 ||

pra tad viSNu stavate vIryeNa mRgo na bhImaH kucaro giriSThAH
yasyoruSu triSu vikramaNeSvadhikSiyanti bhuvanAni vishvA || RV 1.152.2 ||

pra viSNave shUSametu manma girikSita urugAyAya vRSNe
ya idaM dIrghaM prayataM sadhasthameko vimame tribhirit padebhiH || RV 1.154.3 ||

yasya trii puurNaa madhunaa padaanyakShiiyamaaNaa svadhayaa madanti ya u tridhaatu pR^ithiviim uta dyaam eko daadhaara bhuvanaani vishvaa || RV 1.154.4 ||




Rudra is a name of Vishnu by meaning, one who makes the evil people cry. So no point in quoting shrutis. Wherever any name is mentioned to be the highest being, it refers to Vishnu only. All other dieties are seen to have endured sorrow at some time. The word nArAyaNa is incapable of being referred to anybody else other than vishNu by virtue of the pAninian grammar, sUtra "pUrvapadAt samgyAyAm agaH' and even by its meaning 'being on the ocean'.

Sri Rudram is considered by Srivaishnavites to be praising Lord Narasimha. Rudra, having obtained his rudratvam from vishnu (RV 7.40.5 ) , cannot be the paramAtma at all.

[Sudarshan]

After so much hulla gulla, there is no proof from Samhitas that Brahman has a name called Narayana.

Nara is Eko. Narayana is abode of Narah, who are waters (Virya) of Nara. And abode is the mind. Name of Nara is Narayana.


Chandogya Upanishad
V-i-5: Verily, he who knows the abode, becomes the abode of his people. The mind is indeed the abode.


And the following shows who is the creator of whom.

RV Book 9 HYMN XCVI. Soma Pavamana

5 Father of holy hymns, Soma flows onward the Father of the earth, Father of heaven: Father of Agni, Surya's generator, the Father who begat Indra and Visnu.

Om

Note: This post has deviated much from the subject. Will it not be better to separate out this 'my idea of God is best part'?

You simply do not know samanvaya or Brahma sutra's dictum 'gati samAnyat'. Vishnu takes birth everywhere as incarnations. Vishnu is one of the twelve Adityas because of his vAmana avatAra in which he was born as the son of Aditi. He was born as Rama to Dasharatha. The passage you have referred to is Upendra, which is Vishnu's incarnation is svarga loka as younger brother of Indra, He was born as Krishna to Devaki and Vasudeva. Birth of Vishnu adds no points to you at all.

[Sudarshan]

Hari Om
~~~~~


Namaste sudarshan,
your points make sense as I see them rooted in the Nyaya school, and part of the 16 padartha.

Let met me ask for clarification on point one. i.e. 'direct perception: Does it teach you the truth about God? No!'

I think there is a differentiation between ordinary and extraordinary perceptions. Ordinary observations within avidya-dosa will yield little results of the true nature of God;

Yet what of extraordinary? That of the individual possessed of SELF, of clarity of mind. [ IMHO this should be considered ordinary, and 'ordinary' should be considered pasu , but a conversation for another time ] i.e. the individual in kaivalya.

Would this in your opinion give different results on ones views of seeing Satyam, of being established in Ritam? and perhaps modify position 1 above?

pranams,

pratyaxa cannot include extraordinary perception. A person obtains jnAna by understanding the vedas and following the method outlined by the veda. At this time, he has only normal pratyaxa.

Super perception is obtained from vedic sAdhana, and thus using such perception to know the vedas results in cyclic dependency. How did you get jnAna in the first place?

[atanu]

Namaskar Sudarshan,



Rudra is a name of Vishnu by meaning, one who makes the evil people cry.

How Vishnu came in here? Interesting logic.

Rudras leaving the body make all people cry. When Prana leaves the body people cry. And Brihadarayanaka says that Prana is That. And Atman is the essence of Prana. Both these, the tenth and the eleventh are Rudras only. I have shown many times that the Rudras and Marutas are progeny of ONE RUDRA.

Prana is never divisibe and Atman is never divisible. The same eleventh is there in you, in Sun, in moon, in Vishnu, In Indra, In Prajapati etc.. Atman Advaitam. That is the highest samanvaya, which can be at many levels.

Brihadarayanaka

katame\` RudrA\` i`ti |
dasheme\` purushhe prANA\`,
AtmaikAdasha\`s;
te\` yadA\`smA\`nma\`rtyAchchha\`rIrAd


## K sharIrAnmartyAd##
utkrA\`manti
a\`tha rodayantiH
ta\`dya\`droda\`yanti,
ta\`smAdRudrA\` i\`ti |

--------------
Remember that Prana and Atman (Wife and Husband) both are indivisible. The Purusha in Sun is Purusha here. So, what is the eleventh in Sun (Savitur) is the eleventh in Krishna and in Me (Atanu).This is samanvaya. The highest one.

On the other hand,

tad viSNoH paramaM padaM sadA pashyanti sUrayaH
divIva cakSurAtatam || RV 1.22.20 ||

This is true and who will not worship Surya, the very manifest one? If Turya was manifest like this then sages would have looked at Turya like this.


You simply do not know samanvaya or Brahma sutra's dictum 'gati samAnyat'. Vishnu takes birth everywhere as incarnations. Vishnu is one of the twelve Adityas because of his vAmana avatAra in which he was born as the son of Aditi. He was born as Rama to Dasharatha. The passage you have referred to is Upendra, which is Vishnu's incarnation is svarga loka as younger brother of Indra, He was born as Krishna to Devaki and Vasudeva. Birth of Vishnu adds no points to you at all.

It's very polite of you to remind me that I do not know anything. I am happy with not knowing (like you). I do not know where in Vedas it is said that Vishnu took birth as Vamana Avatara, where Krishna is mentioned or where Narayana is mentioned? These names cannot go above the Bhagawan of Vedas. hehe. What massive interpolations. Bring a verse of Veda and then interpret it using Purana. Almost like some christians and some muslims have now started showing Veda verses to prove that Muhammed is the true one or that Jesus is the true. And when a Hindu does it neglecting the fact that Vedas already worship Rudra as Bhagwan, it is only Maya.


If you say that birth of Vishnu adds nothing to my point then how does birth of Rudra add any point? Can you show anywhere from Vedas that there is another Vishnu? Whereas, same Satpatha and also Aitareya Aryanaka say that Rudra is atanusya pratanusya EKO. Without or with body, Rudra is ONE. When that EKO takes three steps down it is Vishnu -- the multiform. The Eko has no need to pervade.

All that you say is not part of Vedas. They are from Puranas. I have shown many times the following which proves that Vishnu himself is a manifestation of Aham of Atman:

“Yajur Veda iv. 4. 8.

(Thou “I” art) all overcoming through Agni; self-ruling through the sun; lord of strength through might; creator with the bull; bountiful through the sacrifice; heavenly through the sacrificial fee; slayer of enemies through rage; supporter of the body through kindliness; wealth through food; through the earth he hath won; (thou art) eater of food with verses; increased by the Vasat cry; protector of the body through the Saman; full of light with the Viraj; drinker of Soma through the holy power; with cows he supporteth the sacrifice; with lordly power men; with horse and car bearer of the bolt; lord with the seasons; enclosing with the year; unassailable through penance; the sun with bodies.”

YV iv. 4. 9.(Thou art) Prajapati in mind, with Soma in the mind; the creator in the consecration; Savitr in the bearing; Pusan in the cow for the purchase of the Soma; Varuna when bound (in the cloth); Asura in the being bought; Mitra when purchased; Çipivista when put in place; delighter of men when being drawn forward; the overlord on arrival; Prajapati being led on; Agni at the Agnidh’s altar; Brhaspati on being led from the Agnidh’s altar; Indra at the oblation-holder; Aditi when put in place; Visnu when being taken down; Atharvan when made wet; Yama when pressed out; drinker of unpurified (Soma) when being cleansed; Vayu when purifying; Mitra as mixed with milk; the Manthin when mixed with groats; that of the All-gods when taken out; Rudra when offered; Vayu when covered up; the gazer on men when revealed; the food when it comes; the famed of the fathers; life when taken; the river when going to the final bath; the ocean when gone; the water when dipped; the heaven when arrived at completion.
------
The above shows that Vishnu is a manifestation of the universal I. So, no question of your being correct though I know from past experience that these verses will be simply ignored by you.

The next verse says why Vishnu is Lord, since He offered the beast to its diety. And it also says that one who offers the ego (beast-pasu) to its diety will be like Vishnu.
YV ii. 1. 3.

The gods and the Asuras strove for these worlds; Visnu saw this dwarf, he offered it to its own deity; then he conquered these worlds. One who is engaged in a struggle should offer the dwarf (beast) to Visnu; then he becomes like Visnu and conquers these worlds.

Vishnu is the sacrifice and Rudra, who yields to no second, is its protection. It also shows that reverence of Vishnu is reverence of Soma.

YV iii. 1. 10.
g ---- he returns, and with a verse addressed to Visnu reverences (the Soma); Visnu is the sacrifice; verily he makes the sacrifice.

YV i. 8. 6.

c Thou art the protection of cattle, the protection of the sacrifice; give
me protection.

d Rudra alone yieldeth to no second.

Whereas,

RV10. HYMN CXIII. Indra.

----2 This majesty of his Visnu extols and lauds, making the stalk that gives the meath flow forth with might.
---------------------

So, I simply cannot go by your interpretations wrt to the following verse:

RV Book 9 HYMN XCVI. Soma Pavamana

5 Father of holy hymns, Soma flows onward the Father of the earth, Father of heaven: Father of Agni, Surya's generator, the Father who begat Indra and Visnu.

--------
It is flow of Soma that generates all this, including Vishnu, the Maya fragmentation and then the concept of Samana pervading everything. Svetasvatara says that the path of Rudra and not the path of Soma should be followed.

Om.

Atman is indivisible. I simply cannot digest what you say. However, if you looked in Puranas a little carefully, you would have found:

Bhagavatam

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

31. O Lord Girisa, since the Brahman effulgence is transcendental to the material modes of goodness, passion and ignorance, the various directors of this material world certainly cannot appreciate it or even know where it is. It is not understandable even to Lord Brahma, Lord Visnu or the King of heaven, Mahendra.

Om Namah Shivaya


No proof of Narayana from Veda samhitas yet.

[yajvan]

Hari Om
~~~~~

All devatAs are praised in the vedas.

Sri Rudram is considered by Srivaishnavites to be praising Lord Narasimha. Rudra, having obtained his rudratvam from vishnu (RV 7.40.5 ) , cannot be the paramAtma at all.

Namaste sudarshan,
First note - I wish no contest with you or with others. That is not my style on this forum (either jati or jalpa). My post was directed to Sri Vaishnava as he mentioned the following:

Originally Posted by Sri Vaishnava http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?p=17811#post17811)
I repeat, Shaivism has no place in Vedas.

While I have stated this is completely incongruent with my readings, I also offered a few slokas that comes from the Vedas and Sri Rudram from Krishna Yajurveda, as samples of Rudra in fact in the Vedas.

re: Sri Rudram is considered by Srivaishnavites to be praising Lord Narasimha - that is fine and I see no issues with that POV.


The discussions are point-counterpoint and no one wins... as if there has to be a winner that 'my view is correct and in concert with the REAL teaching, the REAL para-jnana.'

Unless someone can stand and say 'I am this Brahmavit', then our words here on this forum are borrowed from others, from those of this level of Being, we use their knowledge the best we can , and we're all students of life.

pranams,

[Sudarshan]

Namaskar Sudarshan,



How Vishnu came in here? Interesting logic.

Rudras leaving the body make all people cry. When Prana leaves the body people cry. And Brihadarayanaka says that Prana is That. And Atman is the essence of Prana. Both these, the tenth and the eleventh are Rudras only. I have shown many times that the Rudras and Marutas are progeny of ONE RUDRA.

Prana is never divisibe and Atman is never divisible. The same eleventh is there in you, in Sun, in moon, in Vishnu, In Indra, In Prajapati etc.. Atman Advaitam. That is the highest samanvaya, which can be at many levels.

Brihadarayanaka

katame\` RudrA\` i`ti |
dasheme\` purushhe prANA\`,
AtmaikAdasha\`s;
te\` yadA\`smA\`nma\`rtyAchchha\`rIrAd


## K sharIrAnmartyAd##
utkrA\`manti
a\`tha rodayantiH
ta\`dya\`droda\`yanti,
ta\`smAdRudrA\` i\`ti |

--------------
Remember that Prana and Atman (Wife and Husband) both are indivisible. The Purusha in Sun is Purusha here. So, what is the eleventh in Sun (Savitur) is the eleventh in Krishna and in Me (Atanu).This is samanvaya. The highest one.

On the other hand,

tad viSNoH paramaM padaM sadA pashyanti sUrayaH
divIva cakSurAtatam || RV 1.22.20 ||

This is true and who will not worship Surya, the very manifest one? If Turya was manifest like this then sages would have looked at Turya like this.



It's very polite of you to remind me that I do not know anything. I am happy with not knowing (like you). I do not know where in Vedas it is said that Vishnu took birth as Vamana Avatara, where Krishna is mentioned or where Narayana is mentioned? These names cannot go above the Bhagawan of Vedas. hehe. What massive interpolations. Bring a verse of Veda and then interpret it using Purana. Almost like some christians and some muslims have now started showing Veda verses to prove that Muhammed is the true one or that Jesus is the true. And when a Hindu does it neglecting the fact that Vedas already worship Rudra as Bhagwan, it is only Maya.


If you say that birth of Vishnu adds nothing to my point then how does birth of Rudra add any point? Can you show anywhere from Vedas that there is another Vishnu? Whereas, same Satpatha and also Aitareya Aryanaka say that Rudra is atanusya pratanusya EKO. Without or with body, Rudra is ONE. When that EKO takes three steps down it is Vishnu -- the multiform. The Eko has no need to pervade.

