Why

[Ganeshprasad]

Pranam

Why is there so much antagonism between Vaishnav and Sheiva?

Vaishnava says because Brahman is faultless, which we all agree, but they allege Shiva is mere jiva and they quote Sathpath bramana that Shiva is jiva and had sins there fore can not be supreme.

They also contend that where ever Rudra is extolled in srutis it actually refers to Vishnu because he has those names. Even smrities are categorise as satvic , rajsic and tamsic. Such evidence is given in purans so they say , shiv puran is tamsic because it denigrate Vishnu at places.
I am sure shaiva also says things that is unpalatable.

Why does this happen in land of such great culture, what brought this about, please don’t tell me it is the effect of kali youga.

Jai Shree Krishna

[atanu]

Pranam

Why is there so much antagonism between Vaishnav and Sheiva?

Vaishnava says because Brahman is faultless, which we all agree, but they allege Shiva is mere jiva and they quote Sathpath bramana that Shiva is jiva and had sins there fore can not be supreme.

They also contend that where ever Rudra is extolled in srutis it actually refers to Vishnu because he has those names. Even smrities are categorise as satvic , rajsic and tamsic. Such evidence is given in purans so they say , shiv puran is tamsic because it denigrate Vishnu at places.
I am sure shaiva also says things that is unpalatable.

Why does this happen in land of such great culture, what brought this about, please don’t tell me it is the effect of kali youga.

Jai Shree Krishna

Namaste Ganeshprasad Ji,

Thank you for these fundamental questions. In my opinion, human ego attachment to names and forms lead to such altercations and the more egoistic are more voluble and aggressive. Similar is the ego of Christians who teach Hindu Self-Realised sages. Similar is the dirty outbursts of Prabhupada towards other sages of India.

However, as additional information, I would like to point as below:

Satapatha, in fact tells of death of Vishnu

Rig Veda tells of Vishnu's birth from Soma.

In Rudra Gita, Rudra says that each form worship the other form and He says that I am Narayana.

Maha Upanishad says that Narayana was not happy (I simply cannot imagine Brahman being unhappy). Maha Upanishad later adds that Shiva alone is support less and needs no support, being all bliss.

When sages look to Param Padam -- the eye in the sky, it indicates of something visible. Whereas we know that eyes cannot see Him because He is the Seer behind the eye.

Yoga Vashista says that Vaisnava dharma is creation of God to pull in the materially minded.

Through out Bhagavatam, the worshippable form of God is called Bhagawati, which is Krishna.

In Gita, Shri Krishna says that "One who knows me as unborn Mahesvara, knows truly".

-------------------

Fortunately for an Advaitin these comparisons are not needed since there is "No Second". What is the un-nameble, un-speakable, un-seeable, un-thinkable, un-graspable, without a second pure GOOD Lord, alone grasps, thinks, sees etc etc. (but IT actually does nothing).

Regards

Om

[Ganeshprasad]

Pranam Atanu ji

Thank you for your response, believe me I have no desires for controversy nor am I seeking retributions.

I wish harmony prevails between all religions what to speak of various Vedic practices.

What pains me with no ends is the denigrating of Lord Shiva, for me to do the same to Vishnu would be to cut the nose to spite the face.

Now Satapatha Brahmana speaks of kumar feeling evil because he has no name, is this an ordinary jiva who request to be known as different than the name given because he says he is greater then that?

Is this episode off Lord Shiva taking birth? In the previous chapter prajapati has already through his mind manifested 8 vasus 11 rudras and twelve adityas.

This Kumar is none other then Agni that is how I read it, am I wrong in assuming this, please note I am not trying to lower the position of Agni either.

