PDA

View Full Version : Is there One God worshipped with many forms and names or are there many ?



devotee
19 June 2012, 01:19 AM
Namaste,

We worship God in many forms and with various forms. Are Shiva, Vishnu, BrahmA, Mother Goddess different from each other or are the same ? What does the Shruti say ? However, before I start writing this thread, I would request all to participate in this thread only for the sake of Truth and not for scoring points above others. Those who want to play "I win-you lose" game, are requested to open some other thread(s).


Let's take some excerpts from Upanishads :

MahAnArAyNa Upanishad

This Upanishad tells us that "Narayana is all"

I-6: Sages declare: That (Narayana) alone is right and That alone is true: That alone is the venerable Brahman contemplated by the wise. Acts of worship and social utility also are that Reality. That alone being the navel of the universe, sustains manifoldly the universe which arose in the past and which springs to existence at present.

I-7: That alone is Fire: That is Air; That is Sun; That verily is Moon; That alone is shining Stars and Ambrosia. That is Food; That is Water and He is the Lord of creatures.

XIII-4: Narayana is the Supreme Reality designated as Brahman. Narayana is the highest (Self). Narayana is the supreme Light (described in the Upanishads). Narayana is the infinite Self. [Narayana is the most excellent meditator and meditation.]

Rudra is all

XXIV-1: All this verily is Rudra. To Rudra who is such we offer our salutation. We salute again and again that Being, Rudra, who alone is the light and the Soul of creatures. The material universe the created beings and whatever there is manifoldly and profusely created in the past and in the present in the form of the world, all that is indeed this Rudra. Salutations be to Rudra who is such

OM is all

LXVIII-1: Om that is Brahman. Om that is Vayu. Om that is the finite self. Om that is the Supreme Truth. Om that is all. Om that is the multitude of citadels 9the bodies of creatures). Salutations to Him.

The Supreme Being (in the heart of all beings) is all

LXVIII-2: That Supreme Being moves inside the heart of created beings possessing manifold forms. O Supreme, Thou art the sacrifice, Thou art the expression Vasat, Thou art Indra, Thou art Rudra, Thou art Brahma, Thou art Prajapati, Thou art That, Thou art the water in the rivers and the ocean, Thou art the sun, Thou art flavour, Thou art ambrosia, Thou art the body of the Vedas, Thou art the threefold world and Thou art Om.


Skanda Upanishad

Vishnu and Shiva are same

8-9. (I bow) to Shiva of the form of Vishnu and Vishnu who is Shiva; Vishnu is Shiva's heart and Shiva, Vishnu's. Just as Vishnu is full of Shiva, so is Shiva full of Vishnu. As I see no difference, I am well all my life.

Mudgala Upanishad

One God alone became many

III The single God becoming many; unborn, is born as many. The Adhvaryus worship him as Agni. This as Yajus unites everything. The Samavedins worship as Saman. All is established in him. The serpents meditate on his as poison. The knowers of snake-lore as snake, gods as energy, men as wealth, Demons as Magic, the manes as sustenance. The knowers of the superhuman as superhuman. Gandharvas as beauty, Apsarases as perfume. He becomes whatever he is worshipped as; so, one should think 'I am the supreme being' and will become that (who knows this).


Narayana Upanishad

Narayana is all

He is eternal. Narayana is Brahma. Narayana is Shiva. Narayana is Indra and Kaala (god of death). All directions are Narayana. All sides are Narayana. Inside and outside is Narayana. Narayana is what has happened, what is happening and what will happen. Narayana is the only God who is blemish less, stain less, order less, end less and who cannot be described and when Narayana is there, there is no other second. He who knows this, becomes himself Lord Vishnu. Thus is read, the Upanishads of Yajur Veda.

Brahma Upanishad

One Purusha alone is all

3. Now this Purusha has four seats, the navel, the heart, the throat, and the head. In these shines forth the Brahman with four aspects: the state of wakefulness, of dream, of dreamless sleep, and the fourth or transcendental state. In the wakeful state, He is Brahma; in the dreaming state, He is Vishnu; in dreamless sleep He is Rudra; and the fourth state is the Supreme Indestructible One; and He again is the Sun, the Vishnu, the Ishwara, He is the Purusha, He the Prana, He the Jive or the animate being, He the Fire, The Ishwara, and the Resplendent; (yea) that Brahman which is transcendent shines within all these! In Itself, It is devoid of mind, of ears, of hands and feet, of light. There neither are the worlds existing nor non-existing, neither are the Vedas or the Devas or the sacrifices existing nor non-existing, neither is the mother or father or daughter-in-law existing nor non-existing, neither is Chandala's son or Pulkasa's son existing nor non-existing, neither is the mendicant existing nor non-existing, so neither all the creatures or the ascetics; and thus only the One Highest Brahman shines there.

Sarasvati Rahasya Upanishad

Sarasvati is all

7. Her nature the essence of Vedanta's sense,
She the Supreme Sovereign,
Manifest as name and form -
May Sarasvati guard me!

10. The only one extolled in Vedas four
And their ancillaries; the non-dual
Potency of Brahman - May She, divine
Sarasvati, protect me!

Sarasvati is the inner controller, Rudra etc.

19. She as the inner controller
Rules over all in the three worlds,
Dwells as Rudra, the Sun and others -
May that Sarasvati protect me!

34. Vesting things of name and form
In Her, meditate they on Her,
Of whom the form is the One Brahman,
May that Sarasvati protect me!

Ekashara Upanishad

Shiva is all

1. Thou (Shiva) art the one Imperishable in the Imperishable, conjoint with Uma. As known by means of Susumna, here (on the empirical plane), the one firm (Principle art Thou). Thou art the ancient source of the world, the Lord of beings; Thou the Parjanya (the Principle of life-giving water), the Protector of the world.

2. Thou art immanent in all; from (the view-point) of the wise, Thou, the Lord of the world art the all-knowing (Fire). In the beginning Thou art unborn, the first born, the sacrifice, too, art Thou. Thou alone the one omnipresent and ancient.

3. Thou art the Principle of life; Thou the manifestation (the manifested world); Thou the source of the world; by a quarter hast Thou pervaded this world. Thou art the world's birth, the cause, the life supreme, and the child in the womb armed with the excellent bow and arrow.

Kaivalya Upanishad

Shiva is Brahman, He alone is Indra, BrahmA and Vishnu etc.

6. (Who is) unthinkable, un-manifest, of endless forms, the good, the peaceful, Immortal, the origin of the worlds, without beginning, middle, and end, the only one, all-pervading, Consciousness, and Bliss, the formless and the wonderful.

7. Meditating on the highest Lord, allied to Uma, powerful, three-eyed, blue-necked, and tranquil, the holy man reaches Him who is the source of all, the witness of all and is beyond darkness (i.e. Avidya).

8. He is Brahma, He is Shiva, He is Indra, He is the Immutable, the Supreme, the Self-luminous, He alone is Vishnu, He is Prana, He is Time and Fire, He is the Moon.

9. He alone is all that was, and all that will be, the Eternal; knowing Him, one transcends death; there is no other way to freedom.

OM

wundermonk
19 June 2012, 01:31 AM
I would say - "Thadekam"- ''The One" - from the Nasadiya Sukta (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T3ZKdwPuF8M&t=1m11s).

''Alone, The One Breathed - Beyond that Indeed, Nothing whatever was!"

Shuddhasattva
19 June 2012, 04:28 AM
Namaste

Yajurveda:

Aum namo bhagavate rudraya vishnave mrityor me pahi (Shri Rudram Chamakam, Taittiriya Samhita 4.5, 4.7

Eka eva rudra na dvitīyāya tasthur ( Yajurveda 1:8:6 d)

Homage to him who haunteth the mountains, and to him who is in form of Çipivista.(visnu) (Yajurveda iv. 5.5 f )

Homage to you(rudra) who is sparkling hearts of the gods ( Yajurveda iv. 5. 9 p )

The Rudra in the fire, in the waters, in the plants, the Rudra that hath entered all beings, to that Rudra be homage ( Yajurveda v. 5. 9. i )

Also, though not shruti:

upadrastanumanta ca
bharta bhokta mahesvarah
paramatmeti capy ukto
dehe 'smin purusah parah (Bhagavad Gita 13:23)

"Yet in this body there is another, a transcendental enjoyer who is Maheshvara, the supreme proprietor, who exists as the overseer and permitter, and who is known as Paramatma,the Supreme soul of universe".

Namaste

philosoraptor
19 June 2012, 11:14 AM
There is one Brahman worshipped in many names and forms, the meditation/worship of whom is the only direct means of attaining liberation.

There are also many other devas who are subordinate to Brahman, are said to be created by Brahman, worship Brahman, and are supported by Brahman. I have posted pramaanas on another thread which I will reproduce briefly here. Note that these are not exhaustive, they are just a small number of the total references I have in my notes (which are themselves not exhaustive):

Rig Veda 7.40.5: Rudra gets his strength by propitiating Vishnu
Rig Veda 7.99.1-4: Vishnu is said to create Suurya and Agni
Rig Veda 10.90.13: States that Brahman (here addressed as The Purusha) created Suurya, Agni, Indra, Vaayu, and Chandra
Rig Veda 10.121.2: States that He (here addressed as Hiranyagarbha) is the "Giver of vital breath, of power and vigour, he whose commandments all the gods acknowledge."
Rig Veda 10.190.3: States that Brahman (here addressed as Dhaatar) created Suurya and Chandra
Aitareya Upanishad 1.2.1-4: States that He created the devas, provided them with nourishment, and ordered them into their respective abodes
Brihadaaranyaka Upanishad 1.3.1-18: Refers to the devas as Prajaapati's sons, and explains how they had to surpass the asuras by learning the process of yagna (they could not do it without).
Brihadaaranyaka Upanishad 1.4.10: Says that only the devas "became that" (Brahman) by understanding knowing Brahman. But if the devas are already the all-knowing Brahman, then from whence the question of not understanding that?
Brihadaaranyaka Upanishad 2.1.20: States that all devas emanate from Brahman. Note that this mantra concludes the chapter in which Gargya speaks of meditating on Brahman within each of the devas.
Brihadaaranyaka Upanishad 3.6.1: Gaargi asks by what is the world of the devas pervaded. The ultimate answer is of course Brahman. But the point is, the devas, if Brahman, shouldn't be pervaded by something else.
Brihadaaranyaka Upanishad 3.9.1-11: This is the famous antaryaami Braahmana in which it is stated that Brahman inhabits (among other things) the various devas presiding over moon, sky, the directions, the sun, etc, yet is not known by them.
Brihadaaranyaka Upanishad 4.4.16: States that the devas meditate on that Brahman as light/longevity.
Brihadaaranyaka Upanishad 5.5.1: States that the devas, along with men and asuras are Prajaapati's sons.
Brihadaaranyaka Upanishad 5.5.1: States that Brahman created Prajaapati, and Prajaapati created the devas.
Chaandogya Upanishad 4.3.1-7: Describe He who swallowed the other four devas (agni, vAyu, ApaH, prAna), and then describes Him as the creator of all beings.
Katha Upanishad 2.3.3: States that the devas (Agni, Vaayu, Indra, Suurya, and Mrtyu) carry out their respective functions out of fear of Him (Brahman).
Kena Upanishad 2.1: States that knowledge of what the devas know is insufficient to know Brahman.
Kena Upanishad 3.1-12: States that Brahman won victory for the devas, and explains how neither Indra, nor Agni, nor Vaayu could overcome the power of Brahman, and how Uma had to teach them about who Brahman is.
Mundaka Upanishad 2.1.7: States that from Him emerged the devas and all other living entities.
Prashna Upanishad 2.1-4: Explains how the various devas presiding over different parts of the body are all subordinate to Praana.

These pramaanas, taken from mainstream texts accepted by all schools AFAIK as genuine shruti, clearly indicate difference between devas from Brahman. To this, we can add the following references from the Bhagavad-gita (also not exhaustive):

gItA 3.10-11: Krishna says that He sent forth men and devas at the beginning of creation, and recommends yagna so that devas can supply various necessities of life.
gItA 7.23: Krishna says that one result is obtained by worship of anya-devatas and another result is obtained by His worship
gItA 9.23: Krishna says that those who worship other devas actually worship Him, albeit with improper understanding (avidhi-pUrvakam)
gItA 11.15 Arjuna says he saw Brahma and Shiva within the vishvarUpa along with all other devas
gItA 11.21 he says that some of the devas are fearful of Him while others are offering prayers to Him
gItA 11.37 Krishna is referred to as "Lord of the devas." (deva-Isha)
gItA 11.52 Krishna says that even the devas are ever wanting to behold this form of His

No doubt, there are also references to Brahman being everything, Brahman being all that exists, etc. Both sets of references are valid and must be understood in a consistent fashion. It is not helpful to anyone's understanding to simply say that they contradict each other, and that we cannot understand them in a harmonious way because Brahman is inconceivable. Using this logic, one can easily cite "inconceivability" to accept any set of contradictory premises. i.e. God is a mass-murderer, and yet He is kind. How this is so is inconceivable. God is offended by killing of cows, and yet He has no problems with devotees eating hamburgers. How this is so is inconceivable. World is real, and yet world is not real. How this is so is inconceivable. Anyway, you get the idea.

Understanding that the one Brahman has all the names of the devas helps to reconcile these two seemingly disparate sets of evidences. In such a situation, one has to understand from context which entity is being referred to by context - the anya-devata, or Brahman Himself. Also, understanding that Brahman is the indwelling Paramaatmaa of the jiivaatmas who take birth as devas, and is also indirectly worshipped by worship of those devas, reconciles these two sets of evidences. This is a cardinal teaching of bRhadAraNyaka upaniShad. Unfortunately, it is not acceptable to some for ideological reasons. A modern-day teaching among Neo-Hindu groups, most likely influenced by Judeo-Christian ideas, is that Hinduism is really monotheistic, and that all the "gods" we have are just one aspect of the same God. This appears to be an attempt to Semiticize the religion to make it more palatable to younger generations of Hindus who have been raised to believe that "polytheism" is somehow "bad" or superstitious.

regards,

philosoraptor
19 June 2012, 12:00 PM
Narayana Upanishad

Narayana is all

He is eternal. Narayana is Brahma. Narayana is Shiva. Narayana is Indra and Kaala (god of death). All directions are Narayana. All sides are Narayana. Inside and outside is Narayana. Narayana is what has happened, what is happening and what will happen. Narayana is the only God who is blemish less, stain less, order less, end less and who cannot be described and when Narayana is there, there is no other second. He who knows this, becomes himself Lord Vishnu. Thus is read, the Upanishads of Yajur Veda.


Pranams,

I just wanted to point out something from the above translation. When it says, "Narayana is the only God who is blemish less, stain less, order less, end less " the implication is that there are other gods who are not blemishless, not stainless, not orderless, not endless, etc. If there is no other god, because all gods are the same, then it makes no sense to describe Narayana as the only God who is all these things, right?

This is just another example of how we should be careful before rushing into unqualified monism or unqualified dualism as valid ways of explaining these statements.

regards,

Seeker123
19 June 2012, 01:25 PM
Namaste,

If you go by logic there has to be only 1 God - Brahman which is limitless, all pervading without form etc etc. The forms of different devatas like Agni, Indra even Brahma are pervaded by Brahman just like our own bodies. But relative to our bodies the devata bodies are more eternal Brahma's life is very very long compared to us (like our life is very very long compared to that of insects) but it is still time bound. Humans on account of lot of punya gain the position of different devatas in time if they dont go for liberation. The Kena Upanishad talks about the devatas attaining liberation by understanding, knowing. In the same way we can attain liberation if we own up to Brahman (Aham Brahmasmi) through knowledge and Sadhana. All bodies (sentient and insentient) are just names and forms and are timebound and neither real or unreal. If you keep asking what? the underlying common for all is the eternal Sat ("isness") which alone is real. Equating I to that real is liberation.
Even though Brahman is formless if saguna worship is preferred one can take the help of Vishnu, Siva, Devi, Ganesha etc etc. This does not mean that Brahman is limited by those forms.

philosoraptor
19 June 2012, 02:49 PM
Namaste,

If you go by logic there has to be only 1 God - Brahman which is limitless, all pervading without form etc etc. The forms of different devatas like Agni, Indra even Brahma are pervaded by Brahman just like our own bodies. But relative to our bodies the devata bodies are more eternal Brahma's life is very very long compared to us (like our life is very very long compared to that of insects) but it is still time bound. Humans on account of lot of punya gain the position of different devatas in time if they dont go for liberation. The Kena Upanishad talks about the devatas attaining liberation by understanding, knowing. In the same way we can attain liberation if we own up to Brahman (Aham Brahmasmi) through knowledge and Sadhana. All bodies (sentient and insentient) are just names and forms and are timebound and neither real or unreal. If you keep asking what? the underlying common for all is the eternal Sat ("isness") which alone is real. Equating I to that real is liberation.
Even though Brahman is formless if saguna worship is preferred one can take the help of Vishnu, Siva, Devi, Ganesha etc etc. This does not mean that Brahman is limited by those forms.

Pranams,

For this analysis, you've made a number of assumptions that I'd like to call your attention to:
1) Brahman is formless
2) Form implies limitation.
3) Our bodies made of matter are neither real nor unreal.
4) Equating "I to that real" (by which I assume you mean Brahman) is the meaning of liberation

First, you may wish to examine the shAstric basis for these assumptions.

More to the point, you have acknowledged that devas are different from Brahman and gain liberation by understanding Him. In that case, how can it follow that one can worship such a deva and get liberation? Is it logical to suggest that worship of an entity who has not attained liberation, can help one attain liberation?

Also, how do you reconcile that point of view with gItA 7.23 in which Sri Krishna describes one result for anya-devata worship and another for His worship?

regards,

yajvan
19 June 2012, 04:40 PM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namasté

The adyātma rāmāyaṇa ( bālakanda section ) informs us, rāmāḥ is the Supreme Self, distinct from prakṛti. He is the one all-comprehending Being who is pure bliss itself and Spirit Supreme over all entities. He is unaffected by māyā, says the 20th śloka.

rāmāḥ walks not, he sits not. He sorrows not, He desires not, He abandons not. There is no trace of any activity in Him... adyātma rāmāyaṇa ( bālakanda, 43rd śloka )

data eka rāmā bhikāri sari duniyā- the giver is the one rāmāḥ, the world is a beggar.

Yet we read from abhinavagupta's work parā-trīśikā vivaraṇa. It is a śloka where he gives praise to anuttara ( the Supreme, unsurpassable), he says: yatsattatparamārthohi paramārthastataḥ śivaḥ

That which is Existence (sattā) is the highest (param) Reality, the Universe is of the nature of that Reality, therefore everything is śivaḥ

praṇām

yajvan
19 June 2012, 04:52 PM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namasté

kṛṣṇa yajur ved - taittirīya saṁhitā 1.8.6.iii
eka eva rudro na dvitīiyāya
rudra is the sole one, there is no second


praṇām

Arjuni
19 June 2012, 05:32 PM
Namasté,

Lovely thread, Devotee, very wonderful and awe-inspiring to read.

I add the concluding verse of the Bāṣkalamantra Upaniṣad (of the Rig Veda), spoken by Indra:
"On all sides, I am the universal face,
I am the Lord, the Witness, too.
Omnipresent, compassionate to all, I am the One.
That which exists, I am That."

Indraneela
===
Oṁ Indrāya Namaḥ.
Oṁ Namaḥ Śivāya.

kallol
19 June 2012, 10:21 PM
My take on this :

1. The Upanishads and other scriptures have been created by different ashramas, different gharanas and at different point of time.

2. Some are into dvaita and some trying to bring in advaita or other thought lines into the discourse / discussion.

3. This is reflected in the today's divided society of many thoughts but to same goal.

4. However from absolute point of view, the names only represent certain aspects of the whole process of manifestation, unmanifestation and sustenance. The different ashramas / gharanas want their dety to be all powerful and have build the theory around.

5. The basic thought or theory of "manifestation, unmanifestation and sustenance" being the same but the names of the presider of the process are different.

6. Replace the names by a common name and the theory or the philosophy remains the same.

This gives us the learning that however way we think, we move - whatever names we give - the principles remain the same, the goal remains the same.

devotee
19 June 2012, 11:11 PM
Namaste WM, Suddhasatva, seeker, Yajvan, Indraneela and all,

Thanks for everyone's good inputs. WM's mentioning of NasdIya Sukta is especially important as if understood correctly, it gives valuable insight into all "creations". Some doubts have been raised by Phil in this thread in his two posts which I think deserve proper attention.

Let's see where from these doubts arise ? Are the Upanishads wrong and the Samhitas are right ? Is Bhagwad Gita wrong ? Is MahAbhArata wrong ? Argument has been built to state that "It (the references from Upanishads) violates Shruti !". Let's see where things have gone wrong :

a) The VedAnta is the essence of the VedAs. The samhita portion of the VedAs have the highest Truth in hidden form which are openly stated in the VedAnta and that is why the VedAntic schools vouch for the supremacy of VedAnta. Let's also understand that SamhitA has been prescribed for the Brahmacharya/Grihastha Ashrams and VedAnta for the SannyAsa Ashram because only in SannyAsa Ashram a man becomes fit for receiving the highest Truth.

Therefore, there is need to be careful while interpreting VedAs correctly.

b) All confusion is arising because it has been forgotten that God/Brahman is unthinkable (Achintyaswaroopa). We cannot afford to take the Abrahimic way of understanding God/Brahman. This one verse if understood correctly will clear all doubts :

Oḿ pūrṇam adaḥ pūrṇam idaḿ pūrṇāt pūrṇam udacyate |
Pūrṇasya pūrṇam ādāya pūrṇam evāvaśiṣyate ||

There is creation and yet there is no creation. Why ? Because the Brahman is unique and beyond comprehension. It (Brahman) is whole and That (Creation) is whole and by taking out whole (creation) from the Whole (Brahman), Whole (Brahman) remains whole i.e. (Brahman remains) unchanged !

Unless the above is correctly understood, all discussions on VedAnta is futile. That is what is the basic flaw in the arguments presented by Phil.

I will write more on this but at this moment I am busy. :)

OM

yajvan
19 June 2012, 11:39 PM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namasté

Two things we know of the Supreme, the Highest, the unsurpassible ( uttara & anuttara)

It is anirukta, unuttered , not articulated , unspeakable, and;
svatāsiddha, self-experienced i.e. svā + ta + siddha = one's own + crossing or virtue + accomplished i.e. self-accomplishedYet we all wish to give it some name , some form, some quality so we can understand it in some way.

It is fullness as devotee points out. Once this is experienced (say the wise) then confusion no longer has a nest to reside in.

praṇām

dogra
20 June 2012, 07:11 AM
One God:
http://agniveer.com/vedic-god/


The Supreme One who represents selflessness, controls the entire universe, is present everywhere and is the Devata of all Devatas, alone is source of bliss. Those who do not understand Him remain drenched in sorrow and those who realize Him achieve unconditional happiness. (Rigveda 1.164.39)



The Vedas refer to not 33 crore Devatas but 33 types (Koti in Sanskrit) of Devatas. They are explained in Shatpath Brahman very clearly. These include -
8 Vasus (Earth, Water, Fire, Air, Sky, Moon, Sun, Stars/ Planets) that form components of universe where we live,
10 Life Forces in our body or Prana (Prana, Apana, Vyana, Udana, Samaana, Naga, Kurma, Kukala, Devadatta) and 1 Soul called Rudra,
12 Aditya or months of year,
1 Vidyut or Electromagnetic force that is of tremendous use to us
1 Yajna or constant noble selfless deeds done by humans
The master of these 33 Devatas is the Mahadeva or Ishwar who alone is to be worshipped as per 14th Kanda of Shatpath Brahman

devotee
20 June 2012, 10:45 AM
Namaste,

We have seen the Upanishads don't leave any doubts that various forms of God are actually Brahman alone. Indraneela has posted the following verse about Indra which declares that Indra alone is Brahman, the Lord of all.


On all sides, I am the universal face,
I am the Lord, the Witness, too.
Omnipresent, compassionate to all, I am the One.
That which exists, I am That.

I am tempted to post a few verses which show that other forms of God/Goddess to are different forms/names of the same Brahman :

Surya Upanishad

SUN is Brahman

I bow to you Aditya; you are the agent himself, the manifest Brahman, Rudra, Vishnu, Rig-Veda etc., as well as all the chandas (Metre-Vedas).

From Aditya is born Vayu, Bhumi, water, fire, sky, directions, Devas, Vedas; the sun scorches this sphere; this sun is Brahman, the inner organ, mind, intellect, mind-stuff and Ego, Prana etc., (the five airs), the five sense organs and five motor organs, sound, touch, form, taste and smell; speech, taking (with the hands) release (of the bowels), joy.

Devi Upanishad

Mother Goddess is Brahman

1. All the gods waited upon the Goddess (and asked): ‘Great Goddess, who art Thou ?’
2. She replied: I am essentially Brahman. From Me (has proceeded) the world comprising Prakriti and Purusha, the void and the Plenum. I am (all forms of) bliss and non-bliss. Knowledge and ignorance are Myself. Brahman and non-Brahman are to be known – says the scripture of the Atharvans.
3. I am the five elements as also what is different from them. I am the entire world. I am the Veda as well as what is different from it. I am the unborn; I am the born. Below and above and around am I.

18. She, here, is the eight Vasus, the eleven Rudras, the twelve Adityas, She is the all-gods, (those) who drink Soma and (those) who do not; she is the goblins, the demons, the evil beings, the ghosts; she also, beings super-human, the semi-divine. She is Sattva, Rajas and Tamas. She is Prajapati, Indra and Manu. She is the planets, stars and luminous spheres. She is the divisions of time, and the form of primeval Time. I salute Her ever:


Ganapati Upanishad

Lord Ganapati is Brahman

1. Om Gam. I bow to Ganapati.
2. You clearly are the tattva. You alone are the creator. You alone are the maintainer. You alone are the destroyer. Of all this you certainly are Brahman. You plainly are the essence.
5. You are speech. You are consciousness. You are bliss. You are Brahman. You are being-consciousness-bliss. You are the non-dual. You are plainly Brahman. You are knowledge. You are intelligence.
6. You create all this world. You maintain all this world. All this world is seen in you. You are earth, water, air, fire, ether. You are beyond the four measures of speech. You are beyond the three gunas. You are beyond the three bodies. You are beyond the three times. You are always situated in the muladhara. You are the being of the three Saktis. You are always meditated on by yogins. You are Brahma, you are Visnu, you are Rudra, you are Agni, you are Vayu, you are the sun, you are the moon, you are Brahma, bhur-bhuvah-svar.

**********

Yajvan ji has hinted at Brahman being "anirukta" and "svatasiddha". We shall discuss more about this and other issues like "which devatas Krishna talks about in the Bhagwad Gita" in the coming posts.

OM

philosoraptor
20 June 2012, 02:51 PM
Pranams,

I do not wish to indulge in a mud-slinging match with individuals over their misrepresentaton of my remarks, motivated as they are by sectarian interests. As far as my motivations are concerned, my interest in religion is motivated by a very real understanding that life is temporary, and the chance at a human life is a rare and precious opportunity to figure out the purpose of it. With that in mind, I am interested in knowing what the Vedas really say; I have little interest in anyone else's personal belief-systems. With the search for Truth being a serious priority for me, I am not given to sentimental displays of endorsing personal belief-systems as being on par with Veda when they clearly are not.

With this in mind, I wish to offer a few points for consideration:

1) Shruti is the authority in Vedaanta, because it is apaurusheya - not authored by anyone. Being unauthored, it is not subject to the flaws of authorship. As such, it must be understood in a consistent and harmonious way. There is little point to having shAstra if we can simply derive any idea out of it, with all ideas being just as valid as all other ideas. In that case, we don't need shruti - we can just make up our own ideas. There is also no point in having this flawless shAstra if we are going to just accept (as the Christian missionaries would have us do) that it contradicts itself endlessly and that the contradictions are real.

2) Apropo to #1, it is not convincing to take statements that emphasize oneness, ignore the statements that point out difference, and then castigate the person who points out that your interpretation is based on selective quoting. Both statements of oneness and difference must be accepted and reconciled before there can be any hope of understanding the Veda. No one should be pressured into accepting conclusions based on half the evidence.

3) Multiple statements abound in shruti (and smRti) to effect that Brahman created the devas, that the devas had to be instructed in this or that, that they are ordered to carry out their functions by Brahman, that they worship Brahman, that they fear Brahman, etc. A straightforward reading of these texts does not hint at the idea that the devas are different forms of the all-knowing, all-powerful, all-pervading Brahman in the sense that Krishna and Rama are different forms of Vishnu. Rather, these statements clearly indicate subservience of the devas on Brahman. I can't help but note that so far in this thread, the pramaanas I quoted establishing this have been completely ignored. This brings us to:

4) There are also multiple statements to the effect that Brahman alone exists, Brahman is this world, Brahman is all the devas, etc. These are also authoritative statements and must be accepted, but we must derive correct conclusions from them. For example, we do not say that it is acceptable to worship just any facet of the creation as a means of realizing Brahman. Can I worship my office desk? Or perhaps this computer? Are they not pUrnam? Are they not Brahman? If the answer is yes, then you can rationalize worship of anything, which becomes ludicrous. If the answer is no, then you cannot uphold deva-worship as equivalent to Brahman using the same statements that equate the creation with Brahman.

5) There are also statements in the shruti to the effect that Brahman is more than all this, that He transcends all this, that He pervades all this, etc. These statements also seemingly contradict the statements referred to in #4 because they clearly imply the separate existence of all this from Brahman (otherwise it would be meaningless to speak of Brahman being superior to all this, transcending all this, supporting all this, etc). So, again, Brahman can be seen as all that exists, and He can also be seen as that entity by which all this is supported - taken together, these different statements, all authoritative, point to a conclusion of heterogeneous oneness (of an independent entity co-existing with and supporting dependent entities) rather than absolute oneness or absolute dualism.

6) I have so far mostly avoided quoting from smRti in these discussions, with the occasional exception of the Bhagavad-giitaa which is accepted by all Vedaanta schools. We need to have a frank and mature discussion of Vedaantic epistemology. It has been previously explained to me that if someone's school accepts a particular smRti text as authoritative, then all must accept it as authoritative, or else they are offensive. This is simply not acceptable. There are many, many smRiti texts of dubious authority accepted only by a single school, and we cannot possibly reconcile all of them. Authority is shruti, and smRiti is accepted to the extent that it does not contradict shruti. We must have a common sent of pramaanas or else these discussions degenerate into meaningless prajalpa.