All that you say is not part of Vedas. They are from Puranas. I have shown many times the following which proves that Vishnu himself is a manifestation of Aham of Atman:

“Yajur Veda iv. 4. 8.

(Thou “I” art) all overcoming through Agni; self-ruling through the sun; lord of strength through might; creator with the bull; bountiful through the sacrifice; heavenly through the sacrificial fee; slayer of enemies through rage; supporter of the body through kindliness; wealth through food; through the earth he hath won; (thou art) eater of food with verses; increased by the Vasat cry; protector of the body through the Saman; full of light with the Viraj; drinker of Soma through the holy power; with cows he supporteth the sacrifice; with lordly power men; with horse and car bearer of the bolt; lord with the seasons; enclosing with the year; unassailable through penance; the sun with bodies.”

YV iv. 4. 9.(Thou art) Prajapati in mind, with Soma in the mind; the creator in the consecration; Savitr in the bearing; Pusan in the cow for the purchase of the Soma; Varuna when bound (in the cloth); Asura in the being bought; Mitra when purchased; Çipivista when put in place; delighter of men when being drawn forward; the overlord on arrival; Prajapati being led on; Agni at the Agnidh’s altar; Brhaspati on being led from the Agnidh’s altar; Indra at the oblation-holder; Aditi when put in place; Visnu when being taken down; Atharvan when made wet; Yama when pressed out; drinker of unpurified (Soma) when being cleansed; Vayu when purifying; Mitra as mixed with milk; the Manthin when mixed with groats; that of the All-gods when taken out; Rudra when offered; Vayu when covered up; the gazer on men when revealed; the food when it comes; the famed of the fathers; life when taken; the river when going to the final bath; the ocean when gone; the water when dipped; the heaven when arrived at completion.
------
The above shows that Vishnu is a manifestation of the universal I. So, no question of your being correct though I know from past experience that these verses will be simply ignored by you.

The next verse says why Vishnu is Lord, since He offered the beast to its diety. And it also says that one who offers the ego (beast-pasu) to its diety will be like Vishnu.
YV ii. 1. 3.

The gods and the Asuras strove for these worlds; Visnu saw this dwarf, he offered it to its own deity; then he conquered these worlds. One who is engaged in a struggle should offer the dwarf (beast) to Visnu; then he becomes like Visnu and conquers these worlds.

Vishnu is the sacrifice and Rudra, who yields to no second, is its protection. It also shows that reverence of Vishnu is reverence of Soma.

YV iii. 1. 10.
g ---- he returns, and with a verse addressed to Visnu reverences (the Soma); Visnu is the sacrifice; verily he makes the sacrifice.

YV i. 8. 6.

c Thou art the protection of cattle, the protection of the sacrifice; give
me protection.

d Rudra alone yieldeth to no second.

Whereas,

RV10. HYMN CXIII. Indra.

----2 This majesty of his Visnu extols and lauds, making the stalk that gives the meath flow forth with might.
---------------------

So, I simply cannot go by your interpretations wrt to the following verse:

RV Book 9 HYMN XCVI. Soma Pavamana

5 Father of holy hymns, Soma flows onward the Father of the earth, Father of heaven: Father of Agni, Surya's generator, the Father who begat Indra and Visnu.

--------
It is flow of Soma that generates all this, including Vishnu, the Maya fragmentation and then the concept of Samana pervading everything. Svetasvatara says that the path of Rudra and not the path of Soma should be followed.

Om.

Atman is indivisible. I simply cannot digest what you say. However, if you looked in Puranas a little carefully, you would have found:

Bhagavatam

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

31. O Lord Girisa, since the Brahman effulgence is transcendental to the material modes of goodness, passion and ignorance, the various directors of this material world certainly cannot appreciate it or even know where it is. It is not understandable even to Lord Brahma, Lord Visnu or the King of heaven, Mahendra.

Om Namah Shivaya


No proof of Narayana from Veda samhitas yet.


You think I would answer all your irrelevant stuff?

You, as an advaitin asking for proof of nArayaNa amounts to apasiddhAnta - disagreement with one's own guru, and you may be dismissed as a pretender. Your asking for proof in samhita, while entire vedas are considered as apourusha is called kalpanA gaurava.

You have not yet even understood what I have written. You did not answer my point on the chAgapashu nyAya. nor attempted to understand the grammatical points raised?

When pointed out that rudra became rudra by worshipping Vishnu, you have not countered that objection. Rudra is also mentioned to be born with sin in Shatapata Brahmana - again no answer from you.

And you end up quoting Srimad Bhagavatam. No amount of quoting will help you because there exist two rudras in the vedas. One rudra, who is paramatma is actually Vishnu. Another rudra, who is a jIvAtma is shiva. Try to disprove this claim if you can. All vedic names belong to Parabrahman only - read Shankara's BSB first. Other dieties like brahma, rudra, indra etc get their names from Brahman who is nArAyaNa.

You are under the impression that citing shruti that speaks of Vishnu's birth is actually proving some point. It is actually contradicting Vishnu's mention as the highest abode and the source of all. You first need to learn harmonize scripture - and not quote bits and pieces. Learn the basics first. If some Vishnu is mentioned as subordinate to somebody else, how can it be the same Vishnu who is the paramatma? That is why, tAtparya lingas are very important. If you have read the Brahmasutras, you will know that all vedic names like AkAsha, prANa etc refer only to parabrahman. Whether an entity is Parabrahman or not is to be judged by the context by applying the tAtparya lingas.

Dont you know the dictum - itihAsa purANAbhyam vedam samupavrnhayet ? Vedas can never be interpreted without purANas and itihAsas.

You are unaware that Vishnu's incarnations are mentioned in the veda itself - matsya, kurma, varaha all are mentioned in brAhmaNa texts - but how will you find them of you keep yourself buried within a few verses of mANDUkya or keep looking for references that talk of Vishnu's birth as if to prove a point?

Narasimha avatAra is known through narasimha tApanIya Upansihad. Both Krishna and Rama avatAra have upanishads - rama tApiniya(purva and uttara) and Krishna tApanIya. vAmana avatAra is mentioned in the vedas as trivikrama. All these upanishads are authentic and even cited by Shankaracharya. I will post details on vedic pramANas for all avatAras in detail when I have the time - all of Vishnu's ten avatAras are mentioned by the four vedas. You must know where to look - and you will find them.

Without even reading the vedas fully, people have the audacity to claim that vishnu's incarnations are of purANic origin. You do know that the whole of vedas with all samhitas, brahmanas, aranyakas and major upanishads is something like 150,000 verses isn't it?

[sarabhanga]

The purpose of the Vedas is to help one to realise the truth. But Sriman Narayana could not describe His own glory without adding a lot of confusing terms.

The meaning of Vedas should be understood for those who wish to cross Samsara. What have I to gain by stating blindly that Vishnu is all and Shiva is not? Nothing. Vishnu is your Lord as well. It has been proven by the Vedas.





The Abrahamic Religions speak of a tyrannical God and a Philosophy that cannot even be counted as a Nastika School of Thought, but a rather immature Philosophy, dominated by the Heaven and Hell concept.

hara is the source, and hari is the manifestation
hara is the conception, and hari is the realization
hara is intention or will to create, and hari is completion or perfect creation
hara is the father and the inheritance, and hari is the son and the heir
hara is nara, and hari is nArAyaNa
hara is the horse or vehicle, and hari is the rider or driver
hara is indra, and hari is viSNu
hara is varuNa, and hari is vAyu
hara is ananta, and hari is nArAyaNa
hara is “ to be ”, and hari is “ I am ”

hara is the second person imperative to “ Create! ” (bRMhan); and
hari is the present and imperfect reply: “ I am created, and I am creating ” (abRMham)

hara = nara = bRMhan = advaita = avyakta
hari = nArAyaNa = abRMham = dvaita = ahaMkAra




The way to Moksha is through Vishnu. Either you claim Lord Vishnu is supreme, or keep silent on who God is. Jesus and the other Prophets believed in the Abrahamic God. So they should not be counted.


In practice, the hidden nArAyaNau is the key to the whole equation.

The starting point is always nara or nAri, and the final destination is always nara (the paramaM padam), but the path can only be via the nArAyaNau, and so (in practice) that vital guheSa must always be the aim. And once the guheSa is truly known, the full knowledge of hara and paramaM padam comes automatically ~ and the goal is attained.

The brahmayoni (hara jyeSTha) is neuter and unborn, while the brahmabIja (hiraNyagarbha hari) is a fertile twin that is ever repeated ~ but remember that the son of a barren women cannot truly exist (and thus the uttamasatyam of ajAtivAda).




The life of Jesus is based on Pagan Myths. There is no proof that he ever did all that was said. He was no God.


The Latin PAGANUS meant only ‘Villager’ or ‘Rustic’, and in Christian Church Latin it came to mean ‘Civilian’ (i.e. not a member of the divine ‘Army’ of Christ).

In Christian parlance, a Pagan is a non-Christian.

If there is no relationship between Christianity and Hinduism, then Hinduism is surely Pagan. And the texts of sanAtana dharma are very “pagan myths” that you are discounting!

YHVH (the Father) is equivalent with nirguNa nara, while Jesus (the Son) is equivalent with saguNa nArAyaNa.

Isha kRSNa and iSus (“ray of light”) kRSTis (“teacher”) would both agree that nArAyaNa and nara are one and the same sacred essence. Indeed, naranArAyaNa is another name for kRSNa, and the name of naranArAyaNa is effectively saying exactly the same thing as “I and my Father are One”.

And from the perspective of a ray of light, there is no difference between its self and its source (that apparent separation being imposed only by outside observers).

iSus kRSTis was an indu, for sure.




Is there any hint in Vedas that Shri Krishna is an incarnation? Only from Vedas please, no smriti, purana, or itihasa. I do not know it myself, so I am asking you.




The Vedas mention that Brahman is Sriman Narayana, anyway. And Krishna was Narayana Incarnate.

The Vedas clearly say Brahman is Sriman Narayana and if you want, I can provide the verse.

If I say, 'Oh, the Universe was created by Narayana' without looking or reading the Vedas, it is still not unique, as it was already mentioned in the Vedas.




Please show me the word Narayana from Veda Samhitas.




But the Vedas say Sriman Narayana is Brahman.

Eko ha vai Naaraayana Aasit? Na brahma nesaanaha" and "Apahatapaapma Divyo devaha Eko Naaraayana:" These verses clearly says that the supreme self called as "Sat", "Aatma" and "Brahman" is none other than "Naaraayana".







Please show me the word Sriman Narayana from Veda Samhitas.

Eko ha vai Naaraayana Aasit? Na brahma nesaanaha" and "Apahatapaapma Divyo devaha Eko Naaraayana"
These verses clearly says that the supreme self called as "Sat", "Aatma" and "Brahman" is none other than "Naaraayana".

“eSa sarvabhUtAntarAtmApahatapApmA divyo deva eko nArAyaNaH” and “tathA ca shAkhAntara eko ha vai nArAyaNa AsInna brahma neshAno neme dyAvapRthivI na nakSatrANIti sadbrahmAtmAdiparamakAraNavAdibhiH shabdairnArAyaNa evAbhidhIyata iti nishcIyate” are the words of rAmAnuja himself (from his vedArthasaMgraha) and NOT the words of the veda !




The purpose of the Vedas is not to enumerate His incarnations. That is why even Vishnu is not as prominent as His Narayana form.

Narayanaya Vidhmahe.
Vasudevaya Dhimati.
Tanno Visnuh Pracodayat.

nArAyaNAya vidmahe vAsudevAya dhImahi
tanno viSNuH pracodayAt

And this praise of shrI nArAyaNa is from the taittirIya AraNyaka, not from the vaidika mantra saMhitA !




[The Vedas] do mention that from Narayana came Vishnu (not born or created, but came), who created Brahma and Shiva. So yes, it is indeed the end of argument.

The veda saMhitA does NOT mention nArAyaNa at all !




Irrespective of mundane arguments … whether Samhita state it or not … I told you, I am not a scholar.




The Vedas say the Supreme Lord is Narayana.

So, whether or not the saMhitA state it or not, you will continue to proclaim that the veda saMhitA calls the supreme Lord as nArAyaNa.

No matter how many times a falsehood is repeated, it remains false!




I shall refrain from engaging in Vaishnavite vs. Shaivite debates.




I have the greatest respect for Mahadeva Rudra, but he shouldn't be considered supreme. It was Rudra's avatar who was Adi Sankara, incarnate to preach a half-truth.

Rudra is a staunch Vaishnavite himself. He is just endowed with a few special powers of the Lord.

Shaivism has no basis in the Vedas. It is not my fault that there are so many incorrect sampradayas.

I repeat, Shaivism has no place in Vedas.


Shaivism has no basis in the Vedas? I repeat: What complete and utter nonsense !!

Atanu and I have been requesting some evidence for your repeated claim that nArAyaNa is explicit in the veda saMhitA. And your replies have provided absolutely nothing!

I have certainly NOT claimed that nArAyaNa cannot be implied in the veda, but you have (wrongly) claimed that nArAyaNa is explicit in the veda!

rudra and shiva, however, ARE explicit in the veda saMhitA, and the shatarudriya is the sacred heart of all shaiva belief.

There is no problem in assuming that all of the individual names belong to nArAyaNa, but the anonymous One who is the source of all names is “nara”, whose existence is implied by the family name nArAyaNa.

nArAyaNa is not explicit in any saMhitA, but the name (as I have often mentioned) is a standard patronymic form, derived from nara.

