Some misconceptions - Answers from VA pov

[sanathan]

Note : This thread is not to degrade any deities and not to degrade the devotees of any deities.

There are lot of thread in this forum related to who is supreme deity , in the process people went to extremes to degrade other deities or personal abuses on members, and admins shown their inherent tendencies of banning some or close the threads without any proper cause/explanation.

I just wanted to bring some points from VA point of view in this regard.

1. VA philosophically accepts one ultimate reality as Brahman having chit and achit as its sareera - They have shown the shruthi in support of this view and it is not an imagination of their own.

2. With the above concept being chit(infinite selves) as the sareera of Brahman, VA maintains the difference between these tatvas, though they accept the inseparability of the both.

3.When there is a difference between 2 tatvas, then the aspirant must be aware of to which category he himself belongs to and what is the method of liberation.

4.VA has identified the deity (one among Devas) "Vishnu" as Brahman of upanishads , this is again not their own creation, but has its roots in same scriptures.

5. So when VA says Vishnu as supreme reality or supreme deity, it doesn't in any way mean to degrade other deities, because it is just the fact they came to know from the scriptures, then what is the point in calling VA followers as sectarians? people have to not think from the pre-decided mind set, but if they think the other way around that what actually Vedas wanted to tell us and whom they speak as supreme deity, then we may get the facts.

6.Now some members here wanted to mix their already set notions (philosophy) with the ideas VA which is why they got frustration.

7. I see someone has tried to say any deity worship is same if the goal is liberation, but they don't know they are not the authority to decide it, it is only vedas are the authority in any spiritual conclusions.

If I think fire as a cool entitiy and touch it , won't it burn me? so it is not that all worships are same just because you think so, our imaginations or assumptions won't help in liberation, only shastras are to be followed.

So final point is , people who are really craving for liberation will have to put aside their "EGO" or pre-decided notions, and just search fro the truth in scriptures with open mind .

[sanathan]

Asmath Gurubhyo Namaha:

I take the case of meditation on different deities in this post, and answer it from VA point of view .

I saw in one of the posts the concern as below :

"If one is meditating on Vishnu who is four handed,blue colored , holding discus and conch , and another is meditating on Shiva who is blue throated , 3 eyed , Thrishula pani, in the two meditations what is the difference is just form and name so both should be equally liberated"

Not exactly the same words but intention is same .

The above thought of meditating on any form and name is same has logical defect as well sasthra doesn't sanction that view.

It is not just form and name , but aspirant(who meditates) has the knowledge of the object as a being (as a deity) that exists and knows/responds to his own meditation..this is the main thought that is subtly present in the inner consciousness of meditator, also his meditation is with an intention of reaching that object.

So the fruit of this meditaion is nothing but the meditated object itself, aspirant will reach to the state of the deity.

So this is the logical conclusion and even sasthra support this view (in BG it is mentioned as whoever meditates on whatever object , he will get that).

With the above conclusions, it can not be same result of the all meditations while meditated objects are different.

Now which object has to be meditated for liberation/moksha is a separate issue.

So VA says if you meditate on Vishnu , you will reach him, also you will get the same state(sadharmya) as Vishnu, if you meditate on Shiva you will reach him . (This fact is been told in jada baharatha story), but reaching Vishnu and SHiva is not same unless they are same entity.


We pray Rama,Krishna etc., who were humans in history , but do not pray every human being same as Krishna or Rama just because all belong to human race. Same difference is maintained among deities also by VA.

[philosoraptor]

5. So when VA says Vishnu as supreme reality or supreme deity, it doesn't in any way mean to degrade other deities, because it is just the fact they came to know from the scriptures, then what is the point in calling VA followers as sectarians? people have to not think from the pre-decided mind set, but if they think the other way around that what actually Vedas wanted to tell us and whom they speak as supreme deity, then we may get the facts.

6.Now some members here wanted to mix their already set notions (philosophy) with the ideas VA which is why they got frustration.

7. I see someone has tried to say any deity worship is same if the goal is liberation, but they don't know they are not the authority to decide it, it is only vedas are the authority in any spiritual conclusions.

If I think fire as a cool entitiy and touch it , won't it burn me? so it is not that all worships are same just because you think so, our imaginations or assumptions won't help in liberation, only shastras are to be followed.

So final point is , people who are really craving for liberation will have to put aside their "EGO" or pre-decided notions, and just search fro the truth in scriptures with open mind .

Pranams.