7) We have 10-11 principal Upanishads that have been quoted on and/or commented on by all Vedaantic schools, and thus we know that they are shruti. Nevertheless, there seems to be a trend towards ignoring these pramaanas, and instead quoting from less well-known "Upanishads" which don't enjoy the same status. Let me take this moment to say that, not everything with the name "Upanishad" after it is in fact shruti. The ISKCON people have a "Chaitanya Upanishad" which they claim endorses their acharya's divinity. There is also an "Allah Upanishad" floating around. Many "new Upanishads" are being "discovered" in the last several centuries, and we cannot just take it on faith that they are really shruti when some are obviously spurious texts. At the very least, I would expect that an "Upanishad" that is truly unaltered shruti, should be one that has been quoted by acharyas in the remote past and is being actively passed down in the traditional manner. We should not be asked to accept the authority of a text that contains all these wonderful revelations that support only one sect's ideas, when the text in question was never referenced by anyone prior to a few centuries ago.

regards,

IcyCosmic
20 June 2012, 03:46 PM
I've made two threads about this...and I'm still very confused...can someone please explain it to me simply, without sanskrit, or anything...

philosoraptor
20 June 2012, 04:09 PM
I've made two threads about this...and I'm still very confused...can someone please explain it to me simply, without sanskrit, or anything...

Pranams,

It's likely that you are going to get different explanations based on individual members' philosophical leanings. Best not to draw one conclusion from all of them as they are irreconciable. May I suggest instead, that you read Bhagavad-gita? I suggest reading it on a schedule, taking notes, and specifically noting where this subject comes up (which it does, often, beginning with chapter 3).

best wishes,

IcyCosmic
20 June 2012, 04:17 PM
Pranams,

It's likely that you are going to get different explanations based on individual members' philosophical leanings. Best not to draw one conclusion from all of them as they are irreconciable. May I suggest instead, that you read Bhagavad-gita? I suggest reading it on a schedule, taking notes, and specifically noting where this subject comes up (which it does, often, beginning with chapter 3).

best wishes,

I've read it all, multiple times. However people always tell me different things, no ones answer seems to be in union.

Eastern Mind
20 June 2012, 04:19 PM
I've made two threads about this...and I'm still very confused...can someone please explain it to me simply, without sanskrit, or anything...

Vannakkam: I am nowhere near as qualified as any of the other esteemed members here, but I can give you my two bits in basic English, without Sanskrit.

It's both. On a deep (advaitic) level, there is only One, period. Not just one God, but One everything. There used to be a radio program here on public radio called 'Toward the One' and maybe that show's title sums it all up.

But in the more mundane (sometimes called relative realty, as opposed to absolute reality) level where thoughts and differences arise, there are, or can be more than one. I know I'll get into trouble here, but personally, I actually feel Ganesha and Murugan as a different vibration than any of the other 'Supreme Gods". They're explained as having been emanated from Shiva along with a lot of other things.

But Icy, others will have differing POVs, as someone else said. So its up to you (perhaps as a stage in your evolution towards the One) :) to figure out what you think. Why listen to what others think anyway? The answers live within you. (or so, ironically, I have been told.)

Best wishes, and I wouldn't spend sleepless hours all night worrying about it, if I were you.

Aum Namasivaya

Seeker123
20 June 2012, 06:54 PM
Pranams,
More to the point, you have acknowledged that devas are different from Brahman and gain liberation by understanding Him. In that case, how can it follow that one can worship such a deva and get liberation? Is it logical to suggest that worship of an entity who has not attained liberation, can help one attain liberation?
regards,

Namaskar,
Intially you think you are different and later by knowledge you realize you are the same. Devas are not really different. In Kena Upanishad before liberation Devas (Agni, Vayu, Indra) thought they were different from Brahman. As long as a human or deva (Agni, Yama etc.) considers himself as this body alone he thinks he is different from Brahman (there is duality) but when he gains knowledge and owns up to the Brahman then there is only Brahman which is liberation. Generally people do not worship entities that have not attained liberation. But once a deva or human is liberated he/she is worthy of our worship. As I said in the last post it is great if one can worship the formless Brahman but it is hard so form worship helps develop bhakti which is an important Sadhana for liberation. Same way Nirguna dhyana is harder than Saguna dhyana.

Seeker123
20 June 2012, 08:29 PM
I've read it all, multiple times. However people always tell me different things, no ones answer seems to be in union.

Halo IcySFX,

As I said in the other thread read Advaita, Dvaita, V. Advaita thorougly and make up your mind which one to pursue in depth. Philosoraptor had a more specific suggestion which I liked. Read B. Gita not the slim paper-back variety. For Advaita version I recommend Swami Dayananda Saraswathi of AVG which runs 2200+ pages (other members may suggest their version). I am sure Phil can suggest a good Dvaita version and you can ask in V Advaita section too. If this sounds too much you can ask for suggestions for good basic books on the 3 philosophies. Good luck.

devotee
20 June 2012, 09:43 PM
Namaste,

There is difference between "violating Shruti" and "violating one's wrong understanding of Shruti". Shruti is not to be violated but "wrong understanding of Shruti must be violated for getting correct understanding of Shruti and other scriptures.

What I have been quoting here are all Upanishads mentioned under 108 PramANik Upanishads as mentioned in MuktikA Upanishad. However, there are nearly 200 Upanishads which have been accepted as authoritative.

It is nothing but Kutarka to club all Upanishads except the ones which have been commented upon by Shankara as not-authoritative or less authoritative. Did Shankara say that all those Upanishads are not authoritative ? It is highly mischievous to club the authoritative Upanishads with "Allah Upanishad" which has be specifically discarded by all schools and revered saints of Hindu Dharma.


*********************************

When due to our poor understanding of Shruti/Smriti there is violation of a number of Smritis then it is almost sure that the understanding is wrong. Let's see what various Shruti and Smritis say :

1. That one God alone creates, nourishes and destroys this creation. He alone is known as BrahmA, Vishnu and Mahesh. (Vishnu PurANa 1.2.66)

2. That (Brahman) alone is Agni, Surya, VAyu, ChandramA (moon), Shukra, BrahmA and VaruNa. (Yajur VedA 32/1)

3. That beginningless, unborn (Brahman) is called as Shiva by some, as Vishnu by some and BrahmA buy some. (VrihnnAdIya PurANa 12.5)

4. Due to my qualities for giving birth to this creation, nourishment and destruction of it, I appear different as BrahmA, Vishnu and Shiva. In reality, my swaroopa (form) is always non-dual/undifferentiated. ( Shiva PurANA 2.1.9.28)

... and finally, this mantra tells us not to differentiate between various forms of God :

YA BrhamA sa Harih prokto y o Harih sa Maheshwarah |
YA KAli saiva Krishnah syAd yah Krishnah saiva KAlikA ||
Devam Devim samuddisya na kuryAdntaram kvachit |
Tatra bhedo na mantavyah ShivaShaktimayam jagat ||

He who is BrahmA is Hari. He who is Hari is Maheshwara (Shiva). She who is KAli is Krishna, He who is Krishna is alone KAli. It is not correct to create differences in mind in the matter of DevaS and Devis. DevatAs may have a number of names and forms, all are same. This world is full of Shiva and Shakti.

*************
I will take up what is wrong in arguments forwarded in Phil's posts in due course but not now to avoid this thread getting derailed over avoidable silly arguments.

OM

devotee
20 June 2012, 11:25 PM
Namaste Icy,

However, the understanding of Hindu Scriptures is not left to vagaries of one's understanding. You approach any non-sectarian Hindu, any Self Realised saint and ask this question, you will get the same answer : "All forms and names of God refer to One God alone".

Let's try to find the truth which is echoed in various scriptures in various forms. Some scriptures say, "Shiva is Supreme. He alone exists. There nothing except Shiva.". As we have seen above that some other scriptures say the same thing about Indra, Vishnu, Mother Goddess, Sarasvati, Gayatri, Ganpati, Sun God etc.

Now the question is which scripture to accept and which to reject ? If you accept one, the other is apparently violated. Some of us try to think that a few of the scriptures which speak contradictory to the belief they want to hold on are less authoritative (Refer Phil's posts) and should not be considered. However, if we say so, then we assume that all the revered saints who considered these scriptures authoritative must have been less intelligent than us ! That is a sort of Himalayan AhamnkAr !

Certainly the understanding of the scriptures is wrong and not any of the scriptures. What is the catch here ? Let's see the following facts :

a) The Hindus have tried to reach the ultimate worshiping various forms and names of God and have been successful. The Vaishnavas did it through Vishnu, The Shaivas through Shiva, the ShAkta through Shakti. You will find God realised saints in all these paths. So, that proves beyond doubt that God can be found through any of the paths.

b) Hindus have also tried to attain the Ultimate by worshiping and meditating on formless, Nirguna Brahman and have been successful. There are many Self-realised Advaitic Gurus.

c) The Upanishads or the whole of VedAnta is not revealed to a single Self-realised Rishi and so are the various volumes of the SamhitA parts of the Vedas. There are various Rishis who have contributed to the Vedas as we find it today. Some of the Rishis must have been Vaishnavas, some the Shaivas , some the ShAkta, some the devotees of Ganapati, Surya, Indra etc. However, all were God Realised and therefore saying of all of them are authoritative. In fact, the Brahman is also perceived as the food, water, the space etc.

d) What does the c) above tell us ? It only says that the forms and names chosen by the seeker is immaterial as long as he is seeing that form as the Supreme God's. If you call Rose by any other name, will the rose change ? No. It won't.

e) Let's take the help of Mudgala Upanishad quoted by me :

III The single God becoming many; unborn, is born as many. The Adhvaryus worship him as Agni. This as Yajus unites everything. The Samavedins worship as Saman. All is established in him. The serpents meditate on his as poison. The knowers of snake-lore as snake, gods as energy, men as wealth, Demons as Magic, the manes as sustenance. The knowers of the superhuman as superhuman. Gandharvas as beauty, Apsarases as perfume. He becomes whatever he is worshipped as

This sentence is very important : "He becomes whatever he is worshipped as". God is what it is. It has no name and no form. However, a form and name is required for focusing on God due to the nature of our mind. That is why God is worshipped by various names and forms ... and all names of forms and names of God are valid. By giving a particular name, a particular form, God cannot change. God is unchangeable by definition. So, it is the bhAvanA of the devotee which makes the name and form of God as the devotee wants.

OM

grames
21 June 2012, 02:23 AM
Dear.,

Gita can be interpreted by three ways! :). Out of the three, two will firmly declare the Bhagavan aspect as the Supreme with personality or guna as His Svarupa (inherent nature). One another interpretation will give a feel of so called Brahman as made of nothing and then everything else is made of ..mm.. No nothing is is actually made and only the Brahman alone exists.

What is convincing you! It depends on your nature in terms of your understanding capabilities, rationality and believing with proof by the means of various evidences. A simple plain statement like, God exist has no value in the Hindu Dharma system so why you have three different interpretations.

Also a note of caution... Gita now has million interpretations and everyday there is few more new ones available in the market. Most of them are mixing and matching to please the reader rather than conveying what actually Gita conveys. Be sincere.., u will be given the right understanding of Gita. Thats Krishna's promise.

Hare Krshna!



I've read it all, multiple times. However people always tell me different things, no ones answer seems to be in union.

IcyCosmic
21 June 2012, 08:41 AM
First of all I must thank everyone who replied, and to Philos. who sent me a very in-depth PM, it definetely helped clear the air a bit. I won't lie and say that I'm still not confused.

To me the intricacies are very important and irrelevant at the same time, from what I have always thought as a child the bottom line should be your devotion, faith, and love for god - being a good citizen in society, following the fundamental rules set within hinduism like (ahimsa) and leading a pure life and with that knowledge even if other details are followed incorrectly then there should be no issue or problem at all, after all most of you preach that unlike the abrahamic misconceptions god is not a sky-ruler dealing punishments for all, and he will not buy your love with threat of pain. So in essence, it is my (personal) belief a pure soul, who worships the lord with a pure heart, with pure intentions [to put it simply] will have no issue achieveing god. There shouldn't even be a shadow of doubt. Whether he calls god, Bubblegum and worships him through a rock if the intentions are crystal clear then nothing bad will happen. If thats due to my lack of current gross understanding or just my naivity I don't know but thats what I've thought since I was a child.

So if I can simplify things to such a level why am I making it more difficult for myself? After all most Yogi's and Gurus who are presented with devotees problems often break them down and simplify them so the person who asks understands that in the grand scheme of things it not a big problem at all, and their worrying was irrelevant. It's just in my nature to be very finicky with details, and get to the root of things. I'm obviously not as well versed with these scriptures as you all at the moment. Is it not possible that all three philosophies? Advaita, Dvaita and what not are all correct at the same time, and are equally as righteous towards achieveing the supreme? Why must we argue which path is wholly more beneficial - I do think that god will have created so many different ways, paths, beliefs, choices, within hinduism so that the user can mould hinduism to his own nature. That is why is it so flexible. That is why other people from other faiths often clash with scriptures as it is frozen expression, if one does not follow the set rules of the qu'ran or bible, they are wrong. period. However hinduism has that leeway of freedom so surely it is the individual who can (within reason) choose a righteous path that will be most effective for him personally. I see no reason why god will have an issue with someone worshipping him impersonally (if he doesnt have the correct knowledge) and he is doing it from the heart. That is from what I understand of hinduism. I don't know. I'm still trying to understand.

Every single Hindu elder I meet, I'm sure to ask them, is worshipping Shiva as the supreme a correct thing to do? Some will say yes, there is no issue. Some will say, no adamantly and say it is foolish. None will say that its up to you, or that worshipping Shiva or Krishna is the same. When I bring up the line within the Gita where Krishna says worshipping Shiva will send you to his planet, and not gods adobe - some say, 'oh its a wrong translation', others 'no that is wrong you may worship shiva', others will say 'its fine as long as you have the knowledge of their difference', others will say 'yes you will go to shivaloka and not achieve moksha'. Where is the oneness in the answers? To this point, I still have no idea what is going on. The only thing I can and still believe in is what I mentioned earlier. Be a good human being and as per karma the lord will ensure you reap what you sow. Period.

philosoraptor
21 June 2012, 09:34 AM
Namaskar,
Intially you think you are different and later by knowledge you realize you are the same. Devas are not really different. In Kena Upanishad before liberation Devas (Agni, Vayu, Indra) thought they were different from Brahman. As long as a human or deva (Agni, Yama etc.) considers himself as this body alone he thinks he is different from Brahman (there is duality) but when he gains knowledge and owns up to the Brahman then there is only Brahman which is liberation. Generally people do not worship entities that have not attained liberation. But once a deva or human is liberated he/she is worthy of our worship. As I said in the last post it is great if one can worship the formless Brahman but it is hard so form worship helps develop bhakti which is an important Sadhana for liberation. Same way Nirguna dhyana is harder than Saguna dhyana.

Pranams,

From what I have read in the Upanishads so far (by Upanishads, I mean those texts that are accepted by all as such, not merely the later potentially spurious texts assumed by some to be genuine), "sameness" in the matter of Brahman and the jIva refers to realization of one's self as a part or mode or attribute of Brahman rather than an absolute sameness. Brahman is said to be of the nature of knowledge while the jIvAtma has the propensity to become deluded by contact with prakRti. For two things to be absolutely the same, they must have identical properties, and that is not the case here. In the Gita, Sri Krishna explains that He is higher than both aparA-prakRti (matter) and the parA-prakRti (constituting the jIvas) - see chapter 7. Arjuna never realizes he is Sri Krishna in the Gita. Indeed, the whole idea that they are same results in logical problems. First, according to this point of view, has Sri Krishna attained Brahman-realization or not? If not, then He is also deluded by association with prakRti and His words do not carry absolute authority. If He has realized this Brahman/oneness with everything, then how is it that He is perceiving Arjuna as a separate entity and instructing him in knowledge? This is merely one of many inconsistencies in Advaita.

regards,

philosoraptor
21 June 2012, 09:39 AM
First of all I must thank everyone who replied, and to Philos. who sent me a very in-depth PM, it definetely helped clear the air a bit. I won't lie and say that I'm still not confused.

To me the intricacies are very important and irrelevant at the same time, from what I have always thought as a child the bottom line should be your devotion, faith, and love for god - being a good citizen in society, following the fundamental rules set within hinduism like (ahimsa) and leading a pure life and with that knowledge even if other details are followed incorrectly then there should be no issue or problem at all, after all most of you preach that unlike the abrahamic misconceptions god is not a sky-ruler dealing punishments for all, and he will not buy your love with threat of pain. So in essence, it is my (personal) belief a pure soul, who worships the lord with a pure heart, with pure intentions [to put it simply] will have no issue achieveing god. There shouldn't even be a shadow of doubt. Whether he calls god, Bubblegum and worships him through a rock if the intentions are crystal clear then nothing bad will happen. If thats due to my lack of current gross understanding or just my naivity I don't know but thats what I've thought since I was a child.

So if I can simplify things to such a level why am I making it more difficult for myself? After all most Yogi's and Gurus who are presented with devotees problems often break them down and simplify them so the person who asks understands that in the grand scheme of things it not a big problem at all, and their worrying was irrelevant. It's just in my nature to be very finicky with details, and get to the root of things. I'm obviously not as well versed with these scriptures as you all at the moment. Is it not possible that all three philosophies? Advaita, Dvaita and what not are all correct at the same time, and are equally as righteous towards achieveing the supreme? Why must we argue which path is wholly more beneficial - I do think that god will have created so many different ways, paths, beliefs, choices, within hinduism so that the user can mould hinduism to his own nature. That is why is it so flexible. That is why other people from other faiths often clash with scriptures as it is frozen expression, if one does not follow the set rules of the qu'ran or bible, they are wrong. period. However hinduism has that leeway of freedom so surely it is the individual who can (within reason) choose a righteous path that will be most effective for him personally. I see no reason why god will have an issue with someone worshipping him impersonally (if he doesnt have the correct knowledge) and he is doing it from the heart. That is from what I understand of hinduism. I don't know. I'm still trying to understand.

Every single Hindu elder I meet, I'm sure to ask them, is worshipping Shiva as the supreme a correct thing to do? Some will say yes, there is no issue. Some will say, no adamantly and say it is foolish. None will say that its up to you, or that worshipping Shiva or Krishna is the same. When I bring up the line within the Gita where Krishna says worshipping Shiva will send you to his planet, and not gods adobe - some say, 'oh its a wrong translation', others 'no that is wrong you may worship shiva', others will say 'its fine as long as you have the knowledge of their difference', others will say 'yes you will go to shivaloka and not achieve moksha'. Where is the oneness in the answers? To this point, I still have no idea what is going on. The only thing I can and still believe in is what I mentioned earlier. Be a good human being and as per karma the lord will ensure you reap what you sow. Period.

Pranams,

Icy, if you will pardon me for saying this, I think your confusion is not due to the philosophy or because you are not intelligent. It is because, you are still trying to reconcile what you are reading with what you see being done amongst your friends and family.

I had the same confusion once.

After a while, I came to realize that not everything I saw being practiced and preached in the name of Hinduism was necessarily genuine, nor was it all necessarily false. It is the reality that what we call "Hinduism" has devolved considerably from its ancient, philosophical roots. This is not to say that you have to be in conflict with other people over differences. Rather, you should feel free to pursue the path that is taught in shAstra and tolerate the fact that others around you may not be doing so and/or might just be on their own/different/indirect paths. Once I got free of the idea that I had to reconcile what I read with every practice or belief I saw within the umbrella of Hinduism, it became a lot easier for me to commit myself to sincere study.

You should respect your elders and family members, naturally. But recognize that, if you are reading and they are not, you may be in a different position to evaluate the merits or lack thereof of certain beliefs.

Hopefully you will figure out in time what I am saying.

philosoraptor
21 June 2012, 09:43 AM
Halo IcySFX,

As I said in the other thread read Advaita, Dvaita, V. Advaita thorougly and make up your mind which one to pursue in depth. Philosoraptor had a more specific suggestion which I liked. Read B. Gita not the slim paper-back variety. For Advaita version I recommend Swami Dayananda Saraswathi of AVG which runs 2200+ pages (other members may suggest their version). I am sure Phil can suggest a good Dvaita version and you can ask in V Advaita section too. If this sounds too much you can ask for suggestions for good basic books on the 3 philosophies. Good luck.

I gave some recommendations in another forum, I think it was the "Is Brahma Important or Not" thread.

Also, if you just want straightforward text without commentary, you can try the edition by Gita Press. However, I do recommend that you read the commentaries, preferably more than one, and that you stick to the traditional acharyas. Most of the newer commentaries that I have seen are largely useless.

philosoraptor
21 June 2012, 10:35 AM
Pranams,



What I have been quoting here are all Upanishads mentioned under 108 PramANik Upanishads as mentioned in MuktikA Upanishad. However, there are nearly 200 Upanishads which have been accepted as authoritative.


Accepted by whom is the question which I keep raising. So far as I can see, they seem to be only accepted by your sect, which again brings to mind the question about quoting only sectarian texts to win intersectarian debates.

I'm aware of the Muktikaa Upanishad listing 108 Upanishads. But again, who knows for certain that Muktikaa Upanishad is genuine? I would like to believe that it is, but I only know of an Advaitin yogi who commented on it in the 1800's. Prior to that I know of no references to it. Perhaps there are older references that can attest to its antiquity, but I'm sure many members would appreciate knowing what those are before assuming that all these Upanishads (which none of the ancient commentators appear to have commented on) are real.



It is nothing but Kutarka to club all Upanishads except the ones which have been commented upon by Shankara as not-authoritative or less authoritative. Did Shankara say that all those Upanishads are not authoritative ? It is highly mischievous to club the authoritative Upanishads with "Allah Upanishad" which has be specifically discarded by all schools and revered saints of Hindu Dharma.

The problem is, I didn't do that. I simply asked for some reasonable standard of evidence by which I can infer that the Upanishads you quoted are genuine. Of the Upanishads you quoted, can you show where for example, they were at least quoted by Shankaracharya in his commentaries? Can you show where any of them were quoted in the writings of any acharya before, say 16th or 17th centuries? If not, then how do you know they are really shruti, as opposed to spurious texts authored in later times?

I would appreciate some reasonable attempt to answer these questions, instead of the current tactic of knocking down strawmen.



When due to our poor understanding of Shruti/Smriti there is violation of a number of Smritis then it is almost sure that the understanding is wrong.

First of all, you and I both know you don't believe that. I can quote abundantly from Varaaha Puraana, Vishnu Puraana, and Bhaagavata Puraana (among others) to show that only Narayana is Brahman while other devas are His devotees. Would you accept such evidence? Let's see:

bhAgavata purANa 4.29.42-44: States that Brahmaa, Shiva, and the devarshis, despite being masters of the Vedas, cannot know the Parama Ishvara prefectly.
bhAgavata purANa 6.9.42: The devas pray to Vaasudeva, comparing themselves to mere sparks to His fire.
bhAgavata purANa 8.6.2: The devas are blinded by Vishnu's effulgence. Later, Brahma prays to Vishnu as a devotee.
bhAgavata purANa 9.4.52-56: Durvaasa Muni goes to Brahmaa and then to Shiva seeking protection from Lord Vishnu's sudarshana chakra. Both of them tell him they cannot protect him because they themselves are surrendered devotees and do not equal him in power.
bhAgavata purANa 10.35.14-15: When Krishna plays His flute, even Brahmaa, Shiva, and other devas headed by Indra become enchanted and bow in reverence.

Actually, I have so many notes from the puraanas that substantiate these points that I can never end the posting if I continue. Now, as devotee himself said, "When due to our poor understanding of Shruti/Smriti there is violation of a number of Smritis then it is almost sure that the understanding is wrong." Devotee, I have in my non-exhaustive notes, at least 54 references from 3 major puraanas substantiating the point that Naarayaana is the supreme Brahman, superior even to the devas. I also catalogued references equating devas to Naaraayana - there are about 22 such references from the same sources. In the latter case, the references never treat the anya-devatas as the one Brahman who supports everything. Now, since you believe that Narayana and the devas are all the same, independent, Supreme Brahman, are you, according to your own words, prepared to acknowledge that your understanding is "wrong?"




1. That one God alone creates, nourishes and destroys this creation. He alone is known as BrahmA, Vishnu and Mahesh. (Vishnu PurANa 1.2.66)

2. That (Brahman) alone is Agni, Surya, VAyu, ChandramA (moon), Shukra, BrahmA and VaruNa. (Yajur VedA 32/1)

3. That beginningless, unborn (Brahman) is called as Shiva by some, as Vishnu by some and BrahmA buy some. (VrihnnAdIya PurANa 12.5)

4. Due to my qualities for giving birth to this creation, nourishment and destruction of it, I appear different as BrahmA, Vishnu and Shiva. In reality, my swaroopa (form) is always non-dual/undifferentiated. ( Shiva PurANA 2.1.9.28)



So far as I can see, none of those references establish anything other than the fact that the one Brahman aka Narayana is also known by the names of anya-devatas (which was never under dispute). If there were not evidence showing that the same devas are subordinate to Brahman, then I would agree that your evidence would seem conclusive. Unfortunately, you ignored all of the evidence showing that those anya-devatas as subservient to Brahman:

Rig Veda 7.40.5: Rudra gets his strength by propitiating Vishnu
Rig Veda 7.99.1-4: Vishnu is said to create Suurya and Agni
Rig Veda 10.90.13: States that Brahman (here addressed as The Purusha) created Suurya, Agni, Indra, Vaayu, and Chandra
Rig Veda 10.121.2: States that He (here addressed as Hiranyagarbha) is the "Giver of vital breath, of power and vigour, he whose commandments all the gods acknowledge."
Rig Veda 10.190.3: States that Brahman (here addressed as Dhaatar) created Suurya and Chandra
Aitareya Upanishad 1.2.1-4: States that He created the devas, provided them with nourishment, and ordered them into their respective abodes
Brihadaaranyaka Upanishad 1.3.1-18: Refers to the devas as Prajaapati's sons, and explains how they had to surpass the asuras by learning the process of yagna (they could not do it without).
Brihadaaranyaka Upanishad 1.4.10: Says that only the devas "became that" (Brahman) by understanding knowing Brahman. But if the devas are already the all-knowing Brahman, then from whence the question of not understanding that?
Brihadaaranyaka Upanishad 2.1.20: States that all devas emanate from Brahman. Note that this mantra concludes the chapter in which Gargya speaks of meditating on Brahman within each of the devas.
Brihadaaranyaka Upanishad 3.6.1: Gaargi asks by what is the world of the devas pervaded. The ultimate answer is of course Brahman. But the point is, the devas, if Brahman, shouldn't be pervaded by something else.
Brihadaaranyaka Upanishad 3.9.1-11: This is the famous antaryaami Braahmana in which it is stated that Brahman inhabits (among other things) the various devas presiding over moon, sky, the directions, the sun, etc, yet is not known by them.
Brihadaaranyaka Upanishad 4.4.16: States that the devas meditate on that Brahman as light/longevity.
Brihadaaranyaka Upanishad 5.5.1: States that the devas, along with men and asuras are Prajaapati's sons.
Brihadaaranyaka Upanishad 5.5.1: States that Brahman created Prajaapati, and Prajaapati created the devas.
Chaandogya Upanishad 4.3.1-7: Describe He who swallowed the other four devas (agni, vAyu, ApaH, prAna), and then describes Him as the creator of all beings.
Katha Upanishad 2.3.3: States that the devas (Agni, Vaayu, Indra, Suurya, and Mrtyu) carry out their respective functions out of fear of Him (Brahman).
Kena Upanishad 2.1: States that knowledge of what the devas know is insufficient to know Brahman.
Kena Upanishad 3.1-12: States that Brahman won victory for the devas, and explains how neither Indra, nor Agni, nor Vaayu could overcome the power of Brahman, and how Uma had to teach them about who Brahman is.
Mundaka Upanishad 2.1.7: States that from Him emerged the devas and all other living entities.
Prashna Upanishad 2.1-4: Explains how the various devas presiding over different parts of the body are all subordinate to Praana.
gItA 3.10-11: Krishna says that He sent forth men and devas at the beginning of creation, and recommends yagna so that devas can supply various necessities of life.
gItA 7.23: Krishna says that one result is obtained by worship of anya-devatas and another result is obtained by His worship
gItA 9.23: Krishna says that those who worship other devas actually worship Him, albeit with improper understanding (avidhi-pUrvakam)
gItA 11.15 Arjuna says he saw Brahma and Shiva within the vishvarUpa along with all other devas
gItA 11.21 he says that some of the devas are fearful of Him while others are offering prayers to Him
gItA 11.37 Krishna is referred to as "Lord of the devas." (deva-Isha)
gItA 11.52 Krishna says that even the devas are ever wanting to behold this form of His

Thus, you have not really reconciled the bedha and abedha statements. All you have done is emphasize the abedha statements and ignore the bedha statements.



... and finally, this mantra tells us not to differentiate between various forms of God :

YA BrhamA sa Harih prokto y o Harih sa Maheshwarah |
YA KAli saiva Krishnah syAd yah Krishnah saiva KAlikA ||
Devam Devim samuddisya na kuryAdntaram kvachit |
Tatra bhedo na mantavyah ShivaShaktimayam jagat ||

He who is BrahmA is Hari. He who is Hari is Maheshwara (Shiva). She who is KAli is Krishna, He who is Krishna is alone KAli. It is not correct to create differences in mind in the matter of DevaS and Devis. DevatAs may have a number of names and forms, all are same. This world is full of Shiva and Shakti.


Can we have the source for this mantra, or is this another one of those things we are are supposed to accept as authoritative merely because you say it is?



I have found that ISKCON suffers from incurable wrong-thinking and feels compulsion to prove supremacy of Vishnu/Krishna over other forms of God. This has happened on this forum a number of times. Those who are again trying to do the same in this thread, automatically come under the doubts of being an ISKCONite.

I will take up what is wrong in arguments forwarded in Phil's posts in due course but not now to avoid this thread getting derailed over avoidable silly arguments.

OM

Frankly speaking, devotee, your style of argument has quite a bit in common with many ISKCON devotees with whom I've previously sparred with. Let me outline the similarities as I have observed them so far:

1) Like ISKCON, you have a tendency to quote from obscure pramaanas, especially when your understanding of mainstream pramaanas is questioned.
2) Also like ISKCON, you require people to accept the validity of said pramaanas solely on the basis that your own sect accepts them. Scrutiny of said position is met with hostility and outrage.
3) Again like ISKCON, when someone disagrees with you, you repeatedly accuse them of "kutarka" (well, ISKCON people will say "mundane wrangling" or something similar).
4) Again like ISKCON, you tend to filter out any and all evidence which contradicts your views.

Actually, as I read your postings, I thought up until now that you were an ISKCON devotee - until you started insinuating that I was one. What a strange world we live in....

regards,

yajvan
21 June 2012, 11:29 AM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namasté


I've read it all, multiple times. However people always tell me different things, no ones answer seems to be in union.
Yudhiṣṭhira says the following:
...the sruti-s are different from one another; there is not even one ṛṣi whose opinion can be accepted by all; the truth about religion and duty is hid in caves: therefore, that alone is the path along which the great have trod.' - mahābhārata, yakṣa¹ prasna


So, what are we to do ? So much knowledge, so many view-points.
We do the best we can to discriminate. We sharpen the intellect to do so. We improve ṛtam ( truth that can discriminate) inside ourselves. We improve the instriments of cognition to seperate truth from un-truth.

