Why ? [Archive] - Hindu Dharma Forums

View Full Version : Why ?

devotee

14 October 2009, 10:21 AM

Namaste Grames & all,

I have been witnessing unnecessary fights over, "Krishna is supreme & Shiva is somewhat inferior to him in Godliness" .... or "Advaita is just trash" etc.

This forum must be a place where we share our views ... but for sharing we must respect others' views too. There are many things we can learn from each other instead of wasting our energy over these fights. Let everyone be free to think of the Reality the way he feels right. After all, what shall we achieve with this except unnecessary acrimony ?

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

Keeping this in mind, I am starting this thread on Mahabharata. Let's see if we can make this section & this forum more useful with our insights.

Q1. Draupadi was wife of five brothers, still she is considered a virgin. Why ?
Q2. If she was not physically or mentally attached to anyone, why she fell first while ascending to heaven through the Himalayas ? And if she was, then how the first one is true ??

Views ?

OM

hthakar

14 October 2009, 11:00 AM

Namaskar,

First of all, I've been wondering the same thing. Many people just keep fighting. Sheer waste of time sifting through threads.

I didn't know that Draupadi was considered a virgin?!!
She was born from the fire of the yadnya done by her father Drupad. He has three children. Dhrishtadyumna (born to kill Dronacharya), Shikandi (Born to take vengence on Bhishmacharya) and Draupadi (born to suffer the boon given to her by Narayan).

As stated above, in her previous life, after immense sadhana, the lord Narayan was pleased and told her to ask for a boon. She asked to have a husband who was the greatest archer, who was most beautiful, who had extreme strength, who was the most ardent follower of dharma etc etc. Lord Narayan said "Tathastu" or "Let is be so".

Since one human cannot have all the qualities mentioned she had to suffer the boon of having a perfect husband by sharing 5 of them. This tells us the pitfalls of sakaam sadhana or sadhana with desire. It can go horribly wrong if we get too greedy. (MIDAS touch).

Draupadi was with one of the brothers for a whole year, then went to the other brother. She even had five children who were killed by Ashwatthama on the night Duryodhan died. She was definitely attached to all five and was extremely vengeful too.

Krutadnyata.

grames

14 October 2009, 12:07 PM

Dear Devotee,

Since you have addresses me, i am wondering and also puzzed to know that i gave you some feeling like, i am fighting, or called Advaita as trash etc.

Please i beg your pardon as well as love to know what or which of my writing gave you such impression?

Secondly, who is supreme is not just a personal choice for many and some believe it as they wish, some want to know such Supremacy out of their school of faith. I do have certain faith and i do talk about my faith with out hesitation. Same time, i do not judge or decide your faith as good or bad or trash and that is not my business.

I do love reading messages with good content and wisdom regardless of my faith.

I am for respecting other views but don't expect everyone else to be quite and silent spectators if you post a message. A public forum is not a private place and i think we should learn to live with differences of opinions.

Just my thought.

In fact, the topics that you wanted to discuss here are not of my taste! :)

Namaste Grames & all,

I have been witnessing unnecessary fights over, "Krishna is supreme & Shiva is somewhat inferior to him in Godliness" .... or "Advaita is just trash" etc.

This forum must be a place where we share our views ... but for sharing we must respect others' views too. There are many things we can learn from each other instead of wasting our energy over these fights. Let everyone be free to think of the Reality the way he feels right. After all, what shall we achieve with this except unnecessary acrimony ?

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

Keeping this in mind, I am starting this thread on Mahabharata. Let's see if we can make this section & this forum more useful with our insights.

Q1. Draupadi was wife of five brothers, still she is considered a virgin. Why ?
Q2. If she was not physically or mentally attached to anyone, why she fell first while ascending to heaven through the Himalayas ? And if she was, then how the first one is true ??

Views ?

OM

devotee

14 October 2009, 09:09 PM

Namaste Hthakar,

I didn't know that Draupadi was considered a virgin?!!
She was born from the fire of the yadnya done by her father Drupad. He has three children. Dhrishtadyumna (born to kill Dronacharya), Shikandi (Born to take vengence on Bhishmacharya) and Draupadi (born to suffer the boon given to her by Narayan).

Draupadi along with Ahalya, Tara, Kunti & Mandadari are considered "Panch Kanya" or the "Five Virgins". The irony is that all of them were married & all of them had sexual relations with more than one person.

As stated above, in her previous life, after immense sadhana, the lord Narayan was pleased and told her to ask for a boon. She asked to have a husband who was the greatest archer, who was most beautiful, who had extreme strength, who was the most ardent follower of dharma etc etc. Lord Narayan said "Tathastu" or "Let is be so".

Since one human cannot have all the qualities mentioned she had to suffer the boon of having a perfect husband by sharing 5 of them. This tells us the pitfalls of sakaam sadhana or sadhana with desire. It can go horribly wrong if we get too greedy. (MIDAS touch).

Thanks for this detail information. :)

Draupadi was with one of the brothers for a whole year, then went to the other brother. She even had five children who were killed by Ashwatthama on the night Duryodhan died. She was definitely attached to all five and was extremely vengeful too.

Correct ! In fact, there are many of the opinion that Draupadi was the root cause of Mahabharata. But if that is true then why Sri Krishna always loved her even more than his other devotees ? He always had an extra soft corner for her & always addressed her as "sakhi" or "friend".

OM

devotee

14 October 2009, 09:22 PM

Namaste Grames,

Since you have addresses me, i am wondering and also puzzed to know that i gave you some feeling like, i am fighting, or called Advaita as trash etc.

Please i beg your pardon as well as love to know what or which of my writing gave you such impression?

I may be wrong & that is a pleasure for me. May be, I am still not out of my hangover from the bitter discussion we had with Bhaktajan. Yes, I think you are right. :)

I am for respecting other views but don't expect everyone else to be quite and silent spectators if you post a message. A public forum is not a private place and i think we should learn to live with differences of opinions.

You are right, Grames, but we can express our difference of opinion without creating bad blood. It is not easy but it is possible.

In fact, the topics that you wanted to discuss here are not of my taste! :)

It is ok. It really doesn't matter. :) However, there are many things in the Puranas/Itihasas which are very important scriptures in Bhakti Yoga which can be discussed here & that can be of interest to many. After all, for the majority of the Hindus, the Puranas/Itihasas are the guiding light. This thread was an effort in that direction.

OM

yajvan

14 October 2009, 09:51 PM

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

Namast� devotee (et.al)

I have been witnessing unnecessary fights over, "Krishna is supreme & Shiva is somewhat inferior to him in Godliness" .... or "Advaita is just trash" etc.

This forum must be a place where we share our views ... but for sharing we must respect others' views too. After all, what shall we achieve with this except unnecessary acrimony ?

Many have been on this forum for a while and have seen excellent conversations become acerbic. Many a discussion has occurred as we have tried dissect the intent and root issues of where the discussion became unattractive and belligerent.

I have my own POV on this matter and will share it for another time, yet my mind instantly gravitates to a quote I hold dear in my mind:

'The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposing ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function.' - F. Scott Fitzgerald

This quality to entertain opposing views , to let them stimulate new thoughts and ideas, I find quite appealing. If one can do this without animosity to others, growth will (and does) occur quite naturally.
For this , we find the value in opposing views.

Yet if the tongue becomes a tool of jalpa (overbearing dispute for the sake of dispute) then the fine art of conversation is lessened and the value of the discussion tends to decline precipitously.

So, all here have a choice - yes we can dis-agree and have differing views. Yet the 'art' is to do this with principles, good intent and on occasion to agree to dis-agree, this is okay.

As mentioned multiple times in the past - it is by rubbing two sticks together (friction) a beautiful flame is created. Yet we need be mindful not to use the stick to beat another other into submission.

praṇām

atanu

15 October 2009, 02:08 AM

Namaste Grames & all,
--------------------------------

Keeping this in mind, I am starting this thread on Mahabharata. Let's see if we can make this section & this forum more useful with our insights.

Q1. Draupadi was wife of five brothers, still she is considered a virgin. Why ?
Q2. If she was not physically or mentally attached to anyone, why she fell first while ascending to heaven through the Himalayas ? And if she was, then how the first one is true ??

Views ?

OM

Namaste Devotee,

I feel that the confusions will remain when the view is from an embodied. Sometime back, someone, reminded us that the Kurukhsetra is the field -- the body, whereupon all warfare take place to unveil it as the place of joy and bliss.

Five brothers and their one consort and Shri Krishna's guiding role, IMO, speaks of Pancha Purusha, one Female Prakriti, shared by the Pancha Purusha and the Atman wherefrom all appear and whereto all go.

Draupadi being virgin/untouched is only possible, if she is of the form of energy, which incites trouble and which impels realisation.

Om Namah Shivaya

devotee

15 October 2009, 10:00 AM

Namaste Atanu,

I feel that the confusions will remain when the view is from an embodied.

Five brothers and their one consort and Shri Krishna's guiding role, IMO, speaks of Pancha Purusha, one Female Prakriti, shared by the Pancha Purusha and the Atman wherefrom all appear and whereto all go.

I think that is the answer for this dilemma.

Draupadi being virgin/untouched is only possible, if she is of the form of energy, which incites trouble and which impels realisation.

:)

OM

SANT

15 October 2009, 10:40 AM

Why is this in hare krishna forum.

Vaishnavism as i think does not consider shiva as a second god.
Are you going to force them to beleive in it.

Q1. Draupadi was wife of five brothers, still she is considered a virgin. Why ?
Q2. If she was not physically or mentally attached to anyone, why she fell first while ascending to heaven through the Himalayas ? And if she was, then how the first one is true ??

As i was reading, draupadi got a boon that how many times she'll make love shell stay a virgin when she goes to the next husband.Dont be surprised.Almost anything is possible in this world.
http://www.mayyam.com/hub/viewtopic.php?p=97686
http://in.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090928091249AAQ1kN8

SANT

15 October 2009, 10:50 AM

Correct ! In fact, there are many of the opinion that Draupadi was the root cause of Mahabharata. But if that is true then why Sri Krishna always loved her even more than his other devotees ? He always had an extra soft corner for her & always addressed her as "sakhi" or "friend".

where did you get this opinion from.
Krishna considered arjun also as a sakha.

chandu_69

16 October 2009, 02:23 AM

Are you going to force them to beleive in it.

Thankfully the Admin(Satay) got in to the act and did some cleaning up with the posts that scream "my way is highway".

SANT

23 October 2009, 12:05 PM

I have been witnessing unnecessary fights over, "Krishna is supreme & Shiva is somewhat inferior to him in Godliness" .... or "Advaita is just trash" etc.
Forgive me for my earlier posts now i do understand that what you are thinking.
Now i will tell my opinion on this-
When i first read the iskcon books i also did not like when i used to see lord shiva being higher than krishna in shiva puranas etc.
I had read that he is the greatesr bhakta of god krishna.
i used to think others shouldnt pray to any other dev other than vasudev.
then i came to know of india divine forums and their i would see things said by shaivites and their stories such as krishna being killed by shiva or his devotees ,vishnu worshipping shiva when he did not find his end you know them.For me this hurt me and i started not liking shiva or his devotees.then i read some places and remembered that shambu is the greatest bhakta of rama and those who envy him will go to hell.There i realised this.but still when i would see shaivites caliming such stories i would still not like it even if i read a text which proves the supremacy of shiva.may lord Shiva and his devotees forgive me
Why?
Main god in gaudiya is personal who is vishnu.
now there is only one god this was my belief and maybe still is there in my mind.so how would i feel if im told there are two gods, would i accept it readily?
Here there is no such philosophy that brahm or something impersonal gives birth to all the gods including vishnu etc

for advait being trash you should know that other than the first jagadguru all others have disagreed on god being impersonal and so so the claim to reject advait is very strong.

Spiritualseeker

23 October 2009, 12:15 PM

We have these debates because we are stuck in duality and do not understand Dharma.

SANT

23 October 2009, 12:23 PM

duality is the necessary
If there is no duality then who for dharma is and what is dharma.
Am i right or wrong?

Spiritualseeker

23 October 2009, 12:57 PM

Music heard so deeply that there is no self but just music.

The music and the one who hears are distinct. Yet when it enters the subconscious and one perceives it without judgements there is no separation. So when this happens there is only music. When one practices in such a way in the Dharma, there ends up being no dharma, no path. It is the pathless path.

In theory I understand only

SANT

23 October 2009, 01:01 PM

e: Why ?
Music heard so deeply that there is no self but just music.

The music and the one who hears are distinct. Yet when it enters the subconscious and one perceives it without judgements there is no separation. So when this happens there is only music. When one practices in such a way in the Dharma, there ends up being no dharma, no path. It is the pathless path.

In theory I understand only
In theory i tell you that you are talking about the state of meditaiton and samadhi.This is the definition of samadhi i was reading from prose off naarad puraan.

Spiritualseeker

23 October 2009, 01:25 PM

Yes. A God realized man is in a state of non-retrogression. So there is no slipping into duality. At this point he or she sees all as Divine.

SANT

23 October 2009, 01:30 PM

Yes now i get you respected spirirtual seeker.

devotee

23 October 2009, 10:03 PM

Namaste Sant,

When i first read the iskcon books i also did not like when i used to see lord shiva being higher than krishna in shiva puranas etc.
I had read that he is the greatesr bhakta of god krishna.

It is so nice of you to post this. As your earlier post did show a shocking unfriendliness towards me & I didn't understand, why ?

I assume ( please correct me if I am wrong) that you are not an Indian Hindu. Keeping that in mind, what you think is quite understandable. A non-Indian Hindu normally converted from any other religion, comes into contact of some sect/sampradAya within Hinduism. Now, sects are organised structure & that brings the difference between the thinking of a "Indian-born-hindu" people coming to Hinduism through those sects. Hinduism is not an organised religion. The common Hindu doesn't differentiates between one sect from the other. He is taught that God is one & he has various names (Refer Rg Veda : "Ekam Satya vipra bahudha vadanti"). He is also taught to pay equal respect to even Allah, Christ etc.

So, any discussion that tries to prove superiority of Lord Vishnu over Lord Shiva or vice-versa is against the core of Hindu philosophy. Now you can ask me, "Is Lord Krishna not the Supreme God ?" My answer would be, "Undoubtedly He is !". However, if you are interested (because it is not correct to unnecessarily attack someone's faith) I may also like to add, "So is Lord Shiva".

Main god in gaudiya is personal who is vishnu.
now there is only one god this was my belief and maybe still is there in my mind.so how would i feel if im told there are two gods, would i accept it readily?

You are absolutely right, God is One only.

Here there is no such philosophy that brahm or something impersonal gives birth to all the gods including vishnu etc.
for advait being trash you should know that other than the first jagadguru all others have disagreed on god being impersonal and so so the claim to reject advait is very strong.

The teachings of Advaita has its roots in Upanishads which is also called VedAnta i.e. the end of knowledge. Advaita is difficult to understand & even more difficult to practise when we are in this body in this world of duality. I assume that you are relatively new to Hinduism, so I can only tell you to have patience. If Lord Krishna & ISKCON attracts you, please pursue that path which is the path of devotion. However, when the time comes, you yourself will have the thirst for the Knowledge which is Advaita. Please don't think that it will negate Lord Krishna, Vishnu, Lord Shiva etc. .... no, you will have a much better understanding of the things then.

The Dvaita & Advaita must fulfil each other if Truth is One. That is what was proved by RAmkrishna Paramhans, the Guru of Swami VivekAnanda.

Note : After re-reading some of your posts, I am having serious doubts over my assumption of your being a non-Indian Hindu & if that is true, please forgive me, as in that case, this whole post goes for a six ! :)

OM

kd gupta

25 October 2009, 07:39 AM

amith vikram

16 November 2009, 06:44 AM

thank god,there is no pooja to brahma on earth.otherwise there would have been even more confusion and sects.

atanu

16 November 2009, 07:24 AM

It has been a long time since Atanuji wrote�veda says�.
Mata Rudranam Duhita Vasunam swasaadityanam�.means the Cow is mother of Rudras , sister of Adityas [ adityanam Vishnu say krsn ] and therefore Krsn and Rudra are related . Atanuji , favouring Rudra , are not you going to guide your MAMAS ?
:)

:) Namaste Guptaji ,

This is about the Rudras and the Adityas. Moreover, I suppose that mAtA requires a pItA also. So, this is not really about That one, who is without a second?

Om Namah Shivaya

kd gupta

16 November 2009, 10:00 PM

:) Namaste Guptaji ,

This is about the Rudras and the Adityas. Moreover, I suppose that mAtA requires a pItA also. So, this is not really about That one, who is without a second?

Om Namah Shivaya
I agree . Tameva vidittwati mrityumeti .

keshava

22 December 2009, 10:54 AM

Namaste Sant,

So, any discussion that tries to prove superiority of Lord Vishnu over Lord Shiva or vice-versa is against the core of Hindu philosophy. Now you can ask me, "Is Lord Krishna not the Supreme God ?" My answer would be, "Undoubtedly He is !". However, if you are interested (because it is not correct to unnecessarily attack someone's faith) I may also like to add, "So is Lord Shiva".

You are absolutely right, God is One only.

The teachings of Advaita has its roots in Upanishads which is also called VedAnta i.e. the end of knowledge. Advaita is difficult to understand & even more difficult to practise when we are in this body in this world of duality. I assume that you are relatively new to Hinduism, so I can only tell you to have patience. If Lord Krishna & ISKCON attracts you, please pursue that path which is the path of devotion. However, when the time comes, you yourself will have the thirst for the Knowledge which is Advaita. Please don't think that it will negate Lord Krishna, Vishnu, Lord Shiva etc. .... no, you will have a much better understanding of the things then.

