"Identity" of Gods- Krishna and Shiva in the Mahabharata

[Ganeshprasad]

Pranam

As i said there is no purposeful discussion to be had here, a classic case of "The pot calling the kettle black"
There are passages in srutis, there may be paradoxes that are hard for the human mind to fully comprehend. After all, the Supreme is achintya.


You might look at it this way. If we find within the Veda a statement that Vishnu is supreme and then another that says Rudra is supreme, we might conclude that Vishnu and Rudra must be the same being or different aspects of the same being. In that way there is no inconsistency in the Veda and we can accept its statements as they are, without recourse to unusual interpretations.
For instance "Eko Rudro Dvittiya na tasthu"

Yajur Veda i. 8. 6. d

Rudra alone yieldeth to no second.

46 They call him Indra, Mitra, Varuna, Agni, and heavenly nobly-winged Garutman.
To what is One, sages give many a title they call it Agni, Yama, Matarisvan.

47 -----

48 Twelve are the fellies, and the wheel is single; three are the naves. What man hath understood it?


Note: The wheel is single and the 12 spokes (fellies) are perceived as different aspects. To what is One, sages give many a title.

No matter how we apply all the names to Brahman there is only one Rudra, fact of the matter is not only all names belong to Brahman but all the forms, some times this point is missed on people.

Since we are on the tropic of Mahabharat and the Bhagvat Gita is a part of it, there in Arjun is asking

How may I know You, O Lord, by constant contemplation? In what form are You to be thought of by me, O Lord? (10.17)

The Supreme Lord said: O Arjuna, now I shall explain to you My prominent divine manifestations, because My manifestations are endless. (10.19)

tvam adi-devah purusah puranas
tvam asya visvasya param nidhanam
vettasi vedyam ca param ca dhama
tvaya tatam visvam ananta-rupa (11.38)

He goes on to list them in the next verse.

So you call me sectarian all you like, hack a lot of Hindu i know see no difference, what to speak of Vedic gods they do not stop at other religions also. Before you write to me to say majority do not constitute pramanas, i know.

Jai Shree Krishna

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.



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.

regards,

[philosoraptor]

Pranam

As i said there is no purposeful discussion to be had here, a classic case of "The pot calling the kettle black"

Pranams. And yet, you are discussing, which leads me to believe that you do not consider it without purpose.

There are passages in srutis, there may be paradoxes that are hard for the human mind to fully comprehend. After all, the Supreme is achintya.

Calling Supreme "achintya" whenever one's own views are scrutinized for consistency is a sure sign that one's views are the problem, and not the Supreme. No doubt Supreme is "achintya," but Vedas are given to us so that we can at least partially understand Him, to the extent that we are capable. It is not logical to assert the authority of the Vedas, and then later assert that contradictory opinions are on equal footing and no conclusion can be found.

You might look at it this way. If we find within the Veda a statement that Vishnu is supreme and then another that says Rudra is supreme, we might conclude that Vishnu and Rudra must be the same being or different aspects of the same being. In that way there is no inconsistency in the Veda and we can accept its statements as they are, without recourse to unusual interpretations.

Your interpretation is unacceptable for the simple reason that devas (including Rudra) are said to be *different* from Vishnu and different from Brahman.

Rig Veda 7.40.5: Rudra gets his strength by propitiating Vishnu
Rig Veda 7.99.1-4: Vishnu is said to create Suurya and Agni
Rig Veda 10.90.13: States that Brahman (here addressed as The Purusha) created Suurya, Agni, Indra, Vaayu, and Chandra
Rig Veda 10.121.2: States that He (here addressed as Hiranyagarbha) is the "Giver of vital breath, of power and vigour, he whose commandments all the gods acknowledge."
Rig Veda 10.190.3: States that Brahman (here addressed as Dhaatar) created Suurya and Chandra
Aitareya Upanishad 1.2.1-4: States that He created the devas, provided them with nourishment, and ordered them into their respective abodes
Brihadaaranyaka Upanishad 1.3.1-18: Refers to the devas as Prajaapati's sons, and explains how they had to surpass the asuras by learning the process of yagna (they could not do it without).
Brihadaaranyaka Upanishad 1.4.10: Says that only the devas "became that" (Brahman) by understanding knowing Brahman. But if the devas are already the all-knowing Brahman, then from whence the question of not understanding that?
Brihadaaranyaka Upanishad 2.1.20: States that all devas emanate from Brahman. Note that this mantra concludes the chapter in which Gargya speaks of meditating on Brahman within each of the devas.
Brihadaaranyaka Upanishad 3.6.1: Gaargi asks by what is the world of the devas pervaded. The ultimate answer is of course Brahman. But the point is, the devas, if Brahman, shouldn't be pervaded by something else.
Brihadaaranyaka Upanishad 3.9.1-11: This is the famous antaryaami Braahmana in which it is stated that Brahman inhabits (among other things) the various devas presiding over moon, sky, the directions, the sun, etc, yet is not known by them.
Brihadaaranyaka Upanishad 4.4.16: States that the devas meditate on that Brahman as light/longevity.
Brihadaaranyaka Upanishad 5.5.1: States that the devas, along with men and asuras are Prajaapati's sons.
Brihadaaranyaka Upanishad 5.5.1: States that Brahman created Prajaapati, and Prajaapati created the devas.
Chaandogya Upanishad 4.3.1-7: Describe He who swallowed the other four devas (agni, vAyu, ApaH, prAna), and then describes Him as the creator of all beings.
Katha Upanishad 2.3.3: States that the devas (Agni, Vaayu, Indra, Suurya, and Mrtyu) carry out their respective functions out of fear of Him (Brahman).
Kena Upanishad 2.1: States that knowledge of what the devas know is insufficient to know Brahman.
Kena Upanishad 3.1-12: States that Brahman won victory for the devas, and explains how neither Indra, nor Agni, nor Vaayu could overcome the power of Brahman, and how Uma had to teach them about who Brahman is.
Mundaka Upanishad 2.1.7: States that from Him emerged the devas and all other living entities.
Prashna Upanishad 2.1-4: Explains how the various devas presiding over different parts of the body are all subordinate to Praana.

One has merely to use common sense to realize that, if A creates B, then B is different from A. If A is within B and not known by B, then B is different from A (though B could be said to be connected to A). If A orders B to do things, then B is different from A. If A is worshipped by B, then B is different from A.

Thus, the shruti clearly shows that the devas are *different* from Brahman. Note that I have not not quoted any oblique statements, nor have I even quoted all the references to shruti that show the difference, nor have I even relied on smRiti.

For instance "Eko Rudro Dvittiya na tasthu"

Yajur Veda i. 8. 6. d

Rudra alone yieldeth to no second.

46 They call him Indra, Mitra, Varuna, Agni, and heavenly nobly-winged Garutman.
To what is One, sages give many a title they call it Agni, Yama, Matarisvan.

47 -----

48 Twelve are the fellies, and the wheel is single; three are the naves. What man hath understood it?


Note: The wheel is single and the 12 spokes (fellies) are perceived as different aspects. To what is One, sages give many a title.

No matter how we apply all the names to Brahman there is only one Rudra, fact of the matter is not only all names belong to Brahman but all the forms, some times this point is missed on people.

