Why ?

[amith vikram]

thank god,there is no pooja to brahma on earth.otherwise there would have been even more confusion and sects.

[atanu]

It has been a long time since Atanuji wrote…veda says….
Mata Rudranam Duhita Vasunam swasaadityanam….means the Cow is mother of Rudras , sister of Adityas [ adityanam Vishnu say krsn ] and therefore Krsn and Rudra are related . Atanuji , favouring Rudra , are not you going to guide your MAMAS ?

Namaste Guptaji ,

This is about the Rudras and the Adityas. Moreover, I suppose that mAtA requires a pItA also. So, this is not really about That one, who is without a second?

Om Namah Shivaya

[kd gupta]

Namaste Guptaji ,

This is about the Rudras and the Adityas. Moreover, I suppose that mAtA requires a pItA also. So, this is not really about That one, who is without a second?

Om Namah Shivaya

I agree . Tameva vidittwati mrityumeti .

[keshava]

Namaste Sant,


So, any discussion that tries to prove superiority of Lord Vishnu over Lord Shiva or vice-versa is against the core of Hindu philosophy. Now you can ask me, "Is Lord Krishna not the Supreme God ?" My answer would be, "Undoubtedly He is !". However, if you are interested (because it is not correct to unnecessarily attack someone's faith) I may also like to add, "So is Lord Shiva".



You are absolutely right, God is One only.



The teachings of Advaita has its roots in Upanishads which is also called VedAnta i.e. the end of knowledge. Advaita is difficult to understand & even more difficult to practise when we are in this body in this world of duality. I assume that you are relatively new to Hinduism, so I can only tell you to have patience. If Lord Krishna & ISKCON attracts you, please pursue that path which is the path of devotion. However, when the time comes, you yourself will have the thirst for the Knowledge which is Advaita. Please don't think that it will negate Lord Krishna, Vishnu, Lord Shiva etc. .... no, you will have a much better understanding of the things then.



OM

"So, any discussion that tries to prove superiority of Lord Vishnu over Lord Shiva or vice-versa is against the core of Hindu philosophy. "

Dear devotee I do disagree with this. This is only against core hinduism if you assume the core of hinduism is advaitic. Ramunujacrya, madhavcarya nimbarkacrya they have all been vaishnavas and argued against advaita and believed vishnu is supreme. Your statement would mean they are not Hindu or against the core of hinduism?

Turning it around its like me saying that saying that vishnu and shiva are one is against core hinduism (if i define the core to be dvaitic).

There are differenmt schools of thoughts in hinduism some disgaree with advaita and some disagree with dvaita some think all gods are one and others believe they are different.

Debates and discussions are healthy in hinduism thats why hindu philosophy is very refined hindus have never attacked each other physically because of philosphical differences they have vigrously debated but respect freedom of thought fundamentally.
I personally believe debate is healthy in hinduism and we should encourge people to ask questions rather than trying to create artifcial oneness in religion. Thoughts which make sense will survive those that dont will become extinct.

[amith vikram]

"So, any discussion that tries to prove superiority of Lord Vishnu over Lord Shiva or vice-versa is against the core of Hindu philosophy. "

This is only against core hinduism if you assume the core of hinduism is advaitic. Ramunujacrya, madhavcarya nimbarkacrya they have all been vaishnavas and argued against advaita and believed vishnu is supreme..

But madhvacharya's philosophy cant be accepted by the vedic people because,madhvacharya refuted his own guru who was advaitin and preached his own interpretation,which is against the vedic practice of guru-shishya parampara.
i dont know much about ramanuja and nimbakacharya.

[keshava]

But madhvacharya's philosophy cant be accepted by the vedic people because,madhvacharya refuted his own guru who was advaitin and preached his own interpretation,which is against the vedic practice of guru-shishya parampara.
i dont know much about ramanuja and nimbakacharya.

Thats a narrow view.

Where does it say that one canot have different interpretations of the vedas. Have you heard of the 6 vedic darshanas? advaita as well as dvaita and other philosophies spring from the 6 darshanas.
http://www.hindupedia.com/en/Darsana

In madhvacarya's case the guru became the disciple of Sri Madhvacarya. All though he was officially his guru. His advaitic philosphy was defeated by madhva through logic and scripture when he was young. Guru disciple is not blind following as I understand it.

In vedic philosophy/india if one is defeated by logic reason and shastra then one should humbly become the disciple.

Bali maharaj is another famous devotee for rejecting his guru shukracarya for the higher principle of accepting Vishnu and giving Vamanadeva 3 steps of land. Ultimatley surrendering to vishnu in defiance of his guru's contrary suggestion.

Whats vedic and whats not vedic depends on the premise you hold as true which depends in which school of thought you belong to.

[amith vikram]

Thats a narrow view.

Where does it say that one canot have different interpretations of the vedas. Have you heard of the 6 vedic darshanas? advaita as well as dvaita and other philosophies spring from the 6 darshanas.
http://www.hindupedia.com/en/Darsana

In madhvacarya's case the guru became the disciple of Sri Madhvacarya. All though he was officially his guru. His advaitic philosphy was defeated by madhva through logic and scripture when he was young. Guru disciple is not blind following as I understand it.

In vedic philosophy/india if one is defeated by logic reason and shastra then one should humbly become the disciple.

Bali maharaj is another famous devotee for rejecting his guru shukracarya for the higher principle of accepting Vishnu and giving Vamanadeva 3 steps of land. Ultimatley surrendering to vishnu in defiance of his guru's contrary suggestion.

