PDA

View Full Version : Lord Shiva and Lord Vishnu - Who is Supreme?



ScottMalaysia
05 May 2009, 01:23 PM
For the past 7 months, I have seen myself as a Vaishnava, believing that Lord Krishna is the Supreme Lord. However, I have recently found myself drawn back towards Saivism, or mainly the worship of Lord Ganesha.

As a Vaishnava, I read a lot of info on how Lord Krishna was the Supreme and how the other devas were His subordinates. There are a lot of Scriptural quotes to "show" that Lord Krishna/Vishnu is the Supreme Lord. How do Saivites explain these Scripture verses?

Evidence for Lord Krishna's Supremacy

Shruti
Rig Veda 1:22:20 "The princes evermore behold that loftiest place where Viṣṇu is,Laid as it were an eye in heaven."

Rig Veda 10:82:6 "The waters verily first retained the embryo in which all the gods were aggregated, single deposited on the navel of the unborn (creator), in which all beings abide. The reference to the navel of the unborn is an indication of reference to Vishnu."

Katha Upanishad 1:3:9 "A man who has discrimination for his charioteer and holds the reins of the mind firmly, reaches the end of the road; and that is the supreme position of Vishnu."

"Agni is the lowest and Vishnu is the highest among devas. All other gods occupy positions that are in between." (Aitareya Brahmana 1.1.1)

Vishnu is the best of all gods. Brahma and the rest are dependent onHim. Whatever I [Lord Krsna] state is the truth.( 3.28.62-63 Garuda Purana)

Maha Upanisad: I-1-4. Then we shall expound the Mahopanishad. They say Narayana was alone. There were not Brahma, Shiva, Waters, Fire and Soma, Heaven and Earth, Stars, Sun and Moon. He could not be happy

Narayana Upanisad: Narayana desired to create people. Because of this thought, Soul (prana) rose from him. Mind and all body parts, sky, air, light, water and the earth which can carry all these created beings took their form. From Narayana, Brahma was born. From Narayana, Rudra (Shiva) was born. From Narayana, Indra was born .From Narayana those people who rule these human beings were born. From Narayana, the twelve suns, eleven Rudras, Eight Vasus and all those meters (for writing) were born. All these function because of Narayana. All these end in Narayana. Thus is read, the Upanishads of Rig Veda.

tam isvaranam paramam mahesvaramtam daivatanam paramam ca daivatampatim patinam paramam parastadvidama devam bhuvanesam idyam

"You are the Lord of all other controllers such as Brahma and Siva. You are the Lord of all the devatas such as Indra. You are the Lord of all the prajapatis. You are superior to the supreme. We know you as the ultimate object of all prayers and eulogies; the Supreme Personality who is keen on performing wonderful pastimes" (Svetasvatara Upanisad 6.7)

These quotes are all from the Upanishads, which are part of the Vedas. Shruti is the only authority in a debate, so these are references from the Shruti.

Smriti:
The Bhagavad Gita (all of it)
The Brahma-Samhita (all of it that is available to us today).

The Vaishnavas also claim the Bhagavad-Gita to be evidence for Lord Krishna's supremacy - 10:2 for example "I am the source of the Devas". They claim that it is the best because it was spoken directly by the Lord Himself. Does anyone have a good Saivite explanation of the Bhagavad-Gita?

Vaishnavas also try to claim that the Srimad-Bhagavatam is better than the Vedas in this age as that is its intention. They present the following evidence:
http://www.gosai.com/dvaita/madhvacarya/srimad-bhagavatam.html

Evidence of Shiva's Supremacy

The Shiva Purana
The Shiva Gita from the Padma Purana
The following verses from the Srimad-Bhagavatam (emphasis mine):

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

SB 4.6.43: My dear lord, you create this cosmic manifestation, maintain it, and annihilate it by expansion of your personality, exactly as a spider creates, maintains and winds up its web.

SB 4.6.44: My dear lord, Your Lordship has introduced the system of sacrifices through the agency of Dakṣa, and thus one may derive the benefits of religious activities and economic development. Under your regulative principles, the institution of the four varṇas and āśramas is respected. The brāhmaṇas therefore vow to follow this system strictly.

SB 4.6.45: O most auspicious lord, you have ordained the heavenly planets, the spiritual Vaikuṇṭha planets and the impersonal Brahman sphere as the respective destinations of the performers of auspicious activities. Similarly, for others, who are miscreants, you have destined different kinds of hells which are horrible and ghastly. Yet sometimes it is found that their destinations are just the opposite. It is very difficult to ascertain the cause of this.

SB 4.6.46: My dear Lord, devotees who have fully dedicated their lives unto your lotus feet certainly observe your presence as Paramātmā in each and every being, and as such they do not differentiate between one living being and another. Such persons treat all living entities equally. They never become overwhelmed by anger like animals, who can see nothing without differentiation.

Eastern Mind
05 May 2009, 04:45 PM
Neither. Your inner argument is a microcosm of the outer argument that continues hither thither in the realm of intellect up and down round and round in discussion places like this. I don't envy you, and this flip flop. Maybe a pilgrimage to Chidambaram, then Tirupati. Immediately one argues: "But to which shrine should I reserve the specialness of going first .. or last to?"

I think my point is thus: It'll never be resolved until sufficient non-intellectual experience makes it blatantly obvious - for you.

Good luck.

Aum Namasivaya

ScottMalaysia
05 May 2009, 08:07 PM
Neither. Your inner argument is a microcosm of the outer argument that continues hither thither in the realm of intellect up and down round and round in discussion places like this. I don't envy you, and this flip flop. Maybe a pilgrimage to Chidambaram, then Tirupati. Immediately one argues: "But to which shrine should I reserve the specialness of going first .. or last to?"

I think my point is thus: It'll never be resolved until sufficient non-intellectual experience makes it blatantly obvious - for you.

Good luck.

Aum Namasivaya

So from your post I am to understand that both of them are supreme, as they are just different faces or different forms of God?

Eastern Mind
05 May 2009, 08:47 PM
Not just both are supreme.. its the same God. Remember, Hinduism is monotheistic at the deeper levels. But I reiterate.. whatever works for you..
Aum Namasivaya

shian
05 May 2009, 08:54 PM
why you use word God ? are this word from Shastra ?
why not use Shiva or Narayana or Krishna ?

so many scriptures said this name is higest and that name is lower, in this world not only Shiva and Narayana name have doubt...

in Devi Baghavantam, Brahma, Shiva and Vishnu is create by Devi Mata

in Tara praises said Brahma, Indra etc bow to Tara Baghavati with Their crown

So who is highest ? Brahma, Vishnu, Siva , Shakti, Buddha, Jesus , Allah etc ??

we need to think again why peoples need religion ? why Rshis teaching the Dharma ?

is for get Shanti in beings mind, to destroy rakshasa in our mind, to attain supreme peace , and not to dispute the word or the name.

so, if we remember this, we will understand what is higest and what is lowest , even the theory of high and low Deity will not appear in our mind.

the depressed and confused about who is higest and lower is because we not touch God Heart.

one product of attachment in who is higest and lowest is religion violence !

please think deeply, even someone have who is high and low Deitys, are they truly life in God ? or only make the name of Shiva or name of Krishna become her / his other EGO name.

dera2
06 May 2009, 01:24 AM
It seems to me that the scriptures have built in mechanism to draw out our instinctive fellings/beliefs/acts and push the mind to purer and purer states. It is the Child within which raises and seeks such questions to get satisfaction and feeling of strength. But what happens is just the reverse.

Seeking support in imaginary supremacy, the mind becomes weaker and weaker, until the truth of shiva - the beneficial atman and vishnu -- the same atman which is nowhere absent, being the same is known.

Pranam to all.

simex
06 May 2009, 03:39 PM
Who would win in a fight, a minotaur with a battle axe, or a centaur with a crossbow?

shian
07 May 2009, 12:07 AM
Om Mahamahesvaraye Svaha Om Narayanaya Svaha

i understand, maybe some people think he/she need to know what form God use in first of creation. Or what form the Supreme God.

Let's we think

every form in shastra and painting or sclupture no one can prefectly describe God !

all is original
when you think God is like Mother when create us or in this universe, so God will appear in Mother form !

so what form ? is form or formless ??

Arya Avalokitesvara (Manifestasion of Universe compassion, heart of Mahesvara and Narayana and all Buddhas) said :

"Iha Sariputra, rupam sunyatam, sunyata iva rupam rupa na vrtta sunyata, sunyataya na vrtta sa-rupam
yad rupam sa-sunyata ya sunyata sa-rupam"

form is formless , formless is form, please think deeply

maybe some peoples said : "Krishna" or "Christ" is original form.

ok , can someone describe to me about Krishna or Christ form ???

even from shastra, if we read in Shsatra about Krishna form, we will have different vizualization in our mind !!! no one is same ! think it!

are Krishna is like painting from AAA or like painting form BBB ???
or like this sclupture ? that sclupture ?
or like vizualisation in mind of this Guru and that Guru ?

can one describe perfectly the taste of Mango ???

even one wordly colour , two peoples will have different description.
and what about GREAT GOD ?

so what the important ? debating the form or name from God ?
you will use your limited life time to debating form and name of God ?

oh i cant imagine

kd gupta
10 May 2009, 03:09 AM
Eko brahma dwativo nasti [ parmatma is one and only one , above all say brahma ,vishnu and mahesh ] He is mahavishnu see the vedmantra...
pra thadwochretmitam nu vidwahgandharvo dham vibhmratam guha sat . Treen padan nihita guhasya yastani ved sah pitu pitasat.
He is only to be prayed , as SAKAR or NIRAKAR one

izi
11 May 2009, 11:34 PM
I sometimes think of Krsna as a voice for parabrahman, that he is able to do this, his unique ability is accessing originality.