OM

"So, any discussion that tries to prove superiority of Lord Vishnu over Lord Shiva or vice-versa is against the core of Hindu philosophy. "

Dear devotee I do disagree with this. This is only against core hinduism if you assume the core of hinduism is advaitic. Ramunujacrya, madhavcarya nimbarkacrya they have all been vaishnavas and argued against advaita and believed vishnu is supreme. Your statement would mean they are not Hindu or against the core of hinduism?

Turning it around its like me saying that saying that vishnu and shiva are one is against core hinduism (if i define the core to be dvaitic).

There are differenmt schools of thoughts in hinduism some disgaree with advaita and some disagree with dvaita some think all gods are one and others believe they are different.

Debates and discussions are healthy in hinduism thats why hindu philosophy is very refined hindus have never attacked each other physically because of philosphical differences they have vigrously debated but respect freedom of thought fundamentally.
I personally believe debate is healthy in hinduism and we should encourge people to ask questions rather than trying to create artifcial oneness in religion. Thoughts which make sense will survive those that dont will become extinct.

amith vikram

23 December 2009, 12:54 AM

"So, any discussion that tries to prove superiority of Lord Vishnu over Lord Shiva or vice-versa is against the core of Hindu philosophy. "

This is only against core hinduism if you assume the core of hinduism is advaitic. Ramunujacrya, madhavcarya nimbarkacrya they have all been vaishnavas and argued against advaita and believed vishnu is supreme..

But madhvacharya's philosophy cant be accepted by the vedic people because,madhvacharya refuted his own guru who was advaitin and preached his own interpretation,which is against the vedic practice of guru-shishya parampara.
i dont know much about ramanuja and nimbakacharya.

keshava

23 December 2009, 04:45 AM

But madhvacharya's philosophy cant be accepted by the vedic people because,madhvacharya refuted his own guru who was advaitin and preached his own interpretation,which is against the vedic practice of guru-shishya parampara.
i dont know much about ramanuja and nimbakacharya.

Thats a narrow view.

Where does it say that one canot have different interpretations of the vedas. Have you heard of the 6 vedic darshanas? advaita as well as dvaita and other philosophies spring from the 6 darshanas.
http://www.hindupedia.com/en/Darsana

In madhvacarya's case the guru became the disciple of Sri Madhvacarya. All though he was officially his guru. His advaitic philosphy was defeated by madhva through logic and scripture when he was young. Guru disciple is not blind following as I understand it.

In vedic philosophy/india if one is defeated by logic reason and shastra then one should humbly become the disciple.

Bali maharaj is another famous devotee for rejecting his guru shukracarya for the higher principle of accepting Vishnu and giving Vamanadeva 3 steps of land. Ultimatley surrendering to vishnu in defiance of his guru's contrary suggestion.

Whats vedic and whats not vedic depends on the premise you hold as true which depends in which school of thought you belong to.

amith vikram

23 December 2009, 05:39 AM

Thats a narrow view.

Where does it say that one canot have different interpretations of the vedas. Have you heard of the 6 vedic darshanas? advaita as well as dvaita and other philosophies spring from the 6 darshanas.
http://www.hindupedia.com/en/Darsana

In madhvacarya's case the guru became the disciple of Sri Madhvacarya. All though he was officially his guru. His advaitic philosphy was defeated by madhva through logic and scripture when he was young. Guru disciple is not blind following as I understand it.

In vedic philosophy/india if one is defeated by logic reason and shastra then one should humbly become the disciple.

Bali maharaj is another famous devotee for rejecting his guru shukracarya for the higher principle of accepting Vishnu and giving Vamanadeva 3 steps of land. Ultimatley surrendering to vishnu in defiance of his guru's contrary suggestion.

Whats vedic and whats not vedic depends on the premise you hold as true which depends in which school of thought you belong to.
i am not sure weather the advaitin teacher was defeated or the student simply refused to believe.madvacharya has written bhashyas to the prasthana triya.if we look at that bhashyas,one can say that,it is a mix of all the other 5 darshanas.
i am not profound in all these.anyway its just my view on this matter.
bali chakravarthy's case is entirely different.there,the acharya does not give any upadesh but only warns.
however i want to bring another point into light.vedanta philosophy was revived and vastly accepted on the advaita basis.in fact advaita is not a school of thought.it is the attribute of brahma tattva.and also it is older than any other philosophies.

keshava

23 December 2009, 07:04 AM

i am not sure weather the advaitin teacher was defeated or the student simply refused to believe.madvacharya has written bhashyas to the prasthana triya.if we look at that bhashyas,one can say that,it is a mix of all the other 5 darshanas.
i am not profound in all these.anyway its just my view on this matter.
bali chakravarthy's case is entirely different.there,the acharya does not give any upadesh but only warns.
however i want to bring another point into light.vedanta philosophy was revived and vastly accepted on the advaita basis.in fact advaita is not a school of thought.it is the attribute of brahma tattva.and also it is older than any other philosophies.

From the histories I can find from madhavacrya the guru was defeated and became the disciple of Madhva and in others he gave hi blessings to establish a new order.
http://www.chaitanya-monks.org/articles/story-madhvacharya Ramunjacryas teacher tried to kill him or his fellow students to please the guru tried to kill him and eventually Ramunjacharya accepted yamunacrya as his guru to revive visihtadvaita.

Its true that the vedanta philosophy after the bhudhist period in india was accepted widely but just as bhudhism was seen as incomplete and flawed by advaita philosophers advaita was seen as flawed and incomplete by later philosophers and saints like ramunja and madhva etc.

In terms of age of it being the oldest in terms of mordern history it is old however the predominent philosophy before the advaita philosophy was mimamsa ritualistic philosophy as well as bhudhist. At the time of sankara there were also the bhakti proponents who were the famous alvars in south india. In terms of history according to the ithihasas and puranas both concepts existed to some degree. E.g Bhagvatam and bhagvad gita are more devotional and in line with vishistadvaita and dvaita and less advaitic where as vaisista munis text (although interpretations are there from both advaitic and dvaitic sides on most scriptures) are more advaitic.

"in fact advaita is not a school of thought.it is the attribute of brahma tattva."

This is according to advaitic interpretation of scripture. The word itself may used to describe the supreme as one but the philosophy that everything is one is based on which darshan you use to interpret the scriptures.

smaranam

23 December 2009, 03:31 PM

Its true that the vedanta philosophy after the bhudhist period in india was accepted widely but just as bhudhism was seen as incomplete and flawed by advaita philosophers advaita was seen as flawed and incomplete by later philosophers and saints like ramunja and madhva etc.

Namaste, welcome to the forums.

The Absolute Truth is not Black and White, and although One, is multifaceted - to this we all agree.

Could it not be that all these great souls brought forth different facets of its beauty to mankind ?

Today there are followers of Buddha's Buddhism, Advaita Vedanta (of Adi Shankaracharya, pre and post, and its Shaiva Shakta versions) , Madhavacharya's Dvaita, Ramanujacharya's Vishishta-advaita, Lord Chaitanya's Achintya-Bheda-abheda, Mahaprabhu Vallabhacharya's Shuddha Advaita, and there could be PUrva Mimansakas too.

Does something tell us this is how Brahman/Parameshwar wanted it to be ? To cater to His own variegated Jagat (Universe), and particularly the ones that turn to Him/spirituality.

This is not to argue about anything, just a thought :)

PraNAm

amith vikram

24 December 2009, 02:39 AM

From the histories I can find from madhavacrya the guru was defeated and became the disciple of Madhva and in others he gave hi blessings to establish a new order.
http://www.chaitanya-monks.org/articles/story-madhvacharya Ramunjacryas teacher tried to kill him or his fellow students to please the guru tried to kill him and eventually Ramunjacharya accepted yamunacrya as his guru to revive visihtadvaita.

Its true that the vedanta philosophy after the bhudhist period in india was accepted widely but just as bhudhism was seen as incomplete and flawed by advaita philosophers advaita was seen as flawed and incomplete by later philosophers and saints like ramunja and madhva etc.

In terms of age of it being the oldest in terms of mordern history it is old however the predominent philosophy before the advaita philosophy was mimamsa ritualistic philosophy as well as bhudhist. At the time of sankara there were also the bhakti proponents who were the famous alvars in south india. In terms of history according to the ithihasas and puranas both concepts existed to some degree. E.g Bhagvatam and bhagvad gita are more devotional and in line with vishistadvaita and dvaita and less advaitic where as vaisista munis text (although interpretations are there from both advaitic and dvaitic sides on most scriptures) are more advaitic.

"in fact advaita is not a school of thought.it is the attribute of brahma tattva."

This is according to advaitic interpretation of scripture. The word itself may used to describe the supreme as one but the philosophy that everything is one is based on which darshan you use to interpret the scriptures.
I feel the theories which are in conflict with advaita is mostly vaishnavism.i dont know how there could be any seperate sect called vaishnavas.in the gita,krishna says-'whatever you pray,you pray me;whatever you follow,you follow me;all the jivas invariably,strive to attain me'.according to this,the whole world.,weather you are in india or any other place and you have any other dieties,all that is vishnu.so this is a known fact.so how could there be anything called as vaishnavism?,now even if you are dont believe in god,still you are a vaishnava.

the whole concept of vaishnavism,according to me,doesnt stand.

keshava

24 December 2009, 03:30 AM

I feel the theories which are in conflict with advaita is mostly vaishnavism.i dont know how there could be any seperate sect called vaishnavas.in the gita,krishna says-'whatever you pray,you pray me;whatever you follow,you follow me;all the jivas invariably,strive to attain me'.according to this,the whole world.,weather you are in india or any other place and you have any other dieties,all that is vishnu.so this is a known fact.so how could there be anything called as vaishnavism?,now even if you are dont believe in god,still you are a vaishnava.

the whole concept of vaishnavism,according to me,doesnt stand.

From what I understand your saying is that whoever and whatever you follow that is krishna - and you think this is what krishna is saying.

From what I see from gita Krishna makes a differentiation between those that follow him directly and those that follow him indirectly. I assume you accept the words of the gita. I presume you are refering to the following verse.

(Bhagavad-gita 9.23):
ye �py anya-devata-bhakta
yajante sraddhayanvitah
te �pi mam eva kaunteya
yajanty avidhi-purvakam

Those who are devotees of other gods and who worship them with faith actually worship only Me, O son of Kuntī, but they do so in a wrong way.
Here krishna is making the distinction between him and other gods. He is saying that worshipping them is worshipping him but its wrong way.

Lord Sri Krishna clearly says that those who are devotees of other gods (anya-devata) and who worship them with faith (sraddhayanvitah) are actually worshiping only Him (mam eva) � but they are doing it in the wrong way (avidhi-purvakam).

The Bhagavad-gita says it is wrong. Other translations say it is unathorised way.

In verses previous (chapter 7) to this one Krishna explains why people worship other devas. And how great souls worship Krishna.

Text 19
bahunam janmanam ante
jnanavan mam prapadyate
vasudevah sarvam iti
sa mahatma su-durlabhah
Translation

After many births and deaths, he who is actually in knowledge surrenders unto Me, knowing Me to be the cause of all causes and all that is. Such a great soul is very rare.

Text 20
kamais tais tair hrta-jnanah
prapadyante �nya-devatah
tam tam niyamam asthaya
prakritya niyatah svaya
Translation
Those whose intelligence has been stolen by material desires surrender unto demigods and follow the particular rules and regulations of worship according to their own natures.

Lord Sri Krishna says that because of materialistic desires (kamaih), those who surrender to other gods (anya-devatah) are bereft of intelligence (hrita-jnanah).

Worshiping krishna is like worshipping the root of a tree all other branches are satisfied as Krsna is the source of everything. Therefore those that water the branches although it is still worship of krishna it is less intelligent.

Krishna also makes distinctions about the types of results that are gained from worshiping krishna directly and indirectly.

Bhagavad-Gita 7.23

antavat tu phalam tesam
tad bhavaty alpa-medhasam
devan deva-yajo yanti
mad-bhakta yanti mam api
"Men of small intelligence worship the demigods, and their fruits are limited and temporary. Those who worship the demigods go to the planets of the demigods, but My devotees ultimately reach My supreme planet."

There are also other verses that demonstrate there is a distinction between worshipping krsna direct and indirectly and its results. Therefore the concept of vaishnavism is to worship krishna or vishnu directly not indirectly as the bhagvad gita explains.

Hope that helps

keshava

24 December 2009, 05:28 AM

Namaste, welcome to the forums.

The Absolute Truth is not Black and White, and although One, is multifaceted - to this we all agree.

Could it not be that all these great souls brought forth different facets of its beauty to mankind ?

Today there are followers of Buddha's Buddhism, Advaita Vedanta (of Adi Shankaracharya, pre and post, and its Shaiva Shakta versions) , Madhavacharya's Dvaita, Ramanujacharya's Vishishta-advaita, Lord Chaitanya's Achintya-Bheda-abheda, Mahaprabhu Vallabhacharya's Shuddha Advaita, and there could be PUrva Mimansakas too.

Does something tell us this is how Brahman/Parameshwar wanted it to be ? To cater to His own variegated Jagat (Universe), and particularly the ones that turn to Him/spirituality.

This is not to argue about anything, just a thought :)

PraNAm

Namste - Hope you are well. Thank you for your insight. You're right the truth is not black or white and its probably not something we can have by just a theoretical understanding. We have to eat the cake and see if it taste good in practice not just in theory.

Ultimately the Lord has given as a many paths and people have also created as many paths as we have desires some are benificial some may lead us to bondage and some may liberate us. We are naturally attracted to paths that our mental disposositions and desires are intune with. I feel to the degree we desire god and the truth sincerley, the Lord helps and directs us to find him from within and without.

May the truth set us free (-:

amith vikram

24 December 2009, 06:09 AM

From what I understand your saying is that whoever and whatever you follow that is krishna - and you think this is what krishna is saying.

From what I see from gita Krishna makes a differentiation between those that follow him directly and those that follow him indirectly. I assume you accept the words of the gita. I presume you are refering to the following verse.

(Bhagavad-gita 9.23):
ye �py anya-devata-bhakta
yajante sraddhayanvitah
te �pi mam eva kaunteya
yajanty avidhi-purvakam

Those who are devotees of other gods and who worship them with faith actually worship only Me, O son of Kuntī, but they do so in a wrong way.
Here krishna is making the distinction between him and other gods. He is saying that worshipping them is worshipping him but its wrong way.

Lord Sri Krishna clearly says that those who are devotees of other gods (anya-devata) and who worship them with faith (sraddhayanvitah) are actually worshiping only Him (mam eva) � but they are doing it in the wrong way (avidhi-purvakam).

The Bhagavad-gita says it is wrong. Other translations say it is unathorised way.

In verses previous (chapter 7) to this one Krishna explains why people worship other devas. And how great souls worship Krishna.

Text 19
bahunam janmanam ante
jnanavan mam prapadyate
vasudevah sarvam iti
sa mahatma su-durlabhah
Translation

After many births and deaths, he who is actually in knowledge surrenders unto Me, knowing Me to be the cause of all causes and all that is. Such a great soul is very rare.

Text 20
kamais tais tair hrta-jnanah
prapadyante �nya-devatah
tam tam niyamam asthaya
prakritya niyatah svaya
Translation
Those whose intelligence has been stolen by material desires surrender unto demigods and follow the particular rules and regulations of worship according to their own natures.

Lord Sri Krishna says that because of materialistic desires (kamaih), those who surrender to other gods (anya-devatah) are bereft of intelligence (hrita-jnanah).

Worshiping krishna is like worshipping the root of a tree all other branches are satisfied as Krsna is the source of everything. Therefore those that water the branches although it is still worship of krishna it is less intelligent.

Krishna also makes distinctions about the types of results that are gained from worshiping krishna directly and indirectly.

Bhagavad-Gita 7.23

antavat tu phalam tesam
tad bhavaty alpa-medhasam
devan deva-yajo yanti
mad-bhakta yanti mam api
"Men of small intelligence worship the demigods, and their fruits are limited and temporary. Those who worship the demigods go to the planets of the demigods, but My devotees ultimately reach My supreme planet."

There are also other verses that demonstrate there is a distinction between worshipping krsna direct and indirectly and its results. Therefore the concept of vaishnavism is to worship krishna or vishnu directly not indirectly as the bhagvad gita explains.

Hope that helps
excellent as it is.that is exactly what."men of small intellect worship demigods.."krishna is also a demigod.isnt he?why do you think you worship krishna?is it because he is better looking or well dressed or because he is supreme?or because you simply cant stop liking his personality?or for his overwhelming love to his bhaktas?....
If one worships or likes krishna because of his infinite attributes,that is not pure worship.because all of it is tainted with material or sometimes egoistic.true we may not expect anything from anyone,but yet somewhere inside we do have ego.
love for the sake of love is also expectation,dependance,bondage.if according to you,if krishna is telling off arjuna to worship only and only krishna,that is simply a narrow thought.

keshava

30 December 2009, 04:49 AM

Ganeshprasad

30 December 2009, 06:04 AM

keshava

30 December 2009, 06:47 AM

Pranam

I see some nice discussion going here thank you, just need to make one observation the translation of the verse 7-23 to me just does not match what Lord Krishna is saying.
　
antavat tu phalam tesam
tad bhavaty alpa-medhasam
devan deva-yajo yanti
mad-bhakta yanti mam api

"Men of small intelligence worship the demigods, and their fruits are limited and temporary. Those who worship the demigods go to the planets of the demigods, but My devotees ultimately reach My supreme planet."
(Bhagavad-Gita 7.23)

Now compare the (most other) translation which is what Krishna is saying in Bhagvat Gita

Such (material) gains of these less intelligent human beings are temporary. The worshipers of Devas go to Devas, but My devotees come to Me. (7.23)

It takes a complete different meaning when the verse is read as it is!
Besides in Gita Bhagvan Krishna has not condemned anya devatas worship if you read with unbiased mind you will discover he has actually encouraged it. In Vedas they are all Devas no such thing as demigod.

