Page 3 of 9 FirstFirst 1234567 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 84

Thread: Adi shankara Posts - Jalpa Thread 2

  1. #21
    Join Date
    October 2007
    Location
    UAE
    Posts
    142
    Rep Power
    0

    Re: Ganapathi pooja in Vaishnavism

    In the kenopanishad bhashya, Shankara is simply referring to Uma, the teacher of the devas, as the wife of Isvara, ie, Shiva, who is sarvagna, ie, all knowing

    This doesn't imply he considered either Shiva or Parvati as Brahman. Isvara is a given name for Shiva, which is accepted by all vaishnavas. The sahasranama also says, "Isvara uvAcha- srI rAma rAma rAmEti' . So shiva is known by the name of Isvara. It doesn't imply supremacy from a vaishnava perspective.

    Sarvagna is based on pramAnas like "jnAnam icchet sankarAth", ie, shiva provides knowledge of vishnu. So he is celebrated as one who knows all the tattvas. Adi shankara used this term to show that Uma is the wife of the knowledgeable shiva and thus taught the devas.

    Many rishis are also called sarvagna but that doesn't mean they are brahman. Shiva is called as sarvatma in the mahabharata in the context of his mind, ie intellect pervading everywhere, ie his knowledge is extended.

    Shankara has not identified shiva as brahman there.

    To those who accuse Omkara of being vaishnava, that is laughable. He is a staunch shaiva. But he is just quoting facts here. I mean, it would be ridiculous if I said appayya dikshitar was a vaishnava just because I have a prediliction for vaishnavism. Inclinations are one thing, but facts are another.

    No more from me on this thread.
    [CENTER][COLOR="Black"][COLOR="Red"][COLOR="DarkRed"]No holiness rules over my freedom
    No commands from above I obey
    I seek the ruin, I shake the worlds
    Behold! I am blackest ov the black

    Ov khaos I am, the disobediant one
    Depraved son who hath dwelt in nothingness
    Upon the ninth I fell, from grace up above
    To taste this life ov sin, to give birth to the "I"[/COLOR][/COLOR][/COLOR]

    [B]~ "Blackest Ov the Black" - Behemoth.[/B]

    [url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3P-JdwtK1DY[/url] [/CENTER]

  2. #22
    Join Date
    June 2012
    Location
    Mumbai, India
    Age
    24
    Posts
    1,088
    Rep Power
    1117

    Re: Ganapathi pooja in Vaishnavism

    Quote Originally Posted by Ganeshprasad
    Pranam

    Quote Originally Posted by Omkara View Post
    Now you are deliberately trolling, if you were not before.
    been called worst in my time, i have a thick skin, so be my guest, mind you could have avoided all this trolling by me! had you not responded to my post, choice was entirely yours.
    all the best

    Jai Shree Krishna
    You barged into a Vaishnava forum discussion to argue against Vaishnava views and made claims about Adi Shankara's beleifs without actually having read his bhashyas. That fits any definition of trolling.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ganeshprasad
    Rig Veda list only 33 devas, they are all propitiated worthy off our worship, all other names of gods are derivative from this 33 originals derivative from this 33 originals, Bhagvat Gita; Shree Krishna says Chapter 3.11 devan bhavayatanena te deva bhavayantu vah parasparam bhavayantah sreyah param avapsyatha Chapter 17.4 bhavayantah sreyah param avapsyatha Chapter 17.4 yajante sattvika devan yaksa-raksamsi rajasah pretan bhuta-ganams canye yajante tamasa janah
    The Vedas are clear that worship is to be given to the supreme Brahman alone-

    Atharvashika Upanishad
    39. Siva alone is to be meditated upon, Siva the Giver of good. Give up all else. Thus, concludes the Atharvasikha.
    RV 2.33.4 Let us not anger thee with (imperfect) adorations, Rudra, unworthy praise,or mixed oblations (worship along with worship of other gods) Strong God!
    namastE astu bhagavan vishveshvarAya mahAdevAya tryaMbakAya|
    tripurAntakAya trikAgnikAlAya kAlAgnirudrAya nIlakaNThAya mRtyuJNjayAya sarveshvarAya sadAshivAya shrIman mAhAdevAya ||

    Om shrImAtrE namah

    sarvam shrI umA-mahEshwara parabrahmArpaNamastu


    A Shaivite library
    http://www.scribd.com/HinduismLibrary

  3. #23
    Join Date
    June 2012
    Location
    Mumbai
    Age
    36
    Posts
    1,210
    Rep Power
    1353