Whats vedic and whats not vedic depends on the premise you hold as true which depends in which school of thought you belong to.

i am not sure weather the advaitin teacher was defeated or the student simply refused to believe.madvacharya has written bhashyas to the prasthana triya.if we look at that bhashyas,one can say that,it is a mix of all the other 5 darshanas.
i am not profound in all these.anyway its just my view on this matter.
bali chakravarthy's case is entirely different.there,the acharya does not give any upadesh but only warns.
however i want to bring another point into light.vedanta philosophy was revived and vastly accepted on the advaita basis.in fact advaita is not a school of thought.it is the attribute of brahma tattva.and also it is older than any other philosophies.

[keshava]

i am not sure weather the advaitin teacher was defeated or the student simply refused to believe.madvacharya has written bhashyas to the prasthana triya.if we look at that bhashyas,one can say that,it is a mix of all the other 5 darshanas.
i am not profound in all these.anyway its just my view on this matter.
bali chakravarthy's case is entirely different.there,the acharya does not give any upadesh but only warns.
however i want to bring another point into light.vedanta philosophy was revived and vastly accepted on the advaita basis.in fact advaita is not a school of thought.it is the attribute of brahma tattva.and also it is older than any other philosophies.

From the histories I can find from madhavacrya the guru was defeated and became the disciple of Madhva and in others he gave hi blessings to establish a new order.
http://www.chaitanya-monks.org/artic...y-madhvacharya Ramunjacryas teacher tried to kill him or his fellow students to please the guru tried to kill him and eventually Ramunjacharya accepted yamunacrya as his guru to revive visihtadvaita.

Its true that the vedanta philosophy after the bhudhist period in india was accepted widely but just as bhudhism was seen as incomplete and flawed by advaita philosophers advaita was seen as flawed and incomplete by later philosophers and saints like ramunja and madhva etc.

In terms of age of it being the oldest in terms of mordern history it is old however the predominent philosophy before the advaita philosophy was mimamsa ritualistic philosophy as well as bhudhist. At the time of sankara there were also the bhakti proponents who were the famous alvars in south india. In terms of history according to the ithihasas and puranas both concepts existed to some degree. E.g Bhagvatam and bhagvad gita are more devotional and in line with vishistadvaita and dvaita and less advaitic where as vaisista munis text (although interpretations are there from both advaitic and dvaitic sides on most scriptures) are more advaitic.

"in fact advaita is not a school of thought.it is the attribute of brahma tattva."

This is according to advaitic interpretation of scripture. The word itself may used to describe the supreme as one but the philosophy that everything is one is based on which darshan you use to interpret the scriptures.

[smaranam]

Its true that the vedanta philosophy after the bhudhist period in india was accepted widely but just as bhudhism was seen as incomplete and flawed by advaita philosophers advaita was seen as flawed and incomplete by later philosophers and saints like ramunja and madhva etc.

Namaste, welcome to the forums.

The Absolute Truth is not Black and White, and although One, is multifaceted - to this we all agree.

Could it not be that all these great souls brought forth different facets of its beauty to mankind ?

Today there are followers of Buddha's Buddhism, Advaita Vedanta (of Adi Shankaracharya, pre and post, and its Shaiva Shakta versions) , Madhavacharya's Dvaita, Ramanujacharya's Vishishta-advaita, Lord Chaitanya's Achintya-Bheda-abheda, Mahaprabhu Vallabhacharya's Shuddha Advaita, and there could be PUrva Mimansakas too.

Does something tell us this is how Brahman/Parameshwar wanted it to be ? To cater to His own variegated Jagat (Universe), and particularly the ones that turn to Him/spirituality.

This is not to argue about anything, just a thought


PraNAm

[amith vikram]

From the histories I can find from madhavacrya the guru was defeated and became the disciple of Madhva and in others he gave hi blessings to establish a new order.
http://www.chaitanya-monks.org/artic...y-madhvacharya Ramunjacryas teacher tried to kill him or his fellow students to please the guru tried to kill him and eventually Ramunjacharya accepted yamunacrya as his guru to revive visihtadvaita.

Its true that the vedanta philosophy after the bhudhist period in india was accepted widely but just as bhudhism was seen as incomplete and flawed by advaita philosophers advaita was seen as flawed and incomplete by later philosophers and saints like ramunja and madhva etc.

In terms of age of it being the oldest in terms of mordern history it is old however the predominent philosophy before the advaita philosophy was mimamsa ritualistic philosophy as well as bhudhist. At the time of sankara there were also the bhakti proponents who were the famous alvars in south india. In terms of history according to the ithihasas and puranas both concepts existed to some degree. E.g Bhagvatam and bhagvad gita are more devotional and in line with vishistadvaita and dvaita and less advaitic where as vaisista munis text (although interpretations are there from both advaitic and dvaitic sides on most scriptures) are more advaitic.

"in fact advaita is not a school of thought.it is the attribute of brahma tattva."

This is according to advaitic interpretation of scripture. The word itself may used to describe the supreme as one but the philosophy that everything is one is based on which darshan you use to interpret the scriptures.

I feel the theories which are in conflict with advaita is mostly vaishnavism.i dont know how there could be any seperate sect called vaishnavas.in the gita,krishna says-'whatever you pray,you pray me;whatever you follow,you follow me;all the jivas invariably,strive to attain me'.according to this,the whole world.,weather you are in india or any other place and you have any other dieties,all that is vishnu.so this is a known fact.so how could there be anything called as vaishnavism?,now even if you are dont believe in god,still you are a vaishnava.

the whole concept of vaishnavism,according to me,doesnt stand.