OR ... we become blessed and live with and frequent an enlightened being to remove all doubts.

praṇām

words
1. yakṣa - a living supernatural being , of a class of semi-divine beings

Ganeshprasad
21 June 2012, 01:27 PM
Pranam


hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namasté


Yudhiṣṭhira says the following:
...the sruti-s are different from one another; there is not even one ṛṣi whose opinion can be accepted by all; the truth about religion and duty is hid in caves: therefore, that alone is the path along which the great have trod.' - mahābhārata, yakṣa¹ prasna


I seems at that time the idea that ‘Brahman has many names but only one name has the domain above all’ then there would not have been any need to trod that path hidden in the cave; the cave deep in the core of the heart or the Himalayas.

Jai Shree Krishna

grames
21 June 2012, 01:44 PM
evam Narayana aseet na brahmA na ISAna..

Only Narayana was there!

nArAyanah param brahmah'

Narayana is Para Brahma!

'shiva eva svayam saakshaat ayam brahma vidhuttama'

Only Shiva is the best knower of this Brahman!


"nArAyana paramBRahma| tattvam nArAyaNaH paraH|"
"nArAyaNa paro jyothiH| AtmA nArAyaNaH paraH|"

This 'Na' cannot refer to anyone else! Very specific and pointed reference with out any ambiguity

Seeker123
21 June 2012, 01:47 PM
Pranams,

From what I have read in the Upanishads so far (by Upanishads, I mean those texts that are accepted by all as such, not merely the later potentially spurious texts assumed by some to be genuine), "sameness" in the matter of Brahman and the jIva refers to realization of one's self as a part or mode or attribute of Brahman rather than an absolute sameness. Brahman is said to be of the nature of knowledge while the jIvAtma has the propensity to become deluded by contact with prakRti. For two things to be absolutely the same, they must have identical properties, and that is not the case here. In the Gita, Sri Krishna explains that He is higher than both aparA-prakRti (matter) and the parA-prakRti (constituting the jIvas) - see chapter 7. Arjuna never realizes he is Sri Krishna in the Gita. Indeed, the whole idea that they are same results in logical problems. First, according to this point of view, has Sri Krishna attained Brahman-realization or not? If not, then He is also deluded by association with prakRti and His words do not carry absolute authority. If He has realized this Brahman/oneness with everything, then how is it that He is perceiving Arjuna as a separate entity and instructing him in knowledge? This is merely one of many inconsistencies in Advaita.

regards,

Vanakkam,

The absolute identity or sameness comes at Paramarthika level, i.e. when one is self realized (Aham Brahmasmi, Tat tvamasi). At that level there is no difference between a Jnani and God - It is sat chit ananda, existence - consciousness - bliss. At Vyavaharika level sure there are different bodies and even a Jnani has to recognize that to function. That is what Krishna was doing. One should not move between the 2 levels at the same time. For example a Jnani cant say All is same so if you eat I am eating etc.

I love Bhagavata Purana and Krishna's leelas.

Om Namo Bhagavate Vasudevaya.

grames
21 June 2012, 01:51 PM
Does "Vyavaharika level" real or unreal? :)

Just curious...

In Non-existence there is no existence or is it just that existence is non existent in non-existence? Or is it like, it is existence but not real so non-existence or it is non-existence and also not real and thus non-existence? or somewhat in between and neither existant nor non-existant?

philosoraptor
21 June 2012, 02:00 PM
Vanakkam,

The absolute identity or sameness comes at Paramarthika level, i.e. when one is self realized (Aham Brahmasmi, Tat tvamasi). At that level there is no difference between a Jnani and God - It is sat chit ananda, existence - consciousness - bliss. At Vyavaharika level sure there are different bodies and even a Jnani has to recognize that to function. That is what Krishna was doing. One should not move between the 2 levels at the same time. For example a Jnani cant say All is same so if you eat I am eating etc.

I love Bhagavata Purana and Krishna's leelas.

Om Namo Bhagavate Vasudevaya.

Pranams.

Seeker, you should know that, in the Upanishads I alluded to, there is no explicit mention of all this being true only in some illusory sense or alternate level of perception.

The arbitrary designation of bedha shrutis as being on the vyavahaarika level only while abedha shrutis refer to the paramaarthika level, essentially makes the authority of the shruti dependent on the person imposing this dichotomy of perception.

regards,

philosoraptor
21 June 2012, 02:11 PM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namasté


Yudhiṣṭhira says the following:
...the sruti-s are different from one another; there is not even one ṛṣi whose opinion can be accepted by all; the truth about religion and duty is hid in caves: therefore, that alone is the path along which the great have trod.' - mahābhārata, yakṣa¹ prasna


So, what are we to do ? So much knowledge, so many view-points.
We do the best we can to discriminate. We sharpen the intellect to do so. We improve ṛtam ( truth that can discriminate) inside ourselves. We improve the instriments of cognition to seperate truth from un-truth.

OR ... we become blessed and live with and frequent an enlightened being to remove all doubts.

praṇām

words
1. yakṣa - a living supernatural being , of a class of semi-divine beings

Pranams,

I've not yet checked the context of this remark. I remember the basic story, but I don't recall reading anything to the effect that shrutis should be regarded as mutually contradictory and inconsistent.

If we can't trust the shruti to guide us, which I think is the point you are making by quoting this, and instead must simply follow the path of the "the great," then what authority do we have to determine who is "great" and who is not?

Does it all become subjective at that point? As in, if I think, for example, that Bhagwan Rajneesh aka Osho is "great," then that is the right path for me?

Note that I only bring up this obnoxious individual to make a point. No offense is intended.

Just FYI, I did read a similar statement spoken by Lord Vishnu and recorded in the Varaaha Puraana. Therein, His point was merely that the dharma-shAstras are different, reflecting different points of view of different rishis. For example, some rishis prescribed one type of vrata while others did not. His point was that all of these had to be respected, not that shruti was inconsistent.

regards,

philosoraptor
21 June 2012, 03:01 PM
I found the quote yajvan posted. It is in the Araneya Parva (part of Vana Parva - chapter 313).

The question asked by Dharma in the guise of a Yaksha is "What is the path?"

In answer to this, Yudhishthira says:

tarkO 'pratiShTaH shrutayo vibhinnA naiko RShiryasya mataM pramANam |
dharmasya tattvaM nihitaM guhAyAM mahAjano yena gataH sa panthAH ||

"Discussions do not lead to definite conclusions. The shrutis are divided. And there is not a single Rishi whose opinions can be accepted as conclusive. Truth about religious matters is hidden in caves. (therefore) that is the proper path which has been followed by great men."

Prior to this, Yudhishthira lauds knowledge of the veda as the best sort of wealth and says that the religion of the Veda always bears fruit.

It seems pretty clear from context that Yudhishthira's point is merely that argument is not a substitute for following in the path of mahaajanas. One has to perform religious acts, not abstain from them until discussion can establish which vrata or which yagna is best. Discussion/argument cannot conclusively establish that. Most likely, the "divided opinion" Yudhishthira is referring to are the different yagnas or different meditations that are prescribed in different shrutis.

I assume that all of the participants in this discussion are following their respective sadhanas, observing strict regulation of their food intake (i.e. vegetarians), and practicing the other virtues that have been taught to them by their respective sampradaayas.

We aren't arguing here about which yagna is best or which yoga-system is best. Our discussion is about the basic underlying reality which the Vedas teach. It is highly unlikely that Yudhishthira would say they contradict each other in regards to their basic worldview about Brahman when he previously praised knowledge of Veda as the greatest wealth!

Ganeshprasad
21 June 2012, 03:07 PM
Pranam

Thank you devotee ji to start this thread, I like the idea of expanding this sruti, where it is mentioned that eakam sad vipra bhadu vadanti, without recourse to unusual interpretation, my way or the highway attitude, killing off devas at times to prove ones point.
So it’s no surprise you intended to avoid that but human nature will always persists. There was this this time when to utter shiv even if it is to do with sewing a garment was a taboo, even now there is amongst certain sects like ten commandments, ten offenses, I think it is a second offense, that to equate names of Shiva or Brahma to be equal to Vishnu, so for me this claim that all names belong to Vishnu sounds a bit hollow, when you can’t even chant them.

How can that be so, when it is given in samhita?

The core of the Vedas

The Holy Five Syllables namaH SivAya is the heart of vedas. It is the core of the very famous chapter of vedas that stands in the middle of the vedas - the shata rudrIyam or rudra sUktam. This great mantra of veda samhita while hailing the God as the Lord of everything of the worlds, salutes the God as namaH SivAya cha SivatarAya cha.

For the time being I will resist citing from Puranas that eulogise Shiva from Shiva or Linga but use mainly ithihas or the other puranas.

From The Mahabharata, Anusasana Parva
Section XIV
The blessed Vishnu said: "I salute Mahadeva. Salutations to Thee. O Thou that art eternal origin of all things. The Rishis say that Thou art the Lord of the Vedas. The righteous say that Thou art Penance, Thou art Sattwa, Thou art Rajas, Thou art Tamas, and Thou art truth…….
The puissant Sankara then, devoted to the good of the universe, looked at the goddess Uma and the lord of the celestials and myself also, and thus spoke unto me":
"We know, O Krishna, that Thou, O slayer of foes, art filled with the greatest devotion towards us. Do what is for Thy good. My love and affection for Thee is very great. ----

The following is from the Tulasi Ramayana, Uttara-Kanda, Doha 45:

"Sankara Bhajan Bina Nara Bhagati Na Paavai Mori"
Sri Rama said: "With joined palms I lay before you all another secret doctrine: without adoring Sankara (Lord Siva) man cannot attain devotion to Me."


Story from SAra KAndam - Chapters Four & Ten

RAma's worship of Siva

Ananda RAmAyaNam gives at least 2 instances where RAma worships Siva.

1) Chapter Four describes SrI RAma's daily activities; it is said that RAma did agnihOtram and worshiped the sphatika lingam every day offering vilvam and flowers.

2) Chapter 10 talks about RAma's worship again: Before building the bridge(sEtu) on the ocean, RAma did pooja for Lord VignEswara (GaNapati); with NaLan's help, He established 9 stones for Navagrahams and prayed to Navagrahams.

Sri RAma then wished to establish a Sivalingam and asked HanumAn to get a Sivalingam from Lord Siva from KAsi (Benares). HanumAn did not arrive with the lingam before the auspicious time; so, RAma made a lingam out of sand and performed Siva worship. Later, the lingam brought
by HanumAn was also established close by. [The lingam established by Sri RAma is called RAmanAthalingam and the lingam established by HanumAn is called ViswanAtha lingam in RAmEswaram

Bhagavatam

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 Brahma, Visnu and Mahesvara 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.

Narad Pancharatra:

Shivo Harirhariha Shakshatchiva Eva Nirupitaha |
Shivadveshi Haridrohi Vishnum Nityam Bhajanapi ||


So as not to forget the Devis;
DEVI UPANISHAD, INCLUDED IN THE ATHARVA-VEDA


5. I uphold Soma, Tvastir, Pusan and Bhaga, The wide-stepping Vishnu, Brahma, Prajapati.


8. Those gods said: Salutation to the Goddess, the great Goddess ! To Siva, the auspicious, salutation, for ever more. To blessed Prakriti, salutation ! Ever to Her we bow.

11. To holy Siva, to Daksha’s daughter, To Aditi and Sarasvati, To Skanda’s Mother, Vishnu’s Power, To Night of death by Brahma lauded, We render obeisance.

12. Know we, Great Lakshmi, Goddess of good Fortune; On all fulfilment do we meditate. May the Goddess inspire us !


20. Seed all-powerful of the Goddess’ mantra, Is sky, conjoined with ‘i’ and fire, With crescent moon adorned.

Jai Shree Krishna

philosoraptor
21 June 2012, 06:41 PM
So as not to forget the Devis;
DEVI UPANISHAD, INCLUDED IN THE ATHARVA-VEDA
5. I uphold Soma, Tvastir, Pusan and Bhaga, The wide-stepping Vishnu, Brahma, Prajapati.
8. Those gods said: Salutation to the Goddess, the great Goddess ! To Siva, the auspicious, salutation, for ever more. To blessed Prakriti, salutation ! Ever to Her we bow.
11. To holy Siva, to Daksha’s daughter, To Aditi and Sarasvati, To Skanda’s Mother, Vishnu’s Power, To Night of death by Brahma lauded, We render obeisance.
12. Know we, Great Lakshmi, Goddess of good Fortune; On all fulfilment do we meditate. May the Goddess inspire us !
20. Seed all-powerful of the Goddess’ mantra, Is sky, conjoined with ‘i’ and fire, With crescent moon adorned.
Jai Shree Krishna

Pardon me, but on behalf of the International Hindu Committee for Deva-Equality, I am highly incensed at the reference to Parvathi as "Vishnu's Power." Offended even. Obviously, Ganesh Prasad does not understand the party line that all devas are the SAME, and any statement to the contrary is belittling to those devas.

Out of respect for the followers of Devi, I request that the above posting be removed, and that public lashings be instituted for anyone else who dares to suggest that Devi is in any way dependent on, belonging to, serving, or being the power of, any other deity.

Obviously, the poster in question cannot be blamed this time as he innocently quoted from a Hindu scripture. To correct this problem, I as chairman of the above-named committee, will be conducting an extensive review of all these Upanishads and Puranas so that we can edit out all these references, both explicit and implied, to deity hierarchies. Remember - all gods are the same, and this is the conclusion of our scriptures. And to make sure everyone gets the point, we will edit out all references to the contrary!

With your support, we can hopefully make sure this tragedy never misleads our innocent Hindu youth again.

yajvan
21 June 2012, 07:26 PM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namasté


It is highly unlikely that Yudhishthira would say they contradict each other in regards to their basic worldview about Brahman when he previously praised knowledge of Veda as the greatest wealth!
The point that was offered ( and still is) , is regarding the various ṛṣi-s and their views on reality. I do not believe yudhiṣṭhira was finding fault. His intellect is too keen.

This is where the string was headed ( in my opinion); there are various views of the Supreme, of Reality. It is single, and at the same time multi-faceted, hence the quote from yudhiṣṭhira seems spot on.

Also,


the sruti-s are different from one another
This does not suggest contention or counterdiction... it suggests multiple views of the same reality. It is no different then the 6 sytems within sanātana dharma , the various schools of thought. The 6 (traditional) systems of Indian philosophy - this is called saḍ darśana or the 6 schools of vision, seeing, sight. We know them as :

śāṁkhya
yoga
vedānta
mīmāṃsā
nyāya
vaiśeṣikaThe 6 darśana-s दर्शन (seeing, looking, knowledge, traditional doctrine or precept , collection of such doctrines) are so complete in themselves, that many people took the 6 to be different views. This is not the case, it is the 6, when taken as whole give a 360º view of Reality. This is the point that I wished to offer. If I have done a poor job of setting the stage for this to occur , I ask your pardon.


praṇām

devotee
21 June 2012, 10:52 PM
Namaste,

Those people who are refuting VedAnta and various other scriptures (except those that suit them) are worth worshipping as they must be greater than the Rishis who revealed all those scriptures to us Hindus. I must believe that they are God-realised or even more than God-realised as they are able to refute even the God-reaised Rishis. Actually, leaving aside all discussion and throwing all scriptures in the dustbin one should start following them. They apparently have reached a stage where “Tatra VedAh avedAh bahavanti” (Where the Vedas become Avedas). So, I am unable to entertain them in this discussion. May all such people pardon me.

Another issue, here, very interestingly has been proposed that Samhita part of the Vedas are Apaurusheya and so VedAnta's can be seen as having a lower status. Bhagwad Gita has been considered as the essence of VedAnta. Vedas (the Samhita portion) focus mostly on how to attain worldly pleasures and how to attain heaven. This part of Vedas doesn't have the highest knowledge and therefore, Lord Krishna doesn't give much importance to it in Bhagwad Gita :

Arjuna, those who are full of worldly desires and devoted to the letter of the Vedas, who look upon heaven, as the supreme goal and argue that there is nothing beyond heaven are unwise. They utter flowery speech recommending many rituals of various kinds for the attainment of pleasure and power with rebirth as their fruit. Those whose minds are carried away by such words, and who are deeply attached to pleasures and worldly power, cannot attain the determinate intellect concentrated on God. (42&44)

Arjuna, the Vedas thus deal with the evolutes of the three Gunas (modes of Prakati), viz., worldly enjoyments and the means of attaining such enjoyments; be thou indifferent to these enjoyments and their means, rising above pairs of opposites like pleasure and pain etc., established in the Eternal Existence (God), absolutely unconcerned about the fulfilment of wants and the preservation of what has been already attained, and self-controlled. (45)

A BrAhmana (Knower of Brahman), who has obtained enlightenment, has as much use for all the Vedas as one who stands at the brink of a sheet of water overflowing on all sides has for a small reservoir of water. (46)

I will certainly take up issues raised by the esteemed members here but I must first finish presenting the Viewpoint of VedAnta.

OM

devotee
22 June 2012, 05:15 AM
Namaste,

Let's take some of the assumptions considered by some esteemed members :


There is one Brahman worshipped in many names and forms, the meditation/worship of whom is the only direct means of attaining liberation.

There are also many other devas who are subordinate to Brahman, are said to be created by Brahman, worship Brahman, and are supported by Brahman. I have posted pramaanas on another thread which I will reproduce briefly here.

Let's examine the above statement. It appears from the above statement that some forms of God are not created by Brahman (as they are Brahman in different names and forms) whereas some are created by Brahman & so they are subordinate to Brahman. Now, let's take from Samhita (Vedas) and Upanishads who was born first and who gave birth to who :

a) NAsdIya Sukta

In the beginning there was neither Being nor non-being. .... Who really knows ? Who can presumably tell us ? Whence was it born ? Whence issued this creation ? Even the Gods came after its emergence. ... That out which Creation has arisen, whether it held it firm or it did not, He who surveys it in the highest heaven, He surely knows or He does not.

===> This sukta tells us that in the beginning there was neither being nor non-being. Therefore, there could be neither any name nor any form existing at that time. This Sukta specifically says that "Even the Gods came after its emergence". Therefore, according to this Sukta there can't be BrahmA, Vishnu or Mahesh in the beginning.

b) YogachUrAmaNi Upanishad :

From ParBrahman self-illumined ParAshakti was born. From Self arose the AkAsha, from AkAsha Vayu (air) was born, from Vayu, Agni was born, from Agni water was born and from water earth was born. ... These five mahAbhUtAs have 5 lords : SadAshiva, Ishwara, Rudra, Vishnu and BrahmA. In all those, BrhamA is Rajoguna-yukta, Vishnu with Satoguna and Rudra with Tamoguna. .... In Devas BrahmA was first to be born for creation, Vishnu for sustenance and Rudra for annihilation.

====> Therefore, Vishnu, BrahmA and Rudra are born in the beginning of the creation as per this Upanishad. Also, it should also be noted that these all three came directly from Brahman and no one particular was the cause of any other. Again, this verse says that all the three are with Gunas and these are not free from Gunas.

Let's remember that Brahman in its primordial state has been considered beyond all gunas, so according to this verse, Vishnu, Brahma and Rudra are not the same as Brahman.

c) Mahopanishad :

In the beginning there was NArAyan alone. .... this Upanishad goes on to say that from NArAyaNa alone BrahmA and MahAdeva was born.

This Upanishad again says (V.158-175) that this Shrishti is created again and again. BrahmA has a certain period of life (i.e. He is not eternal). This shrishti ends with BrahmA’s life-time.

This Upanishad also tells us that all Prapancha (this creation in various states) is created and born and annihilated and with that even Vishnu and Rudra too meet their end. I will quote the exact verse here :
BrahmA Vishnushcha Rudrashcha sarvA vA bhhotjaatayah : |
NaashmevAnudhAvanti salilAnIva vAdavam || 52 ||

==> Therefore according to this Upanishad, BrahmA and MahAdevA are born from NArAyana. BrahmA, Vishnu and Mahesh are with finite life i.e. they are not eternal. This Upanishad makes a difference between NArAyana and Vishnu.


ThrishikhaBrahmNa Upanishad

This Upanishad tells us that everything should be known as Shiva alone. (Verse 2)

Again this tells us this :

From Brahman Avaykta (Unmanifest) is born, from Avayakta Mahat (Nature) is born, from Mahat AhamkAr is born, from AhamkAr five TanmAtrAs are born, from five TanmAtrAs five mahAbhhotas are born from five MahabhootAs this whole world is born.



PAshupata BrahmaNa Upanishad

This Upanishad tells us that Svaymbhu Brahman was alone was in the beginning. From him alone everything has come. It further says that BrahmA is with Rajoguna, Vishnu with Satoguna and Rudra with Tamoguna.

===> Let's note here that Brahman is without any gunas and therefore, these three God-heads can't be Brahman.

GaNapati Upanishad

In this Upanishad, GaNapati has been worshiped as the creator of this whole world. He alone has been described as the sustainer and the destroyer of everything that is.

Sharabha Upanishad

This Upanishad tells that only Shiva alone is eternal and everyone/everything else is mithyA. Therefore, one should meditate on Shiva alone leaving Vishnu and all other Devas (30-31).

Bahavrichopanishad

Devi (Mother Goddess) alone created this BrahmAnda. She alone was before this Creation. From she alone came BrahmA, Vishnu and Mahesha.

AdhyAtma Upanishad

19. All things from Brahma down to clumps of grass are nothing but unreal adjuncts. Distinct from the, see one's Self existing as the immutable plenum.

20. One's Self is Brahma, Vishnu, Indra and Shiva; this entire world is one's Self; other than this Self, there is nothing.

22. The world is a postulation, as good as non-existent, in the one Reality that is immutable, formless, unqualified; whence is difference?


===> Thus this Upanishad considers everything, from BrahmA to clumps of grass as unreal adjuncts. As Brahman alone is Real, therefore, all Gods including Brahma, Vishnu and Mahesh come to equal footing.

Aitreya Upanishad

It says :

I-i-1: In the beginning this was but the absolute Self alone. There was nothing else whatsoever that winked. He thought, "Let Me create the worlds.

I-i-3: He thought, "These then are the worlds. Let Me create the protectors of the worlds."


===> It doesn't take names of God but if we consider them as BrahmA, Visnu and Mahesh then we have to accept that they were all created by Brahman to take care of the worlds.

BrihdaraNyaka Upanishad

II-ix-1: Then Vidagdha, the son of Sakala, asked him. 'How many gods are there, Yajnavalkya?' Yajnavalkya decided it through this (group of Mantras known as) Nivid (saying), 'As many as are indicated in the Nivid of the Visvadevas - three hundred and three, and three thousand and three'. 'Very well', said Sakalya, 'how many gods exactly are there, Yajnavalkya?' 'Thirty-three'. 'Very well', said the other, 'how many gods exactly are there, Yajnavalkya?' 'six'. 'Very well', said Sakalya, 'how many gods exactly are there, Yajnavalkya?' 'Three'. 'Very well', said the other, 'how many gods exactly are there, Yajnavalkya?' 'Two'. 'Very well', said Sakalya, 'how many gods exactly are there, Yajnavalkya?' 'One and a half'. 'Very well', said Sakalya, 'how many gods exactly are there, Yajnavalkya?' 'One'. 'Very well', said Sakalya, 'which are those three hundred and three and three thousand and three?'

III-ix-2: Yajnavalkya said, 'these are but the manifestation of them, but there are only thirty-three gods.' 'Which are those thirty-three?' 'The eight Vasus, the eleven Rudras and the twelve Adityas - these are thirty-one and Indra and Prajapati make up the thirty-three'.

III-ix-3: 'Which are the Vasus /' 'Fire, the earth, air, the sky, the sun, heaven, the moon and the stars - these are the Vasus, for in these all this is placed; therefore they are called Vasus.'

III-ix-4: 'Which are the Rudras?' 'The ten organs in the human body, with the mind as the eleventh. When they depart from this mortal body, they make (one's relatives) weep. Because they then make them weep, therefore they are called Rudras.'

III-ix-5: 'Which are the Adityas?' 'The twelve months (are parts) of a year; these are the Adityas, for they go taking all this with them. Because they go taking all this with them, therefore they are called Adityas.'

III-ix-6: 'Which is Indra, and which is Prajapati?' 'The cloud itself is Indra, and the sacrifice is Prajapati'. 'Which is the cloud?' 'Thunder (strength).' 'Which is the sacrifice?' 'Animals'.

III-ix-7: 'Which are the six (gods)?' 'Fire, the earth, air, the sky, the sun, and heaven - these are the six. Because all those are these six.'

III-ix-8: 'Which are the three gods?' 'These three worlds alone, because in these all those gods are comprised.' 'Which are the two gods?' 'Matter and the vital force.' 'Which are the one and a half?' 'This (air) that blows.'

III-ix-9: 'Regarding this some say, 'Since the air blows as one substance, how can it be one and a half?' ' It is one and a half because through its presence all this attains surpassing glory'. 'Which is the one god?' 'The vital force (Hiranyagarbha); it is Brahman, which is called Tyat (that).'


===> This Upanishad doesn't says who created who. It says that One God i.er. Brahman alone manifests as so many Gods.

OM

Ganeshprasad
22 June 2012, 05:18 AM
Pranam


Pardon me, but on behalf of the International Hindu Committee for Deva-Equality, I am highly incensed at the reference to Parvathi as "Vishnu's Power." Offended even. Obviously, Ganesh Prasad does not understand the party line that all devas are the SAME, and any statement to the contrary is belittling to those devas.

Out of respect for the followers of Devi, I request that the above posting be removed, and that public lashings be instituted for anyone else who dares to suggest that Devi is in any way dependent on, belonging to, serving, or being the power of, any other deity.



Sarcasm does not suit you, i knew this would get you going, unfortunate that is, you are fixated in supremacy that you read that deludes you only.

1) Just as Skanda's mother points to Parvati,
2)Vishnu's Power is refers to Laxmi.

Even if you want to say Parvati is Vishnu's power (which i am not saying) that is not wrong, Skanda is another form of Vishnu also confirmed in Gita. So Parvati is strength of Skanda!

but let me quote further that should wipe your smile, does not give me any pleasure though.

17. Divine Mother ! Salutation to you; protect us in all possible ways.
18. She, here, is the eight Vasus, the eleven Rudras, the twelve Adityas, She is the all-gods, (those) who drink Soma and (those) who do not; she is the goblins, the demons, the evil beings, the ghosts; she also, beings super-human, the semi-divine. She is Sattva, Rajas and Tamas. She is Prajapati, Indra and Manu. She is the planets, stars and luminous spheres. She is the divisions of time, and the form of primeval Time. I salute Her ever:
-



27. The Goddess is the source of all mantras:
Of all the words the knowledge is Her form.
Her conscious Form transcends all cognitions;
She is the witness of all emptiness.
28. Beyond Her is nothing; renowned is She
As unapproachable; afeared of life,
I bow to the inaccessible One,
Bulwark against all sins; the Pilot who
Steers me across the sea of worldly life.
29. He who studies this Atharva Upanishad gains the fruit of repeating five (other) Atharva Upanishads; he who, having mastered this Atharva Upanishad, persists in worship.
30. Of this vidya ten million chants
Are less than the worship’s fruit.
Eight and hundred recitations thereof
Make but this rite’s inauguration.
31. Who reads it but ten times,
Is released at once from sins;
Through the grace of the Goddess great,
Tides he over obstacles great.
32. Reading it in the morning one destroys the sins of the night; reading it in the evening one destroys the sins committed by day. Thus, reading both in the evening and morning, the sinner becomes sinless. Reading it midnight, too, the fourth ‘junction’, there results perfection of speech. Its recitation before a new image brings to it the presence of the deity. Its recitation at the time of consecration (of an image) makes it a centre of energy. Reciting it on Tuesday under the asterism Ashvini, in the presence of the great Goddess, one overcomes fell death – one who knows thus. This is the secret.
Om ! Gods ! With ears let us hear what is good;
Adorable ones ! With eyes let us see what is good.
With steady limbs, with bodies, praising,
Let us enjoy the life allotted by the gods.
May Indra, of wide renown, grant us well-being;
May Pusan, and all-gods, grant us well-being.
May Tarksya, of unhampered movement, grant us well-being.
May Brihaspati grant us well-being.
Om ! Peace ! Peace ! Peace !
Here ends the Devi Upanishad, included in the Atharva-Veda.


Jai Shree Krishna

devotee
22 June 2012, 05:23 AM
Contd. from last post :

Niralamba Upanishad

3. (1) Brahman is the ineffable Spirit. It appears as the Mahat (the Sankhyan Great), the ego, (the elements) earth, water, fire, air and ether - the macrocosm and as actions, knowledge and ends. It is non-dual and free from all adjuncts. It is big with all powers and is without beginning and end. It may be spoken of as pure, good, quiescent, unqualified.

4. (2) God is the veritable Brahman that, depending on Its power called Prakriti creates the worlds and enters (into them) as the inner Controller of Brahma, etc., (He) is Ishvara, as He controls the intellect and the sense-organs.


===> This Upanishad says that Brahman is non-dual. If Brahman is non-dual, where is the scope of any 'other" thing like Devas or the Jivas ?

Paingalya Upanishad

8-9. (6-20) Brahma, Vishnu, Indra, (the god of) Death, the Sun, the Moon, the gods, the demons, men, women, animals, etc.; the immobile the Brahmanas, etc.; are that very Spirit (Brahman).

Trisikhi Brahman Upanishad

You have to realize that all this is Shiva. Because only Shiva is ever clean, who is devoid of any blemishes, and who is everywhere and for whom there is no second. He is the only one who creates everything by his light and similar to the fire appearing in different forms on different pieces of steel, he appears in different forms. 1-2

==> This Upanishad tells us that Shiva alone is everything and he is ever clean and without blemishes.

So, this claim of Phil becomes invalid :


I just wanted to point out something from the above translation. When it says, "Narayana is the only God who is blemish less, stain less, order less, end less " the implication is that there are other gods who are not blemishless, not stainless, not orderless, not endless, etc. If there is no other god, because all gods are the same, then it makes no sense to describe Narayana as the only God who is all these things, right?

This is just another example of how we should be careful before rushing into unqualified monism or unqualified dualism as valid ways of explaining these statements.

Tara Sara Upanishad

II.4 That which is beyond is the Paramatman named Sri Rama and is the highest Purusha.All this is the explanation of the letter Om, which is the past, the present and future and which is other than these (viz.,) Tattva, Mantra, Varna (colour), Devata (deity), Chhandas (metre), Rik, Kala, Sakti and Srishti (creation). He who knows this becomes immortal. (Thus is) Yajur-Veda with the second foot".