    Re: Ganapathi pooja in Vaishnavism

    SV, Adi Shankara's words should be interpreted the way they should be, not from Sri Vaishnava's POV. As mentioned earlier, this is not the correct section to discuss about Adi Shankara
    Only God Is Truth, Everything Else Is Illusion - Ramakrishna
    Total Surrender of Ego to SELF is Real Bhakti - Ramana Maharshi

    Silence is the study of the scruptures. Meditation is the continuous thinking of Brahman which is to be meditated upon. The complete negation of both by knowledge is the vision of truth ā€“ sadAcAra-14 of Adi SankarAcArya

    namah SivAya vishnurUpAya viShNave SivarUpiNe, MBh, vanaparva, 3.39.76

    Sanskrit Dict | MW Dict | Gita Super Site | Hindu Dharma

  4. #24
    Join Date
    October 2007
    Location
    UAE
    Posts
    142
    Rep Power
    0

    Re: Ganapathi pooja in Vaishnavism

    And what makes you think my post was from a SV point of view? If you notice, I used the word 'vaishnava' and not 'sri vaishnava' - and this is a word used by shankara himself in a very approving manner in his gita bhAshya.

    The explanation I gave is indeed his view-point whereas yours is not even close, considering his statement that shiva is a vibhUti of vishNu in his VS bhAshya itself and the various statements in his prasthna trayI where he openly places the worship of Rudra and other devatas on a lower pedastal as compared to worship of vishnu. As per my knowledgeable friend who is a smArta by birth, ShankarAchArya says that Lord Rudra, Pasupati, was created by Brahman (BrihadAranyaka upanishad bhAshya - 1.4.10-11). He also says in the third chapter of his Brahma Sutra Bhashya (3.3.32) that Rudra received a boon from Sanatkumara, thus implying that Rudra is not Brahman.

    I have his kenOpanishad bhAshya. He only interprets Uma Haimavati as the personification of knowledge, that is auspicious and hence the fitting epithet of being adorned with gold, further adding that she has become competent in jnAnA due to her continued association with sarvajna Isvara (shiva, of great knowledge), that the devas learned of Brahman only from her. Never once does he equate the Brahman revealed by Uma with that sarvajna Isvara who Uma is associated with, although he could have easily done so if he had that opinion. Rather, he equates Brahman with nArAyaNa everywhere in his bhAshyas.

    Whatever, believe what you must.
    Last edited by Sri Vaishnava; 27 September 2013 at 04:01 PM.
    [CENTER][COLOR="Black"][COLOR="Red"][COLOR="DarkRed"]No holiness rules over my freedom
    No commands from above I obey
    I seek the ruin, I shake the worlds
    Behold! I am blackest ov the black

    Ov khaos I am, the disobediant one
    Depraved son who hath dwelt in nothingness
    Upon the ninth I fell, from grace up above
    To taste this life ov sin, to give birth to the "I"[/COLOR][/COLOR][/COLOR]

    [B]~ "Blackest Ov the Black" - Behemoth.[/B]

    [url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3P-JdwtK1DY[/url] [/CENTER]

  5. #25
    Join Date
    January 2007
    Location
    duhkhalayam asasvatam
    Posts
    1,448
    Rep Power
    80

    Re: Ganapathi pooja in Vaishnavism

    Pranam
    Betraying my private conversation, I salute your beautiful dharma.
    really no harm done, just that I did not want to comment on your abuse so as not to pollute this Vaisnava thread any further, alas it wasn't meant to be.


    Quote Originally Posted by Omkara View Post
    ----and made claims about Adi Shankara's beleifs without actually having read his bhashyas. That fits any definition of trolling.

    Nice definition of a troll, well excuse me for not meeting your standard, at this rate I will be a troll every time I quote Bhagvat Gita, do you have an access to Shree Krishna's Bhasya!!

    As I said before, reading a Bhasya or not, is irrelevant as far as my discussion goes, and what gives you the authority to decide what is authentic or not, it is all very subjective and going by this conversation on Vinaykas, I believe you have been fairly proven wrong by your own admittance as well.


    The Vedas are clear that worship is to be given to the supreme Brahman alone-

    Atharvashika Upanishad
    39. Siva alone is to be meditated upon, Siva the Giver of good. Give up all else. Thus, concludes the Atharvasikha.
    RV 2.33.4 Let us not anger thee with (imperfect) adorations, Rudra, unworthy praise,or mixed oblations (worship along with worship of other gods) Strong God!
    Your point is mute, you could have saved your self the bother if you had care to read the last sentence that has always been my signature ever since I joined this forum.

