Why

[atanu]

Pranam Atanu ji

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

Namaste Ganeshprasad Ji,

We may refer this matter to an expert (but again I fear that experts are themselves of many kinds, driven by their predilections.) That is why some gurus teach there is no need to know anything extraneous. The point is very clearly explained in Brihadaraynaka: "What did Brahman know that it became all?" Resolution of such debates is never possible. Ending of questions is never possible -- new doubts will be ever cropping up. Complete solution to ills of society is never possible (because ills are in the egos).

But sages say that knowledge of Atman-Brahman is possible.

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

Yes. Mind is always able to present something or the other. Moreover, if someone wants to be of closed mind let them be.

Om

[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 (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

Namaste Ganeshprasad ji,

This story is formidable. Truly, how can anyone but a naive use this to prove that Shiva is an ordinary Jiva?

Actually there is no ordinary Jiva -- only God. He has extracted by his own volition, all possible forms and names (including Sarva and Isana) from the Creator. Of course, assuming these forms must involve invoking His maya.

Regards

Om

[Ganeshprasad]

Namaste Ganeshprasad ji,

This story is formidable. Truly, how can anyone but a naive use this to prove that Shiva is an ordinary Jiva?

Om

Pranam Atanu ji
Story gets interesting even more, prajapati is said to be taking a form of boar, so it can be argued that that prajapati is Vishu, not so our learned friends would tell us that they are two prajapati one that takes birth and the one that took form of boar is another, because all name belongs to Vishnu.

Vishnu is unambiguously identified as unborn. The gods sprouted from the navel of the unborn...Om tad Visnoh Paramapadam. Narayana Para Brahman, that Narayana created Brahma, Rudras, Prajapatis, Adityas, etc.

Hence, in one portion, birth of Prajapati is indicated. In another portion, Prajapati is called supreme.

Now, to resolve this contradiction - The prajapati who was born is literally taken to be a deva.

Since he was born, he cannot be the one referred to as 'Prajapati' in another verse which says Prajapati is supreme.

Logically, it follows that this Supreme Prajapati is not the same Prajapati who was born.

Hence, Prajapati is a name of Brahman. Brahman is Vishnu. Thus, confusion of Veda is cleared. You need to find out when to apply etymology and when to apply the literal meaning. This requires proper study of Shruti.

The study of Vedas is to resolve contradiction, seems to me their sole objective.
Where else I think the sole objectives of our rishi were for self realisation.

When Satapatha Brahmana says Kumar who is born is Agani, we must make etymology consideration and the consideration here is according to them is that Agni is lowest and Vishnu is highest therefore he can not be Mahadeva. Fair enough I might think, but if I reflect a bit more I can argue that since the comparison is made, it must be made of the likes and if Agni is a Jiva then Vishnu must also be a Jiva. Vedas can not possibly be making a comparison of brahman and jiva, either they are both Jiva or Brahman, all being with different functions.

Just as I don’t accept Lord Shiva being born with sins I do not accept Lord Vishnu as being killed, the very foundation of calling them supreme brahman in various places in Vedas is brought in to question.



I also find below statement as much unacceptable. We would not make such statements, although I can understand from academic point of view may be correct, but it does hurt the sentiments of millions

About 36 years later (c. 1361 BC, in the reign of Pharaoh Amenhotep III), the pAshupata lord of saurASTra (and beyond), the best of the yAdavas, shrI kRSNa was killed ~ and the kaliyugam truly began.

Only if one understands what Lord Krishna says


janma karma ca me divyam
evaḿ yo vetti tattvataḥ
tyaktvā dehaḿ punar janma
naiti mām eti so 'rjuna

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

Actually there is no ordinary Jiva -- only God. He has extracted by his own volition, all possible forms and names (including Sarva and Isana) from the Creator. Of course, assuming these forms must involve invoking His maya.

yes maya indeed,
maya che dukhda denari Mohan tari maya che dukhda denari.


Regards


Jai Shree Krishna

[atanu]

Pranam Atanu ji
The study of Vedas is to resolve contradiction, seems to me their sole objective.
Where else I think the sole objectives of our rishi were for self realisation.

Namaste Ganeshprasad Ji,

Nicely said.

-- according to them is that Agni is lowest and Vishnu is highest

There is also a verse which says: Agni tvam Vishnu. Agni you are Indra. You are Rudra. Vishnu and Agni Vaisvanara cannot be different.

Just as I don’t accept Lord Shiva being born with sins I do not accept Lord Vishnu as being killed, the very foundation of calling them supreme brahman in various places in Vedas is brought in to question.

Death of Vishnu, as in Satapatha verses I cited, I think, indicates that the pride in one being different (superior) from the truth (which is samaan) gives rise to ignorance. The Universe, which is divine Purusha is not recognised as such but as a conglomerate of different unconnected objects.