So I don't think it's a matter of Krsna or Siva, in fact it's just looking inside and finding out the truth that will answer your question.

Both are truly good - but you see here..if we are speaking of totality, is there even a two to speak of? No. Siva and Krsna is an illusion because it is separate...so think in one-ness (not in some silly new age term either) but as say, a Pythagorean monad state....always works for me.

Krsna and Siva are both wonderful facets of that totality, splendid and opulent - overwhelming - how much more then, Supreme Absolute taken at once? Goodness.

izi
11 May 2009, 11:35 PM
Who would win in a fight, a minotaur with a battle axe, or a centaur with a crossbow?


Whichever holds your imagination better! I'm partial to centaurs, myself....

good question

devotee
12 May 2009, 06:26 AM
..if we are speaking of totality, is there even a two to speak of? No.

Absolutely Correct ! :)

OM

raghu_001
12 May 2009, 10:46 AM
For the past 7 months, I have seen myself as a Vaishnava, believing that Lord Krishna is the Supreme Lord. However, I have recently found myself drawn back towards Saivism, or mainly the worship of Lord Ganesha.

Scott,

There are a lot of "scriptures" that seem to say a number of different things about God, spirituality, the purpose of life, etc, even under the general umbrella of "Hinduism." However, not all of them are derived from the same authority. The real question is, what do you ultimately accept as authoritative? If something being written in Sanskrit is by the very fact authoritative to you, then you will never come up with a consisent answer about God.

The people who say that accepting Advaita will resolve such contradictions aren't answering your question. They are sideswiping it. If Vishnu and Shiva are the same, then how does one interpret all those stories where Vishnu and Shiva are depicted as two separate beings? No sensible explanation will be forthcoming for that one.

In general, most classical Hindu traditions will state at the outset what sources they deem to be authoritative. For example most traditions at least theoretically accept the Vedas. Many will accept the Itihasas and Puranas to the extent that they do not contradict the Vedas. From there, you would have to see which position most consistently and clearly explains the accepted evidence.

devotee
13 May 2009, 08:58 AM
If Vishnu and Shiva are the same, then how does one interpret all those stories where Vishnu and Shiva are depicted as two separate beings? No sensible explanation will be forthcoming for that one.


Namaste Raghu,

The thought that there is a difference is the mighty illusion. One appears as many & the many actually is One.

How is it possible ? I don't know how but I can give you an example where one apparently appear as many :

Let's take a situation when you are dreaming. There are many characters in the dream. The characters are playing a role which has never happened in your waking life so it is not just a playing of old records .... they play different roles just like an individual in real life ... no one knows what they are going to do the next moment.

Now, let's analyse this situation :

a) Are these characters real ? If not, how they act independently without the knowledge of even the dreamer what they are going to do the next moment ? Can an illusionary character act on its own ?
b) Are they different from the dreamer ? It cannot be because there is no one except the dream & the dreamer.
c) How can one dreamer acts like the dreamer, the person who acts like him in the dream & the other characters of the dream ?

The above situation appears impossible logically but this is what happens every night when you dream.

Did you get answer to your question ?

OM

raghu_001
13 May 2009, 11:37 PM
Namaste Raghu,

The thought that there is a difference is the mighty illusion. One appears as many & the many actually is One.

How is it possible ? I don't know how but I can give you an example where one apparently appear as many :

Let's take a situation when you are dreaming. There are many characters in the dream. The characters are playing a role which has never happened in your waking life so it is not just a playing of old records .... they play different roles just like an individual in real life ... no one knows what they are going to do the next moment.

Now, let's analyse this situation :

a) Are these characters real ? If not, how they act independently without the knowledge of even the dreamer what they are going to do the next moment ? Can an illusionary character act on its own ?
b) Are they different from the dreamer ? It cannot be because there is no one except the dream & the dreamer.
c) How can one dreamer acts like the dreamer, the person who acts like him in the dream & the other characters of the dream ?

The above situation appears impossible logically but this is what happens every night when you dream.

Did you get answer to your question ?

OM

Namaste devotee,

The basic premise of your thinking is that life is an illusion. Such a position is not logically sound. If everything we experience is illusion, then this renders pointless any attempt to postulate anything about reality, since even these attempts are also illusion!

Furthermore, there is nothing about illusion that points to homogenous, unvariegated reality. Just as the illusion of water presupposes real water somewhere, the illusion of variety presupposes that variety may also be inherent in reality.

Vishnu and Shiva are not illusions. The scriptures treat them as real and distinct beings. Merely postulating without evidence that (1) they are both different forms of One Reality because (2) everything we experience is illusion - does not flow logically.

regards,

Raghu

devotee
14 May 2009, 12:35 AM
Namaste devotee,

The basic premise of your thinking is that life is an illusion. Such a position is not logically sound. If everything we experience is illusion, then this renders pointless any attempt to postulate anything about reality, since even these attempts are also illusion!

Furthermore, there is nothing about illusion that points to homogenous, unvariegated reality. Just as the illusion of water presupposes real water somewhere, the illusion of variety presupposes that variety may also be inherent in reality.

Vishnu and Shiva are not illusions. The scriptures treat them as real and distinct beings. Merely postulating without evidence that (1) they are both different forms of One Reality because (2) everything we experience is illusion - does not flow logically.

regards,

Raghu

Namaste Raghu,

Perhaps you didn't read my post carefully. I have not tried to say anything on the basis of "life is an illusion" theory (though it is the Truth).

I have given you a day-to-day experience in our life to ponder which can lead to the answer that you are seeking.

It is another question whether Life is an Illusion. First of all, there is a lot of confusion over the word, "Illusion", that I have noticed. Let's be careful here :
What we see is Illusion, what we touch is Illusion, all our perception of a thing is illusory. However, it doesn't mean that the thing we perceive doesn't exist ( though "existence" again is a relative term & has no absolute meaning ..... but let us use it due to lack of words sufficient for our discussion).

How what we see or touch etc. is illusion ? Let's take another example : There is a cup in front of you with a particular shape ... it is solid ... made of glass .... green coloured etc. etc. Now, you see that it is solid ... but if you go the sub-atomic levels ... the cup which looks absolutely solid is 99.99 % space ! So, you should have seen the space with hardly anything solid in it ... but you don't see this reality, do you ? If it is 99.99% space ... may be 100% because it is due to our limitations that we don't know whether the remaining part is space or anything else .... then everything around it is also the same ... now where are its limits ? ... where is the shape being formed ? We also see that the color of the cup is green .... what is color BTW ? Color is the perception in our mind when an electromagnetic wave of a certain wavelength falls in our eyes ... so, color is related with the frequency of vibration of the electromagnetic wave which is again related with the wavelength of the wave .... where does the color come here ? Where is the color ? ... how the vibration of a field related with color ... there actually is no color ... it is only perceived in our mind. That is why same colors are seen by different people (You must have known color blind people) / animals differently. Let's come to touch ... do you really touch anything ? You cannot touch anything because no two atoms can come closer than a certain distance ... so, there is nothing like touching that you perceive.

Please ponder over the above. I have not taken shelter under the theory that everything is an illusion. I have pointed out the scientific facts which can be verified & which leads us to conclude that whatever we perceive with our sense organs is due to our mind & not because the Reality is like that.

OM

atanu
14 May 2009, 02:57 AM
Namaste devotee,

Furthermore, there is nothing about illusion that points to homogenous, unvariegated reality. Raghu

Namaste Raghu,

Shri Krishna and Vedas indeed teach of partless and saman Brahman. It is a different matter that some do not consider the immutable saman Brahman (termed in Brihadaraynaka Upanishad as the sea to which the asva, the mind called Universe is rooted) as the foundation of all that is that will be and that was.

Shri Krishna also tecahes us that the saman Brahman is the object of knowledge. But again some say that we are not interested-- since it must be very boring. This is the illusion that the variety perceived by the senses is greater than the saman Brahman that enables the senses to perceive and that is the joy. It is illusion that the joy inheres in the perceived objects and not in the subject.

Om

atanu
14 May 2009, 09:17 AM
Advaitins believe that Vishnu is the superior most entity as far as this conventional reality is concerned. That's why they believe only Vishnu and no other entity can give liberation. They don't believe that Vishnu and Shiva are one and the same. This is a distortion made by neo-Vedantins.

Please do not claim on behalf of advaitins. It is known to most that Shankara established worship of five deities.

raghu_001
14 May 2009, 11:16 AM
Namaste Raghu,

Perhaps you didn't read my post carefully. I have not tried to say anything on the basis of "life is an illusion" theory (though it is the Truth).