It is illogical to assume that there can be only one person in all of existence named Ganesh Prasad, and that anyone whose name is Ganesh Prasad is by the very fact, the same person whose posting I am responding to now. Similarly, it is illogical to assume that there is exactly one Rudra, one Indra, one Agni, etc. When Vedas say that He (Brahman) is known as Indra, Agni, Rudra, and then later says that He creates Indra, Agni, Rudra, etc, the most straightfoward reading to reconcile these two viewpoints is to accept that Brahman has all these names, and that there are other, created/subordinate devas who also have these names.

Since we are on the tropic of Mahabharat and the Bhagvat Gita is a part of it, there in Arjun is asking

How may I know You, O Lord, by constant contemplation? In what form are You to be thought of by me, O Lord? (10.17)

The Supreme Lord said: O Arjuna, now I shall explain to you My prominent divine manifestations, because My manifestations are endless. (10.19)

What Ganesh Prasad fails to mention is that inthe original Sanskrit, Krishna states He will discuss His "Atma-vibhUtayaH." The word "vibhUti" carries the sense of "riches, powers, opulences, magnificence" etc. according to standard Sanskrit-English dictionaries. What therefore follows is an exposition of how the best of everything represents Sri Krishna's opulences, not He Himself in different forms as commonly misunderstood by Neo-Advaitins. One need only read the verses to see how they contradict his thesis: "Among Adityas I am Vishnu." Why is He not all the Adityas? "Among mountains I am Meru." Why is He not all the mountains? "Among Maruts, I am Mariichi." Why is He not all the Maruts?

The answer is that this has nothing to do with equating these different entities with Brahman in the sense of B = A. Rather, it is more like saying, B is a representation of A among mountains, C is a representation of A in rivers, D is a representation of A among this group of devas, etc.

tvam adi-devah purusah puranas
tvam asya visvasya param nidhanam
vettasi vedyam ca param ca dhama
tvaya tatam visvam ananta-rupa (11.38)

He goes on to list them in the next verse.

Yes, but once again, this verse only describes his representation in this world. "You are air, You are fire, You are Brahmaa" etc simply underscores the fact that all these things are the energies of Brahman. It does not mean that Vaayu (Bhiima's father) is Brahman, or that Agni (fire-god) is Brahman, as such an interpretation contradicts countless shruti-pramaanas some of which are listed above.

So you call me sectarian all you like, hack a lot of Hindu i know see no difference, what to speak of Vedic gods they do not stop at other religions also. Before you write to me to say majority do not constitute pramanas, i know.

Jai Shree Krishna

What "a lot of Hindu" believe or do not believe is besides the point. Personal opinion is not shabda-pramaana. Refusing to believe that time slows down in a frame of reference approaching the speed of light, will not change the fact that it does. Refusing to to believe that fire burns will not change the fact that it does. Refusing to believe that the force of gravitation is not related to the masses involved will not change the fact that it is. And the eternal truths spelled out in shruti will not be changed by majority of Hindus you know not understanding them.

regards,

[Ganeshprasad]

Pranam

I have had some soul searching over the weekend, being out all day attending RathYatra in London.
I have come to the conclusion if I were to challenge all that has been presented, I could not do that without cutting the nose to spite the face. I know all these may sounds a bit hollow, a copout, so be it.

It is not as if they have not been debated and for every objection that has been presented there is a counter explanation . I could not argue the case without belittling a Deva in particularly Vishnu who has been put forward as a supreme, in preference to anya devatas, since I believe them to be the same, all being different aspect of one supreme being.

One off the objection was made that since they, as in Vayu Agni, Indra failed to recognize who brahman was in Kena UP, fair point, how can they be supreme? But then I showed in prayer Vayu is referred to be Pratiax Brahman as against Vishnu and other devas, it’s a paradox, I can not explain, would not even try. Good luck to those who claim to do because there are many other passages that does present similar questions, so I take my solace from Mandukya UP ;

He is not knowable by perception, turned inward or outward, nor by both combined.
He is neither that which is known, nor that which is not known, nor is he the sum of all that might be known.
He can not be seen, grasped, bargained with.
He is undefineable, unthinkable, indescribable.
The only proof of his existence is union with him. Which resonates well with what Bhagvat Gita says;

He is inside as well as outside all beings, animate and inanimate. He is incomprehensible because of His subtlety. He is very near as well as far away.(13.16)

Opinion has been expressed on Bhagvat Gita that I would like address, Philosoraptor has presented his own understanding of it and raised some questions, that is fine but what he fail to take in consideration is the actual question that Arjun asks, are you suggesting Krishna is not capable to answer them? look for your self what the question was.
What ever the defination of Vibuti from dictionary again what you fail to notice is the Visheshan(adjective) that is applied before it “Divya” brings whole new meaning to it. Then there is the question of Rama that would be hard for you to tell me that that is mere vibhuti as per your description.

As regards to BG.11.38 again you have used your own well known srutis objection, well that is your problem to reconcile, how could I doubt Arjun who is endowed with with Divya chaksu and he sees tvaya tatam visvam ananta-rupa (does he not know the difference between Rupa, element or energy?) (11.38) and he goes them to list them in 11.39, here you try to explain it to me that it is mere energy, unfortunately it is very unconvincing purely because that can not be described as Rupa as he see them. Can you see air? And where is Yama described as an energy in which Shastra? I have seen such translation like this where Yama is missing all together one wonders why?

And your last passage you could not resist even though it was only offered not as a pramana but to counter your claim that I have a sectarian view.

For the record and not to challenge any thing, I present a hotra priest perspective and what he says have a profound implication and understanding at least for me. And I quote;

I belong to the family of Hotr priests of Rg Veda. My father and my elder breather are Hotr priests. I am trained in Rg Veda in the traditional style of reciting entire Rg Veda. I know each and every line of Rg Veda by heart. I am also trained in the Bhashya – traditional interpretation - of the Vedas. Though I am trained to be competent to become a Hotr priest, I did not become a priest. My elder brother became a Hotr priest. (I am introducing myself to make a point I know what I am talking about. i don’t talk things which I am not sure of. )

In Vedic system, Hotr priest is the priest of Rg Veda and the only one qualified to invoke devas as only Rg mantras are meant for invoking devatas. . Yajur Vedic mantras are meant for giving offerings to the devas invoked by Rg Veda and Sama Veda mantras are meant for singing the praise of the gods invoked by Rg veda mantras. Thus as to the matter of gods are concerned, Rig Veda is the complete and final authority, since other Vedas perform a supplementary role to Rg Veda. No other gods that is not mentioned in Rg Veda could be invoked.

There are only thirty three gods in rig Veda. There cannot be more because the number 33 is sacrosanct and has a tight logic. Divinities in Vedic system have esoteric connotation to the consonants of the Sanskrit alphabets. Gods are those letters. And there are only 33 consonants in Vedic Sanskrit. (From ‘Ka’ to ‘Ha’ are 33).
“Te Trayastrimsadakshare Bhavath. Tryastrimsadhuo devah.” – Aitreya brahmana (1, 10)
This tight association between devas and letters makes the gods limited to 33 and there cannot any more. Hence any additional gods mentioned in other later Vedas or Puranas (there are 33crores of gods in puranas) are to be understood as names or aspects of the original 33. If this is not the case those new gods cannot be technically invoked, from Vedic point of view. Hence there are only 33 gods in Vedas.
And Who are these 33 Vedic Gods ? Asta Vasu (8), Ekladasa Rudra (11), Duadasa Aditya (12). Prajapati , Vasad or sometime Indra. And their names are given below.