===> According to this Upanishad, Rama is Paramatma, the highest Purusha.

Kathopanishad

2-II-9. Just as fire, though one, having entered the world, assumes a separate form in respect of every form, so does the in-dwelling Self of all beings, though one, assume a form in respect of every form, and is outside it.

===> This Upanishad says that Self takes the form of many beings. So, there is no aspect of creation here.

SevetAswar Upanishad

III-1: It is the self-same One who exists alone at the time of creation and dissolution of the universe, that assumes manifold powers and appears as the Divine Lord by virtue of His inscrutable power of Maya. He it is that protects all the worlds and controls all the various forces working therein. Those who realize this Being becomes immortal.

III-2: He who protects and controls the worlds by His own powers, He - Rudra - is indeed one only. There is no one beside Him who can make Him the second. O men, He is present inside the hearts of all beings. After projecting and maintaining all the worlds, He finally withdraws them into Himself.

===> This Upanishad says that Self also called as Rudra is non-dual One only. Therefore, all forms and names except Self/Rudra must be mithyaa.

Taitriya Upanishad

I-viii-1: Om is Brahman. Om is all this.

This Upanishad doesn't talk of BrahmA, Vishnu or Mahesh but Brahman alone from everything came into being due to his desire to become "many".

Narayana Upanishad

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


===> This Upanishad tells the same thing about Narayana which has been stated for Brahman in many other Upanishads.

OM

Ganeshprasad
22 June 2012, 05:58 AM
Pranam Devotee ji

Thanks again for all those citations, you beat me to some off them, although i have difference in sadhna from you but we both recognize it serves no purpose to play the supremacy game. Important is to realize that Brahman that is Achintya, only proof is in union/reunion with him.
Pothy padh padhkar Pandit bane toi naa meele Avinashi, just as Shankracharya says No amount of Vyakran will save you from death.

Jai Shree Krishna

Ganeshprasad
22 June 2012, 06:03 AM
Pranam

Narada-Parivrajakopanishad, included in the Atharva-Veda
VIII-4. This (Brahma-Pranava) is the prop of all, the supreme effulgence and the lord of all –thus (the sages with true vision) look upon it. It consists of all gods and the prop of all universe (the Lord) is in it.

VIII-5. It consists of all the syllables; it is the Time; it is composed of all the scripture and is the Shiva. It is the most excellent of all the Vedas and consists of (the essence) of all the Upanishads; this (Om, the Atman) should be sought.


Varaha Upanishad belonging to the Krishna-Yajur-Veda

37. That Paramahamsa (ascetic) who, though living in the world, keeps aloof from human congregation as from serpent, who regards a beautiful woman as a (living) corpse and the endless sensual objects as poison and who has abandoned all passion and is indifferent towards all objects is no other than Vasudeva, (viz.,) myself.

38. This is Satya (Truth). This is nothing but truth. It is truth alone that is now said. I am Brahman, the truth. There is naught else but I.

32.

33. The undaunted Brahmana having known Him should attain wisdom. One need not utter many words as they but injure the organ of speech.

39. He should contemplate upon his Atman as Shiva and then as being bathed by nectar. In the central part of each spoke, the Yogin should commence to concentrate Bala (will or strength).

Jai Shree Krishna

devotee
22 June 2012, 06:04 AM
Contd from last post ....

Varaha Upanishad

50(b)-51(a). As the Akasa of the pot and that of the house are both located in the all-pervading Akasa, so the Jivas and Ishvara are only evolved out of me, the Chidakasa (the one Akasa of universal consciousness).

51(b)-52(a). So that which did not exist before the evolution of Atmas (Jiva) (and Ishvara) and that which is rejected at the end (viz., universal deluge) is called Maya by Brahma-Jnanis through their discrimination.

52(b)-53(a). Should Maya and its effects (the universe) be annihilated, there is no state of Ishvara, there is no state of Jiva. Therefore like the Akasa without its vehicle, I am the immaculate and Chit.

===> This Upanishad tells that everything comes from ChidAkAsha. Jiva and Ishvara are both creation of MAyA and on annihilation of MAyA, both are annihilated.

23. Many Crores of Brahmas have passed away.

This verse shows that BrahmA is not eternal.


Atharva Shikha Upanishad

Brahma, Vishnu, Rudra and Indra are creating all beings, all organs and all karanas. They are also capable of controlling them. But Lord Shiva exists in between them like sky and is permanently stable. 2.2

It is advised that the five gods Brahma, Vishnu, Rudra, Ishwara and Shiva should be worshipped in the form of pranava [Aa + Uu + Ma + sound + Bindu (full stop)]. 2.3



Ataharva Shira Upanishad

He who is Rudra, he alone is god. He is Brahma and we salute him again and again.
He who is Rudra, he alone is god. He is Vishnu and we salute him again and again.
He who is Rudra, he alone is God. He is truth and we salute him again and again.
He who is Rudra, he alone is God. He is everything and we salute him again and again.


===> According to this Upanishad, Rudra alone is God and weverything.

MAndukya Upanishad

This Upanishad doesn't differentiate between different names and forms of God but talks of God-state as the third state of Brahman. This state alone is the creator, sustainer and destroyer of all in the two states of "creation".

OM

Ganeshprasad
22 June 2012, 06:09 AM
Pranam

Book 10 HYMN CXIV. Visvedevas.

1. Two perfect springs of heat pervade the Threefold, and come for their delight is Matarisvan.
Craving the milk of heaven the Gods are present: well do they know the praisesong and the Saman.
2 The priests beard far away, as they are ordered, serve the three Nirrtis, for well they know them.
Sages have traced the cause that first produced them, dwelling in distant and mysterious chambers.
3 The Youthful One, well-shaped, with four locks braided, brightened with oil, puts on the ordinances.
Two Birds of mighty power are seated near her, there where the Deities receive their portion.
4 One of these Birds hath passed into the sea of air: thence he looks round and views this universal world.
With simple heart I have beheld him from anear: his Mother kisses him and he returns her kiss.
5 Him with fair wings though only One in nature, wise singers shape, with songs, in many figures.
While they at sacrifices fix the metres, they measure out twelve chalices of Soma.
6 While they arrange the four and six-and-thirty, and duly order, up to twelve, the measures,
Having disposed the sacrifice thoughtful sages send the Car forward with the Rc and Saman.
7 The Chariot's majesties are fourteen others: seven sages lead it onward with their Voices.
Who will declare to us the ford Apnana, the path whereby they drink first draughts of Soma?
8 The fifteen lauds are in a thousand places that is as vast as heaven and earth in measure.
A thousand spots contain the mighty thousand. Vak spreadeth forth as far as Prayer extendeth.
9 What sage hath learned the metres' application? Who hath gained Vak, the spirit's aim and object?
Which ministering priest is called eighth Hero? Who then hath tracked the two Bay Steeds of Indra?
10 Yoked to his chariot-pole there stood the Coursers: they only travel round earth's farthest limits.
These, when their driver in his home is settled, receive the allotted meed of their exertion.

Note:

5 Him with fair wings though only One in nature, wise singers shape, with songs, in many figures.

Jai Shree Krishna

devotee
22 June 2012, 06:21 AM
Namaste Ganeshprasad ji,

You are absolutely right ! Actually, it has happened for the first time on this forum that many of the things which Hindus consider sacred have been belittled ! There has been no respect for the VedAnta, there is no respect for what great saints like Tulsidas ji said etc. There is no respect for even MahAbhArata which has been consdered as the Vth Veda !

On differences Tulsidas ji said, "JAki Rahi BhavanA jaisi, Prabhu Moorat dekhi tin taisi" (Everyone sees God as his bhAvana is". Tulsidas who was a great Vaishnava wrote RudrAshtakam wherein he accepts Shiva as the Nirguna, NirAkAr, OmkAr, the root of all and the fourth state (TurIyam) of Brahman.

In villages even the illiterates say, "MAno to Deva nahin to patthar" (If you accept, even a stone is God otherwise it is just a piece of stone !".

... but the Only Internet literate Hindu today is a new type of Hindu. Less said about them is better.

OM

devotee
22 June 2012, 07:07 AM
Namaste,

From what has been posted so far, what do we get ? Who was the first ? Who created who ? Who is inferior to who ? Was there a creation at all as the verses talk of non-dual Brahman ? If Brahman is non-dual, there can't be creation or if there is creation in reality then Brahman cannot be non-dual. If NArAyana or Rudra or Devi is unborn then whoever is unborn cannot be created.

The reality is that the Rishis are not unanimous on Creation and who created who and also whether there was creation at all or everything is just MithyA except One unchanging Reality. This has to be understood properly and carefully.

It is height of ahamkAr if anyone rejects any Shruti and casts doubts on validity of ShAtras, who have no other spiritual qualifications except that they can claim that they read this and that book etc.

So, how do we reconcile the various varying thoughts gathered from ShAstras ? It is the same as I stated in one of the posts earlier. The devotee has to decide what he worships and with what bhAvana. The DevatAs are considered inferior to Brahman or BrahmA, Vishnu and Mahesh. Why ? DevatAs are worshipped mainly for fulfilling worldly desires and they are not seen as Brahman by the devotees. Bhagvatam (I shall give the exact reference jater on) lists a number of DevatAs who should be worshipped for fulfilling specific worldly requirements. This also says that "One should worship ParmAtman if one has no desires". Bhagwad Gita 9.23 should not be read alone but with 8.20-23, . Let's see bothe the verses :

BG 9.23 Arjuna, even those devotees who, endowed with faith, worship other gods (with some interested motive) worship Me alone, though with a mistaken approach.

BG 8.20 Those whose wisdom has been carried away by various desires, being prompted by their own nature, worship other deities, adopting norms relating to each.
BG 8.22 Endowed with such faith he worships that particular deity and obtains through that deity without doubt his desired enjoyments as ordained by Me.
BG 8.23 The fruit gained by these people of small understanding, however, is perishable.

Anyone can see that there a lot of emphasis is on worship with desires in the above verses. In Vedas too, the gods are propitiated for either worldly gains or for gaining heaven. Therefore, the devotee himself concentrates on the worldly gains while worshiping them and doesn't feel that they are worshiping Brahman alone.

But as we have seen in the quoted scriptural texts that a number of forms and names of God have been worshiped as the Supreme who can grant moksha or Self-realisation or God-realisation and they have been equated to Brahman who is one without a second.

OM

philosoraptor
22 June 2012, 11:53 AM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~
namasté

The point that was offered ( and still is) , is regarding the various ṛṣi-s and their views on reality. I do not believe yudhiṣṭhira was finding fault. His intellect is too keen.

This is where the string was headed ( in my opinion); there are various views of the Supreme, of Reality. It is single, and at the same time multi-faceted, hence the quote from yudhiṣṭhira seems spot on.


Pranams.

I understood the point you were making. What I'm trying to say is, if you look at the context of that shloka, you will see that it is an answer to yaksha's question "What is the path?" It is not an answer to the question "What is the ultimate reality?" nor was such a question asked.

Thus, when Yudhishthira answered, citing the futility of argument and the different opinions of shruti, he was referring to the differences of prescribed paths (i.e. different sadhanas). He was not referring to differences of world view. His point was that one should not engage in debates about which is the best path, but just follow the path of those great souls who are practicing. In Bhagavad-gita, Sri Krishna discusses different yoga systems, and He alludes to a conflict between those who think jnaana-yoga is better than karma-yoga, resolving it by saying that the two are actually the same (because they lead to the same result).

The Vedas can be united in their world view and conclusions but still prescribe different paths. For example, in one shruti the devotee is enjoined to meditate on Brahman within the sun. Yet elsewhere he is to meditate on Brahman within the heart. In some places, meditation on Brahman as the Supreme Purusha is prescribed, while in other places one is to meditate on Him as Tejas, Aakash, etc. These are examples of how different Vidyas teach meditation on the same Brahman in different but reconcilable ways.

Now, the issue here is a different matter. We are debating whether all devas are different forms of Brahman and are thus the same being, or whether they are different beings. This is a conclusion that reflects world view. Either devas are Brahman or they are entities dependent on Brahman (we can stipulate that they can be spoken of as Brahman in a metaphorical way, since, after all, even jIva and prakRti are sometimes described as Brahman). But the issue here is whether they are Brahman in the sense of that highest truth, the Parama Purusha, on whom everything else rests. It is not logical to suggest that they are for some and they aren't for others. We might just as well suggest that law of gravitation is true for some, but not for others.

I am sure you would agree that Yudhishthira's conclusions should be read in a consistent way with what is taught in Bhagavad-gita, since the Gita is, after all, a part of the Mahabharata.



Also,

This does not suggest contention or counterdiction... it suggests multiple views of the same reality. It is no different then the 6 sytems within sanātana dharma , the various schools of thought. The 6 (traditional) systems of Indian philosophy - this is called saḍ darśana or the 6 schools of vision, seeing, sight. We know them as :

śāṁkhya
yoga
vedānta
mīmāṃsā
nyāya
vaiśeṣikaThe 6 darśana-s दर्शन (seeing, looking, knowledge, traditional doctrine or precept , collection of such doctrines) are so complete in themselves, that many people took the 6 to be different views. This is not the case, it is the 6, when taken as whole give a 360º view of Reality. This is the point that I wished to offer. If I have done a poor job of setting the stage for this to occur , I ask your pardon.


The idea that the different darshanas represent different but valid conclusions about Brahman, is not one that tallies with reality. Even casual persual of any Vedaanta-suutra commentary will reveal that the commentators (including Shankaraachaarya) went to great pains to refute certain irreconcilable ideas found in other Vedaanta systems, what to speak of other non-Vedaanta systems of thinking. Granted, the darshanas share some things in common, such as the belief in consciousness separate from matter, the belief in samsaara governed by the laws of karma, the authority of the Vedas, etc. But to call them different but valid world views would imply there is no conflict between them, and that is simply not true.

To summarize, one can meditate on Brahman in different but valid ways. But not every way is valid simply by virtue of being different and (apparently) based on Veda. The Vedas still speak with one voice about the nature of the Absolute Truth even when they prescribe different but valid paths to its realization.

warm regards,

yajvan
22 June 2012, 11:58 AM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namasté

At this juncture we have differing opinions. Thank your for stating yours. I respect your offer and will leave it there.

praṇām


Pranams.

I understood the point you were making. What I'm trying to say is, if you look at the context of that shloka, you will see that it is an answer to yaksha's question "What is the path?" It is not an answer to the question "What is the ultimate reality?" nor was such a question asked.

Thus, when Yudhishthira answered, citing the futility of argument and the different opinions of shruti, he was referring to the differences of prescribed paths (i.e. different sadhanas). He was not referring to differences of world view. His point was that one should not engage in debates about which is the best path, but just follow the path of those great souls who are practicing. In Bhagavad-gita, Sri Krishna discusses different yoga systems, and He alludes to a conflict between those who think jnaana-yoga is better than karma-yoga, resolving it by saying that the two are actually the same (because they lead to the same result).

The Vedas can be united in their world view and conclusions but still prescribe different paths. For example, in one shruti the devotee is enjoined to meditate on Brahman within the sun. Yet elsewhere he is to meditate on Brahman within the heart. In some places, meditation on Brahman as the Supreme Purusha is prescribed, while in other places one is to meditate on Him as Tejas, Aakash, etc. These are examples of how different Vidyas teach meditation on the same Brahman in different but reconcilable ways.

Now, the issue here is a different matter. We are debating whether all devas are different forms of Brahman and are thus the same being, or whether they are different beings. This is a conclusion that reflects world view. Either devas are Brahman or they are entities dependent on Brahman (we can stipulate that they can be spoken of as Brahman in a metaphorical way, since, after all, even jIva and prakRti are sometimes described as Brahman). But the issue here is whether they are Brahman in the sense of that highest truth, the Parama Purusha, on whom everything else rests. It is not logical to suggest that they are for some and they aren't for others. We might just as well suggest that law of gravitation is true for some, but not for others.

I am sure you would agree that Yudhishthira's conclusions should be read in a consistent way with what is taught in Bhagavad-gita, since the Gita is, after all, a part of the Mahabharata.



The idea that the different darshanas represent different but valid conclusions about Brahman, is not one that tallies with reality. Even casual persual of any Vedaanta-suutra commentary will reveal that the commentators (including Shankaraachaarya) went to great pains to refute certain irreconcilable ideas found in other Vedaanta systems, what to speak of other non-Vedaanta systems of thinking. Granted, the darshanas share some things in common, such as the belief in consciousness separate from matter, the belief in samsaara governed by the laws of karma, the authority of the Vedas, etc. But to call them different but valid world views would imply there is no conflict between them, and that is simply not true.

To summarize, one can meditate on Brahman in different but valid ways. But not every way is valid simply by virtue of being different and (apparently) based on Veda. The Vedas still speak with one voice about the nature of the Absolute Truth even when they prescribe different but valid paths to its realization.

warm regards,

philosoraptor
22 June 2012, 12:40 PM
Dandavat Pranams,

As interesting as this discussion is, I can't help but notice a certain degree of tension coming from some individuals. So far, it has been insinuated that I project myself as a person who is to be worshipped, who thinks himself greater than the Rishis, who thinks himself God-realized, who is trying to "refute Vedanta" and "belittle scriptures." Various innuendos have been proffered to the effect that I belong to this sect or that organization and then said sects/organizations were spoken of in a derisive spirit.

All of these comments seem based on a "you vs me" or "us vs them" mentality, which is ironic, considering that they come from those who profess belief in the absolute oneness of Advaita, wherein we are supposed to regard ourselves as being the same Atman, the differences supposedly being only illusory.

I guess I'm just not really sure what to make of it...

Although I don't agree with these mischaracterizations of me, I am not offended. Nor do I see cause to discontinue or take back anything I have written to date. I will continue as I have before, citing evidence from mutually-acceptable shAstras and trying to explain seemingly contradictory evidence from the same in an attempt to provide a consistent understanding of all evidence. This is not by any means just my understanding or my interpretation, but rather an understanding I have developed after reading the works of esteemed, traditional Vedaantic scholars (i.e. persons other than myself). Those who see it as useful to reconcile the apparently contradictory statements of the Veda may find it helpful. Those who do not can just assume that my postings are an illusion. :-)

Also, I hope that if I occasionally take recourse to humor to defuse the tension, it will hopefully in the future be recognized as such. We can all laugh at ourselves once in a while. Hopefully. :-)

regards,

philosoraptor
22 June 2012, 07:15 PM
Pranams

Time is short, so I will respond to the extent that I can. I will focus my responses on those points that quote from mainstream shAstra rather than on those which rely heavily on less well-known and/or questionable sources. This is because any principles of interpretation we develop with mainstream sources should be acceptable for application to other genuine shrutis. The pUrva-pakshins have so far shown no interest in establishing the antiquity of these other "Upanishads" which have neither been commented on nor quoted prior to the last few centureis. Hence, we will focus our analysis on the principal upanishads, saMhitAs, brAhmaNas, and AraNyakas as well as bhagavad-gItA.

Here, I will take up the pUrva-pakshin's view that all devas are the same Brahman with regard to what is spoken in bhagavad-gItA. If all devas are different forms of the same Brahman, then it logically follows that:
(1) the same result is obtained regardless of which deva is worshipped, since they are all the same
(2) there should be no sense of "higher" or "lower" among the devas, since they are all the same

In the gIta it is stated that those who worship other deities get a different result (the worlds of those deities) than those who worship Sri Krishna:

antavat tu phalaṁ teṣāṁ tad bhavaty alpa-medhasām |
devān deva-yajo yānti mad-bhaktā yānti mām api || gItA 7.23 ||

Note in the above shloka that anya-devata worship is said to be performed be people of meager intelligence "alpa-medhasAm." It is similarly stated elsewhere that those who worship other devas are actually worshipping Naaraayana Himself, albeit with improper understanding:

ye ’py anya-devatā-bhaktā yajante śraddhayānvitāḥ |
te ’pi mām eva kaunteya yajanty avidhi-pūrvakam || gItA 9.23 ||

The pUrva-pakshin argues , "Anyone can see that there a lot of emphasis is on worship with desires in the above verses. In Vedas too, the gods are propitiated for either worldly gains or for gaining heaven. Therefore, the devotee himself concentrates on the worldly gains while worshiping them and doesn't feel that they are worshiping Brahman alone." He therefore assumes that the references to "meager intelligence" and "improper understanding" refer not to the fact that the devotee worships the other devas who are not Brahman, but rather to the fact that he worship those other devas for limited, materialistic fruits. He therefore concludes that if the other devas are worshipped for liberation, then it is worship of Brahman, valid, and equal to worship of Sri Krishna.

Now let us see why this interpretation simply cannot hold.

First, if the "avidhi-pUrvakam" refers to materialistic worship, then it should be similarly the case that worship of Sri Krishna for materialistic boons is also "avidhi-pUrvakam." Do we see verses in the gItA, in which worship of Sri Krishna motivated by materialistic desires, is criticized in any way? Quite to the contrary! We see that Sri Krishna describes four classes of devotees who worship Him, those who are distressed (ArthaH), those who are inquisitive into self-realization (ji~jnAsuH), those who are after material benefits (arthArthI), and the jnAni:

catur-vidhā bhajante māṁ janāḥ su-kṛtino ’rjuna |
ārto jijñāsur arthārthī jñānī ca bharatarṣabha || gItA 7.16 ||

Although Sri Krishna clearly finds the jnAni most dear to Him, He says that all of these devotees, including the one seeking material boons, are magnanimous souls.

udārāḥ sarva evaite || gItA 7.18 ||

Why then, is anya-devata worship said (in gItA 9.23) to be indirect worship of Sri Krishna, albeit with improper understanding? The answer is in the very next shloka:

ahaṁ hi sarva-yajñānāṁ bhoktā ca prabhur eva ca |
na tu mām abhijānanti tattvenātaś cyavanti te || gItA 9.24 ||

"I am the enjoyer and master of all sacrifices. Therefore, those who do not recognize My true transcendental nature fall down."

Sri Krishna aka Naaraayana is the true Lord of all sacrifice, and not the anya-devatas. This is because it is He who facilitates the worship of anya-devatas:

yo yo yāṁ yāṁ tanuṁ bhaktaḥ śraddhayārcitum icchati |
tasya tasyācalāṁ śraddhāṁ tām eva vidadhāmy aham || gItA 7.21 ||

Furthermore, it Is He (not the other devas) who grants the results of anya-devata worship:

sa tayā śraddhayā yuktas tasyārādhanam īhate |
labhate ca tataḥ kāmān mayaiva vihitān hi tān || gItA 7.22 ||

We never find, anywhere in the bhagavad-gItA, a prescription for worship of anya-devatas for moksha. In chapter 3, anya-devata-worship is recommended only for obtaining necessities of life. Even there also, it is stated by Sri Krishna that these sacrifices were sent forth into the creation, along with men and the devas:

saha-yajñāḥ prajāḥ sṛṣṭvā purovāca prajāpatiḥ |
anena prasaviṣyadhvam eṣa vo ’stv iṣṭa-kāma-dhuk || gItA 3.10 ||

Thus, we now have the following, crystal-clear points on the subject of Brahman (aka Naaraayana) and the other devas:

1) Those who worship other devas go to different worlds than those who worship Naaraayana.
2) For those who worship other devas, Naaraayana within the heart as Paramaatma makes the faith steady for said worship.
3) For those who worship other devas seeking benefits from them, it is Naaraayana alone who grants the benefits.
4) Devas, men, and yagnas are all created entities. That is to say, they were sent forth into the creation by the Lord of all (prajApati), and are therefore not the Lord of all.

Therefore, anya-devata worship is "avidhi-pUrvakam" because the anya-devata-bhakta does not understand that the devas' boons depend on Naaraayana, the worship of the devas depends on Naaraayana, and said worship leads to a different goal than Naaraayana.

An objective, evidence-based analysis is required to understand the text. We must avoid superimposing preconceived notions that will do violence to the speaker's original message. When Sri Krishna clearly differentiates worship of other gods from His worship, says that worship of other gods depends on Him for success, and says that those other gods were created to preside over various yagnas, it cannot be logically argued that those other gods are the same as He, the Supreme Lord over all.

regards,

devotee
23 June 2012, 02:29 AM
Namaste,

I am surprised to see how cruelly hundreds of ShastrAs have been discredited and one who did so has pleaded "Innocent. Without any blemish as dew drops on the lotus leaves in the morning" !

Aisi Saadagi par Kaun na mar jaaye ai khudA,
Karte hain katla aur haath mein talwaar tak nahin !

==> Who will not die for such an innocence, my Lord ! They kill and carry not even a sword in their hands !

I normally don't use sarcasm but when the Shastras are being insulted in this manner by a spurious Hindu, then I am unable to keep silent.

*****

Now that we have seen various Upanishads' views, I shall take up Samhita portion of the Vedas to understand the Truth. We will also examine the excerpts presumably taken from Rig Veda in this thread by M.Phil to refute VedAnta.

OM

Ganeshprasad
23 June 2012, 05:12 AM
Pranam

While we are on the subject of Gita which form the part of Mahabharata, I will try to present few truth that has been miss presented here,

It has presented to us that devas were born with the humans, in BG chapter 3;

3.10 saha-yajnah prajah srstva here both yagya and praja is said to be created no where it says Devas were created. Why yagna and praja to gether the next verse clearly states;

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

Here the Prajapati is so kind that with his creation he also creates a method by which one can get the supreme goal sreyah param avapsyatha.

It is another thing when humans with their various desires worship anya deva including Lord Krishna for material gain achieve different goal other then Moksa, this not in dispute by any one.

Lord also says in chapter 17
The worship of Devas, Braahmana, guru, and the wise; purity, honesty, celibacy, and nonviolence; these are said to be the austerity of deed. (17.14)

I will let you in a secret that Arjun found in his search of Pashupat Astra;

SECTION LXXXI

"Sanjaya said, 'Then Partha, with a cheerful soul and joined hands and eyes expanded (in wonder), gazed at the god having the bull for his mark and who was the receptacle of every energy. And he beheld the offerings he made every night to Vasudeva lying by the side of the Three-eyed deity.

Jai Shree Krishna

vishal1976
23 June 2012, 08:20 AM
please any one tell me how to post new thread???

philosoraptor
23 June 2012, 01:08 PM
Pranams. I am continuing the series on discussing the traditional Vedaantic understanding of shAstras with regard to the relationship between Brahman and devatas.



a) NAsdIya Sukta

In the beginning there was neither Being nor non-being. .... Who really knows ? Who can presumably tell us ? Whence was it born ? Whence issued this creation ? Even the Gods came after its emergence. ... That out which Creation has arisen, whether it held it firm or it did not, He who surveys it in the highest heaven, He surely knows or He does not.

===> This sukta tells us that in the beginning there was neither being nor non-being. Therefore, there could be neither any name nor any form existing at that time. This Sukta specifically says that "Even the Gods came after its emergence". Therefore, according to this Sukta there can't be BrahmA, Vishnu or Mahesh in the beginning.


Being that we are followers of Veda, and not nastika/shunyavaadis like the Buddhists, we do not accept the theory that literally "nothing" existed in the beginning prior to creation. The reason for this is that Brahman is eternal, existing prior to the creation and after destruction also. It should be understood, as it is from Upanishads, that statements like "nothing existed prior to creation" refers to nothing existing from the standpoint of the material universe. Brahman, also known as Naaraayana, existed prior to creation, albeit outside the creation. The pUrva-pakshin demonstrated this by quoting from mahopaniShad "In the beginning there was NArAyan alone." If we accept that Brahman only existed prior to creation, and another shruti says that Naaraayana only existed prior to creation, then by the logic that:

if A=C and B=C, then A=C

it follows that Naaraayana is Brahman, and He existed prior to the creation.

That the devas (aka "gods") came after the creation does not contradict this fact. Brahman aka Naaraayana is not a mere deva, as is the point I've been trying to make - He is, according to the gItA 10.15, "deva-deva jagat-pate" (God of gods, Lord of the universe) and gItA 11.37 "ananta deveśa jagan-nivāsa" (unlimited, Lord of devas, refuge of the universe).



c) Mahopanishad :

In the beginning there was NArAyan alone. .... this Upanishad goes on to say that from NArAyaNa alone BrahmA and MahAdeva was born.

This Upanishad again says (V.158-175) that this Shrishti is created again and again. BrahmA has a certain period of life (i.e. He is not eternal). This shrishti ends with BrahmA’s life-time.

This Upanishad also tells us that all Prapancha (this creation in various states) is created and born and annihilated and with that even Vishnu and Rudra too meet their end. I will quote the exact verse here :
BrahmA Vishnushcha Rudrashcha sarvA vA bhhotjaatayah : |
NaashmevAnudhAvanti salilAnIva vAdavam || 52 ||

==> Therefore according to this Upanishad, BrahmA and MahAdevA are born from NArAyana. BrahmA, Vishnu and Mahesh are with finite life i.e. they are not eternal. This Upanishad makes a difference between NArAyana and Vishnu.


The pUrva-pakshin has adequately demonstrated that Brahmaa and Shiva are indeed born from Naaraayana, and are therefore not the same as Naaraayana. The entire verse (in translation) is as follows:

I-1-4. Then we shall expound the Mahopanishad. They say Narayana was alone. There were not Brahma, Shiva, Waters, Fire and Soma, Heaven and Earth, Stars, Sun and Moon. He could not be happy. From the (desire of) the Paramatman, the Yajnastoma (hymn known as Avyakta) is said to have arisen.

From this it follows that Naaraayana is the Supreme Deity, higher even than Brahmaa, Shiva, and the deities presiding over water, fire, soma, sun, and moon as all of these entities did not exist prior to creation.

regards,

philosoraptor
23 June 2012, 02:39 PM
BrihdaraNyaka Upanishad

II-ix-1: Then Vidagdha, the son of Sakala, asked him. 'How many gods are there, Yajnavalkya?' Yajnavalkya decided it through this (group of Mantras known as) Nivid (saying), 'As many as are indicated in the Nivid of the Visvadevas - three hundred and three, and three thousand and three'. 'Very well', said Sakalya, 'how many gods exactly are there, Yajnavalkya?' 'Thirty-three'. 'Very well', said the other, 'how many gods exactly are there, Yajnavalkya?' 'six'. 'Very well', said Sakalya, 'how many gods exactly are there, Yajnavalkya?' 'Three'. 'Very well', said the other, 'how many gods exactly are there, Yajnavalkya?' 'Two'. 'Very well', said Sakalya, 'how many gods exactly are there, Yajnavalkya?' 'One and a half'. 'Very well', said Sakalya, 'how many gods exactly are there, Yajnavalkya?' 'One'. 'Very well', said Sakalya, 'which are those three hundred and three and three thousand and three?'

III-ix-2: Yajnavalkya said, 'these are but the manifestation of them, but there are only thirty-three gods.' 'Which are those thirty-three?' 'The eight Vasus, the eleven Rudras and the twelve Adityas - these are thirty-one and Indra and Prajapati make up the thirty-three'.