I have given you a day-to-day experience in our life to ponder which can lead to the answer that you are seeking.

It is another question whether Life is an Illusion. First of all, there is a lot of confusion over the word, "Illusion", that I have noticed. Let's be careful here :
What we see is Illusion, what we touch is Illusion, all our perception of a thing is illusory. However, it doesn't mean that the thing we perceive doesn't exist ( though "existence" again is a relative term & has no absolute meaning ..... but let us use it due to lack of words sufficient for our discussion).

Namaste devotee,

I am sure you are trying your best to understand, but I must point out to you that your explanation above is internally inconsistent and even self-contradictory.

Something is either real or it is it not real. It cannot be both real and not real. Misunderstanding the reality of something does not mean that our perceptions are illusion. However, our conclusions based on perception may or may not be correct. Now regarding your example:



How what we see or touch etc. is illusion ? Let's take another example : There is a cup in front of you with a particular shape ... it is solid ... made of glass .... green coloured etc. etc. Now, you see that it is solid ... but if you go the sub-atomic levels ... the cup which looks absolutely solid is 99.99 % space ! So, you should have seen the space with hardly anything solid in it ... but you don't see this reality, do you ?

THis is not a good example to illustrate your position, because the incorrect understanding of the cup has nothing to do with illusion nor with illusory perception. Your sensory perception that the cup is solid, has a particular shape, is made of glass, etc is all correct, but is limited only to the gross appearance of the cup and is thus *limited.* That the senses are limited does not make them or their perception illusory. Rather, the conclusion that it is solid and not having space at the subatomic level is due to incorrect deduction based on real information gained through real (but limited) senses.

However, all of this is besides the point, because our knowledge of Vishnu and Shiva comes not from sensory perception nor from logical deduction but rather from shaastra. Shaastras are shabda-pramaana and different from pratyaksha or anumaan (perception and deduction). Thus if shaastras say that Vishnu and Shiva are different, then this is the testimony of shaastra and not based on our limited or supposedly illusory perception.

Please try to understand these points correctly. Pratyaksha, anumaan, and shabda all have their place when being utilized to understand Reality. But they are not all on the same level. When discussing subjects that are beyond the immediate purview of the senses, we cannot invoke a source that is based on sensory perception - this is why we have the shaastras. Shruti is not based on perception of some sages but rather is eternal truth. If shruti is relative and based only on sense perception then its validity is not much greater than one's own sense perception and it would not be useful for telling us about that which is beyond the senses.

raghu_001
14 May 2009, 11:28 AM
Namaste Raghu,

Shri Krishna and Vedas indeed teach of partless and saman Brahman. It is a different matter that some do not consider the immutable saman Brahman (termed in Brihadaraynaka Upanishad as the sea to which the asva, the mind called Universe is rooted) as the foundation of all that is that will be and that was.

Shri Krishna also tecahes us that the saman Brahman is the object of knowledge. But again some say that we are not interested-- since it must be very boring. This is the illusion that the variety perceived by the senses is greater than the saman Brahman that enables the senses to perceive and that is the joy. It is illusion that the joy inheres in the perceived objects and not in the subject.

Om

Namaste Atanu,

It might help my analysis of your writings if you could define your terms, i.e. what do you mean by "saman Brahman?" Furthermore, as you seem to be making a lot of assertions about illusion, variety, etc, it would also help if you could specify what you consider to be appropriate sources of knowledge so that we can refer to them (assuming we agree on them).

If we do not accept the same pramaanas then any discussion on this subject would be somewhat pointless.

Also, I am still not clear on what any of this has to do with the subject of Vishnu and Shiva. Perhaps you can steer the discussion back in that direction.

regards,

Raghu

atanu
14 May 2009, 11:54 AM
Namaste Atanu,

It might help my analysis of your writings if you could define your terms, i.e. what do you mean by "saman Brahman?" Furthermore, as you seem to be making a lot of assertions about illusion, variety, etc, it would also help if you could specify what you consider to be appropriate sources of knowledge so that we can refer to them (assuming we agree on them).

If we do not accept the same pramaanas then any discussion on this subject would be somewhat pointless.

Also, I am still not clear on what any of this has to do with the subject of Vishnu and Shiva. Perhaps you can steer the discussion back in that direction.

regards,

Raghu

Raghu,

My rejoinder was to your assertion: "Furthermore, there is nothing about illusion that points to homogenous, unvariegated reality".

If you forget your statement and claim: "I am still not clear on what any of this has to do with the subject", what can I do?

Om

raghu_001
14 May 2009, 12:22 PM
Atanu please define your terms and explain what you think all this about illusion has to do with the subject of the thread.

thanks,

Raghu



Namaste devotee,

The basic premise of your thinking is that life is an illusion. Such a position is not logically sound. If everything we experience is illusion, then this renders pointless any attempt to postulate anything about reality, since even these attempts are also illusion!

Furthermore, there is nothing about illusion that points to homogenous, unvariegated reality. Just as the illusion of water presupposes real water somewhere, the illusion of variety presupposes that variety may also be inherent in reality.

Vishnu and Shiva are not illusions. The scriptures treat them as real and distinct beings. Merely postulating without evidence that (1) they are both different forms of One Reality because (2) everything we experience is illusion - does not flow logically.

regards,

Raghu

devotee
15 May 2009, 08:37 PM
Atanu please define your terms and explain what you think all this about illusion has to do with the subject of the thread.


Namaste Raghu,

I have gone at length to explain Illusion & how it clouds the reality. How is it related with this thread ? Seeing Lord Shiva as a finite entity with some shape , size & features is illusion. Seeing Lord Vishnu with some special features & finite enough to be comprehended by our mind & senses is illusion. seeing Lord Shiva & Lord Vishnu as two different entities is illusion.

Anyway, I don't think you want to listen anything which doesn't conform to your views. So, please forget my all posts in this thread.

OM

raghu_001
16 May 2009, 12:36 AM
Namaste devotee,

Please note that I am merely examining the soundness of your views. I am not one to merely accept a position simply because someone else says so. If it bothers you that I wish to politely scrutinize your logic, you are certainly welcome to withdraw.

Now regarding your points...


Namaste Raghu,

I have gone at length to explain Illusion & how it clouds the reality.


And as I have explained, your concept of illusion is in error. Specifically, you are confusing incorrect deduction with illusion, and this is the main problem with your reasoning. I hope you will go back and reexamine your thinking with this in mind.



How is it related with this thread ? Seeing Lord Shiva as a finite entity with some shape , size & features is illusion. Seeing Lord Vishnu with some special features & finite enough to be comprehended by our mind & senses is illusion. seeing Lord Shiva & Lord Vishnu as two different entities is illusion.

Again, as stated previously, the entities known as "Vishnu" and "Shiva" are not manifest to our senses as for example, the sky or the sun are. When something can be perceived by the gross senses, then we can experience it and make some deductions about it. For example, seeing that the sun is bright and its light gives warmth, one can conclude that the sun is very hot.

However, one cannot make any reasonable deductions about the nature of Vishnu or Shiva because these entities are not manifest to the gross senses for us. Therefore, we can only know about them from the shAstras. Accepting whatever description is given about them from apaurusheya-shAstras is not illusion, unless you wish to claim that the shAstras are affected by illusion (in that case why bother with them?).

Now as far as the shAstras are concerned, it is very clear that they depict Vishnu and Shiva as two different entities. If you say that this description of them as two different entities is illusory, then you are in effect saying that the shAstras tell falsehoods.

If shAstras tell falsehoods, then all question of religion becomes subjective. The entire discussion degenerates into meaningless moral relativism since no position can be established with certainty. Such a philosophy which has no grounding in an authoritative source of knowledge does not benefit anyone.

regards,

Raghu

devotee
16 May 2009, 02:39 AM
Namaste Raghu,



I am sure you are trying your best to understand, but I must point out to you that your explanation above is internally inconsistent and even self-contradictory.

You have used these terms :
1. "Internally inconsistent" ---> Please let me know what you find Internally inconsistent" in my views. I would like to hear your views here.
2. "Self-Contradictory" - What is self-contradictory in what I posted ?


Something is either real or it is it not real. It cannot be both real and not real.

But you must understand that your understanding of the terms "real"/"unreal" are within mental realms which cannot describe what Brahman is. That is why it is neither called "real" nor "unreal". Please refer B.G. where Lord Krishna says , "Nasat Naasaduchyate". So, if IT is Real it doesn't mean it is not-unreal. The same Brahman appears as real or unreal.



Misunderstanding the reality of something does not mean that our perceptions are illusion. However, our conclusions based on perception may or may not be correct. Now regarding your example:

THis is not a good example to illustrate your position, because the incorrect understanding of the cup has nothing to do with illusion nor with illusory perception.

That shows you are giving a new definition to the word, "Illusion". Can you explain what you understand by the term, "Illusion" & how this illusion finds its place in the Reality, "What Is" ?


However, all of this is besides the point, because our knowledge of Vishnu and Shiva comes not from sensory perception nor from logical deduction but rather from shaastra. Shaastras are shabda-pramaana and different from pratyaksha or anumaan (perception and deduction). Thus if shaastras say that Vishnu and Shiva are different, then this is the testimony of shaastra and not based on our limited or supposedly illusory perception.

