PDA

View Full Version : THE 10 OFFENSES



Krsna Das
18 February 2010, 09:42 AM
It is recommened for all the Vaishnavas to avoid nama-apradhas as much as possible. These are as follows:

From Padma Purana, Brahma Khanda


1)”satam ninda namnah paramam aparadham vitanute
yatah khyatim yatam katham u sahate tad-vigarham”


To blaspheme or criticize the krsna devotees, who have dedicated their lives to chanting the holy name of the Lord.
The holy name, who is identical with Krsna, will never tolerate such blasphemous activities. Such persons will have to undergo the reactions of there offenses.


2) “sivasya sri-visnorya iha guna-namadi-sakalam
dhiya bhinnam pasyet sa khalu hari-nama ahita-karah”


To treat the names and gunas of Supreme Lord Hari equal to the names of other devatas, like Lord Siva (Sivasya Sri Visnorya) - This is second namapradha.


3) “guror avajna”


To disobey the orders of the spiritual master or to consider him an ordinary person.


4) “sruti-sastra-nindanam”


To blaspheme the Vedic literatures and literatures in pursuance of the Vedic version (puranas etc) as unauthentic.


5) “artha-vadah”


To think that the holy name is no doubt glorious, but the puranas actually exaggarate it, meaning it is not so glorious as to wipe off all the sins committed by a person in all lifetimes just by chanting a single name.


6) “hari-namni kalpanam”


To consider the glories of the holy name of the Lord as imagination.


7) “namno balad yasya hi papa-buddhir
na vidyate tasya yamair hi suddhih”


(While chanting of the holy name of the Lord can counteract all the past sinful reactions but it is greatest offense to commit sinful activities on the strength of chanting the holy name of the Lord.) To think that the Hare Krsna mantra can counteract all sinful reactions and one may therefore go on with his sinful activities and at the same time chant the Hare Krsna mantra to neutralize them is the greatest offense at the lotus feet of Hari-nama.


8) “dharma-vrata-tyaga-hutadi-sarva-
subha-kriya-samyam api pramadah”


To consider the chanting of the Hare Krisna maha-mantra to be one of the auspicious ritualistic mantras mentioned in the Vedas as fruitive activity.


9) “asraddadhane vimukhe ’py asrnvati
yas copadesah siva-namaparadhah”


It is an offense to preach the glories of the holy name of the Lord to the faithless.


10) “srute ’pi nama-mahatmye yah priti-rahito narah
aham-mamadi-paramo namni so ’py aparadha-krt”


If one has heard the glories of the transcendental holy name of the Lord but nevertheless continues in a materialistic concept of life, thinking “I am this body and everything belonging to this body is mine [aham mameti],” and does not show respect and love for the chanting of the Hare Krsna maha-mantra, that is an offense.


Radhe !

Krsna Das
19 February 2010, 05:36 AM
Question: But Krsna is so merciful. Why will he punish somebody if one unknowingly commits offenses towards his name?

Answer: Krsna's name will consider offenses and one has to also undergo the reaction of such offenses:


‘krsna-nama’ kare aparadhera vicara
krsna balile aparadhira na haya vikara

(CC Adi 8.24)


“If someone will chant krsna-nama but at the same time commit the ten offenses, he will not experience melting of the heart and tears flowing from his eyes.” However:


gaura-nityanande nahi esaba vicara
nama laite prema dena, vahe asrudhara

(CC Adi 8.31)


Gaura-nityananda-nama does not consider any offense. If someone chants their names, his heart will melt and tears will flow from his eyes. Thus, gaura-nama is more merciful than krsna-nama.



Therefore, we always chant first the panca-tattva mahamantra before chanting the hare krsna mahamantra, so that if unknowingly any offenses are committted during chanting, they are counteracted or nullified by our chanting of Nityananda and Gauranga names.

ScottMalaysia
22 February 2010, 09:51 PM
To treat the names and gunas of Supreme Lord Hari equal to the names of other devatas, like Lord Siva (Sivasya Sri Visnorya) - This is second namapradha.