III-ix-3: 'Which are the Vasus /' 'Fire, the earth, air, the sky, the sun, heaven, the moon and the stars - these are the Vasus, for in these all this is placed; therefore they are called Vasus.'

III-ix-4: 'Which are the Rudras?' 'The ten organs in the human body, with the mind as the eleventh. When they depart from this mortal body, they make (one's relatives) weep. Because they then make them weep, therefore they are called Rudras.'

III-ix-5: 'Which are the Adityas?' 'The twelve months (are parts) of a year; these are the Adityas, for they go taking all this with them. Because they go taking all this with them, therefore they are called Adityas.'

III-ix-6: 'Which is Indra, and which is Prajapati?' 'The cloud itself is Indra, and the sacrifice is Prajapati'. 'Which is the cloud?' 'Thunder (strength).' 'Which is the sacrifice?' 'Animals'.

III-ix-7: 'Which are the six (gods)?' 'Fire, the earth, air, the sky, the sun, and heaven - these are the six. Because all those are these six.'

III-ix-8: 'Which are the three gods?' 'These three worlds alone, because in these all those gods are comprised.' 'Which are the two gods?' 'Matter and the vital force.' 'Which are the one and a half?' 'This (air) that blows.'

III-ix-9: 'Regarding this some say, 'Since the air blows as one substance, how can it be one and a half?' ' It is one and a half because through its presence all this attains surpassing glory'. 'Which is the one god?' 'The vital force (Hiranyagarbha); it is Brahman, which is called Tyat (that).'

===> This Upanishad doesn't says who created who.

Pranams.

Devotee neglected to mention the following mantra from the same Upanishad:

I-iii-1: There were two classes of Prajapati's sons, the gods and the Asuras. Naturally, the gods were fewer, and the Asuras more in number. They vied with each other for (the mastery of these worlds. The gods said, 'Now let us surpass the Asuras in (this) sacrifice through the Udgitha'.

If devas are Prajaapati's sons, then they are created by Prajaapati. Whether you interpret Prajaapati as Brahmaa, or as Naaraayana (Brahman), the meaning does not change: devas are not Brahman!

That devas are not the same as the independent Brahman is also clear from the following:

I-iv-10: This (self) was indeed Brahman in the beginning. It knew only Itself as, 'I am Brahman'. Therefore It became all. And whoever among the gods knew It also became That; and the same with sages and men. The sage Vamadeva, while realising this (self) as That, knew, 'I was Manu, and the sun'. And to this day whoever in like manner knows It as, 'I am Brahman', becomes all this (universe). Even the gods cannot prevail against him, for he becomes their self. While he who worships another god thinking, 'He is one, and I am another', does not know. He is like an animal to the gods. As many animals serve a man, so does each man serve the gods. Even if one animal is taken away, it causes anguish, what should one say of many animals? Therefore it is not liked by them that men should know this.

Please note the following points from the above mantra:
1) Brahman always knew itself as such. There was no question of Brahman not knowing itself.
2) Devas, men, and sages who knew Brahman "became also that." As written, this means that devas, men, and sages do not always know they are Brahman.
3) It clearly says that devas cannot prevail against Him, because He becomes their inner self (this is again detailed below).

What the above mantra explains is that Brahman becomes in the indwelling controller of men, sages, and devas - this is why they are said to be Brahman - because they constitute the body of Brahman and are thus organically linked to Him. But, they are separate living entities who may or may not know of their relationship with Brahman.

The idea that one who knows Brahman "becomes also that" refers to the recognition of the jIvAtma that he is related to Brahman as body to soul, or as attribute to the whole. Thus, his "sameness" with Brahman is only in the sense of being organically linked to Brahman as part to the whole. This is how jIva can "be" Brahman even when it does not always know itself as Brahman, unlike Brahman which is all-knowing and always knows itself as such - because in reality jIva is a part of the whole, eternally existing along with whole.

The theory that devas are different-but-equal forms of the same Brahman is not supported here, because in that case, devas would always know themselves as Brahman, just as Brahman does. Please see my notes on the antaryAmi-brAhmaNa below for more information on this concept.



It says that One God i.er. Brahman alone manifests as so many Gods.


It actually says nothing of the sort. What it says is that the 303 and the 3003 are manifestations of 33 gods - please see your own quote, in mantra # 3.9.2

Devotee also neglected to mention that the Brahman is said to be the indwelling controller of these gods and indeed all living entities. See in the previous chapter, the anataryAmi-brAhmaNa:



III-vii-3: He who inhabits the earth, but is within it, whom the earth does not know, whose body is the earth, and who controls the earth from within, is the Internal Ruler, your own immortal self.

III-vii-4: He who inhabits water, but is within it, whom water does not know, whose body is water, and who controls water from within, is the Internal Ruler, your own immortal self.

III-vii-5: He who inhabits fire, but is within it, whom fire does not know, whose body is fire, and who controls fire from within, is the Internal Ruler, your own immortal self.

III-vii-6: He who inhabits the sky, but is within it, whom the sky does not know, whose body is the sky, and who controls the sky from within, is the Internal Ruler, your own immortal self.

III-vii-7: He who inhabits air, but is within it, whom air does not know, whose body is air, and who controls air from within, is the Internal Ruler, your own immortal self.

III-vii-8: He who inhabits heaven, but is within it, whom heaven does not know, whose body is heaven, and who controls heaven from within, is the Internal Ruler, your own immortal self.

III-vii-9: He who inhabits the sun, but is within it, whom the sun does not know, whose body is the sun, and who controls the sun from within, is the Internal Ruler, your own immortal self.

III-vii-10: He who inhabits the quarters, but is within it, whom the quarters does not know, whose body is the quarters, and who controls the quarters from within, is the Internal Ruler, your own immortal self.

III-vii-11: He who inhabits the moon and stars, but is within it, whom the moon and stars does not know, whose body is the moon and stars, and who controls the moon and stars from within, is the Internal Ruler, your own immortal self.

III-vii-12: He who inhabits the ether, but is within it, whom the ether does not know, whose body is the ether, and who controls the ether from within, is the Internal Ruler, your own immortal self.

III-vii-13: He who inhabits darkness, but is within it, whom darkness does not know, whose body is darkness, and who controls darkness from within, is the Internal Ruler, your own immortal self.

III-vii-14: He who inhabits light, but is within it, whom light does not know, whose body is light, and who controls light from within, is the Internal Ruler, your own immortal self. This much with reference to the gods. Now with reference to the beings.

III-vii-15: He who inhabits all beings, but is within it, whom no being knows, whose body is all beings, and who controls all beings from within, is the Internal Ruler, your own immortal self. This much with reference to the beings. Now with reference to the body.


This explains that Brahman is the Paramaatma dwelling within every being (jIvAtma). This includes the jIvAtmas who are in the form of devas. So, once again, devas are not exactly same as Brahman.

More accurately, they, along with matter and everything else that exists, constitute the body of Brahman. As they are related to Brahman in a body-to-soul relationship, it follows that they are dependent on Him and having nothing that is not His, not even their very selves.

Thus, the conclusion of the Upanishad, based on the most straightforward reading, is not Advaita or Dvaita, but more correctly Vishishtaadvaita - a hetereogeneous monism qualified by attributes and plurality of living beings.

regards,

Ganeshprasad
23 June 2012, 05:25 PM
Pranam

We have been offered, 1-1-4 Narayan alone is supreme deity - not Brahma not Shiva, apparently he was not happy.
these supremacy debate just don't go away, it has been debated over and over again-i dare say it will go on.

it was discussed here;
http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?t=396&page=6&highlight=Nara pages 5-9 and many other places, i offer this because Sarabhanga ji has elaborated quite nicely so has Atanu and others.

It was contended that Shiva has no basis in vedas it turns out our friend Sri Vaishnava could not provide ref from Samhita and this is what was offered by Śarabhaṅga Giri (http://www.geocities.com/sarabhanga/index.html)

Shaivism has no basis in the Vedas? I repeat: What complete and utter nonsense !!

Atanu and I have been requesting some evidence for your repeated claim that nArAyaNa is explicit in the veda saMhitA. And your replies have provided absolutely nothing!

I have certainly NOT claimed that nArAyaNa cannot be implied in the veda, but you have (wrongly) claimed that nArAyaNa is explicit in the veda!

rudra and shiva, however, ARE explicit in the veda saMhitA, and the shatarudriya is the sacred heart of all shaiva belief.

There is no problem in assuming that all of the individual names belong to nArAyaNa, but the anonymous One who is the source of all names is “nara”, whose existence is implied by the family name nArAyaNa.

nArAyaNa is not explicit in any saMhitA, but the name (as I have often mentioned) is a standard patronymic form, derived from nara.

For example:

bAdarAyaNa is “the son of badara”
bAhumitrAyaNa is “the son of bahumitra”
bhArgAyaNa is “the son of bharga”
cAkrAyaNa is “the son of cakra”
dArbhAyaNa is “the son of darbha”
dhArmyAyaNa is “the son of dharmya”
dhaumrAyaNa is “the son of dhUmra”
gairAyaNa is “the son of giri”
gArgyAyaNa is “the son of gArgya”
graiSmAyaNa is “the son of grISma”
jAlaMdharAyaNa is “the son of jalaMdhara”
kaiMkarAyaNa is “the son of kiMkara”
kASAyaNa is “the son of kaSAya”
kaumArAyaNa is “the son of kumAra”
khAdirAyaNa is “the son of khadira”
khArapAyaNa is “the son of kharapa”
khArjUrAyaNa is “the son of kharjUra”
krauSTrAyaNa is “the son of kroSTri”
maitrAyaNa is “the son of mitra”
mATharAyaNa is “the son of mAThara”
paiÑgarAyaNa is “the son of piÑgara”
pArAsharyAyaNa is “the son of pArAsharya”
pauSpAyaNa is “the son of pauSpi”
pAvitrAyaNa is “the son of pavitra”
raudrAyaNa is “the son of rudra”
saukRtyAyana is “the son of sukRtya”
svArAyaNa is “the son of svara”
vAdhyoSAyaNa is “the son of vadhyoSa”
vaishvAnarAyaNa is “the son of vishvAnara”
yaugaMdharAyaNa is “the son of yugaMdhara”
shAbarAyaNa is “the son of shabara”
And nArAyaNa is “the son of nara” !!

nara = brahma = brahman
nArAyaNa = brahmA = brahman

And nArAyaNa is “the son of man” who is truly the son of God.

nara = brahma = paramAtman = prajñAtman = kevalAtman = avyakta
nArAyaNa = brahmA = sUtrAtman = prANAtman = karmAtman = ahaMkAra
nara = brAhma = jIvAtman = pratyagAtman = kAmAtman = bhUta __________________
Śarabhaṅga Giri (http://www.geocities.com/sarabhanga/index.html)


http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/images/icons/icon12.gif Re: Aswins
Namaste Atanu,

nara is “the primeval man” (as “the eternal spirit pervading the universe”); and nArAyaNa is the “son of the primeval man”.

nara is the old man; and nArAyaNa is the young man.

nara is the original undivided puruSa; and nArAyaNa is his divided self-conception.

nara is aja and ekapada; while nArAyaNa is prajA and sahasrapAda.

nara is hara (the one paramAtman); and nArAyaNa is hari (the many jIvAtmAna).

nara is akala (“not in parts”); and nArAyaNa is his kalam (“seed”), which is kAla (“enumerated”).

In yoga, nara and nArAyaNa are realized as non-different (a perfect twin), and the naranArAyaNau is observed.

And naranArAyaNa is another name for kRSNa.

harihara !
__________________
Śarabhaṅga Giri (http://www.geocities.com/sarabhanga/index.html)

hara is the source, and hari is the manifestation
hara is the conception, and hari is the realization
hara is intention or will to create, and hari is completion or perfect creation
hara is the father and the inheritance, and hari is the son and the heir
hara is nara, and hari is nArAyaNa
hara is the horse or vehicle, and hari is the rider or driver
hara is indra, and hari is viSNu
hara is varuNa, and hari is vAyu
hara is ananta, and hari is nArAyaNa
hara is “ to be ”, and hari is “ I am ”

hara is the second person imperative to “ Create! ” (bRMhan); and
hari is the present and imperfect reply: “ I am created, and I am creating ”

hara = nara = bRMhan = advaita = avyakta
hari = nArAyaNa = dvaita = ahaMkAra

Jai Shree Krishna

devotee
23 June 2012, 11:57 PM
Namaste,

Let's start what the SamhitA portion of the VedAs say. First of all I will take and examine how the verses quoted by M.Phil have been distorted :

Rig Veda 7.40.5: Rudra gets his strength by propitiating Vishnu

===>This is utter distortion of what the sukta says. From the above appears that Rudra propitiates Vishnu to gain strength for himself ! What the reality is
? First of all, the above meaning is taken from Griffith’s translation (better to say mistranslation) of the Vedas. However, even if that meaning is considered to be correct, it says :

7.40.5 With offerings I propitiate the branches of this swift-moving God, the bounteous Viṣṇu. Hence Rudra gained his Rudra-strength: O Aśvins, ye sought the house that hath celestial viands.

So, even by considering this translation to be correct, Rudra doesn’t proipitiate Vishnu for getting strength ! It is the Hota who is propitiating Vishnu. How Rudra’s getting strength is connected with it, is amazing ! Again, the Asvins seeking house that has celestial viands .... what does it means ? It is a complete nonsensical translation.

After great search I could lay my hands on Rig Veda as translated by Pandit SriRam Sharma Acharya hailing from Uttar Pradesh/India, who has translated more than 150 sacred scriptures correctly. This book is published by Sanskriti SansthAn, Vednagar, Bareilly (U.P.). Going by this translation the correct meaning of the verses 4 & 5 are which make better sense :

7.40.4 Mitra, VaruNa and AryamA are all powerful. They are the support of our YagnanusthAn ( or the Yagna). Luminous Aditi and all these DevatAs who are called upon in (this Yagna) make us free from all sins.
7.40.5 All other devatAs who are from Vishnu-ansha (are invited to this Yagna). May Rudra bestow his grace upon us. O’ Ashidvaya (Ashwini Kumars) do grace us with your coming to our home which is full of Yagna offerings.



Rig Veda 7.99.1-4: Vishnu is said to create Suurya and Agni

===> 7.99.1 to 7.99.2 is praising Vishnu but in the same way other DevatAs too are praised at different places in Rig Veda. So, Vishnu is certainly praised but that doesn’t mean that other DevatAs are lesser beings than Him.
In fact, by reaching 3rd and 4th verses, it becomes abundantly clear that these verses praise Indra and Vishnu together. Both have been called with one name, “IndrAvishnu”. It does say that Surya, Agni and UshA have been made to appear by Vishnu and Indra.

However, these verses cannot be taken without considering what is stated elsewhere in Rig Veda. This bringing various DevAtas into being is not exclusive to Vishnu. Indra and other Devas too do it as we shall see. In fact, Rig Veda says in 1.164.46 says :

They call him Indra, Mitra, Varuṇa, Agni, and he is heavenly nobly-winged Garutmān. To the Truth that is One, sages give many a title they call it Agni, Yama, Mātariśvan.


Rig Veda 10.90.13: States that Brahman (here addressed as The Purusha) created Suurya, Agni, Indra, Vaayu, and Chandra

===> The whole of Sukta 10.90 talks of Purusha and that Purusha created all beings and everything are created by this Purusha. It doesn’t say that Purusha is Vishnu or NArayaNa ! What is being proposed here ???

Rig Veda 10.121.2: States that He (here addressed as Hiranyagarbha) is the "Giver of vital breath, of power and vigour, he whose commandments all the gods acknowledge."


====> HinraNyagarbha is not Purusha but PrajApati. Again, HinraNyagarbha is born from Purusha as per this verse and therefore, it can’t be Purusha. HiraNyagarbha i.e. PrajApati has been called by various names “Ka’ etc in this verse.

Rig Veda 10.190.3: States that Brahman (here addressed as Dhaatar) created Suurya and Chandra

====> The whole Sukta 10.190 doesn’t talk about Brahman at all ! Dhaata is actually another Deva of the Rig Veda.

This Sukta says :

From Tejomaya Tapa Yagna and Satya were born. Then Day and night were born. After that Ocean full of water was born. From water filled Ocean, Samvatsar (Samvatsar is a devata) was born. The world having Day, night and nimisha is under him (Samvatsar). As it was created in earlier Kalpas, DhAtA created Sun, Moon, heaven, earth and space.

===> Therefore, the first cause of creation according to this Sukta is Tejomaya Yagna according to this verse which set the process of creation in action.

We shall talk about other verses later which will expose how some people are trying to give their own colors to Hindu Dharma's Shstras !

OM

Sri Vaishnava
24 June 2012, 12:02 AM
Pranam

We have been offered, 1-1-4 Narayan alone is supreme deity - not Brahma not Shiva, apparently he was not happy.
these supremacy debate just don't go away, it has been debated over and over again-i dare say it will go on.

it was discussed here;
http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?t=396&page=6&highlight=Nara pages 5-9 and many other places, i offer this because Sarabhanga ji has elaborated quite nicely so has Atanu and others.

It was contended that Shiva has no basis in vedas it turns out our friend Sri Vaishnava could not provide ref from Samhita and this is what was offered by Śarabhaṅga Giri (http://www.geocities.com/sarabhanga/index.html)

Shaivism has no basis in the Vedas? I repeat: What complete and utter nonsense !!

Atanu and I have been requesting some evidence for your repeated claim that nArAyaNa is explicit in the veda saMhitA. And your replies have provided absolutely nothing!

I have certainly NOT claimed that nArAyaNa cannot be implied in the veda, but you have (wrongly) claimed that nArAyaNa is explicit in the veda!

rudra and shiva, however, ARE explicit in the veda saMhitA, and the shatarudriya is the sacred heart of all shaiva belief.

There is no problem in assuming that all of the individual names belong to nArAyaNa, but the anonymous One who is the source of all names is “nara”, whose existence is implied by the family name nArAyaNa.

nArAyaNa is not explicit in any saMhitA, but the name (as I have often mentioned) is a standard patronymic form, derived from nara.

For example:

bAdarAyaNa is “the son of badara”
bAhumitrAyaNa is “the son of bahumitra”
bhArgAyaNa is “the son of bharga”
cAkrAyaNa is “the son of cakra”
dArbhAyaNa is “the son of darbha”
dhArmyAyaNa is “the son of dharmya”
dhaumrAyaNa is “the son of dhUmra”
gairAyaNa is “the son of giri”
gArgyAyaNa is “the son of gArgya”
graiSmAyaNa is “the son of grISma”
jAlaMdharAyaNa is “the son of jalaMdhara”
kaiMkarAyaNa is “the son of kiMkara”
kASAyaNa is “the son of kaSAya”
kaumArAyaNa is “the son of kumAra”
khAdirAyaNa is “the son of khadira”
khArapAyaNa is “the son of kharapa”
khArjUrAyaNa is “the son of kharjUra”
krauSTrAyaNa is “the son of kroSTri”
maitrAyaNa is “the son of mitra”
mATharAyaNa is “the son of mAThara”
paiÑgarAyaNa is “the son of piÑgara”
pArAsharyAyaNa is “the son of pArAsharya”
pauSpAyaNa is “the son of pauSpi”
pAvitrAyaNa is “the son of pavitra”
raudrAyaNa is “the son of rudra”
saukRtyAyana is “the son of sukRtya”
svArAyaNa is “the son of svara”
vAdhyoSAyaNa is “the son of vadhyoSa”
vaishvAnarAyaNa is “the son of vishvAnara”
yaugaMdharAyaNa is “the son of yugaMdhara”
shAbarAyaNa is “the son of shabara”
And nArAyaNa is “the son of nara” !!

nara = brahma = brahman
nArAyaNa = brahmA = brahman

And nArAyaNa is “the son of man” who is truly the son of God.

nara = brahma = paramAtman = prajñAtman = kevalAtman = avyakta
nArAyaNa = brahmA = sUtrAtman = prANAtman = karmAtman = ahaMkAra
nara = brAhma = jIvAtman = pratyagAtman = kAmAtman = bhUta __________________
Śarabhaṅga Giri (http://www.geocities.com/sarabhanga/index.html)


http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/images/icons/icon12.gif Re: Aswins
Namaste Atanu,

nara is “the primeval man” (as “the eternal spirit pervading the universe”); and nArAyaNa is the “son of the primeval man”.

nara is the old man; and nArAyaNa is the young man.

nara is the original undivided puruSa; and nArAyaNa is his divided self-conception.

nara is aja and ekapada; while nArAyaNa is prajA and sahasrapAda.

nara is hara (the one paramAtman); and nArAyaNa is hari (the many jIvAtmAna).

nara is akala (“not in parts”); and nArAyaNa is his kalam (“seed”), which is kAla (“enumerated”).

In yoga, nara and nArAyaNa are realized as non-different (a perfect twin), and the naranArAyaNau is observed.

And naranArAyaNa is another name for kRSNa.

harihara !
__________________
Śarabhaṅga Giri (http://www.geocities.com/sarabhanga/index.html)

hara is the source, and hari is the manifestation
hara is the conception, and hari is the realization
hara is intention or will to create, and hari is completion or perfect creation
hara is the father and the inheritance, and hari is the son and the heir
hara is nara, and hari is nArAyaNa
hara is the horse or vehicle, and hari is the rider or driver
hara is indra, and hari is viSNu
hara is varuNa, and hari is vAyu
hara is ananta, and hari is nArAyaNa
hara is “ to be ”, and hari is “ I am ”

hara is the second person imperative to “ Create! ” (bRMhan); an
hari is the



Funny that my name should come up. That was written when I was young and did not read much. So, I could not reply to the infantile arguments of Sarabhanga. That was 5 years ago. I am now much older and have learned all the shAstrAs from a guru in the traditional way. So, the idea that I could not reply to this sarabhanga character is pretty much is quashed. What he has written has zero basis in the ShAstras.

Ganesh Prasad always keeps arguing the same thing. No offense, but I have often wondered if it is a case of obsessive compulsive disorder - maybe he feels that if his post is the last in a thread, it gives him a feeling of satisfaction even if it is a repeated argument or actually, nothing significant. Well, quality matters, not quantity.

I will not waste time arguing with him, but he will know me as Dark Warrior from another forum. And I am much more knowlegeable than I was before.

What person would ever say nArAyaNa is not Brahman because he is not mentioned in the samhitAs? According to VedAntA, the SamhitAs form part of the karma khAnda and the Upanishads form the jnAna khAnda. The samhitAs detail the actions and rituals needed to attain Brahman, whereas the Upanishads detail the nature of Brahman who is to be attained.

So, the Upanishads describe nArAyaNa, and the samhitAs describing various yAgAs, yajnAs and devatAs are simply directed to that nArAyaNa, who is the indweller of all. This nArAyaNa is identified with Vishnu, in the Vishnu Gayatri!

Anyone who differentiates between what is mentioned in samhitA and upanishad is not a Vaidika! Only westerners would say SamhitA is earlier to Upanishads, they are different from each other, etc.

I won't interfere with this discussion, but since my name came up, I will offer a few points:

1) Some quote 'vAyu, tvameva pratyaxam brahmAsI' to suggest that Adi Shankaracharya preferred Vayu worship over Vishnu, showing that Vayu can be equal to or greater than Vishnu.

Firstly, I will explain how Shankaracharya interpreted it in light of Advaita and then explain the Vishishtadvaita view on this. According to the Advaita philosophy of Shankara, only Brahman exists. But at the vyAvahArika sat, Shankara accepts a saguna brahman, and he identifies that Saguna Brahman with only nArAyaNa. Ref: BrihadaranyakOpanishad where he states, 'Sa AtmA nArAyaNa' and in Gita BhAshya 'nArAyanA parO vyaktAt'. So, Brahman is nArAyaNa and sagunOpAsana is directed to him.

In Gita BhAshya, in the slOkas describing worship of anya devatA as avidhi pUrvakam, Shankaracharya not only upholds worship of Krishna, but also denounces worship of other devatAs. He specifically names some deities, including Vinayaka.

So, the statement 'vAyu, tvamevam pratyaxam brahmAsi' is interpreted by Shankara that considering vAyu is perceptible, he is to be meditated upon, ie, at the vyAvahArika sath, nArAyaNa, who is the AtmA of vAyu, is to be meditated in preference of nArAyaNa who is urukramA (trivikrama).

This is consistent with his interpretation of antaryAmi brAhmana as 'sa AtmA nArAyaNa' and his declaration that eka bhakti to Krishna alone is the correct way, denouncing worship of anya devatA.

Furthermore, some may argue he declared Shiva as sarvag~na in KenOpanishad. However, that doesn't mean Shiva is Brahman. Many rishis are sarvag~na on account of possessing knowledge of Brahman, similarly, Shiva is held as sarvag~na.

Shankaracharya has condemned anya devata worship. In Sahasranama BhAshya, he states 'Kesava' means the Ruler of Brahma and Rudra.

2) Now, let me get to the Vishishtadvaita interpretation of 'tvam evam pratyaksham brahmAsi. The antaryAmI Brahmana, as quoted by Philosoraptor, clearly states that the jivAtmA is the body of Brahman. Some meditations prescribe direct meditation on Brahman, while others prescribe meditation on devas as the body of Brahman. As such, in pratardana vidyA, Indra should be meditated as the body of nArAyaNa. SImilarly, VAyu, as the body of nArAyaNa, is meditated as pratyaksham brahmAsi.

The Brihad.Up. also states, 'anganyAnya devatA', ie, devas are the limbs of Brahman. Similarly, Shiva states in mahabhAratA, 'ka refers to Brahma, I am Isha, we are sprung from your (Krishna) limbs, so you are called Keshava'.

2) Satapatha Brahmana declares that Shiva was born with karma. He declares himself as 'anapahatapApma', ie, not cleansed of karmas, whereas SubalOpanishad calls nArAyaNa as 'apahatapApmA'.

3) Ekam Sath Bahud ViprA Vadanti does not mean every deva is the same. This vAkyA refers to the Chandogya upanishad's sath vidyA, which states that Sath is the reality. So, 'Ekam Sath' refers to Sath, who is nArAyaNa, who is Ekam, ie, One without a Second. This means, Sath (nArAyaNa) is the nimitta, upAdAna and sahakArI kAraNam of the jagath. The rest of the vAkyam echoes that since he is the cause of the Universe (and the Universe being the body of Brahman as per the AntaryAmi Brahmana), all names belong to him - Indra, Mitra, Varuna, etc.

So much for that.

4) Lastly, the mahAbhArata vAkyam about Shiva possessing the flowers offered by Arjuna to Krishna is true. Flowers offered to Krishna's feet landed on Shiva's head (or near his body) showing that material desires can be fulfilled by praying to Krishna.

5) Krishna calls devotees who worship him for material gains as magnanimous, but condemns those who worship anya devatAs for material gains. This is because if we ask for wealth from Krishna, we get wealth and later on, mOksha. With devas, we just get wealth and then fall back to samSaRa.

6) 'Nourish the Devas and the Devas nourish you' in the GitA must be interpreted in line with 'AnganyAnya devatA, yasya AtmA sarIram' as per the Br.Up, antaryAmi brAhmana. Since devas are the body of Brahman and Krishna is Brahman, he is the indweller of the devatas. So, he says, 'worship the (indwelling paramAtmA) of the devas and the (indwelling paramatma) of devas will nourish you'.

It refers to sandhyAvandanam, etc where NarayaNa is worshipped as the antaryAmi of devatas. Even the Rudram, which is a favorite quote by so many here, and which I listen to often, openly references that the mantrAs in Rudram are directed to the antaryAmin of Rudra, namely, sankarshaNa:

'sankarshanA murthy swarUpo yosAvAdityaha pramapurushaha sa esha rudro devata...'

Sankarshana is the upAsya devatA of Rudra since it is the third stage of Bhakti yOga as detailed in the MandUkyA. For those who don't know, Sankarshana is the vyUha rUpam of Sriman nArAyaNa (SahasranAma - Chatur Vyuha) who presides over the dreamless sleep state and the penultimate stage of bhakti yOgA.

It doesn't matter if you quote a hundred samhitas proclaiming Rudra as Brahman, or Varuna, Agni, VAyu, etc because all these devatas are the body of nArAyaNa and hence, it simply refers to the indwelling nArAyaNa in them. This is because we have bheda vAkyAs 1) declaring devas to be ignorant (kenOpanishad) of Brahman, 3) devas to be absent prior to shrshtI (mahopanishad - eko ha vai nArAyaNa aseet, na brahma, na isana, 3) Devas declared to be anapahatapapma (shiva in satapatha brahmana), 4) Devas as the body of nArAyaNa (anganyAnya devatA), 5) the name 'nArAyaNa' being a proper noun due to 'na-kara' as accepted by even shaivites like appaya dikshitar in his ananda lahiri, 6) nArAyaNa identified as Vishnu in the Vishnu GAyatri.

That is why Brahma SutrAs explain the intent of the Upanishads. Without jnAna khAnda, the karma khAnda cannot be understood properly, and this is explained by GitAchAryan as well.

Note the Vishvarupa quote by Arjuna - you pervade everything, so you ARE everything (11 chapter, don't remember slOka). Since he pervades everything and everything is his body, he is everything. 'Jack' refers to Jack's body and Jack's AtmA, two different entities as one.

Even the word 'Vishvarupa' means that Vishvam is his Rupam, ie, the Universe is his form as it is his body.

Let Philosoraptor carry on.

EDIT: One more point. We know nArAyaNa is in temples because he is all pervading and can be installed as vigraha in multiple places. If devas are jivAs, how come Rudra exists everywhere in linga, or Skanda,etc? The answer is that nArAyaNa pervades by svarUpa and svabhAva. JivAs are anu, but they can pervade by their dharma bhUta jnAnA (attributive knowledge). The jivAtmA is like a fire, which is localised in one place, but its radiance can spread everywhere.

So, the devas pervade lingas and their vigrahas by their knowledge, ie, svabhAva dharma bhUta jnAnA. This is explained in Gita 'tEsham anukampArthEna' where knowledge is said to blossom. And it is well known that rishi Saubhari assumed 50 bodies because of extended jnAna due to good karma. In the state of mOksha, this jnAnA expands infinitely and one can assume infinite bodies, as per chan.up (he becomes, one fold, two fold....million fold).

Brahma Sutras state devas attain moksha by meditating on Brahman. Madhu Vidya states that meditating on Pundarikaksha in Surya Mandalam gives status of Rudras and Vasus (Chan, Up.)

No more from me on this. I don't really care who accepts it or not.

Ganeshprasad
24 June 2012, 06:21 AM
Pranam


Funny that my name should come up. That was written when I was young and did not read much. So, I could not reply to the infantile arguments of Sarabhanga. That was 5 years ago. I am now much older and have learned all the shAstrAs from a guru in the traditional way. So, the idea that I could not reply to this sarabhanga character is pretty much is quashed. What he has written has zero basis in the ShAstras.