Eight Vasus: Agni, Jadaveda, Sahoja, Ajara, Vaisvanara, Naryapa, Panktiradha and Visarpi.
Leven Rudras: Prabhrajamana, Vyavadata, Vasuki, Rajata, Parusha, Syama, Kapila, Atilohita, Urdhva, Avapatanta And Vaidyuta.

The twelve Sun gods: Twastr, Savitr, Bhaga, Surya, Pushan, Vishnu, Vaisvanara, Varuna, Kesi, Vrshakapi, Yama, Aja-Ekapat.


All the gods of vedic mantras are forms of this one spirit.
Pramana: Mahad devanam asuratvam ekam - Rg Veda ( 10,63,2)

The entire universe finds its abode in this one reality only.

Pramana : Yatra visvam bhavaty eka- nidam - Sukla Yajur Veda (32,8) .

Pramana: Te tryatrimsadaksharo bavat triyatrimsaddho deva.

ekam-sad-vipra-bahuta-vadanti.

Saraban Iyar unquote.

The Vedic Concept Of God In All Its Aspects
By Swami Mukhyananda



Mahabhagyad-devataya eka atma bahudha stuyate; ekasya atmano anye devah pratyangani bhavanti; itaretara janmano bhavanti; itaretara prakritayah; karmajanmanah, atmajanmanh. …. Atma sarvam davasya. It is because of the great glory and infinite facets of the Divine that the one Self (Atman) is extolled in many ways. The other gods (devas) come to be sub-members of the one Self. They are mutually born from one another; they are of one another’s nature; they originate according to their function (karma); they are born of the Self…. The whole essence of any god is the Self (Atman only).


In different contexts the same God appears differently or is viewed differently as Indra, Mitra, Agni, Vayu, or Varuna. The one Essence (asuratvam) runs through all these gods (mahad devanam asuratvam ekam).

purpose of this post is to give an idea that this is not my personal view only as alleged by Philosoraptor.

Jai Shree Krishna

[philosoraptor]

I have come to the conclusion if I were to challenge all that has been presented, I could not do that without cutting the nose to spite the face. I know all these may sounds a bit hollow, a copout, so be it.

Pranams. Namaste.
I do not accept the conclusion that stating one deva is subordinate to another, with explicit shaastric evidence to back it up, is belittling to the devas in question. That sounds like a deliberate cop-out to avoid any discussion of what the shruti actually says, in favor of the unsubstantiated neo-Hindu theory that all gods are the same God.

It is not as if they have not been debated and for every objection that has been presented there is a counter explanation .

How do you know, without knowing those counter explanations?

In reality, the issue of Narayana's supremacy over the devas has not been a differentiating factor between most Vedantic schools. The acceptance of Narayana's exclusive supremacy is common to most Vedantic schools. Even Shankaracharya has no problem with it if you read his commentaries. There is a section of the Vedanta-sutra which deals with the devas' eligibility to meditate on Brahman. There, Shankracharya does not claim devas are Brahman.

I could not argue the case without belittling a Deva in particularly Vishnu who has been put forward as a supreme, in preference to anya devatas, since I believe them to be the same, all being different aspect of one supreme being.

That's precisely my point. You are still fixated on promoting your personal belief while obfuscating the meaning of the shruti. But, I will be charitable and acknowledge that it isn't just your personal opinion, but also the personal opinion of many other Neo-Hindu free thinkers.

One off the objection was made that since they, as in Vayu Agni, Indra failed to recognize who brahman was in Kena UP, fair point, how can they be supreme? But then I showed in prayer Vayu is referred to be Pratiax Brahman as against Vishnu and other devas, it’s a paradox, I can not explain, would not even try.

Sure you can - it is obvious. Brahman/Vishnu is there being referred to as Vaayu. Why is that so hard to accept? It has already been established previously that names like Vaayu, Indra, Agni, etc are names of Brahman. It has also been established that Vaayu, Indra, Agni are names of entities who are subserviant to Brahman (specifically, in all those shruti quotes you deleted/did not want to respond to). Therefore, whenever these names are invoked, one has to use context to determine whether the all-powerful Brahman is being referred to, or the anya-devata by the same name.

Also, according to some sources that I have read, the name "Vishnu" also can sometimes refer to another deva, specifically, to Surya (the deva presiding over sun). So if you interpret the text as indicating that Vaayu is singled out as Brahman while the others including Vishnu are regarded as anya-devatas, still there is no conflict.

If I look up a phone book in Bombay and find 10 entries for Mr. "Ganesh Prasad," by your logic, I must assume that they are all one and the same person despite their different phone numbers. Would you accept that?

He is not knowable by perception, turned inward or outward, nor by both combined.
He is neither that which is known, nor that which is not known, nor is he the sum of all that might be known.
He can not be seen, grasped, bargained with.
He is undefineable, unthinkable, indescribable.
The only proof of his existence is union with him. Which resonates well with what Bhagvat Gita says;

He is inside as well as outside all beings, animate and inanimate. He is incomprehensible because of His subtlety. He is very near as well as far away.(13.16)

If "He is inside as well as outside all beings," then by common sense, He is different from, but connected to, those beings. Thus, this refutes your point of view that they are all the same. If A is inside B, then A is not B.

If we give to a child on his birthday a toy in a box wrapped in colorful wrapping paper, we refer to the entire thing (wrapped box plus toy inside) as a "present." But factually, the present is the toy in the box, not the box itself. It is only for grammatical convenience that we refer to them as one entity. This is why we can correctly say that Brahman (meaning He and the cit/achit entities which He ensouls) only exists, and yet say that Brahman pervades all of this and transcends all of this. There is no paradox if one understands the relationship of Brahman to all chit/achit as their indwelling controller, as the Brihadaaranyaka Upanishad teaches.

Your quote from the Upanishad is being wrongly used by you to suggest that no definitive conclusion can be arrived at regarding Brahman. This is a common Neo-Hindu tactic, to cite the Lord's inconceivability whenever Neo-Hindu theories are found to be inconsistent. Certainly, one cannot know Him completely as the infinite concept will not fit within one's head. However, one can know some things about Him, such as who He is, and who He is not when it is spelled out in shruti - otherwise, what is the point of shruti?

It is not logical to decry the authority of shruti, and then propose alternative conclusions. And then when those conclusions are challenged, suddenly "oh we can't know Him. the shruti says so." So, we could know Him only when we agreed with you, but not when we note the difference between your opinion and shruti?

Opinion has been expressed on Bhagvat Gita that I would like address, Philosoraptor has presented his own understanding of it and raised some questions, that is fine but what he fail to take in consideration is the actual question that Arjun asks, are you suggesting Krishna is not capable to answer them? look for your self what the question was.
What ever the defination of Vibuti from dictionary again what you fail to notice is the Visheshan(adjective) that is applied before it “Divya” brings whole new meaning to it. Then there is the question of Rama that would be hard for you to tell me that that is mere vibhuti as per your description.