As a student in high school and college, I never once saw fellow students in my science classes giving their opinions about theories in physics or chemistry. We had a textbook, and this was our authority. When there were doubts about the materials presented in the textbook, we asked our professor to clarify them. Imagine if a student were to say, "Well, I don't think force is proportional to mass and acceleration. I don't think atoms are made up of protons and neutrons orbited by electrons. I have my own opinion about these things. Please do not say my opinion is wrong, because this will hurt my feelings. I read this on a website/youtube link or heard this from a friend of a friend, and so it must be true. Don't try to convince me based on the textbook. That is just your fanatical, sectarian opinion." It would be ludicrous! No one talks like this about ordinary science.

So what to speak of the great spiritual science, vedAnta? Does it not deserve at least the same level of seriousness as ordinary science, for those professing to be Hindus and followers of vedAnta? Why do some Hindus take it less seriously than ordinary, academic subjects?

In my experience, there are three types of people who dabble in Hinduism, by which I mean participating in forums like these.

The first type is the kind that is conscious of his mortality and has at least acquired an intellectual understanding of the futility of materialism. This type of person wants to know what's really out there, and how to be freed from the suffering that is integral to life in this universe. He sees people suffering and dying all around him, and he isn't interested in anyone's "opinions" or "personal interpretations." He wants objective answers. Specifically, he wants to learn the truth, and is prepared to adjust his own personal understandings in order to reconcile with truth.

The second type identifies himself/herself as Hindu, may even be proud of his/her "Hinduism," but ultimately treats Hinduism as a kind of hobby, or a garment that one can put on or take off as needed. This type of person may have nationalistic tendencies and participate in Hinduism forums to overcome his inferiority complex vis-a-vis other religions. He wants to hear that Hinduism is very great, and specifically wants to hear that Hindu ideas are compatible with his often Westernized values. This type of Hindu gets very upset when any sort of discussion takes place in which certain ideas are deemed "correct" while others "incorrect." He knows little enough of shAstra, but he (thinks he) knows enough to tell anyone articulating a "correct" viewpoint that they are wrong, that their views are "sectarian," "fanatical," "fundamentalist," etc. This type of Hindu has such extreme antipathy towards Christian missionaries, that he cannot help but be reminded of them even when he sees Hindus politely debating shAstra and its interpretation. He is caught in a loop of moral relativism in which he must claim that all views are equally valid and true, but at the same time rejects all those views which do not accept his universalism. He won't accept statements in gItA and other scripture which endorse specific ideas over others, because rejecting these great Hindu scriptures is wrong, just as it is also wrong to reject any religious ideas. He cannot bring himself to accept that Hindu scriptures are themselves full of condemnation of wrong ideologies. Rather than accept that, he externalizes his objections to them by blaming other Hindus as "sectarian."

[shiv.somashekhar]

In my experience, there are three types of people who dabble in Hinduism, by which I mean participating in forums like these.

Did you leave out the third type or did you mean to write there are two types of Hindus?

[philosoraptor]

Did you leave out the third type or did you mean to write there are two types of Hindus?

The third type is the atheist/agnostic who previously had experience with Hinduism in a religious context, but now remains a perpetual skeptic, thinks himself objective, and accepts the likes of Max Muller, Wendy Doniger, et. al. as his gurus. :-)

[shiv.somashekhar]

The third type is the atheist/agnostic who previously had experience with Hinduism in a religious context, but now remains a perpetual skeptic, thinks himself objective, and accepts the likes of Max Muller, Wendy Doniger, et. al. as his gurus. :-)

Haven't seen any of them here.

My classification -

1. Traditional Hindus - The belief is followed as tradition, mostly free of modern elements. A marked identification is Hindu is not seen as one homogeneous group.

2. Neo Hindus - Mostly based on the Ramakrishna/Vivekananda flavor of Hinduism or other new age groups. Beliefs tailored to view Hinduism as intellectual, sophisticated and attractive, modeled along the Western view of a bona fide religion. Consequently, undesirable elements such as Varna, gradations, etc., are eschewed. They prefer to use the label Sanatana Dharma instead of Hindu.

3. Neither - Neutral. Not really interested in religion, but are Hindu by birth. Will be married according to the Hindu marriage act, will participate in religious ceremonies, etc., same as they would be part of social events.

There is a group of Hindus who like to believe India was the birth place of human civilization. The older the dates, the better. Anyone who disagrees is part of a huge conspiracy started by Max Mueller, and thus, includes almost all professional historians in the world. Real historians are the electrician Talageri and the Chinese medicine expert Frawley - for they provide fantastically old dates to the Rig-Veda. However, this is not a fourth group as adherents of this view are found in all three categories.

[philosoraptor]

We pray Rama,Krishna etc., who were humans in history , but do not pray every human being same as Krishna or Rama just because all belong to human race. Same difference is maintained among deities also by VA.

I have a strong suspicion that many who advocate the "it doesn't matter which god you pray" theory are closet agnostics...