I hope we should both rely on the same Shastras for deciding the final authority. If you take Vishnu Mahapuran then Vishnu is considered the Supreme Godhead, if you consider Shiv Purana then Shiva is the Supreme, if you consider Devi Bhagwat then Mother Goddess is considered superior to all gods. Which scripture shall you take as the "pramana" ?

In Hinduism, the Shrutis are considered the highest authority & Shrutis are the Vedas including more than 200 Upanishads. Shruti unequivocally proclaim that : "Eko Brahman Dwitiyo nasti", "Brahman is what appears as everything in the four states - "Visva, Taijsa", "Pragyan" & "Turiya". It also states that the God-state of Brahman is the state of deep sleep without dream ( & you are free to call this state as "Vishnu", Shiva", "Mother Goddess" or whatever).

The Brahman is said to be the One Without a Second in the Shrutis.Where is any scope for two - Forget about two "Gods" !

OM

atanu
16 May 2009, 03:57 PM
Atanu please define your terms and explain what you think all this about illusion has to do with the subject of the thread.

Raghu
:) Not keen, since you do not acknowledge that I merely replied to your statement, which contains the definition you are seeking, as shown below:



BY atanu

My rejoinder was to your assertion: "Furthermore, there is nothing about illusion that points to homogenous, unvariegated reality".

If you forget your statement and claim: "I am still not clear on what any of this has to do with the subject", what can I do?


Thanks.

raghu_001
17 May 2009, 01:56 AM
You have used these terms :
1. "Internally inconsistent" ---> Please let me know what you find Internally inconsistent" in my views. I would like to hear your views here.
2. "Self-Contradictory" - What is self-contradictory in what I posted ?


It is inconsistent and self-contradictory to assert that something is both real and not real.



But you must understand that your understanding of the terms "real"/"unreal" are within mental realms which cannot describe what Brahman is.

Your philosophy's problem (among others), is the tendency to needlessly confuse simple concepts which further confounds any attempt to explain things clearly. There is no need to assert that categories like "real" and "not real" cannot be understood. If you cannot accept that something is real, then you cannot make any statement about anything.



That is why it is neither called "real" nor "unreal". Please refer B.G. where Lord Krishna says , "Nasat Naasaduchyate". So, if IT is Real it doesn't mean it is not-unreal. The same Brahman appears as real or unreal.

Please quote the BG verse numbers you are referring to.



That shows you are giving a new definition to the word, "Illusion". Can you explain what you understand by the term, "Illusion" & how this illusion finds its place in the Reality, "What Is" ?

Since we are talking about English words, how about quoting from a standard dictionary?

il⋅lu⋅sion AC_FL_RunContent = 0;var interfaceflash = new LEXICOFlashObject ( "http://cache.lexico.com/d/g/speaker.swf", "speaker", "17", "15", "http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/", "6");interfaceflash.addParam("loop", "false");interfaceflash.addParam("quality", "high");interfaceflash.addParam("menu", "false");interfaceflash.addParam("salign", "t");interfaceflash.addParam("FlashVars", "soundUrl=http%3A%2F%2Fcache.lexico.com%2Fdictionary%2Faudio%2Fluna%2FI00%2FI0045000.mp3"); interfaceflash.addParam('wmode','transparent');interfaceflash.write(); /ɪˈluhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.pngʒən/ http://cache.lexico.com/g/d/dictionary_questionbutton_default.gif (http://dictionary.reference.com/help/luna/IPA_pron_key.html) Show Spelled Pronunciation loo[/B]-zhuhhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.pngn] http://cache.lexico.com/g/d/dictionary_questionbutton_default.gif (http://dictionary.reference.com/help/luna/Spell_pron_key.html) Show IPA
[I]–noun 1.something that deceives by producing a false or misleading impression of reality.


By this definition, the world is not an illusion. The world is real.



In Hinduism, the Shrutis are considered the highest authority & Shrutis are the Vedas including more than 200 Upanishads. Shruti unequivocally proclaim that : "Eko Brahman Dwitiyo nasti", "Brahman is what appears as everything in the four states - "Visva, Taijsa", "Pragyan" & "Turiya". It also states that the God-state of Brahman is the state of deep sleep without dream ( & you are free to call this state as "Vishnu", Shiva", "Mother Goddess" or whatever).

The Brahman is said to be the One Without a Second in the Shrutis.Where is any scope for two - Forget about two "Gods" !


I am glad to see that you are prepared to accept shruti as the highest authority. Now, let us discuss that. First, if Brahman is "one without a second" then that means no one else is on the same level as Brahman. It does not mean that there is no one else at all - just that no one else exists who is equal to Brahman. Obviously we all exist, as we are here talking about Brahman.

Therefore, Vishnu and Shiva are not two Supreme Gods. There can only be one Supreme God. Which one of these is the Supreme God/Brahman should be understood from shruti - as you yourself have just stated that shruti is the highest authority. Whoever is the Supreme Brahman is certainly "one without a second." This means any other deity, while certainly powerful or respectable in his own right, cannot be on the same level as that Supreme Brahman.




You cannot argue that all deities mentioned in the Vedas are the Supreme Brahman, because you have just admitted that Brahman is "One without a second." So no question of two Supreme Gods or many Supreme Gods. Nor can you argue that all deities mentioned in the Vedas are the same God, because we repeatedly see that these different deities are depicted as different individuals. For example, the statement:
viṣṇoḥ karmāṇi paśyata yato vratāni paspaśe |
indrasya yujyaḥ sakhā ||
Look ye on Viṣṇu's works, whereby the Friend of Indra, close-allied,
Hath let his holy ways be seen. (Rig Veda 1.22.19)...only makes sense if the "Vishnu" and "Indra" spoken of in this mantra are two different individuals. Obviously, it would make no sense to speak of Vishnu, the Friend of Himself, now would it?


Therefore, whether Vishnu is the Supreme God, or Shiva is the Supreme God, or someone else is the Supreme God - this has to be known from shruti. Illusion has nothing to do with it.

RamaRaksha
07 June 2009, 09:59 PM
It is sad to see this kind of question being posed - for Hindus they are both one and the same. God cannot be found in books, she lives in our heart and minds. If there is a supreme being, one who created this huge limitless universe, how can there be more than one. There is only one God, we each call her by different names.

Those who insist on using just their name are idolators in my opinion. According to the pope God cannot be a woman, so if God shows up in the form of a woman before him, the pope would kick her out. They have this image of jesus, blond and blue-eyed. What if in reality he looked like an Arab, after all palestine is arabland. The christians would refuse to accept an arab looking christ as God. That is what idolatry is all about.

There is no higher or lower God, just different names. That is the essence of Hinduism.

atanu
10 June 2009, 05:51 AM
Pamalochana was a devotee of Sri Ramakrishna.

Padmalochana shared an interesting incident with the master. Once he was approached by some people who claimed to know who was greater between the two deities, Shiva and Brahma. Padmalochana was asked whether he also knew or not? Padmalochana answered that he nor his ancestors dating back to the fourteenth century had ever seen Shiva or Brahma!

Om

Mantravid
14 August 2009, 04:25 PM
In the Bhagavad Gita,Arjuna asks Lord Krishna what is his different manifestations,so he can remember him:

Chapter 10, Verse 16. (http://www.asitis.com/10/16.html)
http://www.asitis.com/gif/bump.gifPlease tell me in detail of Your divine powers by which You pervade all these worlds and abide in them.

Chapter 10, Verse 17. (http://www.asitis.com/10/17.html)
http://www.asitis.com/gif/bump.gifHow should I meditate on You? In what various forms are You to be contemplated, O Blessed Lord?


and one of Lord Krishna's answer is:


Chapter 10, Verse 23. (http://www.asitis.com/10/23.html)
http://www.asitis.com/gif/bump.gifOf all the Rudras I am Lord Siva; of the Yaksas and Raksasas I am the Lord of wealth [Kuvera]; of the Vasus I am fire [Agni], and of mountains I am Meru.


So being a devotee to Lord Krishna and worshiping Lord Shiva is no problem,Lord Krishna manifested as Lord Shiva,so that Lord Shiva can be an example to us all on how to be a perfect devotee of Lord Krishna.Lord Shiva is the Adi Yogi,which means in Sanskrit,that he is the first Yogi,Lord Krishna/Vishnu manifested as Lord Shiva,so Lord Shiva can be an example and a guide to mankind,Who you think Lord Shiva is always meditating to?He is always meditating and chanting to Lord Krishna/Vishnu,Lord Shiva himself said this to Maha Pavitri.The so called Hare Krishnas(ISKCON) and the Shaivas will disagree with this view,but they are incorrect in not allowing worship to Lord Shiva or Lord Krishna,respectively.This battle between Vaishnavas and Shaivas on who is supreme, is nonsense.

As Rig Veda 1.164.46c says,"Truth is one, the wise call it by many names"

Lord Krishna's Vishvarupa form:
http://www.bhagavad-gita.us/content_images/4/1/gita-140.jpg

Eastern Mind
14 August 2009, 04:56 PM
So being a devotee to Lord Krishna and worshiping Lord Shiva is no problem,Lord Krishna manifested as Lord Shiva,so that Lord Shiva can be an example to us all on how to be a perfect devotee of Lord Krishna.