    Jai Shree Krishna
    Last edited by Ganeshprasad; 27 September 2013 at 03:50 PM.
    Rig Veda list only 33 devas, they are all propitiated, worthy off our worship, all other names of gods are derivative from this 33 originals,
    Bhagvat Gita; Shree Krishna says Chapter 3.11 devan bhavayatanena te deva bhavayantu vah parasparam bhavayantah sreyah param avapsyatha Chapter 17.4 yajante sattvika devan yaksa-raksamsi rajasah pretan bhuta-ganams canye yajante tamasa janah
    The world disappears in him. He is the peaceful, the good, the one without a second.

  6. #26

    Re: Ganapathi pooja in Vaishnavism

    Quote Originally Posted by Omkara View Post
    The Vedas are clear that worship is to be given to the supreme Brahman alone-

    Atharvashika Upanishad
    39. Siva alone is to be meditated upon, Siva the Giver of good. Give up all else. Thus, concludes the Atharvasikha.
    RV 2.33.4 Let us not anger thee with (imperfect) adorations, Rudra, unworthy praise,or mixed oblations (worship along with worship of other gods) Strong God!
    Notice how Ganesh Prasad did not bother to respond to this point. I predict that GP will continue to argue that Vedas want to us to worship many gods, and will decry any evidence to the contrary. If the Vedas tell us to worship a supreme deity only, then it's not their fault. But the person who brings that up is obviously motivated by sectarian(*) views!

    PR

    (*) Unless the person who says it is a great scholar like Adi Shankara. In that case, once again, he is not at fault for making the sectarian statement. But, the person who pointed out that he made the sectarian statement will be the one at fault.

    P.S. Ganesh Prasad, the word you were looking for is "moot," not "mute." *rolls eyes*
    Philosoraptor

    "Wise men speak because they have something to say. Fools speak because they have to say something." - Plato

  7. #27
    Join Date
    January 2007
    Location
    duhkhalayam asasvatam
    Posts
    1,448
    Rep Power
    80

    Re: Ganapathi pooja in Vaishnavism

    Pranam

    Quote Originally Posted by philosoraptor View Post
    ------

    P.S. Ganesh Prasad, the word you were looking for is "moot," not "mute." *rolls eyes*
    Oh how embarrassing, thanks for the correction but no need to roll eyes, might do some damage.

    Sorry well past my bed time with stinking cold can not fully respond to rest of your post, in case I give you another opportunity to roll your eyes but I will quote another verse from the Gita, may help

    9.15

    jnana-yajnena capy anye
    yajanto mam upasate
    ekatvena prthaktvena
    bahudha visvato-mukham

    Jai Shree Krishna
    Rig Veda list only 33 devas, they are all propitiated, worthy off our worship, all other names of gods are derivative from this 33 originals,
    Bhagvat Gita; Shree Krishna says Chapter 3.11 devan bhavayatanena te deva bhavayantu vah parasparam bhavayantah sreyah param avapsyatha Chapter 17.4 yajante sattvika devan yaksa-raksamsi rajasah pretan bhuta-ganams canye yajante tamasa janah
    The world disappears in him. He is the peaceful, the good, the one without a second.

  8. #28
    Join Date
    June 2012
    Location
    Mumbai, India
    Age
    24
    Posts
    1,088
    Rep Power
    1117

    Re: Ganapathi pooja in Vaishnavism

    Quote Originally Posted by Ganeshprasad View Post
    As I said before, reading a Bhasya or not, is irrelevant as far as my discussion goes, and
    Therefore your position is that one can make wild claims on any topic without actually knowing about it.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ganeshprasad View Post
    what gives you the authority to decide what is authentic or not, it is all very subjective and going by this conversation on Vinaykas, I believe you have been fairly proven wrong by your own admittance as well.
    What? Proved wrong? By my own admission? I had known from the start that there was a competing interpretation and had even provided a link to a thread discussing that interpretation. My stand on those verses remains the same.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ganeshprasad View Post
    Your point is mute, you could have saved your self the bother if you had care to read the last sentence that has always been my signature ever since I joined this forum.
    Will you stop running around in circles and answer a question for once? And while tou are at it, explain this-
    Quote Originally Posted by Sri Vaishnava View Post
    ShankarAchArya says that Lord Rudra, Pasupati, was created by Brahman (BrihadAranyaka upanishad bhAshya - 1.4.10-11). He also says in the third chapter of his Brahma Sutra Bhashya (3.3.32) that Rudra received a boon from Sanatkumara, thus implying that Rudra is not Brahman.
    And explain the fact that in his Vishnu Sahasranama Bhashya Shankaracharya says that Vishnu is called Keshava because he gives birth to Ka (Brahma) and Isa(Shiva).