This is an ecumenical Hindu forum, so you should refrain from posting things like this that may offend others. I do not consider this to be an offence because I believe that all the different Gods are just different forms of the One Supreme Being.

grames
23 February 2010, 01:23 AM
This is an ecumenical Hindu forum, so you should refrain from posting things like this that may offend others. I do not consider this to be an offence because I believe that all the different Gods are just different forms of the One Supreme Being.

In ISKCON forum, we do not have to be politically correct and hide or subtract what this philosophy says about it. Why it is an offense? It will be an offense if you want to subtract and pose like you are being true to your faith.

satay
23 February 2010, 10:04 AM
namaste Scott,

Since this is the ISKCON section of HDF, I don't see why they should refrain from posting as long as the forum rules are being followed.


This is an ecumenical Hindu forum, so you should refrain from posting things like this that may offend others. I do not consider this to be an offence because I believe that all the different Gods are just different forms of the One Supreme Being.

sambya
24 February 2010, 02:20 AM
Question: But Krsna is so merciful. Why will he punish somebody if one unknowingly commits offenses towards his name?

Answer: Krsna's name will consider offenses and one has to also undergo the reaction of such offenses:



but doesnt the shastras say naam and naami are abhed ?!!

if krishna doesnt mind why would his name(personified) mind ?!!

Krsna Das
02 March 2010, 09:12 AM
This is an ecumenical Hindu forum, so you should refrain from posting things like this that may offend others. I do not consider this to be an offence because I believe that all the different Gods are just different forms of the One Supreme Being.

Our motive is not to "please" others. We are not obliged to present something in a twisted manner, just because majority of people would enjoy it to hear/read; or hide something that has been propagated by Srila Vyasadev himself, just because majority of people have problems accepting it.

Accuse NOT me, but Srila Vyasadev, who has composed Padma Purana, who is none other than the empowered incarnation of Supreme.

bhaktajan
02 March 2010, 10:58 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ScottMalaysia
This is an ecumenical Hindu forum, so you should refrain from posting things like this that may offend others . . .

READ THE BANNER ABOVE:
Hare Krishna (ISKCON) Forum for discussion of Krishna Consciousness: Hare Krishna!

ranjeetmore
02 March 2010, 02:55 PM
It is recommened for all the Vaishnavas to avoid nama-apradhas as much as possible. These are as follows:

From Padma Purana, Brahma Khanda



2) “sivasya sri-visnorya iha guna-namadi-sakalam
dhiya bhinnam pasyet sa khalu hari-nama ahita-karah”


To treat the names and gunas of Supreme Lord Hari equal to the names of other devatas, like Lord Siva (Sivasya Sri Visnorya) - This is second namapradha.



there are TWO versions of the list of Naamapradha and the other one strongly declares that one who differentiates between the names of Shiva and Visnu is a blasphemer.
This other list is to be followed by the Krsnaites : Nimbarkis,Gaudiyas,pushti margis and Ramanandis (instead of krsna naam,they put rama naam.)

The list which you put up is generally followed by Madvacharya's disciples and Ramajunites - since they worship the majestic/opulent form in Vaikuntha.

Ganeshprasad
03 March 2010, 09:33 AM
Pranam


Our motive is not to "please" others. We are not obliged to present something in a twisted manner, just because majority of people would enjoy it to hear/read; or hide something that has been propagated by Srila Vyasadev himself, just because majority of people have problems accepting it.

Accuse NOT me, but Srila Vyasadev, who has composed Padma Purana, who is none other than the empowered incarnation of Supreme.

Who said majority have problem accepting it?

I like this word twist chuby chuker did it his way, so lets all twist, sorry if I am intruding. As I say we all twist in our own way. but seriously,


When something is presented in certain manner than you might find people rejecting it or not to like it.

Sri Vyasdev wrote major 18 major puranas, he extols 3 different personalities as supreme. He also wrote Mahabharata where Lord Shiva is presented as supreme, what to speak of Vedas which says ekaṃ sad viprā bahudhā vadantyaghniṃ

One can be forgiven reading those scripture to conclude they must be the same all being in different roles. If that is an offence God must be one very cruel guy

As presented the offence no 2 is nothing more then scare tactic, the padma puran itself would fall foul of the offence, if it were true, as presented by some. All you need to read is the Shiv Gita.

