PDA

View Full Version : Kalki



Vitani
13 April 2012, 08:25 AM
Namaste,

Does Shaivism also believe that Kalki, the avatar of Lord Vishnu, will come at the end of Kali Yuga? Or, is there a different belief about what will happen?

Pranams,

Vitani

ShivaFan
15 April 2012, 10:57 PM
Thank you for this question, it strikes me as of interest as well. I am not qualified to answer it but I do have some thoughts for discussion. Kalki is definitely one of the avatars of Vishnu who is to come in the future, I am an admirer and devoted to Kalki and the reason is because at the time when this Avatara comes to our World it will be a time when false Kings and political leaders rule a society of great debauchery. In fact, there will be so many of such vice and debauchery and selfishness and materialism that they will in fact be eating other humans – my understanding is that it is foreseen that such horrible leaders and those of power and fame will be eating aborted babies and other abominations.

You see, even great Yogis can see and predict the future of society if we do not listen to holy gurus and teachers and religious wise souls, they can tell us where materialism leads to and so we see a path even today in Kali Yug where it has come to my attention of so-called “rock stars” and “rappers” who eat aborted babies even now.

Yet, as debase as society has become in Kali Yuga, a notable number of people today are in fact still good souls. But if the gurus and teachers are correct, that society will further descend into hell, I welcome Kalki to come on “the white horse” and to destroy these horrific monsters that society would worship as “leaders” and “stars”.

You know, today society uses the term “star” to describe a celebrity. I wonder if eons in the future when historians read and write about our society, perhaps they will think that society of today actually considered these celebrities and fools as “stars” in the heaven? Yet, in one way, we use such stupid terms for people who are nothing but flesh, blood and bones but do not see their own soul.

To me, Kalki is time. Very much so. And Shiva is time as well. How far in the future will it be, when Kalki comes? Well, no doubt it is very, very far – and so right now I live in the world of now and this age. I only can hope that I will listen to the teachers who can instruct me on best behavior, that society will listen, that we can meditate and live the life of good dharma.

Yes, Shiva as Nataraj also will dance at the time of the desolation of the universe. But it is my understanding that this act of Lord Shiva is truly on a much larger scale than Kalki coming and destroying this current age to dawn a new one. That is not exactly the same thing. So, it is my opinion that there is not a correlation between Shiva and Kalki in the least. Also, in regards to Yoga, for simple people like me I am very much interested in Bhakti Yoga, and so I see Kalki as a great personality of the future, but as a specific personality this Lord is not here right now, but Shiva is always watching and you can feel the presence of Mahadeva the Great.

By the way, when Kalki comes from the outer universe to this world, the Lord will come into a family in the place called Shambala. The Buddhists who followed Lord Siddhartha of Nepal were great admirers and predictors of Kalki.

Eastern Mind
16 April 2012, 07:31 AM
Vannakkam: Most Saivas don't believe in avatars so this extends to not believing in Kalki.

Aum Namasivaya

shian
16 April 2012, 07:36 AM
I dont know the opinion of Shaivaism about Kalki Avatara.
This is also interseting

But for me personal, Shiva and Vishnu is One
So Vishnu Avatar also Shiva avatar. Also Shakti avatar, Ganesh avatar
Whatever peoples says, I still cant feel they are separate

Jainarayan
16 April 2012, 11:28 AM
Namaste shian.


But for me personal, Shiva and Vishnu is One
So Vishnu Avatar also Shiva avatar. Also Shakti avatar, Ganesh avatar
Whatever peoples says, I still cant feel they are separate

You are not alone. ;) I feel the same way you do, though I know this is a minority belief. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harihara


Sivananda (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sivananda) states: "Shiva and Vishnu are one and the same entity. They are essentially one and the same. They are the names given to the different aspects of the all-pervading Supreme Soul or the Absolute. ‘Sivasya hridayam vishnur-vishnoscha hridayam sivah—Vishnu is the heart of Siva and likewise Siva is the heart of Vishnu’."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harihara#One_and_the_same
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sivananda)

Sorry to derail thread.

PARAM
18 April 2012, 11:46 AM
Shiva and Vishnu are not different, there is no difference in different sects of Hinduism, only some arrogant people who describe themselves Vaishnavs/ Shaivas are objecting each other while they never say anything against their real patrons -Communists, Muslims, Christians.

Vishnu Avatar Bhagwan Parshuram is a devotee of Shiva, he fought a Vaishnava -Sahasrarjuna.

Shiva Avtara Hanuman is a devotee of Ram, and he fought against a Shaiva - Ravana.

Dividing Brahma -Vishnu - Shiva is impossible.

Shiva will train Kalki, he will provide the weapons and Devdatta to Bhagwan Kalki.

Vitani
19 April 2012, 11:27 PM
Vannakkam: Most Saivas don't believe in avatars so this extends to not believing in Kalki.

Aum Namasivaya

Namaste Eastern Mind, that's very interesting. Does that also include Krishna and Rama?

Pranams.

Eastern Mind
20 April 2012, 08:45 PM
Vannakkam Vitani: Probably depends on which school of Saivism, and how much the individual or school has been influenced by modern, more liberal interpretations. Me personally, no. But that doesn't mean I wouldn't enter a Ram or Krishna temple. Just because I don't worship in the same way I see Siva, doesn't mean I disrespect that POV. We are a brotherhood, after all. But if two temples were side by side, I'd naturally be drawn to the Siva one, just as within a Smarta or Sanatana temple, I'm drawn to the Siva shrine, or section.

Since I have a Saiva mantra, it would just seem odd to do japa in front of Rama. For me, you only need one God, and one version of God. Since Siva has Brahma, Vishnu, Rudra, concealing, and revealing graces all there, what more do I need?

Kind of like having one car. I could have 2, but one is sufficient. If a friend offered me to drive his Ferrari or old Beetle for a day, I'd do it.

Aum Namasivaya

charitra
20 April 2012, 08:54 PM
The goodthing is that one denomination/sampradaya doesnt condemn or belittle another sampradaya in any measure. It is not like the abrahamic faiths for clarity. The people who enthusiatically participate in Krishnastamy festivities will take same interest in Ganesha festival as well. As I said the line is almost invisible sometimes.:)

Brishti
06 September 2012, 02:28 PM
Namaste shian.



You are not alone. ;) I feel the same way you do, though I know this is a minority belief. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harihara



Sorry to derail thread.

Namaskar,

Wow, thank you so much for this link. I have also been looking for something like this. To me Vishnu and Shiva are both equal, and I just cannot allow myself to chose between them.