    1.3.26. Also (beings) above them, (viz. men) (are qualified for the study and practice of the Veda), on account of the possibility (of it), according to Bādarāyana. It has been said above that the passage about him who is of the size of a thumb has reference to the human heart, because men are entitled to study and act according to the sāstra. This gives us an occasion for the following discussion.--It is true that the sāstra entitles men, but, at the same time, there is no exclusive rule entitling men only to the knowledge of Brahman; the teacher, Bādarāyana, rather thinks that the sāstra entitles those (classes of beings) also which are above men, viz. gods, and so on.--On what account?--On the account of possibility.--For in their cases also the different causes on which the qualification depends, such as viz. gods, and so on.--On what account?--On the account of possibility.--For in their cases also the different causes on which the qualification depends, such as having certain desires, and so on, may exist. In the first place, the gods also may have the desire of final release, caused by the reflection that all effects, objects, and powers are non-permanent. In the second place, they may be capable of it as their corporeality appears from mantras, arthavādas, itihāsas, purānas, and ordinary experience. In the third place, there is no prohibition (excluding them like Sūdras). experience. In the third place, there is no prohibition (excluding them like Sūdras). Nor does, in the fourth place, the scriptural rule about the upanayana-ceremony annul their title; for that ceremony merely subserves the study of the Veda, and to the gods the Veda is manifest of itself (without study). That the gods, moreover, for the purpose of acquiring knowledge, undergo discipleship, and the like, appears from such scriptural passages as 'One hundred and one years Indra lived as a disciple with Pragāpati' (Kh. Up. VIII, ii, 3), and 'Bhrigu Vāruni went to his father Varuna, saying, "Sir, teach me Brahman"' (Taitt. Up. III, 1).-- And the reasons which have been given above against gods and rishis being entitled to perform religious works (such as sacrifices), viz. the circumstance of there being no other gods (to whom the gods could offer sacrifices), and of there being no other rishis (who could be invoked during the sacrifice), do not apply to the case of branches of whom the gods could offer sacrifices), and of there being no other rishis (who could be invoked during the sacrifice), do not apply to the case of branches of knowledge. For Indra and the other gods, when applying themselves to knowledge, have no acts to perform with a view to Indra, and so on; nor have Bhrigu and other rishis, in the same case, to do anything with the circumstance of their belonging to the same gotra as Bhrigu, &c. What, then, should stand in the way of the gods' and rishis' right to acquire knowledge?--Moreover, the passage about that which is of the size of a thumb remains equally valid, if the right of the gods, &c. is admitted; it has then only to be explained in each particular case by a reference to the particular size of the thumb (of the class of beings spoken of). admitted; it has then only to be explained in each particular case by a reference to the particular size of the thumb (of the class of beings spoken of)
    Kena Upanishad Bhashya-
    "the subsequent passages clearly show the folly of thinking that that Brahman, who is controller of all in every way even superior to all Devas, Lord over lords, not easily known, the cause of the victory of the Devas and of the defeat of the Asuras does not exist. Or (it is related) for eulogising the knowledge of Brahman. How? By showing that it was, indeed, by the knowledge of the Brahman that Agni, etc. attained pre-eminence among the Devas; and Indra specially more than the rest. Or, it shows how difficult it is to know Brahman, because even Agni, etc with all their great powers, and even Indra, lord of the Devas knew the Brahman only with considerable difficulty. It may be that the whole Upanishad to follow is intended to lay down an injunction (to know the Brahman) or the story may have been intended to show the fallacious nature of the notion of doer, etc., found in all living beings, by contrasting it with the knowledge of the Brahman - fallacious like the notion of the Devas that the victory was theirs. The Brahman already defined won a victory for the benefit of the Devas; i.e. the Brahman in a battle between the Devas and the Asuras defeated the Asuras, the enemies of the world and the violaters of the limitations imposed by the Lord and gave the benefit of the victory to the Devas for the preservation of the world. In this victory of Brahman, the Devas, Agni, etc, attained glory, and not knowing that the victory and glory belonged to the Paramatman, seated in their own Atman, the witness of all perceptions, Lord of the universe, omniscient, the dispenser of the fruits of all Karma, omnipotent, and desirous of securing the safety of the world, looked upon the victgory and the glory, as achieved by themselves - the Atman enclosed with the limitations of their own forms, Agni, etc; that the glory - their being Agni, Vayu, Indra and the like, resulting from the victory - was theirs and that neither the victory nor the glory belonged to the Lord, over all the Atman within them. So they cherished this false notion." them.
    namastE astu bhagavan vishveshvarAya mahAdevAya tryaMbakAya|
    tripurAntakAya trikAgnikAlAya kAlAgnirudrAya nIlakaNThAya mRtyuJNjayAya sarveshvarAya sadAshivAya shrIman mAhAdevAya ||