But thankfully the translation I read is like this as already quoted by Ranjeet ji

sivasya sri-visnor ya iha guna-namadi-sakalam
dhiya bhinnam pasyet sa khalu hari-namahita-karah
One who sees the difference between the names and qualities of Lord Shiva and names and qualities of Lord Vishnu is an antagonist of hari-nama"
Which would be broadly in line with what said in Bhagvat puran and I quote.
 
S.B 8.7.23 O lord, you are self-effulgent and supreme. You create this material world by your personal energy, and you assume the names Brahmā, Viṣṇu and Maheśvara when you act in creation, maintenance and annihilation.

4.7/50-54 The lord said: The supreme cause of the universe, I am also Brahma (the creator) and Lord Shiva (the destroyer of the universe). I am the self, the lord and the witness, self effulgent and unqualified. Embracing my own Maya, consisting of the three gunas, it is I who create, protect and destroy the universe have assumed names appropriate to my functions, O Brahmana! It is in such a Brahman, the supreme sprit, who is one without a second, that the ignorant fool views Brahma, Rudra and other beings as distinct entities. Just as a man never conceives his own head, hands and other limbs as belonging to anyone else, even so he who is devoted to me does not regard his fellow creatures as distant from himself.
He who sees no difference between Us three (Brahma, Rudra and Myself)-who are identical in essence and the very selves of all living beings-attains peace, O Daksa.

So please tell us who is correct Vyasdev in various other scriptures or your version of Padma purana offence no 2?
 
Jai Shree Krishna

Krsna Das
04 March 2010, 03:10 AM
There are innumerable incarnations of Lord. One of them is Guna-avtaras, in which Lord expands his vaibhav in the form of three aspects - brahma , vishnu and siva.

The gunavtaras are mentioned in the verses quoted above, depicting them as the expansions of the Supreme Lord. Since they are HIS expansions they are not different from him. But they are not HIm as well. This is explained clearly giving example of curd and milk.

BUT, Brahma (Catur-Mukh Brahma and not Hiranya-Garbha-Prajapati) and Siva (Rudra-Siva) accept mayik-vikar, for example Siva accepts vikar composing of tamo-guna of maya-sakti, swalpata-guna of tatastha-sakti, and Cit-Guna-cum-Samvit-guna of Swarup-sakti, due to which they are in contact with Bahiranga-Sakti, and so they are known as vibhinnansa-tattva (Though this may not be always the case), but being so, they are still "sada-swarUp-sampraptaH", although they are punya-mayi-AdhikArik-devtas and therefore also termed as Saktyavesa-avtaras in this case (IF they happen to be a Jiva-gata-tattva)

But Lord Visnu (who is again the Guna-avtar) accepts visudhha-satva and not asudhha-satva of Maya-sakti, so he is always aloof from jada-sakti (see purush sukta - dasangulam verse.....and also Brahma-samhita) and so he is always accepted as a swansa-gata-tattva, but still not the swayam-rupa.

Who is swayam-rupa? Who is the origination of Guna-avtaras?

All the answers are here, in this post. Keep on thinking.

grames
04 March 2010, 03:29 AM
Dear Ganesh ji,

You said....

Sri Vyasdev wrote major 18 major puranas, he extols 3 different personalities as supreme. He also wrote Mahabharata where Lord Shiva is presented as supreme, what to speak of Vedas which says ekaṃ sad viprā bahudhā vadantyaghniṃ

Shri Vyasa extols only One as Supreme and thats it. Who the other two are? and if we have any reasoning power then we will be in a position to ridicule Shri Vyasa Himself for calling three as Supreme though Supreme can be only one.

In MahaBaratha it is Lord Vishnu who is exalted and presented as Supreme and not Lord Shiva unless you have read it completely. I can give you full translation of MB from different schools of vaishnavaism. Even the great Shri Sankara adores Vishnu as the ultimate deity as he wrote his first bhasya on Shri Vishnu sahasranama where the pretexts and conversation between Yudishtra and Bhisma explains the glory of this namas. ( Though Shri Shankara adopts the Advaitic interpretations, he does not deny the deity of Shri Vishnu as highest and also prays to him to Protect/save him with a strong saying that Shri Vishnu alone can save him)