No, the problem is that you still aren't getting it. The 10th chapter on vibhUtI-s isn't saying anything at all about alternate forms of Brahman or not Brahman. These are all representations of His glories. Some are His plenary forms (like Raama) while others are jIvAtmas (like Arjuna). Some are merely insentient/abstract concepts, like "gambling among cheats" and "intelligence among women."

Again, to understand the chapter, you need to look at the entire context instead of pulling out one or two shlokas that seem to support your point of view.

As regards to BG.11.38 again you have used your own well known srutis objection, well that is your problem to reconcile, how could I doubt Arjun who is endowed with with Divya chaksu and he sees tvaya tatam visvam ananta-rupa (does he not know the difference between Rupa, element or energy?) (11.38) and he goes them to list them in 11.39, here you try to explain it to me that it is mere energy, unfortunately it is very unconvincing purely because that can not be described as Rupa as he see them. Can you see air? And where is Yama described as an energy in which Shastra? I have seen such translation like this where Yama is missing all together one wonders why?

Again, if you pull verses out of context, you will come to a wrong conclusion. In gItA 11.15 Arjuna says he saw Brahma and Shiva within the vishvarUpa along with all other devas. In gItA 11.21 he says that some of the devas are fearful of Him while others are offering prayers to Him. In gItA 11.37 Krishna is referred to as "God of gods." In gItA 11.52 Krishna says that even the devas are ever wanting to behold this form of His.

All of these are clear statements indicating the difference between Sri Krishna and other devas. It makes no sense to suggest that all devas are different forms of Sri Krishna when those devas are contained within a portion of His universal form, when they are fearful at seeing His universal form, when they are offering prayers to Him, and when they are always wanting to see His form.

Now, let us look at your "interpretation" of gItA 11.38-39, which you claim, against the context of the chapter in which these verses are found, is proof that all gods are the same God. In 11.38, Arjuna says that he pervades this entire universe, which includes the elements and the devas who preside over them. He also indicates that Sri Krishna is the "Adi-deva," again a clear reference to his paramount position above all other devas. Then in 11.39 Arjuna says "You are Vaayu, You are Agni, You are Varuna." But previously Arjuna said he saw these devas within the vishva-rUpa and fearful/praying to Him. This is only contradictory to people who think the shruti was placed on Earth for us to conclude that no definitive conclusion about the shruti can be arrived at. For those who understand the relationship of Brahman to all other entities as taught in the antaryaami-braahmana (namely, as their indwelling controller), there is no problem with calling Him Agni, Vaayu, Varuna, etc. Because He is the indwelling controller of Agni, Vaayu, and Varuna. Just like the birthday present within its box is altogether referred to as "birthday present" even though the gift and the box are two different things. The ananta-rUpa does not refer to these devas, but to the vishva-rUpa pervading the entire universe as mentioned in the previous shloka 11.38.

And your last passage you could not resist even though it was only offered not as a pramana but to counter your claim that I have a sectarian view.

You have a sectarian, Neo-Advaitic view because you decry smRti-pramANas (such as Bhaagavatam and Vishnu Puraana) which contradict your views, but then ask us to agree with you when you quote Shiva or Linga Puraanas. Then again you ignore shruti when it clearly establishes the difference between Brahman and devas and claim truth cannot be known.

Previously you admitted that your opinion is that, "I believe them to be the same, all being different aspect of one supreme being." Let us be honest with ourselves. You ignore any and all shruti and smRti which contradicts this opinion, and rely solely on the few smRti references (not even the entire text in question, but just those shlokas within the text) which appear to uphold that opinion. Thus, if Gita says Krishna is the "Adi-deva" (11.38) and that one goal is obtained by His worship and another goal is obtained by anya-deva worship (gItA 7.23) you simply ignore that. But if the same text says "You (Krishna) are Vaayu, You are Agni, You are Varuna" you place emphasis on this statement, absent its context, and attempt to draw conclusions based on selective quoting. And if one disagrees with your conclusions by citing evidence that you ignored, then suddenly truth is achintya and cannot be known.

For the record and not to challenge any thing, I present a hotra priest perspective and what he says have a profound implication and understanding at least for me.

In other words, you are reposting something that was posted on another Hinduism bulletin board. I seriously doubt that you have checked the background of the person whose posting you are quoting.

I belong to the family of Hotr priests of Rg Veda. My father and my elder breather are Hotr priests. I am trained in Rg Veda in the traditional style of reciting entire Rg Veda. I know each and every line of Rg Veda by heart. I am also trained in the Bhashya – traditional interpretation - of the Vedas.

By "traditional interpretation" your alleged Hotr priest is obviously not referring to the interpretations of Raamaanuja or Madhva, who have for centuries understood the shruti as referring consistently to one Brahman, one without a second, who is the creator and supporter of the devas, and who is transcendental to, yet pervades and supports, the creation.

All the gods of vedic mantras are forms of this one spirit.
Pramana: Mahad devanam asuratvam ekam - Rg Veda ( 10,63,2)

Here is the Griffith translation of the mantra in question, plus its context:

1. MAY they who would assume kinship from far away, Vivasvān's generations, dearly loved of men,
Even the Gods who sit upon the sacred grass of Nahuṣa's son Yayāti, bless and comfort us.
2 For worthy of obeisance, Gods, are all your names, worthy of adoration and of sacrifice.
Ye who were born from waters, and from Aditi, and from the earth, do ye here listen to my call.
3 I will rejoice in these Ādityas for my weal, for whom the Mother pours forth water rich in balm,
And Dyaus the Infinite, firm as a rock, sweet milk,—Gods active, strong through lauds, whose might the Bull upholds.
4 Looking on men, ne’er slumbering, they by their deserts attained as Gods to lofty immortality.

Looking at this translation, it is not at all clear that it is contradicting the Upanishads and Braahmanas and claiming that all gods are the same God. On the contrary, it seems to be saying only that He has all the names of the other gods, which is true. I can't help but note that devas are again in the plural - yet they are all the same Brahman? Sorry, but it just doesn't fit your theory.

The entire universe finds its abode in this one reality only.

Pramana : Yatra visvam bhavaty eka- nidam - Sukla Yajur Veda (32,8) .

Pramana: Te tryatrimsadaksharo bavat triyatrimsaddho deva.

There is nothing about the idea "entire universe finds its abode in one reality" that contradicts the view of shruti that Brahman is the creator and and worshipable object of the devas.

ekam-sad-vipra-bahuta-vadanti.

And there is nothing about this pramaana that contradicts it either. All it says is that the one Brahma is also called Indra, Agni, etc. Again, let me ask, if I meet a person whose name is "Ganesh Prasad," can I assume that person is you? There is only one Ganesh Prasad in all the world?

The Vedic Concept Of God In All Its Aspects
By Swami Mukhyananda

Nor do I see how quoting a Neo-Hindu thinker actually bolsters your argument at all. We can stipulate for the purposes of this discussion that the last 2-3 centuries of Neo-Hindus agree with you (and disagree with shruti) that all devas are equally the same God and that there is no difference in their worship. Nevertheless, personal opinions do not override evidence. Merely having an opinion does not make it correct.


regards,

[Ganeshprasad]

Pranam

Pranams. Namaste.
I do not accept the conclusion that stating one deva is subordinate to another, with explicit shaastric evidence to back it up, is belittling to the devas in question. That sounds like a deliberate cop-out to avoid any discussion of what the shruti actually says, in favor of the unsubstantiated neo-Hindu theory that all gods are the same God.