I have heard that Parashurama will be Kalki's guru and coach for his training. Then Kalki will serve a penace for Lord Shiva to attain boons of some sort. I got this information from the Kalki Purana. So I do not know if Shaivism would believe in the Kalki Purana, but I certainly do.

Just sharing my two cents. :)
Pranam.

Viraja
06 September 2012, 07:11 PM
Namaskar,

To me Vishnu and Shiva are both equal, and I just cannot allow myself to chose between them.

Pranam.

Wow, Brishti! Maybe you are like Sri Sri Muralidhara Swamiji, a renowned spiritualist of TamilNadu - born in Shaivite family, he is thoroughly versed in all Vaishnavite scriptures, the puranas etc, has built a temple for Srinivasa perumal, yet he hasn't given up Shiva bhakti either. It is a very hard to acquire virtue of loving both Parameshwara and Sri Mahavishnu and I, being a Vaishnavaite, acquired the same with quite some effort - like I used to frequent Shaivam.org and read Nayanmar stories and recite Shiva Sahasranama until I felt that I am respecting both Shiva and Vishnu..

PS. Sorry about drifting from the subject of this thread in my message.

Regards,

Aspirant

Omkara
06 September 2012, 09:00 PM
Orthodox Shaivism does not beleove in avataras.

Omkara
06 September 2012, 09:59 PM
Shiva and Vishnu are not different, there is no difference in different sects of Hinduism, only some arrogant people who describe themselves Vaishnavs/ Shaivas are objecting each other while they never say anything against their real patrons -Communists, Muslims, Christians.

Vishnu Avatar Bhagwan Parshuram is a devotee of Shiva, he fought a Vaishnava -Sahasrarjuna.

Shiva Avtara Hanuman is a devotee of Ram, and he fought against a Shaiva - Ravana.

Dividing Brahma -Vishnu - Shiva is impossible.

Shiva will train Kalki, he will provide the weapons and Devdatta to Bhagwan Kalki.

What is the basis for saying Shaivas and Vaishnavas are patronized by Muslims,Christians and Marxists?Please retract thoa comment or you will be reported to the moderator.

yajvan
06 September 2012, 10:14 PM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namasté


Orthodox Shaivism does not beleove in avataras.
Yet it seems odd to me that within kaśmir śaivism abhinavagupta-ji spent time with the bhāgavad gītā, via his commentary called gitārtha saṁgraha.

I think there is more to the story then meets the eye.

praṇām

Omkara
06 September 2012, 10:26 PM
Srikanthacharya too accepted the concept of avataras and the Bhagavad Gita.But the remaining Shaiva sects reject them,and the two sects which accept them are both dead or almost dead bow.

I have just started reading Gitartha Samagraha.Did Abhinavagupta not interpret the text as completely allegorical?

Omkara
07 September 2012, 07:59 AM
For those interested,I have uploaded Gitartha Samagraha in my online library.

Twilightdance
07 September 2012, 09:27 AM
I have just started reading Gitartha Samagraha.Did Abhinavagupta not interpret the text as completely allegorical?

Yes, and that takes the charm of it mostly for me. If one is proposing an ultimate philosophy [as abhinavagupta pits his trika system to be] one should be able to tackle the real incidents also by this philosophy instead of falling back on allegorical interpretation changing the context completely. Yogananda did something like that in the modern times.

Omkara
07 September 2012, 09:34 AM
How is it possible to interpret the BG as a Shaivite text without interpreting it as allegory?

dhyandev
07 September 2012, 10:01 AM
I want to know everything about kalki(non wiki) please

Twilightdance
07 September 2012, 10:57 AM
How is it possible to interpret the BG as a Shaivite text without interpreting it as allegory?

What this has to do with Shaiva or Vaishnava? What is specially shaiva about having to treat kurukshetra as the body, pandavas as knowledge or kauravas as ignorance?

There is no issue with his view point, only it is not generic enough to be equally applicable in the context of the real battle, but the context had to be transformed into the context of yoga.

Omkara
07 September 2012, 11:00 AM
If it is literal,the only logical conclusion that can be drawn is that vishnu is the supreme being,is it not?

Twilightdance
07 September 2012, 11:14 AM
If it is literal,the only logical conclusion that can be drawn is that vishnu is the supreme being,is it not?

Not really, not in the context of Gita solely.

Also, in KS philosophy supreme beings are not hard personalities with 4 hands or 5 faces who must be different species. He need not have even bothered about this.

He said he wanted to talk only about the esoteric meaning of Gita as outer meaning has been commented by others, so allegory is assumed to start with. I would have just have liked more if his philosophy could encompass both so called inner and outer realities-the reality of war as war as much as knowledge-ignorance.

Omkara
07 September 2012, 03:04 PM
What exactly is the ontological position of vishnu in KS?And can you explain the theory of pancabrahma to me?I have only read vague and conflicting accounts so far.

Omkara
08 September 2012, 12:28 AM
Abhinavagupta's interpretation does have support in some Upanishads like Jabala.

Twilightdance
08 September 2012, 04:39 AM
What exactly is the ontological position of vishnu in KS?And can you explain the theory of pancabrahma to me?I have only read vague and conflicting accounts so far.

From what very little reading habit I have, I haven't come across Vishnu in KS. But Shiva in KS is all creation starting from Shiva and ending with Prithivi, all kalas starting from nivritti kala, all bhuvanas and all dieties. So vishnu will be just shiva limiting himself in some way like everything else.

But what exact self limitation of shiva makes him vishnu, I don't know. I am not sure if there is any reference. If I go by my hunch I'll equate vishnu with the state of of mantresvar or Ishwara, one of the suddha vidyas.

So philosophically even if one takes Krishna to be Vishnu [not necessary], it makes precious little difference. As far as Gita is considered, AB could have taken Krishna as Shiva.

He chose allegorical interpretation I think because he only wanted to comment on the yoga aspect, as he says in the beginning of the work.

Also much of KS polemics is not about who is the bigger God, but the nature of reality. They disagree with buddhist not because buddha is a bigger God, but because dependent origination goes head on with svatantra of Shiva.

Pancabrahma is a vedic concept adopted in siddhanta system. Apart from being various sources of knowledge they have to do with the mahabhutas.

I am not sure how they are placed in the monistic system but should be aspects of mantramaheswar/sadashiva. I agree not very meaningful accounts can be found, and they are given a miss in description of the 36 tattvas. While mahabhutas are explicitly manifested within prakriti, their potency in state of i-consciousness of sadashiva should be the 5 faces of shiva.

I would also like to know what, if any, is the shiva agama opinion on this.