Now you may ask, why then Lord Shiva is said as Supreme in certain scriptures. I have just my personal opinion in this though there are numerous bhasyas written by vedantic scholars like Shri Madhva, Sri Ramanuja etc. who established the Supremacy of Shri Vishnu and also proved that Shri Vishnu is the one and only deity praised and sung in all the vedic scripts. ( It is just that they are not easily available to the general public as they require a lot more personal qualification to understand than mere sentiments and interest. you can still get some excerpts by googling or extracting from various forums)

will you guys ever recognize the reality of people of different types? Do you realize that the most popular representations of SD does acknowledge the gradation among souls, be it Vaishnavaism or Shaivaism? If you happen to believe that there is no such natural difference among people and if you have to nullify all as One will be forced to resort your faith as Advaita. Advaita also admits all of the Theistic philosophies as truths but explain them as relative reality which are still cannot be neglected for one who wants to step in the Absolute realm of Truth. Ignoring this fact makes your contention weak and i hope you do not skip this as just a worthless justification. The side effects of Advaita where the gradation of souls is nullified does not have very strong basis until you are in the realm of Absoluteness, which is not possible when you are inside the Deha (even JivanMukta experiences the world but he knows it is not real). So, we cannot discuss much about the Absolute Realm and no school of Indian thought allows talking too much about How or Who that "Absolute" reality as that "Absolute" reality is not subjected to any words, minds etc.

So, Shaivaism lays the path to that Absolute reality by exalting Lord Shiva as the Supreme and the member of ThiruMoorthy as not Lord Shiva but as Lord Rudra who is again expansion of the first Being called Lord SadaShiva. So which Shiva we are talking about when we say Lord Shiva is supreme? Here, advaita cannot step in and define any God's superiority or inferiority and we can dismiss any side stepping by sticking the Advaita view of Relative reality. So, the only challenge is about proving Shaivaites position and not Advaitic position and this is already done with out any doubt for so many times by so many Vaishnavas for ages even though Shaivaism was so popular among Kings class. Does it make everyone Vaishnava? Nope. Because, Vaishnava philosophies do hold the three types of souls as reality and only Saatwic souls do follow the saatwic path of Shri Vishnu as Supreme and the Tamasmic souls (though not derogatory but a reality) do subscribe to the path of Lord Shiva as they are the Lords of the respective Guna. Rajasic struggle in between these two and will never get to know or elevate themselves anywhere and continue as ever transmigrating.

Shiavaism also do have this gradation system but in a different way. Vijnanar, Pralayakalathar and Sakalar with respect to their being subjected to the three impurities and then further classifications of the three in to four, three and three respectively based on their elevation in the spiritual progress.

So your reflection or responses on offenses are not valid when it comes to the path for a Vaishnava to follow or also a path for a Shaivatie to follow ( ThiruManthiram in Second Tantra details the offenses too). So, if your responses have any basis in the line of great saints of these Samya then it gets some merit to look in to. So when we take a position of an Acharya or as seer of Truth, then only we can fall in to the trap of "All are one" and give different treatment to different vedic verses and introduce gradation of Truth itself which by all means negate the spirit of Veda itself. Why do we self sanction ourselves to such a high level?

I want to share one of the nice thing i read about this killing the meaning of the vedic verse. Shri VadiRaja wrote about this. When two cows fight, only a beaf eater will kill one and solve the issue. But a satwic will divert the attention of one of the cows by giving grass etc. and keep the harmony between the cows. Like that, in Vedic scripts when two sutra oppose each other, only a insincere will kill the meaning of one or ignore the meaning of one verse or teach a lower status to a sutra to diminish the truth it holds. But the sincere will look in to the opposing sutra and take the sutra which cannot be interpreted by any other means as the Truth and then go on and interpret the other sutra which can be interpreted in more than one way in line with the one that is interpreted already. If you follow this rule strictly, then you don't have to teach two degrees of Truth to shuruti Vaks, no need to identify few Vaks as Maha Vaks and rest as ordinary etc., no need to equate all as One and same etc., no need to skip urgent meaning and stick with secondary meanings, no need to fix a pretext before attempting to interpret the shruti etc.