:1:3:11. Verily, Pragâpati alone was here in the beginning. He desired, 'May I exist, may I reproduce myself!' He toiled, he practised austerity (or, became heated). From him, worn out and heated, the waters were created: from that heated Person the waters are born.
6:1:3:22. The waters said, 'What is to become of us?'--'Ye shall be heated,' he said. They were heated; they created foam: hence foam is produced in heated water.
6:1:3:33. The foam (m.) said, 'What is to become of me?'--'Thou shalt be heated!' he said. It was heated, and produced clay; for indeed the foam is heated, when it floats on the water, covering it; and when one beats upon it, it indeed becomes clay.
6:1:3:44. The clay (f.) said, 'What is to become of me?'--'Thou shalt be heated!' he said. It was heated,
p. 158
and produced sand; for this clay becomes indeed heated when they plough it; and if only they plough very fine then it becomes, as it were, sandy. So much, then, as to that 'What is to become of me? what is to become of me 1?'
6:1:3:55. From the sated he created the pebble: whence sand finally indeed becomes a pebble;--from the pebble the stone: whence the pebble finally indeed becomes a stone;--from the stone metal ore: whence from stone they smelt ore;--from ore gold: whence ore much smelted comes, as it were, to have the appearance of gold.
6:1:3:66. Now that which was created was flowing; and inasmuch as it was flowing (aksharat), a syllable (akshara) resulted therefrom; and inasmuch as it flowed eight times, that octosyllabic Gâyatrî was produced.
6:1:3:77. 'This has indeed become (bhû) a foundation (resting-place),' so he thought: whence it became the earth (bhûmi). He spread it out (prath): it became the broad (earth, prithivî). On this earth, as on a foundation, the beings, and the lord of beings, consecrated themselves for a year: the lord of beings was the master of the house 2, and Ushas (the Dawn) was the mistress.
6:1:3:88. Now, those beings are the seasons; and that lord of beings is the year; and that Ushas, the mistress, is the Dawn. And these same creatures, as well as the lord of beings, the year, laid seed
p. 159
into Ushas 1. There a boy (kumâra) was born in a year: he cried.
6:1:3:99. Pragâpati said to him, 'My boy, why criest thou, when thou art born out of labour and trouble?' He said, 'Nay, but I am not freed from (guarded against) evil; I have no name given me: give me a name!' Hence one should give a name to the boy that is born, for thereby one frees him from evil;--even a second, even a third (name), for thereby one frees him from evil time after time.
6:1:3:1010. He said to him, 'Thou art Rudra 2.' And because he gave him that name, Agni became suchlike (or, that form), for Rudra is Agni: because he cried (rud) therefore he is Rudra. He said, 'Surely, I am mightier than that: give me yet a name!'
6:1:3:1111. He said to him, 'Thou art Sarva.' And because he gave the him that name, the waters became suchlike, for Sarva is the waters, inasmuch as from the water everything (sarva) here is produced. He said, 'Surely, I am mightier than that: give me yet a name!'
6:1:3:1212. He said to him, 'Thou art Pasupati.' And because he gave him that name, the plants became suchlike, for Pasupati is the plants: hence when cattle (pasu) get plants, then they play the master 3 (patîy). He said, 'Surely, I am mightier than that: give me yet a name!'
6:1:3:1313. He said to him, 'Thou art Ugra.' And
p. 160
because he gave him that name, Vâyu (the wind) became suchlike, for Ugra is Vâyu: hence when it blows strongly, they say 'Ugra is blowing.' He said, 'Surely, I am mightier than that: give me yet a name!'
6:1:3:1414. He said to him, 'Thou art Asani.' And because he gave him that name, the lightning became suchlike, for Asani is the lightning: hence they say of him whom the lightning strikes, 'Asani has smitten him.' He said, 'Surely, I am mightier than that: give me yet a name!'
6:1:3:1515. He said to him, 'Thou art Bhava.' And because he gave him that name, Parganya (the rain-god) became suchlike; for Bhava is Parganya, since everything here comes (bhavati) from the rain-cloud. He said, 'Surely, I am mightier than that: give me yet a name!'
6:1:3:1616. He said to him, 'Thou art Mahân Devah (the Great God).' And because he gave him that name, the moon became suchlike, for the moon is Pragâpati, and Pragâpati is the Great God. He said, 'Surely, I am mightier than that: give me yet a name!'
6:1:3:1717. He said to him, 'Thou art Îsâna (the Ruler).' And because he gave him that name, the Sun became suchlike, for Îsâna is the Sun, since the Sun rules over this All. He said, 'So great indeed I am: give me no other name after that!'
6:1:3:1818. These then are the eight forms of Agni. Kumâra (the boy) is the ninth: that is Agni's threefold state 1.
6:1:3:1919. And because there are eight forms of Agni--
p. 161
the Gâyatrî consisting of eight syllables--therefore they say, 'Agni is Gâyatra.' That boy entered into the forms one after another; for one never sees him as a mere boy (kumâra), but one sees those forms of his 1, for he assumed those forms one after another.
6:1:3:2020. One ought to build him (Agni, the fire-altar) up in (the space of) a year, and recite for a year. 'For two (years),' however, say some; 'for in one year they laid the seed, and in one year that boy was born, therefore let him build for two (years), and recite for two (years).' Let him, however, build for a year only, and recite for a year; for the same seed which is laid is brought forth; it then lies changing and growing: hence let him build for a year only, and recite for a year. To him (Agni) when built up (kita) he gives a name: whereby he keeps away evil from him. He calls him by a bright (kitra) name 2, saying, 'Thou art bright;' for Agni is all bright things.