    Om shrImAtrE namah

    sarvam shrI umA-mahEshwara parabrahmArpaNamastu


    A Shaivite library
    http://www.scribd.com/HinduismLibrary

  9. #29

    Re: Ganapathi pooja in Vaishnavism

    We should give Ganesh Prasad credit where credit is due.

    It only *seems* to the uninitiated that he is ignoring questions, talking in circles, and merely prolonging the argument. However, what he is *really* doing is quite cunning. He is trying to spew as much junk onto the thread as possible without saying anything, in the hopes that the moderators will eventually see his spam, conclude that the entire thread is pointless, and move it to the jalpa section.

    Because when you preach tolerance, but cannot tolerate some of the ideas that other members discuss, that's how you deal with it.

    In all fairness though, it's not as if he is attacking HDF members behind their backs by misrepresenting them and attacking them on other forums. That would be quite cowardly, and GP at least, has standards for his trolling.
    Philosoraptor

    "Wise men speak because they have something to say. Fools speak because they have to say something." - Plato

  10. #30
    Join Date
    February 2012
    Age
    62
    Posts
    1,521
    Rep Power
    2710

    Re: Ganapathi pooja in Vaishnavism

    Namaste

    This thread is totally nonsensical and seems have turned into again an endless jalpa about Adi Sankara, who is supposed to be a Saiva, considering his parents attended the Vadakkunnathan Shiva Temple, but local tradition is the temple was built by Parasurama Who is Vishnu according to the region, but the same locals say the reason Shiva is the primary Lord here is because Parasurama's teacher or Acharya was Siva Himself and thus He built the Temple to His Teacher.

    So is Adi Sankara a Saiva, a Vaishnav, neither but an Advaitan? It is even more confusing to correlate things since no one can even give proof of when he was born as the dates are all over the map and members are saying a number of what is suppose to be his work is forgery of another.

    Actually, please don't answer this question, there will be more than 33 answers from the "experts", exceeding the number of Gods in the Veda.

    The Vadakkumnathan Temple, where Adi Sankara's esteemed parents would attend, is located in Thrissur district of Kerala. In the center of the four surrounding gopurams of the old Shiva temple is the central shrines of Lord Shiva in form of Vadakkumnathan Linga, Shankaranarayana and Lord Rama. Thus we find Siva, Siva and Vishnu combined, and Vishnu.

    Thus it would not surprise me to learn Adi Sankara adored Siva, Devi and Vishnu and others.

    Which makes me think perhaps not all of his praises to more than one Deva or Devi are forgery. Whom he calls the Brahman may vary depending on the focus.

    Found in this Shiva Temple is also of course the Ganapathi shrine where the offering of Appam to Mahaganapathy is one of the most important offerings at the temple and is a tradition of long standing, perhaps such Appam was taken as prashad by the parents of Adi Sankara when they went to the temple to worship the Lingam covered in ghee to pray for a child. The diversity in Hinduism is amazing.

    Continue with jalpa, please be respectful of Ganesha worshipped by millions of Hindus.

    Jai Ganapati

    Om Namah Sivaya

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 48
    Last Post: 12 October 2011, 11:22 PM
  2. New posts refersh rate
    By Onkara in forum Feedback
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 21 June 2011, 04:44 PM
  3. Recommendation: jalpa
    By yajvan in forum Feedback
    Replies: 24
    Last Post: 13 September 2010, 10:06 AM
  4. Tattvas
    By grames in forum Advaita
    Replies: 40
    Last Post: 14 October 2009, 07:55 AM
  5. Some questions on HK
    By Yogkriya in forum Hare Krishna (ISKCON)
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 06 August 2007, 02:03 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •