Namaste
If the advaitic doctrine of maya and paramarthika is understood as saying that consequences don't occur in the provisional subreality, it is misunderstood.
That the world is an illusion is not exclusive to advaita either.
Namaste
Namaste
If the advaitic doctrine of maya and paramarthika is understood as saying that consequences don't occur in the provisional subreality, it is misunderstood.
That the world is an illusion is not exclusive to advaita either.
Namaste
Namaste Suddha,
Exactly ! People read Advaita on internet, read a book or two and make their own opinion on Advaita. I have no issues if people don't accept its doctrine and accept other doctrines. Actually, all paths are not suited to everyone. It is immaturity to keep harping on that one path that I know is right and the other that I don't know correctly is wrong. The different paths are there as they are needed for people having varying spiritual needs.
Even if you strongly feel that you are right and all others are wrong ... why pick up arguments unnecessarily ? After all, you are right anyway (as per your logic) ! Keep going !! Why bother where the other guy is going unless he asks for your help ??
OM
"Om Namo Bhagvate Vaasudevaye"
Pranam
Identity of gods- Krishna and Shiva per Mahabharat, perspective;
Krishna describes Shiva as narayanatmako jneyah, to be understood as of the same nature as Narayana (12.328.19).
And Narayana himself says to Shiva, yas tvam vetti sa mam vetti yas tvam anu sa mam anu/navayor antaram kimcit,
'one who knows you knows myself; one who follows you follows me. There is no difference between us.' (12.328.64).
These verses are to be found in the Nara-Narayaniyam, a passage of the Mahabharata that teaches Vaishnavism.
There are other parts of the Mahabharata in which Shiva is said to be the source of Vishnu, Brahma and Rudra.
Anushasana Parvan, Book 13, of the Mahabharata we find this prayer to Shiva:
yo asrijad dakshinad angad brahmanam loka-sambhavam
vama-parshvat tatha vishnum loka-rakshartham ishvarah
yugante chaiva samprapte rudram angat srijat prabhuh
'He is the Lord (ishvara) who from his right side created Brahma the creator of the world and from his left side created Vishnu for the protection of the world. And at the end of the Yuga the mighty Lord creates Rudra from his body.'
I have been brought up seeing no difference between these personalities, i appreciate there are those who worship one or the other exclusively that is fine.
some describe Zebra black with white stripe or the other way round in the end it makes no difference the zebra would not care or change.
Jai Shree Krishna
Last edited by Ganeshprasad; 16 June 2012 at 05:58 AM.
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.
So if I understood you correctly, we should only accept these passages as correct, and any evidence which teaches difference (i.e. Rig Veda 7.40.5, Aitareya Brahmana 1.1.1, Kena Upanishad, Bhagavad-gita, almost all of the Bhagavata and Vishnu Puranas, some or most parts of all other Puranas, etc), should just be ignored?
Precisely. What is correct is what you were brought up with. And so you filter the validity of shAstric statements through your personal beliefs. When they agree with your personal beliefs, they are to be emphasized as truth. When they disagree with your personal beliefs, you ignore them, and you remain critical of anyone else who does not also ignore them.I have been brought up seeing no difference between these personalities, i appreciate there are those who worship one or the other exclusively that is fine.
Some people describe zebras as horses. But in the end, zebras are not horses.some describe Zebra black with white stripe or the other way round in the end it makes no difference the zebra would not care or change.
Jai Shree Krishna
regards,
Last edited by philosoraptor; 16 June 2012 at 09:28 AM.
Philosoraptor
"Wise men speak because they have something to say. Fools speak because they have to say something." - Plato
Philosoraptor
"Wise men speak because they have something to say. Fools speak because they have to say something." - Plato
Pranam
I don't see the point of discussing with you, to have a uniform doctrine, it becomes necessary to interpret several sections to mean something other than what they outwardly mean.