Jai Shree Krishna

Pranams Ganeshprasadji.

I quoted that verse not to condemn deva worship but to show that Krishna is making a distinction between himself and other devas and their results. However I take your point.

From what I can see and have read from the verses from bhagvad gita as it is - is that Srila prabhupada often includes in the translation the context even if its not in the particular verse. Im not a sanskrit expert so am not sure whether this is the case with this translation or not. The word for word from as it is is.

anta (http://vedabase.net/a/anta)-vat (http://vedabase.net/v/vat) � perishable; tu (http://vedabase.net/t/tu) � but; phalam (http://vedabase.net/p/phalam) � fruit; teṣām (http://vedabase.net/t/tesam) � their; tat (http://vedabase.net/t/tat) � that; bhavati (http://vedabase.net/b/bhavati) � becomes; alpa (http://vedabase.net/a/alpa)-medhasām (http://vedabase.net/m/medhasam) � of those of small intelligence; devān (http://vedabase.net/d/devan) � to (http://vedabase.net/t/to) the demigods; deva (http://vedabase.net/d/deva)-yajaḥ (http://vedabase.net/y/yajah) � the worshipers of the demigods; yānti (http://vedabase.net/y/yanti) � go (http://vedabase.net/g/go); mat (http://vedabase.net/m/mat) � My; bhaktāḥ (http://vedabase.net/b/bhaktah) � devotees; yānti (http://vedabase.net/y/yanti) � go (http://vedabase.net/g/go); mām (http://vedabase.net/m/mam) � to (http://vedabase.net/t/to) Me (http://vedabase.net/m/me); api (http://vedabase.net/a/api) � also.

In the preceding verses he is talking about devta worship so even the translation you quoted "Such (material) gains of these less intelligent human beings are temporary. " These less intelligent human beings are devta worshippers.

Even if you look at the gita societies (monist philosophy) translation at least in the preceding verses its clear that Krishna has made a statement on what type of men resort to devta worship.

Persons, whose discernment has been carried away by various desires impelled by their Karmic impression, resort to celestial controllers and practice various religious rites. (7.20)

Whosoever desires to worship whatever deity � using any name, form, and method � with faith, I make their faith steady in that very deity. Endowed with steady faith they worship that deity, and obtain their wishes through that deity. Those wishes are, indeed, granted only by Me. (7.21-22)

Such material gains of these less intelligent human beings are temporary. The worshipers of celestial controllers go to celestial controllers, but My devotees certainly come to Me. (7.23)

The ignorant ones � unable to understand My immutable, incomparable, incomprehensible, and transcendental form � assume that I, the Supreme Being, am formless and take forms or incarnate. Concealed by My divine power (Maya), I do not reveal Myself to such ignorants who do not know and understand My unborn, eternal, and transcendental form and personality. (7.24-25)

in verse 7.20 here is the word for word from as it is:
kāmaiḥ (http://vedabase.net/k/kamaih) � by desires; taiḥ (http://vedabase.net/t/taih) taiḥ (http://vedabase.net/t/taih) � various; hṛta (http://vedabase.net/h/hrta) � deprived of; j�ānāḥ (http://vedabase.net/j/jnanah) � knowledge; prapadyante (http://vedabase.net/p/prapadyante) � surrender; anya (http://vedabase.net/a/anya) � to (http://vedabase.net/t/to) other; devatāḥ (http://vedabase.net/d/devatah) � demigods; tam (http://vedabase.net/t/tam) tam (http://vedabase.net/t/tam) � corresponding; niyamam (http://vedabase.net/n/niyamam) � regulations; āsthāya (http://vedabase.net/a/asthaya) � following; prakṛtyā (http://vedabase.net/p/prakrtya) � by nature; niyatāḥ (http://vedabase.net/n/niyatah) � controlled; svayā (http://vedabase.net/s/svaya) � by their own.

Demigod is an english term used to describe devatas- some people use celestial being, however srila prabhupada used the term to distinguish between the controllers of the material world (Jiva tattva and siva-tattva although sadasiva is considered to be vishnu tattva) and the absolute controller (Vishnu Tattva or brahma tattva). Monists dont need to make this distinction as they consider all devtas to be one - however vaishnavas make this distinction (they may or may not use the word demigod)

I agree Lord Krishna hasn't condemned Devta worship and he himself says he helps steady that type of worship but i wouldnt go as far to say he encourages it. He points out its limitedness and its appealing for certain types of men, he seems to make it clear that its is not the highest type of worship and that worshipping devtas is not the same as worshipping him and their distinations and results are different.

Pranams

Ganeshprasad

30 December 2009, 10:29 AM

Pranam Keshava ji

From what I can see and have read from the verses from bhagvad gita as it is - is that Srila prabhupada often includes in the translation the context even if its not in the particular verse. Im not a sanskrit expert so am not sure whether this is the case with this translation or not. The word for word from as it is is.

anta (http://vedabase.net/a/anta)-vat (http://vedabase.net/v/vat) � perishable; tu (http://vedabase.net/t/tu) � but; phalam (http://vedabase.net/p/phalam) � fruit; teṣām (http://vedabase.net/t/tesam) � their; tat (http://vedabase.net/t/tat) � that; bhavati (http://vedabase.net/b/bhavati) � becomes; alpa (http://vedabase.net/a/alpa)-medhasām (http://vedabase.net/m/medhasam) � of those of small intelligence; devān (http://vedabase.net/d/devan) � to (http://vedabase.net/t/to) the demigods; deva (http://vedabase.net/d/deva)-yajaḥ (http://vedabase.net/y/yajah) � the worshipers of the demigods; yānti (http://vedabase.net/y/yanti) � go (http://vedabase.net/g/go); mat (http://vedabase.net/m/mat) � My; bhaktāḥ (http://vedabase.net/b/bhaktah) � devotees; yānti (http://vedabase.net/y/yanti) � go (http://vedabase.net/g/go); mām (http://vedabase.net/m/mam) � to (http://vedabase.net/t/to) Me (http://vedabase.net/m/me); api (http://vedabase.net/a/api) � also.

If we want to look at the context as you rightly point out, in verse 20 we must consider desire and pakruti is the cause or the result of unintelligence , where else Prabhupad is trying to imply in verse 23 that deava worship is by man of small intelligence.
You don�t have to be a Sanskrit scholar to see that in first half of the verse 23 there is neither deva or worship. If he has used context then I am afraid it is a distortion and not true as to what Krishna is saying.
　
TEXT 20
kamais tais tair hrta-jnanah
prapadyante 'nya-devatah
tam tam niyamam asthaya
prakrtya niyatah svaya
They, whose wisdom has been carried away by various desires impelled by their own Sanskaara, resort to other gods (or deities) and practice various religious rites. (7.20)

Demigod is an english term used to describe devatas- some people use celestial being,

Neither do justice to devas of Vedas, there are 33 in total and there is no half measures about them
as nicely put by Sarbhanga Indra is the King of Gods, Agni is the God of Fire, Sarasvati is the Goddess of Knowledge ~ there is NO half-measure about it.

I agree Lord Krishna hasn't condemned Devta worship and he himself says he helps steady that type of worship but i wouldnt go as far to say he encourages it. He points out its limitedness and its appealing for certain types of men, he seems to make it clear that its is not the highest type of worship and that worshipping devtas is not the same as worshipping him and their distinations and results are different.

" These less intelligent human beings are devta worshippers.

above two quotes would make no sense if we consider what Lord Krishna says

He also say in chapter 9 those who worship him with desires return back,

as to weather he encourages Deva worship or not depends on what we read in Gita, here it is and I quote

Nourish the Devas with Yajna, and the Devas will nourish you. Thus nourishing one another you shall attain the Supreme goal. (3.11)

Men in the mode of goodness worship the devas; those in the mode of passion worshipthe demons; and those in the mode of ignorance worship ghosts and spirits. (17.4)
　
The worship of Devas, Braahmana, guru, and the wise; purity, honesty, celibacy, and nonviolence; these are said to be the austerity of deed. (17.14)

Jai Shree Krishna

lighthouse

30 December 2009, 09:27 PM

I fully agree on viewpoints of Shri Ganeshprasad ji.

amith vikram

31 December 2009, 02:19 AM

Hope you had a merry christmas

"excellent as it is.that is exactly what."men of small intellect worship demigods.."krishna is also a demigod.isnt he?"

No accroding to the gita - krishna is making a distinction between him and demigods.

"why do you think you worship krishna?is it because he is better looking or well dressed or because he is supreme?or because you simply cant stop liking his personality?or for his overwhelming love to his bhaktas?....
If one worships or likes krishna because of his infinite attributes,that is not pure worship.because all of it is tainted with material or sometimes egoistic."

Why do you think that is not pure worship? Is your idea of pure worship oneness? What is pure worship according to you? According to vaishnava philosophy (abhedabheda and vishitadvaita) understanding the oness in everthing is the preliminary stage where you understand everything is the Lords energy simulatnously one and different just like the sun and the sunshine vasudeva sarvam iti - then above this there is the understanding of parmatma then bhagavan spiritual variety in the lord. Those on the mental platform can undertsand with thier material mind the oness of the lord but the mind is material and anything higher needs a spiritual process.

"love for the sake of love is also expectation,dependance,bondage.if according to you,if krishna is telling off arjuna to worship only and only krishna,that is simply a narrow thought."

Im not saying worship only and only krishna - if you have read the gita Krishna himself is saying to arjuna to worship him alone. Of course you can twist the direct meaning to suit ones own theory.

According to krishna love for him is spiritual and liberating. If you dont like gita as its is then you are free to check in other translations.

BG 15.16 (http://vedabase.net/bg/15/16/en1): There are two classes of beings, the fallible and the infallible. In the material world every living entity is fallible, and in the spiritual world every living entity is called infallible.
BG 15.17 (http://vedabase.net/bg/15/17/en1): Besides these two, there is the greatest living personality, the Supreme Soul, the imperishable Lord Himself, who has entered the three worlds and is maintaining them.
BG 15.18 (http://vedabase.net/bg/15/18/en1): Because I am transcendental, beyond both the fallible and the infallible, and because I am the greatest, I am celebrated both in the world and in the Vedas as that Supreme Person.
BG 15.19 (http://vedabase.net/bg/15/19/en1): Whoever knows Me as the Supreme Personality of Godhead, without doubting, is the knower of everything. He therefore engages himself in full devotional service to Me, O son of Bharata (http://vedabase.net/b/bharata).

Here are more quotes how love for the supreme spiritual is not material nor binding like you claimed but actaully the most intelligent thing to become liberated. I'm aware monists usually think the bhaktas are less intelligent or sentimental but krishna here is saying they are actually the highest of all yogis.

Bg 6.46 Arjuna inquired: Which are considered to be more perfect, those who are always properly engaged in Your devotional service or those who worship the impersonal Brahman, the unmanifested?

Bg 6.47 "And of all yogis, the one with great faith who always abides in Me, thinks of Me within himself, and renders transcendental loving service to Me--he is the most intimately united with Me in yoga and is the highest of all. That is My opinion."

As you may have a problem with bhagvad gita as it is these are the same verses from the gita society which claims to be non secterian nor affiliated to any organisation.

<SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 14.0pt">The yogi is superior to the ascetics. The yogi is superior to the Vedic scholars. The yogi is superior to the ritualists. Therefore, O Arjuna, be a yogi. (6.46)
And I consider the yogi-devotee ¾ who lovingly contemplates Me with supreme faith and whose mind is ever absorbed in Me ¾ to be the best of all the yogis. (See also 12.02 and 18.66) (6.47)
Bg 12.2 "The Supreme Personality of Godhead said: Those who fix their minds on My personal form and are always engaged in worshiping Me with great and transcendental faith are considered by Me to be the most perfect."

From gita society
Lord Krishna said: I consider the best yogis to be those ever steadfast devotees who worship with supreme faith by fixing their mind on Me as their personal God. (See also 6.47) (12.02)

This verse is after the famous sarva dharma partiyajya verse where he says mam ekam - -(me and only me)
Abandon all varieties of religion and just surrender unto Me. I shall deliver you from all sinful reactions. Do not fear.

after this he says dont explain this science to non bhaktas or the envious seems like Krishna knew how this secret would be taken by thoses who believe love for him is material and creates bondage.

Bg 18.67 "This confidential knowledge may never be explained to those who are not austere, or devoted, or engaged in devotional service, nor to one who is envious of Me."

From gita society
This knowledge should never be spoken by you to one who is devoid of austerity, who is without devotion, who does not desire to listen, or who speaks ill of Me. (18.67)

All our mental theories are defective as we are limited finite beings therefore all people that claim to be vedic should quote from scripture to make their claims as they accept it as being apurushya - not from man but from the supreme.
We started off this discussion as you claimed vaishnavs are not vedic and claimed that even someone that doesnt believe in a god is a vaishnava. I have shown this is not the case according to gita. You then have claimed that love is material and causes bondage even if its for krishna - again according to the gita this is incorrect.

Hare Krishna
i notice we are quoting the same verses from the same book and still we have a difference in opinion.that is may be because the teachings are entirely different.i can
understand your standpoint that HARI is the master of all,weather humans or gandharvas,wheather living or dead,or the other gods.this is not the complete truth.in
fact there is no truth in this.according to this theory,there is no point in seeking liberation.what is liberation first of all?why should anyone be liberated and from what?
when we know what is binding,then we can get a thought of liberation.but this theory doesnt explain anything.pardon me,i'm not trying to be naive,but then its a discussion.
all the relegions in this world say this same theory: pray god and be happy.vaishnavism goes one step further and says pray god and be happy for ever.funny,when we are not
eternal,how can our love be.
the differnce between other religions and the sanatana dharma is that,this SD is not any relegion which talks bout any god.in every word,on every opputunity, every now and then
it speaks of liberation.that is the reason india has been non-materialistc from so many years.that is the difference between newyork and our villages.SD is a doorway to liberation.
and only for this reason,they say birth in bharatha is durlabh.otherwise why would any one aspire to be born in india,when you can sit back and drink wine in some big house in miami.
whats holding our liberation then?the identification of our self.who is amith or who is keshava? in an instant we identify ourselves with our body.advaita says, why do you identify
yourself with these inert things like body,house etc..we say this body is 'mine' in the same way that we say this shirt is mine.then who am i?you are that happines which you are trying to squeeze out
from these inert things.you are already that happiness,and you dont have to go around anywhere searching for it.tat-tvam-asi.
this phenomenal world appears to anyone who associates himself with that.just like we attribute the blueness to the sky.because all the things imaginable and beyond are made of this 'one'
which we are already.just like both bangle and ring are but gold.this theory actually explains the supremacy of hari and his all pervading nature.thats why they say,the body dies and not atman(refer gita)
and advaita explains the nature of this atman.
and for this realisation,does one become non-materialists,does on become sanyasi,does one become yogi.if not for this,i wonder why anyone would be in yoga and torture himself.
The abandonment of the illusory universe by realizing it as the all-conscious Atman is the real renunciation honored by the great,
since it is of the nature of immediate liberation.
advaita is not against bhakti.according to advaita,if one has a great devotion to guru and the dieties,liberation is sure.
source:aparokshanubhuti by adi shankaracharya.

keshava

31 December 2009, 04:45 AM

Pranams Ganeshprashadji

Pranam Keshava ji

If we want to look at the context as you rightly point out, in verse 20 we must consider desire and pakruti is the cause or the result of unintelligence , where else Prabhupad is trying to imply in verse 23 that deava worship is by man of small intelligence.
　
TEXT 20
kamais tais tair hrta-jnanah
prapadyante 'nya-devatah
tam tam niyamam asthaya
prakrtya niyatah svaya
They, whose wisdom has been carried away by various desires impelled by their own Sanskaara, resort to other gods (or deities) and practice various religious rites. (7.20)

Jai Shree Krishna

It looks like you're saying " desire and pakruti is the cause or the result of unintelligence " Not the worship of devatas.
7.20
kāmaiḥ (http://vedabase.net/k/kamaih) � by desires; taiḥ (http://vedabase.net/t/taih) taiḥ (http://vedabase.net/t/taih) � various; hṛta (http://vedabase.net/h/hrta) � deprived of; j�ānāḥ (http://vedabase.net/j/jnanah) � knowledge; prapadyante (http://vedabase.net/p/prapadyante) � surrender; anya (http://vedabase.net/a/anya) � to (http://vedabase.net/t/to) other; devatāḥ (http://vedabase.net/d/devatah) � demigods; tam (http://vedabase.net/t/tam) tam (http://vedabase.net/t/tam) � corresponding; niyamam (http://vedabase.net/n/niyamam) � regulations; āsthāya (http://vedabase.net/a/asthaya) � following; prakṛtyā (http://vedabase.net/p/prakrtya) � by nature; niyatāḥ (http://vedabase.net/n/niyatah) � controlled; svayā (http://vedabase.net/s/svaya) � by their own.

In the word for word it looks like krsna is making the point that those who turn to other devtas have lost their intelligence by material desires.

If you look at the preceding verses krsna talks about other souls who are polluted by material desires but they are described as su-krtinah "those who are pious" rather than unintelligent as they turn to krsna.