For example:

bAdarAyaNa is “the son of badara”
bAhumitrAyaNa is “the son of bahumitra”
bhArgAyaNa is “the son of bharga”
cAkrAyaNa is “the son of cakra”
dArbhAyaNa is “the son of darbha”
dhArmyAyaNa is “the son of dharmya”
dhaumrAyaNa is “the son of dhUmra”
gairAyaNa is “the son of giri”
gArgyAyaNa is “the son of gArgya”
graiSmAyaNa is “the son of grISma”
jAlaMdharAyaNa is “the son of jalaMdhara”
kaiMkarAyaNa is “the son of kiMkara”
kASAyaNa is “the son of kaSAya”
kaumArAyaNa is “the son of kumAra”
khAdirAyaNa is “the son of khadira”
khArapAyaNa is “the son of kharapa”
khArjUrAyaNa is “the son of kharjUra”
krauSTrAyaNa is “the son of kroSTri”
maitrAyaNa is “the son of mitra”
mATharAyaNa is “the son of mAThara”
paiÑgarAyaNa is “the son of piÑgara”
pArAsharyAyaNa is “the son of pArAsharya”
pauSpAyaNa is “the son of pauSpi”
pAvitrAyaNa is “the son of pavitra”
raudrAyaNa is “the son of rudra”
saukRtyAyana is “the son of sukRtya”
svArAyaNa is “the son of svara”
vAdhyoSAyaNa is “the son of vadhyoSa”
vaishvAnarAyaNa is “the son of vishvAnara”
yaugaMdharAyaNa is “the son of yugaMdhara”
shAbarAyaNa is “the son of shabara”
And nArAyaNa is “the son of nara” !!

nara = brahma = brahman
nArAyaNa = brahmA = brahman

And nArAyaNa is “the son of man” who is truly the son of God.

nara = brahma = paramAtman = prajñAtman = kevalAtman = avyakta
nArAyaNa = brahmA = sUtrAtman = prANAtman = karmAtman = ahaMkAra
nara = brAhma = jIvAtman = pratyagAtman = kAmAtman = bhUta

[sarabhanga]

Some people have commented here that vishNu is not mentioned in the saMhita.

In fact, no one here has commented that viSNu is not explicitly mentioned in the saMhitA, where viSNu appears as the shakti of indra (and that is why lakshmI and indrANI are almost indistinguishable).

[satay]

Admin Note

Namaste,

I haven't read the whole thread yet but obviously this thread has moved to a different disucssion than the OP. Therefore, it will be split up into two threads soon. For now, please continue.

[satay]

You think I would answer all your irrelevant stuff?


here we go again...

welcome back!

[atanu]

Namaste Sudarshan,


You think I would answer all your irrelevant stuff?
--


I see that you have answered my irrelevant stuff. And as usual with indignation and not with calm patience, which should be the hallmark of you by now (being in touch with me for so long. Hehe). Never mind. Love come to everyone, sooner or later..



When pointed out that rudra became rudra by worshipping Vishnu, you have not countered that objection. -


Since the translation of yours is blatanly wrong. It is sages (who are nothing but forms of Rudra-Vishnu only) who worship Vishnu. And then Rudra is worshipped to grant us His glory.

Please compare other translations also. Your wrong translation is known as wrong, since Veda again says that "Rudra alone Yieldeth to no Second".


-----
Dont you know the dictum - itihAsa purANAbhyam vedam samupavrnhayet ? Vedas can never be interpreted without purANas and itihAsas.

You are unaware that Vishnu's incarnations are mentioned in the veda itself - matsya, kurma, varaha all are mentioned in brAhmaNa texts - but

I agree that you are pandit and well read. Yet you do not see what is presented to you. That the "I" is the Rudra who is worshipped and the "I" is the Vishnu who is manifested.

That "I" is sadashiva the Brahma pati (as in Maha Narayana Upanishad).



Narasimha avatAra is known through narasimha tApanIya Upansihad. Both Krishna and Rama avatAra have upanishads -

Rig Veda praises Rudra as the Lion in the Heart. I do not consider that Rudra and Vishnu are different. It is your problem.

If Rudra and Vishnu were two, then neither would know the advaita shivo Atman.


Best Wishes.


Om

[atanu]

Deleted because of repeatation.
Om

[atanu]

For those who say that Shiva is not Vedic.

http://img229.imageshack.us/img229/8079/purushalc4.th.jpg (http://img229.imageshack.us/my.php?image=purushalc4.jpg)




http://img229.imageshack.us/img229/3675/sadshivozy9.th.jpg (http://img229.imageshack.us/my.php?image=sadshivozy9.jpg)


http://img229.imageshack.us/img229/8754/shivopl5.th.jpg (http://img229.imageshack.us/my.php?image=shivopl5.jpg)


Om

[atanu]

The Sa_man is the auspicious Shiva, not a name but the being itself wherefrom the I (sadshiva-vishnu) makes the Udana rise as OM (I am). All names come after I am becomes the mind and Vak issues.

This great unlimited Sa_man is the goal and who see any difference here go from death to death.

Rig

8.029.01 One (Soma) brown of hue, all-pervading, leader of the nights, ever young, decorates (himself) with golden ornament.
8.029.02 One (Agni) intelligent, resplended among the gods, is seated in his place (the altar).
8.029.03 One (Tvas.t.a_) immoveably stationed among the gods, holds his metal axe in his hand.
8.029.04 One (Indra) holds his thunderbol wielded in his hand, by which he slays the Vr.tras.
8.029.05 One (Rudra) brilliant and fierce, (yet) the distributor of healing medicines, holds his sharp weapon in his hand.
8.029.06 One (Pu_s.an) watches the roads like a robber, and is cognizant of hidden treasures.
8.029.07 One (Vis.n.u) wide-stepping, has traversed the three worlds where the gods rejoice.
8.029.08 Two (the As'vins), travel with swift (horses) along with one (bride Su_rya), like travellers to foreign countries.
8.029.09 Two of like beauty and of royal rank (Mitra and Varun.a), worshipped with oblations of clarified butter, have taken their seat in heaven.
8.029.10 Some (the Atris) when worshipping, call to mind the great Sa_man, wherewith they light up the sun.


Lord is that Sa_man, which like ghee hidden in milk; is equally hidden everywhere and in everybeing.


Om

[Sri Vaishnava]

Hari Om

Siva as auspicious? Absolutely. and when we look at Vishnu's name;
Vishnuh -Veveshti Vyaapnoti iti Vishnuh - That which pervades everywhere is Vishnu; How is this different then Brahman? then Rudra? or Mother Divine?pranams,

It is different, because you notice that Vishnu is inextricably linked with Narayana. So, Vishnu is synonymous with only Narayana.

Hence, Narayana is Rudra, but Mahadeva Rudra is not Narayana. Vishnu is Rudra, but Rudra is not Vishnu.

Milk can be processed into Yoghurt, Kefir, Cheese, etc. Hence, Milk can say that it is in Cheese, Yoghurt, Kefir, etc. But the latter products cannot say they are Milk.

[Sri Vaishnava]

hara is the source, and hari is the manifestation
hara is the conception, and hari is the realization
hara is intention or will to create, and hari is completion or perfect creation
hara is the father and the inheritance, and hari is the son and the heir
hara is nara, and hari is nArAyaNa
hara is the horse or vehicle, and hari is the rider or driver
hara is indra, and hari is viSNu
hara is varuNa, and hari is vAyu
hara is ananta, and hari is nArAyaNa
hara is “ to be ”, and hari is “ I am ”

Nara and Narayana are not indifferent. Hari is Hara, but Hara is not Hari. It is a subtle difference. Word Jugglery will NOT help, as there is a clear link between Narayana and Vishnu.



The Latin PAGANUS meant only ‘Villager’ or ‘Rustic’, and in Christian Church Latin it came to mean ‘Civilian’ (i.e. not a member of the divine ‘Army’ of Christ).

In Christian parlance, a Pagan is a non-Christian.

Christians gave the term 'Pagan' to define mystery religions. It was a derogatory term which has become official since. If you love Jesus so much, please convert to Christianity. Do not link Demi-Gods with Krishna.


If there is no relationship between Christianity and Hinduism, then Hinduism is surely Pagan. And the texts of sanAtana dharma are very “pagan myths” that you are discounting!

A misunderstanding. EVERY Religion is connected with Hinduism. Because Hinduism the first and complete exhaustive collection of truths. Hence, all Religions more or less mirror Hinduism.

But that doesn't make the religious leaders God. Any man, by racking his brains, can come up with the philosophy. The myth of Jesus was taken from Kristos, who is Krishna. The Philosophy was borrowed from Buddhism and mixed with Theistic Judaism. The legends were from Pagans. Hence, it is an amalgam of myths.,

The Puranas contain the major incarnations. Considering Jesus' impact, if he was an avatar, it would have been mentioned. Lord Buddha has been mentioned. No Jesus. So, he was clearly a hindu influenced Jivatma, if he existed. Just 12 disciples, and a cult popularised by the Roman Church.

Every Myth has a root. Hinduism was the FIRST religion and hence, it has no origin. And you are right in saying Paganism was derived from Hinduism!! It is true. Zoroastrianism and Mithras are both Vedic Cults.

Every religion is an offshoot of Sanatana Dharma. But since we have Sanatana Dharma itself, we should not focus on other religions.


YHVH (the Father) is equivalent with nirguNa nara, while Jesus (the Son) is equivalent with saguNa nArAyaNa.

Isha kRSNa and iSus (“ray of light”) kRSTis (“teacher”) would both agree that nArAyaNa and nara are one and the same sacred essence. Indeed, naranArAyaNa is another name for kRSNa, and the name of naranArAyaNa is effectively saying exactly the same thing as “I and my Father are One”.

But did Jesus say he was a devotee of Narayana? No. Here, in Vedas, Narayana is the Supreme Lord. Hence, follow Narayana. The major part of Christianity was derived from Buddhism and Hinduism, but that doesn't make Jesus an avatar. There is an article devoted to it.

Eckhart and Spinoza were 16th century scholars who arrived at Vishishtadvaita type philosophy without Vedic Knowledge. How come they aren't avatars for you now?

The Puranas give the names of the avatars. Jesus is NOT among them.

More potent than Jesus or Allah or Jehovah is Lord Narayana. You know He pervades the Cosmos.

In the Bhagavad Gita, Krishna says 'Chant My name'. He declared His name to be Krishna. Not Jesus. Chanting Bible names isn't going to get you anywhere, because they are man-made terms for God.

In any case, The greeks worshipped Krishna as 'Kristos'. The Christians borrowed that term. It has no significance. Only these so-called secular Hindus try to find a significance.


Atanu and I have been requesting some evidence for your repeated claim that nArAyaNa is explicit in the veda saMhitA. And your replies have provided absolutely nothing!

I have certainly NOT claimed that nArAyaNa cannot be implied in the veda, but you have (wrongly) claimed that nArAyaNa is explicit in the veda!

Advaitins are now claiming that Narayana is not even claimed as Supreme? that is a new one. I am no scholar, but any idiot knows Narayana is declared as the soul of the Vedas.

“OM! The Supreme Being, known as Narayana, desired to create living beings. And out of such desire (or vow), the living force of breath called “prana” stems out from the Supreme Being; the mind (manas) and all other sense organs come into being. Also created along with are the Sky, the Air, the Light, the Water and the Earth, which bears all the beings. Out of Narayana arises the Brahma, the deity who is the creator of all beings; and also the Indra, who is the ruler of all Devas. Out of Him comes Prajapati, the deity who originates and controls the people, as well as the twelve Adityas, eleven Rudras and eight Vasus (various controlling forces mentioned in the Vedas – each concerning a distinct and different force of nature). It is only out of the same Narayana that all Vedas came into existence. Thus, all forces come out of Narayana and also finally merge into Him.” – Thus proclaims one of the Upanishads in the Rig Veda.


rudra
and shiva, however, ARE explicit in the veda saMhitA, and the shatarudriya is the sacred heart of all shaiva belief.

HOW MANY TIMES SHOULD I SAY THAT RUDRA AND SHIVA ARE NOT THE MAHADEVA?

Rudra = Praiseworthy or Destroyer of Evil.

Shiva= Auspicious.

Everywhere it says Narayana is Rudra. Nowhere does it say Mahadeva Rudra is Narayana. It says clearly that Narayana created Brahma and Rudra is son of Brahma. Read Sudarshan's posts.


There is no problem in assuming that all of the individual names belong to nArAyaNa, but the anonymous One who is the source of all names is “nara”, whose existence is implied by the family name nArAyaNa.

nArAyaNa is not explicit in any saMhitA, but the name (as I have often mentioned) is a standard patronymic form, derived from nara.

Narayana is derived from 'Naara Ayanam' or 'Yesya Naara Ayanam'. Naara pertains to Vishnu, who is Imperishable. Glad you agree, Vishnu is the origin!!

Nara is the disciple of Narayana who incarnated to spread the Vedic Knowledge. The Vedas say that NARAYANA IS SUPREME. Anyone who disagrees is Not vedic.


nara = brahma = brahman

nArAyaNa = brahmA = brahman

And nArAyaNa is “the son of man” who is truly the son of God.

Again, you seem to love Jesus. Why link everything with a man-made religion for goodness' sake?

You have written it upside down. Here is the deal:

Nara-Narayana (Sanskrit: नर-नारायण; nara-nārāyaṇa) is broken down where Nara means human and Narayana means the Supreme Divinity, or Vishnu. In the concept of Nara-Narayana, the human soul Nara is the eternal companion of the Divine Narayana. Any human being with an awakened consciousness of divinity in him and who works overall for the welfare of humanity is a Nara-Narayana, an incarnation of Vishnu on earth working for the preservation of Dharma or righteousness.

Happy? You have either misunderstood, or purposely posted it in an upside down manner. Any devotee of Narayana is Nara.


Jesus is not Nara, because he was a devotee of God Jehovah or Elohim or whatver, if he really existed. Narayana does not call himself Jehovah in the Vedas or Puranas. It is a man-made name, not transcendental. Hence, chuck it into the dispenser.

Finis.

Advaita, if it is the truth, will make the Vedas look really contradictory:

1) If Brahman is Formless, it limits His ability to have a Form. And He is supposed to be unlimited.

2) If Jiva can become God, then He will hav ability to create, destroy and control. He cannot do that. So, he simply attains Spiritual qualities of Narayana, NOT his strength or divinity.

3) Advaita claims all devas are equal when Vedas say Vishnu is oldest and that Narayana created Brahma and Shiva.

Advaita is contradictory in all aspects. Saying 'Aham Brahmasmi', as Advaitins do, is Blasphemous. Only Lord Vishnu can say it. Not even Mahadevas.

Advaita contradicts Gita, it contradicts Puranas and just about everything. Adi Sankara was a genius to mislead people with such an inadequate Philosophy. Especially the claim that one can become God!!

EDIT: One last thing. Vishnu can appear as anyone. He can appear as the Servant of Indra, or friend of Rudra, or He can appear as Rudra, or Indra themselves. But Rudra cannot appear as Vishnu. Not one line in the Vedas say that Indra is Vishnu, or as such.

Yet, the Vedas praise Indra. Why? Because Vishnu praises His devotees. At the same time, when Bhagavan is indicated there, it is acknowledged that these Devas did such great things by the grace of Bhagavan Vishnu. They do not become Bhagavan.

It is meant only for the open minded people to accept the truth. Proof of this is that no Shaivite or Advaitin Scholar has defeated a Vaishnava Scholar.

Because Rudra, Indra and other Devas form the body of Narayana. A single body part cannot be the whole body, whereas the body can relate to the body parts.

[atanu]

----
And you end up quoting Srimad Bhagavatam. No amount of quoting will help you because there exist two rudras in the vedas. One rudra, who is paramatma is actually Vishnu. Another rudra, who is a jIvAtma is shiva. -

Namaste Sudarshana,

I agree that the Param Atman Rudra is the real all pervading Maha Vishnu, since Vedas and Upanishads say:

yo rudro agnau yo apsu ya oshhadhIshhu
yo rudro vishvA bhuvanA.a.avivesha
tasmai rudrAya namo astu

Prostrations to that Rudra who has entered into fire, water, and air, herbs and all the worlds.


But I cannot understand your teaching that this Rudra got broken into two pieces and one became Jivaatma shiva-- since Atma is spirit and uncuttable. In fact, I see that the verse rather says that the same Rudra is all the worlds also.

Vis.nu means the one who has entered into Visva. So, we see clearly who has entered into the worlds. This from the Vedas.


-----
One who has non-rigid mind will immediately see. Those who do not want to see will not see.


Om

[Znanna]

SV,

You repeatedly say you are not a scholar; this is evident in your arguments with those who *are* scholars.


ZN
/sayin'

[yajvan]

Hari Om
~~~~~

Nara and Narayana are not indifferent. Hari is Hara, but Hara is not Hari. It is a subtle difference.

Namaste SV,
I am open to learn ... teach me. What is the subtle diferences.


pranams,

[Sri Vaishnava]

I am not going to argue anymore. It is clear that Advaitins are not going to change their views. But just because they won't, doesn't mean that the Sastras support their views.

There is no need for me to have any sort of ego. If Advaitins refuse to acknowledge the Supremacy of Vishnu, so be it. It is Vishnu who ordained it to be so, anyway.

It is as our Acharyas said, 'Ignore those who refuse to see the light'.

Vaishnava Theology is not based on superficial go-through of scriptures. It is the fruit of a lot of pain-staking hardwork and dedication by our Acharyas. It is with great authority that one can say Vishnu is Supreme. And that He is the only way.

Although many religions claim to be the truth, Vishnu is the first and most Supreme Lord. The Acharyas are messengers of Vishnu. Hence, what they say should be taken as authority.

The Acharyas have not mentioned any 'God-Men' of mordern era. So, if we respect them, we have to abide by what they say, as Vishnu desires it. If we go beyond the scope of the Acharya's great works, it is not respectful to the Acharya.

And this goes for Advaita Acharyas also. Sankaracharya clearly advocated worship of Krishna, and He did not mention any 'God-Men', as part of the mode of worship.

Vishnu has created many religions. They are fragments of the truth. For some reason, we are blessed with the whole truth. It is crystal clear that we are required to follow them.

Each Vaishnava Sampradaya is legitimate and the only way. There is no other religion comparable to the truth.

Each Sampradaya contributes a unique quality. Sri Vaishnava Sampradaya promotes unconditional surrender, ie, Saranagati, irrespective of caste, race or qualifications. Gaudiya Sampradaya promotes singing, dancing and chanting the names of the Lord. Many followers of the Madhva and Nimbarka Sampradayas exemplify the love one can develop for an ishta devta (Favorite form of Vishnu) as Lord Rama or even Baby Krishna.

Yes, all paths lead to God. But Vishnu awards Moksha to only those who see Him as He is, Personal and Effulgent. No Deva or 'God-Men' of other religions can award Moksha, although these religions serve the purpose of Spiritual Realisation.

Vishnu may incarnate as Indra or as Rudra's servant. That is because the Lord does not have any pride that He is Supreme. Humility is His trait and His desire to mingle with Jivatmas allows Him to come in those circumstances.

It is the same love to mingle that caused Avatars like Lord Rama, who called Jatayu as His relation and embraced Guha, a tribesman. And just like so many, even Brahma failed to see why Lord Krishna associated with simple cowherds.

Lord Krishna, as an avatar of Vishnu, exemplified the fact that Moksha is only through Vishnu. When the cowherds were praying to Indra, Lord Krishna told them, 'Why worship Indra? Worship Me.' He then said, that the Govardhana Hill was the Incarnation of Himself and that everyone should worship the Hill instead of Indra.

Thus, the Lord can call Himself a Hill, a Deva, a Gandharva, etc. But it does not change His supremacy.

Lord Krishna in His famous Charama Sloka said:

Sarva Dharman Parityajya, Mam Ekam Saranam Vraja.
Aham Tva Sarva Papebhyo Mokshayishyami Masuchaha.

Abandon all Religions and Surrender to Me. I will release you from your sins. Do not Fear.

This means, even if there are other 'God-Men' who claim to be the truth, Lord Krishna is still the source, the origin and more potent than them. He was the first to impart this promise. If you believe Jesus was an incarnation, there is no point of caring about it, as the Purna Avatar, the splendour and majesty that is Krishna, has declared that knowing His form is the most Supreme way ever.

And Bhagavad Ramanujacharya, through His brilliant analysis of texts, has demonstrated that 2 more Avatars of Vishnu said the same thing. There are 3 Charama Slokas:

1) Lord Krishna's Charama Sloka.

2) Lord Rama's. When Vibhishana came to join Lord Rama, the Vanara Sena were suspicious of him. Lord Rama told them, 'Anyone who seeks my Lotus Feet willingly will be welcomed unhesitatingly by Me, for it is My duty'.

3) Lord Varaha's. When He rescued Bhu Devi from Hiranyaksha, she told Him, 'Lord, If Hiranyaksha could do this to me, Imagine what would any calamity such as this do to my children, the Jivatmas'. Then, Varaha promised Her, 'Anybody who surrenders to Me, shall be freed from Samsara'.

3 Avatars of Vishnu said the same thing. Not Rudra, not Indra.

Worship of Devas is not a crime. But Lord Vishnu requires you to worship only Him for Moksha. Evn Material Desires can be granted by Vishnu, so there is no need to go to the Devas. That is His theory.

When you have surrendered to Him, you are related to Him, not to anyone. A child can have only one Biological Mother. A devotee can have only one Transcendental Supreme Lord.

The concept of God being an 'Anonymous Brahman' fails because the Lord clearly wishes His devotees to know Him to the best of their capability. Hence, He does not desire to be anonymous. He wishes to show Himself.

Even Advaita can lead to the truth. But for that, one must assume that the Impersonal Brahman is Vishnu and hence, He must worship only Vishnu that way, to attain Moksha. Adi Sankara, the greatest impersonalist of all time, has not denied this. He expresses it succintly, like so:

tvayi mayi chaanyatraiko vishhnuh vyartham kupyasi mayyasahishhnuh bhava samachittah sarvatra tvam vaajnchhasyachiraadyadi vishhnutvam.

In me, in you and in everything, none but the same Vishnu dwells. Your anger and impatience is meaningless. If you wish to attain the quality of Vishnu soon, have Sama Bhaava always.

bhajagovindam bhajagovindam govindam bhaja muudhamate sampraapte sannihite kaale nahi nahi rakshati dukrijnkarane.

Worship Govinda, Worship Govinda, Worship Govinda. Oh fool! Rules of Grammar will not save you at the time of your death.

bhagavad giitaa kijnchidadhiitaa gangaa jalalava kanikaapiitaa sakridapi yena muraari samarchaa kriyate tasya yamena na charchaa.

Let a man read but a little from the Gita, drink just a drop of water from the Ganga, worship Murari just once. He then will have no altercation with Yama.

geyam giitaa naama sahasram dhyeyam shriipati ruupamajasram neyam sajjana sange chittam deyam diinajanaaya cha vittam.

Regularly recite from the Gita, meditate on Vishnu in your heart, and chant His thousand glories. Take delight to be with the noble and the holy. Distribute your wealth in charity to the poor and the needy.

bhajagovindam bhajagovindam govindam bhajamuudhamate naamasmaranaadanyamupaayam nahi pashyaamo bhavatarane.

Worship Govinda, worship Govinda, worship Govinda, Oh fool! Other than chanting the Lord's names, there is no other way to cross the life's ocean.

[atanu]

Namaste All,

Please allow me to repeat a few things as summary (My POV alone).

What some call Shivam some others call Narayana based on subtle differences in perspectives as to whether Atman is Nirguna/Actionless/Intent less or not? Sanatana dharma scriptures ultimately direct us to the nameless Atman, which is conceptualised in many ways. But Mandukya Upanishad seems to do it most effortlessly, elegantly and without any clutter. It is the best to know the being who is changeless through waking, dreaming, and sleeping states of phenomenal existence. The changeless being essentially has to be intentless, actionless, and Nirguna. Apparent actions are in states through innumerable forms of His Pragnya-Prakriti.

Manu Smriti says that Narayana is the abode of Narah, who are waters (virya-sperm) of Nara, the primordial Purusha.

Narayana is said to be the Param Brahma Tattwa (Mahanarayana Upanishad) by which all things are known. Thus it is the knowing consciousness, that is the divine mind.

Vedas and many Upanishads say Prajapati brooded and created other Purushas, including four headed BrahmA. I think that another name of Prajapati is Narayana, which is later name, coined mainly by pre Shnkara Advaitins after the Guru who teaches Purusha Vidya (in Rig Veda). To hindus, Guru being God, Narayana is God.

In Maha Upanishad it is said that Narayana was not happy alone. This unhappiness cannot be attributed to EKO -- which is the subject of Vedas. Turya is ever ONE, but Narayana contains ALL within -- the highest abode.

Chandogya Upanishad says that Mind is the abode. Even mind of a Jiva is a limited abode, wherein exists all friends and relatives etc.

Why should Turya need any abode? It is beyond any abode and it is the abode of abode. When scriptures talk of highest abode it must be talking of experience within consciousness but not the consciousness itself.

The following excerpt from Mahanarayana Upanishad reveals the whole.



Mahanarayana Upanishad

trayodasho.anuvaakaH .

sahasrashiirshha.n deva.n vishvaaksha.n vishvashambhuvam.h .
vishva.n naaraayaNa.n devamaksharaM paramaM prabhum.h .. 1..
vishvataH parama.n nitya.n vishva.n naaraayaNa{\m+} harim.h . vishvamevedaM purushhastadvishvamupajiivati .. 2..
pati.n vishvasyaatmeshvara{\m+} shaashvata{\m+} shivamachyutam.h .naaraayaNaM mahaaj~neya.n vishvaatmaanaM paraayaNam.h .. 3..
naaraayaNaH paraM brahma tattva .n naaraayaNaH paraH .

dvaavi.nsho.anuvaakaH .

namo hiraNyabaahave hiraNyavarNaaya hiraNyaruupaaya hiraNyapataye.ambikaapataya umaapataye pashupataye namo namaH .. 1..

trayovi.nsho.anuvaakaH

R^ita{\m+} satyaM paraM brahma purushha .n kR^ishhNapi~Ngalam.h .uurdhvareta.n viruupaaksha.n vishvaruupaaya vai namo namaH .. 1..

chaturvi.nsho.anuvaakaH
sarvo vai rudrastasmai rudraaya namo astu . purushho vai rudraH sanmaho namo namaH .vishvaM bhuutaM bhuvana.n chitraM bahudhaa jaata.n jaayamaana.n cha yat.h . sarvo hyeshha rudrastasmai rudraaya namo astu .. 1..

End of citation


Note: In Vedas, hari is name of Soma -- the progenitor of Earth, Heaven, Surya, Scriptures, Indra, Vishnu. And Soma is also called Prajapati in Vedas.

However, for advaitins all these are just concepts. No difference is seen between param brahma tattwa Narayana and param brahma Purusha ambikaapataya umaapataye pashupataye Ritam satyaM paraM brahma.viruupaaksha vishvaruupaaya Lord Shiva, who is here manifest of shivoadvaitam Self.

Param Brahma tattva can only constitute Param Brahma and Param Brahma tattva can only be present in Param Brahma Purusha.

However, please let it not be construed that what has been written above is after an image of mind and is sectarian. Far from it, since an Advaitin knows the following too well.




Svet. Upanishad

19. No one has grasped him above, or across, or in the middle. There is no image of him whose name is Great Glory.

20. His form cannot be seen, no one perceives him with the eye. Those who through heart and mind know him thus abiding in the heart, become immortal.

21. 'Thou art unborn,' with these words a few devotees come near to thee, trembling. O Rudra, let thy gracious face protect me for ever!



The indestructible shivoadvaitam Atma is one and all : the Seer Rudra, the knowledge principle Narayana (which leads to diversity on account of Maya Mind), the controller shula pani Shiva and Visvarupa. It is the intelligence everywhere and it is the owner of “I awareness”.

The following gives the stages of evolution/devolution of the consciousness.



Paingalopanishad belonging to the Sukla-Yajur-Veda (Italics mine)

I-1. Then indeed Paingala approached Yajnavalkya as a disciple, and, having served him for twelve years, said: Instruct me in regard to the supreme mystery of Aloneness.


I-2. The eminent Yajnavalkya replied: Dear one, in the beginning this indeed existed. It was the eternally free, immutable, everlastingly one, secondless Brahman, full of Truth, Knowledge and Bliss (Shivamachyutam -- Turya).


I-3. In it existed the primordial and indefinable Prakriti, consisting of Gunas in a state of equipoise, red, white and dark, resembling (the existence of) water, silver, a man and outlines (respectively) in the mirage oyster-shell, a stump and a mirror; what was reflected in it was the Witness Consciousness. (Rudra Narayana Vishnave).


I-4. Having been modified, with the preponderance of Sattva, and named Avyakta (the Unmanifest), it (Prakriti) became the power of concealment. What was reflected in it became God Consciousness. He has Maya under His control, is omniscient, is the initial cause of creation, sustenance and dissolution (of the world) and has the form of the sprouting world. He manifests the entire world dissolved in Him. Due to the power of the Karmas of living beings is the (world) spread out like this cloth and due to their exhaustion again is (the world) concealed. In Him alone does the entire world exist as a folded cloth (Ishwara Mahadeva).


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


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


I-7. Desiring to create, that world-Cause (God), controlling the quality of Tamas, sought to render the subtle root-elements gross. He bifurcated each of the extremely limited elements and again made (the halves) four-fold and added each of the five halves to one-eighths of the other four. With those quintuplicated elements he created endless Crores of macrocosms and for each of these fourteen appropriate worlds and globular gross bodies fit for each planes of them all.

_________________



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

Who will name that mind of the mind from whom the cognition takes birth? Names are our conceptions, which are true since consciousness is true. The one who is the support of the thinker mind, which conceptualises and gives names, is the immutable. This Atman manifests as I (The Param) , the Universe (Divine Purusha Visva) and Jiva within divine purusha, while remaining Transcendental (Turya ParamaM Parastaad).



Svet. Up. 6.7

tamiishvaraaNaaM paramaM maheshvara.n
ta.n devataanaaM parama.n cha daivatam.h .
patiM patiinaaM paramaM parastaad.h\-
vidaama devaM bhuvaneshamiiDyam.h .. 7..

6.7 We will know this mightiest one who is far above all the mighty – this summit of the gods and their godhead, king of kings and lord of lords, who towereth high above all summit and greatnesses. let us learn of God for he is this universes' master and all shall adore him.



I cannot understand from (limited) studies, why some Vaishnava teachers should term worship of Rudra-Shiva as non-Vedic when Vedas call Him Param Brahma Purusha/Bhagawan/Atman/shining heart of Devas/Eko/Na Dvittiya/ paramaM parastaad etc. etc.

Though I do not belong to Shaivic creed but still it is beyond me. From my understanding, I believe that Narayana is Prajapati -- the mind that creates, yet in truth naaraayaNaH paraH.

Om

[sarabhanga]

viSNu is a rudra, but rudra (aja ekapad) is not viSNu (praja sahasrapad).

nArAyaNa is of nara, but nara is not of nArAyaNa.

hara is the source (rudra), and hari is the manifestation (rudriya or rudrAH).

hara is intention or will to create, and hari is completion or perfect creation.

hara is the inheritance, and hari is the the heir.

hara is nara (“the man”), and hari is nArAyaNa (“the son of man”).

hara is the vehicle, and hari is the rider.

hara is indra, and hari is viSNu.

hara is varuNa, and hari is vAyu.

hara is avyakta, and hari is ahaMkAra.

hara is bRMhan, and hari is abRMham.

hara = nara = indra = bRMhan = advaita = avyakta
hari = nArAyaNa = viSNu = abRMham = dvaita = ahaMkAra




Word Jugglery will NOT help, as there is a clear link between Narayana and Vishnu.

Just as I have often stated: nArAyaNa = viSNu !




If you love Jesus so much, please convert to Christianity.

I can see no reason for hating Jesus. :headscratch:




Just 12 disciples.


YHVH (the Father) is equivalent with nirguNa nara, while Jesus (the Son) is equivalent with saguNa nArAyaNa.

Isha kRSNa and iSus kRSTis would both agree that nArAyaNa and nara are one and the same sacred essence.

Indeed, naranArAyaNa is another name for kRSNa, and the name of naranArAyaNa is effectively saying exactly the same thing as “I and my Father are One”.

iSu is a personification of the IshopaniSad, and his 12 disciples are personifications of the 12 lines of the mANDukyopaniSad. ;)




But did Jesus say he was a devotee of Narayana? No. Here, in Vedas, Narayana is the Supreme Lord. Hence, follow Narayana.

Jesus not only glorified nArAyaNa, but “son of man” is the name that Jesus most often calls himself in the Bible! :)

nArAyaNa is a regular patronymic form of nara (and many similar examples have already been given).

That is, nArAyaNa can be simply translated as “son of man”.


And Jesus saith unto him, The foxes have holes, and the birds of the air have nests; but nArAyaNa hath not where to lay his head. [Matt.8.20, Luke.9.58]

But that ye may know that nArAyaNa hath power on earth to forgive sins. [Matt.9.6, Mark.2.10]

For nArAyaNa is Lord even of the sabbath. [Matt.12.8, Mark.2.28]

He answered and said unto them, He that soweth the good seed is nArAyaNa. [Matt.13.37]

When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I, nArAyaNa, am? [Matt.16.13]

For nArAyaNa shall come in the glory of nara, with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works. [Matt.16.27]

Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see nArAyaNa coming in his kingdom. [Matt.16.28]

For nArAyaNa is come to save that which was lost. [Matt.18.11]

For as the lightning cometh out of the east, and shineth even unto the west; so shall also the coming of nArAyaNa be. [Matt.24.27]

And then shall they see nArAyaNa coming in the clouds with great power and glory. [Mark.13.26, Luke.21.27]

For nArAyaNa is as nara taking a far journey, who left his house. [Mark.13.34]

nArAyaNa indeed goeth, as it is written of him: but woe to that man by whom nArAyaNa is betrayed! [Mark.14.21, Luke.22.22]

And he cometh the third time, and saith unto them, Sleep on now, and take your rest: it is enough, the hour is come; behold, nArAyaNa is betrayed into the hands of mortals. [Mark.14.41]

And Jesus said, ahaM: and ye shall see nArAyaNa sitting on the right hand of shakti, and coming in the clouds of heaven. [Mark.14.62]

Let these sayings sink down into your ears: for nArAyaNa shall be delivered into the hands of men. [Luke.9.44]

For nArAyaNa is not come to destroy men’s lives, but to save them. [Luke.9.56]

Be ye therefore ready also: for nArAyaNa cometh at an hour when ye think not. [Luke.12.40]

For as the lightning, that lighteneth out of the one part under heaven, shineth unto the other part under heaven; so shall also nArAyaNa be in his day. [Luke.17.24]

And as it was in the days of nara, so shall it be also in the days of nArAyaNa. [Luke.17.26]

Even thus shall it be in the day when nArAyaNa is revealed. [Luke.17.30]

I tell you that he will avenge them speedily. Nevertheless when nArAyaNa cometh, shall he find faith on the earth? [Luke.18.8]

Then he took unto him the twelve, and said unto them, Behold, we go up to AjñAcakra, and all things that are written by the prophets concerning nArAyaNa shall be accomplished. [Luke.18.31]

For nArAyaNa is come to seek and to save that which was lost. [Luke.19.10]

Watch ye therefore, and pray always, that ye may be accounted worthy to escape all these things that shall come to pass, and to stand before nArAyaNa. [Luke.21.36]

Hereafter shall nArAyaNa sit on the right hand of the shakti of God. [Luke.22.69]

Saying, nArAyaNa must be delivered into the hands of mortal men, and be divided. [Luke.24.7]

And he saith unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Hereafter ye shall see heaven open, and the devAs ascending and descending upon nArAyaNa. [John.1.51]

And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even as the nArAyaNa which is in heaven. [John.3.13]

And hath given him authority to execute judgment also, because he is nArAyaNa. [John.5.27]

Labour not for the meat which perisheth, but for that meat which endureth unto everlasting life, which nArAyaNa shall give unto you: for him hath nara sealed. [John.6.27]

Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye that partake of nArAyaNa and his rAsa, ye have no life in you. [John.6.53]

What and if ye shall see nArAyaNa ascend up where he was before? [John.6.62]

Then said Jesus unto them, When ye have lifted up nArAyaNa, then shall ye know that I am he, and that I do nothing of myself; but as nara hath taught me, I speak these things. [John.8.28]

And Jesus answered them, saying, The hour is come, that nArAyaNa should be glorified. [John.12.23]

The people answered him, We have heard out of the law that kRSNa abideth for ever: and how sayest thou, the nArAyaNa must be lifted up? Who is this nArAyaNa? [John.12.34]

Therefore, when he was gone out, Jesus said, Now is nArAyaNa glorified, and nara is glorified in him. [John.13.31]

And said, Behold, I see the heavens opened, and nArAyaNa standing with nara. [Acts.7.56]

But one in a certain place testified, saying, What is nara, that thou art mindful of him? or nArAyaNa, that thou visitest him? [Heb.2.6]

And in the midst of the seven tongues of agni, one like unto nArAyaNa, clothed with a garment down to the foot, and girt with a golden cakra. [Rev.1.13]

And I looked, and behold a white cloud, and upon the cloud one sat like unto nArAyaNa, having on his head a golden crown. [Rev.14.14]

If the bible was translated into Sanskrit, then Jesus would be an avatAra, but otherwise not ~ this is only linguistic bigotry !




Eckhart and Spinoza were 16th century scholars who arrived at Vishishtadvaita type philosophy without Vedic Knowledge. How come they aren't avatars for you now?

Every jIivAtmA is a veritable incarnation of viSNu.




Advaitins are now claiming that Narayana is not even claimed as Supreme? that is a new one.

nArAyaNa is the supreme object of all devotion, while nara is the supreme object of all meditation.




I am no scholar, but any idiot knows Narayana is declared as the soul of the Vedas.

I have certainly NOT claimed that nArAyaNa cannot be implied in the veda saMhitA, but you have (wrongly) claimed that nArAyaNa is explicit in the veda !

nArAyaNa is certainly explicit in the upaniSada, but not in the saMhitA.

rudra and shiva, however, ARE explicit in the veda saMhitA, and the shatarudriya is the sacred heart of all shaiva belief.

harahAra ! mahAdeva ! shambhU !




Everywhere it says Narayana is Rudra.

Where?




Nowhere does it say Mahadeva Rudra is Narayana.

And that is because mahAdeva rudra is nara!




It says clearly that Narayana created Brahma and Rudra is son of Brahma.

Well, “it” is not a very helpful reference, but the truth is more like this:

nara = brahma = rudra
nArAyaNa = brahmA = rudriya

nArAyaNa is identical with brahmA, and the rudrA are sons of brahma.




Nara is the disciple of Narayana who incarnated to spread the Vedic Knowledge.


nara = brahma
nArAyaNa = brahmA
nAra = brAhmaNa

When you say “Nara”, do you mean “nara” or “nAra” ?




The Vedas say that NARAYANA IS SUPREME. Anyone who disagrees is Not vedic.

No. The truth is that the upaniSad says that nArAyaNa is supreme, and anyone who disagrees is perhaps not vaidAntika.

nara = brahma = brahman
nArAyaNa = brahmA = brahman

And nArAyaNa is “the son of man” who is truly the son of God.




Again, you seem to love Jesus. Why link everything with a man-made religion for goodness' sake?

I have NOT referred to Jesus here, only restating the meaning of nArAyaNa !




Jesus is not Nara, because he was a devotee of God Jehovah or Elohim or whatver, if he really existed.

No one has suggested that Jesus is nara ~ rather, that he is both nAra and nArAyaNa.

brahma is infinite, formless and unlimited, while brahmA has infinite limited forms.

The veda does NOT say that nArAyaNa created brahma!




Saying 'Aham Brahmasmi' is Blasphemous.

And those who understand will continue to blaspheme!


brahma = brahmayoni = nara = hara = rudra = indra = shiva = kRSNa
brahmA = brahmabIja = nArAyaNa = hari = rudriya = viSNu = arjuna


brahman = turya = naranArAyaNa = harihara = vidyAvidya = ghorAghora


brahmabIja = hiraNyagarbha = soma = prAjña = indrajAla = viSNu = nArAyaNa


nara = aja ekapad rudra = shiva = avyakta puruSa
nArAyaNa = praja sahasrapad rudra = prajApati


nara = brahma = bRMhan
nArAyaNa = brahmA = abRMham

[atanu]

All Quiet on All fronts.

Sarabhanga Ji you might have been an Army General some time? The post is just brilliant.

Regards.

Om

[yajvan]

Hari Om
~~~~~~

All Quiet on All fronts.

Sarabhanga Ji you might have been an Army General some time? The post is just brilliant. Regards. Om

...we catch our breath.http://www.cybergifs.com/faces/excited.gif

to realize that you do not understand is a virture; not to realize that you do not understand is a defect... Lao Tzu circa 600B.C.

[satay]

Namaskar,

With respect to all members who contributed to this thread, here is my two cents.

I think that Sri Vaishnava did have a point in his first few posts but somehow went on the tangent about vishnu/rudra supermacy.


It could be implied that jesus was a vedanti and followed the sanatana dharma yet his followers did not write anything about that i.e. where he got the original teachings from. Christians do not accept that Jesus was a hindu because there is no evidence that he mentioned the vedas anywhere in his teachings nor that he had any hindu gurus. Only hindus think that Jesus was a hindu and was following the dharmic ways. Christians do not buy this. If he was following hindu texts, sages or philosophy why didn't he mention it? Or perhaps he did and it has been deleted from the history?

Nevertheless, in my view, jesus is a sadhu at best and there is no point in hindunizing him because there is nothing to be gained from him.

As far as Buddha shakyamuni, he rejected the vedas and thus he can not be considered a Hindu, in my view. Yet, a survey I took a few years back showed that I am a buddhist myself!

Regarding if Bhagwan wears a chandan tilak or bhasma...I don't know...I am only trying to get to the point where he showers enough grace that I am have darshan of his feet...

These views could make you think that I am a bigot but those are my 2 cents and it is after all an open discussion forum. :p

[sarabhanga]

His followers did not write anything about that i.e. where he got the original teachings from.

veda means “revelation”, and the ultimate chapter of the Bible is called Revelations (i.e. “the Vedas”).




Jesus is a sadhu at best.

sAdhu means “straight or right”, “leading straight to a goal, hitting the mark, unerring (as an arrow or thunderbolt), not entangled, well-disposed, kind, willing, obedient, successful, effective, efficient, ready, prepared (as soma), peaceful, secure, powerful, excellent, fit, proper, virtuous, honorable, righteous, well-born, noble, of respectable descent, correct, pure, or classical”. And a sAdhu is “a holyman, saint, sage, or seer” or (at the very least) “a good or honest man”.

sAdhu is the epitome of Arya and hindu.

iSu (“the arrow”) or Isha is surely sAdhu, and nArAyaNa (“the son of man”) is the perfect indu.




There is no point in hindunizing him because there is nothing to be gained from him.

Please do not complain about any intolerance of Hinduism shown by Christians, because acceptance of Hinduism (at least as an equal, if not as the source) is what could be gained by exposing the intimate connexions that exist between them! ;)




If he was following hindu texts, sages or philosophy why didn't he mention it? Or perhaps he did and it has been deleted from the history?

The connexions have not been deleted, only translated into another language! :D

How many times does Isha kRSTis have to say ahaM and call himself nArAyaNa before it counts as a mention?

Jesus praises nArAyaNa again and again, and his last words were svAhA, but that has nothing to do with the Vedas. And the Vedas do not mention nArAyaNa by name, but every word is in fact referring to that “Son of Man”. :confused:

Can you explain the advantage in maintaining a strict separation of Hindu religion and Christian religion?

Yoga should be considered in every situation, with every thought and action ~ indeed, with every breath.

[satay]

Namaskar!


because acceptance of Hinduism (at least as an equal, if not as the source) is what could be gained by exposing the intimate connexions that exist between them!


ah...I see. :D


Can you explain the advantage in maintaining a strict separation of Hindu religion and Christian religion?


No, I can not because there is none.

Having said that though I can not deny that there is indeed a separation of these two religions that exists already of no fault of mine.

[Jigar]

Oh yeah? I heard hes from Delhi too!

[satay]

Oh yeah? I heard hes from Delhi too!

We need not be sarcastic to this tactic. This same tactic was used to 'bring' buddha and thus buddhists into the hindu fold.

In fact, as I have stated here before, in our local temple here, a huge statue of buddha sits beside other deities. Who knows if there should be another statue of a 'sadhu' next to his in a few years, perhaps in our lifetime? Yes, I am implying a statue of jesus in a hindu temple.:Cool:

[sarabhanga]

Namaste Satay,

Temples are established for the worship of God, either at a naturally sacred place for the deity of that place, or at any specially consecrated place. And very many places have been sanctified by a sAdhu samAdhi, which becomes the focus for devotees of that guru or his/her iSTadevatA.

Devotees of the enlightened teacher known as Jesus are essentially the same as devotees of any hindu guru, who is considered as a veritable God by his/her own followers. And, just as there is no need to install particular images of every sAdhu shAnta who has attained samAdhi (and thus realized the identity of nara-nArAyaNa, which is the realization of their own jIvAtmA with the one paramAtmA), there is no need to install particular images of Jesus in hindu temples.

Jesus Christ (iSu kRSTis) is a personification of Isha kRSNa, naranArAyaNa, the nArAyaNa and the kAlanara, and the avadhUta dattatreya, so there are appropriate icons already installed in Hindu temples. And anyone who wants to recall the triple crucifixion on “skull rock” only needs to apply the tripuNDra.

Also note that Nazareth is the yoni, Bethlehem (the “house of bread”) is the navel, and the “twin city” of Yerushalayim (Yeru-Shalem) is the two-petalled AjñAcakra (the “control centre”, the ancient hub of command and local authority). And the life of Jesus is a tale of yoga sAdhana and final samAdhi, which does not require any particular geographical location or historical figure.

nara = shiva (Jehovah) = shani = sattva
nArAyaNa = iSu (Jesus) = savitR = rajas
nAra = yudha (Judas) = shukra = tamas

Three characters are required to complete the drama, but in truth there is only One.

[yajvan]