Every doctrine has its share of interpretations. So you first draw a baseline such as Vishnu is the greatest or Shiva is Greatest or Vishnu = Shiva and then proceed to interpret everything that does not directly agree with your foregone conclusion. And then say, "Hey, look! my doctrine is correct because it is consistent!".
Who says i am ignoring srutis; ekam-sad-vipra-bahuta-vadanti.
But then i can't understand your need to reply to my post not that i mind if you do, in case if you did not notice, OP is asking for the Identity of both per Mahabharat.that is what i have done, there are many other, same identical statement in other shastra, i don't think you want to hear them it want make blind bit of difference.
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.
Actually, I've not drawn any baseline other than that the Vedas are apaurusheya. That's the same axiom accepted by all of the major Vedanta schools.
You don't have to discuss anything else with me. Just explain how to reconcile all the contradictory evidence in the shAstras with your view (and the view of a few passages in the smRiti) to the effect that Brahma and Vishnu and Shiva are the same. If you want to keep it on topic, you can limit yourself to only the contradictory evidence found in the Mahabharata.
regards,
Philosoraptor
"Wise men speak because they have something to say. Fools speak because they have to say something." - Plato
Namaste all..
Sorry, I am a bit busy these days. Will reply to all of your posts when time permits. I will also consider the views of the advaitic and other traditions and see which one fits me.
In the end, I just want to know why there are so many contradictions in the Mahabharata, and is there a proper way to get rid of or explain them.
Regards,
Madhav
नैनं छिन्दन्ति शस्त्राणि नैनं दहति पावकः .
न चैनं क्लेदयन्त्यापो न शोषयति मारुतः:)
Pranam
That is nice to know, now why don't i believe that!!!
For this i have no doubt but then i belong to no major vedanta school. but i do like the instruction, 'now is the time to inquire in to Brahman'other than that the Vedas are apaurusheya. That's the same axiom accepted by all of the major Vedanta schools.
which leads me to Atri rishi, he desiring a son equal to brahman, was amazed when all three appeared to answer his call.
i don't see no purpose will be served in our discussion nor do i owe you an explanation, so it's best keep it to the topic.You don't have to discuss anything else with me. Just explain how to reconcile all the contradictory evidence in the shAstras with your view (and the view of a few passages in the smRiti) to the effect that Brahma and Vishnu and Shiva are the same. If you want to keep it on topic, you can limit yourself to only the contradictory evidence found in the Mahabharata.
regards,
although i can't help but answer one off your query, Kena UP,here again it brings more question then it answers.
shanno mitra.h sha.m varuNa.h | ... | shanno
vishhNururukrama.h | namo brahmaNe | namsaste vaayo |
tvameva pratyaxam brahmaasi |
shankara explains as follows: The various gods are propitiated because they remove the various obstacles encountered while trying attain knowledge. vishNu is called urukrama.h, since he is swift footed. vAyu is called the perceptible brahman rather than the other deities (mitra.h, varuNa.h, vishhNu, etc) because as prANa he is closest to the
self (Atman).
Hence vAyu alone is called pratyaxam brahma. Note that shankara has no problems in elevating vAyu as compared to vishNu in this bhAshya.
Now i see no reason to think because of this Vishnu is not Brahmaasi.
Such is the nature of Brahman it is achintya only way we can say for sure we know him, is by direct perception otherwise we are simply regurgitating someone else realization.
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.
Because to believe that would require that you come to terms with the reality that your own sectarian conclusions are not based on shaastric ambiguity but rather your personal preference.
I also do not belong to any major Vedanta school.For this i have no doubt but then i belong to no major vedanta school.
You don't owe me an explanation. But if you want any thoughtful person to accept your conclusion that all the gods are the same God, then you have to explain away the evidence that clearly contradicts that. If you can only support your opinion by ignoring entire shrutis that disagree with it, then it is merely your opinion and not the opinion of shruti.i don't see no purpose will be served in our discussion nor do i owe you an explanation, so it's best keep it to the topic.
regards,
Philosoraptor
"Wise men speak because they have something to say. Fools speak because they have to say something." - Plato
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Bookmarks