But Rig Veda says of Sumajjaya Vishnu -- one who has divine origin. Rig Veda also says that Vishnu has birth from Soma. And Satapatha surely mentions of His dismemberment.

Every man has divine origin and Vishnu is the pinnacle and He is the knower of the highest also (Rig Veda). As I repeat again and again, a knower of the highest cannot be different from the highest, as the highest is said to be pure knowledge.

When we see from the top view of one single Atman, everything originating and dissolving in ONE without a Second, the perspective is clear and clean.

The world dissolves in Him.

And in reverse:

Thou art woman, Thou art man; Thou art youth and maiden too. Thou as an old man totterest along on a staff; it is Thou alone who, when born, assumest diverse forms.

Also:

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.

XXV-1: We sing a hymn that confers on us happiness in the highest degree to Rudra who is worthy of praise, who is endowed with the highest knowledge, who rains objects to the worshippers most excellently, who is more powerful and who is dwelling in the heart. Indeed all this is Rudra. Salutations be to Rudra who is such.

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

But when one sees Vishnu as a body and not as the spirit that pervades then the interpretation gets skewed and then the efforts to preserve that skewed idea gains importance. Then one invents new meanings and discovers difference in objects as indicative of permanent difference in parts of Atman (LOL).

Regards,

Om

[atanu]

Namaskar Ganeshprasad Ji,

It is indeed true that Vishnu is the highest and Rudra is the first (one understands Purva Bhadrapada this way). Yes Rudra begins the journey. He paves the way by burning the Mala and in the beginning it is smokey.

Namah Rudrayya.

One who has read Satapatha will know that Rudra is the Agni with smokes (with jealousy, anger etc.). Then when a bit purified, the same is called Varuna and further at its full glory it is Indra. When less cruel, it is Mitra and finally when it only glows without burning, it is Brahman.

All through these states, the auspicious being, Shiva -- the advaita is unchanged and unborn. Satapatha also says that the only auspicious name is Shiva.

Satapatha mentions of death of creator, death of Vishnu, and near death of Indra. But the immortality is established again and again with the knowledge of Dadhichi. And they find that Agni blazing high, unlimited. And Shatarudriya is born.

I think that India suffers because of imposition of Christian and Muslim dvaitic influences, in the form of various denominations of lovers of 'Supreme Personality of Godhead' -- but that also must be His will.

It is very unfortunate that these guys do not want Vedic Shatarudriya. The dvaitic articles and philosophical expositions, especially of those writers who are from Shri Prabhupada lineage, gives a feeling that they are joking.

Om Namah Shivaya

[atanu]

A bit of contemplation may also reveal that what is Generic Rudra as Yama is particularized Krishna. And possibly Yami (Yamuna), sister of Yama is Draupadi. These two together cause the destruction of the evil. It was Draupadi who began the destruction.

And what is unborn reality of born Krishna is unborn Mahesvara -- the generic GOOD one. Mahesvara Shiva.

We have seen lovers of Chaitanya claim that he is an incarnation -- there is no problem in that. The problem will begin, when some overzealous devotee will begin to say that Chatainya prabhu surpasses Krishna -- the generic highest born being -- who knows his own reality to be unborn Mahesvara. And similarly some Krishna bhaktas go over board and claim that Krishna is superior to his unborn reality.


Om Namah Shivaya

[Ganeshprasad]

Pranam Atanu ji

Thank you for some excellent insight and points made from advaita point of views. I think it is over simplistic to blame dualistic concept on Muslims or Christians although they have a lot to answer for the wows of the present predicament of Hindus.

Bhakti sutra of Naraad and Pasupat are great exponent of supreme and (us) jivas relation.

Devotion of Sri Chetanya Mahaprabhu, Surdas, Tulsidas, Mira, Narsinghmehta to name a few can not be influenced by muslims in their bhakti.

I find to dwell in to the apparent janma mrityu of Gods is naive to say the least
Let us see what Lord himself says

avyaktaḿ vyaktim āpannaḿ
manyante mām abuddhayaḥ
paraḿ bhāvam ajānanto
mamāvyayam anuttamam

The ignorant think of Me, the Para-Brahman, as having no form or personality and I can take (any physical) form; because (these) people are not being able to comprehend My supreme imperishable and incomparable existence. (7.24)
( The word 'Avyakta' has been used in verses 2.25, 2.28, 7.24, 8.18, 8.20, 8.21, 9.04, 12.01, 12.03, 12.05, and 13.05. It takes different meaning according to the context. Avyakta does not mean formless; it means unmanifest or a transcendental form that is invisible to our physical eyes. It is used in the sense of unmanifest Prakriti, and also in the sense of Para-Brahman. The Para-Brahman or absolute consciousness is higher than both Brahman and the unmanifest Prakriti. Para-Brahman (or Krishna) is imperishable, without any origin and end. Para-Brahman is not formless. It has Divya Roopa, a transcendental form and Supreme Personality. The ignorant think of the Lord as formless because He is not visible.Because)

Veiled by My divine Maya, I am not known by all. Therefore, the ignorant one does not know Me as the unborn and eternal Brahman. (7.25)

avajānanti māḿ mūḍhā
mānuṣīḿ tanum āśritam
paraḿ bhāvam ajānanto
mama bhūta-maheśvaram

BG 9.11: Fools deride Me when I descend in the human form. They do not know My transcendental nature as the Supreme Lord of all that be.