Hari Om
~~~~~


Namaste Satay,

Temples are established for the worship of God, either at a naturally sacred place for the deity of that place, or at any specially consecrated place. And very many places have been sanctified by a sAdhu samAdhi, which becomes the focus for devotees of that guru or his/her iSTadevatA.


namaste sarabhanga,
what you say is true. Yet as we know more of the Indian Government is getting involved with the management of the mandirs [some call mandira] then one desires or thinks prudent.

Yet too, there still is the challange of those temples that do not allow non-hindus entry e.g. Guruvayur Temple , Jagganath Temple, etc.

I find this curious at best as these foundations are devalaya, people that enter are visphulinga [sparks of the Divine], yet are seen as different. The Mandir is considered unclean after a non-hindu enters a.k.a pasanda or hypocrite/unbeliver. Yet what would Pasupati think of this non-entry edict? Perhaps this is remains of Brittish rule - this leshavidya, and the bad experiences of that time

I concur, looking for sameness, wholeness (samasta) and that which uplifts is the best and most healthy. This is sreyas. The words may be different yet the core, The Supreme, is not.


pranams,

[sarabhanga]

Namaste Yajvan,

There is no need to view temple entry as a challenge. The vast majority of devamandirANi (“temples”) will allow any interested person. But the occasional exclusion of known (or suspected) hypocrites, heretics, and non-believers, is quite understandable. And pashupatinAtha (in Nepal) is probably the most exclusive of all shaiva mandirs!

[Eastern Mind]

I think this has got a bit off the original topic. Perhaps a new thread is needed. However, I'll add my two bits. As I am a white adoptive, I am immediately 'suspect', when entering temples where my face is not familiar. Even in temples where my face is familiar, there are always the few devotees who stare, and have the aura about them of unwelcoming. I forgive them as having subconscious minds still filled with caste. Of course this varies from temple to temple. I have yet to be banned or kicked out, although one situation could have been interpreted that way. Of course, it helps to have a Hindu name on my driver's license, but I have never actually had to use it. Usually I get into the prostration area quickly enough for the temple manager or priest to figure out the sincerity.
From the temple's point of view, its necessary to be a bit cautious. A temple is a sanctified place, and can lose its sanctity. That's why devotees bathe, and prepare before entering. Allowing tourists, or gawky critics, or even the unclean, (I am the local volunteer gardener at my temple, so I never go in after mowing the lawn or digging dirt, unless it is absolutely necessary. I do stand at the door and call for the manager on occasion, and if invited by the congregation serving prasadam, will go downstairs to partake of prasadam) could allow for that sanctity to take a psychic hit, and then the purification rituals are needed. It is my understanding that that is one of the reasons regular kumbabhishekam's take place: to clean the place up. Here at my local temple, when we have classes come from the local university or college, in their religious studies courses, a briefing is done first on the customs. This includes removing shoes, bathing first, and the menstrual custom. Inquiring minds are welcome, but not to the point where the sanctity of the premises is in jeopardy. Aum Namasivaya

[rcscwc]

And ...

Isha kRSNa was born among the pastoral yAdava clan, and

What?

Krishna was born into royality. He was a kshatriya.

[rcscwc]

We need not be sarcastic to this tactic. This same tactic was used to 'bring' buddha and thus buddhists into the hindu fold.

In fact, as I have stated here before, in our local temple here, a huge statue of buddha sits beside other deities. Who knows if there should be another statue of a 'sadhu' next to his in a few years, perhaps in our lifetime? Yes, I am implying a statue of jesus in a hindu temple.:Cool:
Next you will think of installing a cross. After that a crescent and star of islam. Soon you will think of allowing namaz and mass inside the temples. Sure enough, our temples will become venues of Id and xmas fairs.

No sir, that cannot be permitted. Mind you, no rights of non muslims suffer on this account. Let them first demand an entry. Why are you keen about it?

Temples are not secular places, are they? Should they be? Is kaaba a secular place?

[Kumar_Das]

Jesus is accepted as incarnation of Lord by Gaudias and his original teachings ( unadultrated paulism - Teachings of Jesus with out the label christianity) are conveying the same message as Gita but in at a different level of abstraction and language.

lol comparing apples with oranges. I think the quran would be a better choice.:rolleyes:

[Kumar_Das]

Yes, but that doesn't make us equal to Him. His Avatars are those that are only mentioned in the Texts.

Lord Buddha and Lord Rishabhadeva, the founders of Buddhism and Jainism are Incarnations.

So, major Religions which caused an impact, should be mentioned in Bhagavatam or other Puranas. Obviously, Christianity has made an Impact, but Jesus is not mentioned. Because those Religions are Non-Vedic and Man-Made. Jainism and Buddhism have truths in them, in contrast, albeit an incomplete truth.

Jesus believed in the Abrahamic God who threw stones at Women and Children and killed innocent First Borns. He was no God.

The way to Moksha is through Vishnu. Either you claim Lord Vishnu is supreme, or keep silent on who God is. Lord Buddha and Lord Rishabhadeva chose the latter. But Jesus and the other Prophets did not say Vishnu is supreme or that there exists truth in the Vedas. They believed in the Abrahamic God. So they should not be counted.

The life of Jesus is based on Pagan Myths. There is no proof that he ever did all that was said.

Accepted, every Jivatma is a manifestation of Vishnu. That would mean, Jesus is a normal human like us. In fact, going by the theory of Reincarnation, anyone of you could have been Jesus in a past life.

Since you lot keep claiming incarnations upon incarnations of Vishnu.

Why doesnt Vishnu take an incarnation and defeat all the abrahamic religions and support sanatana dharma?

For 1000 years Bharat Desh was being raped by the muhammadans. We needed the Lord then, where was He?

You say that Buddhism and Jainism were founded by Vishnu taking incarnations. And yet you say that they are incomplete truths.

Does Vishnu leik waste his time. Or it is beyond his capacity as the Preserver, to preserve Dharma from petty humans?

[Kumar_Das]

When Jesus says “I and my Father are One”, he is speaking of his essential nature, his own AtmA.
The spirit of the Son is the same spirit of Father.
Jesus did not say “I and my Father are Two”, or “I and my Father are One and a half”.

Isha kRSNa and iSus (“ray of light”) kRSTis (“teacher”) would both agree that nArAyaNa and nara are one and the same sacred essence. Indeed, naranArAyaNa is another name for kRSNa, and the name of naranArAyaNa is effectively saying exactly the same thing as “I and my Father are One”.


Nara is not the son of Narayana. He is not begotten by Narayana and Lakshmi. So please think before you speak.

[Kumar_Das]

Namaste Saidevo,

Surely the Christian God is Jehovah (i.e. Yaweh, the Tetragrammaton YHVH) who is just as nirguNa and avyakta as the turya AUM.

YHVH (the Father) is equivalent with nirguNa nara, while Jesus (the Son) is equivalent with saguNa nArAyaNa.

haha funny comparing yahweh or allah with nirguna brahman.

this is what Richard Dawkins has to say about the God of the Old Testament, Yahweh.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ovWs8JQN7FE

[Kumar_Das]

Namaste,

Why do you want to restrict it to the Veda? I was talking about the fact that Jesus is not mentioned in puranas as well. In any case,

"The Itihasas and Puranas are the fifth Veda." (Kauthumiya Chandogya Upanisad 7.1.4)

Lord Krishna says in the Bhagavad Gita, 'I am Sama Veda'. So know Krishna, you know Veda.

The Puranas are authentic, written by Vyasa.

When I say 'Scripture', I refer to the Bhagavad Gita and the Puranas as well. The Incarnations are not mentioned in Veda because the object of Veda is to offer details on the Divinity. The Vedas are concerned with hymns for the Devas and the nature of the Brahman.

The purpose of the Puranas is to mention the Pastimes of the Lord, ie, His incarnations.

The Vedas mention that Brahman is Sriman Narayana, anyway. And Krishna was Narayana Incarnate.

Nowhere in the Vedas or Puranas is Jesus mentioned.

You miss my point. My argument is not toward Christians. If they believe in Jesus, it is their faith. My argument is towards Hindus who consider Jesus to be an Incarnation of Krishna.

Hindus follow Bhagavad Gita. The Charama Sloka in Gita says, 'Abandoning all Religions (Dharmas), Surrender to Me alone. I will release you from all Sins. Do not fear.'

So, Christians can believe in Jesus. Not Hindus. The reason is this - The bible may contain some vedic truths. That doesn't mean it is Veda. the reason it contains truths is because the Veda has covered all possible truths. Even if a new religion is fabricated by man, most likely the truth may be in the Veda as well. But it was ordained for Christians by Krishna Himself. Not for Krishna Devotees.




I do not believe Shiva is the way to Moksha. If others believe it, fine. You don't understand my point - I am saying, do not consider Jesus an incarnation of Vishnu. It is against Vaishnava Theology. If you want to worship Jesus, be a Christian. If you want to worship Krishna, be a Vaishnava. Do not be a Christianized Vaishnava.

I have no argument against those who claim Shiva is superior to Vishnu. Although I do not believe it, they are also following Vedic Scripture, so that is their interpretation. My interpretation is that Vishnu is Supreme. So, that is not my problem.

My argument is against those who believe that Jesus is Krishna. If they believe Shiva is supreme, I don't care. Just don't equate Vishnu with an Abrahamic God. Undoubtedly, the Abrahamic Religions derive from Veda, but they do not become Vedic simply because of that.

Jesus is for those who follow the Bible, or the Koran. Not for those who strictly adhere to the teachings of Krishna. Vaishnavas should adhere to the Bhagavatam and the Bhagavatam has given the names of the major Avatars.



Again, I am not targeting Christians. Only those believers of Vishnu who also claim that Jesus is Krishna.



I have no problem if people regard Mahadeva Shiva as God, for I respect Rudra very much. I just do not consider him as God, according to my Sampradaya's Vedic Interpretations.

Doesn't mean Brahman is Incorporeal or Nameless. It means that His form and names are beyond all Material Imperfections. His Body is completely aloof from Material Conceptions, hence Materially incorporeal. The Vedas clearly say Brahman is Sriman Narayana and if you want, I can provide the verse. That itself is a name, isn't it? Then how come He is nameless?

Yes, He can exist as a formless entity, because He is capable of anything. But His true form is Personal and Transcendental.

The Vedas are Mystic Sciences. We cannot take them literally.

He has plenty of transcendental names. The Vishnu Sahasranama gives a 1000 of them.

His body, the four armed One with the Lotus, Chakra, Conch and Mace is transcendental. It is not a material body because He has no feelings that we have.



Shiva here does not mean Mahadeva Shiva. The term Shiva means 'Auspicious'. Hence, it means the Self is eternally auspicious.

Vishnu means all-pervading, a term given only to Sriman Narayana. Hence, Sriman Narayana is Vishnu and He is Siva (auspicious), but Mahadeva Siva is not Vishnu.

In fact, Brahman, called Sriman Narayana, is also called 'Siva' in the Vishnu Sahasranama. Siva is His name because He is the most auspicious of all. The Mahadeva Shiva has named himself after the Brahman.

Mahadeva has names like Siva, Rudra, etc. But they are not his unique names. Narayana and Vishnu are unique names. And applied only to Brahman.

In the words of Srila Prabhupada, Vishnu is like Milk and Shiva is like Yoghurt. Milk can become Yoghurt, and Milk is the originator of Yoghurt. But Yoghurt, although having some Milky properties, cannot become Milk.

That is why Krishna says in the Bhagavad Gita, 'I am Sankara'. But Sankara does not say, 'I am Krishna'.

Shiva is Auspicious, because He is the Purifier. Not Vishnu.

Shiva = Sambhu.

You cant mix it in anyway you want.

Srila Prabhupada is making his own analogies, which have no authority from the scriptures.

Yoghurt is fermented milk. So it means your Vishnu is susceptible to change, decay. To which he himself cannot reverse back himself to. So that means domination of Shiva is inevitable, to which Vishnu cannot save himself from.

Genius!

[yajvan]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namasté

If you are awaiting sarabhanga's reply - it will not come. Sarabhanga was one of our Sr. members and chose to leave HDF some time back. We are a lesser group for not having his company. He was very insightful and knew the śāstra-s quiet well. When he spoke I listened, and learned.

We have yet to replace him in knowledge and quality. Perhaps with some blessing he will return.


http://www.sarabhanga.com/gaumukha.jpg

praṇām

[Sahasranama]

One thing that strikes me odd with ISCKON is that they totaly support you when you believe Jesus is the same as Krishna, but completely bash you when you say Vishnu is the same as Shiva.

[Kumar_Das]

I am not quite sure how yahweh or even allah for that matter is anything remotely similar to nirguna brahman.

Im not sure muhammadans would be ecstatic of the idea of interpreting allah as the atman from the quran.

[Eastern Mind]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namasté

If you are awaiting sarabhanga's reply - it will not come. Sarabhanga was one of our Sr. members and chose to leave HDF some time back. We are a lesser group for not having his company. He was very insightful and knew the śāstra-s quiet well. When he spoke I listened, and learned.

We have yet to replace him in knowledge and quality. Perhaps with some blessing he will return.


praṇām

Vannakkam Kumar Das et al: Just to add to Yajvan's post, if you look at the post date, it gives you an idea. Also in the Member's list, it will show you the last time any particular member logged on. Having said that, there is no harm in reviving older threads if you have something new to add, but as Yajvan said re Sarabhanga, it may be pointless to address a particular member.

I wasn't here long enough to get a real feel for Sarabhanga, but I do miss Devotee's insight.

Aum Namasivaya

[Believer]

One thing that strikes me odd with ISCKON is that they totaly support you when you believe Jesus is the same as Krishna, but .....

Any Indian swami coming to the West cannot ignore Jesus and has to equate him to Krishna, else very few will follow him. I guess totally erasing the memory of Jesus and embracing another philosophy must be very very hard for a new devotee, and the the swamis have to play the old "by hook or by crook" :) game.

[Riverwolf]

I do believe that Jesus was an avatar, and taught the Dharma as it was needed then and there. But his teachings quickly became corrupted into parochialism and moral absolutism. (Most likely started by the Paul.) Therefore, it seems as if there aren't many who actually follow his teachings.

But, as far as I'm concerned, the Sermon on the Mount is an upanishad.

I wouldn't however, say that the teachings of Jesus are entirely identical with the teachings in the Bhagavad-Gita. The latter is a summary of the Vedanta with an emphasis on three Yoga paths. Jesus only taught one such path: Bhakti. "Love God with all your heart and soul, and love your enemy as your neighbor. That sums up the Law (Torah) and the Prophets." Jesus also taught Bhakti from a Jewish perspective, which would naturally have differences, even if the final essence is the same. However, the biggest difference is that Jesus also had apocalyptic teachings; no such teachings are taught to be immanent in Hindu Scriptures, at least to my knowledge.

OTOH, I don't believe that Jesus was an avatar in the same way that Krishna was. Krishna was a full avatar of Vishnu, having all His knowledge and powers from birth. Jesus had to earn them in the same way that the Buddha did: a confrontation with the Tempter.

[Eastern Mind]

Any Indian swami coming to the West cannot ignore Jesus and has to equate him to Krishna, else very few will follow him. I guess totally erasing the memory of Jesus and embracing another philosophy must be very very hard for a new devotee, and the the swamis have to play the old "by hook or by crook" :) game.

Vannakkam: Not all. Some stand up.

http://www.slideshare.net/swamijyoti/conversion-is-violence-swami-dayananda

Thank goodness. Aum Namasivaya

[Sahasranama]

Any Indian swami coming to the West cannot ignore Jesus and has to equate him to Krishna, else very few will follow him. I guess totally erasing the memory of Jesus and embracing another philosophy must be very very hard for a new devotee, and the the swamis have to play the old "by hook or by crook" :) game.

Yes, it's very opportunistic.


Vannakkam: Not all. Some stand up.

http://www.slideshare.net/swamijyoti/conversion-is-violence-swami-dayananda

Thank goodness. Aum Namasivaya

He is a honest person, Swami Dayananda, not to be confused with Swami Dayananda, the founder of the Arya Samaja though. Tanks for the link, it's a good read. I have been reading a commentary on the Shatarudriya by the same Swami Dayananda.

[rcscwc]

Jesus is accepted as incarnation of Lord by Gaudias and his original teachings ( unadultrated paulism - Teachings of Jesus with out the label christianity) are conveying the same message as Gita but in at a different level of abstraction and language.
Teachings of Jesus? Where are they? There is a dispute.

Paul? Not all xians are easy with him.

Gaudiya have Jesus as incarnation of Vishnu? Since when? Gadiyas follow Gaudapada, 500 CE or so, preceding Shankar. He nowhere talks of Jesus.

[rcscwc]

Yes, it's very opportunistic.




Maybe. That is what the xian missionaries try to do in India. Chrina, Christina etc. Trying to identify Krishna with christ.

[rcscwc]

Nara is not the son of Narayana. He is not begotten by Narayana and Lakshmi. So please think before you speak.
That he cannot do.

[rcscwc]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namasté

If you are awaiting sarabhanga's reply - it will not come. Sarabhanga was one of our Sr. members and chose to leave HDF some time back. We are a lesser group for not having his company. He was very insightful and knew the śāstra-s quiet well. When he spoke I listened, and learned.

We have yet to replace him in knowledge and quality. Perhaps with some blessing he will return.




praṇām
Company? Or you mean comedy?

[rcscwc]

One thing that strikes me odd with ISCKON is that they totaly support you when you believe Jesus is the same as Krishna, but completely bash you when you say Vishnu is the same as Shiva.
They have adopted all the tricks of the xian missionaries, and making a headway too. Hence they are despised and condemned a lot by the xians. But they still are Hindus, who will never substitute Krishna with with christ.

[yajvan]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namasté


Company? Or you mean comedy?

perhaps you can explain , as I do not comprehend your post.

thank you,

[Adhvagat]

One thing that strikes me odd with ISCKON is that they totaly support you when you believe Jesus is the same as Krishna, but completely bash you when you say Vishnu is the same as Shiva.

Hello Sahsranama.

As a person who got in touch with Sanatana Dharma through ISKCON I must say that I've never heard anything remotely close to comparing Jesus to Krishna.

Of course it's easy to perceive the euphemism used when people inquire about Jesus.

The general consensus about Jesus within ISKCON gurus is that he was a Shaktyavesha Avatar. However, researching about this specific type of Avatar I got names like Brahma, Ananta, Parashurama, so I'm not sure this would be the best classification.

Sarabhanga view on the story of the Bible makes things quite clear for me (just like when I started to first assimilate the teaching of the vedas, Jesus messages became clearer as well).


Namaste Satay,

Temples are established for the worship of God, either at a naturally sacred place for the deity of that place, or at any specially consecrated place. And very many places have been sanctified by a sAdhu samAdhi, which becomes the focus for devotees of that guru or his/her iSTadevatA.

Devotees of the enlightened teacher known as Jesus are essentially the same as devotees of any hindu guru, who is considered as a veritable God by his/her own followers. And, just as there is no need to install particular images of every sAdhu shAnta who has attained samAdhi (and thus realized the identity of nara-nArAyaNa, which is the realization of their own jIvAtmA with the one paramAtmA), there is no need to install particular images of Jesus in hindu temples.