Am I reading this wrong, how can Vasihnava get away quoting this or am I looking at something other then them, but I am no scholar. please comment

Jai Shree Krishna

[Arjuna]

Satapatha, in fact tells of death of Vishnu
Rig Veda tells of Vishnu's birth from Soma.

Interesting. In fact it is quite reasonable to see Rudra as the highest deity of the Vedas, since at least two of 4 samhitas are clearly Shaiva (Yajus and Atharvana). Rigveda also in several places puts Rudra above all other gods, though normally it speaks of Indra. However acc to opinion of some scholars, they are identical (for example, Ganapati Muni, disciple of Ramana Maharshi).
At the same time Vishnu in Vedas has a name Upendra, "a small Indra".

[atanu]

Pranam Atanu ji

Thank you for your response, believe me I have no desires for controversy nor am I seeking retributions.

I wish harmony prevails between all religions what to speak of various Vedic practices.

What pains me with no ends is the denigrating of Lord Shiva, for me to do the same to Vishnu would be to cut the nose to spite the face.

Now Satapatha Brahmana speaks of kumar feeling evil because he has no name, is this an ordinary jiva who request to be known as different than the name given because he says he is greater then that?

Is this episode off Lord Shiva taking birth? In the previous chapter prajapati has already through his mind manifested 8 vasus 11 rudras and twelve adityas.

This Kumar is none other then Agni that is how I read it, am I wrong in assuming this, please note I am not trying to lower the position of Agni either.

