PDA

View Full Version : Were Shaiva and Vaishnava ever one?



Adhvagat
10 April 2011, 02:39 AM
This is a simple question, but posing a not so simple problematic.

I'd like to keep things short for now and let people present their views.

Thank you!

Om Tat Sat

realdemigod
10 April 2011, 06:55 AM
Pietro.. this is ever ending question that gets discussed time and again on all spiritual forums. There is only ONE SUPREME INTELLIGENCE which manifests in different forms to carry out various activities according to dharma. Shiva and Visnu are one and the same. Vedas and Upanishads declare that but people with sensitive egos hanker to prove that their God is supreme.

I'm pretty sure this thread will run into lots of pages.. good luck.

TheOne
10 April 2011, 08:13 AM
A rose called by any other name is still a rose. God is not exclusively Vishnu and not exclusively Shiva. These are names for specific attributes. Brahman contains all and no attributes.

But name and form are ways we relate to the Divine.

Adhvagat
10 April 2011, 03:59 PM
I'm aware of the philosophical aspects and the famous Rig Veda phrase "the sage call it by many names...", however I'm wondering about two specific questions.

The first would be if these two lines were ever ONE line at some point. If this is not possible, since the first time Vishnu and Shiva manifested separately two separate sects emerged, how much integration and acceptance was there between the two.

That leads me to the second question, I've seen people accusing some lines of vaishnava of selective quoting, but I've also seen people mentioning Shaiva magazines that deliberately put down Vishnu, so it's safe to assume there's a mainstream animosity between these two lines for some reason. This must be kali yuga motivated bigotry, but I try to relate this to my first questioning, did this animosity emerge because there were two separate lines in the first place, or did the differences emerged from a single line that was then split at a later time?

I guess my doubt is more historical than philosophical.

Thank you!

anirvan
12 April 2011, 02:16 AM
I'm aware of the philosophical aspects and the famous Rig Veda phrase "the sage call it by many names...", however I'm wondering about two specific questions.

The first would be if these two lines were ever ONE line at some point. If this is not possible, since the first time Vishnu and Shiva manifested separately two separate sects emerged, how much integration and acceptance was there between the two.

That leads me to the second question, I've seen people accusing some lines of vaishnava of selective quoting, but I've also seen people mentioning Shaiva magazines that deliberately put down Vishnu, so it's safe to assume there's a mainstream animosity between these two lines for some reason. This must be kali yuga motivated bigotry, but I try to relate this to my first questioning, did this animosity emerge because there were two separate lines in the first place, or did the differences emerged from a single line that was then split at a later time?

I guess my doubt is more historical than philosophical.

Thank you!

Dear, i dont believe the historical answer can be ever found as even 5000 yr history is so much manipulated and misalligned.

Regarding 1st question.....could be answered only philosophically.

AT base of Pyramid the line two lines eternally starts as separate one and while ascendind up in pyramid two line converge to become One eternally.

I thing i am too diplomatic :)

charlebs
12 April 2011, 03:04 AM
there will always be sects, but I don't condemn them.
being orthodox might give some struggle but you can savely be orthodox about any hindu scripture in my opinion.

krishna, shiva and devi are not god. they simply eminate immediately from him as long as it's possible. they are just what we are. but let's not forget brahma. he also takes part in how we think, it's just that knowledge only comes from will and emotion.
so brahma is the youngest of them 3. :o

Onkara
12 April 2011, 04:09 AM
I guess my doubt is more historical than philosophical.

Thank you!
Hello Pietro
I have not yet encountered anything which strongly states that the two sects did not know of each other, however I read a publication by the Ramakrishna Sect on "Mother Worship", in which it indicated that God/Goddess worship was regional and has changed over time as did society (matriarchal to patriarchal). This makes sense to me, as communication 5000 years ago was not as it is today, and regional culture, ritual and religion may not have been as intermixed as it is today or before mechanised transport (this is my personal guess).

Additionally I have encountered statements alluding that sects were separate (and even conflicting) and it was Vedanta, fuelled by the movements of Adi Shankara Ji through India, which brought the philosophical concepts together: Smartism is an example of this.