This puts Siva below Krishna, as His devotee. This is fine for any Vaishnavite, but for a Saiva bhaktar, it is contradictory. Lord Siva is God.

Siva is Lord for Saivas, Vishnu for Vaishnavas, Mother for Shaktites, and its your choice if you're a Smarta. All are fine, as you said, but mixing any two may lead to confusion. Why follow two or more paths when one is sufficient? We can still look over to the other path, and respect the souls who art waliking that way.

Aum Namasivaya

rkpande
15 August 2009, 12:12 AM
Sankaracharya of Sringeri math, Shri Chandrasekhara Bharati(1892-1954), commenting on this, said, "You cannot see the feet of the Lord, why do you waste your time debating about the nature of his face"


May God bless us all.

Eastern Mind
15 August 2009, 06:44 AM
Sankaracharya of Sringeri math, Shri Chandrasekhara Bharati(1892-1954), commenting on this, said, "You cannot see the feet of the Lord, why do you waste your time debating about the nature of his face"


May God bless us all.

I like this.

Aum Namasivaya

Mantravid
22 August 2009, 09:53 AM
This puts Siva below Krishna, as His devotee. This is fine for any Vaishnavite, but for a Saiva bhaktar, it is contradictory. Lord Siva is God.

Siva is Lord for Saivas, Vishnu for Vaishnavas, Mother for Shaktites, and its your choice if you're a Smarta. All are fine, as you said, but mixing any two may lead to confusion. Why follow two or more paths when one is sufficient? We can still look over to the other path, and respect the souls who art waliking that way.

Aum Namasivaya

Lord Shiva is God,but to guide humanity to liberation.There were no argument on who was or who was not superior in the Vedic period.Also in the Vedic period there was no sects such as Vaisnavas,Saivas,Shakties or etc,it was only Sanatana Dharma.

Eastern Mind
22 August 2009, 10:39 AM
Lord Shiva is God,but to guide humanity to liberation.There were no argument on who was or who was not superior in the Vedic period.Also in the Vedic period there was no sects such as Vaisnavas,Saivas,Shakties or etc,it was only Sanatana Dharma.

I was not arguing with anyone, just pointing out that there is just one God. One reality.

Aum

bhaktajan
22 August 2009, 08:03 PM
As per ‘Authorised’ & ‘Bonefide’ Sastra Vishnu and Shiva are not illusions.
The scriptures treat them as real and distinct beings.

All those stories where Vishnu and Shiva are depicted separately as Supreme has prompted the idea that there is a contradiction in the sastra’s revelations in each of the many Puranas.

There is no contradiction. There are “situation-purana(s)”. The puranas primarily are seen as “not necessarily interconnected one to the other”.

Why?

Because, the histories & events & places & personalities & the deva's-condition-and-quality-of-living
---all set the standards “. . . for all the world to pursue . . .”.
are in all cases the Puranas records of the lives, ergo:
epic lessons of the existential heights of excellence among the ancestors of
Maharajas, Mahajanaas, Maharanees
whose lives where recorded during different epochs,
recorded on even different lokas,
recorded during even different kalpas,
recorded even in different brahmandas . . .

So the sensible explanation will be that the attachment of one ista-deva to another is borne of one’s personal rasa/samskar/sva-dharma.

But there is no contradiction. If a Shivite gives me some maha-sweet ---I will savor it exceedingly and I will consider the lila of Sri Shiva and I will wonder in my good fortune to be privy to the amrita of my ‘knowing-of’ such esoteric pastimes.

Lord Vishnu and Lord Shiva are related and offer benediction by dint of there persons for the greater world at large ---rather than posting what one opinion is versus another we should only share the nectar.

BTW, there is a “Demigod” for every function of every mechanism of the creation, yes?
So why do we neglect attention to that large family tree of the Devatas? So many many Devas who we’ve not made famous ---in thanks for there dedication to maintaining sanatan-dharma.

just some run-of-the-mill bhaktajan,
bhaktajan

bhargavsai
23 August 2009, 02:30 AM
I can understand the mindset of follower of a sect. I mean a Vaishnava truly believes that only Vishnu is absolute and he has great faith, and he cannot accept any other. Even if God comes to him as Shiva he would want to see him as Vishnu, there is nothing wrong in this. Similar is with Shaiva.

So for a Shaiva Shiva is supreme and for Viashnava it is Vishnu.

Raghu ji, I have understood your argument that one thing cannot be both real and unreal, I mean you are saying that misunderstanding is not illusion.

But I will say that Devotee ji has a good point. It is like a rope being mistaken as a snake. The rope is real but the snake is unreal(one thing being both real and unreal), because rope is giving an illusion of the snake. This misunderstanding is also illusion.

Brahman, which is absolute and homogeneous spirit gives the illusion of the world. The thing is to realize the truth that all this is not really universe but Brahman giving illusion.

Spiritualseeker
28 October 2009, 07:32 AM
Sammohana Tantra says that "he is a fool who sees any difference between Rama (an Avatara of Vishnu) and Shiva'

shian
30 October 2009, 12:30 AM
someone want see God in Vishnu form ? Krsna form ?
ok, Krsna form,
but which kind of Krsna form ?
you see, many sclupture and many images is made by peoples, and they have different to make style of Krsna nose, different eyes style, different any kind style.

so, which ?
which one you want ?
which one is cutest or most handsome ?

you want the one you thinking about .

a man said : "I like my Girl friend lips."
another man said : "That big lips ???"
they is same have a eyes to see that ONE girl, but because they have different way to thinking, so ONE lips become any kind different in their wordly eyes.

Raman
30 October 2009, 03:36 PM
I am new to this forum. I used think Vishnu was superior when I was young. When I read more puranas about both Vishnu and Shiva, I figured out Shiva is superior for Shiva's devotees and Vishnu is superior to Vishnu devotees. I give here a simple example.

I am the same person for both my wife and daughter. My daughter thinks I am super man, but my wife thinks I am a useless person.

As per my opinion, if you are Shiva or Vishnu devotee, please pray sincerely. Ultimately both would see the same result in their heart. This argument will not help you anyway for spiritual growth.

renuka
30 October 2009, 08:22 PM
dear all,
i just want to share this piece of information with everyone.
GOD has no form but at the same time all forms are His.
GOD is what we call HIM.
when the unmodifiable transcendent and immanent Brahman( do not confuse with Lord Brahma) instead of just "being" decides on "becoming" ( so that we can realize HIM) then it is best designated as GOD.
G---refers to Generation(Brahma)
O---refers to Organization(Vishnu)
D---refers to Dissolution(Shiva)
the 3 presiding entities of divinity over creation,protection and dissolution are the trinity Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva.

another important point is the word Vishnu means All Pervasive and the word Shiva means Auspicious, isnt that such a beautiful way to describe GOD, THE ALL PERVASIVE AUSPICIOUSNESS.

there is only one Supreme and He is GOD and He is called by various names.
ekam sat vipra bahuda vadanti.

MdBali
30 October 2009, 09:01 PM
my english so bad......:D

kd gupta
31 October 2009, 03:05 AM
This puts Siva below Krishna, as His devotee. This is fine for any Vaishnavite, but for a Saiva bhaktar, it is contradictory. Lord Siva is God.

Siva is Lord for Saivas, Vishnu for Vaishnavas, Mother for Shaktites, and its your choice if you're a Smarta. All are fine, as you said, but mixing any two may lead to confusion. Why follow two or more paths when one is sufficient? We can still look over to the other path, and respect the souls who art waliking that way.

Aum Namasivaya

Parmatma is One , creating nursing and destroying the universe and making a cycle of the creation . Everybody knows the form which nurses and that is Mahavishnu .

Prajapate na twedanyanyo…and Rudra is ru+dra , the Mahavishnu who pleases immediately and Devi or Shakti means , Mayaso annamatti…or Mahavishnu who gives the power of digestion , gita says… Aham vaishwanaro bhutwa .

isavasya
31 October 2009, 06:36 AM
In the history of mankind both lord shiva and lord vishnu have been worshiped forever, and they will be forever. I find it more a trait of abrahmaic religion to preach supremacy of a personal god and make people intolerant to others beliefs. In our religion and thankfully our society ,most of us have lived with peace and harmony with those people who might not be worshiping the eternal god in our own preferred form.

|| Shivaya Vishnu rupaya Shiva Rupaya Vishnave.||

Eastern Mind
31 October 2009, 07:39 AM
Everybody knows the form which nurses and that is Mahavishnu .





I don't. Non-Hindus don't. That is not to say it doesn't exist. Just pointing out the generalisation, Guptaji.

Aum Namasivaya

devotee
31 October 2009, 08:26 AM
Everybody knows the form which nurses and that is Mahavishnu.

That Mahavishnu is not different from Mahashiva. In Elephanta Caves, Trimurti Sadashiva shows Lord Shiva in all the three forms : The originator, the sustainer & the destroyer.