:1:3:11. Verily, Pragâpati alone was here in the beginning. He desired, 'May I exist, may I reproduce myself!' He toiled, he practised austerity (or, became heated). From him, worn out and heated, the waters were created: from that heated Person the waters are born.
6:1:3:22. The waters said, 'What is to become of us?'--'Ye shall be heated,' he said. They were heated; they created foam: hence foam is produced in heated water.
6:1:3:33. The foam (m.) said, 'What is to become of me?'--'Thou shalt be heated!' he said. It was heated, and produced clay; for indeed the foam is heated, when it floats on the water, covering it; and when one beats upon it, it indeed becomes clay.
6:1:3:44. The clay (f.) said, 'What is to become of me?'--'Thou shalt be heated!' he said. It was heated,
p. 158
and produced sand; for this clay becomes indeed heated when they plough it; and if only they plough very fine then it becomes, as it were, sandy. So much, then, as to that 'What is to become of me? what is to become of me 1?'
6:1:3:55. From the sated he created the pebble: whence sand finally indeed becomes a pebble;--from the pebble the stone: whence the pebble finally indeed becomes a stone;--from the stone metal ore: whence from stone they smelt ore;--from ore gold: whence ore much smelted comes, as it were, to have the appearance of gold.
6:1:3:66. Now that which was created was flowing; and inasmuch as it was flowing (aksharat), a syllable (akshara) resulted therefrom; and inasmuch as it flowed eight times, that octosyllabic Gâyatrî was produced.
6:1:3:77. 'This has indeed become (bh&#251 a foundation (resting-place),' so he thought: whence it became the earth (bhûmi). He spread it out (prath): it became the broad (earth, prithiv&#238. On this earth, as on a foundation, the beings, and the lord of beings, consecrated themselves for a year: the lord of beings was the master of the house 2, and Ushas (the Dawn) was the mistress.
6:1:3:88. Now, those beings are the seasons; and that lord of beings is the year; and that Ushas, the mistress, is the Dawn. And these same creatures, as well as the lord of beings, the year, laid seed
p. 159
into Ushas 1. There a boy (kumâra) was born in a year: he cried.
6:1:3:99. Pragâpati said to him, 'My boy, why criest thou, when thou art born out of labour and trouble?' He said, 'Nay, but I am not freed from (guarded against) evil; I have no name given me: give me a name!' Hence one should give a name to the boy that is born, for thereby one frees him from evil;--even a second, even a third (name), for thereby one frees him from evil time after time.
6:1:3:1010. He said to him, 'Thou art Rudra 2.' And because he gave him that name, Agni became suchlike (or, that form), for Rudra is Agni: because he cried (rud) therefore he is Rudra. He said, 'Surely, I am mightier than that: give me yet a name!'
6:1:3:1111. He said to him, 'Thou art Sarva.' And because he gave the him that name, the waters became suchlike, for Sarva is the waters, inasmuch as from the water everything (sarva) here is produced. He said, 'Surely, I am mightier than that: give me yet a name!'
6:1:3:1212. He said to him, 'Thou art Pasupati.' And because he gave him that name, the plants became suchlike, for Pasupati is the plants: hence when cattle (pasu) get plants, then they play the master 3 (patîy). He said, 'Surely, I am mightier than that: give me yet a name!'
6:1:3:1313. He said to him, 'Thou art Ugra.' And
p. 160
because he gave him that name, Vâyu (the wind) became suchlike, for Ugra is Vâyu: hence when it blows strongly, they say 'Ugra is blowing.' He said, 'Surely, I am mightier than that: give me yet a name!'
6:1:3:1414. He said to him, 'Thou art Asani.' And because he gave him that name, the lightning became suchlike, for Asani is the lightning: hence they say of him whom the lightning strikes, 'Asani has smitten him.' He said, 'Surely, I am mightier than that: give me yet a name!'
6:1:3:1515. He said to him, 'Thou art Bhava.' And because he gave him that name, Parganya (the rain-god) became suchlike; for Bhava is Parganya, since everything here comes (bhavati) from the rain-cloud. He said, 'Surely, I am mightier than that: give me yet a name!'
6:1:3:1616. He said to him, 'Thou art Mahân Devah (the Great God).' And because he gave him that name, the moon became suchlike, for the moon is Pragâpati, and Pragâpati is the Great God. He said, 'Surely, I am mightier than that: give me yet a name!'
6:1:3:1717. He said to him, 'Thou art Îsâna (the Ruler).' And because he gave him that name, the Sun became suchlike, for Îsâna is the Sun, since the Sun rules over this All. He said, 'So great indeed I am: give me no other name after that!'
6:1:3:1818. These then are the eight forms of Agni. Kumâra (the boy) is the ninth: that is Agni's threefold state 1.
6:1:3:1919. And because there are eight forms of Agni--
p. 161
the Gâyatrî consisting of eight syllables--therefore they say, 'Agni is Gâyatra.' That boy entered into the forms one after another; for one never sees him as a mere boy (kumâra), but one sees those forms of his 1, for he assumed those forms one after another.
6:1:3:2020. One ought to build him (Agni, the fire-altar) up in (the space of) a year, and recite for a year. 'For two (years),' however, say some; 'for in one year they laid the seed, and in one year that boy was born, therefore let him build for two (years), and recite for two (years).' Let him, however, build for a year only, and recite for a year; for the same seed which is laid is brought forth; it then lies changing and growing: hence let him build for a year only, and recite for a year. To him (Agni) when built up (kita) he gives a name: whereby he keeps away evil from him. He calls him by a bright (kitra) name 2, saying, 'Thou art bright;' for Agni is all bright things.

Am I reading this wrong, how can Vasihnava get away quoting this or am I looking at something other then them, but I am no scholar. please comment

Jai Shree Krishna

Namaste Ganeshprasad Ji,

Thank you for sharing this verse. This is Narayana -- the Kala Prajapati. For Brahman there is no beginning and no end, how can there be "In the Beginning"? The vaisnava way is only one way to look at things. Their logic turns against their own premises when the full verses and the contexts are checked.

Yes, whatever is manifested is manifested through Kala Prajapati (Narayana). Svet. Upanishad succinctly says: the man with bent back, the blue throated bird ------ all are you. In fact Kumara is not different from Shiva and Agni.

Similarly they will say that "Narayana alone was there". But they will fail to see why Narayana was not happy?

Vishnu is not different from ever blissful Shiva, yet Vishnu has a beginning and an end ( only conceptually since Atman is never missing). For ONE WITHOUT A SECOND, what is pervading? What else is there to pervade? Pervading can only start once a conception of many has begun. For Brahman who is ever indivisible, the pervading is only a concept from our perspective.

The following verses may be interpreted spitefully against vaisnavas like common vaisnavas pick up a few isolated verses to give vent to their frustration against Shiva bhaktas. These altercations have no value and IMO it is better to stick to one's deity steadfast with the belief that God shows his particular form as appropriate for a devotee. There cannot be any division of Atman which is source of pure dense knowledge called Pragnya - the Sarvesvara.

Satapatha Brahmana

THE PRAVARGYA.

14:1:1:1. The gods Agni, Indra, Soma, Makha, Vishnu, and the Visve Devâh, except the two Asvins, performed a sacrificial session.

14:1:1:2. Their place of divine worship was Kurukshetra.. Therefore people say that Kurukshetra is the gods’ place of divine worship: hence wherever in Kurukshetra one settles there one thinks, 'This is a place for divine worship;' for it was the gods’ place of divine worship.

14:1:1:3. They entered upon the session thinking, 'May we attain excellence! may we become glorious! may we become eaters of food!' And in like manner do these (men) now enter upon the sacrificial session thinking, 'May we attain excellence! may we become glorious! may we become eaters of food!'

14:1:1:4. They spake, 'Whoever of us, through austerity, fervour, faith, sacrifice, and oblations, shall first compass the end of the sacrifice, he shall be the most excellent of us, and shall then be in common to us all.' 'So be it,' they said.

14:1:1:5. Vishnu first attained it, and he became the most excellent of the gods; whence people say, 'Vishnu is the most excellent of the gods.'

14:1:1:6. Now he who is this Vishnu is the sacrifice; and he who is this sacrifice is yonder Âditya (the sun). But, indeed, Vishnu was unable to control that (love of) glory of his; and so even now not every one can control that (love of) glory of his.

14:1:1:7. Taking his bow, together with three arrows, he stepped forth. He stood, resting his head on the end of the bow. Not daring to attack him, the gods sat themselves down all around him.

14:1:1:8. Then the ants said--these ants (vamr&#238, doubtless, were that (kind called) 'upadîkâ '--'What would ye give to him who should gnaw the bowstring?'--'We would give him the (constant) enjoyment of food, and he would find water even in the desert: so we would give him every enjoyment of food.'--'So be it,' they said.

14:1:1:9. Having gone nigh unto him, they gnawed his bowstring. When it was cut, the ends of the bow, springing asunder, cut off Vishnu's head.

14:1:1:100. It fell with (the sound) 'ghriṅ'; and on falling it became yonder sun. And the rest (of the body) lay stretched out (with the top part) towards the east. And inasmuch as it fell with (the sound) 'ghriṅ,' therefrom the Gharma (was called); and inasmuch as he was stretched out (pra-vrig,), therefrom the Pravargya (took its name).

14:1:1:11. The gods spake, 'Verily, our great hero (mahân virah) has fallen:' therefrom the Mahâvîra pot (was named). And the vital sap which flowed from him they wiped up (sam-mrig) with their hands, whence the Samrâg.


------------

Regards

Om

[Ganeshprasad]

Pranam Atanu ji

Namaste Ganeshprasad Ji,
Yes, whatever is manifested is manifested through Kala Prajapati (Narayana). Svet. Upanishad succinctly says: the man with bent back, the blue throated bird ------ all are you. In fact Kumara is not different from Shiva and Agni.

can you please expand on this.

Thank you for sharing this verse. This is Narayana -- the Kala Prajapati. For Brahman there is no beginning and no end, how can there be "In the Beginning"? The vaisnava way is only one way to look at things. Their logic turns against their own premises when the full verses and the contexts are checked.
Similarly they will say that "Narayana alone was there". But they will fail to see why Narayana was not happy?

Vishnu is not different from ever blissful Shiva, yet Vishnu has a beginning and an end ( only conceptually since Atman is never missing). For ONE WITHOUT A SECOND, what is pervading? What else is there to pervade? Pervading can only start once a conception of many has begun. For Brahman who is ever indivisible, the pervading is only a concept from our perspective.

The following verses may be interpreted spitefully against vaisnavas like common vaisnavas pick up a few isolated verses to give vent to their frustration against Shiva bhaktas. These altercations have no value and IMO it is better to stick to one's deity steadfast with the belief that God shows his particular form as appropriate for a devotee. There cannot be any division of Atman which is source of pure dense knowledge called Pragnya - the Sarvesvara.

Satapatha Brahmana

THE PRAVARGYA.

14:1:1:1. The gods Agni, Indra, Soma, Makha, Vishnu, and the Visve Devâh, except the two Asvins, performed a sacrificial session.

14:1:1:2. Their place of divine worship was Kurukshetra.. Therefore people say that Kurukshetra is the gods’ place of divine worship: hence wherever in Kurukshetra one settles there one thinks, 'This is a place for divine worship;' for it was the gods’ place of divine worship.

14:1:1:3. They entered upon the session thinking, 'May we attain excellence! may we become glorious! may we become eaters of food!' And in like manner do these (men) now enter upon the sacrificial session thinking, 'May we attain excellence! may we become glorious! may we become eaters of food!'