Jesus Christ (iSu kRSTis) is a personification of Isha kRSNa, naranArAyaNa, the nArAyaNa and the kAlanara, and the avadhUta dattatreya, so there are appropriate icons already installed in Hindu temples. And anyone who wants to recall the triple crucifixion on “skull rock” only needs to apply the tripuNDra.

Also note that Nazareth is the yoni, Bethlehem (the “house of bread”) is the navel, and the “twin city” of Yerushalayim (Yeru-Shalem) is the two-petalled AjñAcakra (the “control centre”, the ancient hub of command and local authority). And the life of Jesus is a tale of yoga sAdhana and final samAdhi, which does not require any particular geographical location or historical figure.

nara = shiva (Jehovah) = shani = sattva
nArAyaNa = iSu (Jesus) = savitR = rajas
nAra = yudha (Judas) = shukra = tamas

Three characters are required to complete the drama, but in truth there is only One.

Sarabhanga also touched an interesting point, about the similarities with the Bible's last chapter and the Vedas. As a matter of fact the Bible's Revelations is incredibly similar to the 12nd canto of Srimad Bhagavatam. I couldn't believe it when I actually stopped to read the Revelations, all I could think is that I was reading the Bhagavatam narration of Kalki's arrival at the end of Kali-yuga.

Still I'm not sure the Bible is a worthy object of spiritual discussion after having passed through so many adulterations and a lack of a proper parampara. It's actually a miracle that anything dharmic in it could have survived this initial dark part of Kali-yuga and it indeed proves that only truth prevails. Therefore, I guess we can't do much more than speculate given the material we have now.

[atmarama108]

Hare Krsna!

According to Srila Prabhupada, Jesus is the son of God, Krsna is God. Simple story :) Jesus is accepted as a shaktyavesa avatar (specially impowered jiva), as is Srila Prabhupada by many authorities including his godbrother Srila Bhakti Raksaka Sridhar Swami Maharaja.

Nitai Gaura Premanande! Hari hari bol!

[Kumar_Das]

Sarabhanga also touched an interesting point, about the similarities with the Bible's last chapter and the Vedas. As a matter of fact the Bible's Revelations is incredibly similar to the 12nd canto of Srimad Bhagavatam. I couldn't believe it when I actually stopped to read the Revelations, all I could think is that I was reading the Bhagavatam narration of Kalki's arrival at the end of Kali-yuga.

Still I'm not sure the Bible is a worthy object of spiritual discussion after having passed through so many adulterations and a lack of a proper parampara. It's actually a miracle that anything dharmic in it could have survived this initial dark part of Kali-yuga and it indeed proves that only truth prevails. Therefore, I guess we can't do much more than speculate given the material we have now.

So either "Revelations" came first or the Bhagavata came first.

Which ever came first would be the more trustworthier one. Whichever text preceeds in date would be the original one, and therefore whatever comes after it would be derived from it and not vice versa. Common sense says so. Unless you are a Muslim, in which case your logic would be lop-sided. (Quran is absolutely right and authentic and the original whereas the Torah and Bible are not, even though it itself comes after them and derives its material from them)

So either you believe Semitic "Prophets" are God's chosen. And sneaky Brahmins were copy-cats that stole from it and made up their own fancy tales.(haha :rolleyes: )

I'll let you to figure that out. Because "chosen" Brahmin Sages, were never one coming after another, establishing their own competing religions.:cool1:

Rather one religion all the way through, just different concepts and philosophy due to interpretation of scriptures.

Furthermore we don't have a single imageless God that whines at us.

We have multiple Gods and Goddesses with forms. And various sects centred around them. Which makes it all the more likely for us to fight and hate each other. Furtherstill is that we are either Monists or Monotheists within these individual sects.

Why are Jews - Jews, Christians - Christians, Muslims - Muslims. If they all worship the same "God" and have strongly same concepts regarding this "God"?

Because of scriptures? And prophets?

So if its the one same God, how something apart from God like scriptures and prophets can allow for difference? You'd think that God's scriptures and Prophets who were meant by him, wouldn't cause divisions and distinctions, right?

Who here are the real idolators then? If One God all the same, you should not be having any problems to call yourselves as the same religion right?

I'm glad that Shri Krishna isn't a Joker who has one after another Puranas being dedicated to Him, where He whines about the previous ones becoming corrupted.:o

I find it funny when Muslims think it looks good on them when they debate and defeat Christians or Jews or its a victory for them when Christians or Jews convert to Islam. Its from the same damn "God", same scriptures and prophets that you Muslims yourselves claim. It was your God and your religion that was a failure in the first place! Such retardedness can only be seen by Abrahamics.


We just have one Vedas. Divided neatly into Rig(praising Devas), Yajur(ritual formulae), Sama(melodious), Atharva and the Upanishads(exclusively about Brahman).

Not mutually seperate, "Torah", "Pslams", "Gospel" and later a mish-mash bundled as "Quran" that denounces all before it yet includes parts of them within it.

Or that the Mahabharata is what its worth, original, authentic, flawless, most profound and the contains the most spiritual knowledge. Therefore the central deity, Krishna, who is an incarnation of Vishnu in there is later spoken about in a Purana dedicated solely to him elaborating further about his incarnation.

And not only that but giving information about religion, philosophy-theology, science and prophecy regarding the status of the world.

All these being more complicated and relevant and explicit than some vague mumblings thats hard to decipher and make any sense of.

[Believer]

Hare Krsna!

According to Srila Prabhupada, Jesus is the son of God, Krsna is God. Simple story :) Jesus is accepted as a shaktyavesa avatar (specially impowered jiva), as is Srila Prabhupada by many authorities including his godbrother Srila Bhakti Raksaka Sridhar Swami Maharaja.

Many Christians who walk into a Hindu/Sanatan Dharma/ISKCON temple, want to leave one foot in their original faith; for whatever reason. Now the Swamis who come to the West must deal with this infantile need in order to introduce the 'lost souls' to the Sanatan Dharma without challenging their first & foremost allegiance to JC. This is interpreted by the Westerners as an acceptance by 'their master' of the divinity of JC, and of JC being a valid entity in the context of Sanatan Dharma/Hinduism. Nothing could be farther from the truth. The Swamis do it so as to introduce you to Sanatan Dharma gently, without shaking the core of your existence at the get go; hoping that in time you will grow spiritually and let go of your attachment to what you term as 'Simple Story'. How much you still cling to JC, just shows how little you have progressed on the spiritual path shown to you by these selfless Acharyas.

Specially empowered souls also make statements that they really don't mean in order to get over the bumps in the road. An example would be Srila Praphupad denying that ISKCON was part of Hinduism and then retracting when an Indian journalist put that in print. Sometimes words are used by Acharayas to sweep the pebbles off the rocky road to spirituality. It is done simply to prevent the disciples from getting distracted from their sadhana. I have the utmost respect for all our Acharyas, including Srila Praphupad and Srila Sridhar Maharaj. So, in future, please keep the Acharyas out of mundane discussions; Otherwise challenging your statement would mean being disrespectful to the Acharyas, which is NOT my intent. Argue topics on their own merit without hiding behind some off the cuff 'Simple Stories' concocted by someone to smooth out your road to bhakti. It is your inability to purge JC out of your mind and to whole heartedly accept Krishna which comes through in your post. It is 'your' interpretation of your master's statement which you choose to skew, to suit your thinking which gives credence to JC in the context of Hinduism. So, why would you bring Srila Praphupad into the picture to bat for you?

[Adhvagat]

So either "Revelations" came first or the Bhagavata came first.

Which ever came first would be the more trustworthier one. Whichever text preceeds in date would be the original one, and therefore whatever comes after it would be derived from it and not vice versa. Common sense says so. Unless you are a Muslim, in which case your logic would be lop-sided. (Quran is absolutely right and authentic and the original whereas the Torah and Bible are not, even though it itself comes after them and derives its material from them)

So either you believe Semitic "Prophets" are God's chosen. And sneaky Brahmins were copy-cats that stole from it and made up their own fancy tales.(haha :rolleyes: )

I'll let you to figure that out. Because "chosen" Brahmin Sages, were never one coming after another, establishing their own competing religions.:cool1:

Kumar, I wasn't trying to saying who copied who.

When I'm in doubt about these things I tend to have an analytical view and question myself.

Considering the Vedas speak with great property about very elevated spiritual concepts and considering its lineage, it wouldn't even be logical to conclude that sages would copy from the Bible.

And now considering the forming grounds of the Bible, lack of lineage, history of catholicism, the Bible has very little credibility on its own and so my previous conclusion stands.

I was merely pointing at the fact that the Bible borrowed (if we say politely) content from the Bhagavatam. And all I wanna know is when and why...

:)

Om Tat Sat

[hrdayananda]

Please give me ONE Citation from the Vedas or Shastras that hint Jesus to be an avatar.

As for my point, How about the Bhagavad Gita for starters? Does Krishna mention anywhere that Salvation can be gained by any other God?

There is no need for Vedic Citation, because Jesus is not mentioned in the Vedas. If you believe Shiva is the way to Moskha, good, because Shiva is named in the Vedas. If it is through Devi, fine. My only problem is how Hindus attempt to absorb Abrahamic Faiths into their culture.


It sadens me to see such limited insight on the part of a hindu.

Why do you get entangled in mere words? Do you know an objective, factual "thing" called Shiva or Devi? Those are mere words, just like Allah or Yahweh. It does not matter what the name of that which you are worshiping is, what only matters is what/whom is that name pointing to.

Also, you people should read the New Testament before making harsh comments about what christianity really reffers to. If you continue to judge a religion by those that are supposed to represent it, you will never arrive at a true conclusion, just as a christian will never arrive at a thorough understanding of hinduism by judging it from the point of view of the Nityananda scandal or the crore of fake hindu "gurus" and self-proclaimed god-men out there. Someone has to read the texts that define a religion before he can take conclusions about it. Please do not become like the christian fanatics, getting cocky and saying "only we know the truth, the rest shall be doomed". It is just infantile... I'm sorry if I have offended anyone, it's just dissapointing to come here, only to find exactly what I wasn't expecting...

[Eastern Mind]

Why do you get entangled in mere words?

Also, you people should read the New Testament before making harsh comments about what christianity really reffers to.

Vannakkam hrdayananda: Firstly, I believe than no word is a 'mere' word. Words represent concepts and come with emotional and spiritual overtones that cannot be put into words. You have the freedom to differ.

As far as the New Testament goes, I understand your background is Christian, and therefore it is natural for you to say this. But to suggest 'you people' is a massive overgeneralisation, IMHO. There is a mixed lot on HDF. We represent many distant corners of Hinduism, some quaint, some mainstream etc. Suggesting we all should read the New Testament is akin to suggesting we all should listen to the Beatles, or some new American band or for that matter Romanian band. For some of us, the New Testament is as irrelevant to us as the Thirumanthiram might be to Christians.

Might I suggest you read through many of the threads here, and then decide if you can refer to us as 'you people' . Otherwise it is much like the pot calling the kettle black. Having said that, iI'd like to know more about you.

Are there any temples of SD in Romania?
What similarities do you see between the Roma and Hindus?
Which particular aspects (bhakti, philosophy, gurus, ethics?) drew you to Hinduism.

Best wishes.

Aum Namasivaya

[hrdayananda]

1. Words represent concepts and come with emotional and spiritual overtones that cannot be put into words.

You just reinforced what I just said. Words are not realities, they are mere concepts that cannot define what they are pointing to, especially in the case of Shiva, Devi or Yahweh. All those concepts are vary vague, to say the least.

2. Suggesting we all should read the New Testament is akin to suggesting we all should listen to the Beatles, or some new American band or for that matter Romanian band. For some of us, the New Testament is as irrelevant to us as the Thirumanthiram might be to Christians.

By you people I meant those people that try to make it sound like some horrible and idiotic philosophy. I am not implying that your whole forum should read the New Testament, I am only implying that it is normal and logical to first get a thourough understanding of something before being so harsh about it and trashing it all around... I have done the same thing with hinduism while I was a christian. Knowing almost nothing about it, I took the liberty of trashing it and considering it an inferior religion. Why? Based on what I "heard" about it, not based on my own study of it.

3. There are no hindu temples in Romania. The inhabitants of Romania are called romanians, the Rroma people being a different people, that trace their origin to India. The romanians trace their origin to the ancient trachs and dacians, and to the romans, since Dacia was conquered by Rome some 1900 years ago.

Personally, I am more attracted to the Advaita philosophy than the ritualistic part of hinduism, although I am very interested in that also, from the point of view of symbolism, as I believe the Vedas (the Samhitas that is) are not mere ritual books and naturalistic worship hymns, but have a deep symbolism to them.

Again, I didn't mean to offend anyone and I am sorry for using the words "you, people". I can now sense that it came from a bad emotion. I guess I was just a little angered because I knew I was the same way once and that didn't help me in any way.

Thank you for your reply.

[Adhvagat]

Hrdaya, this forum is teaching me a lot of things, it's so much information I got lost. I try to favorite the best posts and read a lot but now I'm going to have to start organizing things into topics and interests and attaching posts links to each of them.

You said this:


1. Words represent concepts and come with emotional and spiritual overtones that cannot be put into words.

You just reinforced what I just said. Words are not realities, they are mere concepts that cannot define what they are pointing to, especially in the case of Shiva, Devi or Yahweh. All those concepts are vary vague, to say the least.

One thing that I got in touch because of this forum was about the meaning contained in these sanskrit names. Yajvan made some posts about this.

The other is the concept that the sound is not just mere material movement, but a way to affect akasha (the most subtle element) and therefore our subtle body.

I don't have many links to offer right now I'd have to gather them. Perhaps EM and Yajvan could chime in talk about this because I guess most posts I read about this was theirs.

Om Tat Sat

[Eastern Mind]

Vannakkam hrdayanada: Thanks for the clarification on Romania versus Rroma. I learned something I didn't know before. I always just figured Romania was tied to Roma, but obviously I was wrong.

My the 'mere' in words. I understood you to mean that words don't count as in it was merely a butterfly. (next to nothing) My point was simply that words count - immensely. Besides the intricate communication involved by great psychic means used by great seers and mystics, words are all we ordinary folk have left, especially on such places as HDF. In person, there is more. Sorry if I don't understand what you are saying.

For myself and some other, rituals are far more than symbolic; indeed they are another method of communication or at least opening channels to mystic communication, but than my version of SD leans toward that and I'm more or less in a minority.

So have you ever been out of Romania to a Hindu temple, and which Advaita authors do you enjoy reading?

Aum Namasivaya

[hrdayananda]

Thank you Pietro and Eastern_Mind for your replies. The problem I have with words being more than sounds is that one word in Sanskrit will have a different meaning in Romanian, thus I can't really accept the "magical" side of words. Maybe I need more clarification about that. I am sure I will find more threads regarding this issue in your forum.

I've never been out of Romania yet, though I plan on visiting India next year. I enjoy reading Ramana Maharshi, but most of all the works of Shri Adi Shankaracharya (Viveka Chudamani, Upadesha Sahasri, and currently studying the Brahma Sutra Bhashya) and the Yoga Vasishtha. Also, my favourite book on Advaita is Tripura Rahasya, which, IMHO, is brilliant and has answered most of my questions one by one.

[Adhvagat]

Recently I was thinking about the organs of action and the origins of actions themselves.

I was reading an article about the 36 Tattvas of Kashmir Shaivism and one of the items was this one:


Levels of speech

Speech is considered in Kashmir Shaivism to exist on multiple levels, but only the exterior (or spoken) speech is expressed through vak tattva. The full scale of speech is as follows:

vaikharī vāk - spoken word, exterior
madhyamā vāk - mental speech, interior
paśiantī vāk - pure intentionality, pre-speech
pārāvak - identical to the nature of the Spirit

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_36_tattvas

If we consider sanskrit as a language very close to this spiritual truth, we can consider the words are very close manifestations of their original intetionality (I just loved this word :)). If not, mantras wouldn't be effective, and as EM mentioned in another thread, the mantra is not just about its meaning, which resides in an intellectual level, but about its spiritual level. Considering akasha is the subtlest of elements and sounds vibrates through it, it's through this vibration we get into contact with our own spirituality.

What about other languages? Well, the key to the effectiveness of a sound would be intentionality. Which is manifested in different forms of vibration. I think one example would be a warm "aaah..." a mother says to a child and a shouted "aaah!" one may give to someone bothering him. Same sound, different vibration.

However, I lack the knowledge to clarify and exemplify how everything in this universe is made out of vibrations. But I read great threads about it in the Science and Religion and Uttara areas of this forum.

Om Tat Sat

[SonAnthony]

[QUOTE=Sri Vaishnava;17693]

Lord Buddha though, was an avatar not only because of His philosophy (which, on closer inspection, ties with the message of Lord Krishna), but also because He used the concepts of Dharma and Karma, as well as deriving from Vedic Texts.

I thought Buddhists disregard Vedic texts?

[hinduism♥krishna]

[QUOTE=Sri Vaishnava;17693]

Lord Buddha though, was an avatar not only because of His philosophy (which, on closer inspection, ties with the message of Lord Krishna), but also because He used the concepts of Dharma and Karma, as well as deriving from Vedic Texts.

I thought Buddhists disregard Vedic texts?

Namaste, In true sense lord buddh never disregarded veda. He taught vedic knowledge with different way. He said ' vedas are not completely authentic.They are interpolated ' He never denied supremacy of veda. He negated atma. Here atma means jiva, a material consiousness created by intellect and mind. After negating these what remains is the flow of bliss .I think he never used a vedic word bramhan.