Ganesh Prasad always keeps arguing the same thing. No offense, but I have often wondered if it is a case of obsessive compulsive disorder - maybe he feels that if his post is the last in a thread, it gives him a feeling of satisfaction even if it is a repeated argument or actually, nothing significant. Well, quality matters, not quantity.

I will not waste time arguing with him, but he will know me as Dark Warrior from another forum. And I am much more knowlegeable than I was before.

well well well what we have here, Sri, aka Dark warrior, what is there to say he is not masquerading as Phil, it want be the first. Lets hope you have matured enough to be civil at least, may be you could learn a thing or two from the famous bhajan of Narsinh mehta 'Vaishnava Jana'



What person would ever say nArAyaNa is not Brahman because he is not mentioned in the samhitAs? If you have cared to read, all of them, you would have noticed no one had said Narayan is not Brahman but how can you say Shiva is not?

The point is Narayan is implied but not known in samhita, therefore a hotra priest can not invoke him but Rudra is specific and propitiated.

Narayan is Brahman that is not in question but ‘Eko Rudra’ is not just don’t wash.


RV Book 6 XLIX. 10 Rudra is called Rudra by day, Rudra ---- UNIVERSE'S FATHER
In RV 7:46:2 Rudra is called as the one who "rules" on all celestial beings through his imperial power. In RV 2:33:9 Rudra is referred as the Godhead whose strength doesn't leave (depart from) him. In RV 2:33:3 he is called as "mightiest of the mighty" In RV 7:46:1 Rudra is called as the God who is "self dependent" and "none can overcome Rudra".

YV iv. 5. 9 p Homage to you, sparkling hearts of the gods

YV v. 5. 9. i The Rudra in the fire, in the waters, in the plants, the Rudra that hath entered all beings, to that Rudra be homage.

One can go on but there is no point, I know there is no convincing you, like a parallel line there is no meeting. But let us not denigrate Vedic gods, they are worshiped as Krishna confirms,
ekatvena prthaktvena
bahudha visvato-mukham bg9.15




I won't interfere with this discussion, but since my name came up, I will offer a few points:That is very big of you and therefore i see no point debating you but could not help comment on below.



4) Lastly, the mahAbhArata vAkyam about Shiva possessing the flowers offered by Arjuna to Krishna is true. Flowers offered to Krishna's feet landed on Shiva's head (or near his body) showing that material desires can be fulfilled by praying to Krishna. Very funny, Arjun is praying to Vasudeve every night for material desires!!!

Look at how you try to distort shastra it does not say any where about head let me quote you the sanskrit in case you do not have it.

"taṃ copahāraṃ svakṛtaṃ naiśaṃ naityakam ātmanaḥ |
dadarśa tryambakābhyāśe vāsudeva niveditam ||"

offerings he made every night to Vasudeva lying by the side of the Three-eyed deity". (Book 7, Section LXXXI )




Let Philosoraptor carry on.


No more from me on this. I don't really care who accepts it or not.Oh yes pass the baton, dark warrior masquerading as Phil would not surprise me, i beg your pardon Phil if you are genuinely not Sri.

Jai Shree Krishna

Sri Vaishnava
24 June 2012, 07:17 AM
LMAO, I am not Phil. He will clarify when he posts.

And for the record, by matured, I meant my increase in knowledge. My opinion of you remains the same.

If it was not this forum, my language in addressing you would be different, you know it. In this forum, if I was not civil, the mod would delete my posts. Anyways, I will post no more...I debate with more knowledgeable people.

As I guessed, keep repeating stuff as usual. And neither did you even understand what I said. Never mind...Not leaving that 'Hotr priest' alone, are ya?

Quite proving my point about OCD! With due respect to all the other members here, I am not interested in playing along with your OCD. So, this shall be my last post. My life is quite busy as it is.

Anyway, I just came to clarify that in my last post, the gita slOka in the EDIT reg. dharma bhUta jnAnA was 'tesam evanukampartham aham...' and not 'tesam anukamparthena...'

...guess I wrote that in a hurry. That's all.


I

devotee
24 June 2012, 08:14 AM
Namaste,

I will start with Rig Veda. Let's see what this Veda says about various DevatAs. In most of the places I have only a part of the mantra for the purpose of this discussion and not the whole mantra.


Agni

2.1.1-6 .... You are born from water. You grant the boons (to Hota) for the Yagna. You are Adhvaryu and BrahmA. You alone are Vishnu, the God worth praising through Stutis, Lord and you guide the intellect of people. You are Varuna, the strict observer of rules. You are Aryama and you are Surya. You are the terrible doer, the Rudra and power of MarudgaNa. You alone are PushA who guard the people from all sides.

2.1.11 You are Aditi, the Hota and VANi.

3.20.4 He who makes the seasons manifest, creator and sustainer of the world like Surya, involved in satya-krama, ancient, omniscient and luminous Agnideva may cleanse the stotaa from all sins.

3.23.1 Born out of rubbing, established in the house of Yajman, omniscient, doer of the Yagna-karma, established in self-consciousness, Agni deva is ageless.


3.25.3 The omniscient, Lord of the worlds, luminous power, Agni illumines the Sky and the Earth.

4.1.1 You are the knower of Karmas. The devatas have produced you for being present in the Yagna.

4.1.10 The immortal DevatAs have created Agni for performing the Yagna.

5.8.3 Like a well wisher friend and having an amazing form, the VaishvAnar Agni established the sky and the earth in their places.

7.16.2 That Agni is the nourisher of all.


**************
Indra

10.128.7 I adore Indra who is the Creator of the creator of this creation, who is the Lord of the worlds and and who proptect us.
2.12.4 He created this world and threw the mischief doers into lower lokas.
2.12.7 He created the Sun and the dawn.
6.47.18 Indra has thirty different forms and he goes to the YajmAns in various forms.
3.103.1 Your famous best power is established in sky in the form of Sun. The Rishis accepted this power in the form of Agni as Yagna.
3.39.1 O Indra, you are the Lord of the world.
3.46.2-3 You are the only lord of the whole world. ... This Indra is Soma-yukta, infinite from all sides and more undeterrable than even the mountains. He is more powerful than the luminous devatAs.
3.49.1 The earth, the Sky and the Devas created this Indra.
4. 17.6 All Somas are born for Indra.
4.18.4 Aditi kept the mighty indra in her womb for many years.
7.32.22 There is no one born like you and no one will ever be.
8.3.1 By his own valour, Indra increased the earth and Sky. Indra alone made the Surya the giver of light. By Indra alone all these worlds are ergulated. Soma is regulated for Indra alone.
8.12.28-29 O Indra, when your both horses increased, then alone this world god created. O Indra, when the MarudgaNa regulate all Jeevas you regulate the whole creation.
8.17.9 O Indra, you are the cause of power and the Lord of the world.
8.36.2 You are lod of Truth.
8.36.4 You are creator of the earth and the sky and Lord of Truth.
10.55.2 O Indra, your unmanifest body is extremely powerful. The past and the present times are born out of that body alone. Whichever things you wanted to produce, the most ancient things were produced.
10. 55. 3 O Indra, you alone have given light to all luminous objects. UshA and Nakshtras are illuminated by your light alone.
10.120.1 That Indra is the best of all from who luminous Surya was born. There was no one born before him.


Soma

10.85.1 The earth is upheld by truth; the Heaven is supported by the sun; the Adityas stay firm in their position because of the eternal Universal order; and Soma is placed in the Heaven by the eternal Universal Order. Rigveda
10.85.2 The Adityas are powerful due to Soma, the Earth is mighty because of Soma, and Soma has got his place in Heaven in the midst of these Nakshatras. Rigveda
10.85.3 When they extract the juice of the plant, he who drinks its juice regards the polant as Soma, but no one can consume that Soma which the possessors of divine knowledge know to be true Soma. Rigveda
1.91.5 O Soma, you are nourisher of grat men, destroyer of Vritra and form of great power.
9.19.22 O Soma, increase our luck. You and Indra both are Cow protectors and Lord of all.
9.26.3 Soma are lord of all, doer of all karmas and support of all.
9.61.6 O Soma, you are the Lord of the world.
9.68.3 Soma created Earth and Sky and irrigated them with their juices for giving them sufficient powers.
9.73.6 The fast moving rays of Soma were born with space together.
9.86.19 These Soma are the nourishers of the protectors of well beings of the stoats,. They give birth to Sun and water.
9.86.21 Somas create the worlds.
9.86.22 These Somas alone created Surya.
9.86.28-29 O Lord of the world, all Jeevas are born by your tejas. You support the world and the directions. ... You are the knower of the world.
9.86.46 These Somas supported the Sky and fixed it.
9.96.5 These Somas are creators of Sky, Earth, Agni, Surya, Indra and the Vishnu.




I shall take up other DevatAs in the next post.

OM

Spiritualseeker
24 June 2012, 09:10 AM
Namaste,

I bow to you Devotee. This is one of my favorite threads. I want to study the scripture content you have posted. Thank you

Om Namah Shivaya

philosoraptor
24 June 2012, 11:46 AM
Namaste,

Let's start what the SamhitA portion of the VedAs say. First of all I will take and examine how the verses quoted by M.Phil have been distorted :

Rig Veda 7.40.5: Rudra gets his strength by propitiating Vishnu

===>This is utter distortion of what the sukta says. From the above appears that Rudra propitiates Vishnu to gain strength for himself ! What the reality is
? First of all, the above meaning is taken from Griffith’s translation (better to say mistranslation) of the Vedas. However, even if that meaning is considered to be correct, it says :

7.40.5 With offerings I propitiate the branches of this swift-moving God, the bounteous Viṣṇu. Hence Rudra gained his Rudra-strength: O Aśvins, ye sought the house that hath celestial viands.

So, even by considering this translation to be correct, Rudra doesn’t proipitiate Vishnu for getting strength ! It is the Hota who is propitiating Vishnu. How Rudra’s getting strength is connected with it, is amazing ! Again, the Asvins seeking house that has celestial viands .... what does it means ? It is a complete nonsensical translation.

Pranams, Devotee has misunderstood the sense of the mantra.

The sense of the mantra is: "I propitiate Vishnu, in this way Rudra got his strength." In other words, he got his strength also by propitiating Vishnu (just as the hotR did). This is straightforward.

Devotee previously brought up the principle that one's interpretation must also be consistent with numerous smRtis. If he still feels that is true, that I can quote some mainstream smRtis that substantiate the position that Shiva (as in Umapati) worships Lord Vishnu. For example, bhAgavata purANa 4.3.23 Lord Shiva tells his wife Sati that he always offers obesiances to Lord Vaasudeva:

sattvaṁ viśuddhaṁ vasudeva-śabditaṁ
 yad īyate tatra pumān apāvṛtaḥ |
sattve ca tasmin bhagavān vāsudevo
 hy adhokṣajo me namasā vidhīyate || bhA 4.3.23 ||

Also, in the varAha puraNa, when sage Agastya asks Shiva who among Brahmaa, Shiva, and Vishnu is supreme. Lord Shiva replies that it is Vishnu who is the Supreme Deity, and says that the beguiled persons do not know it:

rudra uvAcha
viShNureva paraM brahma tribhedamiha patThate |
vedasiddhAntamArgeShu tanna jAnanti mohitAH || varAha p 72.4 || (All-India Kashiraj Trust edition)

Later he says that he (Shiva) always pays homage to Vishnu during Krta Age:

ahaM cha taM sadA staumi shvetadvIpe kRte yuge || varAha p 72.8 ||



After great search I could lay my hands on Rig Veda as translated by Pandit SriRam Sharma Acharya hailing from Uttar Pradesh/India, who has translated more than 150 sacred scriptures correctly.

What an accomplishment! I assume that you make this assertion because you yourself have read all of his translations in their entirety and have checked them for accuracy.


This book is published by Sanskriti SansthAn, Vednagar, Bareilly (U.P.). Going by this translation the correct meaning of the verses 4 & 5 are which make better sense :

7.40.4 Mitra, VaruNa and AryamA are all powerful. They are the support of our YagnanusthAn ( or the Yagna). Luminous Aditi and all these DevatAs who are called upon in (this Yagna) make us free from all sins.
7.40.5 All other devatAs who are from Vishnu-ansha (are invited to this Yagna). May Rudra bestow his grace upon us. O’ Ashidvaya (Ashwini Kumars) do grace us with your coming to our home which is full of Yagna offerings.



Two points:
1) You haven't explained how this translation "make better sense." I would appreciate some clarification as to why it makes "better sense." Surely there is some other problem you have with the Griffith translation beyond the fact that he is a Western academic. I myself am not endorsing his or anyone else's translation. I just want to know what the specific problem with the translation is, beyond the fact that you don't like its content. Bear in mind that you yourself quoted pramAnas previously establishing that Shiva was born from /created by Naaraayana. So... if in your own opinion Shiva was created by Naaraayana, then why is it wrong to conclude that Shiva is an entity different from Naaraayana?
2) Though I can't claim to have translated 150 works from Sanskrit into English, even I can see that there is something in the original Sanskrit about "Rudra" getting his "Rudriyam" which the Sharma translation you quoted does not seem to acknowledge. Furthermore, the translation you quoted does not acknowledge the "I propitiate with offerings... Vishnu" part which really changes the meaning considerably. Here is the original Sanskrit for your consideration:

asya devasya mīḷhuṣo vayā viṣṇoreṣasya prabhṛthe havirbhiḥ |
vide hi rudro rudriyaṃ mahitvaṃ yāsiṣṭaṃ vartiraśvināvirāvat ||



Rig Veda 7.99.1-4: Vishnu is said to create Suurya and Agni

===> 7.99.1 to 7.99.2 is praising Vishnu but in the same way other DevatAs too are praised at different places in Rig Veda.

The mere fact that a deva is praised does not make him supreme. It is logical that one can praise an entity even if he is not the Supreme Deity. On the other hand, if the Supreme Deity is praised and addressed by names commonly associated with anya-devatas, then it logically follows that the Supreme Deity is being addressed, as there can be only one Supreme Deity.


So, Vishnu is certainly praised but that doesn’t mean that other DevatAs are lesser beings than Him.

No, it's the fact that Vishnu is said to create other devatAs that makes it clear they are different from Him and subservient to Him. Otherwise, your theory, when extended to its logical conclusion, would have us believe that the Supreme Deity creates Himself. If that's really what you want to believe...


In fact, by reaching 3rd and 4th verses, it becomes abundantly clear that these verses praise Indra and Vishnu together. Both have been called with one name, “IndrAvishnu”. It does say that Surya, Agni and UshA have been made to appear by Vishnu and Indra.

QED Surya, Agni, and Ushaa are less than Vishnu and Indra. So they are not the same.



However, these verses cannot be taken without considering what is stated elsewhere in Rig Veda. This bringing various DevAtas into being is not exclusive to Vishnu. Indra and other Devas too do it as we shall see. In fact, Rig Veda says in 1.164.46 says :

They call him Indra, Mitra, Varuṇa, Agni, and he is heavenly nobly-winged Garutmān. To the Truth that is One, sages give many a title they call it Agni, Yama, Mātariśvan.



All this says is that the Supreme Brahman is called by the names of other devas, or in other words, that these are also His names. It does not mean that other devas are the Supreme Brahman. Hence, when a deity is addressed in a manner that would be consistent with his being a supreme deity, it should be understand that Brahman is being described. From there, one need only establish that there are other devas who are created by Brahman, obey Brahman, depend on Brahman, etc to establish that they are *different* from and *subservient* to Brahman. This has already been established with multiple pramaanas previously, including the Kena Upanishad (3rd khaNDa) which shows that Indra, Agni, and Vaayu are different from and depend on Brahman:

1. Brahman obtained the victory for the Devas. The Devas became elated by the victory of Brahman, and they thought, this victory is ours only, this greatness is ours only.

2. Brahman perceived this and appeared to them. But they did not know it, and said: 'What sprite (yaksha or yakshya) is this?'

3. They said to Agni (fire): 'O Gâtavedas, find out what sprite this is.' 'Yes,' he said.

4. He ran toward it, and Brahman said to him: 'Who are you?' He replied: 'I am Agni, I am Gâtavedas.'

5. Brahman said: 'What power is in you?' Agni replied: 'I could burn all whatever there is on earth.'

6. Brahman put a straw before him, saying: 'Burn this.' He went towards it with all his might, but he could not burn it. Then he returned thence and said: 'I could not find out what sprite this is.'

7. Then they said to Vâyu (air): 'O Vâyu, find out what sprite this is.' 'Yes,' he said.

8. He ran toward it, and Brahman said to him: 'Who are you?' He replied: 'I am Vâyu, I am Mâtarisvan.'

9. Brahman said: 'What power is in you?' Vâyu replied: 'I could take up all whatever there is on earth.'

10. Brahman put a straw before him, saying: 'Take it up.' He went towards it with all his might, but he could not take it up. Then he returned thence and said: 'I could not find out what sprite this is.'

11. Then they said to Indra: 'O Maghavan, find out what sprite this is.' He went towards it, but it disappeared from before him.

12. Then in the same space (ether) he came towards a woman, highly adorned: it was Umâ, the daughter of Himavat. He said to her: 'Who is that sprite?'

1. She replied: 'It is Brahman. It is through the victory of Brahman that you have thus become great.' After that he knew that it was Brahman.

2. Therefore these Devas, viz. Agni, Vâyu, and Indra, are, as it were, above the other gods, for they touched it (the Brahman) nearest 2.

3. And therefore Indra is, as it were, above the other gods, for he touched it nearest, he first knew it.


Thus, Indra, though being above other devas, is still different from Brahman and depends on Brahman for his strength. Again, this is straightforward and does not require interpretation.

regards,

philosoraptor
24 June 2012, 11:49 AM
Rig Veda 10.90.13: States that Brahman (here addressed as The Purusha) created Suurya, Agni, Indra, Vaayu, and Chandra

===> The whole of Sukta 10.90 talks of Purusha and that Purusha created all beings and everything are created by this Purusha. It doesn’t say that Purusha is Vishnu or NArayaNa ! What is being proposed here ???

That the devas are created by the Purusha. Hence, the devas are not the Supreme Purusha. Which establishes that (1) there is a Supreme Deity and (2) there are many subordinate deities who are not the same as that Supreme Deity. Which is the point I have been making all along.


regards,

philosoraptor
24 June 2012, 02:23 PM
Rig Veda 10.121.2: States that He (here addressed as Hiranyagarbha) is the "Giver of vital breath, of power and vigour, he whose commandments all the gods acknowledge."


====> HinraNyagarbha is not Purusha but PrajApati. Again, HinraNyagarbha is born from Purusha as per this verse and therefore, it can’t be Purusha. HiraNyagarbha i.e. PrajApati has been called by various names “Ka’ etc in this verse.

Rig Veda 10.190.3: States that Brahman (here addressed as Dhaatar) created Suurya and Chandra

====> The whole Sukta 10.190 doesn’t talk about Brahman at all ! Dhaata is actually another Deva of the Rig Veda.

This Sukta says :

From Tejomaya Tapa Yagna and Satya were born. Then Day and night were born. After that Ocean full of water was born. From water filled Ocean, Samvatsar (Samvatsar is a devata) was born. The world having Day, night and nimisha is under him (Samvatsar). As it was created in earlier Kalpas, DhAtA created Sun, Moon, heaven, earth and space.

===> Therefore, the first cause of creation according to this Sukta is Tejomaya Yagna according to this verse which set the process of creation in action.

We shall talk about other verses later which will expose how some people are trying to give their own colors to Hindu Dharma's Shstras !


Pranams. If you take a moment to examine what you have said above, I think you will recognize that you have not proven your point at all. First of all, we have already established, based on mutually acceptable pramaanas, that Brahman is known by the sages by many other names such as Indra, Agni, Vaayu, etc. It logically follows that He can be called Prajaapati, Hiranyagarbha, DhaatR, etc. depending on context.

But, let us accept your interpretation that it is not Brahman being referred to by these names, but rather to anya-devatas. In that case, RV 10.190.3 must be read as indicating that Suurya and Chandra-deva were created by DhaatR. QED, neither Suurya nor Chandra are Brahman, since Brahman exists eternally and was not created by anyone. Similarly, RV 10.121.2 must be read as indicating that all devas receive their vital breath, power, vigor, etc from Hiranyagarbha and must obey the commandments of Hiranyagarbha. So, once again, those devas are not the Supreme Brahman, as they are subservient to Hiranyagarbha. Brahman is not subservient to anyone.

So in conclusion, if deva A creates devas X, Y, and Z, then while deva A may or may not be the supreme deity, it cannot be that devas X, Y, and Z are.

regards,

philosoraptor
24 June 2012, 02:34 PM
LMAO, I am not Phil. He will clarify when he posts.

And for the record, by matured, I meant my increase in knowledge. My opinion of you remains the same.

If it was not this forum, my language in addressing you would be different, you know it. In this forum, if I was not civil, the mod would delete my posts. Anyways, I will post no more...I debate with more knowledgeable people.

As I guessed, keep repeating stuff as usual. And neither did you even understand what I said. Never mind...Not leaving that 'Hotr priest' alone, are ya?

Quite proving my point about OCD! With due respect to all the other members here, I am not interested in playing along with your OCD. So, this shall be my last post. My life is quite busy as it is.

Anyway, I just came to clarify that in my last post, the gita slOka in the EDIT reg. dharma bhUta jnAnA was 'tesam evanukampartham aham...' and not 'tesam anukamparthena...'

...guess I wrote that in a hurry. That's all.



I


Pranams,

I just wanted to thank Sri Vaishnava for his contributions and clarify some things for interested members. I am myself not a Sri Vaishnava by birth or by diksha, nor am I the person whose forum handle is Sri Vaishnava. I am merely a seeker who happens to have an interest in vedaanta including (but not limited to) vishishtaadvaita-vedaanta, whereas Sri Vaishnava appears to be someone who was formally educated in vishishthaadvaita-vedaata. I ask people not to confuse us because, it is possible I may make many mistakes in my presentation due to my inadequate understanding, and I would not want that to reflect on the greatness of the aachaaryas whose explanations I am trying to communicate. I request user Sri Vaishnava, if he is so inclined, to correct me publicly if I inadvertently misrepresent the viewpoints of Sri Raamaanuja or any other commentator.

If there is doubt on this point, I am sure the moderators can verify that user Sri Vaishnava and myself are posting from two very different IP addresses.

Also, I found the points about Shankaraachaarya's preference for Naaraayana over Shiva very interesting. Since Devotee professes to follow Shankaraachaarya's system of Advaita, I wonder how he reconciles his "all devas are the same" viewpoint with Shankaraachaarya's actual views on this subject. I would love to see more elaboration on this by Sri Vaishnava, again if he is so inclined. I was always of the impression that Shankaraachaarya believed in panchopAsana and I'm not sure how that fits in with a Naaraayana-centric view.

regards,

devotee
24 June 2012, 06:55 PM
Namaste,

There is no sense in what our great Hindu ( who is creating a strange unknown Hinduism) has proposed in his posts. So, let's not waste even a second on what he says.

Let me clarify all of you here that I have read the SamhitA part of entire Rig Veda, the whole of Yajurveda and the whole of Atharva Veda. The quotes I have selected myself and are not taken from Internet as people normally do.

I will continue with Rig Veda quotes and then conclude what they say :

Ashvini Kumars (also referred to as Ashvidvaya)


8.9.11 O Ashvidvya, you come becoming the protector of the house. You are a great sustainer. You are sustainer of this world.
8.26.5 O Ashvidvya, you grant fulfilment of all desires. You are Rudra.



Aditi

1.89.10 Aditi is heaven, Aditi is atmosphere, Aditi is mother, father and son; Aditi is all gods; Aditi is the people of the five regions of the Earth. Aditi is all that has come into being and all that which will come into being.

Mitra

3.59.8-9
Mitra sustains all deities and living beings.

HiraNyagarbha

10.121.1 First of all HiraNyagarbha was born. Just after taking birth he became the Lord of all beings. He alone fixed the sky and the earth in their places. That PrajApati is known by the name “Ka” etc.

Sarasvati

10.125.1-3 I, Vakdevi, move along with Rudra and Vasugana. I am the support of the IndraVarun and Ashvidvya. I live in the Jeevas.
10.125.7 I alone have made this Sky come into being. Therefore, I am like father to him (Sky).
10.125.8 I create the all worlds and move around like Vayu. By my greatness I have exceeded the limits of Sky and the earth.



Sun (also referred to as Savitr)

7.60.2 O Mitra and Varuna, here rises this sun, the beholder of men, ascending both Heaven and Earth. The sun, the protector of the moving and the unmoving world rises, surveying the upright and evil deeds of mortals.
5.81.2-3 ... That intelligent Savitr alone adorns various forms (of gods). He is worth worshipping and who is self-illumined. .... The gods follow the appearance of the god Savitr and attain greatness through his power. The resplendent god Savitr has measured out the terrestrial regions by his greatness.
5.81.4 ... You are the support of this world and you are the friend of all. You alone is capable of creating this world and you alone guard your rules. You rule over the entire world by illuminating them.
3.62.10-11 Gayatri Mantra is for Savitr God.

Varuna

5.85.1 Offer a solemn, profound and pleasing hymn of praise to the renowned Universal ruler Varuna who has spread the earth as a carpet for the sun, just as a Soma preparer spreads a hide (for the extraction of the juice).
5.85.2 Varuna has spread the atmosphere over the trees, put speed in horses, and milk in kine. He has placed intellect in hearts, fire in the waters, the sun in the sky and Soma in the cloud.
5.85.3 Varuna, the King of the whole world, has poured out a big bellied vessel i.e., the cloud, with downward opening; and thereby he waters the heaven, the Earth and the Atmosphere, just as rain drenches barley crop.




Vata /Vayu

10.168.2 The hosts of the wind (i.e., the rain-waters) speed together and go to him (the wind) as maidens flock to a festive concourse. United with them the god moves on the same chariot. He is the king of the whole world.

10.168.4 Breath of the gods and the source of Creation, this god moves according to his will. His sounds are heard, but his form is not seen. Let us worship that Vata with oblation.

8.26.25 O Vayu, you are the chief among the Devas.




After reading the entire Rig Veda we find that Devatas and Rishis were capable of creating (this is not the correct word, perhaps we can use "making them manifest") Devas through Tapas and Yagna. So, creation is not the proof of being the highest of all. Again many Devas have been praised as "lord of world", "creator of worlds", sustainers, regulators of worlds etc.

In fact, the whole of Rig Veda praises Indra much more than Vishnu. In fact, Indra has been called, The "Creator of the Creator" in Rig Veda. Vishnu is great, no doubt, but He has been given as special position in Rig Veda as any one else.

**************

In many places we can see that Vishnu is called to have Soma in no special way. He has been simply clubbed with other Devatas. The Stotaa calls upon various Devatas and we find that he calls Vishnu along with other devatas without giving any special treatment to him. I will quote a few verses below :

1.90.18 Mitra, VaruNa, Aryama, Indra, Vrihaspati and Vishnu, who takes long and wide steps, may grant us all prosperity.
5.63.2 O heaven seer MitrAvaruNa, you lord over the whole world by being a part of this yagna.
O Mitra and Varuna, you are givers of rains, powerful, lord of the earth and seer of all.
5.63.2 Mitravaurna theluminous form of God is able to hear our call even on remaining far off.
7.35.8-10 Surya, directions, mountains and rivers and waters may grant us peace. May Aditi, MarudgaNa, Vishnu, PUsha, space and air grant us peace. May savitA, Usha, Parjanya and Kshetrapati grant us peace.
7.39.5 O Agni, call the Indra, Mitra, VaruNa, Aryama, Agni, Aditi and Vishnu into our Yagna. Call Sarasvati and MarudgaNa too for showering their grace upon us.


OM

satay
24 June 2012, 10:20 PM
Admin Note

Indeed the IPs of Sri Vaishnava and Philosoraptor are completely different.

devotee
24 June 2012, 10:22 PM
Namaste,

I ask forgiveness from all Vaishnavas and request them not to mistake my motives. Lord Vishnu enjoys a place reserved for Brahman in my heart. I don't consider Lord Vishnu is greater than Lord Shiva but that doesn't mean that he enjoys any less status. He is Brahman as much as Shiva is.

After seeing how various DevatAs have been treated in Rig Veda, let’s see what Yajur Veda has to offer.

Yajurveda goes in the same way praising various devatAs as Rig Veda. It will be boring to quote too much from various VedAs who repeat the same things again and again. I will give specific quote only and if anyone wants, I can give more references from the Vedas.

Let’s see something peculiar about PrajApati :

PrajApati is also called the HiraNyagarbha, the first born among the devatAs at the time of creation etc. PrajApati is also known as BrahmA in common parlance. Interestingly, PrajApati has been given credit for the deciding duties of various DevAs that includes Vishnu too. Let’s see this verse :

Verse 9.26-27

You (HinraNyagarbha), the creator of food has, for our sustenance, appointed King Soma, VaishvAnara Agni, twelve AdityAs (that includes Vishnu. Let’s remember that Aditi is mother of Vishnu, who had twelve sons), BrahmA and Brihaspati. We offer sacrifices to that God like PrajApati. ... You have created AryamA, Brihaspati, Indra, VAni (Sarasvati), Vishnu etc. For providing food to all beings.

Therefore, we see that Vishnu has been created and appointed by HinraNyagarbha whereas the Brahman is unborn and uncreated. Please also mark that Vishnu is son of Aditi, the mother of twelve Gods Mitra, Varuna, Aryaman, Daksha, Bhaga, Amsa, Tvastr, Savitr, Pusan, Sakra, Vivasvat and Vishnu.


In verse 8.45, Indra has been stated to be the cause of Creator and also the Destruction.

In verse 8.17, DhAtA (which Phil wrongly calls Brahman !), SavitA (Sun), PrajApati, TvashtAdeva, Agni and Vishnu have been called to accept the Havi (the offerings in a Yagna is called Havi) together.


If Vishnu alone is Brahman and none else then why should he not been given any special treatment over others ? Therefore, either all are Brahman or none is.

The Place of Rudra in Yajur VedA

Rudra is also known as Shiva. As we know Shiva has been belittled by the ISKCON and some Internet-savvy Hindus as no one else. Let’s see what Yajurveda says about this Great Lord who is also called the greatest of the DeVas :

The whole of sixteen chapter of Yajurveda consisting of total 66 Rks (Richas or verses) is solely devoted to Lord Shiva. It is neither possible for me to quote all nor is it desirable here. So, I will quote only a few verses which would prove beyond doubts that Shiva is none but Brahman alone:

16.6-10 Rudra is alone Surya-rupa. He is Parjanya-rupa (rains).

16.17-20 He is the lord of the directions. He is nourisher of all beings (Pashus). He is ageless. He is lord of all humans of high intellect. He is the Lord of food. He who lords over the whole world. He alone is VishvakarmA (who created the world as the Brahman). He nourishes and sustains all trees, wild life, flora and fauna. He is the protector of all who seek his protection.