OM

kd gupta
31 October 2009, 08:33 AM
I don't. Non-Hindus don't. That is not to say it doesn't exist. Just pointing out the generalisation, Guptaji.

Aum Namasivaya

Thank you EMji
You are right , no generalization . I mean to say EM is one but has many forms and each form has many forms . Sweetness is felt by middle portion of tongue , so sweetness is one and feeling portion is one .

Sugar giving sweetness is diabetic , non diabetic and there may be third , fourth and so on and these have forms of forms .

I am very sorry to say that we dont understand anything , we don’t understand Atanuji .
:o

devotee
31 October 2009, 09:40 PM
Thank you EMji
You are right , no generalization . I mean to say EM is one but has many forms and each form has many forms . Sweetness is felt by middle portion of tongue , so sweetness is one and feeling portion is one .

Sugar giving sweetness is diabetic , non diabetic and there may be third , fourth and so on and these have forms of forms .

I am very sorry to say that we dont understand anything , we don’t understand Atanuji .
:o

Gupta ji,

May I ask you why you drag Atanu in your post when he is not on the scene & he is not even posting these days ?

If you don't understand Atanu why are you so worried ? IMHO, you already think that you know more than enough in spirituality.

I don't need to speak in defence of anyone but I think this is really too much.

OM

kd gupta
01 November 2009, 12:31 AM
Gupta ji,

May I ask you why you drag Atanu in your post when he is not on the scene & he is not even posting these days ?

If you don't understand Atanu why are you so worried ? IMHO, you already think that you know more than enough in spirituality.

I don't need to speak in defence of anyone but I think this is really too much.

OM

Thank you Devoteeji for guiding me . I forgot actually , I am sorry .

atanu
01 November 2009, 03:04 AM
Parmatma is One , creating nursing and destroying the universe and making a cycle of the creation . Everybody knows the form which nurses and that is Mahavishnu .


Namaste Gupta Ji,

You are correct that Paramatma is One. You are also correct, from your perspective, that Paramatma is Mahavishnu. But that name is not from Vedas. My perspective, based on Vedas and Upanishads, is that Paramatma is unnameble but is called Shiva. We cannot throw away scripture. Paramatma has no need to pervade all, since IT is all. Pervading is from our perspective who see the fragments first and then all pervasive spirit.



Prajapate na twedanyanyo…and Rudra is ru+dra , the Mahavishnu who pleases immediately and Devi or Shakti means , Mayaso annamatti…or Mahavishnu who gives the power of digestion , gita says… Aham vaishwanaro bhutwa .


What digests food in all is agnivaisvanaro. It is true that agnivaisvanaro's highest place is That only. Shri Krishna is revealed Pragnya of Atma, called Sarvesvara. The revealer of Pragnya is called Eko advittiyam Shiva in Upanishads. But i have no problem if the good one is called Mahavishnu -- till two different individuals are not purported. Since Mahesvara Shiva is called paramaM parastaad (beyond Param and beyond any comparison) as shown below:

Svet. Upanishad

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

Subjecting Paramatma-Parameshwara to comparison is not possible.


Om Namah Shivaya

kd gupta
01 November 2009, 06:21 AM
Namaste Gupta Ji,

You are correct that Paramatma is One. You are also correct, from your perspective, that Paramatma is Mahavishnu. But that name is not from Vedas. My perspective, based on Vedas and Upanishads, is that Paramatma is unnameble but is called Shiva. We cannot throw away scripture. Paramatma has no need to pervade all, since IT is all. Pervading is from our perspective who see the fragments first and then all pervasive spirit.



What digests food in all is agnivaisvanaro. It is true that agnivaisvanaro's highest place is That only. Shri Krishna is revealed Pragnya of Atma, called Sarvesvara. The revealer of Pragnya is called Eko advittiyam Shiva in Upanishads. But i have no problem if the good one is called Mahavishnu -- till two different individuals are not purported. Since Mahesvara Shiva is called paramaM parastaad (beyond Param and beyond any comparison) as shown below:

Svet. Upanishad

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

Subjecting Paramatma-Parameshwara to comparison is not possible.


Om Namah Shivaya

That is all I wanted from you , pl. and pl. carry on postings . This was my duty to call you back and now I am happy....thank you very much .

Aum namah parvatipataye har har Mahadeo .

Namaste Rudra manyava utau ta ishave namah , bahubhyamut te namah .

yajvan
01 November 2009, 08:38 AM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~


Namasté

atanu writes

What digests food in all is agnivaisvanaro
This is a beautiful thing… the wisdom abounds in this word.
We have agni + vaisvanaro . Lets go a bit deeper to perhaps have a better appreciation of what is being offered.



agni we know in many many forms, yet for this post it is the 'fire' of the stomach , digestive faculty , gastric fluid.

Vaiśvānara is made up of vaiśvā + nara and here is where the beauty resides (IMHO).This vaiśva वैश्व is relating to or presided over by the viśve devāḥ; it also means that which is related to viśva which is the whole , entire , universal; all-pervading or all-containing , omnipresent.
And nara is a person; considered a man , a male; a female would be nārī, yet nara can be considered a person i.e. people.

We can conclude, at least for this application of vaiśvānara, that the whole, the all containing (viśva) can be found in the human being (nara). That is, the universe is condensed into human form - all the viśve devāḥ-s the creative impulses ~ the laws of nature~, the devatā that manage this creation, express themselves and reside within us. The 'whole' resides in the 'part' i.e. the universe resides in us.

Agni a principle devāḥ is found throughout the 'whole' ( universe) and also within us - atanu informs us it is that force that brings digestion and nourishes the 'whole' of us. Without this fire (of nourishment , of body temperature, etc) we are lifeless.

This fire principle is also engaged in our speech, agni can be found there too, yet I digress to another matter with this idea and we can address it on a future post per one's interest.

praṇām

chandu_69
01 November 2009, 09:46 PM
. You are also correct, from your perspective, that Paramatma is Mahavishnu. But that name is not from Vedas.

Factually incorrect.Vishnu's abode is highest(Parama padam) says vedas:
Some references from Rigveda:

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

seers see always that "Supreme Abode" where SriVishnu reside

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

Many references were given several times in hdf itself.

atanu
01 November 2009, 10:31 PM
Factually incorrect.Vishnu's abode is highest(Parama padam) says vedas:
Some references from Rigveda:
tad viSNoH paramaM padaM sadA pashyanti sUrayaH
divIva cakSurAtatam || RV 1.22.20 ||
seers see always that "Supreme Abode" where SriVishnu reside

tad viprAso vipanyavo jAgRvAMsaH samindhate
viSNoryat paramaM padam || RV 1.22.21 ||
Many references were given several times in hdf itself.

Namaste Chandu,

Thank you for the verses. But please read completely what i wrote. Where is the term Mahavishnu, which was what I commented upon? Your reference does not speak of Mahavishnu.

No one denies that the Supreme abode of agnivaisvanaro vishnu is paramaM padam . I have already indicated that in general terms as shown below:



Posted by atanu

What digests food in all is agnivaisvanaro. It is true that agnivaisvanaro's highest place is That only


Moreover, the above verses quoted by you do not nullify the verse shown below:
Svet. Upanishad
6.7 tamiishvaraaNaaM paramaM maheshvara.n
ta.n devataanaaM parama.n cha daivatam.h .
patiM patiinaaM paramaM parastaad.h\-
vidaama devaM bhuvaneshamiiDyam.h ..Beyond the Paramam is paramaM parastaad, which is not visible or not known to senses. It is Lord of Sleep (which is also equivalent of Lord of Death). Sages can only look upto what is visible. Intangible, unnameable, unseen, unborn is the the highest abode of even the all pervading Lord.

Reflecting together on the Rig Vedic verses quoted by you and the Svet. Up. verse quoted by me will surely indicate that there are no two individuals vying for supremacy etc. These questions of who is above and who is below are of ego-mind.

Studying scripture together, keeping the knowledge of Shivo Turiya Advait Atma, which alone resides as Pragnya Ghana-Sarvesvara (known in dreamless sleep), Taijjassa-Hiranyagarbha (known in dreaming sleep), and AgniVaisvanara (known as Lord in the waking world), claifies the jigsaw puzzle of names and forms.

Brahman advaita atman is eko advaitam and also pervades and animates all that we see as animated and non-animated. The advaita Atman being resident in all can be known by one as identical with one's true Self. It cannot be known as something apart from one's own agnivaisvanaro. That much only is my submission.