14:1:1:4. They spake, 'Whoever of us, through austerity, fervour, faith, sacrifice, and oblations, shall first compass the end of the sacrifice, he shall be the most excellent of us, and shall then be in common to us all.' 'So be it,' they said.

14:1:1:5. Vishnu first attained it, and he became the most excellent of the gods; whence people say, 'Vishnu is the most excellent of the gods.'

14:1:1:6. Now he who is this Vishnu is the sacrifice; and he who is this sacrifice is yonder Âditya (the sun). But, indeed, Vishnu was unable to control that (love of) glory of his; and so even now not every one can control that (love of) glory of his.

14:1:1:7. Taking his bow, together with three arrows, he stepped forth. He stood, resting his head on the end of the bow. Not daring to attack him, the gods sat themselves down all around him.

14:1:1:8. Then the ants said--these ants (vamrî), doubtless, were that (kind called) 'upadîkâ '--'What would ye give to him who should gnaw the bowstring?'--'We would give him the (constant) enjoyment of food, and he would find water even in the desert: so we would give him every enjoyment of food.'--'So be it,' they said.

14:1:1:9. Having gone nigh unto him, they gnawed his bowstring. When it was cut, the ends of the bow, springing asunder, cut off Vishnu's head.

14:1:1:100. It fell with (the sound) 'ghriṅ'; and on falling it became yonder sun. And the rest (of the body) lay stretched out (with the top part) towards the east. And inasmuch as it fell with (the sound) 'ghriṅ,' therefrom the Gharma (was called); and inasmuch as he was stretched out (pra-vrig,), therefrom the Pravargya (took its name).

14:1:1:11. The gods spake, 'Verily, our great hero (mahân virah) has fallen:' therefrom the Mahâvîra pot (was named). And the vital sap which flowed from him they wiped up (sam-mrig) with their hands, whence the Samrâg.


------------

Regards

Om

If this is case why are they so naive?

Jai Shree Krishna

[atanu]

Om

Pranam Atanu ji

can you please expand on this.

Namaskar Ganesh Prasad Ji

I will give it a try but it is a difficult task. In advance, YMMV.

You will see crucial verses which say: All this is Vasudeva (Gita) or all this is Rudra (Mahanarayana) or all this is Aditi (Rig Veda) or more generally, all this is Brahman.

If all this is Brahman then who am I? Am I a different seer or knower, different from Brahman? That also is impossible since Brihadaraynaka teaches: There is no seer but Brahman.

Thus, there being a sole seer, Vasudeva cannot be different from Aditi or Rudra, except in terms of conceptualization of different states. While the Atman Brahman has never changed but it conceived 'many' as scripture says: "Let me be many". The conception is through Pra gnya -- the revealed consciousness who is Sarvesvara and whose thoughts are his many faces.

But the revealer of the consciousness (Turiya) is advaita and unchanging. Some say that Turiyatita is further beyond but Self Realised sages say that Turiya is when Atman is seen as the fourth state and Turiyatita is when Turiya-Atman is known as the sole truth devoid of any state. It is only for a comparative basis with the three experiential states of waking, dreaming, and sleeping that Turiya is held as the fourth state. But in reality it is the sole truth.

For different grades of sadhakas (with different degrees of involvement in ignorance) the story of conceptualization is told to different degrees. It will be a shock for many to hear that the body that one takes as 'me' is not much different from an empty balloon similar to all other objects in view -- but the real Seer/knower/life is saharsashira purusha (Pragnya-Sarvesvara-Narayana) whose substratum is unborn ekpada Rudra Shiva. There is no second being.

There being only a single being, all this is that.

As I had discussed with you earlier, it was while seeing my father die on my arms that two questions arose. Where did the life force go? And why, even if all body parts were existing, feeding of glucose would not inject life force in the body? On a little bit contemplation, it was clear that wherever I see life, in my daughter or in my wife or in me, it is God alone -- in form of one of his sahasra heads (infinite) head. But saharsa heads is of the form of concept "Let me be many else I am not happy".

In truth shivo advaita atman ALONE IS. It is unnameable since it only names. It is unthinkable since it only thinks. It is unsee able since it only sees.

And the greatest shock is that the real you cannot be a different being from that shivo advaita atman, else you are just a life less form just as a radio is.

YMMV

If this is case why are they so naive?

Possibly because of the following:

14:1:1:6. Now he who is this Vishnu is the sacrifice; and he who is this sacrifice is yonder Âditya (the sun). But, indeed, Vishnu was unable to control that (love of) glory of his; and so even now not every one can control that (love of) glory of his.