To think God is separate, from his different (forms) swarup, is not my idea of God. Srimad Bhagvat describes his appearance and disappearance, is all transcendental, beyond the realm of our mundane understandings.
Tulsidas writes those who understand the janma of Ram as transcendental will easily cross over the samsara.

93B Chhanda: Brahmaandda-nikaa-yaa nirmita maa-yaa roma roma prati bayda kahay:
Mama ura so baasee yaha upahaasee sunata dheera-mati thira na rahay::
Upajaa jaba jnaanaa Prabhu musukaanaa charita bahuta bidhi keenha chahai:
Kahi kathaa suhaa-yee maatu bujhaa-yee jayhi prakaara suta prayma lahai:: Bk192

Kaushalyaa continued, "The Vedas declare that the multitudes of universes reflected as reality by maya are embedded in each hair on your body. O Lord! The intriguing fact that the same Lord stayed in my heart (womb) will create a storm of excitement and wonder even in the minds of men of steady wisdom." When Kaushalyaa showed her Knowledge of Shree Raama being Brahman, He smiled. He told her that He wanted to perform a variety of deeds. He narrated stories of the past to make Kaushalyaa enjoy her role and the bliss of being His mother.

94 Dohaa: Bipra-dhaynu-sura-santa-hita, leenha manuja avataara:
Nija-ich-chhaa-nirmita-tanu, maa-yaa-guna go-paara:: Bk192

94. God is beyond maya, its satvaguna, rajoguna and tamoguna modes and the reach of the senses. By His own choice He manifested Himself in a human body for the good of the Brahmin, the cow, gods and spiritually advanced persons


Jai Shree Krishna

[atanu]

Pranam Atanu ji
To think God is separate, from his different (forms) swarup, is not my idea of God.

Namaste Ganeshprasad ji,

Thank you for your bhaavana, which is pure good and which makes you a balanced person. To have above knowledge entrained is to have reached the acme of devotion and Jnana. Some sages, submerged fully in the faith that God is not separate from His forms and that 'all this is Brahman', are known to have taken poison or lovingly stayed with wild animals without fear and without doubt.

"The Vedas declare that the multitudes of universes reflected as reality by maya are embedded in each hair on your body. O Lord! The intriguing fact that the same Lord stayed in my heart (womb) will create a storm of excitement and wonder even in the minds of men of steady wisdom."

With respect to above, I will remind you:

XXV-1: We sing a hymn that confers on us happiness in the highest degree to Rudra who is worthy of praise, who is endowed with the highest knowledge, who rains objects to the worshippers most excellently, who is more powerful and who is dwelling in the heart. Indeed all this is Rudra. Salutations be to Rudra who is such.

I do not believe that the highest does not dwell in every heart. To forget the spiritual heart, wherein I takes birth and I dissolves, in favour of a memory is Dvaita. But one who knows the spiritual heart knows the teaching in correct perspective. IMO. YMMV.

Om

[atanu]

The original Sanskrit of a portion of Svet. Upanishad is given below followed by three translations.

-------------------------------
tR^itiiyo.adhyaayaH .

ya eko jaalavaaniishata iishaniibhiH sarvaa.nllokaaniishata iishaniibhiH .ya evaika udbhave sambhave cha ya etad.h viduramR^itaaste bhavanti .. 1.

. eko hi RUDRO na dvitiiyaaya tasthu\- rya imaa.nllokaaniishata iishaniibhiH .pratyaN^ janaastishhThati saJNchukochaantakaale sa.nsR^ijya vishvaa bhuvanaani gopaaH .. 2..

vishvatashchaxuruta vishvatomukho vishvatobaahuruta vishvataspaat.h .saM baahubhyaa.n dhamati saMpatatrai\- rdyaavaabhuumii janayan.h deva ekaH .. 3..

yo devaanaaM prabhavashchodbhavashcha vishvaadhipo RUDRO maharshhiH .hiraNyagarbha.n janayaamaasa puurva.n sa no buddhyaa shubhayaa sa.nyunaktu .. 4..
-------------------------------------------

Now read the HK version of the translation.


HK Version
Chapter 3

TEXT 1 They who understand the Supreme Personality of Godhead, the master of the network of maya, who alone, with His potencies, rules the all the worlds in their creation and maintenance, becomes immortal.