You have your right to accept it or not, that is your prerogative, I do not see anywhere Krishna denouncing Deva worship infect he encourages that in several places. What you call a neo- Hindu (at least that is a relief for me, from enduring your personal abuse), you will be surprised to know that it is not so new, Sant siromani Goswami Tulsidas a Vaishnava would also have to be included in your assessment what to speak of that you will have to call passages in Mahabharat, which actually has lead us to this debate, to be classed as neo thinking. And what you know I can quote from Bhagvat Puran the same thinking that you term neo.

How do you know, without knowing those counter explanations?

You don’t because I said I am not going to show that to spite my own face, beside if I did you will most probably explain it away by saying this is not the same Vishnu.

In reality, the issue of Narayana's supremacy over the devas has not been a differentiating factor between most Vedantic schools. The acceptance of Narayana's exclusive supremacy is common to most Vedantic schools. Even Shankaracharya has no problem with it if you read his commentaries. There is a section of the Vedanta-sutra which deals with the devas' eligibility to meditate on Brahman. There, Shankracharya does not claim devas are Brahman.

Yet Shankracharya had no problem alleviating Vayu as Brahman to that you have your own explanation which does not wash with me.
Beside you speak of Narayana who does not figure in samhita, he is only implied.

That's precisely my point. You are still fixated on promoting your personal belief while obfuscating the meaning of the shruti. But, I will be charitable and acknowledge that it isn't just your personal opinion, but also the personal opinion of many other Neo-Hindu free thinkers.

Oh that’s very big of you.

Sure you can - it is obvious. Brahman/Vishnu is there being referred to as Vaayu. Why is that so hard to accept? It has already been established previously that names like Vaayu, Indra, Agni, etc are names of Brahman. It has also been established that Vaayu, Indra, Agni are names of entities who are subserviant to Brahman (specifically, in all those shruti quotes you deleted/did not want to respond to). Therefore, whenever these names are invoked, one has to use context to determine whether the all-powerful Brahman is being referred to, or the anya-devata by the same name.

Also, according to some sources that I have read, the name "Vishnu" also can sometimes refer to another deva, specifically, to Surya (the deva presiding over sun). So if you interpret the text as indicating that Vaayu is singled out as Brahman while the others including Vishnu are regarded as anya-devatas, still there is no conflict.

Funny how Vayu is referred to when Vishnu is also there but wait this is not the same Vishnu, you see you can not have your cake and eat it, every time there is a contradiction you have to rely on unusual recourse.

If "He is inside as well as outside all beings," then by common sense, He is different from, but connected to, those beings. Thus, this refutes your point of view that they are all the same. If A is inside B, then A is not B.

The point was made to show that Brahman is incomprehensible, this was not quoted to show the unity of devas. Get your context right please.

Certainly, one cannot know Him completely as the infinite concept will not fit within one's head. However, one can know some things about Him, such as who He is, and who He is not when it is spelled out in shruti - otherwise, what is the point of shruti?

The point is how do you know how it is? unless you are brahmvit otherwise it is all speculation, neti neti.

It is not logical to decry the authority of shruti, and then propose alternative conclusions. And then when those conclusions are challenged, suddenly "oh we can't know Him. the shruti says so." So, we could know Him only when we agreed with you, but not when we note the difference between your opinion and shruti?

And are you not doing the same, when it suits we will accept as is but when someone else is extol we will claim all names belong to brahman there for it is not so and so. Very rich. If the Hotra priest is to believe and there is no reason not to, we only have 33 devas and that Vishnu is only part of aditya the son god and according to you he is just another deva, so where does that leave you?

No, the problem is that you still aren't getting it. The 10th chapter on vibhUtI-s isn't saying anything at all about alternate forms of Brahman or not Brahman. These are all representations of His glories. Some are His plenary forms (like Raama) while others are jIvAtmas (like Arjuna). Some are merely insentient/abstract concepts, like "gambling among cheats" and "intelligence among women."

The problem is not mine but yours, you are refusing to look at the question, unless of course you are suggesting that Lord Krishna is avoiding the question or he misunderstood it. Let me spell it out to you what Arjun is asking.
How may I know You, O Lord, by constant contemplation? In what form (of manifestation) are You to be thought of by me, O Lord? (10.17)

Again, if you pull verses out of context, you will come to a wrong conclusion. In gItA 11.15 Arjuna says he saw Brahma and Shiva within the vishvarUpa along with all other devas. In gItA 11.21 he says that some of the devas are fearful of Him while others are offering prayers to Him. In gItA 11.37 Krishna is referred to as "God of gods." In gItA 11.52 Krishna says that even the devas are ever wanting to behold this form of His.

All of these are clear statements indicating the difference between Sri Krishna and other devas. It makes no sense to suggest that all devas are different forms of Sri Krishna when those devas are contained within a portion of His universal form, when they are fearful at seeing His universal form, when they are offering prayers to Him, and when they are always wanting to see His form.

---- The ananta-rUpa does not refer to these devas, but to the vishva-rUpa pervading the entire universe as mentioned in the previous shloka 11.38.

What ever conclusion we arrive is according to what we perceive or how we want to perceive, the fact doesn’t change what Arjun is seeing with divya chaksu, if ananta rupa means vishva rupa we are learning a new defination here.

You have a sectarian, Neo-Advaitic view because you decry smRti-pramANas (such as Bhaagavatam and Vishnu Puraana) which contradict your views, but then ask us to agree with you when you quote Shiva or Linga Puraanas. Then again you ignore shruti when it clearly establishes the difference between Brahman and devas and claim truth cannot be known.

What a lie, where have I decry Bhagvat Puran or Vishnu Puran, I don’t remember quoting Shiva specially not Linga Puranas, not on this thread any way. Do you want me to show you from amala puran the position of Shiva and Brahma, no use though you will say it contradicts srutis.

Previously you admitted that your opinion is that, "I believe them to be the same, all being different aspect of one supreme being." Let us be honest with ourselves. You ignore any and all shruti and smRti which contradicts this opinion, and rely solely on the few smRti references (not even the entire text in question, but just those shlokas within the text) which appear to uphold that opinion. Thus, if Gita says Krishna is the "Adi-deva" (11.38) and that one goal is obtained by His worship and another goal is obtained by anya-deva worship (gItA 7.23) you simply ignore that. But if the same text says "You (Krishna) are Vaayu, You are Agni, You are Varuna" you place emphasis on this statement, absent its context, and attempt to draw conclusions based on selective quoting. And if one disagrees with your conclusions by citing evidence that you ignored, then suddenly truth is achintya and cannot be known.

Truth is Achintya for that there is no doubt, Vedas declare with trepidation not this not this, Gita says it is in comprehension, it is near yet very far.
Goal is different that is no denying it, even different for Vaishnava what to speak of anya devas, but this is what Krishna says in chapter three of Gita;
Nourish the Devas with Yajna, and the Devas will nourish you. Thus nourishing one another you shall attain the Supreme goal. (3.11)

In other words, you are reposting something that was posted on another Hinduism bulletin board. I seriously doubt that you have checked the background of the person whose posting you are quoting.