7.16
catuḥ (http://vedabase.net/c/catuh)-vidhāḥ (http://vedabase.net/v/vidhah) � four kinds of; bhajante (http://vedabase.net/b/bhajante) � render services; mām (http://vedabase.net/m/mam) � unto Me (http://vedabase.net/m/me); janāḥ (http://vedabase.net/j/janah) � persons; su (http://vedabase.net/s/su)-kṛtinaḥ (http://vedabase.net/k/krtinah) � those who are (http://vedabase.net/a/are) pious; arjuna (http://vedabase.net/a/arjuna) � O (http://vedabase.net/o/o) Arjuna (http://vedabase.net/a/arjuna); ārtaḥ (http://vedabase.net/a/artah) � the distressed; jij�āsuḥ (http://vedabase.net/j/jijnasuh) � the inquisitive; artha (http://vedabase.net/a/artha)-arthī (http://vedabase.net/a/arthi) � one who desires material gain; j�ānī (http://vedabase.net/j/jnani) � one who knows things as (http://vedabase.net/a/as) they are (http://vedabase.net/a/are); ca (http://vedabase.net/c/ca) � also; bharata (http://vedabase.net/b/bharata)-ṛṣabha (http://vedabase.net/r/rsabha) � O (http://vedabase.net/o/o) great one amongst the descendants of Bharata (http://vedabase.net/b/bharata).O best among the Bhāratas, four kinds of pious men begin to render devotional service unto Me � the distressed, the desirer of wealth, the inquisitive, and he who is searching for knowledge of the Absolute.

7.18
udārāḥ (http://vedabase.net/u/udarah) � magnanimous; sarve (http://vedabase.net/s/sarve) � all; eva (http://vedabase.net/e/eva) � certainly; ete (http://vedabase.net/e/ete) � these; j�ānī (http://vedabase.net/j/jnani) � one who is in (http://vedabase.net/i/in) knowledge; tu (http://vedabase.net/t/tu) � but; ātmā (http://vedabase.net/a/atma) eva (http://vedabase.net/e/eva) � just like Myself; me (http://vedabase.net/m/me) � My; matam (http://vedabase.net/m/matam) � opinion; āsthitaḥ (http://vedabase.net/a/asthitah) � situated; saḥ (http://vedabase.net/s/sah) � he (http://vedabase.net/h/he); hi (http://vedabase.net/h/hi) � certainly; yukta (http://vedabase.net/y/yukta)-ātmā (http://vedabase.net/a/atma) � engaged in (http://vedabase.net/i/in) devotional service; mām (http://vedabase.net/m/mam) � in (http://vedabase.net/i/in) Me (http://vedabase.net/m/me); eva (http://vedabase.net/e/eva) � certainly; anuttamām (http://vedabase.net/a/anuttamam) � the highest; gatim (http://vedabase.net/g/gatim) � destination.
All these devotees are undoubtedly magnanimous souls, but he who is situated in knowledge of Me I consider to be just like My own self. Being engaged in My transcendental service, he is sure to attain Me, the highest and most perfect goal.

7.15 describes the demoniac who do not surrender to krsna at all. (not directly or indirictly by devta worship)

So therefore its not the fact that someone is polluted by material desires that makes them unitelligent as if the are turning to krsna they are described as "magnanamous" and "pious" if they are not tuning to him they are described as hṛta (http://vedabase.net/h/hrta) � deprived of; j�ānāḥ (http://vedabase.net/j/jnanah) � knowledge;

Pranam Keshava ji

Neither do justice to devas of Vedas, there are 33 in total and there is no half measures about them
as nicely put by Sarbhanga Indra is the King of Gods, Agni is the God of Fire, Sarasvati is the Goddess of Knowledge ~ there is NO half-measure about it.

(17.14)

Jai Shree Krishna

I am easily attainable, O Arjuna, by that ever steadfast devotee who always thinks of Me and whose mind does not go elsewhere. (8.14)
After attaining Me, the great souls do not incur rebirth in this miserable transitory world, because they have attained the highest perfection. (8.15)
The dwellers of all the worlds � up to and including the world of the creator � are subject to the miseries of repeated birth and death. But, after attaining Me, O Arjuna, one does not take birth again. (See also 9.25) (8.16)

Even up to Lord bramhas planet all are destroyed. The next verses decribe the timings of these.
In bhagvatam it describes in each age of manu (14 in one day of brahma) Indra changes in each of them - bali maharaj is said to take the post of indra in the next age of manu.

As krsna says in 7.23 and 9.25 as one worships devtas they go to devtas planets, but they are temporary subject to birth and death however those who attain krsna they do not return to this tempoarary worlding to 8.16 (above)

Pranam Keshava ji

above two quotes would make no sense if we consider what Lord Krishna says

He also say in chapter 9 those who worship him with desires return back,

as to weather he encourages Deva worship or not depends on what we read in Gita, here it is and I quote

Nourish the Devas with Yajna, and the Devas will nourish you. Thus nourishing one another you shall attain the Supreme goal. (3.11)

Men in the mode of goodness worship the devas; those in the mode of passion worshipthe demons; and those in the mode of ignorance worship ghosts and spirits. (17.4)
　
The worship of Devas, Braahmana, guru, and the wise; purity, honesty, celibacy, and nonviolence; these are said to be the austerity of deed. (17.14)

Jai Shree Krishna

Verse 17.4 qand 17.14 describe the qualities of goodness which is surely better than passion and ignorance and provides a platform to trancend goodness, however these are still material and not the highest objective.

E.g BG 14.18 (http://vedabase.net/bg/14/18/en): Those situated in the mode of goodness gradually go upward to the higher planets; those in the mode of passion live on the earthly planets; and those in the abominable mode of ignorance go down to the hellish worlds.

However krisna has already explained that these higher places are subject to birth and death 8.16.

14.19
na (http://vedabase.net/n/na) � no (http://vedabase.net/n/no); anyam (http://vedabase.net/a/anyam) � other; guṇebhyaḥ (http://vedabase.net/g/gunebhyah) � than the qualities; kartāram (http://vedabase.net/k/kartaram) � performer; yadā (http://vedabase.net/y/yada) � when; draṣṭā (http://vedabase.net/d/drasta) � a (http://vedabase.net/a/a) seer; anupaśyati (http://vedabase.net/a/anupasyati) � sees properly; guṇebhyaḥ (http://vedabase.net/g/gunebhyah) � to (http://vedabase.net/t/to) the modes of nature; ca (http://vedabase.net/c/ca) � and; param (http://vedabase.net/p/param) � transcendental; vetti (http://vedabase.net/v/vetti) � knows; mat (http://vedabase.net/m/mat)-bhāvam (http://vedabase.net/b/bhavam) � to (http://vedabase.net/t/to) My spiritual nature; saḥ (http://vedabase.net/s/sah) � he (http://vedabase.net/h/he); adhigacchati (http://vedabase.net/a/adhigacchati) � is promoted.

When one properly sees that in all activities no other performer is at work than these modes of nature and he knows the Supreme Lord, who is transcendental to all these modes, he attains My spiritual nature.

14.20
guṇān (http://vedabase.net/g/gunan) � qualities; etān (http://vedabase.net/e/etan) � all these; atītya (http://vedabase.net/a/atitya) � transcending; trīn (http://vedabase.net/t/trin) � three; dehī (http://vedabase.net/d/dehi) � the embodied; deha (http://vedabase.net/d/deha) � the body; samudbhavān (http://vedabase.net/s/samudbhavan) � produced of; janma (http://vedabase.net/j/janma) � of birth; mṛtyu (http://vedabase.net/m/mrtyu) � death; jarā (http://vedabase.net/j/jara) � and old age (http://vedabase.net/a/age); duḥkhaiḥ (http://vedabase.net/d/duhkhaih) � the distresses; vimuktaḥ (http://vedabase.net/v/vimuktah) � being freed from; amṛtam (http://vedabase.net/a/amrtam) � nectar; aśnute (http://vedabase.net/a/asnute) � he (http://vedabase.net/h/he) enjoys.
When the embodied being is able to transcend these three modes associated with the material body, he can become free from birth, death, old age and their distresses and can enjoy nectar even in this life.

And how does one attain this trancendental stage beyond the 3 material modes?

14.26
mām (http://vedabase.net/m/mam) � unto Me (http://vedabase.net/m/me); ca (http://vedabase.net/c/ca) � also; yaḥ (http://vedabase.net/y/yah) � a (http://vedabase.net/a/a) person who; avyabhicāreṇa (http://vedabase.net/a/avyabhicarena) � without fail; bhakti (http://vedabase.net/b/bhakti)-yogena (http://vedabase.net/y/yogena) � by devotional service; sevate (http://vedabase.net/s/sevate) � renders service; saḥ (http://vedabase.net/s/sah) � he (http://vedabase.net/h/he); guṇān (http://vedabase.net/g/gunan) � the modes of material nature; samatītya (http://vedabase.net/s/samatitya) � transcending; etān (http://vedabase.net/e/etan) � all these; brahma (http://vedabase.net/b/brahma)-bhūyāya (http://vedabase.net/b/bhuyaya) � elevated to (http://vedabase.net/t/to) the Brahman (http://vedabase.net/b/brahman) platform; kalpate (http://vedabase.net/k/kalpate) � becomes.

One who engages in full devotional service, unfailing in all circumstances, at once transcends the modes of material nature and thus comes to the level of Brahman (http://vedabase.net/b/brahman).

14.27
brahmaṇaḥ (http://vedabase.net/b/brahmanah) � of the impersonal brahmajyoti; hi (http://vedabase.net/h/hi) � certainly; pratiṣṭhā (http://vedabase.net/p/pratistha) � the rest; aham (http://vedabase.net/a/aham) � I (http://vedabase.net/i/i) am (http://vedabase.net/a/am); amṛtasya (http://vedabase.net/a/amrtasya) � of the immortal; avyayasya (http://vedabase.net/a/avyayasya) � of the imperishable; ca (http://vedabase.net/c/ca) � also; śāśvatasya (http://vedabase.net/s/sasvatasya) � of the eternal; ca (http://vedabase.net/c/ca) � and; dharmasya (http://vedabase.net/d/dharmasya) � of the constitutional position; sukhasya (http://vedabase.net/s/sukhasya) � of happiness; aikāntikasya (http://vedabase.net/a/aikantikasya) � ultimate; ca (http://vedabase.net/c/ca) � also.
And I am the basis of the impersonal Brahman (http://vedabase.net/b/brahman), which is immortal, imperishable and eternal and is the constitutional position of ultimate happiness.

same verse from gita society.
Because, I am the basis (or source) of the immortal Spirit, of everlasting cosmic order (Dharma), and of the absolute bliss. (14.27)
Vaishnavas (abhedabheda) regard the nirgum brahman to come from the personal lord rather than the other way round.

As for verse 3.11 it is in the karma yoga chapter where working unselfishly is being explained.

In the beginning the creator created human beings together with selfless service (Seva, sacrifice) and said: By serving each other you shall prosper and the sacrificial service shall fulfill all your desires. (3.10)
Nourish the celestial controllers with selfless service, and they will nourish you. Thus nourishing one another you shall attain the Supreme goal. (3.11)
The celestial controllers, served by selfless service, will give you all desired objects. One who enjoys the gift of celestial controllers without sharing with others is, indeed, a thief. (3.12)

It is talking about how man and devtas can live together in harmony by pleasing each other and following the regulated prescriptions in the vedas by which man is elevated in a gradual fashion from attachment to fruits to detachment (karma yoga) etc, just like the gradual elevation form ignorance to goodness to trancendence, or in chapter 12 krishna describes the gradual worship to him which leads to the supreme by saying if you cant do x do y if you cant do y do z etc. Krsna also talks about the 4 social divisions

The living beings are born from food grains, grains are produced by sacrificial work or duty performed by farmers and other field workers. Duty is prescribed in the scriptures. (3.14-15)
3.15
Regulated activities are prescribed in the Vedas, and the Vedas are directly manifested from the Supreme Personality of Godhead. Consequently the all-pervading Transcendence is eternally situated in acts of sacrifice.
3.19
Therefore, without being attached to the fruits of activities, one should act as a matter of duty, for by working without attachment one attains the Supreme.
3.20
Kings such as Janaka (http://vedabase.net/j/janaka) attained perfection solely by performance of prescribed duties. Therefore, just for the sake of educating the people in general, you should perform your work.

3.29
Bewildered by the modes of material nature, the ignorant fully engage themselves in material activities and become attached. But the wise should not unsettle them, although these duties are inferior due to the performers' lack of knowledge.

3.30
Therefore, O Arjuna (http://vedabase.net/a/arjuna), surrendering all your works unto Me, with full knowledge of Me, without desires for profit, with no claims to proprietorship, and free from lethargy, fight.

In chapter 4 Krsna explains other ways to attain the supreme like breath restraint, knowledge, and further elaborates on yajnas or sacrifices.

4.11
As all surrender unto Me, I reward them accordingly. Everyone follows My path in all respects, O son of Pṛthā (http://vedabase.net/p/prtha).

4.12
Men in this world desire success in fruitive activities, and therefore they worship the demigods. Quickly, of course, men get results from fruitive work in this world.

4.40
But ignorant and faithless persons who doubt the revealed scriptures do not attain God consciousness; they fall down. For the doubting soul there is happiness neither in this world nor in the next.

The systems in the vedas are designed to elevate different types of people with different modes to the highest who is Lord krishna. Ultimately he is the reciepient of all yajnas and all paths are his. Some are faster and some are slower, some are ment of the less intelligent men and some for more advanced men.

5.29
A person in full consciousness of Me, knowing Me to be the ultimate beneficiary of all sacrifices and austerities, the Supreme Lord of all planets and demigods, and the benefactor and well-wisher of all living entities, attains peace from the pangs of material miseries.

Chapter 5 is Jyana yoga which is higher than karma yoga
Chapter 6 is dhyana yoga and describes various types of yogis beginners and advanced. Here its clear which kind of yogi or practitioner is higher.

from gita-society
6.44
The unsuccessful yogi is instinctively carried towards God by virtue of the impressions of yogic practices of previous lives. Even the inquirer of yoga � the union with God � surpasses those who perform Vedic rituals. (6.44)

The yogi, who is devoted to meditation, is superior to the ascetics. The yogi is superior to the Vedic scholars. The yogi is superior to the ritualists. Therefore, O Arjuna, be a yogi. (6.46)
And I consider the yogi-devotee � who lovingly contemplates on Me with supreme faith, and whose mind is ever absorbed in Me � to be the best of all the yogis. (See also 12.02 and 18.66) (6.47)

Lord Krishna said: O Arjuna, listen how you shall know Me fully without any doubt, with your mind absorbed in Me, taking refuge in Me, and performing yogic practices. (7.01)

I shall impart you Self-knowledge together with enlightenment, after comprehending that nothing more remains to be known in this world. (7.02)

Scarcely one out of thousands of persons strives for perfection of Self-realization. Scarcely one among those successful strivers truly understands Me. (7.03)

Again one has to take the context of what is being said krishna is describing higher and higher types of yogis and how the move up the ladder. The verse 3.11 is the beggining stage where you follow regulative principles of the vedas.

We come full circle back to chapter 7 where krishna explains the deficiencies of devta worship.

Later chapters deal with how to carry out the highest yoga bhakti-yoga which an honest and systematic reading will no doubt clear up.

I have tried to pick relevent verses I dont mean to bombard you with verses. Just show there is context in verses as well as chapters as krishna systematically goes deeper as he answers arjunas questions.

Hare krishna

Ganeshprasad

31 December 2009, 07:39 AM

Pranam Keshava ji
Thanks for your lengthy detailed answers, as you can see my reason for intruding was purely an inaccurate translation of the verse. Rest is purely academic.
　

Originally Posted by Ganeshprasad
Pranam Keshava ji
Neither do justice to devas of Vedas, there are 33 in total and there is no half measures about them
as nicely put by Sarbhanga Indra is the King of Gods, Agni is the God of Fire, Sarasvati is the Goddess of Knowledge ~ there is NO half-measure about it.
(17.14)
Jai Shree Krishna
I am easily attainable, O Arjuna, by that ever steadfast devotee who always thinks of Me and whose mind does not go elsewhere. (8.14)
After attaining Me, the great souls do not incur rebirth in this miserable transitory world, because they have attained the highest perfection. (8.15)
The dwellers of all the worlds � up to and including the world of the creator � are subject to the miseries of repeated birth and death. But, after attaining Me, O Arjuna, one does not take birth again. (See also 9.25) (8.16)
Even up to Lord bramhas planet all are destroyed. The next verses decribe the timings of these.
In bhagvatam it describes in each age of manu (14 in one day of brahma) Indra changes in each of them - bali maharaj is said to take the post of indra in the next age of manu.
As krsna says in 7.23 and 9.25 as one worships devtas they go to devtas planets, but they are temporary subject to birth and death however those who attain krsna they do not return to this tempoarary worlding to 8.16 (above)

I fail to see how this answers the fallacy of describing Devas as demigod because in Vedas the one without a second is also a Deva.
You may want to check this post by Sarbhanga
http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?t=1649&page=3 (http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?t=1649&page=3)
post no 22
Re: Demigods and Krishna (http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?p=14966 / post14966)

Jai Shree Krishna

keshava

31 December 2009, 08:53 AM

Pranam Keshava ji
Thanks for your lengthy detailed answers, as you can see my reason for intruding was purely an inaccurate translation of the verse. Rest is purely academic.
　