MahaHrada
08 September 2012, 06:04 AM
In the 36 Tattvas the Panchabrahmas usually are referred to 3 of the 5 Shuddha Tattvas.
Suddhavidya tattva: Brahma, Vishnu, Rudra, as activity of shiva: sristhi sthithi samhara (creation, preservation, dissolution)
Ishvara Tattva: Ishvara or Mahesvara, activity of shiva: tirodhana shakti, (concealment, i.e Maya, Avidya)
Sadashiva tattva: Sadashiva, activity of shiva is anugraha (revealing or grace)
In the Malinivijayottara Tantra which is important for trika Kaula (i.e Kashmir shaivaism) four of the Panchabrahmas rule the 4 classes of Tattvas the earthly group consisting of one tattva only, (Prithvi) is ruled by by Brahma, Twenty-three. tattvas from water upward are ruled by Vishnu.
That is Brahma and Vishnu rule the group of Ashuddha Tattvas
Next seven tattvas (Shuddha Ashuddha Tattvas) are ruled by Rudra first 3 Shuddha Tattvas are ruled by Ishvara, (Shuddhavidya, Ishvara, Sadashiva tattvas)
The last two (shiva shakti tattvas) belong to Shiva.
Therefore judging from Malinivijayottara Tantra Brahma and Vishnu are shoved to a low status in the impure worlds in Kashmir Shaivaism.

The fourfold classification of the Tattwas from the evolutionistic standpoint is termed the earthly, the material, the mayic and the Saktic. Among these the first is pervaded by Dharika Kala. It has only one Tattwa, one letter, one world, one mantra represented by 'ksha' and sixteen worlds. Apyayani Kala pervades the second. Twenty-three. principles from water upwards and as many letters (ta and others) are assigned to it. Five words, five mantras and fifty-six worlds are included in it. The third is permeated by the Bodhini Kala. Seven principles, twenty-eight worlds, seven letters, two words and two mantras are found in it. The last is covered by Utpuyini and there are three principles, three letters, eighteen worlds, one word and one mantra in this class. The final principle is called Siva, As such, it is under the Avakasada kala and has sixteen vowels, one mantra and one word. The above four classes are respectively presided over by Brahma, Vishnu, Rudra and Isvara.
Madhusudan Kaul
http://www.shivashakti.com/malini.htm

Twilightdance
08 September 2012, 06:48 AM
In the 36 Tattvas the Panchabrahmas usually are referred to 3 of the 5 Shuddha Tattvas.
Suddhavidya tattva: Brahma, Vishnu, Rudra, as activity of shiva: sristhi sthithi samhara (creation, preservation, dissolution)
Ishvara Tattva: Ishvara or Mahesvara, activity of shiva: tirodhana shakti, (concealment, i.e Maya, Avidya)
Sadashiva tattva: Sadashiva, activity of shiva is anugraha (revealing or grace)
In the Malinivijayottara Tantra which is important for trika Kaula (i.e Kashmir shaivaism) four of the Panchabrahmas rule the 4 classes of Tattvas the earthly group consisting of one tattva only, (Prithvi) is ruled by by Brahma, Twenty-three. tattvas from water upward are ruled by Vishnu.
That is Brahma and Vishnu rule the group of Ashuddha Tattvas
Next seven tattvas (Shuddha Ashuddha Tattvas) are ruled by Rudra first 3 Shuddha Tattvas are ruled by Ishvara, (Shuddhavidya, Ishvara, Sadashiva tattvas)
The last two (shiva shakti tattvas) belong to Shiva.
Therefore judging from Malinivijayottara Tantra Brahma and Vishnu are shoved to a low status in the impure worlds in Kashmir Shaivaism.

The fourfold classification of the Tattwas from the evolutionistic standpoint is termed the earthly, the material, the mayic and the Saktic. Among these the first is pervaded by Dharika Kala. It has only one Tattwa, one letter, one world, one mantra represented by 'ksha' and sixteen worlds. Apyayani Kala pervades the second. Twenty-three. principles from water upwards and as many letters (ta and others) are assigned to it. Five words, five mantras and fifty-six worlds are included in it. The third is permeated by the Bodhini Kala. Seven principles, twenty-eight worlds, seven letters, two words and two mantras are found in it. The last is covered by Utpuyini and there are three principles, three letters, eighteen worlds, one word and one mantra in this class. The final principle is called Siva, As such, it is under the Avakasada kala and has sixteen vowels, one mantra and one word. The above four classes are respectively presided over by Brahma, Vishnu, Rudra and Isvara.
Madhusudan Kaul
http://www.shivashakti.com/malini.htm

Thanks, I knew this but had forgotten :) , but I had Tatpurusha-Vamadeva-Aghora etc in mind, the 5 faces in pancavaktra who are also regarded as pancabrahman, whom I always have regarded as subtle potential of the mahabhutas...but maybe here too the same classification as with brahma-vishnu-rudra-ishvar-shiva is applicable. In the subtle mahabhuta scheme we perhaps don't need the 36 tattavs but just 25 of samkhya+mahat(am)/vijnana+ishwara.

But not sure if vishnu as ruler of pratistha kala [apyayani above] should be mixed with vishnu of vaishnavism.

Omkara
08 September 2012, 06:54 AM
Are they five separate entities?Do they posess individuality?Do they have souls?Are each of the omnipotebt,omniscuent etc?Or are they names of the same being?

MahaHrada
08 September 2012, 06:57 AM
Thanks, I knew this but had forgotten :) , but I had Tatpurusha-Vamadeva-Aghora etc in mind, the 5 faces in pancavaktra who are also regarded as pancabrahman, whom I always have regarded as subtle version of mahabhutas...but maybe here too the same classification as with brahma-vishnu-rudra-ishvar-shiva is applicable.

But not sure if vishnu as ruler of pratistha kala [apyayani above] should be mixed with vishnu of vaishnavism.

I think Tatpurusha etc. again relate to the 5 Brahmas, and the 5 Brahmas certainly also relate to the Mahabhutas, since one can equate many of the groups of 5 Tattvas to the Mahabhutas. Like sadashiva= anugraha shakti=hearing= speech=sound= all relate to akasha tattva and so on for the other 4 Mahabhutas. But not only tattvas also other groups of 5 like the Panchakrityas (tirodhana anugraha etc.) or shaktis like Cit, Ananda, Icchha, Jnana, Kriya shaktis and countless other like the 5 Kleshas of Yoga or the Panchavaktras.
KS shaivas position regarding Vishnu and Brahma is not typical of agamic and tantric thought, i just read in a commentary to the Svacchanda Bhairava tantra that Kshemaraja had big problems to equate the concept of the splitting of the egg of Brahma which was mentioned in the Tantra, with freedon from rebirth, because Kashmir Shaivas relate Brahma only to the lowest tattva, Prithvi so "Splitting the egg of Brahma" could not mean liberation for Kshemaraja but only release to the sphere of Vishnu, and he had a lot of trouble trying to twist the content of the Svacchanda Bhairava tantra to fit with his KS sectarian bias.