I am suggesting this historically, rather than theological or philosophical of course. It would be good to know of some respected historical works/books :)

upsydownyupsy mv ss
12 April 2011, 04:29 AM
:cool1::(:o

Probably one of the most silliest and oldest and stupid arguments is, 'Who is greater, Vishnu or Shankara?' This has really annoyed for a long loong time. A possible answer- God is formless (or his form is not understandable for the likes of mind filled with ignorance, hatred, injustice and having no sort of concern to hurt others' feelings like devotion) and that is as simple as that and we may literally 'give' god a form in our imaginations, till we obtain nir-bana. I'd like to ask those people, Would it really help us all to see our lord through meaningless fighting and debate or would it be better to settle things intellectually, by accepting each others' 'love' as true, supreme and devine? How stupid and childish and ignorantly bad to say, 'My dad can beat up your dad, cuz my dad is the strongest man, I bet my dad can punch your dad and make him cry.' ? This is the argument that arrogant and egoistic young lads make, when they pick a fight with neighbors' kids or classmates or even cousins, this is the same thing that these people do when saying, one's feelings is true and not the others'. Isn't it high time that these people would grow up? This is soo immature. Is it so difficult to just understand a simple subject or is it that their love towards god is totally false and keep saying that one form of god is greater than the other, just to show the others that they are great human intellectual beings and the others are demonic low lives? If the latter is the truth, I wonder who the demons are? The ones who keep insulting true hearted devotees and keep confusing the innocent ones or The ones who pray for world peace and expect nothing in-turn from god, except his love? Who are the real demons I ask? The ones that keep dividing people and society in the name of god and beliefs or those who love god and want everyone to be intellectuals? Who are the real demons? Its better to be a non believer and atheist like osho or any other non-believer righteous person on earth than be a stupid believer who in the name of god and devotion hurts people. Thank you for this opportunity to expose my anger on this stupid, primitive, non-intellectual unwanted idea of whose idea of god is greater.

It is so true that god made humans to become intellectuals and gain knowledge. Its also true that man created the 'concept of god' for gaining knowledge and growing one intellectuality. Its also true that the latter has lead to some disastrous outcomes and has become history, but our present and future at hand is much more precious.

Adhvagat
12 April 2011, 07:44 PM
:cool1::(:o

Probably one of the most silliest and oldest and stupid arguments is, 'Who is greater, Vishnu or Shankara?' This has really annoyed for a long loong time. A possible answer- God is formless (or his form is not understandable for the likes of mind filled with ignorance, hatred, injustice and having no sort of concern to hurt others' feelings like devotion) and that is as simple as that and we may literally 'give' god a form in our imaginations, till we obtain nir-bana. I'd like to ask those people, Would it really help us all to see our lord through meaningless fighting and debate or would it be better to settle things intellectually, by accepting each others' 'love' as true, supreme and devine? How stupid and childish and ignorantly bad to say, 'My dad can beat up your dad, cuz my dad is the strongest man, I bet my dad can punch your dad and make him cry.' ? This is the argument that arrogant and egoistic young lads make, when they pick a fight with neighbors' kids or classmates or even cousins, this is the same thing that these people do when saying, one's feelings is true and not the others'. Isn't it high time that these people would grow up? This is soo immature. Is it so difficult to just understand a simple subject or is it that their love towards god is totally false and keep saying that one form of god is greater than the other, just to show the others that they are great human intellectual beings and the others are demonic low lives? If the latter is the truth, I wonder who the demons are? The ones who keep insulting true hearted devotees and keep confusing the innocent ones or The ones who pray for world peace and expect nothing in-turn from god, except his love? Who are the real demons I ask? The ones that keep dividing people and society in the name of god and beliefs or those who love god and want everyone to be intellectuals? Who are the real demons? Its better to be a non believer and atheist like osho or any other non-believer righteous person on earth than be a stupid believer who in the name of god and devotion hurts people. Thank you for this opportunity to expose my anger on this stupid, primitive, non-intellectual unwanted idea of whose idea of god is greater.