I fail to see how this answers the fallacy of describing Devas as demigod because in Vedas the one without a second is also a Deva.
You may want to check this post by Sarbhanga
http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?t=1649&page=3 (http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?t=1649&page=3)
post no 22
Re: Demigods and Krishna (http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?p=14966%20/%20post14966)

Jai Shree Krishna

Pranams Ganeshprashadji the issue i feel is dealt at the root by Madhavan on post 34.

Sarbhanga is taking objection to the word demigod due to his implicit acceptance of monism(evrything is one) or pantheism (all gods are equal).

The prefix DEMI- means HALF, so that DEMI-GOD means HALF-GOD or PARTLY GOD.

Why use such a belittling term for ANY Deity? Gods are Gods!

Indra is the King of Gods, Agni is the God of Fire, Sarasvati is the Goddess of Knowledge ~ there is NO half-measure about it.

“Those whose wisdom has been carried away by various desires, being prompted by their own nature, worship other Deities, adopting rules relating to each.
Whatever celestial form a devotee chooses to worship with reverence, I stabilize the faith of that particular devotee in that very form.
Endowed with such faith, he worships that particular Deity and obtains through Him, without doubt, his desired enjoyments as ordained by Myself.”

The “Deities” mentioned above could equally be rendered as “Gods”.

The One God encompasses and surpasses All Attributes.
And the many Gods are the various Attributes of the One that is beyond Attribution.

The One true God is known by many Names; and these Names evoke Forms.
And yet, the One true God encompasses and surpasses All Names, and All Forms.
As shown according to gita he makes a distinction about the classes of men that worship devtas the temporary nature of their abodes and the results they benidict.

They are not all one according to the vaishnava standpoint so the english word demigod is used to show they are controllers in the world but not absolute controllers like the Lord. All vaishnvas make this distinction supported by the gita. However to monist and panthiest who may accept them all as equal or one it seems belittling to them and the distinction seems artificial to them because of their philosophy.

For example the word bhagavan is used to describe god as well as saintly people and god, just like the word deva is used to describe all three. However each time a person or guru is refered to as deva or bhagvan you are not going to translate that as supreme god (unless your a monist where ultimately they are one). So for clarity in the vaishnava view point the word demigod is used to indicate the relative position of the devtas compared to the absolute devta.

In english how do you make the distinction between the word bhagvan (full of opulences) refering to god, a devta and a saintly person (Eg bhagvan narada )? They dont mean the same thing in different contexts.

The vaishnav view point is they are not gods in the absolute sense and derive their authority from the absolute lord hence the word demi-god controller etc is used.

On another note there are no completely accurate ways to translate certain words from english to sanskrit like dharma =religion or duty or essence? It depends on context and in the case of devtas = demigods the context of scripture and the context of the underlying philosophy. It may not suit a monist when reading the english translation but makes the distinction clear from a vaishnav point of view.

Ganeshprasad

31 December 2009, 10:49 AM

keshava

01 January 2010, 06:34 AM

Pranam Keshavaji

Sarbhangaji is stating facts on meaning of Deva, Rig veda would not accept your description of devas, nor does Lord Krishna describe them anywhere as half baked, so good luck in your pesrpective of Vaishnava i am glad not all Vaishnava think the same.i will leave it to that.
Happy new year

Jai Shree Krishna

I just had a whole discussion with you where krishna makes a distinction with himself and devtas - I have not used emotional-dismissive langauge such as half baked etc and instead shown from gita that according to his perspectives the abodes of the devtas are subject to birth and death results are limited and temporary of worshiping them and so there is a distinction.

Sarbhangaji facts are based on his premise and presumption of advaita.

Rig veda is not the only vedic scripture. All though even in there are references of lord vishnu being supreme although not as clear as other puranas.

As for your claim and Sarbhangaji claim that the gods are gods and no distinction between higher and lower is made. This is not only in the gita even the case in rig veda

In the Rigveda, Shakala shakha: Aitareya Brahmana Verse 1 : "Agnir vai devānām avamo Viṣṇuḥ paramas, tadantareṇa sarvā anyā devatā" declares that Agni is the lowest or youngest god and Vishnu is the greatest and the oldest God.

The puranas and ithasas are used to understand the vedas correctly as unqualified men will twist their meanings.

rcah samani chandamsi puranam yajusa saha
ucchistaj-jajnire sarve divi deva divi-sritah (Atharva Veda 11.7.24)

"The Rg, Sama, Yajur and Atharva became manifest from the Lord, along with the Puranas and all the Devas residing in the heavens."

nama va rg-vedo yajur-vedah sama-veda atharvanas caturtha itihasa-puranah pancamo vedanam vedah (Kauthumiya Chandogya Upanisad 7.1.4)

"Indeed, Rg, Yajur, Sama and Atharva are the names of the four Vedas. The Itihasas and Puranas are the fifth Veda."

asya mahato bhutasya nihsvasitam etad yad rg-vedo yajur-vedah sama
vedo�tharvangirasa itihasah puranam ityadina
(Madhyandina-sruti, Brhad-aranyaka Upanisad 2.4.10)

"O Maitreya, the Rg, Yajur, Sama and Atharva Vedas as well as the Itihasas and the Puranas all manifest from the breathing of the Lord."

bharata-vyapadesena hyamnayarthah pradarsitah
vedah pratisthah sarve sarve purane natra samsayah "On the pretext of writing the Mahabharata, Vyasa explained the meaning of the Vedas. Certainly all the topics of the Vedas have been established in the Puranas." (Visnu Purana)

Furthermore, it is explained in the Mahabharata (Adi Parva 1.267) and Manu Samhita �

itihasa puranabhyam vedam samupabrmhayet

" One must complement one�s study of the Vedas with the Itihasas and the Puranas."

In the Prabhasa-khanda of the Skanda Purana (5.3.121-124) it is said �

veda-van niscalam manye puranartham dvijottamah
vedah pratisthitah sarve purane natra samsayah

bibhety-alpa-srutad vedo mam ayam calayisyati
itihasa-puranais tu niscalo�yam krtah purah

yan na drstam hi vedesu tad drstam smrtisu dvijah
ubhayor yan na drstam hi tat puranah pragiyate
yo veda caturo vedan sangopanisado dvijah
puranam naiva janati na ca sa syad vicaksana

" O best of the brahmanas, the meaning of the Puranas is unchanging just like that of the Vedas. The Vedas are all sheltered within the Puranas without a doubt. The Veda has a fear that unqualified people will read her and then distort her meaning. Thus, the significance of the Veda was fixed in the Puranas and Itihasas. That which is not found in the Vedas is found in the Smrti. That which is not found in the Smrti is to be found in the Puranas. Those who know even the Vedas and Upanisads are not learned if they do not know the Puranas."

Ganeshprasad

01 January 2010, 08:15 AM

keshava

04 January 2010, 02:50 AM

Pranam Keshavaji

I am sorry if I gave you an impression that of being rude to you. Use of the word �half baked� was a substitute for �demigod�, just imagine, if I can bring out a reaction from you for the use of the word half baked to describe demigod, how does those bhakta, whose Ista deva is other then Krishna, feels?

Jai Shree Krishna

Pranams Ganeshprasadji.
I dont think you have been rude - however I do feel emotive language is not constructive in a discussion and can be a distraction in trying to understand something at worst tabloid types of discussions.

E.g its like me calling advaita philosophy the borg collective etc. The word comes from a bias/emotion of my understanding of it. Or a nice emotive word would be the harmonious one conciousness. Something similar to what newspapers do to sway people.
http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html#emotive

As for other bhaktas not liking the term demigod - everyone has different philosophies and a mature bhakta of any devta or monist panthestic dvaitic will respect and understand other ways and terms of thinking and expression into the english language, even though not accepting the philosophy in vedic culture there has been respect.

Jains philosphically think Krsna is in hell at the momment although I dont accept this and philosophically dont agree with this - I dont get upset about it and can respect the people with out having to accept it.

Some advaitists think Krsna was a brahman relised human being - an immature vishnu bhakta can be offended by this and ask the advaitists not to say that but that is their philosphy one respects but doesnt accept the philosophy. There are countless examples of this and has been going on for thousands of years.

Pranam Keshavaji

I have no reason to doubt or argue that Krishna makes distinction between worship of anya deva for material gains are temporary and all the abode up to Braham loka is subject to destruction. Yet this is no proof Deva =demigod. On the contrary this what Arjun say in Bhagvat gita

vayur yamo 'gnir varunah sasankah
prajapatis tvam prapitamahas ca
namo namas te 'stu sahasra-krtvah
punas ca bhuyo 'pi namo namas te

You are Vaayu, Yama, Agni, Varuna, Shashaanka, and Brahmaa as well as the father of Brahmaa. Salutations to You a thousand times, and again and again salutations to You. (11.39)BG

Please note I am not arguing for any one to accept anya deva as supreme in preference to their Ista deva, just that there is more to God then our exclusive view of him/her.

Devas are certainly not demigods, pleased to note Arjun does not think so either.

Jai Shree Krishna

Arjuna doesnt think so because 'Demigod' is a contextual and philosophical translation of devtas in English - they spoke sanskrit and used one term for many things.

Arjuna makes a disticntion between the ultimate lord and other lords so does Lord Krishna.

BG 11.37
O great one, greater even than Brahma (http://vedabase.net/b/brahma), You are the original creator. Why then should they not offer their respectful obeisances unto You? O limitless one, God of gods, refuge of the universe! You are the invincible source, the cause of all causes, transcendental to this material manifestation.

Again you may not like this but this is the vaishnava philosophy the english word God is reserved for Vishnu-tattva.

Even the word 'demigod' is a high word for what are considered empowered jiva (apart form siva-tattva) who are minute parts (not even demi/half) of the infinite lord put in charge temporarily of aspects of material creation/maintenance.

Sanksrit word devta = multiple translations according to context and philosophy

Devta describing Vishnu - tattva = God
Devta describing administor of material nature = Demigod, celestial controllers, empowered agents of the lord, etc
Devta describing enligtened souls = Saints, sages, enlightened souls, etc

Take your pick. Ofcourse if someone is a shaivite, monist, shakta etc they will translate according to the context of thier philosophy. E.g a monist might describe all of them as God

Im aware that there is more to god than either my 'exclusive' views or your 'exclusive' views.

If I dont accept your views then I may be described as exclusive - if you dont accept my views then you may be described as exclusive that sword cuts both ways. Vedic scriptures also make exclusions and qualifications so its not necessarily a bad thing. Vedic sastra is our way of understanding the truth as our minds are tiny - The vedic scriptures are considered by followers of vedas as apurushaya. We try our best to understand and then follow and then realise the truth by direct sense perception - our understanding may change as we practice the proccess given to us in a sincere way.

vadanti tat tattva-vidas tattvam yaj jnanam advayam brahmeti paramatmeti bhagavan iti sabdyate The Learned Know the Absolute Truth call this nondual substance Brahman, Paramatma or Bhagavan.

Ganeshprasad

04 January 2010, 09:44 AM

Pranam Keshavaji

Pranams Ganeshprasadji.
I dont think you have been rude - however I do feel emotive language is not constructive in a discussion and can be a distraction in trying to understand something at worst tabloid types of discussions.

I make no apology of my use of word half baked, if you call that emotive tabloid type discussion I stand guilty as charged but that is precisely what I am trying to prove the word ’Demigod’ is nothing sort of Tabloid, to describe Devas. From highest to lowest non of them are semi in their field.
　
　

As for other bhaktas not liking the term demigod - everyone has different philosophies and a mature bhakta of any devta or monist panthestic dvaitic will respect and understand other ways and terms of thinking and expression into the english language, even though not accepting the philosophy in vedic culture there has been respect.

Respect yes, Hindus need no lesson on it, wanton disrespect or misrepresentation No.
　　
　

Arjuna doesnt think so because 'Demigod' is a contextual and philosophical translation of devtas in English - they spoke sanskrit and used one term for many things.
Arjuna makes a disticntion between the ultimate lord and other lords so does Lord Krishna.

Weather that contextual translation of deva, do justice or not is the bone of contention. Both unison and distinction spoken by Arjun, and Lord Krishna does not validate or justify Jivas, translating Deva as Demigod
　

Sanksrit word devta = multiple translations according to context and philosophy
Devta describing Vishnu - tattva = God
Devta describing administor of material nature = Demigod, celestial controllers, empowered agents of the lord, etc
Devta describing enligtened souls = Saints, sages, enlightened souls, etc
　
Vedic sastra is our way of understanding the truth as our minds are tiny - The vedic scriptures are considered by followers of vedas as apurushaya. We try our best to understand and then follow and then realise the truth by direct sense perception - our understanding may change as we practice the proccess given to us in a sincere way.

Only 4 Vedas are considered as apurushaya and here is a perspective of hotra Brahmin of Rig veda For Devas and I quote.

In Vedic system, Hotr priest is the priest of Rg Veda and the only one qualified to invoke devas as only Rg mantras are meant for invoking devatas. . Yajur Vedic mantras are meant for giving offerings to the devas invoked by Rg Veda and Sama Veda mantras are meant for singing the praise of the gods invoked by Rg veda mantras. Thus as to the matter of gods are concerned, Rig Veda is the complete and final authority, since other Vedas perform a supplementary role to Rg Veda. No other gods that is not mentioned in Rg Veda could be invoked.

There are only thirty three gods in rig Veda. There cannot be more because the number 33 is sacrosanct and has a tight logic. Divinities in Vedic system have esoteric connotation to the consonants of the Sanskrit alphabets. Gods are those letters. And there are only 33 consonants in Vedic Sanskrit. (From ‘Ka’ to ‘Ha’ are 33).
“Te Trayastrimsadakshare Bhavath. Tryastrimsadhuo devah.” – Aitreya brahmana (1, 10)
This tight association between devas and letters makes the gods limited to 33 and there cannot any more. Hence any additional gods mentioned in other later Vedas or Puranas (there are 33crores of gods in puranas) are to be understood as names or aspects of the original 33. If this is not the case those new gods cannot be technically invoked, from Vedic point of view. Hence there are only 33 gods in Vedas.

And Who are these 33 Vedic Gods ? Asta Vasu (8), Ekladasa Rudra (11), Duadasa Aditya (12). Prajapati , Vasad or sometime Indra. And their names are given below.

Eight Vasus: Agni, Jadaveda, Sahoja, Ajara, Vaisvanara, Naryapa, Panktiradha and Visarpi.
Leven Rudras: Prabhrajamana, Vyavadata, Vasuki, Rajata, Parusha, Syama, Kapila, Atilohita, Urdhva, Avapatanta And Vaidyuta.

The twelve Sun gods: Twastr, Savitr, Bhaga, Surya, Pushan, Vishnu, Vaisvanara, Varuna, Kesi, Vrshakapi, Yama, Aja-Ekapat.

These are the Vedic gods. Most of our present modern day Hindu gods are not at all Vedic. We have denigrated many of these Vedic gods and promoted new gods. What is atrocious is that people justify their very non-Vedic gods as Original Vedic gods.

As a Hindu, I have no problem in recognizing these new gods and even worshipping them. But what Pains me is the ignorant and even purposeful distortion of the Vedic religion to justify the new entities and practices. I hope people will stop talking about Vedas, with out a first hand study of it and use it incorrectly for supporting their wrong views. I have seen it repeatedly in discussion groups, at many occasions in different places. I am writing this not with any animosity with ( Puranic or modern) Hindu religious faction . It pains to see that Veda is not represented properly and is misused by Hindus themselves. I request humbly that care should be taken to represent Vedic System accurately and truthfully. End quote.

In my opinion
Demigod can not be justified to be used for devas of Vedas in any circumstances philosophical difference are not a problem.
Highest to lowest recognition is a perspective one gains upon ones circumstances and progress and therefore I agree when you say ‘We try our best to understand and then follow and then realise the truth by direct sense perception - our understanding may change as we practice the process given to us in a sincere way’.

Jai Shree Krishna

Mohini Shakti Devi

04 January 2010, 09:50 PM

Put in prospective, Brahman begets a self and then that self seeks mergeing back into Brahman.

Brahman begets a devas and then that deva seeks to preform Dharma for the sake of others to renounce the Cosmic Phatamsmagoria?

keshava

05 January 2010, 07:52 AM

From highest to lowest non of them are semi in their field.
　
Jai Shree Krishna

Maybe not from your rigvedic point of view but from the absolute vaishnava point of view they are fragments of the Lord. Semi in control of this material nature.

Respect yes, Hindus need no lesson on it, wanton disrespect or misrepresentation No.

Weather that contextual translation of deva, do justice or not is the bone of contention. Both unison and distinction spoken by Arjun, and Lord Krishna does not validate or justify Jivas, translating Deva as Demigod

Jai Shree Krishna

There is no disrespect intended. Misrepresentation depends on the premises you hold true to begin with. You have just made a statement that its not justified and you express it below because of your understanding that the rig vedic gods are the original gods all other gods from the puranas are either new or derivatives. This is your version of things, just like shaivas, shaktas, smartas hold differing perspectives. You feel your view is the correct one and the rest of the puranic traditions are at best later derivations or at worst fabrications and have got it wrong as they arent as expert as you. "care should be taken to represent Vedic System accurately and truthfully" according to your version of the truth.

Only 4 Vedas are considered as apurushaya and here is a perspective of hotra Brahmin of Rig veda For Devas and I quote.

In Vedic system, Hotr priest is the priest of Rg Veda and the only one qualified to invoke devas as only Rg mantras are meant for invoking devatas. . Yajur Vedic mantras are meant for giving offerings to the devas invoked by Rg Veda and Sama Veda mantras are meant for singing the praise of the gods invoked by Rg veda mantras. Thus as to the matter of gods are concerned, Rig Veda is the complete and final authority, since other Vedas perform a supplementary role to Rg Veda. No other gods that is not mentioned in Rg Veda could be invoked.