Namah Shivaya

Harjas Kaur
02 November 2009, 06:49 AM
You are correct that Paramatma is One. You are also correct, from your perspective, that Paramatma is Mahavishnu. But that name is not from Vedas. My perspective, based on Vedas and Upanishads, is that Paramatma is unnameble but is called Shiva.Vaishnav tradition bases interpretations of Mahaprabhu Chaitanya that Purusha is Mahavishnu. Purusha is described in Rg Veda. As Chandu Ji pointed out Shri Vishnu Ji's name being described in Rg Veda as "the Supreme Abode."
tad viSNoH paramaM padaM sadA pashyanti sUrayaH
divIva cakSurAtatam || RV 1.22.20 ||

Also Rudra is name used to describe Shiva, and Shiva as a quality is being used to describe Rudra.
yA te rudra shivA tanU\-raghorA.apApakAshinI |
tayA nastanuvA shantamayA girisha.ntAbhichAkashIhi || 1\.3||
namaH sha.nkarAya cha mayaskarAya cha
namaH shivAya cha shivatarAya cha || 8\.1||
~Shri Rudram Camakam

"Rudra by day, Rudra at night we honour with these our songs, the UNIVERSE'S FATHER. HIM GREAT AND LOFTY, BLISSFUL, imperishable(ACHYUTAM), LET US CALL ESPECIALLY AS THE SAGE IMPELS US". ( Rigveda 6:49:10 )
Swami Amritananda, of the Ramakrishna Mission and many others suggest that Rudra is associated with Vishnu in the invocation namas [...] shipivishtaya. (shipivishta appears most frequently as an epithet of Vishnu in the Yajurveda.)..

(his translation of Sri Rudram and Purushasuktam, pgs. 66-67.) Amritananda has cited commentaries of Sayana and others in the writing of his work. His rendering "in the form of Vishnu" is a common Vedantic interpretation, since the literal meaning of shipi-vishta is an epithet meaning "pervaded by rays". http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics/Shri_Rudram_ChamakamYou say, "My perspective, based on Vedas and Upanishads, is that Paramatma is unnameble but is called Shiva."

How can that which is unnameable have a name? Because the unnameable is nirguna, no letter, word or that produced by human speech could ever utter it. Nirguna is completely incomprehensible to the human mind. And for this reason the nirgun manifests itself in form, sarguna (Punjabi pronunciation). The entire created manifestation is sargun swaroop of the Ajooni (Unborn) Saibhung (Uncreated) it is true. Nonetheless the Uncreated Light/Sound vibration AUM is pervading the whole creation, OMkara. The ungraspable is pervading that which can be grasped.


We cannot throw away scripture. Paramatma has no need to pervade all, since IT is all. Pervading is from our perspective who see the fragments first and then all pervasive spirit This is true, however if the Rshis who grasped Sruti of Rg Veda describe the Purusha as pervading the universe and all creation why would anyone split hairs to say Paramatma/Parameshvar doesn't pervade? If Mahaprabhu Chaitanya is describing that Maha-Vishnu is all-pervading who are we to say He isn't? It's just a fine hair-splitting of subtle nuances of definition that in no way could be said to be "incorrect."


The traditional Sanskrit (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanskrit) explanation of the name Viṣṇu involves the root viś, meaning "to settle, to enter", or also (in the Rigveda (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rigveda)) "to pervade", and a suffix nu, translating to approximately "the All-Pervading One". An early commentator on the Vedas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vedas), Yaska (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yaska), in his Nirukta (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nirukta), defines Vishnu as 'vishnu vishateh; one who enters everywhere', and 'yad vishito bhavati tad vishnurbhavati; that which is free from fetters and bondages is Vishnu.'

Adi Sankara (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adi_Sankara) in his commentary on Vishnu Sahasranama (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vishnu_Sahasranama) states derivation from this root, with a meaning "presence everywhere" ("As he pervades everything, vevesti, he is called Visnu"). Adi Sankara (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adi_Sankara) states (regarding Vishnu Purana (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vishnu_Purana), 3.1.45): "The Power of the Supreme Being has entered within the universe. The root Viś means 'enter into.'" Swami Chinmayananda (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swami_Chinmayananda), in his translation of Vishnu sahasranama further elaborates on that verse: The root Vis means to enter. The entire world of things and beings is pervaded by Him and the Upanishad emphatically insists in its mantra "whatever that is there is the world of change." Hence, it means that He is not limited by space, time or substance. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vishnu
In this duality sansaar both are true: the One exists as the entirety AND the One incomprehensible pervades the finite in order to manifest created forms and be grasped by them which are ultimately HE.


Om sahasra shirsha purushaha
sahasrakshas sahasrapat
sa bhumim vishvato vritva
atyatishthad dhashangulam
The Purusha (the Supreme Being) has a thousand heads, a thousand eyes and a thousand feet. He has enveloped this world from all sides and has (even) transcended it by ten angulas or inches.

purusha evedagam sarvam
yadbhutam yaccha bhavyam
utamritatva syeshanaha
yadanne natirohati
All this is verily the Purusha. All that which existed in the past or will come into being in the future (is also the Purusha). Also, he is the Lord of immortality. That which grows profusely by food (is also the Purusha).

tripadurdhva udaitpurushaha
padosyeha bhavatpunaha
tato vishvajya kramat
sashana ashane abhi
The Purusha with the three-quarters (of His energy) ascended above (the spiritual energy). His one quarter of material energy becomes this creation again (and again). Then He pervades this universe comprising a variety of sentient beings and insentient objects. ~Purusha Sukta, Rig-veda (10.7.90.1-16). http://www.stephen-knapp.com/purusha_sukta.htm
CC Adi 5.66: The reflected rays of His body mix with maya, and thus maya gives birth to myriad universes. CC Adi 5.67: The purusha enters each and every one of the countless universes. He manifests Himself in as many separate forms as there are universes. CC Adi 5.68: When the purusha exhales, the universes are manifested with each outward breath. CC Adi 5.69: Thereafter, when He inhales, all the universes again enter His body. CC Adi 5.70: Just as atomic particles of dust pass through the openings of a window, so the networks of universes pass through the pores of the skin of the purusha. CC Adi 5.71: "The Brahmas and other lords of the mundane worlds appear from the pores of Maha-Vishnu and remain alive for the duration of His one exhalation. I adore the primeval Lord, Govinda, of whom Maha-Vishnu is a portion of a plenary portion."

CC Adi 5.72: "Where am I, a small creature of seven spans the measure of my own hand? I am enclosed in the universe composed of material nature, the total material energy, false ego, ether, air, water and earth. And what is Your glory? Unlimited universes pass through the pores of Your body just like particles of dust passing through the opening of a window."
CC Adi 5.73: A part of a part of a whole is called a kala. Sri Balarama is the counterform of Lord Govinda. CC Adi 5.74: Balarama's own expansion is called Maha-sankarshana, and His fragment, the purusha, is counted as a kala, or a part of a plenary portion.

CC Adi 5.75: I say that this kala is Maha-Vishnu. He is the Maha-purusha, who is the source of the other purushas and who is all-pervading. CC Adi 5.76: Garbhodasayi and Kshirodasayi are both called purushas. They are plenary portions of Karanodasayi Vishnu, the first purusha, who is the abode of all the universes. CC Adi 5.77: "Vishnu has three forms called purushas. The first, Maha-Vishnu, is the creator of the total material energy [mahat], the second is Garbhodasayi, who is situated within each universe, and the third is Kshirodasayi, who lives in the heart of every living being. He who knows these three becomes liberated from the clutches of maya." ~Sri Caitanya Caritamrita, Adi-Lila, Chapter 5: The Glories Of Lord Nityananda Balarama http://vedabase.net/cc/adi/5/en1Anyways, I think the best explanation possible of this entire debate: Lord Shiva and Lord Vishnu - Who is Supreme? Is answered by Sivaya Subramuniyaswami Ji explaining the definition of Aum Namah Shivayah mantra:
"Na is the Lord's concealing grace, Ma is the world, Śi stands for Śiva, Va is His revealing grace, Ya is the soul."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aum_Namah_Shivaya

Si -Siva = the good, auspicious
Va - His revealing grace, Rays, Vishnu
Ya - the Soul, Atma which is complete as Paramatma
Everyone is describing some quality of that which is beyond full comprehension. One says goodness the other says rays of light another says the indwelling soul. All are correct. All are aspects/emanations of what is beyond description. The Supreme cannot out Supreme itself! :p

chandu_69
02 November 2009, 07:06 AM
Namaste Atanu,


Namaste Chandu,

Thank you for the verses. But please read completely what i wrote. Where is the term Mahavishnu, which was what I commented upon? Your reference does not speak of Mahavishnu.

Maha Vishnu, Garbhodakasayi Vishnu and Kshirodakasayi Vishnu descriptions are given in vaishnava puranas and we will have to delve deeply in to them to examine the explanations.



No one denies that the Supreme abode of agnivaisvanaro vishnu is paramaM padam . I have already indicated that in general terms as shown below:

It appears that you had discussion/debate with one Mr Sudarshan Rangaswamy and others on agnivaisvanaro at http://www.hindunet.com/forum/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=59752&page=&view=&sb=5&o=&fpart=17&vc=1
It appears to be a fruitful debate.

Sages can only look upto what is visible
Then ordinary folks like you and me have no way of knowing the truth.Right?


Reflecting together on the Rig Vedic verses quoted by you and the Svet. Up. verse quoted by me will surely indicate that there are no two individuals vying for supremacy etc.
You said "Sages can only look upto what is visible"..
What is the point of quoting the sages work(shruti) if you think the sages cannot understand what is not visible.Where is the point (from your perspective) in reflecting on the shruti?


there are no two individuals vying for supremacy etc
Nobody is vying for supremacy in the verses.Shruti is not dictated by Lord.


These questions of who is above and who is below are of ego-mind.