What difference that make, are you denying what he says about the 33 devas?

By "traditional interpretation" your alleged Hotr priest is obviously not referring to the interpretations of Raamaanuja or Madhva, who have for centuries understood the shruti as referring consistently to one Brahman, one without a second, who is the creator and supporter of the devas, and who is transcendental to, yet pervades and supports, the creation.

Obviously , but then if he does not agree he must be neo yes? All those who worship other deva like Shiva or Devi or Indra the god of Veda must be neo?

All I did was to show Hotra priest perspective, to be honest I would put more faith in him then yours or Griffith translation, but in absence of any other translation we are forced to use those translation which may or may not be true to the sprit of the samhita.

And there is nothing about this pramaana that contradicts it either. All it says is that the one Brahma is also called Indra, Agni, etc. Again, let me ask, if I meet a person whose name is "Ganesh Prasad," can I assume that person is you? There is only one Ganesh Prasad in all the world?

Here we will have a big problem, you are mixing mundane logic with divine being of the Vedas, RigVed speak of 33 devas, they are divine, worship able, the priest has been offering their oblation to them long before the Bhasya that you rely on, So when they say they are one they are not talking of any Tom Dick and Harry but the divine beings so there is a lot off difference, please stop being so condescending. You posit that all name belong to Brahman and that is only one that you would subscribe to, where else I happen to think there is no limit to as to what forms he can have.

Nor do I see how quoting a Neo-Hindu thinker actually bolsters your argument at all. We can stipulate for the purposes of this discussion that the last 2-3 centuries of Neo-Hindus agree with you (and disagree with shruti) that all devas are equally the same God and that there is no difference in their worship. Nevertheless, personal opinions do not override evidence. Merely having an opinion does not make it correct.

Now now when you accuse me of being neo how can you then deny me my prerogative? No one here so called neo are relying on their own but drawing from the same scriptures, unfortunately what you deny earlier that you have no base from which you make your judgement is a blatant lie, you have drawn a line that Vishnu is supreme and from that you proceed to align every thing that do not fit and then say hay presto I got it all right, everyone else is neo I am right and everyone else wrong . I say be happy in your understanding and I in mine.

Jai Shree Krishna

[philosoraptor]

You have your right to accept it or not, that is your prerogative,

Pranams. Very well, let me be more clear. It is not belittling to any deva to accept the hierarchy of devas as mentioned in shruti. The idea that such a thing is belittling to devas, is a falsehood promoted by those who promote "all devas are one" and want to stifle any discussion to the contrary.

I do not see anywhere Krishna denouncing Deva worship infect he encourages that in several places.

"Denouncing" anya-devata worship has nothing to do with it, and is a separate issue. One can accept deva hierarchy without denouncing other people's worship. The position Sri Krishna takes in the Gita 7.23 is that one result is had by those who worship anya-devatas and another result is had by His worship. I assume that since you don't like that, you will be ignoring that piece of evidence, too.

What you call a neo- Hindu (at least that is a relief for me, from enduring your personal abuse), you will be surprised to know that it is not so new, Sant siromani Goswami Tulsidas a Vaishnava would also have to be included in your assessment what to speak of that you will have to call passages in Mahabharat, which actually has lead us to this debate, to be classed as neo thinking. And what you know I can quote from Bhagvat Puran the same thinking that you term neo.

1) No one has abused you. You are merely imagining it as such because you can not win me over to your views with logic and evidence.
2) All smRtis, including Mahaabhaarata and the Bhaagavatam, are subject to cross-examination by shruti. This is a separate issue from recognition of the phenomenon of Neo-Hinduism and the way it teaches unsuspecting lay Hindus to embrace inconsistent ideas and ignore shruti.
3) With regards to Gosvami Tulasi das, I do have a friend that is initiated in his tradition, and he has been very clear with me in our discussions that Tulasi das accepts only Rama/Narayana as Brahman, and not any other deva. Personally I am not an expert on Tulasi das and the Ramanandi tradition, but again the issue is moot. In Vedaanta, shruti-pramaana is the authority. Period.

Yet Shankracharya had no problem alleviating Vayu as Brahman to that you have your own explanation which does not wash with me.

I said that shruti-pramaana is the authority and must be read in a consistent way. I did not say one could or should reconcile all philosophers' viewpoints. Please understand the point that Shankaraachaarya's commentaries are not shruti.

Beside you speak of Narayana who does not figure in samhita, he is only implied.

His name is mentioned in shruti, specifically in the taitirriya shAkha of yajur-veda and that should be sufficient for Vedaantic purposes.

The rest of your objections can be reduced to a few points as far as I can see.

1) You feel it is unreasonable to interpret shruti in a consistent way. In your view, it is perfectly acceptable to leave shruti's apparent inconsistencies unexplained, citing Brahman's inconceivability. Thus, if you find five statements apparently equating devas to Brahman, and 25 statements showing difference, rather than interpreting the five in light of the 25, we should just ignore the 25. Because it's inconceivable.

2) Despite devas being depicted as having been created by Brahman, worshipping Brahman, taking orders from Brahman, being defeated by Brahman, this to you is not conclusive evidence that devas are not Brahman. So, in your view, Brahman can create itself, worship itself, give orders to itself, and fight itself.

3) Whenever a popular guru or a large following of Hindus endorses some beliefs, those beliefs must be respected on par with those of shruti.

4) Disagreeing with you is tantamount to heaping abuses on you.

Have I misunderstood your position in any way? Please let me know.

At this time, I would like to know what scriptures you have read in their entirety, if you would not mind me asking. The way you keep misunderstanding Bhagavad-gita leads me to believe that you have not studied it from beginning to end.

regards,

[Ganeshprasad]

Pranam

Pranams. Very well, let me be more clear. It is not belittling to any deva to accept the hierarchy of devas as mentioned in shruti. The idea that such a thing is belittling to devas, is a falsehood promoted by those who promote "all devas are one" and want to stifle any discussion to the contrary.

Any Devas that become subject of ridicule is nothing sort of being belittle, 33 are the devas that are mentioned in the Vedas they are all propitiated . As for this hierarchy, our understanding off it could not be far from truth when considering the statement that Agni is lowest Vishnu the highest and everyone else is in the middle, this does not make Agni deva any less important in grand scheme of thing.

" [O Soma!]Father and generator of the gods, the skillful, the Pillar of the Heavens (ie. Linga), and supporter of Earth. Rishi and Illuminated Sage, greatest of people, apart and wise, Ushana (Shukracharya) in knowledge" (Rig Veda .IX.87.2-3)

"Father of sacred chants, Soma flows onwards, the Father of the Earth, Father of the Celestial region: Father of Agni,(Skanda) the creator of Surya,(Brahma) the Father who gave birth to Indra (Shiva) and Vishnu" (Rig Veda.IX.96.5)

So who is this Father? What meaning must I apply to this hierarchy debate of yours?

I do not see anywhere Krishna denouncing Deva worship infect he encourages that in several places.
"Denouncing" anya-devata worship has nothing to do with it, and is a separate issue. One can accept deva hierarchy without denouncing other people's worship. The position Sri Krishna takes in the Gita 7.23 is that one result is had by those who worship anya-devatas and another result is had by His worship. I assume that since you don't like that, you will be ignoring that piece of evidence, too.