There are only thirty three gods in rig Veda. There cannot be more because the number 33 is sacrosanct and has a tight logic. Divinities in Vedic system have esoteric connotation to the consonants of the Sanskrit alphabets. Gods are those letters. And there are only 33 consonants in Vedic Sanskrit. (From ‘Ka’ to ‘Ha’ are 33).
“Te Trayastrimsadakshare Bhavath. Tryastrimsadhuo devah.” – Aitreya brahmana (1, 10)
This tight association between devas and letters makes the gods limited to 33 and there cannot any more. Hence any additional gods mentioned in other later Vedas or Puranas (there are 33crores of gods in puranas) are to be understood as names or aspects of the original 33. If this is not the case those new gods cannot be technically invoked, from Vedic point of view. Hence there are only 33 gods in Vedas.

Jai Shree Krishna

This is a minority view in Hinduism. Similar to the Shrauta tradition. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shrauta

"Since Shrauta focuses on conservative Vedic rituals, the pantheon corresponds to the Rigvedic deities (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rigvedic_deities) more than to that of mainstream (Puranic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purana)) Hinduism. Among the most prominent deities are Agni, Indra, and Soma (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soma), as well as the All-gods (Viśve devāḥ), Ashvin, Ushas, Surya, Savitar (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Savitar), Parjanya, Rudra or Sarasvati (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarasvati) (cf. Chamakam (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rudram_Chamakam) 6):"

Most Hindus dont follow your definition of what is vedic, its narrower compared to most hindus who accept the puranas from vedavyasji.

As per my previous quotes from the atharva veda and else where. Vedas are not just the 4 vedas that you assume/believe, they consist of the puranas also. And these are needed especially in this age to understand the vedas correctly.

Your tradition may not hold this as valid but here are the quotes again.

rcah samani chandamsi puranam yajusa saha
ucchistaj-jajnire sarve divi deva divi-sritah (Atharva Veda 11.7.24)

"The Rg, Sama, Yajur and Atharva became manifest from the Lord, along with the Puranas and all the Devas residing in the heavens."

nama va rg-vedo yajur-vedah sama-veda atharvanas caturtha itihasa-puranah pancamo vedanam vedah (Kauthumiya Chandogya Upanisad 7.1.4)

"Indeed, Rg, Yajur, Sama and Atharva are the names of the four Vedas. The Itihasas and Puranas are the fifth Veda."

asya mahato bhutasya nihsvasitam etad yad rg-vedo yajur-vedah sama
vedo�tharvangirasa itihasah puranam ityadina
(Madhyandina-sruti, Brhad-aranyaka Upanisad 2.4.10)

"O Maitreya, the Rg, Yajur, Sama and Atharva Vedas as well as the Itihasas and the Puranas all manifest from the breathing of the Lord."

bharata-vyapadesena hyamnayarthah pradarsitah
vedah pratisthah sarve sarve purane natra samsayah "On the pretext of writing the Mahabharata, Vyasa explained the meaning of the Vedas. Certainly all the topics of the Vedas have been established in the Puranas." (Visnu Purana)

Furthermore, it is explained in the Mahabharata (Adi Parva 1.267) and Manu Samhita –

itihasa puranabhyam vedam samupabrmhayet

" One must complement one’s study of the Vedas with the Itihasas and the Puranas."
In the Prabhasa-khanda of the Skanda Purana (5.3.121-124) it is said –

veda-van niscalam manye puranartham dvijottamah
vedah pratisthitah sarve purane natra samsayah

bibhety-alpa-srutad vedo mam ayam calayisyati
itihasa-puranais tu niscalo’yam krtah purah

yan na drstam hi vedesu tad drstam smrtisu dvijah
ubhayor yan na drstam hi tat puranah pragiyate
yo veda caturo vedan sangopanisado dvijah
puranam naiva janati na ca sa syad vicaksana

" O best of the brahmanas, the meaning of the Puranas is unchanging just like that of the Vedas. The Vedas are all sheltered within the Puranas without a doubt. The Veda has a fear that unqualified people will read her and then distort her meaning. Thus, the significance of the Veda was fixed in the Puranas and Itihasas. That which is not found in the Vedas is found in the Smrti. That which is not found in the Smrti is to be found in the Puranas. Those who know even the Vedas and Upanisads are not learned if they do not know the Puranas."

Pranam Keshavaji

These are the Vedic gods. Most of our present modern day Hindu gods are not at all Vedic. We have denigrated many of these Vedic gods and promoted new gods. What is atrocious is that people justify their very non-Vedic gods as Original Vedic gods.

As a Hindu, I have no problem in recognizing these new gods and even worshipping them. But what Pains me is the ignorant and even purposeful distortion of the Vedic religion to justify the new entities and practices. I hope people will stop talking about Vedas, with out a first hand study of it and use it incorrectly for supporting their wrong views. I have seen it repeatedly in discussion groups, at many occasions in different places. I am writing this not with any animosity with ( Puranic or modern) Hindu religious faction . It pains to see that Veda is not represented properly and is misused by Hindus themselves. I request humbly that care should be taken to represent Vedic System accurately and truthfully. End quote.

Jai Shree Krishna

If Krsna and the gods in the puranas are invented why do you bother quoting from them? Why would you worship 'new entities' gods if you accept only the 4 vedas as apurushya And the rest are inventions derivations? I guess if your a monist then it wouldnt ulitmately matter who/what you worship.

I am writing this not with any animosity with ( Puranic or modern) Hindu religious faction . It pains to see that Veda is not represented properly and is misused by Hindus themselves.
Jai Shree Krishna

Youre assuming youre way of understanding the vedas is the correct way. Your assuming the puranas are a new thing like most western scholors and minority of Hindus believe. You're entitled to your view and entitled to calling other people wrong since you must be an expert/believer on these things. However many hindus accept the puranas as ancient and parts of the vedas using some of the quotes from the vedas themselves (like above).

Pranam Keshavaji

In my opinion
Demigod can not be justified to be used for devas of Vedas in any circumstances philosophical difference are not a problem.
Highest to lowest recognition is a perspective one gains upon ones circumstances and progress and therefore I agree when you say ‘We try our best to understand and then follow and then realise the truth by direct sense perception - our understanding may change as we practice the process given to us in a sincere way’.

Jai Shree Krishna

In my opinion
Demigod can be justified to be used for devas of Vedas from the vaishnava perspective. As in that view they are fragments of the infinte Lord. The devtas are not full controllers in themselves, they are partially in control with the ultimate controller being Vishna. Thus they are translated by some vaishnavas in the frail english language as demi-gods to indicate their partial, semi or limited control.

You may feel that this and other vaishnav philosophies are new or invented and dont do justice to what you feel are the original rig vedic gods and you may want to enlighten us about it and your welcome to, however most vaishnavas see the puranas and the vedas as part and parcel of the vedic cannon written by Lord vyas and pay little attention to (Started by christian missionaries) western indiologists who talk about the evolution of the vedas from Rig onwards. (Theories and dates keep changing) The puranas are accepeted to be written by vyasadeva and are a part of the entire vedic cannon. As quoted above a seond time.

Other wise what is the point of you accepting ithasas like mahabharat and the bhagvad gita, where Krsna says this science was passed to the sun god, that he is to be known by the vedas etc if its all a latter distortion/fabrication? At least the shaivas and shaktas accept puranas as from vyas then debate and counter debate based on their understanding of these.

The resolute determination of Self-realization is not formed in the minds of those who are attached to pleasure and power, and whose judgment is obscured by ritualistic activities. (2.44)
A portion of the Vedas deals with three modes — goodness, passion, and ignorance — of material Nature. Become free from pairs of opposites, be ever balanced and unconcerned with the thoughts of acquisition and preservation. Rise above these three modes, and be Self-conscious, O Arjuna. (2.45)
To a Self-realized person the Vedas are as useful as a small reservoir of water when the water of a huge lake becomes available. (2.46)

BG 15.15: I am seated in everyone's heart, and from Me come remembrance, knowledge and forgetfulness. By all the Vedas, I am to be known. Indeed, I am the compiler of Vedanta, and I am the knower of the Vedas.

Hare Krishna

Ganeshprasad

05 January 2010, 04:14 PM

Pranam
I have tried my best to demonstrate that the use of the word demigod do no justice to Devas, this I speak from my personal Hindu view. I don�t think I can add more then what I have already said. This will be my last post on this thread unless off course I feel I need to clear any misconception that need to be address.

Maybe not from your rigvedic point of view but from the absolute vaishnava point of view they are fragments of the Lord. Semi in control of this material nature.
Hare Krishna

No traditional vaishnav follower would ever disrespect or dismiss a Rg veda point of view. If my rig Vedic point of view is accepted then to dismiss it is like skating on a thin ice.
　

There is no disrespect intended. Misrepresentation depends on the premises you hold true to begin with. You have just made a statement that its not justified and you express it below because of your understanding that the rig vedic gods are the original gods all other gods from the puranas are either new or derivatives. This is your version of things, just like shaivas, shaktas, smartas hold differing perspectives. You feel your view is the correct one and the rest of the puranic traditions are at best later derivations or at worst fabrications and have got it wrong as they arent as expert as you. "care should be taken to represent Vedic System accurately and truthfully" according to your version of the truth.
　
Please stop misquoting me, this was a quote from a Hotra Brahmin in defence of Deva, from Vedas perspective. I may or may not fully subscribe to all that he had said, I have never claimed to be expert in any field. But I do stand by his claim that � care should be taken to represent Vedic System accurately and truthfully" .And I challenge you to produce one verse from any source that describe Devas as Semi in their respective field it is another matter that Ithihas and puran make distinction with different deities.

It is absurd to think Agni or Vayu is semi in control, I would be half alive. Fortunately that is not the case Upanisad invocation.

May Mitra, Varuna, Aryama, Indra, Brihaspati and omnipresent Vishnu be praised. Salutations to Brahman. O Vayu,
salutations to you. You, verily, are the visible Brahman. I shall speak of you alone as the direct Brahman. I shall call you the Cosmic Law. I shall call you the Truth. May Brahman protect me. May He protect the teacher. May the Brahman protect me, may He protect the teacher. Om, peace. (Taittiriya; NPU p. 218)

This is one off the Vedic chants and there are many I could post, not to prove any ones superiority but simply to make it clear Vedas do not regards these deities as semi.

This is a minority view in Hinduism. Similar to the Shrauta tradition. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shrauta
"Since Shrauta focuses on conservative Vedic rituals, the pantheon corresponds to the Rigvedic deities more than to that of mainstream (Puranic) Hinduism. Among the most prominent deities are Agni, Indra, and Soma, as well as the All-gods (Viśve devāḥ), Ashvin, Ushas, Surya, Savitar, Parjanya, Rudra or Sarasvati (cf. Chamakam 6):"
Most Hindus dont follow your definition of what is vedic, its narrower compared to most hindus who accept the puranas from vedavyasji.

Lord Krishna says hardly any one knows me in truth, following your logic, shell we reject those few who might know him in preference to majority?

But happy to consider majority view, you will find most hindu is willing to offer worship to any deva, will not even bother to acknowledge the Word demigod if they knew the implication as there is no equivalent in our vocabulary.

You have accused me of narrower view about Vedas that is ok but you don�t know me, I have never rejected any purans or ithihas, save from interpolation, now let us have the same commitment from you who has been championing the cause off puranas. Let me guess only six satvic will do for you isn�t it. 18 puranas my friend not to speak of uppuran, do you accept them all ? Yes or no will do.

As per my previous quotes from the atharva veda and else where. Vedas are not just the 4 vedas that you assume/believe, they consist of the puranas also. And these are needed especially in this age to understand the vedas correctly.
Your tradition may not hold this as valid but here are the quotes again.

It has nothing to do with my tradition or otherwise, Veda means knowledge so it is quite feasible to include it in Hindu cannon in one form or the other. But the tradition has it and there is no disputing Rig, Sama, Yajur and Arthava are apurusiya as srutis or revealed and ithihas and purans are smurti as remembered these are the defination no one can dispute.

Jai Shree Krishna

grames

06 January 2010, 01:07 AM

Dear Prasad Ji,

I am glad to read very big message but not sure what you are trying to accuse and then defend. Though i am interrupting here but to get more info and also joy of knowing more with your pardon and permission.

Pranam
I have tried my best to demonstrate that the use of the word demigod do no justice to Devas, this I speak from my personal Hindu view.

Demi - does not literally mean "half" when the adjunct is "Deva". Cos the word "deva" has to be understood before in hand to detect the actual meaning of "demi". This is normal procedure or process of understanding what is conveyed. If i say, Grames is "GreatFool" you will not translate or understand like, Grames is great but a fool. Use the same pattern of analysis and you will not be surprised to know what "Demi" here actually means.

But subsequent proof of listing out 33 God can mislead people who read your message in justification of proving there is no partial or half God but don't you think even a Kid will ask, if you say there 33 but how can all be full? As your ref "Sarbanga" clearly states that, they are full "only" in terms of their responsibility, for example, Agni is Lord of Fire etc. When it comes to the bigger picture of "Paramatma" or Bagavan, His fullness or Purnatva is much more significant than what Agni or Vayu is responsible for with respect to His prowess and Lila's. A comparable analogy will be, a cabinet minister executing his duties in "full" for the administration of the prime minister or President where in, the status-quo of the Minister is not "full" or "complete" with respect to the President or Prime Minister.

Your problem is, your faith of Advaita and if you have to deduct everything in to One and One only then, there is no question of Demi semi etc. If such faith is fully realized, you in fact shouldn't even have a disagreement when one says, Krisha is full and Agni, Vayu are all "demi God" or Devata. What is your problem when you are not suppose to see "gradations" or even perceive a difference among all the lsited Deva or Devatas?

Kesava's point is, IT IS Vaishnava's poV but you have to disagree because your PoV is different but, oh dear friend do not call it RiGVeda View.

No traditional vaishnav follower would ever disrespect or dismiss a Rg veda point of view.
Except these neo Advaitins or so called Yogic disciples, no one have the guts or knowledge of understanding what Rg Veda view is and every other followers of Vedantic schools follow what VedVyasa gave following four known Vedas. Generalizing or giving a statistical conclusion like this shows your ignorance only rather than having any merit to such statements. If RgVeda can be understood so easily, what is the point of having so many Upanishad's and then Puranas, Ithihasas? In fact, Advaita also follows the Upanishad's and Purnas as well as BG as it foundation and not just four Vadas. Your view can only be justified with Advaitic faith and it is not possible to accept all 33 God equal and One with out Advaitic faith and also understand the Sanatana Dharma as Monotheistic simultaneously. The missing point is your ignorance or belief of "I know all" which is AhamKara only. There is no question of disrespecting any Devata's but there is also no wrong understanding of knowing "Who" deserves our full respect.

If my rig Vedic point of view is accepted then to dismiss it is like skating on a thin ice.
Your Rg Vedic point of view is not accepted and will not be accepted as valid or genuine for one reason that it provokes so many questions that you then owe answers for. Very basic one will be, how can you reconcile all the 33 God as one? With out using any of the Upanishad's texts or advaitic interpretations? Since you said, you never claimed to be expert, isin't wise to take the 'experts" like Shri Shankara's view or Shri Ramanuja's view or Shri Madva's view etc. rather than rushing to a sorry feeling and conclusion that, Rg Veda is giving the understanding aganist what Kesava's said?
　

It is absurd to think Agni or Vayu is semi in control, I would be half alive. Fortunately that is not the case Upanisad invocation.
Why you need Upanishad now? Agni or Vayu have control only over what they have Lordship. So, in the realm of "Control", creation, protection etc. , their power is only partial. In that way, it has to be understood as "partial' rather than Semi. ( Semi, partial all signify the same though). Vayu will not perform the duties of Agni and please provide a ref from four Veda Vaks if this is not true.

I guess this discussion can be more intellectual one rather than mere emotional and personal one. I also leave a note of sorry here as my response is also some what personal.

Hare Krishna!

keshava

06 January 2010, 07:28 AM

Pranam Ganeshprashadji

I have tried my best to demonstrate that the use of the word demigod do no justice to Devas, this I speak from my personal Hindu view. I don’t think I can add more then what I have already said. This will be my last post on this thread unless off course I feel I need to clear any misconception that need to be address.

Thank you for you're time in this discussion I mean no offense if that is how my posts have come across. I have also tried my best to demonstarte thqatdemi-god is justified when you look at it from the vaishnava perspective. . As greme says in themselves and their controlling fucntion as agni etc they may be complete but on the absolute level they are at maximum only partially in control.

No traditional vaishnav follower would ever disrespect or dismiss a Rg veda point of view. If my rig Vedic point of view is accepted then to dismiss it is like skating on a thin ice.

I haven't dismissed it. You've quoted verses where they are shown as all one just like you did from the gita. There are other verses from rig veda that can be shown that there is a gradation in devtas

Rigveda, Shakala shakha: Aitareya Brahmana Verse 1 : "Agnir vai devānām avamo Viṣṇuḥ paramas, tadantareṇa sarvā anyā devatā" declares that Agni is the lowest god and Vishnu is the greatest God.

Other verses show that Vishnu is the helper of Indra who killed Vitra (Futher elabortated in bhagvatam) - Why would all complete dieties need help?

Again from advaitic view they may seen as one put from vaishnava view they are not. From adviatic view demi-god may not be justified but from dvaitic more than justified.

I have not dismissed it - its your way of looking at the rig veda.

　
Please stop misquoting me, this was a quote from a Hotra Brahmin in defence of Deva, from Vedas perspective. I may or may not fully subscribe to all that he had said, I have never claimed to be expert in any field. But I do stand by his claim that “ care should be taken to represent Vedic System accurately and truthfully" .And I challenge you to produce one verse from any source that describe Devas as Semi in their respective field it is another matter that Ithihas and puran make distinction with different deities.

It is absurd to think Agni or Vayu is semi in control, I would be half alive. Fortunately that is not the case Upanisad invocation.

May Mitra, Varuna, Aryama, Indra, Brihaspati and omnipresent Vishnu be praised. Salutations to Brahman. O Vayu,
salutations to you. You, verily, are the visible Brahman. I shall speak of you alone as the direct Brahman. I shall call you the Cosmic Law. I shall call you the Truth. May Brahman protect me. May He protect the teacher. May the Brahman protect me, may He protect the teacher. Om, peace. (Taittiriya; NPU p. 218)

Jai Shree Krishna

Heres one quote
Rigveda, Shakala shakha: Aitareya Brahmana Verse 1 : "Agnir vai devānām avamo Viṣṇuḥ paramas, tadantareṇa sarvā anyā devatā" declares that Agni is the lowest god and Vishnu is the greatest God.

I'm not saying that the are semi alive - they may be in control of agni or vayu etc, but the are not suprem so ultimately partially in control.

Rig veda mentions how Vishnu helped kill vritra

The Rig Veda (1.22.20) states, oṃ tad viṣṇoḥ paramam padam sadā paśyanti sūrayaḥ: "All the suras (i.e., the devas) look always toward the feet of Lord Vishnu."

The verse you took is similar to the gitas where krishna is describing he is all the gods - ie I am rudra, I am indra in the 10th chapte of gita. Which is used to support the advaitic view to show the are equal. However the vaishnavas will also take into account the differences mentioned eg. Bg 10.2

na (http://vedabase.net/n/na) — never; me (http://vedabase.net/m/me) — My; viduḥ (http://vedabase.net/v/viduh) — know; sura (http://vedabase.net/s/sura)-gaṇāḥ (http://vedabase.net/g/ganah) — the demigods; prabhavam (http://vedabase.net/p/prabhavam) — origin, opulences; na (http://vedabase.net/n/na) — never; mahā (http://vedabase.net/m/maha)-ṛṣayaḥ (http://vedabase.net/r/rsayah) — great sages; aham (http://vedabase.net/a/aham) — I (http://vedabase.net/i/i) am (http://vedabase.net/a/am); ādiḥ (http://vedabase.net/a/adih) — the origin; hi (http://vedabase.net/h/hi) — certainly; devānām (http://vedabase.net/d/devanam) — of the demigods; mahā (http://vedabase.net/m/maha)-ṛṣīṇām (http://vedabase.net/r/rsinam) — of the great sages; ca (http://vedabase.net/c/ca) — also; sarvaśaḥ (http://vedabase.net/s/sarvasah) — in (http://vedabase.net/i/in) all respects.
From gita society
Neither the celestial controllers, nor the great sages know My origin, because I am the origin of celestial controllers and great sages also. (10.02)

Thus vaishnavas will reconcile both statements that they are same in the sense that Krishna/Vishnu is a superset of the demigods aand the demigods equal to vishna as being a subset of his opulence.

Thus I am not denying your evidence. There are different ways of looking at the evidence depending on what scholl of thought you hold true.

Pranam

Lord Krishna says hardly any one knows me in truth, following your logic, shell we reject those few who might know him in preference to majority?

But happy to consider majority view, you will find most hindu is willing to offer worship to any deva, will not even bother to acknowledge the Word demigod if they knew the implication as there is no equivalent in our vocabulary.

You have accused me of narrower view about Vedas that is ok but you don’t know me, I have never rejected any purans or ithihas, save from interpolation, now let us have the same commitment from you who has been championing the cause off puranas. Let me guess only six satvic will do for you isn’t it. 18 puranas my friend not to speak of uppuran, do you accept them all ? Yes or no will do.

Jai Shree Krishna

I havent said majority rules.
Its not a simple case of yes or no. From the vaishnava veiw and the puranas themselves different puranas, rituals, gods, processes etc are attractive and suitable for different people.

From the vaishnava point of view they take primary knowledge form the 6 satvic puranas and gaudiya vaishnavas particularly put more emphasis on the Srimad bhagvatam as being the natural commentry on the vedanta sutra.

As stated in the Matsya Purana (53.65,68,69):
A Purana has five characteristics as opposed to an Akhyana. (The scriptures are divided into three classes - sattvika, rajasika, and tamasika.) The glory of Lord Hari is greater in the sattvika Puranas; the glory of Lord Brahma is more in the rajasika Puranas; the glory of Lord Siva and Agni is more in the tamasika Puranas. In the mixed scriptures the glory of Sarasvati and the Pitrs is explained."

Padma Purana, Uttara Khanda (236.18-21), which explicitly state that the eighteen Puranas are divided according to the three modes of nature.:

vaisnavam naradiyanca tathabhagavatam subham garudanca tathapadmam varaham subhadarsane sattvikanipuranani vijneyani subhani vai brahmandam brahmavaivartam markandeyam tathaiva ca bhavisyam vamanam brahmam rajasani nibodhame matsyam kaurmam tathalaingam saivam skandam tathaiva ca agneyam ca sadetani tamasani nibodhame
"Lord Siva said: O beautiful lady, know that the Visnu, Narada, Bhagavata, Garuda, Padma and Varaha Puranas are sattvika; the Brahmanda, Brahma-vaivarta, Markandeya, Bhavisya, Vamana and Brahma Puranas are rajasika; and the Matsya, Kurma, Linga, Siva, Skanda and Agni Puranas are tamasika."

Heres a link futher to why Gaudiyas vaishnavas put more emphasis on the Srimad bhagvatam. http://www.veda.harekrsna.cz/encyclopedia/sb.htm
Im sure there may be a reason for the shaivates to put prominence on other puranas but I dont know these.

It has nothing to do with my tradition or otherwise, Veda means knowledge so it is quite feasible to include it in Hindu cannon in one form or the other. But the tradition has it and there is no disputing Rig, Sama, Yajur and Arthava are apurusiya as srutis or revealed and ithihas and purans are smurti as remembered these are the defination no one can dispute.

I didnt dispute that they are apurushaya. I made the point that the puranas and ithasas are considered as 5th veda by the srutis themselves. They help to explain more easily the srutis (As they scriptures claim them selves - not me).

Thank you again for your time and effort Ganshprashadji. I' am happy that you have engaged me in discussing our scriptures.

Pranams
Hare Krishna

satay

06 January 2010, 10:51 AM

Admin Note

Please keep the discussion on topic and do not make personal attacks on eachother. Personal attacks are against the rules of HDF.

Thanks,

Ganeshprasad

07 January 2010, 05:28 PM

Pranam Keshava ji

Pranam Ganeshprashadji
Its not a simple case of yes or no. From the vaishnava veiw and the puranas themselves different puranas, rituals, gods, processes etc are attractive and suitable for different people.

As I guessed I was not surprised with your response, either we accept every thing what Vedvyas gave us or at least, that those who derive information that is different from ours deserve our respect. Other places you will find the same deities you would like to call demi are supreme, either we are right or Vedvyas does not know what he wrote in the other puranas. As for the gradation in it self that is not of not a problem because as you have rightly expressed that the glories of those personality in control of those guna�s are extolled, but it would be a mistake to think those puranas are in itself Satvik Rajsik and Tamasik in nature.

Padma Puran you quote and yet a lot of people will not accept Siva Gita from the same puran so don�t be surprised everyone will except your gradation.

Therefore it behoves a hindu to respect other people choice and not disrespect their Ista deva specially when they derive the information from the same source.

Nice talking to you

Jai Shree Krishna

Ganeshprasad

07 January 2010, 05:41 PM

Pranam Dear Grames

Dear Prasad Ji,

I am glad to read very big message but not sure what you are trying to accuse and then defend. Though i am interrupting here but to get more info and also joy of knowing more with your pardon and permission.
Hare Krishna!

Pranam you certainly need no permission from me. One has to be honest , if you were glad you would have liked what was said, if you are not sure all you need is to ask. Glad you were not
English language has it short comings, I contend that Demigod do not do justice to Deva, specially to Rig Vedic deities. For a Hindu which includes Vaishnava , Sheiva and the rest do not resort to change the defination of Deva in expressing the fullness Brahman, each group has their respective pramanas process of understanding without wanting to encroaching on others chosen deity, none of the languages in India substitutes Deva for any other word that seek to denigrate a deity like the demigod does, in absence of any real alternative for it, there is no reason why not Deva be use in english. But off course neo vaishnav who some of them even refuse to accept them self as Hindus (unless off course they have an agenda or need Hindus help) likes the word demigod because it sets them apart, they like abrahmic religion like to convert
　
　

But subsequent proof of listing out 33 God can mislead people who read your message in justification of proving there is no partial or half God but don't you think even a Kid will ask, if you say there 33 but how can all be full?

Now Rig veda is misleading great!

They call him Indra, Mitra, Varuna, Agni, and he is heavenly nobly-winged Garutman.
To what is One, sages give many a title they call it Agni, Yama, Matarisvan." RV (Book 1, Hymn 164.46)

But then this is only kid stuff , why would I want to discuss what King Janak in his court ask the same kid question to Yajnavalkya muni.
Guess it is above you this kindergarten stuff.

Your problem is, your faith of Advaita and if you have to deduct everything in to One and One only then, there is no question of Demi semi etc. If such faith is fully realized, you in fact shouldn't even have a disagreement when one says, Krisha is full and Agni, Vayu are all "demi God" or Devata. What is your problem when you are not suppose to see "gradations" or even perceive a difference among all the lsited Deva or Devatas?

You have no idea what my faith is, one�s Ista deva does not need any ones approval least of mine, one thing I do know is, God does not need deferential or denigration of any one to establishing his supremacy.

Kesava's point is, IT IS Vaishnava's poV but you have to disagree because your PoV is different but, oh dear friend do not call it RiGVeda View.

Wow, Vaishnava point of view, I would sit and listen to Vishu or Krishnas or Ram�s glories all day long,i be happy to chant maha mantra with you.
As Mirabai would say mero to Girdhar Gopal Dushro na koi, or Tulsidas saying Ram naam me lin hoi dekhat sab me Ram. My point of view has no value lets have your expert Rid veda view.
　
　
　

Except these neo Advaitins or so called Yogic disciples, no one have the guts or knowledge of understanding what Rg Veda view is and every other followers of Vedantic schools follow what VedVyasa gave following four known Vedas. Generalizing or giving a statistical conclusion like this shows your ignorance only rather than having any merit to such statements.

Who are these neo Advaitins that you refer to?

One does not need guts to understand Vedas but years of dedication, no I am not one off them but I did quote from one who was, in defence of Devas, that was and is my only point, boy it must have got to you, why else would you resort to personal attacks.
What generalisation and statistical are you on about.

Let me guess your reverance for Sri Vedavyas limited to six puranas, as if to say he did not know what he was talking about for the rest of them, your contempt for rig is made very clear by you.
　
　
　
　

If RgVeda can be understood so easily, what is the point of having so many Upanishad's and then Puranas, Ithihasas? In fact, Advaita also follows the Upanishad's and Purnas as well as BG as it foundation and not just four Vadas. Your view can only be justified with Advaitic faith and it is not possible to accept all 33 God equal and One with out Advaitic faith and also understand the Sanatana Dharma as Monotheistic simultaneously. The missing point is your ignorance or belief of "I know all" which is AhamKara only. There is no question of disrespecting any Devata's but there is also no wrong understanding of knowing "Who" deserves our full respect.

Athato Brahma Jijnasa. Therafter(now) Therefore an enquiry into Brahman. I start from not knowing who that is but it seems you know it all, self realised and expert on Devas and supreme.

We may refer this matter to an expert (but again I fear that experts are themselves of many kinds, driven by their predilections.)
　

Your Rg Vedic point of view is not accepted and will not be accepted as valid or genuine for one reason that it provokes so many questions that you then owe answers for. Very basic one will be, how can you reconcile all the 33 God as one? With out using any of the Upanishad's texts or advaitic interpretations?

Kids stuff again why do you insist? Whats wrong with Upanishad?

Since you said, you never claimed to be expert, isin't wise to take the 'experts" like Shri Shankara's view or Shri Ramanuja's view or Shri Madva's view etc. rather than rushing to a sorry feeling and conclusion that, Rg Veda is giving the understanding aganist what Kesava's said?
But off course and that�s why I quoted a Hotra Brahmin who had studied Rig Veda.
　

Why you need Upanishad now? Agni or Vayu have control only over what they have Lordship. So, in the realm of "Control", creation, protection etc. , their power is only partial. In that way, it has to be understood

What�s wrong with Upanishad?

that�s precisely the point, what ever their control in a specific field is full and complete therefore the prefix Demi which denotes part or semi does not apply.
　

Vayu will not perform the duties of Agni and please provide a ref from four Veda Vaks if this is not true.

Nor will Brahma, Vishnu or Rudra change their role of Satvik Rajsik and Tamsik.

I guess this discussion can be more intellectual one rather than mere emotional and personal one. I also leave a note of sorry here as my response is also some what personal.

Such humility counts for nothing except feeding once own ego.
　
Jai Shree Krishna

Mohini Shakti Devi

07 January 2010, 10:56 PM

Originally Posted by Ganeshprasad
God does not need deferential or denigration of any one to establishing his supremacy.

God may not be interested in the musings of the common person but He does know we seek to know the ‘Status Quo of things as they are’. So “knowledge” (ie: the ‘Absolute Truth’) is when clarity is confirmed by authorities that continue the succession, and make clear to seekers the path across the ocean of netherworlds.

Originally Posted by Ganeshprasad
the prefix Demi which denotes...

The Official usage of the “prefix Demi” has one purpose only:
To differentiate The Hindu Pantheon Of Devatas ---From Krishna, The Supreme Personality of Godhead.

That is my humble opinion in this specifically Titled Thread, “Hindu Dharma Forums (http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/index.php) è Sanatana Dharma (http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/forumdisplay.php?f=1) è God in Hindu Dharma (http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/forumdisplay.php?f=26) è Hare Krishna (ISKCON) (http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/forumdisplay.php?f=30)”

devotee

08 January 2010, 12:11 AM

Namaste all ISKCON members,

Can anyone of you tell me what you understand by Achintya Bheda-Abheda doctrine of Chaitanya Mahaaprabhu ?

I don't find it too different from Advaita Vedanta except the Maya concept in Advaita Vedanta to explain this universe. ABA doesn't accept the Maya theory. However, to my understanding, both doctrines accept that Jiva & God have a unique relationship of "abheda" i.e. non-duality (Advaita) & Bheda (Duallity/Dvaita) too ( Advaita Vedanta accepts duality/Dvaita in the waking & dreaming states of Self).

So, why do ISKCON members so strongly oppose Advaita theory ? They don't belong to Dvaita School of Madhavacharya ! I want to understand.

OM

grames

08 January 2010, 12:55 AM

Namaste Ji,

Let me guess your reverence for Sri Vedavyas limited to six puranas, as if to say he did not know what he was talking about for the rest of them, your contempt for rig is made very clear by you.　
Jai Shree Krishna

Honestly, i do not even understand anything that you wrote as response :). May be i am too ignorant or idiot by myself to understand a response like this.

But, believe me, i have read various translations of Rg Veda as well tried to understand them but alas, my intellectual capacity is like of an ant and didn't grasp anything out of it. So, i put myself deep down here as i have no intelligence or ways to understand Rg apart from understanding the Rg through Upanishad's or Puranas etc.

May be, person like you can only enlighten the ignorant like me but for enlightening my dull head, i have taken resort in acharya's anubhavas so i can surely agree that, i do not know Rg Veda as how you view it. But, i consciously or unconsciously do not want to contempt Rg or any Veda Vaks and may it be absolutely true forever.

So, let me pass this argument with high respect for you!

Thanks

grames

08 January 2010, 01:15 AM

Dear Devotee,

Though i am not ISKCON member, i try to answer this question...

Vaishanavas in General, will not accept a philosophy where there is no idea of "Personal" form of God as the highest principle. In Advaita, there is complete denial of "Form" and it is as good as being an atheist where in you deny the existence of God but substituting the principle God with Brahman etc. Different state of realization is not acceptable as there is no such thing available in the Vedic texts.

Just for your thought....

imagine..what makes a devotee...

His name, age, looks, personal form etc.
His love, affection, spiritual inquisitiveness etc.
His actions, deeds and status

Now, what Mahayana Buddhism says?
Remove all these attributes...
What remains in Sunya...the voidness...attaining is the complete 'nirvana'

What Advaita says....
Remove all these Maya, what remains is the Nirguna Brahman.

Where is the idea of God? God exists only in Maya but the final "None" is tricked as "knowledge" and Nirguna Brahman.

If "nirguna Brahman" is action less, there is no way of Maya acting and giving us the illusory creation of something which is in between real and unreal.

So, what is Maya? Undefinable cause you have no idea what it is. Problem is, advaita says, everything is Brahman but this Maya is not Brahman?? Why?

Buddhism concept of Void is also same like between real and unreal, between existence and non existence, only experience can tell, not describable etc.

So, the concept of Bagawan is lost in this philosophy and only post Shri Shankara period, new new extension of "Advaitic" concepts introduced to justify these holes and i am sure you know the history.