For me Vishnu is none but Shiva seen from the perspective of many. Similarly, Shiva is none but all this - Vishnu, known as ONE, devoid of partitions and anadimat (beginningless) unborn.


Regards.

Om

[Ganeshprasad]

Pranam Atanu ji

Om



Namaskar Ganesh Prasad Ji

I will give it a try but it is a difficult task. In advance, YMMV.

You will see crucial verses which say: All this is Vasudeva (Gita) or all this is Rudra (Mahanarayana) or all this is Aditi (Rig Veda) or more generally, all this is Brahman.

If all this is Brahman then who am I? Am I a different seer or knower, different from Brahman? That also is impossible since Brihadaraynaka teaches: There is no seer but Brahman.

Thus, there being a sole seer, Vasudeva cannot be different from Aditi or Rudra, except in terms of conceptualization of different states. While the Atman Brahman has never changed but it conceived 'many' as scripture says: "Let me be many". The conception is through Pra gnya -- the revealed consciousness who is Sarvesvara and whose thoughts are his many faces.

But the revealer of the consciousness (Turiya) is advaita and unchanging. Some say that Turiyatita is further beyond but Self Realised sages say that Turiya is when Atman is seen as the fourth state and Turiyatita is when Turiya-Atman is known as the sole truth devoid of any state. It is only for a comparative basis with the three experiential states of waking, dreaming, and sleeping that Turiya is held as the fourth state. But in reality it is the sole truth.

For different grades of sadhakas (with different degrees of involvement in ignorance) the story of conceptualization is told to different degrees. It will be a shock for many to hear that the body that one takes as 'me' is not much different from an empty balloon similar to all other objects in view -- but the real Seer/knower/life is saharsashira purusha (Pragnya-Sarvesvara-Narayana) whose substratum is unborn ekpada Rudra Shiva. There is no second being.

There being only a single being, all this is that.

As I had discussed with you earlier, it was while seeing my father die on my arms that two questions arose. Where did the life force go? And why, even if all body parts were existing, feeding of glucose would not inject life force in the body? On a little bit contemplation, it was clear that wherever I see life, in my daughter or in my wife or in me, it is God alone -- in form of one of his sahasra heads (infinite) head. But saharsa heads is of the form of concept "Let me be many else I am not happy".

In truth shivo advaita atman ALONE IS. It is unnameable since it only names. It is unthinkable since it only thinks. It is unsee able since it only sees.

And the greatest shock is that the real you cannot be a different being from that shivo advaita atman, else you are just a life less form just as a radio is.

YMMV

Thank you for your wonderful answers and from advaita perspective it sounds great, but how would a Shiva Bhakta make of all this?

Possibly because of the following:

14:1:1:6. Now he who is this Vishnu is the sacrifice; and he who is this sacrifice is yonder Âditya (the sun). But, indeed, Vishnu was unable to control that (love of) glory of his; and so even now not every one can control that (love of) glory of his.

For me Vishnu is none but Shiva seen from the perspective of many. Similarly, Shiva is none but all this - Vishnu, known as ONE, devoid of partitions and anadimat (beginningless) unborn.
Regards.
Om

I can understand this and i dare say most Hindus will see no difference in this two, but why are Sri Vaishnava in particular so adamant in their belief?

when i quote they have all ready have answers.
Mahanarayana Upanishad
ekavi.nsho.anuvaakaH .

iishaanaH sarvavidyaanaamiishvaraH sarvabhuutaanaaMbrahmaadhipatirbrahmaNo.adhipatirb rahmaa shivo me astu sadaashivom.h

XXI-1: May the Supreme Lord who is the ruler of all knowledge, controller of all created beings, the preserver of the Vedas and the one overlord of Hiranyagarbha, be auspicious to me. I am the Sadasiva described thus and denoted by Pranava.

Vaishnva contend as follows,

There are 2 versions of Mahanarayana Upanishad available currently. The advaitins follow a version that mentions consecration of Shiva Linga, and has an interpolation in the Narayana Suktam, 'Sa Hari'.

How can we say that your version is spurious? Simple. 1) If you add 'Sa Hari' to the Narayana Suktam, the metre becomes incorrect and rhythm of the hymn falls, 2) Mantras for consecration on Shiva Lingam itself is bogus, as Veda NEVER talks about consecrating deities. Only Agamas are authorities on that.

The other version does not contain any verses glorifying Shiva. This version is the one which has been commentated by authoritative scholars like Sayana. Even Adi Sankara was following this version. Only after the 17th century, have Advaitins started to follow the spurious version.