Omkara
08 September 2012, 07:22 AM
I think adopting Srikanthacharyas views on the matter would have solved the problem of interpreting the swacchandabhairava.Can someone answer the rest of my questions two posts back?

MahaHrada
08 September 2012, 07:24 AM
Are they five separate entities?Do they posess individuality?Do they have souls?Are each of the omnipotebt,omniscuent etc?Or are they names of the same being?

5 x Yes :)

(depending on the viewpoint of the Sampradaya)

MahaHrada
08 September 2012, 07:27 AM
I think adopting Srikanthacharyas views on the matter would have solved the problem of interpreting the swacchandabhairava.Can someone answer the rest of my questions two posts back?

Often KS tries to interpret dualist tantras in a monist way which is sometimes hair raising.

Omkara
08 September 2012, 07:43 AM
5 x Yes :)

(depending on the viewpoint of the Sampradaya)

Explain and clarify further with more details please.I am unable to find proper information anywhere.

Twilightdance
08 September 2012, 07:44 AM
Often KS tries to interpret dualist tantras in a monist way which is sometimes hair raising.

Yes, but I would not jump the boat to vedanta just because brahman and egg is mentioned.

MahaHrada
08 September 2012, 10:15 AM
Explain and clarify further with more details please.I am unable to find proper information anywhere.

The concept of the 5 Brahmas is widely used in Vedanta, in monistic and dualistic Shaiva Siddhanta, in Kashmiri Shaivaism, and diverse other Kaula and Tantric Traditions like the Nath siddhas, depending on whether these lean towards monism or dualism the answer to these Questions would differ.

In Kashmir Shaivaism there is nothing existing apart from Shiva, but the individual beings are grouped according to a hierachy depending on the strength of the limiting influence of tirodhana shakti they will be more or less aware of their unity with Shiva. The Panchabrahmas are created in KS to be guardians of different Regions and can also function as lesser Gurus (daiva Gurus).

These so called adhikarika devata only have bhogadehas and sadhakas can aspire to fulfill the function of these devata when their karma that has led to this position is exhausted they enter into other bodies. Therefore only those sadhakas that do not aspire for moksha will follow this desire, they will therefore get a lesser diksha from the Guru. So it is not possible for these devata to move upward or downward in the hierachy because they do not have karmadehas, that means bodies that allow them to create good and bad karma and therefore accordingly move upward or downward in the hierachy of 7 perceivers. They stay as they are, only fulfilling their respective functions or embody their individual principles until their karma is exhausted.

The self comes into manifestation in the fourfold capacity as Siva, Mantramahesa, Mantresa and Mantra. Siva is the lord Himself. Vijnanakala is a degree less than Mantra owing to the defilement of mala. Pralayakala is wrapped up in the defilements of mala and karma. Mala stands for the imperfect knowledge and the tree of the world shoots up therefrom. Karma is the action in general. As virtuous, it leads to pleasure and, as otherwise, it yields pain. Sakala stands for the anus or jivas in general. Their field is offered by the totality of categories from kala to earth.*

Rudras are one hundred and eighteen in number and are headed by Angushthamatra.

According to their merits they are appointed as Mantresvaras. They take over charge of their departments and reward Brahma and others according to their desires. The sages receive the sacred science of the knowable either as · acceptable or as avoidable from Brahma, etc. and Manus, from the sages.

Of the seven crores of mantras one half of the portion has, at the option of Siva, attained the deathless stage after favouring hosts of jivas.

Each principle from earth up to matter is susceptible of being viewed from fifteen different standpoints owing to the seven perceivers regarded either as Sakti or as Saktiman and to the principle itself; those from Purusha to Kala, from thirteen owing to the inapplicability of perceptivity to Sakala therein. The principle of maya is viewed from eleven standpoints because of the further reduction of Pralayakala as .perceiver. Similarly, other principles know each a further reduction of two standpoints up to the last principle of Siva which has no diversity.

and:
The group of perceivers designated Mantramahesvaras is domineered over by Sadasiva. At this stage objectivity is dim and is wholly overshadowed by subjectivity. The Mantramahesvaras carry on their functions under the supervision of Isvara. This stage is marked by the polarity of objecjtivity and subjectivity. The Mantras under the guidance of Anantabhattaraka find their place at the stage of Suddhavidya. It gives rise to the multiform objectivity. At the stage intervening between Suddhavidya and maya, Vijnanakevalas only are in existence as pure cognition. Maya is peculiar to Pralayakevalas. The principles from maya down to the earth is the sphere of Sakalas.

Madhusudan Kaul
http://www.shivashakti.com/malini.htm

Omkara
08 September 2012, 10:26 AM
Which schools of vedanta accept pancabrahma?

What is the status of pabcabrahna in vedanta and dualistic shaiva siddhanta?

Why is Meykandar's ststem considered dualistic?It resembles Vishistadvaita more to me....Infact it affirms identity with Shiva more than Vishistadvaita does.....
Many thanks for your help!

MahaHrada
08 September 2012, 10:44 AM
Which schools of vedanta accept pancabrahma?

What is the status of pabcabrahna in vedanta and dualistic shaiva siddhanta?

Why is Meykandar's ststem considered dualistic?It resembles Vishistadvaita more to me....Infact it affirms identity with Shiva more than Vishistadvaita does.....
Many thanks for your help!

Panchabrahma mantras already appear in Taittiriya Aranyaka (X.17-21) of the Krsna Yajurveda as Sadyojata, Vamadeva, Aghora, Tatpurusa and Isana. They appear as the five faces of Shiva.

Brahma, Vishnu, Rudra etc are the karaneshvaras that do the work under the guidance of the Panchabrahmas. Brahma is acting out creation under the direction of Sadyojata, his Ruler, Vishnu protects as directed by Vamadeva; Rudra destroys as directed by Aghora; Maheshvara conceals ruled by by Tatpurusha; Sadasiva bestows grace as by the command of Ishana.

I am not so well informend about the Siddhanta traditions that i can help you with the other Questions, i think the differentiation between dualistic, monistic and dualistic cum monistic traditions are not as important as most people today belive, the more ancient shastras freely mix dualistic with monistic immanent and transcendent idealistic and realistic approaches for insatnce authors of many Upanishads seem to be blissfully unaware that these distinctions exist. So i personally think these distinction came up later when intellectual debates became more important than experiential knowledge.