16.21-30 He is the inner dweller in all humans, those who live in cities wearing turbans and also those who live in forests. He is the inner dweller of all waking and also sleeping beings. Rudra alone is Vishva-rupa. He is the knower of the Shipa Vidya. He is who is expert in making the chariots. He is who makes the earthen pots, he is the lohar who works with iron, He is the Bheela (the jungle tribe), He lives in the heart of the bird catchers, the ChandAla and buthchers too. H e is the inner dweller of Kukkuras and the KirAts from whom the entire world comes into being.

He is alone lives as Vishnu in the heart of all beings. He is in the Vasus, in Yagna and in the Sun

16.31-40 He pervades the entire universe. He is found everywhere. H e is the Self of of speeding objects and flowing waters. He alone is there in the waves of waters and the still water too. He is is in the river and the island.

He is the HiarNyagarbha born at the time of creation and he alone is Kaalaagni (the destroyer fire) at the time of destruction (Pralaya). He alone is born as child after the destruction of creation. He is the Yama for punishing the sinners.

(Rudra has been praised by various mantras as pervading all beings and all places in the world which I am leaving).

16. 44 He is the AtmA in the heart of all beings.
16.46-50 He is heart of all Devas and nourishes the whole world as Agni, VAyu and Sun through rains etc.
16.59 He is the lord of all beings.

Now, how do you feel ? Is Shiva, the lord of all beings, really a demi-God ? Let's mark that Yajurveda says that He alone lives in the heart of all beings as Vishnu. So, there is no real difference between Shiva and Vishnu in essence.

We shall talk on Yajurveda more in next posts.

OM

devotee
25 June 2012, 03:49 AM
Namaste,

We have gone through Rig Veda and seen that all Devas are treated equally. We have also seen how Rudra is adored in Chapter 16 of YAjurveda. It is quite remarkable that Rudra has been specifically mentioned as Shiva, that who lives in the Kailasha etc. in this Veda.

The Yajurveda turns towards Advaita in various places ... more so in the last parts. We shall see what it says :

23.46-50 Brahman in the form Surya moves alone. Light in the form of Surya is Brahman.

===> Sun God is Brahman.

23.51-60 Purusha pervades the Panchbhootas. He is in the heart of all beings. All beings are in AtmA and Atman is in all Jeevas.

===> Brahman is the inner dweller of all. All Jeevas are in Him and Atama is in all Jeevas

31.2-10 This present world, the world of the past and the world of the future are all Param Purusha alone and by the food the form of world which is created as the fruit is also Him. He is the Lord of that immortality.

===> The worlds are nothing but Brahman.

31.18-22 That soul of all beings, PrajApati, who is unborn, goes into the wombs and takes birth in many forms. The wise who know that Brahman see the seat of that PrajApati. The whole of creation is established in the causal state i.e. Brahman. PrajApati who is in the form of Sun who shines for the gods, who is worshiipable by gods and have appeared from them ... I bow to that Brahaman. The gods made the lumious Sun appear and said, “O Aditya, the Brahamans (the knowers of Brahman) who know you impersishable in this manner have the gods under their command”.

===> One becomes many and takes births. Knowing Sun as imperishable Brahman gives him command over the gods.

32.1-5 He is Agni, He is Aditya, Vayu and Moon and Venus too. He is water, PrajApati and He alone pervades all places. All time (Past, Present and future) have come from Him. He is the Purusha who was born first (i.e. the HiraNyagarbha). He alone goes into wombs. He alone takes births. He alone pervades everything and all beings in this universe and he alone has all mouths in all directions. There is nothing born before Him. He pervades this world all alone (i.e. there is none except Him).

====> Time came from Brahman. He is even the inanimate things. There is no one except Brahman.

32.8-10 All beings are born from Him at the time of creation and all merge into him at the time of Pralaya (utter destruction).

====> He is the origin and end of all beings. (Refer : MAndukya Upanishad)

32.11 He who knows all jeevas as Brahman and all worlds as Brahman and knowing all directions as Brahman, meditating on the first born syllable (Aum) merges into that Brahman who is the lord of all yagna.

===> All Jeevas are nothing but Brahman. Meditation on Aum helps one to merge into Brahman.

IsAvasya Upanishad : This is the last chapter (Chapter 40) of this Veda.

OM

devotee
25 June 2012, 08:58 AM
Namaste,

This thread has taken a lot of time of mine. I will exit this thread after my this last post on Atharva Veda. Sri Vaishnava has commented in one of his posts on the futility of going into Samhitas of Vedas when everything is there explicitly available in VedAnta. I want to make it clear that I didn't start it but I was forced by our friend, Phil to go deep into it as he refuted 90 % of the Vedanta scriptures !

We have seen the views of Rig Veda and Yajur Vedas regarding various DevatAs. We have also seen how Yajur Veda goes into non-dual nature of Brahman in its verses. The understanding of Non-duality removes all such doubts for ever.

Atharva Veda dwells more on non-duality. Let’s remember that this Veda has given us the most important Upanishad, “MAndukya Upanishad” from Advaita point of view. Let’s see what it offers. I will take very few excerpts from this Veda leaving what has been already stated in other Vedas.

2.1.1-5 Sun saw the Brahman, with attributes as truth and knowledge in which stays the entire Universe. He appeared as Sun in name and form as he was non-different from this physical world and omnipotent. May the rays emitting Sun explain the Brahman in the heart cave to the seekers. This Brahman has three parts which are not seen. This Brahman can be known only by imparting knowledge of Truth.

That who is described as Brahman alone appears as Indra and Agni etc. In the world. I (Self-realised Rishi) have been to various realms before arising of Knowledge of that Brahman into which Indra and all other devatAs merge and in which all organs merge on Brahman realisation.

===> Please note the Brahman being non-different from Sun, Indra, Agni etc. conveyed in this excerpt. It also emphasises the need to know Brahman without which one has to move around in various realms.

2.12.1 Sky, earth and the space in between the two and all gods living therein, Vayu, Surya, Agni, LokpAl Vishnu etc. may get inspired by this abhichaar karma (Yagna) and destroy the enemies.

===> Let's mark that Vishnu needs abhichaar karma as any other god for getting inspiration to destroy the enemies.

4.1.1-7 That who is cause of this univesre and who exists as Existence, Consciousness and Bliss (SatchidAnanda), the Lord of all appeared in HinraNyagarbha form as the Sun in the beginning of the creation. That Sun who rises in the east and that who is luminous, alone is capable of revealing the knowledge of origin of being and non-being.

===> Sun and Hiranyagarbha are nothing but Brahman alone.

4.28.1-2 Bhava and Sharva are two devas who are the creator and destroyer of the universe. They are another of Shiva.

===> Please mark that Shiva alone is the Bhava and Sharva and is the cause of origin and end of this world.

4.30.1-9 These verses glorify the Mother Goddess. Some excerpts :
“I move in the eleven Rudras and eight Vasus, the twelve Adityas and Vishvedeva. I am BrahmanvAdini (the revealer of the Brahman) and ParBrahmanAtmika (the Self one with Brahman). I nourish the MitrAvaruNa and support the IndrAgni and Ashvidvaya. I am BrahmAntikA and am the ruler of the whole manifest universe. I have realised Brahman. I am Self alone in other form. I alone preach Indra and other gods and the men the knowledge of Brahman. Whoever eats, eats through me. All works like seeing, hearing, breathing etc. are done through me alone. I pervade all as the inner dweller. .... The VidhAtA (BrahmA) who lives in satya loka is born through me. I am the cause of this universe and I am the Brahman Consciousness too. I am the fire (BaRwAnal) in the ocean and the teja in the electricity is mine alone. Without taking help from anyone, I, creating the beings act as the wind.”

===> Mother Goddess is Brahman alone.

5.6.11-12 O Agni, you are the abode of Indra, all pervading, soul of all beings, body of all and all-embodied-Purusha. You are mouth of Indra.

===> Agni is nothing but Brahman.

7.22.1 The Sun who is the soul in all beings bestow us the powers to live for a thousand year.

===> Sun is Brahman.

8.87.1 That Rudra who is as drashtavya in the Agni, as Varun in water and as Soma in creepers, creates all the beings. We bow to that Agni form of Rudra.

===> Rudra alone is Agni, Varuna, Soma. He creates ll beings.

9.2.24 The Sun, moon, vayu and Agbi too cannot equal the KAmdeva (the god of desires). Therefore, O’ KAmdeva, you are greater. You are greater because of pervading all (beings).
I bow to you.

===> KAmdeva (god of desires) too is Brahman alone.

9.10.11-20 I saw the protector AtmA moving around in the cycles of this universe. I saw Him moving around in the physical world and the heaven going through the paths of Satva, Raja and Tama gunas. He moves aorund in the Indriyas within Itself. ... I could not know whether I am causal Brahman or its effect “the duality”. Due to being bound in doubt-knots I keep moving around into them. Therefore, by intellect which is graeter than the Indriyas by knowing whether I am the cause or the effect I can use my organ of speech. AtmA is immortal but apears with mortal mind through th womb. From that AtmA goes and merges without distinction into Brahman but mind cannot reach there. He sees the effect of AtmA but cannot see the cause. All gods are in Infinite Space of Aum ... he who doesn’t know this ... what can he do with Rk mantras etc. ? By meditating on parts of Aum, by that ardha this conscious world was imagined. Brahman is unmoving (unchanging).

===> The Self alone becomes Jeeva under the influence of Satva, Raja and Tamo gunas. Brahman is changeless.

9.10.28 The wise who are knowers of Tattvas (the essence, Brahman), call Agni, Mitra and Varun as Agni alone. They also call him as Agni who is adorable in Dyuloka (the realm of electricity ). The wise who see Agni as the Self call it names as MAtrasiva (air), Yama (lord of death), Agni etc.

===> This actually is repetition of the saying we came across in Rig Veda "Ekam Sad Vipra Bahudha Vadanti" in different from. Here Agni has replaced "Sat" and all Devas are seen as manifestations of Agni alone.


I quit this thread here. :)

OM

philosoraptor
25 June 2012, 12:47 PM
Namaste,

There is a story I once heard about the great scholar and devotee Shri Paraashara Bhattar. According to the story, Shri Paraashara was giving a discourse to an audience of people including not only his disciples but some other individuals as well. Towards the end of the discouse, a group of individuals (not his disciples) began to blaspheme and villify Shri Paraashara in many ways. In response, Shri Paraashara Bhattar graciously garlanded one of the hecklers with his garland. This was puzzling to his disciples who had not themselves received this blessing, and they asked him about it. Why was their guru giving his mercy to people who rudely heckled him? Shri Paraashara Bhattar responded that, as part of his daily devotional duties, he was supposed to meditate on his faults. Because he had not completed that particular duty, he was greatful to the hecklers for having done it for him, and thus he garlanded them.

In this thread, many seemingly unkind words were written about me in an attempt to discourage me from posting. I have been called a "spurious Hindu" who engages in "kutaraka" and "mischieviously" groups genuine shrutis with spurious texts. It has been opined (incorrectly) that I am an ISKCON devotee and, as such, engage in "incurable wrong-thinking." It has been said that I think myself "worth worshipping" as I "must be greather than the Rishis who revealed all those scriptures to us Hindus" and that I "refute even the God-realized Rishis." Finally, I am alleged to be guilty of "throwing all scriptures in the dustbin," "refuting Vedanta" and "belittling scriptures." I am greatful to read all this, as I think this helps me to become a more disciplined, mild-mannered, sAttvik person. I thank the pUrva-pakshins for not sparing me the rod, so to speak, and I thank the moderator sincerely for letting them speak their mind. Though I feel these remarks divert from the purpose of this thread, they are still a good part of my spiritual saadhana - since I do not meditate sufficiently on my faults, it seems only reasonable to get a good thrashing now and again. I pray the Lord for the grace to continue remaining even-tempered and unaffected by such barbs.

So far as my intentions are concerned, I have merely tried to illustrate the Vedic view that there is indeed, one Supreme God with many names and forms, and there are also many other devas who are created by, are dependent on, and worship that Supreme God. The confusion occurs because the Supreme God shares the names of the other devas. There is also a sense of oneness discussed in the shrutis which has to be understood in light of the differences which are also taught in shruti. We have to use context to help determine when Brahman is being referred to, or when an anya-devata is being referred to. The mere fact that a deva is praised is not ipso facto evidence that he is Brahman. Nor is it the case that because Brahman has all names, that anyone who is named with one of His names, must be the same as He. Case in point - I met a Mr. Narayana Rao the other day. It would be illogical for me to assume that he is Sriman Narayana, the all-pervading Brahman.

The revealed shAstras are very clear that Brahman is distinct from the other devas despite sharing names with them and being praised through them. I have appended a list of said references to the end of this posting, most of which have been completely untouched by the pUrva-pakshins while a few have been half-addressed in an inconclusive way. I admit I have not addressed every single pramaana brought up by the pUrva-pakshins - this is partly because of time constraints, but mostly because I think the principles of interpretation which we have derived from the existing shrutis can be applied to all other genuine shrutis as well. In other words, it's not the case that because Brahman is addressed in yet another sukta as Indra, that it refutes the siddhanta that Brahman is supreme and deva-raaja Indra is His devotee.

Also, I wish to clarify that while I am copy-cut-pasting from some internet resources, I am only doing this for convenience since my personal library is located at home and I have been writing these responses from my office. Many of these sources I have studied in-depth - but unfortunately the translations I like are usually not available on the internet. Still, I believe I have given sufficient information for people to cross-examine the evidence in any translation of their choice.

Also, some posters have opined that this is a "Vishnu vs Shiva" debate. Although that is a related issue, my focus was merely on showing the difference between Brahman and the devas, and I think I have provided sufficient illumination of this position. I may or may not continue in this thread depending on whether others feel it may be useful. We could discuss, for example, the way Sri Shankaraachaarya treats this subject of Brahman vs devas. We could also discuss how the Puraanas and Itihaasas treat the subject. Alternately, we could start separate threads to discuss them. But all of that is subject to interest of other members to continue.

regards,

Philosoraptor

Rig Veda 7.40.5: Rudra gets his strength by propitiating Vishnu
Rig Veda 7.99.1-4: Vishnu is said to create Suurya and Agni
Rig Veda 10.90.13: States that Brahman (here addressed as The Purusha) created Suurya, Agni, Indra, Vaayu, and Chandra
Rig Veda 10.121.2: States that He (here addressed as Hiranyagarbha) is the "Giver of vital breath, of power and vigour, he whose commandments all the gods acknowledge."
Rig Veda 10.190.3: States that Brahman (here addressed as Dhaatar) created Suurya and Chandra
Aitareya Upanishad 1.2.1-4: States that He created the devas, provided them with nourishment, and ordered them into their respective abodes
Brihadaaranyaka Upanishad 1.3.1-18: Refers to the devas as Prajaapati's sons, and explains how they had to surpass the asuras by learning the process of yagna (they could not do it without).
Brihadaaranyaka Upanishad 1.4.10: Says that only the devas "became that" (Brahman) by understanding knowing Brahman. But if the devas are already the all-knowing Brahman, then from whence the question of not understanding that?
Brihadaaranyaka Upanishad 2.1.20: States that all devas emanate from Brahman. Note that this mantra concludes the chapter in which Gargya speaks of meditating on Brahman within each of the devas.
Brihadaaranyaka Upanishad 3.6.1: Gaargi asks by what is the world of the devas pervaded. The ultimate answer is of course Brahman. But the point is, the devas, if Brahman, shouldn't be pervaded by something else.
Brihadaaranyaka Upanishad 3.9.1-11: This is the famous antaryaami Braahmana in which it is stated that Brahman inhabits (among other things) the various devas presiding over moon, sky, the directions, the sun, etc, yet is not known by them.
Brihadaaranyaka Upanishad 4.4.16: States that the devas meditate on that Brahman as light/longevity.
Brihadaaranyaka Upanishad 5.5.1: States that the devas, along with men and asuras are Prajaapati's sons.
Brihadaaranyaka Upanishad 5.5.1: States that Brahman created Prajaapati, and Prajaapati created the devas.
Chaandogya Upanishad 4.3.1-7: Describe He who swallowed the other four devas (agni, vAyu, ApaH, prAna), and then describes Him as the creator of all beings.
Katha Upanishad 2.3.3: States that the devas (Agni, Vaayu, Indra, Suurya, and Mrtyu) carry out their respective functions out of fear of Him (Brahman).
Kena Upanishad 2.1: States that knowledge of what the devas know is insufficient to know Brahman.
Kena Upanishad 3.1-12: States that Brahman won victory for the devas, and explains how neither Indra, nor Agni, nor Vaayu could overcome the power of Brahman, and how Uma had to teach them about who Brahman is.
Mundaka Upanishad 2.1.7: States that from Him emerged the devas and all other living entities.
Prashna Upanishad 2.1-4: Explains how the various devas presiding over different parts of the body are all subordinate to Praana.

gItA 3.10-11: Krishna says that He sent forth men and devas at the beginning of creation, and recommends yagna so that devas can supply various necessities of life.
gItA 7.23: Krishna says that one result is obtained by worship of anya-devatas and another result is obtained by His worship
gItA 9.23: Krishna says that those who worship other devas actually worship Him, albeit with improper understanding (avidhi-pUrvakam)
gItA 11.15 Arjuna says he saw Brahma and Shiva within the vishvarUpa along with all other devas
gItA 11.21 he says that some of the devas are fearful of Him while others are offering prayers to Him
gItA 11.37 Krishna is referred to as "Lord of the devas." (deva-Isha)
gItA 11.52 Krishna says that even the devas are ever wanting to behold this form of His

bhAgavata purANa 4.29.42-44: States that Brahmaa, Shiva, and the devarshis, despite being masters of the Vedas, cannot know the Parama Ishvara prefectly.
bhAgavata purANa 6.9.42: The devas pray to Vaasudeva, comparing themselves to mere sparks to His fire.
bhAgavata purANa 8.6.2: The devas are blinded by Vishnu's effulgence. Later, Brahma prays to Vishnu as a devotee.
bhAgavata purANa 9.4.52-56: Durvaasa Muni goes to Brahmaa and then to Shiva seeking protection from Lord Vishnu's sudarshana chakra. Both of them tell him they cannot protect him because they themselves are surrendered devotees and do not equal him in power.
bhAgavata purANa 10.35.14-15: When Krishna plays His flute, even Brahmaa, Shiva, and other devas headed by Indra become enchanted and bow in reverence.

satay
25 June 2012, 01:12 PM
namaskar,


We could discuss, for example, the way Sri Shankaraachaarya treats this subject of Brahman vs devas. We could also discuss how the Puraanas and Itihaasas treat the subject. Alternately, we could start separate threads to discuss them.

Looking forward to such subjects being discussed in new threads.

Ganeshprasad
25 June 2012, 05:05 PM
Pranam

To say Brahman is one without a second , underscores what most of us believe here,
There are passages in Vedas that might seem contradictive and a reasonable question to ask why so? It becomes a problem only when the purpose of asking that question becomes superiority contest between different sects. You might look at it this way. 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. Sure there are passages that claims Rudra to be all powerful whom no one may defeat, mightiest of mighty, self dependent whose strength never leaves him, so how come it is said that he gains Rudra strength from Vishnu ? A Shaiva would easily answer this,and they do, one of the reason given is that Uma is Vishnu, and Uma is sakti of Shiva.
really it does not matter as it is Acintya for me

if we are honest we would apply the same yard stick for Vishnu, for me he is supreme for that there is no doubt but there are passage says that he is born, that some one else is his step. So what I ignore other passages where he is supreme?
No why? because when Vedas speaks of deva they only speak of the divine 33 and rig ved do not admit to any other. It is them they say are referring to eakam sad vipra bahuda.

Some say Lord Shiva Linga worship originated from this, I present this not to prove Lord Shiva but the ref to 33 devas and its relation.
Skambha, the Pillar or Fulcrum of all existence

http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/av/av10007.htm

1Which of his members is the seat of Fervour: Which is the base
of Ceremonial Order? p. 21
Where in him standeth Faith? Where Holy Duty? Where, in
what part of him is truth implanted?

14,He in whose body are contained all three-and-thirty Deities?
Who out of many, tell me, is that Skambha.

Whose secret treasure evermore the three-and thirty Gods
protect?
Who knoweth now the treasure which, O Deities ye watch and
guard?

25Great, verily, are those Gods who sprang from non-existence
into life.
Further, men say that that one part of Skambha is nonentity.
26Where Skambha generating gave the Ancient World its shape
and form,
They recognized that single part of Skambha as the Ancient
World,
27The three-and-thirty Gods within his body were disposed as
limbs:
Some, deeply versed in Holy Lore, some know those three-and-
thirty Gods.

One is the wheel, the tires are twelve in number, the naves are
three What man hath understood it?
Three hundred spokes have thereupon been hammered, and sixty
pins set firmly in their places. p. 28

7Up, eastward downward in the west, ‘it rolleth, with countless
elements, one-wheeled, single-fellied.
With half it hath begotten all creation. Where hath the other half
become unnoticed?

The rishi Yajyavalkya discusses this:
Yajyavalkya Kanda - Sakalya Brahmana, in the Brihardarayanka Upanishad
If we look in the Sakalya Brahmana ( Part of the Yajyavalkya Kanda) there is a questioning ( more of an interrogation) of Yajnavalkya muni. This was in the court of king Janaka, wishing to find out the most learned brahman of Kuru and Panchala, that he had assembled.
The question is asked ' how many gods are there' ? He starts with "three and three hundred and three and three thousand."
These are expressions of Brahman. When he finishes his discourse, as the questioning continues to ask "how many are there really?" Yajyavalkya says there is just One. And the questioners (Sakalya) asks, "Which is the one God", Yajyavalkya answers - "The cosmic vital force. That is Brahman. They (the wise is inferred here) denote It by the term tyat , (THAT)."

330 million is a play on the number 33, which is the number of Gods in the Veda (Brahmā + Indra + 12 Adityas + 11 Rudras + 8 Vasus). In the Indian numeral system, the number 330 million (330,000,000) is written as 33,00,00,000 and pronounced 33 crore in Indian English or 33 karod (karoD) in Hindi or 33 koti (koTi) in Sanskrit.

The idea that there are 33 koti Gods comes from the Rigveda. The term koti, however, has two important meanings. In one sense it means ten million (crore), but in another sense it means angle or edge. If we understand the term koti in the second sense, then the Rigveda is telling us that there are 33 angular Gods. In other words, the wholeness is to be visualized as a polygon with 33 sides or 33 angles. Each God is one side, one angle, one part of that polygon of wholeness. This idea gives us also new insight into the Rigvedic statement: 'Truth is one, wise call it many', and gives us a new appreciation as to why the Vedic hymns are addressed to many Gods. This is summarized from what I learned from a knowledgeable scholar of Sanatana Dharma.(Sarabhanga Giri)

Can we have Yagya with out Agni, no Agni no Vedas, no Vayu no Prana.

One God with many aspects ~ all equally divine ~ The One true God is known by many Names; and these Names evoke Forms.
And yet, the One true God encompasses and surpasses All Names, and All Forms.

That One God is effectively unimaginable, unnameable, and unable to be given worldly tribute.

Jai Shree Krishna

madhavpr
25 June 2012, 09:09 PM
Rudra also exists as Bhava, Sharva, Shipivishta and what not!! From whatever knowledge I have, Shipivishta is a commonly used adjective for Lord Vishnu as per the Rig Veda.

Let's look at the words of Lord Shiva to Lord Narayana from the Drona Parva (section 201) of the Mahabharata -"Through my grace, none shall ever be able to cause thee pain by the weapon of thunderbolt or with any object that is wet or dry, or with any mobile or immobile thing. Thou shalt be superior to myself if thou ever goest to battle against me. " Thus were these boons acquired by Sauri in days of yore. Even that God now walketh the earth (as Vasudeva), beguiling the universe by his illusion."

I am not even 0.0001% percent as knowledgeable as other members of the forum are. I don't have a guru, I am just a student of a university. But I believe there is just one God we worship- call Him Shiva, Vishnu etc, it doesn't matter. For me, Shiva is Brahman. So is Vishnu. So is Devi. The superiority game is becoming too tiring (and boring). All we've done in centuries is go around in cycles. Let's be happy with our own belief systems and faiths. I hope I haven't hurt others. My sincere apologies if I have. :)

Jai Shree Krishna

- Madhav

grames
27 June 2012, 06:47 AM
Is there only one God! or Many Gods? This is the question we are discussing. But the long list of references and some interpretations given here seems not giving any conclusion rather throw more open questions.

One set of messages tried to justify from the Shruti references that all the forms, beings are in fact One and the Same! Some of them are very interesting and gives a lot of details about different forms and beings praised in the chaturVeda and Upanishads.

Another set of messages then takes a little unintended deviation and brings in the Superior form among the various forms of that One, with the strong faith that it is only that ONE which has became all forms and names but lacks the justification of such thoughts as the Oneness is not clearly defined or justified by giving the evidences of all are One instead limited the evidences to Shiva is Vishnu and Vishnu is Shiva ( thus throwing off the topic to Shiva vs Vishnu debate).

Third set of messages from philosoraptor attempts to give set of Shruti references and also the meanings/interpretations to prove the point that, it is infact Only One God and everything/everyone else are subordinates/subservient to that Supreme One derived from the Vishnu Sarvotatmatva of Shri Ramanuja school.

With out scoring over anyone, just looking at the scriptures with even the improper translations etc. i personally wanted to share the thoughts that ran in to my head. No rational person or no one who can think with the facts and draw a conclusion with the support of facts alone, will allow himself to subject to mere sentiments or allow the conclusion of the subject with blind faith. In fact, showing Shruti as evidence is to seek this rational support and throwing off rationality by any sort of claim like, "Logic alone won't help" to understand God etc. are in fact dull and ill. The understanding of various faith has to be made here for the clarify of the message... so i am stating what the major Hindu faiths are.. ( This is to make sure people do not call or hide themselves under same big umbrella of Hinduism or act like they are the only Hindu and others are not Hindu etc.).

Vaishnavaism - The religion which is part and parcel of Hinduism which upholds Shri Vishnu as Supreme - Most popular are Vedantic Schools and their off-shoots
Shaivaism - The religion which is part and parcel of Hinduism which upholds Lord Shiva as Supreme - Most popular are PasuPata and Tamil Shaiva Siddanta
Shakta - The religion which is part and parcel of Hinduism which upholds Devi as Supreme - Popular are SriKula and Kalikula

Then we have list of various faith/religion with in hinduism who worship Ganesha, Subramanya, various local Gods as manifestation of Lord Shiva or as is. and this list is endless.

Smarta - The religion which is also part and parcel of Hinduism ( believed to be more popular after Shri Shankara) which upholds Shri Vishnu, Lord Shiva, Surya, Skanda and Devi all as Supreme - IstaDevata concept is very major in this practice

In the above list, only smarta has a peculiar philosophical background coined by Shri Shankara and likes where the faith is based on "Advaita" alone! In all other religion, there are variants of Monistic, dualistic and qualified monistic divisions ( Shaiva has all three flavors as well as mix of philosophical faith, vaishnava has dualistic and qualified monism and then extensions of it etc.).

Then we have new firebrands of schools/religions who started new faith, new practices and loosely attach their faith to the school of "Advaita". They are called NeoVedantins though this term is not acceptable to them.

We then have four popular philosophical schools of Advaita, Dvaita, VishitAdvaita and SuddhAdvaita and then the later school of Achintya BedAbeda etc.

Not sure if Tantric schools should be included in the above list as it is mostly the rituals and practice to my knowledge!

Finally, those who do not believe in any of the above list... they are called nAstikas (non-believers). Also, the one who does not believe in Theism is called Atheist and not just the non-believers.

Thus, knowing the above information is very important to understand the background of someone's messages and also to identify where from the thoughts are flourishing. It is unkind for follower of one of the above faith of Hinduism to brand another follower of another faith under the same umbrella as Non Hindu!


Now come back to the topic... Cont.

grames
27 June 2012, 07:40 AM
Some of the conclusions which are projected here with out any rational analysis assumes the entire set of readers of this site belong to Advaitic faith and so passing such conclusion should not attract opposing opinions which is against the very first few statements of this thread.


To say Brahman is one without a second , underscores what most of us believe here,

This is the most distracting statement and for this statement to be true, everyone, every name, every form and everything that we can perceive and recognize should be proved as just Brahman! ( This is the philosophical stand of Advaita and not Hinduism in total). Advaitic faith also have to accept the "relative reality" of the Hierarchy of the Devas and Devatas and this is not neglected by any traditional "Advaita" Scholars including Shri Shankara and his actual followers. The reason is...

1. If the equality is taught at all levels, Advaitam is lost as differences between these forms are narrated all over Shrutis - Calling Shiva as Vishnu or Vishnu as Shiva itself is unintelligent as they are two different beings at the "relatively real" world. If any other argument is given here, that creates anarchy and unworthy ideas of all are one and same! Such '' all are one and same" idea can be extended to, i am also Vishnu and Shiva and this is what is happening in the cruel world of today under the guise of Spirituality. Mixing two state of reality is totally against "Advaita" philosophy and then not qualifying the "relative reality" is another unintelligent argument. Only in the state of "truth or reality", all these are One! and not otherwise!

( I am not subscribing to the above idea personally though... but wanted to point out that, the follower of Advaita also will not accept the above idea. This is the very reason why Shri Shankara recommends Bhaja Govindam or nārāyaṇaḥ paro’vyaktāt as the beginning of Gita, and Shri Madusudhana

sa-hetukasya saṁsārasyātyantoparamātmakam |
paraṁ niśreyasaṁ gītā-śāstrasyoktaṁ prayojanam ||
sac-cid-ānanda-rūpaṁ tat pūrṇaṁ viṣṇoḥ paraṁ padam |

the purpose of the Gita is to attain the supreme good, which is defined as the complete cessation of saṁsāra and its causes. That goal is known as the supreme abode of Vishnu, the form of eternal life, consciousness and bliss.

And beautifully this one..

vaMshiivibhUshhitakaraannavaniiradaabhaatpiitaambaraadaruNabimbaphalaadharoshhThat.h|
pUrNedusundaramukhaadaravindanetraatkR^iShNaatparaM kimapi tattvamahaM na jaane||

I do not know any reality other than krishna whose hands are adorned with a flute, whose lustre is like that of a rain-cloud, who wears a yellow cloth, whose lips are reddish like the Bimba-fruit, whose face is beautiful like the full moon, and whose eyes are like lotuses.