But who are interested to know all this? We want something fast, quick and will not even change anything of what we are today but dictate that the Truth should be revealed with out fail to us whether we are doing anything about knowing it or not! How many of us go to Yoga centers or have some Yogi as our Guru and experienced anything beyond Mind? Are we honest to give an answer here? We simply ignore Vedic texts and assume that they are not necessary for spiritual progress. We are happily settled with few articles on internet. Truth is Click away and God is just a call away!

grames
04 March 2010, 06:23 AM
All the answers are here, in this post. Keep on thinking.

I think it is 11th Offense ! :)

Ganeshprasad
04 March 2010, 12:06 PM
Pranam Grames ji

Thank you for your considered reply, I read what you say and I understand but let me explain from where I am coming from, before that let me clear one thing, when I said sri Vyasdev extol three personality let me expand on it as I did not make my self clear on it. In six Sheiva purans which some like to call tamasik there lord Shiva is definitely the supreme diety similarly the six vaishnav purana lord Vishnu is supreme and so on with brahma.

Now there is no question of three Gods unless off course you are a pantheist, therefore at least I am forced to conclude all these must be the same person in different roles creation maintaince and destruction.
If you are influenced by Ramanujachariya or Madhva that is fine but then I am influenced by Tulsidas Goswami Valbhachariya Sridharswami whose Bhagvat puran Sri Chetniya approves, narshimehta and many others for them this offence as presented would hold no water not withstanding the question mark over its translation either.

The supreme Lord is Achintya, there are paradoxes that are hard for the human mind to fully comprehend. Its is clear that for a vaishnav Vishnu is supreme and Shaiva do the same reading same scriptures
If we find within the Veda a statement that Vishnu is supreme and then another that says Rudra is supreme, we might conclude that Vishnu and Rudra must be the same being or different aspects of the same being. In that way there is no inconsistency in the Veda and we can accept its statements as they are, without recourse to unusual interpretations.

This view is confirmed in the Mahabharata. Krishna describes Shiva as narayanatmako jneyah, to be understood as of the same nature as Narayana (12.328.19). And Narayana himself says to Shiva, yas tvam vetti sa mam vetti yas tvam anu sa mam anu/navayor antaram kimcit, 'one who knows you knows myself; one who follows you follows me. There is no difference between us.' (12.328.64). These verses are to be found in the Nara-Narayaniyam, a passage of the Mahabharata that teaches Vaishnavism.

There are other parts of the Mahabharata in which Shiva is said to be the source of Vishnu, Brahma and Rudra. It is here we find the explanation of how Rudra was born from Brahma; this Rudra is not the original Shiva who is the Supreme Deity but a secondary manifestation and it is this secondary manifestation that is associated with the the tamo-guna. In the Anushasana Parvan, Book 13, of the Mahabharata we find this prayer to Shiva:

yo asrijad dakshinad angad brahmanam loka-sambhavam
vama-parshvat tatha vishnum loka-rakshartham ishvarah
yugante chaiva samprapte rudram angat srijat prabhuh

'He is the Lord (ishvara) who from his right side created Brahma the creator of the world and from his left side created Vishnu for the protection of the world. And at the end of the Yuga the mighty Lord creates Rudra from his body.'
And if you add maha vakya Eko Bhudha vadanti you may appreaciate where iam coming from

I am not providing any further evidence from Mhabharat because this is not another Shiva V Vishnu debate.

On the point of tamsik worship of Shiva I can point you to relevant verses in Bhagvat where you find saintly sages worshiping him if you like.

Jai Shree Krishna

yajvan
04 March 2010, 08:20 PM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namasté Ganeshprasad,


Pranam Grames ji

In the Anushasana Parvan, Book 13, of the Mahabharata we find this prayer to Shiva:

yo asrijad dakshinad angad brahmanam loka-sambhavam
vama-parshvat tatha vishnum loka-rakshartham ishvarah
yugante chaiva samprapte rudram angat srijat prabhuh

'He is the Lord (ishvara) who from his right side created Brahma the creator of the world and from his left side created Vishnu for the protection of the world. And at the end of the Yuga the mighty Lord creates Rudra from his body.'


Your post & approach is very succient and clear ( as I see it)...It only makes me think of the following:

ṛg ved I.164.46 ṛṣi dīrghatamas
indraṃ mitraṃ varuṇamaghnimāhuratho divyaḥ sa suparṇo gharutmān |
ekaṃ sad viprā bahudhā vadantyaghniṃ yamaṃ mātariśvānamāhuḥ ||

Truth is One , sages call it variously

praṇām

Krsna Das
05 March 2010, 02:04 AM
One has to understand whether a verse is spoken for Sada-Siva or Rudra-Siva. One has to understand that the difference between the source and it's manifestation.

Let us leave Rudra for now, even though Sada-Siva is non-different from Visnu tattva, he is still considered to be his vaibhav-vilas, and not the original form of Lord.

Karnodaksayi Visnu or Mahavisnu is the origination source of Gunavtaras, but he is again the expansion of Lord sankarshan who is 2nd vaibhav-vilas-murti of the first quadrupal expansion of Supreme (Pratham-caturvyuha).

A person in the mode of ignorance may misinterpret vaisnava sastras, for such reasons, even in vaisnava sastras, like padma purana, we can see verses meant for them (viz. Siva Geeta), but then again to caution the vaisnavas, Srila Vedvyasa mentions that Krsna Says to Siva in same padma purana - "In order to delude the athiests, I will adore you as the Supreme Being , whenever I incarnate on earth".

Why does Srila Ved Vyasa use "Siva-Uvacah" for Lord Siva and "Sri Bhagwan Uvacah" for Lord Krsna / Visnu? Why not "Krsna-Uvaca"?

And why does the Supreme personality of Godhead, Sri Gauranga Krsna, would want to convert all the Saivites to Vaishnavism?

[ http://vedabase.net/cc/madhya/9/68/en ]

grames
05 March 2010, 03:32 AM
Dear Ganeshji,

Very passionate response and i am delighted to read this response. There are few things i add to whatever i have already wrote to express my opinions and understanding rather than making myself face of any Samya.

In my previous message i have pointed out one thing which require a little more focus. Before i explain what it is, i also want to raise this factual nature of human in general. Though we read so many scriptures which talks about three Guna etc. we do not have the open mind or heart or even more precisely the flattened ego to accept that we do have all these three guna with in ourselves be it goodness, passion or ignorance. Which of these three is predominant is not for a third person to judge but it will be self evident for every individual though with out real awareness. We do see people with variety of behavior, faith and life style due to these different combination of Guna. Our scripts do lay path for all sort of people and when it is said certain portion of the Script deals with Tamas or ignorance, it doen't make it derogatory rather it is what is practically possible for people whose guna manifestation is of that kind. Taking this idea as a basis, then we can see why different paths are there for different kinds of people where the choice of choosing any particular path is still individual's. No one dictates that you should follow ONLY this or that and that is how we are tolerant to accept all paths as part and parcel of SD.

The dispute or uncomfortable situation takes its place only when we ignore these fact of various types of Guna with in people but try to equate all as same and one to the philosophical faith that becomes axis of these samyas. Only two of them are very predominant in the theistic samyas (though there are so many atheistic samyas in SD) and they hold Shri Vishnu as Supreme or Lord Shiva as supreme and there is no samya in SD which uphold Lord Brahma as supreme as it is very clear and evident that Lord Brahma is also a Jiva with out any doubt. ( Lord Shiva is not considered as a Jiva in two Vaishnava schools and one school do not use the term Lord Shiva to denote Lord Rudra and in that school, Lord Rudra is also a Jiva. In Shaiva Siddanta, Lord Vishnu is also a Being expanding from Lord SadaShiva and Lord Vishnu, Brahma and Rudra are not free from one of the three impurities as per their Siddanta.)

As you said, definitely there is no question of three Gods and it should be only one at least as long as you remain in the Theistic understanding. So, now how you reconcile this as you already know that there are puranas which extols Shri Vishnu and there are puranas which extols Lord Shiva as Supreme. Your method of reconciling is that, since two cannot be Supreme, they both should be same being or different aspect of same being. First choice of that reconciliation is a Rajaisic stand point where you still uphold some sort of Supremacy but do not want to assume two person entitled for it as it invalidate the idea of Supremacy itself. Second portion of your reconciliation is even better and it can fall in to pure Sattwic understanding or pure Tamasmic understanding where Saatwic thought direct you to the idea that, there is a Original Supreme Being and He manifest in to different aspects as Devas, Jivas, jada etc. The instances or manifestation of that Original Supreme Being is what Lord Narayana, Lord Vishnu and Lord Rudra are. Then it expands to give all theistic idea of nature of these expansions and the universal role they play for the pleasure of that Original Supreme. That Original Supreme is identified as Shri Vishnu Himself in all major Vaishnava Sampradaya and then with respect to the complete Rasa or reservoir of all Bhavas, He is identified as Shri Krshna in two sampradaya. But still teaching any differences to Shri Krshna and any of His svyamsa avatars are still an offense. Though there are little differences in these Vaishnava schools in their Tattvas or identifying Shri Krishna as that Original Bagawan, the Theistic siddantas are identical. On the other hand, the Shaiva Siddanta identifies this Ultimate Being as Lord Shiva (not one of the ThiruMoorthy) and goes on and explains the beings Lord Vishnu and Lord Rudra as Lord Shiva's manifestation etc. Even in Shaivaism there are slight differences in terms of their Tattva but all Shaiva school have identical siddanta.

I know i gave big explanation which you may already know but to make a point that, even your method of reconciliation is not like it was not thought before or attempted but exactly it is those thoughts which gave two big samya for the SD and continue to exist with out any possibility of reconciling as One. What does that mean? Reconciliation is not possible or reconciling will negate certain freedom and choices that are in fact divinely made for different types of people? I go by the second choice and the big two branches of SD should not be and never be reconciled for pleasing any non-believer or any politically right kind. Whatever is the destination after following one of these two is not at all a subject matter for us to even debate or discuss as you clearly used the term as it is "Acintya". But, what is bricks and blocks of these samya in terms of their Tattvas, Agamas and practices cannot be and should not be diluted because our our rajasic desire to see them as taking to same ultimate space or person. Now i point out what i said earlier... people with Rajaisic character as predominant guna, do not pick either Shri Vishnu or Lord Shiva and they will always transmigrate and the same verdict is given and accepted in both Samyas. In other words, any reconciling attempt becomes invalid and these two big system throws them away from any progress towards attaining that divine reality. So what we want to attempt is outside the scope of these two big samyas and the culprit who drive us too far in this kind of quest is the advent of some vedantic schools where Theism is made absurd.

Worshipers of Lord Shiva are not automatically called demons or something and the Shaiva Siddanta are in fact originating from Lord Shiva Himself. The Siddar tradition and the very famous Agastya and his lineage of great Siddas are all very saintly rishis. But, please do not try to make some meaning out of this word "Tamasmic" as some insulting designator for certain Rshis. It is our materialistic mundane thought which plays over time and haunt us with some ranking or dignity when we pronounce some vedic thought as Tamasmic. But that is not the right understanding. It takes a lot of spiritual maturity and purity of mind to even accept our nature as full of Ignorance even if that is the fact.

Picking one verse from one purana or picking just one purana etc. is not going to do any justice to our wish of reconciling them as innumerable times such differences due to different interpretations out of goodness and ignorance are settled philosophically. Our wish list cannot ignore or throw away the age old wisdom of preceptors of these two samyas of SD instead whole heatedly following their foot steps will alone surely deliver us. Though, i would humbly agree with out any negative assumption about those people who wants to see a better reconciled Theism from Vedas, are very passionate about their divine quest same time for them there will not be any glimpse of either Shri Vishnu or Lord Shiva.

keshava
05 March 2010, 04:33 AM
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=O7reoYFFU7IC&lpg=PP1&ots=z6sK4rlB1P&dq=siva%20tattva%20sandarbha&pg=PA47#v=onepage&q=siva%20tattva%20sandarbha&f=true (http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=O7reoYFFU7IC&lpg=PP1&ots=z6sK4rlB1P&dq=siva%20tattva%20sandarbha&pg=PA47#v=onepage&q=siva%20tattva%20sandarbha&f=true)


From Tripurari swami's book on Jiva goswami's tattva sandharbha.

....The same Matsya Purana tells us which Purana's deal with which modes of nature (Matsya P.190.13-14). But the question remains as to which puranas if any are actually the best. How can one determine the relative importance of each grouping of puranas? Here Jiva Goswami has concluded that because all the Puranas are advocating different dieties as supreme, they cannot all be correct.
Yet, because they are puranas, they cannot be wrong either.

Monistic followers of Sankara attempt to solve the problem of the multitude of gods and goddesses glorified throughout Vedic literature with the simplistic explanation that it is nirvisesa Brahman that is represented by innumerable gods and goddesses, suited as they are to different psychological types of practitioners. Thus for Sankara, all of the Hindu pantheon represents an absolute that is ultimately without form. Worship of any of these forms leads to the one formless absolute. Form worship is considered worship of saguna Brahman, or Brahman manifesting in the material mode of sattva (Goodeness). By propitiating this so-called brahman with material qualities and form, one is thought to eventually come to knowledge and realize that which is formless, nirvisesa Brahman. There are, however more than a few problemswith this approach. the least of these problems is the fact that nowhere in the vedanta-sutra, upon which vedantic doctrines must be based, is there any mention of anything resembling Sankara's imaginary saguna Brahman, or a relative absolute.(footnote 42)

There is on the other hand much about an absolute with qualities and form that is constituted of Brahman rather than matter. Brahman is, according to vedanta sutra, that about which there is much to say.(ft nt 43)
"The Lord has his own para sakti which is herself the truth, and he has attributes as well." (ft nt 44 saeva hi satya adayah vs3.3.39)

Sri Jiva goswami offers another, more plausible and scripturally sound supportable solution to the dilemma of many gods found in his now refined sabda pramana, the Puranas. All of the Puranas are correct, yet they are written for different groups of people, who are not ready to hear the entire truth. As vedanta sutra informs, tat tu sammanvayat, proper understanding of the unified message of sastra requires that we understand the context in which each text appears.

Brahman the subject of the vedas, is spoken of directly and indirectly throughout the sastra. With regard to the groupings of the various Puranas, categorized as they are in terms of the three modes of material nature, it should be apparent that some are written for those in the mode of ignorance, some for those in passion, and some for those in goodness. Those primarily influenced by mode of ignorance (tamas) are encouraged to worship in one way: those influenced by passion (rajas) another. Those influenced by the mode of goodness(sattva) are taught to worship in yet another fashion. The purpose behind this threefold advocacy, hoever is one. Gradually those in ignorance are elevated to passion through tamasika Puranas, and those in passion to goodness though the rajasika Puranas. of the three material modes, sattva, or goodness is best.

Sri Jiva cites bhagvad gita and Srimad Bhagvatam as evidence: "From sattva knowledge arises,"(ft nt 46) and "Goodness is best because by goodness one can come to realize the absolute truth (Brahman)."(Ftnt47) Thus Sri Jiva concludes that it is the sattvika Puranas that lead us directly to the highest truth. From them we can learn who the supreme godhead and the supreme means of attainment. The otehr purnas must be understood in relation to the sattvika Puranas. This is the proper context.

Jiva goswamis tattva sandharbha online
http://www.saragrahi.org/Header%20Links/Tattva%20Sandarbha/Tattva%20Sandarbha%20Contents.htm

Ganeshprasad
05 March 2010, 06:19 AM
Pranam Grames ji
Thank you for response and the reservations.
Thank you Yajvan ji for your kind words
Thank you Krasna das and all



It takes a lot of spiritual maturity and purity of mind to even accept our nature as full of Ignorance even if that is the fact.

On this note i am going to stop my urge to add any more except the following prayer.

asato ma sadgamaya
tamaso ma jyotirgamaya
mrtyorma amrtam gamaya

Lead me from the asat to the sat.
Lead me from darkness to light.
Lead me from death to immortality.

(Brhadaranyaka Upanishad — I.iii.28)

Jai Shree Krishna

grames
05 March 2010, 09:09 AM
asato ma sadgamaya
tamaso ma jyotirgamaya
mrtyorma amrtam gamaya

Lead me from the asat to the sat.
Lead me from darkness to light.
Lead me from death to immortality.

(Brhadaranyaka Upanishad — I.iii.28)

Jai Shree Krishna

You are so smart or humble to give the answer in this nice prayer. :)
I echo You!

Hare Krshna! oh yeah..Jai Shree Krishna