Omkara
08 September 2012, 10:47 AM
I know the cocept appears in the aranyakas,but which vedantic school accepts it as part of tgeir theology and in what way?How do kevaladvaita or Vishishtadvaita for example interpret it?Do they accept them as forms if Brahman?Would that noy cause problems for a Vaishnava school of thought?

Omkara
08 September 2012, 11:00 AM
Acc. to KS, what are the powers/attributes of vishnu/brahma and the pancabrahmas?Are they omniscient,omnipotent etc.?What amount of free will do they have and what are their piwers?If a being has accumulated enough karma to rise to that position why has he not been able to get liberated yet?

MahaHrada
08 September 2012, 11:05 AM
I know the cocept appears in the aranyakas,but which vedantic school accepts it as part of tgeir theology and in what way?How do kevaladvaita or Vishishtadvaita for example interpret it?Do they accept them as forms if Brahman?Would that noy cause problems for a Vaishnava school of thought?

I never studied the different later schools of vedanta to have the expertise. I guess Vaishnavas and Kevaladvaita more or less ignored these passages in the vedas. The panchabrahma mantras were deployed in the shrauta tradition i.e. purva mimamsa and of course they played an important role for the Atimarga shaivas like the Pashupatas, Kapalikas or Kalamukhas, later shaivas were not Vedantins but followed the tantras and agamas.

Omkara
08 September 2012, 11:09 AM
I am as a matter of fact studying the Vaishnava vedantic traditions,and it is completely incompatible with Vaishnava Theology.

In addition to the questions I posted above,does Abhnavagupta comment/interpret any passages at all of the vedas and upanishads?

Omkara
08 September 2012, 11:14 AM
Also,do you know how I could go about studying Veerashaivism and Pashupatism?I have not been able to get my hands on any reading material for either of them.

As always,Thanks for your replies and guidance.

MahaHrada
08 September 2012, 11:15 AM
I am as a matter of fact studying the Vaishnava vedantic traditions,and it is completely incompatible with Vaishnava Theology.

In addition to the questions I posted above,does Abhnavagupta comment/interpret any passages at all of the vedas and upanishads?

Yes i remember i read that he did at some places, but as usual within the Mantramarga very little references to Vedas and Upanishads and Dharmashastras can be found, but i don´t remember having read any practical example i could name.

Twilightdance
08 September 2012, 11:20 AM
Acc. to KS, what are the powers/attributes of vishnu/brahma and the pancabrahmas?Are they omniscient,omnipotent etc.?What amount of free will do they have and what are their piwers?If a being has accumulated enough karma to rise to that position why has he not been able to get liberated yet?

In kevaladvaita Shiva will be saguna brahman and the panca brahman will be the 5 aspects of saguna brahman / prapanca / jagat differentiated by guna bheda. The 5 aspects forms the 5 parts of the pancakshari mantra and directly related to the pancamahabhutas : Ishana=space, tatpurusha=air, aghora=fire etc, as I had indicated before. Here only samkhya scheme is used.

Agamic vaishnavism like SriVaishnava who follow the pancaratra agamas, have their own graded scheme of expansion of the creation from Vishnu, and instead of the pancabrahma they have 4 vyuha's of Vishnu:Vasudeva, Sankarshana, Pradyumna, and Aniruddha.


In Sri Vaishnavism, another school, Vishnu assumes five forms:
In the Para Form, Para is the highest form of Vishnu found only in Sri Vaikunta also called Moksha, along with his consort Lakshmi, (and Bhuma Devi and Nila devi, avatars of Lakshmi) and surrounded by liberated souls like Ananta, Garuda, and a host of Muktas (liberated souls).
In the Vyuha form which itself divides into four, Vishnu assumes four forms, which exercise different cosmic functions and controls activities of living beings.
In the Vibhava form, Vishnu assume various manifestations, called Vibhavas, more popularly known as Avataras from time to time, in order to protect the virtuous, punish the evil-doers and re-establish righteousness.
In the Antaryami; "Dwelling within" or "Suksma Vasudeva" form, Vishnu exists within the souls of all living beings and in every atom of matter.[38]
In the Arcavatara or Image manifestation, the Lord is easily approachable to the devotees since they cannot worship Para, Vyuha, Vibhava and Antaryami forms directly, which can only be imagined or meditated upon because they are beyond our reach. Such images can be
revealed by the Lord himself, for example, a self-manifested (Swayambhu) icon (murti), e.g. The Mahavishnu Temple at Tirunelli, The Sri Ranganathaswamy Temple at Srirangam, The Tirumala Venkateswara Temple etc.; or
installed by devas or celestial beings such as such as Guruvayur Temple installed by Vayu; or
installed by humans, and consecrated according to Vaishnava Agama shastras or scriptures such as Lord Jagannath of Jagannath Temple (Puri) at Puri.[39]

I am not sure who in this forum knowns Pancaratra. I thought I would learn online from an Australian srivaishnava, but the experience turned out to be something other than I had hoped.

Omkara
08 September 2012, 11:33 AM
I have resources on pancaratra in line for uploading...I have studied it a fair bit.The vyuhas are not equated to the pancabrahma.

Shankara did not consider shiva as saguna brahman.That is a later advaitic idea.Both he and his immediate disciples refer to SB as vishnu or narayana and quotes only vaishnava puranas.He never once says Shiva os supreme in works universally accepted as his.Some later works attribued to him do so though.In his BG bhasya he condemns worship of deities other than visnu.
He goes out of his way to try to prove that uma haimavati of the upanishads is not parvati.

Omkara
08 September 2012, 11:44 AM
Note-This data is from Vaishnava websites and has not been confirmed independently.As much as I have read of Shankara's works seem to confirm this.

Twilightdance
08 September 2012, 11:54 AM
Note-This data is from Vaishnava websites and has not been confirmed independently.As much as I have read of Shankara's works seem to confirm this.

Could be, I have not read sankara's works except his stotra sahitya and bits of his gita bhasya. Whatever he may have said or done, all the 4/5 mathas set up by him do hold up shiva in the highest respect and in some loose sense are shaiva. So they have to fit in shiva and his 5 faces and the pancakshara mantra.

Whether this was done by Shankaracharya himself or was introduced later, you have to figure from your studies - but shiva/candramaulisvara is integral to the tradition of sankara for all practical purposes.

Twilightdance
08 September 2012, 11:57 AM
IThe vyuhas are not equated to the pancabrahma.

I did not say they were equated or even mentioned anywhere in vaishnava literature. Just another parallel scheme where the principla diety appears in multiple somehwhat limited aspects. But I assume interpretations and understanding will be different from shaivism.