These are very prominent Advaitins!
)

2. This is not the stand of Shaivaism - For Shaivaites, Lord Shiva alone Supreme - Not Lord Vishnu and no other being are in the state of Shivome or no one can be Lord Shiva or Para Shiva keeping their individuality. Loosing 'Individuality" is Shivome or ShivaPatam and 'You" do not exist to even compare with Lord Shiva but Lord Shiva exists as Lord Shiva always. There is no question of all 'beings' being same or equal. Brahma and Vishnu are considered to have one "malam" or "one of the three mayic association" and very inferior to Lord Shiva! ( Lingotbhavar of Linga Purana is true and real for Shaivaites where Lord Brahma and Lord Vishnu was not able to find the tip of His head or the feet respectively)

3. All are One and Same is not even the stand of Shakta - It is only the Shakthi who is Supreme - There is no question of anyone or any being coming in to "being" with out Her and obiviously you cannot equate other beings to "Shakthi" as here Shakthi simply means "Source of all Energy and Possessor of all Energy" - Shakthism is mostly bedAbeda tattva and not even monism! Supermacy is thus very clear and very important in this faith.

I do not know too much details of Smarta faith... as i strongly believe it has come in to existence for people who are not interested to "dispute" the different views of Vedanta and accepted 'everything' as Truth at a top level but intelligently again focused and zoomed on one particular "istaDevata" (you cannot have more than one istaDevata and i am not sure if that is possible and even if you have more than one, whether u will be able to attach to all of them equally - so an indirect Supremacy is still established under the guise of isTaDevata concept)

None of the above options has the view of "All deva or Devatas are one and same" and so, what we read so far in this thread must be idea and thought of some new school. Such idea, concept has to explain a lot more with reason and evidences for "all are One" or there is only One God in all states with different names and forms!

It is not reconcilable when one set of statement says...
1. This "being" is going through Samsara
2. This "being" has no birth and never undergoes samsara
3. This "being" has to go through Samsara

and also this

1. This is always pure, everything else works for the fear of this Being
2. This being creates, maintains, annihilates
3. This being is above anything that is created!

Also this particular verse of Gita...

This "being" is "Shankara" among the Rudras.

The plain statements (all of these are listed with verses in this thread already) cannot and will not allow any sort of reconciliation for the One God is ALL idea.

I am seeing a lot of clarity, conceptually very well connected and with out any compromise on the God, in the messages of "philosoraptor" where the personal wish lists may not have been upheld but the Vedic passages are upheld!

Hare Krshna!

Ganeshprasad
27 June 2012, 08:45 AM
Pranam

I read post no 81 and I said to my self, you know what I broadly agree with what has been surmised by Grames but then having read post 82 I said to my self something just don’t change, we speak some very sweet words , there is really is no point. I guess it would be too much to expect. So we carry on. I know for fact without getting Brahmvid all this will always remain a mystery. At least I have conviction in my faith that all names and form belong to brahman I do not know about others (I suppose most of us do) but for me I be happy to enter any hindu temple, sit there and chant all Vedic names.

Jai Shree Krishna

Seeker123
29 June 2012, 02:44 AM
Differences between the 3 philosophy levels have existed for a long time and any amount of discussion will not resolve this. HIndus have got along just fine for all these years. There are many common ideas that all HIndus buy into. Every HIndu has heard that GOd resides everywhere in a dust particle and a pillar (NArasimha Avtara). God is the very essence in everything. Let us have the ability to recognize GOd in everything.

shiv.somashekhar
29 June 2012, 07:15 AM
In the above list, only smarta has a peculiar philosophical background coined by Shri Shankara and likes where the faith is based on "Advaita" alone!

I don't think Shankara invented the Smarta tradition just as it is incorrect to state that a Brahmana is either Smarta or Vaishnava.


We then have four popular philosophical schools of Advaita, Dvaita, VishitAdvaita and SuddhAdvaita and then the later school of Achintya BedAbeda etc.

In my opinion, the diety based belief (Shaiva, Vaishnava...) should be kept separate from philosophy (Dvaita, Advaita). There are enough Shaivas and Vaishnavas who never heard the names of any of these philosophies.


Finally, those who do not believe in any of the above list... they are called nAstikas (non-believers). Also, the one who does not believe in Theism is called Atheist and not just the non-believers.

There are more lists. India has countless local Gods which are specific to the region (often, a set of villages) which are unknown outside.

Omkara
04 October 2012, 09:16 PM
Pranams,



Accepted by whom is the question which I keep raising. So far as I can see, they seem to be only accepted by your sect, which again brings to mind the question about quoting only sectarian texts to win intersectarian debates.

I'm aware of the Muktikaa Upanishad listing 108 Upanishads. But again, who knows for certain that Muktikaa Upanishad is genuine? I would like to believe that it is, but I only know of an Advaitin yogi who commented on it in the 1800's. Prior to that I know of no references to it. Perhaps there are older references that can attest to its antiquity, but I'm sure many members would appreciate knowing what those are before assuming that all these Upanishads (which none of the ancient commentators appear to have commented on) are real.



The problem is, I didn't do that. I simply asked for some reasonable standard of evidence by which I can infer that the Upanishads you quoted are genuine. Of the Upanishads you quoted, can you show where for example, they were at least quoted by Shankaracharya in his commentaries? Can you show where any of them were quoted in the writings of any acharya before, say 16th or 17th centuries? If not, then how do you know they are really shruti, as opposed to spurious texts authored in later times?

I would appreciate some reasonable attempt to answer these questions, instead of the current tactic of knocking down strawmen.


regards,

Namste,
The earliest known mention to the muktika canon is in 1656 by Dara Shikoh,the Mughal prince and sufi saint.
Per my notes,Shankara has quoted the 11 major upanishads+maitrayanani,kaushitaki,mahanarayana,subala,jabala,paingala.

Ramanuja has quoted all of these except paingala.Both has also referred to a handful of other upanishads.But I beleive the 16 upanishads named above(except paingala are accepted by all sects)

Omkara
04 October 2012, 09:29 PM
Quoting the muktika to prove non difference of deities is skating on very thin ice.See this upanishad for instance-


http://www.celextel.org/upanishads/atharva_veda/sarabha.html


I am saluting that primeval God who is the Lord, who is the best, who is the father of the world, who is the greatest among gods, who has created Brahma who gave all Vedas to Brahma in the beginning, who is the father of Vishnu and other devas, who merits praise, and who at the time of deluge destroys the world. He is the only one who is greater than every body, who is the best and who rules over others. 1-2
That very strong Maheswara took the horrifying form of Sarabha and killed Narasimha who was destroying the world. (Sarabha is the avatar of Shiva which is a combination of eagle, lion and man.)
3 That god with his sharp claws tore, Vishnu who took the form of Narasimha. He who was wearing the hide became Veerabhadra.
4 For every one desiring to get all occult powers, he is the one who should be meditated. Salutations to that Rudra who tore away the fifth head of Brahma.
5 Salutations to that Rudra who kicked Kala the God of death and made him fall and also him who drank the burning Halahala poison.
6 Salutations to that Rudra whose feet were worshipped by the flower of Vishnu's eyes and who being pleased gave him the holy wheel (Chakra).
7 The one, who has crossed sorrows, sees that God, who is atom within an atom, gross among the gross, who as Atma hidden in the heart of beings and who is beyond physical action, clearly because of these reasons.
8 Salutations to that Rudra who is the greatest god, who holds the Soola(spear) in his hand, who has a big swallowing mouth, who is the Maheswara and whose blessing have good effects.

Does this Upanishad teach non difference?

Btw,the Muktika canon has not been even mentioned by any acharya of any sect even once.

Omkara
04 October 2012, 10:35 PM
I had always thought Smartas considered only Vishnu,Shiva,Devi,Ganesha,Surya and Skanda as forms of Ishwara and did beleive in a deva hierarchy of devas below Ishvara.I wonder who came up with the idea that all devas are the same.Does this not contradict the Upanishads which show Indra,Vayu and Agni as differejt from Brahman and their powers failing against Him?

Has Sankara or any other major acharya of Advaita said that Indra,Agni or other Devas are forms of Brahman?Can someone clarify on this with quotes from major adcaita teachers(pre 19th century).

yajvan
04 October 2012, 10:50 PM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namasté
 
The muktikā upaniṣad¹ ( some prefer to write muktikopaniṣad) is of great value ( yet my offer here can be off the subject matter at hand).
It calls out the muktikopaniṣad as the 108th. It is from this upaniṣad that śrī rām outlines the 108 upaniṣad-s and their connection to the veda-s. These 108 upaniṣad-s can be grouped into various catagories ( 7 of them), yet we are getting off the subject.

IMHO to miss the value of the muktikā upaniṣad is to sell a diamond for the price of spinich.

praṇām
1. more on this can be found here at this HDF post: http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?t=4617 (http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?t=4617)

philosoraptor
07 October 2012, 02:39 PM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namasté
 
The muktikā upaniṣad¹ ( some prefer to write muktikopaniṣad) is of great value ( yet my offer here can be off the subject matter at hand).
It calls out the muktikopaniṣad as the 108th. It is from this upaniṣad that śrī rām outlines the 108 upaniṣad-s and their connection to the veda-s. These 108 upaniṣad-s can be grouped into various catagories ( 7 of them), yet we are getting off the subject.

IMHO to miss the value of the muktikā upaniṣad is to sell a diamond for the price of spinich.

praṇām
1. more on this can be found here at this HDF post: http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?t=4617 (http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?t=4617)


Pranams,

I think this is missing the point.

Anything that was genuinely spoken by Lord Raama has value, but not everything that is claimed to be the spoken word of Lord Raama was is in fact so. Same thing goes for what is passed off as shruti. There are many spurious texts that are listed as Upanishads but which are obviously bogus - the "Allah Upanishad" being an obvious example. If it is possible to create spurious texts and pass them off as Upanishads, then it certainly brings to question the origin of other texts like the Muktika which, strangely, does not appear to have been quoted by any major sampradaya acharya prior to the 17th century. I think devotee tried to argue that because I pointed out the case of the Allah, I was somehow equating the Muktika to the Allah Upanishad which he strongly objected to. In fact, I was not equating their subject matter, but merely illustrating the point that something with the suffix "-Upanishad" is not by the very fact, shruti. The authority of shruti lies in its being unauthored. The Muktika Upanishad could be an authored text from well before the time of the Allah Upanishad, and thus might be more mature in its philosophical content - but if it is authored, then it is not shruti and hence lacks independent authority. Now, I do not know for sure that the Muktika U. is an authored text - I merely point out, as others have, that the lack of any mention to it in the ancient commentaries, and the lack of existing oral traditions in which it is being passed down, both leave legitimate doubts about its authenticity.

Omkara
07 October 2012, 03:19 PM
A good post listing Upanishads which are known to be ancient,whether accepted by everyone or not.For some reason MH has included some Suktas as well,I do not understand the reasoning behind this.


There is no need to rephrase your question. Your classification of Upanishads as shruti is correct. Upanishads are of course shruti, and together with Samhitas, Brahmanas, Aranyakas they form what is called the Vedas.

It is only a matter of contention if all of the writings that are titled Upanishad really belong to the Vedas or if some later manuscripts are only given that high sounding name to add to their credibility.

We have a reason for these doubts because there are some later writings, with the name of Upanishad that, judging from the style and content, clearly are not belonging to the corpus of authentic Upanishads.

Though Vedas are said to be apaurusheya, that is not uttered by a person, it does not mean that they are uttered by a "god" but that they exist eternally and reappear in each new creation cycle at the very beginning.

Rk, Yajus, Sama, and Atharva Vedas, consisting of Samhitas, Brahmanas, Aranyakas, and Upanishads, are the same in the current cycle of ages, then they where in that cycle before, they come into existance in the beginning of one creation cycle, as a subtle mass of sounds, letters, words and their meaning, this cluster is non different from brahman itself, it is the creative power of brahman, his vak devi (speech goddess) or shakti (power).

So it is true to say that this vedic speech is brahman, not that it was uttered or created by brahman much less by a "god" or "gods" . Since Vedas have no beginning in time, any sort of revealation or utterance is not possible, because then something or someone must have existed prior to the Vedas

Therefore they can only be found and later their details explored or seen by Rishis (Seers). The written and oral transmitted Vedas that are available on earth are only a small part of the mass of Letters that constitute the complete Vedas or primal creative power of speech. (vak devi)

There are therefore also other shastras or mantras , besides the Veda, that are considered shruti in that sense of eternal existing scripts, by other tradition than the vedantic, in the class of tantras or agamas.

sa manasa vAchaM mithunaM saMbhavat
with mind and speech He created all this. brhadaranyaka 1.2.4

yajnena vAchah padavIyamAyantAmanvavindann rShiShu praviShTAM
by means of the sacrifices they (the brahamanas) found the meaning of the speech which they found dwelling in the Rishis. Rgveda 10.71.3

I have found a list of Upanishads that are pre-checked for some requirements of authenticity, and seems to be quite complete i cannot vouch for its full reliability, but it is nonetheless certainly of some help:

Ancient Upanishads of the Veda

I. Shakala Charana of Rigveda
1. Aitreya Upanishad (2nd Aranyaka of the Aitreya Aranyaka).
2. Asyavaamiya Sukta (Rigveda 1,164,1-64)
3. Purusha Sukta (Rigveda X, 90)
4. Nasadiya Sukta (Rigveda X, 129)
5. Hiranyagarbha Sukta (Rigveda X,121,1-10)
6. Vac Sukta (Rigveda
7. Mudgala Upanishad of Mudgala Shakha
8. Galava Upanishad of Galava Shakha

II. Bashkala Charana of Rigveda
1. Bashkalamantra Upanishad

III. Mandukeya Charana of Rigveda
1. Bavrucha Upanishad

IV. Shankhayana Charana and Kaushitaki Charana of Rigveda
1. Kaushitaki Brahamana Upanishad in the Shankhayana Aranyaka
2. Samhita Upanishad in the Shankhayana Aranyaka

V. Taittiriya Charana of Krishna Yajurveda
1. Taittiriya Upanishad (Taittiriya Aranyaka prapathaka VII-IX)
2. Yajniki or Mahanarayana Upanishad (Taittiriya Aranyaka prapathaka X)

VI. Kathaka Charana of Krishna Yajurveda
1. Kathakamantra or Kathaka or Katha or Kathavalli Upanishad (concluding
chapters of Kathaka Upanishad Mantra Samhita)
2. Kathashruti Upanishad
3. Kanthashruti Upanishad
4. Shivasamkalpa Brahamana (also in RV Ashwalayana Shakha and RV Mandukeya
Shakha)
5. Katha Shiksha Upanishad (first chapter of Kathaka Upanishad Mantra
Samhita)

VI. Maitrayaniya Charana of Krishna Yajurveda
1. Maitrayaniya Upanishad or Maitrayainiya Aranyaka or Brihadaranyaka of
Maitrayaniya Shakha (the Charaka Aranyaka manuscript is almost identical to this text)
2. Chhagaleya Upanishad of the Chhagaleya Shakha
3. Shvetashvatara Upanishad of the Shvetashvatara Shakha

VII. Vajasneya Shakhas or Shukla Yajurveda Shakhas
1. Vajasneyi Samhita Upanishad or Isha or Ishavasya Upanishad (Madhyandina and Kanva recensions).
2. Brihadarnyaka Upanishad (Madhyandina and Kanva recensions).
3. Agnirahasya section in book X of Shatapath Brahman
4. Jabala Upanishad of Jabala Shakha
5. Subala Upanishad
6. Mandala Brahamana Upanishad
7. Tadeva Upanishad (in Yajurveda Samhita)
8. Rudrasukta (In Yajurveda Samhita)

VIII. Jaiminiya or Talavakara Shakha of Samaveda
1. Jaiminiya Brahmana Upanishad or Talavakara Aranyaka
2. Kena Upanishad in the Talavakara Aranyaka
3. Shatyayana Gayatri Upanishad in the Talavakara Aranyaka
4. Pranagnihotra in the initial sections of the Jaiminiya Brahman

IX. Kauthuma and Ranayaniya Shakhas of Samaveda
1. Chhandogya Upanishad or Tandya Rahasya Upanishad

X. Shaunaka Shakha of Atharvaveda
1. Atharvana Upanishad or Mantra Upanishad of Atharvaveda or Mundaka Upanishad
2. Pranava Upanishad ( in Gopatha Brahmana)
3. Skambha Sukta
4. Ucchishta Sukta
5. Prana Sukta
6. Gayatri Upanishad (Gopatha Brahamana I, 32-33)
7. Brahma Sukta

XII. Paippalada Shakha of Atharvaveda
1. Prashna Upanishad
2. Brahma Upanishad
3. Garbha Upanishad
4. Samhita Upanishad or Brahma Sukta (Paippalada Atharvaveda VIII, 9, 1-12)

XIII. Atharva Veda Upanishads of Unknown Shakhas or not belonging to any Shakha
1. Chulika Upanishad
2. Mandukya Upanishad
3. Brahmabindu Upanishad
4. Nadabindu Upanishad
5. Dhyanabindu Upanishad
6. Amritabindu Upanishad
7. Tejobindu Upanishad
8. Atharvashiras Upanishad
9. Atharvashikha Upanishad
10. Kaivalya Upanishad

XIV. Upanishads whose Vedic Shakha is not known or which do not belong to any Shakha
1. Shaunaka Upanishad
2. Arsheya Upanishad

(List from Vishal Agarwal from advaita-l mailing list)

Omkara
07 October 2012, 04:53 PM
Pranams,

I just wanted to thank Sri Vaishnava for his contributions and clarify some things for interested members. I am myself not a Sri Vaishnava by birth or by diksha, nor am I the person whose forum handle is Sri Vaishnava. I am merely a seeker who happens to have an interest in vedaanta including (but not limited to) vishishtaadvaita-vedaanta, whereas Sri Vaishnava appears to be someone who was formally educated in vishishthaadvaita-vedaata. I ask people not to confuse us because, it is possible I may make many mistakes in my presentation due to my inadequate understanding, and I would not want that to reflect on the greatness of the aachaaryas whose explanations I am trying to communicate. I request user Sri Vaishnava, if he is so inclined, to correct me publicly if I inadvertently misrepresent the viewpoints of Sri Raamaanuja or any other commentator.

If there is doubt on this point, I am sure the moderators can verify that user Sri Vaishnava and myself are posting from two very different IP addresses.

Also, I found the points about Shankaraachaarya's preference for Naaraayana over Shiva very interesting. Since Devotee professes to follow Shankaraachaarya's system of Advaita, I wonder how he reconciles his "all devas are the same" viewpoint with Shankaraachaarya's actual views on this subject. I would love to see more elaboration on this by Sri Vaishnava, again if he is so inclined. I was always of the impression that Shankaraachaarya believed in panchopAsana and I'm not sure how that fits in with a Naaraayana-centric view.

regards,

A few references you might be interested in.I have noted that even Sureshvara refers only to Narayana as Brahman in his works.


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.

Omkara
08 October 2012, 12:56 AM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namasté
 
The muktikā upaniṣad¹ ( some prefer to write muktikopaniṣad) is of great value ( yet my offer here can be off the subject matter at hand).
It calls out the muktikopaniṣad as the 108th. It is from this upaniṣad that śrī rām outlines the 108 upaniṣad-s and their connection to the veda-s. These 108 upaniṣad-s can be grouped into various catagories ( 7 of them), yet we are getting off the subject.

IMHO to miss the value of the muktikā upaniṣad is to sell a diamond for the price of spinich.

praṇām
1. more on this can be found here at this HDF post: http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?t=4617 (http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?t=4617)


For interested members of HDF,I have posted on my online library a file with the entire muktika canon as an ebook.

I have been spending the last few weeks reading all the upanishads of the muktika canon one by one.There are several problems with this canon.

The Muktika calls certain upanishads as 'Shaiva' and 'Vaishnava'.This amounts to saying srutis disagree among themselves.Surely all of us agree that all srutis agree with each other and they seem contradictory only due to misinterpretation.
Several of the upanishads in it lift entire passages straight from Shankara's commentry.
It is impossible to prove the theology of any sect of Hinduism if all the Upanishads in it are taken as authoritative.I had quoted above a very virulently Saiva upanishad from the canon.There are similarly staunch Vaishnava upanishads,upanishads like Skanda Upanishad which insist that both are the same.There are also upanishads which mention buddhist deities and upanishads clearly supporting one or the other school of vedanta and tantra.

It is an interesting read,but not a self cinsustent canon.

I am trying to make a list of universally accepted upanishads.Any help in that direction will he welcome.

shiv.somashekhar
08 October 2012, 08:50 PM
I had always thought Smartas considered only Vishnu,Shiva,Devi,Ganesha,Surya and Skanda as forms of Ishwara and did beleive in a deva hierarchy of devas below Ishvara.I wonder who came up with the idea that all devas are the same.Does this not contradict the Upanishads which show Indra,Vayu and Agni as differejt from Brahman and their powers failing against Him?

No. Nothing is different from Brahman in Advaita.

However, what do we mean by "all devas are the same"? This is not advaita, though I have seen similar statements attributed to Advaita (by critics) such as "Advaita says I am you and you are me"...which are absurd and incorrect.


Has Sankara or any other major acharya of Advaita said that Indra,Agni or other Devas are forms of Brahman?Can someone clarify on this with quotes from major adcaita teachers(pre 19th century).

I do not have access to Shankara's commentary now, but Mundaka 6, etc., deal with the subject of Saguna Brahman.

Omkara
08 October 2012, 09:04 PM
Nonsense.The Brahma Sutras say that Devas are embodied beings.It also discusses tge question of whether devas can seek moksha.Therefore all devas cannot be the same as Saguna Btahman.Sankara's Brahma Sutra commentary is posted in my online library.You can check out what he says on the matter.In advaita vedanta,there is a hierarchy of devas below saguna brahman.As per the Smarta tradition,only five(or six in shanmata) deas are forms of saguna Brahman.

Kena upanishad makes it clear that there is a hierarchy of devas and that Indra,Agni and Vayu are not Brahman.

Omkara
08 October 2012, 10:25 PM
No. Nothing is different from Brahman in Advaita.

However, what do we mean by "all devas are the same"? This is not advaita, though I have seen similar statements attributed to Advaita (by critics) such as "Advaita says I am you and you are me"...which are absurd and incorrect.



I do not have access to Shankara's commentary now, but Mundaka 6, etc., deal with the subject of Saguna Brahman.

I did not understand the relevanxe statement "nothing is different from Brahman" in this context.From a paramarthika perspective,even the person writing this and the person reading this do not exiat according to advaita.But at a vyavharika level,devas do exist separate from Brahman.

By "all devas are the same" we mean the beleif of certain neo advaitins that a devas are saguna Brahman and do not exist as separate entities the way they are described in puranas and itihasas(and even the vedas,may I add).

Shankara himself identifies only Vishnu as Saguna Brahman in his works.





If we choose to base our opinions on his major works, Gita Bhasya, Brahma Sutra Bhasya and the commentaries on the ten upanishads, one could easily discover that he refers only to Vishnu wherver he addresses SB. This is undeniable. In Gita Bhashya, under the commentary for 7.17, Shankara says that Krishna is Ekabhakti because no one else is to be found who is worthy of worship. Certainly this is not something to be brushed off. Similarly in his commentary on 6.47, he openly states that the Yogi who meditates on Krishna is superior to all Yogis who mediate on Rudras and Adityas. There is rarely anywhere in his works he ever refers to Shiva, leave alone use superlatives. Also, in his Vishnusahsranama commentary he interprets the name Keshava as the "originator of Brahma and Shiva" - what do we make out? This is a classical Vaishnava position that proves that he based his authority on Vaishnava Puranas rather than on Shiava Puranas.



Later advaitins try to gloss over this by saying that Vishnu was his ishta devata and he actually beleived that Vishnu,Shiva,Devi,Ganesha and Surya are forms of Saguna Brahman.The Shanmatas add Karthikeya to the list.But no orthodox advaitin would say that indra or agni are forms of Saguna Brahman,as devotee has said in this thread.

Seeker123
09 October 2012, 01:10 PM
I did not understand the relevanxe statement "nothing is different from Brahman" in this context.From a paramarthika perspective,even the person writing this and the person reading this do not exiat according to advaita.But at a vyavharika level,devas do exist separate from Brahman

Namaste, True, at a Vyavharika level there is a gradation. Humans on account of punya can even take the Deva positions in heaven. Even Brahmaji takes birth and dies. Advaita holds that Saguna brahman is Ishwara - creator, preserver, dissolver rolled into one. Ishwara is all there is.

In Vedanta
Ishvara is a transcendent and immanent entity best described in the last chapter of the Shukla Yajur Veda Samhita, known as the Ishavasya Upanishad. It states ishavasyam idam sarvam, which means whatever there is in this world is covered and filled with Ishvara. Ishvara not only creates the world, but then also enters into everything there is:
He created all this, whatever is here. Having created it, into it, indeed, he entered. Having entered it, he became both the actual and the beyond, the defined and the undefined, both the founded and the unfounded, the intelligent and the unintelligent, the true and the untrue. (Taittiriya Upanishad 2.6.1)
The conception of Ishvara in Hinduism is very much dependent on the particular school of thought. While any one of five forms of a personal being can embody the concept of Ishvara in Advaita Vedanta, schools of Vaishnavism, on other hand, consider only Vishnu and His incarnations as the ultimate omnipotent Ishvara and all other forms as merely expansions or aspects of Vishnu.
[edit]Advaita Vedanta
Advaitism holds that when human beings think of Brahman, the Supreme Cosmic Spirit is projected upon the limited, finite human mind and appears as Ishvara.[2] Therefore, the mind projects human attributes, such as personality, motherhood, and fatherhood on the Supreme Being. An interesting metaphor is that when the "reflection" of the Cosmic Spirit falls upon the mirror of Maya (Māyā; the principle of illusion, which binds the mind), it appears as the Supreme Lord.[2] Brahman is not thought to have such attributes in the true sense.[3] However it may be helpful to project such attributes onto Brahman.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ishvara

TatTvamAsi
11 October 2012, 12:40 PM
This question has been forced upon Hindus by Muslims and Christians for a while now.

It is claimed that only "one god" is worshiped but in many forms etc.

The analogy I give is that it is like studying in college; if one majors in chemistry and another majors in physics, they are not studying "two different realities". They are studying two different aspects of the same reality. Our capacity to focus on more than one path simultaneously is quite limited. Those who take double majors (or more) are very few compared to the masses. Likewise, to perform at our best, it is optimal to focus on one path and on one deity (an aspect of manifested reality).

This is in a way why I think it takes more spiritual development for some to worship "lesser" life forms. We, educated in the western traditions, are quick to laugh at those who seem to revere animals and snakes etc. To worship a "lesser" life form means their egos are not that strong. With education, our ego grows. We must be cognizant of this always as it is a slippery slope. Herman Hesse's Siddhartha comes to mind here.

And, IsAvAsyA UpaniSad's shlOkA fits so aptly here. What ever we study or follow, it is but a part of the whole. To insist that our part is superior and the "only way" is tantamount to reducing that "whole" to its parts. The parabrahman is more than just a sum of its parts.

yajvan
11 October 2012, 06:23 PM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namasté



This is in a way why I think it takes more spiritual development for some to worship "lesser" life forms.
This is quite insightful. It is fundamental to ahiṁsā अहिंसा , we know as non-injury. Some call this non-violence. This infers to all beings ( even ourselves). At the ultimate level this ahiṁsā when in full bloom brings no harm in thought, deed, word or action to any being, anywhere.

praṇām

Seeker123
17 October 2012, 12:51 PM
I was just listening to Swami Paramarthananda today expounding Kaivalya Upanishad. The Upanishad talks about Ishwara in
1. Arupa Ishwara (formless consciousness in all)
2. Anekarupa Ishwara (manifold forms - i.e. all agni, jala everything is Ishwara)
3. Ekarupa Ishwara (one form - Ishta devata) - this is the easiest to conceive and be devoted to.

Namaste

Omkara
26 December 2012, 09:02 AM
I have been wanting to raise these objections for some time but have not had the time to do it-




Rig Veda 7.40.5: Rudra gets his strength by propitiating Vishnu



Which word do you translate as 'gained' or 'obtained' ?

vidé hi- Knowing this
rudró - Rudra Deva
rudríyam mahitváM - Rudra-strength or Rudra glory

There is no word meaning 'gained' or 'obtained' in the sentence.




gItA 11.15 Arjuna says he saw Brahma and Shiva within the vishvarUpa along with all other devas



Since Shaivism does not accept the Bhagavad Gita, this should not matter to me, but as a matter of academic interest, this interpretation seems to be wrong.

11.15 Pashyaami devaamstava deva dehe Sarvaamstathaa bhootavisheshasanghaan Brahmaanameesham kamalaasanastha- Mrisheemshcha sarvaanuragaamshcha divyaan

Note that eesham occurs between kamalaasanastha and brahmaanam.Kamalaasanastha obviously means seated on a lotus.Thus eesham must be taken as meaning 'Lord' or 'Ruler' and is an adjective applied to Brahma.

philosoraptor
26 December 2012, 10:32 AM
A brilliant exposition! No doubt,the devas are different from Brahman, and this is clearly brought out in shruti.Very well done!

But I have been wanting to raise these objectio s for some time but have not had the time to do it-



Which word do you translate as 'gained' or 'obtained' ?

vidé hi- Knowing this
rudró - Rudra Deva
rudríyam mahitváM - Rudra-strength or Rudra glory

There is no word meaning 'gained' or 'obtained' in the sentence.


This is actually Griffith's translation, and the "obtained" part appears to be implied. That being said, I have questioned it some since having posted it months ago, but I never got around to resolving my doubt about it since.



Since Shaivism does not accept the Bhagavad Gita, this should not matter to me, but as a matter of academic interest, this interpretation seems to be wrong.

11.15 Pashyaami devaamstava deva dehe Sarvaamstathaa bhootavisheshasanghaan Brahmaanameesham kamalaasanastha- Mrisheemshcha sarvaanuragaamshcha divyaan

Note that eesham occurs between kamalaasanastha and brahmaanam.Kamalaasanastha obviously means seated on a lotus.Thus eesham must be taken as meaning 'Lord' or 'Ruler' and is an adjective applied to Brahma.

The order wouldn't be that conclusive in a Sanskrit shloka. Isha could theoretically be adjectival in this construction, but could just as easily be a substantive as part of a dvandva compound. Almost every translation I have seen to date interprets it to mean Shiva in this context.

Omkara
26 December 2012, 10:24 PM
deleted

Omkara
29 December 2012, 09:34 AM
One verse that is often quoted to justify the oneness of various devas is RV 1.164.46 Ekam sat...

This verse simply means that all vedic names refer primarily to Brahman and secondarily to the devas. Ekam Sat means Brahman as we can see from Chandogya Upanishad.

Omkara
29 January 2013, 08:38 AM
Proof-

RV 10.82.3 Father who made us, he who, as Disposer, knoweth all races and all things existing Even he alone, who bears the names of all the gods,him other beings seek for information.

Here Brahman (here called Vishwakarma) is said to bear the names of all deities, and thus the Vedas glorify Brahman alone under various names, and not the devas who also bear those names.