[Sri Vaishnava]

Asmath Gurubhyo Namaha:

I take the case of meditation on different deities in this post, and answer it from VA point of view .

I saw in one of the posts the concern as below :

"If one is meditating on Vishnu who is four handed,blue colored , holding discus and conch , and another is meditating on Shiva who is blue throated , 3 eyed , Thrishula pani, in the two meditations what is the difference is just form and name so both should be equally liberated"

The idea is that only what the shAstrA says is to be followed. And even if you argue that both are same, one must first study both vaishnava and shaiva traditions to see if the phalan of such meditation, with respect to gunAnubhava and siddhAnthA is the same or different. This can be achieved only by reading the works of such upAsakAs.

Classical vedAntA, right from the time of adi shankara to madhusudhana saraswati, never posited a theory of equality between Vishnu and Shiva, or any other deva for that matter. All advaitins, vishishtadvaitins and dvaitins have only upheld the sarvOttamam of nArAyaNa. The exception to this was Appayya Dikshita and even he held the view that Shiva was sarvOttamam, with Vishnu and Ambika as the male and female 'shaktis' (and not vishnu = shiva). So, I find it extremely curious when some people claim that they have realised this 'aikya' by misinterpreting a few purAnic incidents and stray vAkyas and who claim to be above these vedAntins, who spent years and years of study on the vedA and vedAngAs!

These vedAntins also established sufficient proofs of the tAmasatva of certain purAnAs, and do not just quote the 'sattva, rajas, tamas' verses from padma purAnA. Ironically, the first vedAntin to quote a tAmasa purAnA was srI parAshara bhattar, and he was a Vishishtadvaitin/Sri Vaishnava acharya! If we even try to present these proofs, you know what an uproar it will cause here!

Many ithihAsAs like Tripura SamhArA and BAnAsura charitrA also contain meanings that establish the difference between shiva and vishnu. I do not care to post them here mainly because there is no scope for intelligent discussion amongst sarvamatha sammatha vAdhis.

Among non-vaidikas, shaiva siddhAntha and pAsupata matham accepted shiva as sarvOttama, but did not have a coherent system, ie, they simply ignored certain portions of vedA and took other portions as authoritative. For which reason, they are rejected as a-vaidika in the brahma sutras.

You will have to accept the position of vaishnava or shaiva to even begin an understanding of shAstrA. Sarvamatham sammatam is not the philosophy of vedAnTA or non-vedAntic shaivas.

The likes of Tulasidas, etc, while possessing merit on their own level, are only propagators of general bhakti and do not have a coherent system of vedAntA, ie, reconciliation of the prasthna traya. So, these works are not valid in a philosophical framework. In any case, the rAma bhakti of tulasidas is due to his schooling by rAmAnanda, who himself was highly influenced by the rAma kalyAna gunAnubhava in the works of Sri Pillai Lokacharya, a sri vaishnava acharya. His works at times read like a translation of Sri Lokacharya's works. Thus, even popular rAma bhakti in the north is partially influenced by Vishishtadvaita and Dvaita, whether you like it or not. Which means, it is very much worthwhile to study the traditions that constitute the root cause!

[sanathan]

As a student in high school and college, I never once saw fellow students in my science classes giving their opinions about theories in physics or chemistry. We had a textbook, and this was our authority. When there were doubts about the materials presented in the textbook, we asked our professor to clarify them. Imagine if a student were to say, "Well, I don't think force is proportional to mass and acceleration. I don't think atoms are made up of protons and neutrons orbited by electrons. I have my own opinion about these things. Please do not say my opinion is wrong, because this will hurt my feelings. I read this on a website/youtube link or heard this from a friend of a friend, and so it must be true. Don't try to convince me based on the textbook. That is just your fanatical, sectarian opinion." It would be ludicrous! No one talks like this about ordinary science.

So what to speak of the great spiritual science, vedAnta? Does it not deserve at least the same level of seriousness as ordinary science, for those professing to be Hindus and followers of vedAnta? Why do some Hindus take it less seriously than ordinary, academic subjects?

You bang on it .

[sanathan]

Many ithihAsAs like Tripura SamhArA and BAnAsura charitrA also contain meanings that establish the difference between shiva and vishnu. I do not care to post them here mainly because there is no scope for intelligent discussion amongst sarvamatha sammatha vAdhis.

You are right!

Problem is with incomplete knowledge , EGO , intolerance .

If somebody has come up with the statement of identity of 2 deities, then he has to have his complete theory to support that based on scriptures , and he should be in a position to translate the statements of shruthi which directly oppose his theory , i.e a coherent and uniform theory has to be provided based on same scriptures.

But unfortunately no one cares for that due to the above said factors (EGO,intolerance), but just simply babble something out of their emotions.