Thanks for uploading all the books so far, I think it was excellent work to gather the diverse works in one place.

Śaraṇāgati
08 September 2012, 12:05 PM
Namaste,
Dandavat Pranam.

I am not familiar with all works of Sankara but Sankara only identifies God (isvara) as Visnu in Gita commentary, rather than as any other deity. In his Gita commentary (13.2), isvara is identified with Visnu: isvarasya visnoh.

Then again in Vedanta-sutra 4.3.10, Sankaracarya refers to Visnu's abode as the highest — 'they proceed to what is higher than [the world of Brahma], i.e. to the pure highest place of Visnu' (param parisuddham visnoh paramam padam pratipadyante).

Also in his Viveka-Cuda-Mani, very first verse says:
sarva-ved'anta-siddh'anta-gocaram tam agocaram
gov'indam param'anandam sad-gurum pranato'smy aham
I prostrate myself before Govinda, the true Guru and ultimate Bliss, who is the unattainable resort of all scriptures and Vedanta.

MahaHrada
08 September 2012, 12:37 PM
Also,do you know how I could go about studying Veerashaivism and Pashupatism?I have not been able to get my hands on any reading material for either of them.

As always,Thanks for your replies and guidance.

Pashupati sutras are the only remaining shastra, there is an edition and translation available but i am not aware of any book solely on the subject, you may research atimarga and lakulisha also on Google to find some information. The sect itself has vanished and merged into Nath siddhas and other sadhu groups.
Virashaivas are still existing and have some maths in Karnataka region and A.P. there are websites with basic information of one or two of the maths i have seen, but there must be some books around also. Maybe search with the "Lingayat" also.

Omkara
08 September 2012, 12:38 PM
Interestingly,according to http://siddhantadeepika.blogspot.com/?m=1,the vyuhas of Vaishnavism form part of the Shaiva Siddhanta cosmology.

Twilightdance
08 September 2012, 12:47 PM
Namaste,
Dandavat Pranam.

I am not familiar with all works of Sankara but Sankara only identifies God (isvara) as Visnu .....

Not again :rolleyes: .... anyway you can preach this to sringeri jadaguru and ask him why he and all his line of gurus has been worshiping the crystal shiva linga every night.

Śaraṇāgati
08 September 2012, 01:19 PM
Not again :rolleyes:
What do you mean?

.... anyway you can preach this to sringeri jadaguru and ask him why he and all his line of gurus has been worshiping the crystal shiva linga every night.
Ya, I am aware that most modern advaita followers worship Lord Shiva as Supreme but if you don't follow what Sankara has said how can you call your self an advaita follower. Anyways... I just wanted to point out what I read from Sankara's work regarding this topic.

Omkara
08 September 2012, 02:04 PM
Not again :rolleyes: .... anyway you can preach this to sringeri jadaguru and ask him why he and all his line of gurus has been worshiping the crystal shiva linga every night.


:D :D :D

Omkara
09 September 2012, 12:29 AM
What do you mean?

Ya, I am aware that most modern advaita followers worship Lord Shiva as Supreme but if you don't follow what Sankara has said how can you call your self an advaita follower. Anyways... I just wanted to point out what I read from Sankara's work regarding this topic.

He meant-Not another Vaishnava missionary.:D


Since you seem to he a Gaudiya Caishnava,could you enlighten us on why your sect claims to be part of Madhva Sampradaya despite rejecting almost all of Madhvacharya's teachings?Atleast the advaitins are being more faithful.:D :D :D

Omkara
09 September 2012, 11:19 AM
The Buddhist scriptures have some very interesting things to say about kalki
http://manasataramgini.wordpress.com/2005/03/01/the-buddhist-kalki/

Omkara
09 September 2012, 11:25 AM
So perhaps there is hope for Dharma after all!

Twilightdance
09 September 2012, 01:02 PM
So perhaps there is hope for Dharma after all!

I wouldn't get my hopes too high considering that this last of buddhist yogini tantras [kalacakra] already had seen some of the history of Islamic genocide in India, of which buddhist took the brunt and disappeared from India. The other yogini tantras are quite unaware of mlecchas or their eventual demise in the hand of the king of shambala.

But Islam cannot continue for ever if humanity is to survive, so hopefully society will develop some good sense to get rid of this menace.

Omkara
09 September 2012, 04:10 PM
I know it is not actually a prophecy, but the description is nice.
:)

Śaraṇāgati
10 September 2012, 09:49 AM
Since you seem to he a Gaudiya Caishnava,could you enlighten us on why your sect claims to be part of Madhva Sampradaya despite rejecting almost all of Madhvacharya's teachings?Atleast the advaitins are being more faithful.:D :D :D
Who told you that Gaudiya Vaishnavas reject Madhvacarya??? This sounds new to me because Gaudiya Vaishnavas like Jiva Goswami even quote Madhva in his books.

Omkara
11 September 2012, 01:12 AM
Read my post again-GVs reject madhvacharya's philosophy of Dvaita in favour of Bheda Abheda.

Śaraṇāgati
14 September 2012, 08:04 PM
Namaste Omkara,
Dandavat Pranam.

Read my post again-GVs reject madhvacharya's philosophy of Dvaita in favour of Bheda Abheda.
To say that the Gaudiya Vaishnavas do not accept the philosophy of Madhvacarya is not entirely correct. In his Prameya Ratnavali, the Gaudiya acarya Srila Baladeva Vidyabhusana(author of Govinda Bhasya), paraphrasing Sri Vyasa Tirtha(famous follower of dvaita), has written nine points of Madhva that the Gaudiya Vaishnavas accept:

sri madhva praha
visnu paratatvamakhilamnayavedhyanca visvam
satyam bedhamca jivan hari-caranajusastaratamyan ca tesam
moksam visnvanghrilabham tadamalabhajanam tasya hetum pramanam
pratyaksaditraya cetyupadisati hari krsna caitanya candrah
Madhvacarya has said ---

Narayan is Supreme.
He is the one known by the study of the Vedas.
The material world is real.
The jivas are different from the Lord.
The jivas are by nature subservient to the Lord.
In both the conditioned and liberated condition, the jivas are situated in higher and lower statuses.
Liberation is the attainment of Lord Visnu’s lotus-feet.
Pure devotion grants liberation.
Direct perception, logic and Vedic authority are the three sources of actual knowledge.