Who says I am ignoring that different result is achieved, depending on the mode of worship the results are achieved and that applies to the worship Lord Krishna also, let me shatter your illusion.

The knowers of the three Vedas and the drinkers of the juice of Soma (or devotion), whose sins are cleansed, worship Me by Yajna for gaining heaven. As a result of their good Karma they go to heaven and enjoy celestial sense pleasures. (9.20)

Having enjoyed the wide world of heavenly sense pleasures they return to the mortal world upon exhaustion of their good Karma (or Punya). Thus following the injunctions of three Vedas, the fruitive workers take repeated birth and death. (See also 8.25) (9.21)

What you call a neo- Hindu (at least that is a relief for me, from enduring your personal abuse), you will be surprised to know that it is not so new, Sant siromani Goswami Tulsidas a Vaishnava would also have to be included in your assessment what to speak of that you will have to call passages in Mahabharat, which actually has lead us to this debate, to be classed as neo thinking. And what you know I can quote from Bhagvat Puran the same thinking that you term neo.
1) No one has abused you. You are merely imagining it as such because you can not win me over to your views with logic and evidence.
2) All smRtis, including Mahaabhaarata and the Bhaagavatam, are subject to cross-examination by shruti. This is a separate issue from recognition of the phenomenon of Neo-Hinduism and the way it teaches unsuspecting lay Hindus to embrace inconsistent ideas and ignore shruti.
3) With regards to Gosvami Tulasi das, I do have a friend that is initiated in his tradition, and he has been very clear with me in our discussions that Tulasi das accepts only Rama/Narayana as Brahman, and not any other deva. Personally I am not an expert on Tulasi das and the Ramanandi tradition, but again the issue is moot. In Vedaanta, shruti-pramaana is the authority. Period.

1)I have no desire to win you, but you have implied your abuse in subtle form but I have no more issue with it.

2)that raises quite a few questions, what you are saying is my way or the high way, ithihas and Puran all of them not withstanding the interpolation are given to us by Vyasji , this is tantamount of saying he did not know srutis, so it makes me wonder whose rules are we playing by?

3)Vedas are authority that is not in question but here again you are implying Tulsidas has no authority or he has no idea what srutis says, Goswami aradhiya deva is none other than Ram.
He made this stuti; says it all really, he sees no differences. Rudrāṣṭakam

O Īśāna! I pray You, Who is the lord of all, Who is in eternal Nirvāṇa-bliss, Who is resplendent, Who is omni-present, and Who is Brahman and Veda in totality. I adore You, Who is for self, Who is formless, Who is without change, Who is dispassionate, Who is like the sky (immeasurable), and Who lives in the sky.[1]

Yet Shankracharya had no problem alleviating Vayu as Brahman to that you have your own explanation which does not wash with me.
I said that shruti-pramaana is the authority and must be read in a consistent way. I did not say one could or should reconcile all philosophers' viewpoints. Please understand the point that Shankaraachaarya's commentaries are not shruti.

Here we come to a cross road, we have hit an impasse; there is no fruitful discussion to be had, you have your predilection, the fact you denied, but it is abundantly clear that you have drawn a base from which you argue, everyone can do that, and does and hey presto I am consistent with srutis everyone else is wrong . And I thought the primary reason of Vedas is to realize the truth the truth that many sears saw it from different angle and the mortals are engaged in trying to reconcile different angle consistently instead of exploring that angle and realize the truth. The point that is expounded in samhita that says eakam sad vipra bhahuda vadanti.

i am not going to dignify my self by saying what i read and when, i do not read shastra for the sole purpose of defeating anyone.
I have no more to add.

Jai Shree Krishna

[Ganeshprasad]

Pranam Madhav ji

some more from Mahabharat perspective;

Mahabharat book 7 Drona parva section Lxxx
And soon Partha beheld a blazing mountain whose splendour equalled that of the planets, the constellations, or fire. And arrived at that mountain, he beheld on its top, the high-souled god having the bull for his mark, and ever engaged in ascetic penances, like a thousand suns collected together, and blazing with his own effulgence. Trident in hand, matted locks on the head, of snow-white colour, he was robed in bark and skin. Endued with great energy, his body seemed to be flaming with a thousand eyes. And he was seated with Parvati and many creatures of brilliant forms (around him). And his attendants were engaged in singing and playing upon musical instruments, in laughing and dancing, in moving and stretching their hands, and In uttering loud shouts. And the place was perfumed with fragrant odours, and Rishis that worshipped Brahma adored with excellent hymns of unfading glory, that God who was the protector of all creatures, and wielded the (great) bow (called Pinaka). Beholding him, Vasudeva of righteous soul, with Partha, touched the earth with his head, uttering the eternal words of the Veda. And Krishna adored, with speech, mind, understanding, and acts, that God who is the first source of the universe, himself uncreate, the supreme lord of unfading glory: who is the highest cause of the mind, who is space and the wind, who is the cause of all the luminous bodies (in the firmament), who is the creator of the rain, and
the supreme, primordial substance of the earth, who is the object of adoration, with the gods, the Danavas, the Yakshas, and human beings; who is the supreme Brahma that is seen by Yogins and the refuge of those acquainted with Shastras, who is the creator of all mobile and immobile creatures, and their destroyer also; who is the Wrath that burns everything at the end of the Yuga; who is the supreme soul; who is the Sakra and Surya, and the origin of all attributes. And Krishna sought the protection of that Bhava, whom men of knowledge, desirous of attaining to that which is called the subtle and the spiritual, behold; that uncreate one is the soul of all causes. And Arjuna repeatedly adored that Deity, knowing that he was the origin of all creatures and the cause of the past, the future, and the present. Beholding those two, viz., Nara and Narayana arrived, Bhava of cheerful soul, smilingly said unto them, 'Welcome are ye, ye foremost of men! Rise up and let the fatigue of your journey be over. What, O heroes, is the desire in your heart? Let it be uttered quickly. What is the business that has brought you hither? I will accomplish it and do what would benefit you. I will grant everything ye may desire., Hearing those words of the god, they both rose. And then with joined hands, the faultless Vasudeva and Arjuna, both of great wisdom, began to gratify that high-souled deity with an excellent hymn. And Krishna and Arjuna said, 'We bow to Bhava, to Sarva, to Rudra, to the boon-giving deity. We bow to the lord of all creatures endued with life, to the god who is always fierce, to him who is called Kapardin! We bow to Mahadeva, to Bhima, to the Three-eyed, to him who is peace and contentment. We bow to Isana, to him who is the destroyer of (Daksha's) sacrifice. Let salutations be to the slayer of Andhaka, to the father of Kumara, to him who is of blue throat, to him who is the creator.' Let salutation be to the wielder of Pinaka, to one worthy of the offer of libations of clarified butter, to him who is truth, to him who is all-pervading. To him who is unvanquished! To him who is always of blue locks, to him who is armed with the trident, to him who is of celestial vision! To him who is Hotri, to him who protects all, to, him who is of three eyes, to him who is disease, to him whose vital seed fell on fire! To him who is inconceivable, to him who is the lord of Amvika, to him who is adored by all the gods! To him who hath the bull for his mark, to him who is bold, to him who is of matted lock, to him who is a Brahmacharin! To him who standeth as an ascetic in the water, to him who is devoted to Brahma, to him who hath never been conquered! To him who is the soul of the universe, to him who is the creator of the universe, to him who liveth pervading the whole universe! We bow to thee that art, the object of the reverence of all, to thee that art the original cause of all creatures! To thee that art called Brahmachakra, to thee that art called Sarva, Sankara, and Siva! We bow to thee that art the lord of all great beings! We bow to thee that hast a thousand heads, to thee that hast a thousand arms, to thee that art called Death! To thee that hast a thousand eyes, a thousand legs? To thee whose acts are innumerable! We bow to thee