Vaishnavas have researched everything, so they say Only Neovedantins follow such bogus versions of Upanishads, therby misleading everyone.
Dravida pata in earlier days('paramam prabhum'). the Andhra pata is comparatively very new and has not been quoted/cited by ancient Advaitins.

Jai Shree Krishna

[atanu]

Pranam Atanu ji

Thank you for your wonderful answers and from advaita perspective it sounds great, but how would a Shiva Bhakta make of all this?

Namaste Ganeshprasad Ji,

With knowledge a Shiva or Vishnu bhakta will find God very close. And will see nothing but God.

I can understand this and i dare say most Hindus will see no difference in this two, but why are Sri Vaishnava in particular so adamant in their belief?

when i quote they have all ready have answers.

Mahanarayana Upanishad
ekavi.nsho.anuvaakaH .

iishaanaH sarvavidyaanaamiishvaraH sarvabhuutaanaaMbrahmaadhipatirbrahmaNo.adhipatirb rahmaa shivo me astu sadaashivom.h

XXI-1: May the Supreme Lord who is the ruler of all knowledge, controller of all created beings, the preserver of the Vedas and the one overlord of Hiranyagarbha, be auspicious to me. I am the Sadasiva described thus and denoted by Pranava.

Vaishnva contend as follows,

There are 2 versions of Mahanarayana Upanishad available currently. The advaitins follow a version that mentions consecration of Shiva Linga, and has an interpolation in the Narayana Suktam, 'Sa Hari'.

How can we say that your version is spurious? Simple. 1) If you add 'Sa Hari' to the Narayana Suktam, the metre becomes incorrect and rhythm of the hymn falls, 2) Mantras for consecration on Shiva Lingam itself is bogus, as Veda NEVER talks about consecrating deities. Only Agamas are authorities on that.

The other version does not contain any verses glorifying Shiva. This version is the one which has been commentated by authoritative scholars like Sayana. Even Adi Sankara was following this version. Only after the 17th century, have Advaitins started to follow the spurious version.


Vaishnavas have researched everything, so they say Only Neovedantins follow such bogus versions of Upanishads, therby misleading everyone.
Dravida pata in earlier days('paramam prabhum'). the Andhra pata is comparatively very new and has not been quoted/cited by ancient Advaitins.

Jai Shree Krishna

Do they object to the following cited verse also? Or will they say that the Satapatha Chapter on Pravargya is interpolation?

Mahanarayana Upanishad
ekavi.nsho.anuvaakaH .

iishaanaH sarvavidyaanaamiishvaraH sarvabhuutaanaaMbrahmaadhipatirbrahmaNo.adhipatirbrahmaa shivo me astu sadaashivom.h

----------

It is somewhat like my daughter. When she was 1 year old, she used to call milk as 'anga'. How does it matter what one calls the Supreme reality as? Another time she had a great fight with a boy of her age. My daughter kept repeating that the sun was yellow and the boy countered "no it is peela". She won the verbal war after the boy got tired.

In my opinion, common Vaisnavas are in arambha avastha as are christians, both sects being dominated by dvaitic ideas. They have taken the golden bearded man in the sun literally.

Regards

Om

[Ganeshprasad]

Pranam Atanu ji

Namaste Ganeshprasad Ji,

With knowledge a Shiva or Vishnu bhakta will find God very close. And will see nothing but God.

So true or as Lord Krishna says

One who neither rejoices nor grieves, neither likes nor dislikes, who has renounced both the good and the evil, and who is full of devotion, such a person is dear to Me. (12.17)

bhakta is para dukhe dukhi

Do they object to the following cited verse also? Or will they say that the Satapatha Chapter on Pravargya is interpolation?

I dont think we need to find out, why lower to their standard.

Mahanarayana Upanishad
ekavi.nsho.anuvaakaH .

iishaanaH sarvavidyaanaamiishvaraH sarvabhuutaanaaMbrahmaadhipatirbrahmaNo.adhipatirbrahmaa shivo me astu sadaashivom.h

I have no doubt they find a way to reject it, i think they have become expert at it.

It is somewhat like my daughter. When she was 1 year old, she used to call milk as 'anga'. How does it matter what one calls the Supreme reality as?

None what so ever, Sage Valmiki chanted mara mara or Atri Rishi approched the supreme without knowing who he was.

Another time she had a great fight with a boy of her age. My daughter kept repeating that the sun was yellow and the boy countered "no it is peela". She won the verbal war after the boy got tired.

lol

Jai Shree Krishna