These things were included in the teachings of Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu. However, one important aspect has not been elaborated upon and that is the aspect of rasa(divine love for Krishna in the mood of Vrajavasis).As Gaudiya acaryas, the concept Rasa could not be taught at that time period of India’s history when Madhavacarya came because during that time the advaita doctrine of Sankaracarya was prevalent. The necessity of the time demanded that a powerful acarya boldly expound the basic beliefs of the Vedic scriptures and remove advaita and establish the philosophy of surrender to Narayana or Krishna. So Madhvacarya had acted upon time, place, and circumstance.
The concept of rasa or prema-bhakti was introduced first into Brahma-Madhva Sampradaya by Mādhavendra Purī[grand guru of Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu]. Later it was preached by Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu.
Also Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu pointed out the several divergences regarding philosophical conclusions in the four Vaishnava philosophies and sampradayas. But in spite of this, He showed respect to all the four vaisnava sampradayas, since they all agree that to please Lord Krishna is the perfection of life, and in this mood gladly accepted from each of them two specific instructions or concepts:

madhva haite saradvaya kariba grahana eka haya kevala-advaita nirasana
krsna-murti nitya jani'tamhara sevana sei ta'dvitiya sara jana mahajana
ramanuja haite anni lai dvi sara ananya-bhakati, bhaktajana-seva ara
visnu haite dui sara kariba svikara tadiya sarvasva-bhava, ragamarga ara
toma haite laba ami dui mahasara ekanta radhikasraya gopi-bhava ara
“Later when I begin the sankirtana movement I myself will preach using the essence of the philosophies of the four of you. From Madhva I will receive two items: his complete defeat of the Mayavadi philosophy, and his service to the murti of Krsna, accepting it as an eternal spiritual being. From Ramanuja I will accept two teachings: the concept of bhakti unpolluted by karma or jnana and service to Vaishnavas. From Visnusvami's teaching I will accept two elements: the sentiment of exclusive dependence on Krsna and the path of raga-bhakti. And from Nimbarka I will receive two great principles: the necessity of taking shelter of Radha and the high esteem for the gopis love of Krsna.”
~Navadvipa-Mahätmyam (Parikrama-khanda)

So in this way He combined the teachings of all Vaishnava acaryas to Achintya Bheda Abheda tattva. Even though Sri Chaitanya was initiated into Brahma-Madhva Sampradaya, His philosophy can not be regarded as the branch of any Sampradaya as it speaks of all Vaishnava Sampradaya.

Omkara
15 September 2012, 09:56 AM
Except for point 6,I do not see anthing that is specific to madhva sampradaya in this.I would vehemently disagree with 1.For madhva, Narayana is Vishnu.For gaudiyas, He is krishna.

In any case, this is pointless.See and refute all these arguments if you can-
http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?t=8727

Śaraṇāgati
15 September 2012, 02:28 PM
Except for point 6,I do not see anthing that is specific to madhva sampradaya in this.
Then my friend you need to study Madhvacarya’s philosophy more. The 9 points are found in the works of Vyasa Tirtha, Baladeva Vidyabhusana was simply paraphrasing him. Actually these points are like the basic principles of Vaishnava philosophy.

Śaraṇāgati
15 September 2012, 02:29 PM
I would vehemently disagree with 1.For madhva, Narayana is Vishnu.For gaudiyas, He is krishna.

What is the difference? It is the same Supreme Purusha known by different names Vishnu, Narayan, Krishna etc.
Plus Madhvacarya Himself worshiped Krishna deities. Those exact same deities he worshiped are now present in 2 maths he established: Adamaru matha and Krishnapura matha.

Śaraṇāgati
15 September 2012, 02:44 PM
In any case, this is pointless.See and refute all these arguments if you can-
http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?t=8727
I understand that the starter of the thread Uttam differentiates Gaudiya Vaishnavism from Madhvacarya because of philosophical differences but as I already explained Madhvacarya was acting upon time, place, circumstance since that time India was pervaded by an opposing philosophy. His philosophy was later mastered by Krishna Himself as Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu.
Mr. Uttam further quotes Chaitanya Caritamrta to prove his ideas where Sri Chaitanya is found to be disagreeing with tattvavadis(followers of Madhvacarya). But those verses do indicate that Sri Chaitanya rejected Madhvacaryas philosophy. If He did then what’s the point Sri Chaitanya initiating Himself to Madhvacarya’s lineage?
What Sri Chaitanya really had rejected there was the erroneous, distorted dogma which had entered the sampradaya of Madhvaacarya at that time. Plus Mr.Uttam’s conlusion that Gaudiya Vaishnava does not belong to Madhva’s lineage is not even accepted by the the followers of Madhvacarya let alone Gaudiya acaryas.
Take a look at these letters sent to a Gaudiya Vaishnava Swami by present day heads of Mathas established by Madhvacarya:
http://gosai.com/letters/udupi-matha/pejavara-swami
http://gosai.com/letters/udupi-matha/palimar-swami
http://gosai.com/letters/udupi-matha/sriroor-swami
http://gosai.com/letters/udupi-matha/kaniyoor-swami
http://gosai.com/letters/udupi-matha/subramanya-swami

Omkara
20 October 2012, 12:37 AM
What is the difference? It is the same Supreme Purusha known by different names Vishnu, Narayan, Krishna etc.
Plus Madhvacarya Himself worshiped Krishna deities. Those exact same deities he worshiped are now present in 2 maths he established: Adamaru matha and Krishnapura matha.

Yes,but according to Gaudiya Vaishnavism Kridhna is different from Vishnu

Omkara
20 October 2012, 12:41 AM
What do you mean?

Ya, I am aware that most modern advaita followers worship Lord Shiva as Supreme but if you don't follow what Sankara has said how can you call your self an advaita follower. Anyways... I just wanted to point out what I read from Sankara's work regarding this topic.

Since you have aldredy admitted to diffeeences between GV and madhva sampradaya, perhaps you could apply the same standards to GV as in the statement above

Omkara
20 October 2012, 12:44 AM
Then my friend you need to study Madhvacarya’s philosophy more. The 9 points are found in the works of Vyasa Tirtha, Baladeva Vidyabhusana was simply paraphrasing him. Actually these points are like the basic principles of Vaishnava philosophy.

Exactly,they do not pertain to Madhva Sampradaya as such.On the otger hand,GV rejects theology that does belong to Madhva Sampradaya,like eternal damnation,vayu jeevottama,souls being inherently evil etc.

Omkara
20 October 2012, 12:50 AM
Question to MH/Twillightance-

How does pre-Meykandar monistic Shaica Siddhanta differ from KS?Any books/sites I can go to for learning abt it?Other than Himalayan Academy of course.

Is KS a Vamachara or Dakshinachara path?I have heard conflicting reports on this.

How Vedically congruent and internally consistebt arecthe Bhairava Tantras as compared with the Shaiva Agamas?Does KS accept the Shaiva agamas?Is there a sect that accepts both sets of agamas?