It is so true that god made humans to become intellectuals and gain knowledge. Its also true that man created the 'concept of god' for gaining knowledge and growing one intellectuality. Its also true that the latter has lead to some disastrous outcomes and has become history, but our present and future at hand is much more precious.

Did you punch something after writing this? I hope you have! :p

charlebs
13 April 2011, 10:36 AM
I love shankarahs words on only those who absolutely seek liberation from earth will not be angels but eternal overseeers, even after the new evolution.

are we gnostic and willfull enough to accept the offer of incarnating into god? haha trick question. I desire my own heaven for the people who love me, and my own hell for everything I might have done wrong.
it's just that simple.

but your subconscience won't be easily convinced. that's your 1 dimensional way of thinking. for everyone who contemplates there's duality. and since your will is the most important thing, your subconscience will try to accept your goals.
but there are 3 kinds of dreams. one is your body trying to flirt with your fears/loves/interests to inspire you. you can also have divine dreams. one of the people I met once dreamt of vasudeva and he immediately had to know who he was (edit: on google).

sorry I never have a goal when writing so discard it if you want, discuss it if you may.

Adhvagat
13 April 2011, 05:25 PM
saMskRtam is the form of sarasvatI, who is brAhmI, the vAc of brahmA.

Religion was originally a personal matter of correct “selection” or “perception” of Truth. Over time, however, the various selections made by some inspired members of different cultural groups have become “set in stone” for those groups, and subsequently their particular cultural version of “religion” or dharma has been presented more dogmatically.

The vedAs were originally passed by learned brAhmaNAs from generation to generation only by direct speech, and were never actually written down, and this process has been continuous over millennia.

At some point, the written code of brAhmI (and later saMskRtam) was established, and the vedAs were fixed in writing for the first time.

The production of actual scripture (the written word as opposed to the spoken word) is perhaps the main reason for the historical change in the perceived nature of religion (from wise choice to veritable bondage) which has tended to occur in all the established faiths.

The major upaniSadas were composed in the first half of the first millennium BC, and it was during this time that the Brahmi, Phoenician, and Aramaic, scripts were developed. And by recording the oral traditions in an easily translatable script, they were effectively released for broad publication.

And I believe that a major factor in the philosophical revolution around 600 BC was actually the codification of the shruti (which had previously only been heard and remember by heart) in written form, which created for the first time what we now consider as “scripture” and spawned various “new” religions, which are in truth only different translations of exactly the same eternal truths. And in the absence of the original oral traditions, the various dispensations have continued to diverge under their own cultural influences, with their original identities masked by the general veil of non-comprehension between different languages and scripts. And, for the purpose of this discussion, there is actually no need to consider the exact details of the absolutely primal spoken language, since all of this has occurred more than 2,000 years after Vedic Sanskrit was already well established ~ more than 2,000 years after the hypothetical (but well-justified) “proto-Aryan” had already disappeared (not by extinction, but by its gradual incorporation into all of the Indo-European languages).

The speciation of dharma has occurred along the lines of biological species, and originally identical paths have become different paths only when their previously regular intercourse becomes interrupted by some isolating cause (such as geography and language).

A little contribution from an old member.

Harinama
01 May 2011, 08:50 AM
I guess this is why I never really accepted that Shaivism and Vaishnavism, and even Shaktism should be put as one unified religion... but rather different religions under one culture. I think it would be silly to assert that one represents Hinduism proper, if we see Hinduism as a culture of the Veda and the commonality of beliefs, even if theologically they may differ completely.

Sure, my friend can be very pro-Shaiva around me, and I have dedicated my life in believing that Vaishnava Dharma is the original, true Dharma and all other religions are later corruptions - ;) - even then, we get along in the long run.

Let's share our commonalities and cultures together, and even the differences of emphasis on God, even our theological perspectives differ. A Shaivite may say that Vishnu is another emanation from Shiva, and a Vaishnavite may say that Mahadeva Shambhu is the greatest Vaishnavite, but in the end, dance, music, and food are the best results of these religions shared by a common Vedic culture. :D