Jai Shree Krishna

[Ganeshprasad]

Pranam

[FONT='comic sans ms',sans-serif]Arjuna's Hymn to Mother Durga[/font]

[FONT='comic sans ms',sans-serif]
[/font]

[FONT='comic sans ms',sans-serif] (Arjuna Krta Devi Stotram)[/font]

[FONT='comic sans ms', sans-serif]
[/font]

From the Mahabharata - Bhishma Parva- Section XXIII of Bhagavad Gita Parva. Translated by Shree Kisari Mohan Ganguli.

Spoken by Shree Arjuna on the eve of the battle of Kurukshetra between Pandavas and Kauravas. (Bhishma Parva Chapter 23 verses 4-16). This section is the chapter that immediately precedes the Bhagavad Gita in the Mahabharata.

Lord Krishna said to Shree Arjuna:
"Purify yourself, O mighty-armed one, on the evening of this great battle and compose a hymn to Durga for achieving victory over your enemies".

"Thus addressed on the eve of battle by Shree Vasudeva endued with
Shree Arjuna Uvaccha - Shree Arjuna said:
great intelligence, Pritha's son Arjuna, alighting from his chariot, recited the following hymn with palms pressed together".

Namaste siddhasenaani aarye mandaravaasini/
Kumaari kaali kaapaali kapile krsna pingale
//1//
"I bow to you, O foremost of Siddhas, O Noble One that dwells in the forest of
[FONT='comic sans ms',sans-serif]Mandara, O Virgin, O Kali! O wife of Kapala! O you of a black and tawny hue.
Bhadra-kaali namastubhyam mahaakaali namo'stu te/
Candi cande namastubhyam taarini vara-varnini
//2//
I bow to you. O Beneficent Kali, I bow to you, O Maha-kali, O wrathful One.
I bow to you. O Tara the saviour, the great boon bestowing one.

Kaatyaayani mahaabhaage karaali vijaye jaye/
[FONT='comic sans ms',sans-serif]Shikhi-piccha-dhvaja dhare naanaabharana bhooshite
//3//
O Durga! Great Being, the fierce bestower of victory! O personification of
'comic sans ms',sans-serif] Victory! O you that bears a banner of peacock plumes, O one decked with
every ornament.
Attashoola praharane khadga khetaka dhaarini/
Gopendrasyaanuje jyeshthe nanda-gopa-kulodbhave
//4//
O you that wields an awful spear, the holder of sword and shield,
O you that were born as the younger sister of the chief ofcow-herds
(Lord Krsna), O eldest sibling, born in the family of the cowherd Nanda!
Mahishasrk priye nityam Kaushiki peeta vaasini/
Attahaase koka-mukhe namaste'stu rana-priye
//5//
O you who are always fond of buffalo's blood, born of Kusika's clan,
dressed in yellow robes, having assuming the face of a wolf you
devoured the Asuras! I bow to you who are fond of battle!
Ume shaakambhari shvete krsne kaitabhanaashini/
Hiranyaakshi viroopaakshi sudhoomraakshi namo'stu te
//6//
O Uma! O Sakambhari! O you that are white in hue, and also black!
O slayer of the Asura Kaitabha! O yellow-eyed one! O you that see everything!
O you of eyes that have the colour of smoke, I bow to you!

Vedashruti mahaapunye brahmanye jaatavedasi/
[FONT='comic sans ms',sans-serif]Jambookataka caityeshu nityam sannihitaalaye
//7//
You are the Vedas, the Srutis, and the greatest virtue! You are propitious to
Brahmanas engaged in sacrifice. You are all knowing, you are ever present
in the sacred abodes erected to you in cities of Jamvudwipa, I bow to you!

Tvam brahma-vidyaa vidyaanaam mahaanidraa ca dehinaam/
Skanda maatar bhagavati dure kaantaravaasini
//8//

You are the Knowledge-of-the-highest-truth among sciences, and you are that sleep of creatures from which there is no waking. O mother of Skanda (Lord Muruga), possessor of the six (highest) attributes of O Durga, that dwells in the most inaccessible regions.
Svaahaakaarah svadhaa caiva kalaa kaashthaa sarasvatee/
Saavitri veda-maataa ca tathaa vedaanta ucyate
//9//
You are called Swaha, and Swadha, and the subtle divisions of time such
as Kala, and Kashta. You are the goddess of knowledge: Saraswati, and
the mother of the Vedas, and the personification of Vedanta.

Stutaasi tvam mahaadevi vishuddhenaantaaraatmanaa/
[FONT='comic sans ms',sans-serif]Jayo bhavatu me nityam tvat prasaadaad ranaajire
//10//

With inner mind purified, I praise you, O great goddess; let victory
always attend me through your grace, on the field of battle.[/font]
Kaantaara bhaya durgeshu bhaktaanaam caalayeshu ca/
Nityam vasasi paataale yuddhe jayasi daanavaan
//11//

In inaccessible regions, where there is fear, in places of difficulty, in
the abodes of your worshippers and in the nether regions (Patala),

you always dwell. And in battle you always defeat the Danavas (a demon race).
Tvam jambhanee mohinee ca maayaa hreeh shreestathaiva ca/Samdhyaa prabhaavatee caiva saavitree jananee tathaa
//12//
You are the unconsciousness, the sleep, the illusion, the modesty, the
beauty of all creatures. You are the twilight, and the radiant light of day!
You are Savitri, and you are the mother of all creation.

Tushtih pushtir dhrtir deeptish candraaditya vivardhinee/
Bhootir bhootimataam sanhkye veeksyase siddhacaaranaih
//13//

You are contentment, development, fortitude and light. You increase the radiance of the Sun and the Moon. You are the prosperity of those that prosper. The Siddhas and the Charanas behold you in deep contemplation!

Sanjaya continued:
Knowing the measure of Partha's devotion, Durga who is always graciously inclined towards humans, appeared in the space and in the presence of Govinda, said these words.

The Goddess said:
"Within a short time you shall surely conquer your foes, O Pandava. O invincible one, you have Narayana (Lord Krsna) as your help. You are incapable of being defeated by foes, even by Indra — the wielder of the thunderbolt himself."

Having said this, the boon-giving Goddess disappeared soon. The son of Kunti, however, obtaining that boon, regarded himself as successful. He then mounted his own excellent chariot. And then Krishna and Arjuna, seated together, blew their celestial conches.

The person, who recites this hymn rising at dawn, is freed from fear at all times.

Jai Shree Krishna