TEXT 2 The Supreme Personality of Godhead, who is one without a second, with His potencies rules the worlds. He stays within the living entities. He protects the worlds. He created the worlds and at the last moment He withdraws them.

TEXT 3 His eyes are everywhere. His faces are everywhere. His arms are everywhere. His feet are everywhere. He, the one Supreme Personality of Godhead, breathed life into they who have two arms on the land and they who have wings in the sky.

TEXT 4 May the omniscient Supreme Personality of Godhead, who is the creator and protector of the demigods, and who in the beginning fathered the demigod Brahma, give us good intelligence.


And so it goes. Wherever, Rudra or Siva appears, the translation says “The Supreme Personality of God Head”. This would be fine except that HK gurus/followers introduce Lord Siva as a demi god. There is another Gaudiya version also, where Rudro word is replaced by maha prabhu or Chaitanya.

Below is Ramakrishna Math version, where Rudra is replaced by the word heaven. This is correct, since Dauyus (heaven) and Rudra are both said to be the father of Rudras and Maruts in Rig Veda and Rudra and Dauyus are used interchangeably in some verses.

Ramakrishna Ashrama Version

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.
III-3: Though God, the creator of heaven and earth, is one only, yet Heaven is the real owner of all the eyes, faces, hands and feet in this universe. It is Heaven who inspires them all to do their respective duties in accordance with the knowledge, past actions and tendencies of the various beings (with whom they appear to be associated).
III-4: May Heaven, who created the gods and supports them; who is the origin also of the cosmic soul; who confers bliss and wisdom on the devotes, destroying their sins and sorrows, and punishing all breaches of law – may Heaven, the great seer and the lord of all, endow us with good thoughts.


Below is a translation, which retains the words as it is.


Chapter III

1 The non—dual Ensnarer rules by His powers. Remaining one and the same, He rules by His powers all the worlds during their manifestation and continued existence. They who know this become immortal.
2 Rudra is truly one; for the knowers of Brahman do not admit the existence of a second, He alone rules all the worlds by His powers. He dwells as the inner Self of every living being. After having created all the worlds, He, their Protector, takes them back into Himself at the end of time.
3 His eyes are everywhere, His faces everywhere, His arms everywhere, everywhere His feet. He it is who endows men with arms, birds with feet and wings and men likewise with feet. Having produced heaven and earth, He remains as their non—dual manifester.
4 He, the omniscient Rudra, the creator of the gods and the bestower of their powers, the support of the universe, He who, in the beginning, gave birth to Hiranyagarbha—may He endow us with clear intellect!

-----

Shri Prabhu translates bhagavati (usually commonly understood as Noun for Devi and used to describe Lord Krishna in Bhagavatam) as 'Unto Supreme Personality of Godhead'. Of course, he may be unwittingly correct, since a personality is not the person. But then he makes the Lord of Bhagavati, Bhagawan, a demi god and that is unacceptable. Rishi Dirghatma says in Asiya Vamiya Sukta that the Adityas are males but actually females, indicating the nature of Aditya -- as the highest form of Shakti.


But since when Bhagavati became the Supreme Godhead and Her Lord, Bhagawan, a demi-god? There is a wish arising that a neutral translated work should be available.

Om

[atanu]

This fire was called Agni, meaning the inner guide (agra-ni). Agni is the Divine child, seed or embryo (kumara, putra, sunu, sishu, garbha, napat), the spiritual consciousness that enters into creation and builds it up from within.

Rishi Bharadvaja states,

"The eternal light is placed within us for the vision, the swiftest consciousness among the moving senses. All the Divine powers of common mind and common perception follow perfectly that single Will.


Wide moves my ears and wide my eyes facing this light that is placed within the heart. Wide moves my mind in a deep understanding. What can I say, indeed what could I think?

All the Gods surrendered to you in awe, Oh Fire, as your enduring throughout the Darkness. May the universal soul (Vaishvanara) protect us with his grace. May the immortal one protect us with his grace."

RV VI.9.7

Whatever we see on Earth is a form of Agni. All human beings are forms of Agni. The Sun, Moon and stars in the sky above are also forms of Agni. The highest form of Agni is the Brahmagni (Agni or Brahman or the Absolute). This is the Agni of pure being (sat). This is Shiva, the fire that creates, preserves, destroys and transcends the entire universe.

"May we abide in the favor of the universal Fire, for he is the ruler resplendent over all the worlds. Manifesting from us he perceives the entire universe. The universal Fire spreads himself through the Sun.

Present in Heaven, Agni is present on Earth. Present here he has entered into all the plants. The universal Fire by his sudden power is present everywhere. May he protect us by day and by night."

Rishi Kutsa, RV I.98.1-2

Om Namah Shivaya