MahaHrada
20 October 2012, 11:01 AM
Question to MH/Twillightance-

How does pre-Meykandar monistic Shaica Siddhanta differ from KS? Any books/sites I can go to for learning abt it?Other than Himalayan Academy of course.

Is KS a Vamachara or Dakshinachara path?I have heard conflicting reports on this.

How Vedically congruent and internally consistebt arecthe Bhairava Tantras as compared with the Shaiva Agamas?Does KS accept the Shaiva agamas?Is there a sect that accepts both sets of agamas?

I think there is not really a monistic shaiva siddhanta tradition in the sense that there is absolute non difference between jiva and shiva as in KS shaivaism or kevala advaita. The term advaita as far as i know in SS means always "not two" but not in the sense of one or unity but two exist that are of one taste (samarasa)

Kashmir shaivaism originated prior to the terms Vamachara and Dakshinachara. Since it does rarely make use of substitutes like worship of yantras and images (that belongs in KS to the anavopaya the lowest means of knowledge) it is not a Pashuachara like the Dakshinachara, a path that solely uses substitutes like yantras or idols instead of the real object of worship a female organ or yogini.

In Kashmir Shaivaism the Kula yaga that is sexual intercourse is the highest ritual here no substitutes are used.

If i remember correctly KS accepts some shaiva agamas but they try to interpret them in a non dual manner.

But also the bhairava tantras are not really advaitan it needs a lot of twisting and shaking to make the ancient tantras fit into the advaitic KS view.

Bhairava tantras would usually be considered non vedic certainly they do break every known and conceivable rule of conduct prescribed in the Vedas and need a radical reinterpretation of the vedas to make the prescribed conduct acceptable.

For instance when the word Brahmacharya is used in KS it is reinterpreted in such a way, that the real meaning of conduct of Brahmacharya is explained by Kashmiri masters to mean a Kaula who has sexual intercourse according to the rules of the Kula yaga they say, only he is a true Brahmacharin.

Which means if a KS shaiva Guru said "I am a Brahmacharin" it can mean he was having sexual intercourse according to Kaula ritual injunctions which involves drinking and eating substances that brahmins are not even allowed to touch.

Omkara
20 October 2012, 11:48 AM
What set of agamas does natha sampradaya follow?
SS was monistic until aghorasiva redefined it.

MahaHrada
20 October 2012, 05:54 PM
What set of agamas does natha sampradaya follow?

Nathas do not follow any set of Agamas, during history of the siddha tradition there is a great variety of differing customs, texts and practices that are or have been followed in the past. As Avadhotas nath yogis are beyond a specific text religion or code of conduct, therefore we find the same Nath Siddhas mentioned in different Guru Paramparas, Shaiva and yogic, Shakta (kali kula and sundari) Buddhist (Vajrayana), Vaishnava, Jain, Kashmir shaiva and even in Sufi Silsilas.


SS was monistic until aghorasiva redefined it.

I wouldn´t place a bet on this, even in 9th century Kashmir way before SS arrived in the south (and 300 years before aghorashivacharya) SS was not considered monistic in the way KS understood that term, it was criticised by Abhinvagupta as a wrong dualistic interpretation of the agamas.

According to Prof. Sanderson, who is one among the greatest authorities on these subjects, the Shaiva Siddhanta “propagated an anti-gnostic ritualism which immunised the consciousness of the Tantric performer of ritual against the mystical and non-dualist tendencies of the Kāpālika and Kaula left, and encouraged him to internalise without inhibition the outlook and values of non-tantric orthodoxy” (World’s Religions, p 691)

ranjitm
17 November 2012, 06:35 AM
I have resources on pancaratra in line for uploading...I have studied it a fair bit.The vyuhas are not equated to the pancabrahma.

Shankara did not consider shiva as saguna brahman.That is a later advaitic idea.Both he and his immediate disciples refer to SB as vishnu or narayana and quotes only vaishnava puranas.He never once says Shiva os supreme in works universally accepted as his.Some later works attribued to him do so though.In his BG bhasya he condemns worship of deities other than visnu.
He goes out of his way to try to prove that uma haimavati of the upanishads is not parvati.


Pranam,

whom does he say She is, then? This knowledge is, frankly, quite shocking to me...

Also, what does SB stand for?

Omkara
18 November 2012, 10:30 PM
Pranam,

whom does he say She is, then? This knowledge is, frankly, quite shocking to me...

Also, what does SB stand for?

SB means Saguna Brahman.He translates Haimavati as 'Lady dressed in Gold' instead of daughter of Himavat.However later I came to know that this is just Vaishnava propaganda.He identifies her as parvati later.Vaishnavas translate Haimavati as Lady Dressed in Gold and say it was Lakshmi not Parvati.Some vaishnavas try to show that Shankara agreed with their opinion.

Necromancer
04 January 2013, 11:58 PM
Namaste. This is a very interesting thread I though I would share my insight about.

In Vedic Astronomy/Astrology, 'Kalki' is the name of a red asteroid that will come into our Solar System sometime near the end of Kali Yug and collide with the Earth. I haven't read the whole thread yet, so I don't know if that has been mentioned already.

It was associated with the final incarnation of Lord Vasudeva, I guess to show Lord Shiva up as being the one who does that.

I believe that Shiva and Vishnu (and Brahma) are really all one though.

The whole 6th chapter of the Chhandogya Upanishad is my favourite, actually:
http://www.indianetzone.com/64/chapter_six_chandogya_upanishad.htm

Aum Namah Shivaya

kriyarameeshh
12 February 2013, 11:42 AM
Sri Matre Namaha.

There is absolutely no question of any division and difference among the trinity. It's even a sin to think that they are different and there are various incidents in the mythology (hm' I think we must stop using this word 'MYTHOLOGY' - it has a synonym 'fictitious'), to prove this. The so called difference among the trinity was only portrayed in Puranas to highlight the importance of moving towards that one BRAHMAN. Or from a devotional stand point those are mere leelas of the almighty. Of course we cannot ignore the fact that almost all the Puranas were edited during the medieval period for some vested interests by various paths of Hindu system to gain an upperhand.

However the question asked was about the incarnation of KALKI and if there is any incarnation of siva towards the end of Kali Yuga?

Well all I can understand from my little understanding of Puranas is that Vishnu as Kalki takes the role of destroyer ( Laya Karaka ) and Siva takes the role of preservator ( Sthitikaraka ) at the end of Kaliyuga during the Maha Pralaya by preserving the seeds of life for the forth coming Manvantara.
ex: Holding the sacred Kashi Nagari on his Trident until the next Manvantara begins.

Sri Matre Namaha