Then why take the trouble ?.Why spend lot of time posting Your perceptions(as you put it)?

It would be more sensible to spend time chanting lord's names as eloquently put by shankaracharya:

naamasmaraNaadanyamupaayaM
nahi pashyaamo bhavataraNe

Other than chanting the Lord's names, there is no other way to cross the life's ocean.

atanu
02 November 2009, 09:51 AM
Namaste Atanu,

It would be more sensible to spend time chanting lord's names as eloquently put by shankaracharya:

naamasmaraNaadanyamupaayaM
nahi pashyaamo bhavataraNe

Other than chanting the Lord's names, there is no other way to cross the life's ocean.

Namaste Chandu,

There is no doubt and disagreement on this. I am not dwelling on other questions of yours but only reiterate that the visible and the unseen are both to be revered and worshipped. Though the seen only is amenable to meditation, the ultimate aim is the unborn --- aja, which is also the unseen.

Best wishes

Om Namah Shivaya

kd gupta
02 November 2009, 10:16 PM
Vaishnav tradition bases interpretations of Mahaprabhu Chaitanya that Purusha is Mahavishnu. Purusha is described in Rg Veda. As Chandu Ji pointed out Shri Vishnu Ji's name being described in Rg Veda as "the Supreme Abode."
tad viSNoH paramaM padaM sadA pashyanti sUrayaH


divIva cakSurAtatam || RV 1.22.20 ||


Also Rudra is name used to describe Shiva, and Shiva as a quality is being used to describe Rudra.
yA te rudra shivA tanU\-raghorA.apApakAshinI |


tayA nastanuvA shantamayA girisha.ntAbhichAkashIhi || 1\.3||


namaH sha.nkarAya cha mayaskarAya cha


namaH shivAya cha shivatarAya cha || 8\.1||


~Shri Rudram Camakam
You say, "My perspective, based on Vedas and Upanishads, is that Paramatma is unnameble but is called Shiva."

How can that which is unnameable have a name? Because the unnameable is nirguna, no letter, word or that produced by human speech could ever utter it. Nirguna is completely incomprehensible to the human mind. And for this reason the nirgun manifests itself in form, sarguna (Punjabi pronunciation). The entire created manifestation is sargun swaroop of the Ajooni (Unborn) Saibhung (Uncreated) it is true. Nonetheless the Uncreated Light/Sound vibration AUM is pervading the whole creation, OMkara. The ungraspable is pervading that which can be grasped.

This is true, however if the Rshis who grasped Sruti of Rg Veda describe the Purusha as pervading the universe and all creation why would anyone split hairs to say Paramatma/Parameshvar doesn't pervade? If Mahaprabhu Chaitanya is describing that Maha-Vishnu is all-pervading who are we to say He isn't? It's just a fine hair-splitting of subtle nuances of definition that in no way could be said to be "incorrect."


In this duality sansaar both are true: the One exists as the entirety AND the One incomprehensible pervades the finite in order to manifest created forms and be grasped by them which are ultimately HE.


Anyways, I think the best explanation possible of this entire debate: Lord Shiva and Lord Vishnu - Who is Supreme? Is answered by Sivaya Subramuniyaswami Ji explaining the definition of Aum Namah Shivayah mantra:
"Na is the Lord's concealing grace, Ma is the world, Śi stands for Śiva, Va is His revealing grace, Ya is the soul."


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aum_Namah_Shivaya



Si -Siva = the good, auspicious


Va - His revealing grace, Rays, Vishnu


Ya - the Soul, Atma which is complete as Paramatma
Everyone is describing some quality of that which is beyond full comprehension. One says goodness the other says rays of light another says the indwelling soul. All are correct. All are aspects/emanations of what is beyond description. The Supreme cannot out Supreme itself! :p

Krsn is surprised to note the enlightenment of Surdasji……In this picture .

Upadrashtaanumantaa cha bhartaa bhoktaa maheshwarah;
Paramaatmeti chaapyukto dehe’smin purushah parah.
. The Supreme Soul in this body is also called the spectator, the permitter, the supporter,
the enjoyer, the great Lord and the Supreme Self.

amith vikram
16 November 2009, 06:51 AM
shivashcha hridayam vishnuhu;
vishnoscha hridayam shivaha.

the heart of vishnu is the heart of shiva and that same heart belongs to the gnanis,the intelligent among men.

ranjeetmore
21 November 2009, 06:15 PM
The mahaviraat which is described in the Purusha Sukta is identified as Sri Mahavishnu.

This identification is present in the sakta scripture-Sri Devi bhagavatam as well as the radhatapaniya upanishad/mahanarayana upanishad
and most importantly,subala upanishad.

Purusha is a name of Sri Visnu and Mahavisnu is the first Purusha.

But,Sri Sadashiva is known to be indifferent from Sri Mahavisnu and is addressed as Bhagavan too.
This is the Gaudiya philosophy which is WIDELY accepted from Guru granth to Sri Ramkrishna to Tulsidas,etc.

Hari_Hara
28 September 2015, 02:40 AM
I believe in Padma Purana, Sri Shivaji says that He and Sri Vishnuji are one, and anyone who tries to separate them is in ignorance. Puranas can be sattvik, rajasik or tamasic because God is for everyone.

I am no pandita, but even strict Vaishnavas shoul be careful to never think of Sri Shambhuji as inferior in any way. For example, Sri Nilakantha was asked by the devas to save the universe by drinking the poison while churning the milk ocean with the tail of Vasuki. Out of love for Sri Hari, Sri Shivaji held the poison in his throat to protect Sri Rama in his heart. According to Vaishnava thought, Sri Sadashiva is an eternal aspect of Sri Visnu. Some Vaishnavas are against Shiva puja. Some claim "Vaishnavams ca Shambhuh". Although Sri Shivaji is lord of ghosts, witches and hobgoblins as Sri Bhutanath/Pasandinath, he was (in some texts) asked to do so by Sri Visnuji because no one else is worthy. Even if Sri Shivaji accepts worship from demons, he does so because he is merciful.

Sri Shivaji is most kind to all, so he is called Bholenath, the kind-hearted lord. Although he is a gina-avatar who controlls tamo-guna, He is never deluded. An intelligent Gaudiya Vaishnava told me that Sri Shivaji is Vishnu in contact with material nature. Now, chaturmukha prajapati brahmaji is a jiva who will eventuall die. Sadashiva is a pure, eternal aspect of Godhead who never dies, even when Satyaloka (the abode of Hiranyagarbha Brahmaji) destroyed.

Sri Shivaji can give moksha. Mahesh loka is eternal just like the Vaikuntha planets and Brahmajyoti. God loves everyone, and accepts love in the way jeevas express it. Being easily pleased, Shivaji is more approchable. If someone asks for a boon from Shivaji, he may grant it liberally even though itmay be misused. This is because the demons cannot actually win, but they believe they can. Even the demons that petition Sri Sankara Bhole will never succed in evil without suffering karma. Between Shiva and Vishnu, this appearant rivalry benefits all jivatmas.

Sri Rurdra is devoted to Sri Vishnu, and Sri Vishnuji loves Shivaji as his Very Self. From the forehead of Sri Narayana, jyotir linga is formed. The shadow is adi yoni. Sri Vishnu is Paramatma, and Shivaji is the ingredient cause of creation by his union with Adi Shakti devi. The jivas, the marginal tathastha shakti are created by the loving union of Shiva and Shakti. Even though it seems that Shambhuji is a transformation of Sri Vishnu, they are non-dual. They are also personal Gods. Shivaji and Shakti Devi are not jeevas, they are divine forces. Even if one believes Sri Karanodakashayi Vishnu to be the Supreme Person, His desire to create is his pleasure potency, hladini shakti.

God is personal and all-pervading. We are all eternal souls with different realtionships with the Lord. Thus, we find that Shaiva, Vaishnava and Shakta schools are all correct. The same truth czn be seen by different perspectives.

Isvara is One. One light, many lamps. Be good and do good.

Dandavat namaskar.

yanantha
15 October 2015, 09:15 PM
You are asking, which energy is supreme - Destructing OR Preserving/Protecting.
First off, energy will be in either of those two forms, changing from one to another, so they are one and the same.
When things are same, but just changing form, no one is supreme :)

shian
16 October 2015, 09:24 AM
In fact, we all life in the world of difference, human need one and another, so whatever we believe, we need to respect each other.
If we even cannot respect each other, if we dont understand how to life togheter in harmony, so is we worth for cultivation ? is we worth for Shivaloka or Goloka ?
I myself believe Vishnu and Shiva is ONE.
In fact there is always peoples who belief Shiva and Vishnu is different.
But, that is normal. Go ahead with your believe. Because we life here, in earth, not in Shivaloka or Goloka.
If we not understand how to respect other, we even dont have capacity to created harmony in world, how come we can find harmony in our mind ? Without peace in mind and heart, how come we reach Shivaloka or Goloka ?
If i want others to understand that Shiva and Vishnu is one ( Or if i want others to believe that Vishnu and Shiva is different ), so i must do something to make them believe, how to make them believe and understand ?
If i in first hand, not respect them, they will not understand, they will only hate our believe.
This mean, i not really want them to believe, in fact, i make them hate my believe.