There is one nice composition my Shri madhva and if you get hold of a copy of it, give a read and see why Vaishnava's have problems with "Advaitic" view and that composition is called "Upadhi Khandana".

Also, you can read Shri Swami Desikan's Satadushani which details the issues they have with Advaita Darshna.

Though, Advaitins in general believe authors of these compositions "do not even know" advaita and that is how they refute these refutations. Advaita Siddhi of Shri MadhuSudana Swaraswati adopts such pattern and everyone after him are just parrots with no real refutations for the refutations.

Coming back to "achintya" Beda Abeda - yes GV's believe that the relationship between Soul and Brahman is simultaneously one and different but this relationship is inconceivable.

devotee

08 January 2010, 01:40 AM

Dear Grames,

What you have written is your perception of Advaita & doctrine of Dvaita of Maadhvaachaarya.

I think I know Advaita Vedanta fairly well. Dvaita-vaad what you say is OK but that was not what I wanted to know. ISKCON has its origin in Chaitanya Mahaaprabhu's doctrine & Mahaaprabhu proposed the theory of Achintya Bheda-Abheda.

Agreed, we cannot understand this relationship of Bheda-Abheda with God ... but this doctrine does accept that there exists a relationship of the Absolute (God) with the Jiva as "Abheda" or non-dual. We may not understand it & we may not describe it & it may be unthinkable .... but it does accept that there is non-dual relationship between the Jiva & God.

As far as Achintya word is there, I don't think even Advaita Vedanta explains this relationship without raising doubts. This is because our capacity to understand this unique relationship within this body-mind entity is too limited. Advaita Vedanta too accepts God & duality within the two states of Self. It takes the help of Maya/Illusion to explain the unexplainable relationship between Brahman & Jiva. If we remove this concept of Maya then both doctrines equally conform to Vedaanta i.e. Upanishads.

So, the unanswered question is : When it (Gaudiya Vashinava Sect) accepts the Advaita theory in any way (in the form of Achintya Bheda-Abheda), how can it be so much against Advaita ?

OM

grames

08 January 2010, 02:11 AM

Dear Devotee,

It is not right understanding saying Abedha is true cos it is "simultaneous oneness and difference" is what BedaAbeda means. So, there is no question of Advaita here.

Oneness is in in terms of being "Energy" of the Lord but difference is simultaneous as in "Fire and Fire sparks". Thats what this Acintya BedaAbeda in a nutshell.

Refer this page if you want more info...

http://bvml.org/SBNM/JaivaDharma/18.html

devotee

08 January 2010, 07:47 AM

Thanks, Grames ! I will go through it. However, do you have anything on this subject directly from Chaitanya Mahaaprabhu ?

OM

amith vikram

08 January 2010, 01:33 PM

Mohini Shakti Devi

08 January 2010, 08:59 PM

advaita has consistently produced . . .

Advaita is a 'Conclusion' or 'Summation' or 'understanding' that is accepted by a seeker as the 'Goal', it is not a process.

Advaita is not a philosophical process that ingenders yogic dedication. One isn't required to be a yogi to ascribe to the final Goal as, 'Understanding beyond doubts that the Status Quo of Existence is a condition of Advaita' . . . what is done thereafter by the seeker is of no further consequence. If one admits that "Advaita best descibes the Nature of Cosmic World", there is nothing else need be done by the seeker, they are done with their Path. It is truely a 'Catch Phrase' rather then a yogic process

What has produced every Hindu Santa, Yogi, Swami, Paramahansa, Rishi, Jnani, sadhu is yogic disciplines and tapasyas as scheduled by sastra.

amith vikram

09 January 2010, 02:27 AM

yeah, i get it.
matter can be turned into energy is a conclusion.
so matter turns into energy.

Mohini Shakti Devi

09 January 2010, 02:58 PM

do you have anything on this subject directly from Chaitanya Mahaaprabhu ?

Thank you devotee Prabhu,

your sincere and intelligent question caused me to research my books on sastra inorder to fulfill your request as best I can. Thank you for the adventure you inspired me to take.

Below is a collection of commentary by A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami in regards to the subject of �acintya-bhedabheda� according to the vaishnavas in Lord Caitanya�s line.

. . .

The living entity is different from the material elements, and the supreme living entity, the Personality of Godhead, who is the creator of the material elements, is also different from the individual living entity. This philosophy is propounded by Lord Caitanya as acintya-bhed�bheda-tattva. Everything is simultaneously one with and different from everything else. The cosmic manifestation created by the Supreme Lord by His material energy is also simultaneously different and nondifferent from Him. The material energy is nondifferent from the Supreme Lord, but at the same time, because that energy is acting in a different way, it is different from Him. Similarly, the individual living entity is one with and different from the Supreme Lord. This �simultaneously one and different� philosophy is the perfect conclusion of the Bh�gavata school

. . .

An example may be cited here: The different limbs of the body cannot enjoy life independently; they must cooperate with the whole body and supply food to the stomach. In so doing, all the different parts of the body enjoy equally in cooperation with the whole body. That is the philosophy of acintya-bhed�bheda, simultaneous oneness and difference. The living entity cannot enjoy life in opposition to the Supreme Lord

. . .

The impersonalist idea is an impurity of the Kali-yuga and it is refuted by the Vedas. The pure truth taught by the Vedas is the philosophy of acintya-bhedabheda (simultaneous oneness and difference).

The conclusions taught in the Upanisads are called �Vedanta� (the conclusion of the Vedas). Srila Vyasadeva summarised these conclusions in a book of four chapters, a book called the Brahma-sutra or Vedanta sutra. The truly learned people of this world respectfully accept the authority of this book. The general conclusion is that the Vedanta-sutra gives a proper exposition of the truths taught in the Vedas.

The different acaryas have each explained Vedanta-sutra in a way to support their conclusions. Sri Sankaracarya used the Vedanta-sutra to support his philosophy of impersonalism (vivarta-vada). He said that the philosophy of parinama-vada is not correct, for it must lead to the conclusion that Brahman is not the highest. He taught a philosophy called vivarta-vada, which is also called mayavada. To support this philosophy of vivarta-vada, he collected quotations from all the Vedas.

It seems that the philosophy of parinama-vada must have been popular before his time. By establishing his vivarta-vada, Sri Sankara suppressed the parinama-vada. Still, the vivarta-vada is only one of many theories. Displeased with it, Sri Madhvacarya created the theory of dvaita-vada.

He collected quotes from all the Vedas to support his theory of dvaita-vada. In the same way Srimad Ramanujacarya established the Vasistadvaita-vada and collected quotations from the Vedas to support it. Sri Nimbarka Acarya established his philosophy of dvaitadvaita-vada and he also collected many quotes from the Vedas to support it. Sri Visnu Svami preached the philosophy of suddhadvaitavada, which he based on the Vedanta-sutra and the texts of the Vedas.

The mayavada philosophy preached by Sri Sankaracarya is opposed to the truths of devotional service. Each with his own philosophy, the four Vaisnava acaryas taught that devotional service is the highest conclusion. Sriman Mahaprabhu based His philosophy on all the statements of the Vedas. His philosophy is called 'acintya-bhedabheda� (simultaneous oneness and difference). This philosophy accepts the basic framework of Madhvacarya's teachings.

What is the parinama-vada?

There are two kinds of parinama-vada: brahma-parinama-vada and sakti-parinama-vada. The brahma-parinama-vada teaches that Brahman becomes transformed into the individual souls and the material world. Thus they say that only Brahman exists, and to support their idea they quote these words of the Chandogya Upanisad (6.2.1): �Brahman is one without a second.�

This theory may be called 'advaita-vada' (impersonalism). Look. In this context 'vivarta' and 'parinama' are synonyms. Kn the other hanh, the philoso|hy of sakti-paranama-vada declares that Brahman Himself never becomes transformed. Rather it is Brahman's inconceivable potency that becomes transformed. The jiva-sakti becomes transformed into the individqal spirit souls and the maya-sacti becomes tranformed into the'material world. If this version of parinama-vada is accepted, Brahman does not become transformed. The act of transformation is defined in these words:
�Transformation is when something appears to be what it is not.�

What is transformation?

Transformation is when something appears to be different that what is it. Milk becomes transformed into yoghurt. It is still milk in essence. It only appears to be something else. That is transformation. According to the brahma-parinama-vada, the individual spirit souls and the material world are both transformations of Brahman. This idea is not correct. Of this there is no doubt.

The impersonal Brahman has no qualities. Therefore it has nothing that could be transformed into something else. Therefore it cannot be said to be the origin of transformations. Therefore the brahma-parinama-vada theory is not good. On the other hand, the sakti-parinama-vada does not have these defects. According to sakti-parinama-vada, Brahman is not transformed. Rather it is Brahman's potency, which can do any impossible thing, that is transformed into the atomic individual souls and into the perverted reflection that is the material world.

When Brahman desires, �Let the individual souls come into existence�, numberless souls are manifested from His potency. When Brahman desires, �Let the material world come into existence�, material universes without limit are manifested from His potency. These things are not transformations of Brahman.

If someone says, �If Brahman has a desire, then Brahman is transformed. The desire itself is a transformation of the original desireless Brahman. How is it possible that Brahman can be transformed in this way?� then I reply, �You are assuming that Brahman's desire is like the desires possessed by the individual spirit souls. That is why you say Brahman's desire is evidence that Brahman becomes transformed. The individual spirit soul is very small, and therefore his desire naturally touches Brahman's other potencies.

For this reason the soul's desires are actually transformations. However, Brahman's desires are completely independent. They are part of His intrinsic nature and are not subjected to outside influences. They are at once the same as and different from His potencies. Therefore Brahman's desires are part of His original nature. They do not involve any transformations. Ordered by His desires, His potencies act. His potencies then become transformed.

The living entity's small intelligence does not have the power to discover these subtle truths unaided. These truths are known only by hearing the testimony of the Vedas. Now we may consider the nature of the transformation of the potency. The example of milk being transformed into yoghurt is not the only example to show the transformation of potency. Although material analogies cannot give one a complete understanding of spiritual realities, they can help one understand certain aspects of it. Even though it is material in nature, a cintamani jewel is said to produce many other jewels within itself being changed in any way.

The Spiritual Supreme Personality of Godhead creates in a way like that. The Supreme Personality of Godhead remains completely unchanged after creating, by His desire and with the aid of His inconceivable potency, the numberless individual souls and numberless material universes consisting of fourteen planetary systems. This explanation that the Supreme is �untransformed� does not mean that the Supreme exists only as the qualityless impersonal Brahman. The word 'brahman' means the greatest (brhat).

Therefore the word �brahman� directly refers to the eternal Supreme Personality of Godhead, who is the master of six opulences. If we only say that He is 'untransformed' and do not say anything else about Him, we do not accept His cit-sakti (spiritual potency). The truth is that by the power of His inconceivable potency, He is simultaneously the qualityless Brahman, and the Supreme Person who possesses a host of spiritual qualities. Therefore to say only that He is 'untransformed' means to understand only half of His nature, and thus not understand Him in full. The Vedas have used the instrumental (by), ablative (from), and locative (in) cases to describe His relationship with the material world. In the Taittiriya Upanisad (3.1.1) it is said:

�Please know that Brahman is He from whom all living beings are born, by
whose power they remain alive, and into whom they enter at the end.�

When it is said that the living beings are manifested from Brahman, the ablative case is used. When it is said that the living beings live by Brahman's power, the instrumental case is used. When it is said that the living beings enter into Brahman, the locative case is used. In this way it is said that the Supreme has qualities. This shows that He is the Supreme Person, for it is a person that has qualities. Srila Jiva Gosvami describes the Supreme Person in these words:

�The Absolute Truth is one. Still, by His inconceivable potency He is manifested in four ways: 1. svarupa (His original form), 2. tad-rupa-vaibhava (Hisincarnations), 3. jiva (the individual spirit souls), and 4. pradhana (the material energy).

keshava

09 January 2010, 03:58 PM

Pranam Keshava ji

As I guessed I was not surprised with your response, either we accept every thing what Vedvyas gave us or at least, that those who derive information that is different from ours deserve our respect. Other places you will find the same deities you would like to call demi are supreme, either we are right or Vedvyas does not know what he wrote in the other puranas. As for the gradation in it self that is not of not a problem because as you have rightly expressed that the glories of those personality in control of those guna�s are extolled, but it would be a mistake to think those puranas are in itself Satvik Rajsik and Tamasik in nature.

Padma Puran you quote and yet a lot of people will not accept Siva Gita from the same puran so don�t be surprised everyone will except your gradation.

Therefore it behoves a hindu to respect other people choice and not disrespect their Ista deva specially when they derive the information from the same source.

Nice talking to you

Jai Shree Krishna

Pranams Ganeshprashadji

"that those who derive information that is different from ours deserve our respect"

When in this discussion has anyone disrespected any devta? The word demigod you may find disrespectful but its your interpretation/perception of it that you find disrespectful - the philosophy of Gaudiya vaishnava is to respect all devtas and every living being - the term is used to define clearly according to the vaishnava philsophy who is the supreme Lord. I have no problem respecting anothers philosophy and terms which may call Krishna rama etc demigods, celestal beings, scholors, brahman relized soul, all one etc. Although respect is there I dont neccerserly have to accept the philosophy.

"Other places you will find the same deities you would like to call demi are supreme, either we are right or Vedvyas does not know what he wrote in the other puranas. "

There is also a third possibility apart from ved vyas not knowing what he is talking about. According to the vaishnava point of view the scriptures are designed to elevate people from the 3 modes to follow the authority of the vedas. only a few are interested in absolute truth bg.7.3. E.g some processes when following certain dieties.procsses allow for eating meat, praticing sidhhis, giving health, drinking wine others dont encourage it at all according to the mode and diety of worship.

A portion of the Vedas deals with three modes � goodness, passion, and ignorance � of material Nature. Become free from pairs of opposites, be ever balanced and unconcerned with the thoughts of acquisition and preservation. Rise above these three modes, and be Self-conscious, O Arjuna. (2.45)

Vedvyas a representative of Krishna strengthens the faith of devotees of different dieties which is exactly what krishna says in the Gita he does as the super soul.

BG 7.21 (http://vedabase.net/bg/7/21/en): I am in everyone's heart as the Supersoul. As soon as one desires to worship some demigod, I make his faith steady so that he can devote himself to that particular deity.
BG 7.22 (http://vedabase.net/bg/7/22/en): Endowed with such a faith, he endeavors to worship a particular demigod and obtains his desires. But in actuality these benefits are bestowed by Me alone.

The vedic scritures are appealing to differnt modes of people there is a hierachy.

BG 6.45 (http://vedabase.net/bg/6/45/en): And when the yogī (http://vedabase.net/y/yogi) engages himself with sincere endeavor in making further progress, being washed of all contaminations, then ultimately, achieving perfection after many, many births of practice, he attains the supreme goal.
BG 6.46 (http://vedabase.net/bg/6/46/en): A yogī (http://vedabase.net/y/yogi) is greater than the ascetic, greater than the empiricist and greater than the fruitive worker. Therefore, O Arjuna (http://vedabase.net/a/arjuna), in all circumstances, be a yogī (http://vedabase.net/y/yogi).
BG 6.47 (http://vedabase.net/bg/6/47/en): And of all yogīs, the one with great faith who always abides in Me, thinks of Me within himself, and renders transcendental loving service to Me � he is the most intimately united with Me in yoga (http://vedabase.net/y/yoga) and is the highest of all. That is My opinion.

If krishna himself gives the followers faith to the followers of other annya devtas then why not Vyas deva?

This is a Hare Krishna thread so have tried my best to present it accurately as possible others may have their own perspectives about how the vedas and the gradations work.

I also saw you bring up the ISKCON hindu or not - you might want to start a new thread for that one (-: I'm sure it will be fun and long.

Nice speaking to you Ganeshprasadji. Things can get heated in discussions rajo guna, if there is anything untowards I may have said towards you directly/indirectly please forgive me. I appreciate your posts and have also noted that you're other posts in other threads are balanaced, generally friendly and thoughtful.

Hare Krishna.

keshava

09 January 2010, 04:08 PM

Sorry for the off topic post just realised the conversation has moved on (-:

Ganeshprasad

09 January 2010, 05:26 PM

Pranam Keshava ji and all

I respectfully bow out of this thread, perhaps with hindsight I should have stayed clear of it since it is on a section exclusive for Hare Krishna’s, but my pet peeve got better of me for that I beg your pardon.
In any case the discussion have moved on, so I wish you all the best. Hari bol.

To add to on going discussion, how does Gaudiya Vaishnava claim to follow in the line of Madhvacharya while following a different doctrine of Acintya bhedAbhed ? and another point is Sri Chetanya Mahaprabhu took Sanyas from Advaita Sanyasi so how can you say there is no Advaita in it? just an observation

Jai Shree Krishna

grames

11 January 2010, 12:59 AM

this is not what advaita says.people at large,even advaitins in the beginning,have doubts regarding maya and nirguna brahman.advaita is not simple.at first i encountered the same problems.but as we move on the ladder of knowledge and enqiry concepts'll be understood.if you cant understand advaita,that does not mean advaita is false.afterall,advaita has consistently produced gems like swami vivekananda,ramakrishna paramahamsa,vidyaranya(responsible for vijayanagara empire),shivaji to name a few,time and time again.
satyameva jayate.

Care to explain what were your doubts and what you have understood? in a separate thread under Advaita.

Thanks

amith vikram

11 January 2010, 01:06 AM

Care to explain what were your doubts and what you have understood? in a separate thread under Advaita.

Thanks
dear grames,

i'd love to.ceck out "myths and facts about advaita" under the advaita section.

regards