[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: VISHNU and SHIVA
-
Subject: Re: VISHNU and SHIVA
-
From: Ramakrishnan Balasubramanian <rbalasub@ecn.purdue.edu>
-
Date: 12 Dec 1995 02:36:16 GMT
-
Approved: srh <srh@rbhatnagar>
-
Article: 706 of soc.religion.hindu
-
Newsgroups: soc.religion.hindu
-
Organization: none
Dr. Narender P. Reddy wrote
>On Wed, 6 Dec 1995, Pawan (softsols@aol.com (Soft Sols)
>There is only one supreme being from whom everything emnated. Although
>supreme being from whom evrything emnated. The mahopanishath declares
> Thadahu- Ekohaavai Narayana Aaseeth. Na Brahmaneshano.....
>Na nakshathrani, na suryo, na chandrama. Sa Ekaki na rametha.
>Thasyadhyananthasthya yagna sthoma muchyathe.....
>Also, the Narayanopanishad declares:
> Om ada puruhohavai Narayanoakmayatha Prjasnayethi..... Narayanth
>Brhmaajaythe, Narayanth Rudrojayathe, Narayanth Indrojayathe... Ethath
>rugveda shirodheethe.
**
Of course.
**
> The Yajurveda portion of the Naraynopanishad declares:
> Adha nithyo Narayana. Brhma Narayana, Shivashya Narayana....Shuddo devo
>eko Narayana Nadvithosthikatchit
**
Really? Which Narayana Upanishad are you talking about? Is it the one referred
to as the MahaNarayana Upanishad or Yajniki Upanishad? It's in the Taittariya
Aranyaka portion of the Krishna Yajur Veda (the last chapter, in fact). And
what is this "Yajur portion" and "Atharva portion" of the Upanishad? It does
have mantras from 3 Vedas. But it is very definitely belongs to the Yajur Veda.
And there seem to be none of the verses you have quoted above. Maybe it's in
the Shukla Yajur Veda?
Anyway, I read the same (?) Upanishad regularly and one passage goes;
Sarvo vi Rudras tasmai Rudraya namo Asthu.
"Every thing is Rudra, to this Rudra we pay obeisance"
Note that there is NO qualification to the statement. EVERYTHING is Rudra =>
Vishnu, Brahma et.al (including the whole universe) are just Rudra.
**
> Narayana is etarnal. There is only one (Nadvithosthi) Narayana. Brhma and
>Shiva came from him.
>The Athrava veda portion of the upanishad declares:
> Prathyaganandam .....Brhmanyo Devaikiputhro Brhmanyo Madhusudanaohm.
>Sarva bhuthasthamekam Narayanam. ... Ethadarva shirodheethe.
**
How about the Ganapati Upanishad (one of my favorites), from the very same
Atharva Veda?
Twameva kevalam kartasi, Twameva kevalam dharthasi,Twameva kevalam hartasi,
Twameva sarva kalvidam Brahmasi.
Everything is Lord Ganesha. Note that there are no qualifications to this
statement either.
**
>The pranav is refering to the parabramma who is Deviki's son
>madhusudhaana. Narayana is everything.
>In addition, the Purusha suktha, etc. (as described in my erlier
>communication) clearly point out that everything emnated from Narayana.
**
Read the Rudram where they say EVERYTHING is Rudra.
**
>Narayana Parabrahma srva karana karanam (Narayana is the cause of all
>causes). Brahma and Shiva never claimed that they can give moksha. Only
>Vishnu (Narayana) claimed that he can grant Mosksha.
**
Really? How about in the Linga Purana, where they claim that worship of the
Linga once will definitely lead to salvation? I don't know about Brahma, but
Shiva has claimed in various puranas that by worshiping him Moksha will be
attained.
**
>complete story. Even Shiva could not transcend Lord Vishnu's maya. For a
>while, Shiva was thinking that Vishnu in his Mohini form is actually a girl.
**
How droll! For a while Lord Vishnu thought that being a pig was really cool
(after the Varaha Avatar), till Lord Shiva got rid of his maya. How about
Lord Narasimha? Apparently he couldn't get out of the Rajasic mode, till
Lord Shiva got rid of his maya. Please consult the Skanda purana.
**
>When we go to a store, some times we find that even the manager or the
>owner is working on one of the counters during rush periods. For the
>customer who is interested only in purchasing, the store clereks and the
>manager or the owner appear to be equal. For the customer, they are all
>the store clereks. Yet, the manager or the owner is decides the policies
>and is different. In a similar way, for a person who is seeking only the
>material benefits, Brham, Vishnu, and Shiva appera to be equal.
>Narayana has given Brhma the work of creation and Shiva the work of
>distruction (in the material universe). Since, Narayana thinks that
>the the work of maintenance requires intricate skills, he has kept the
>work to himself. Three of them may appear equal, but only Vishnu can
>take you out of the Maya and grant you moksha {Please refer to
>Bhagavadgitha, or any of the six satvic puranans}. All the clerks
>including the manager at the counter can sell you. But, only the manager
>or the owner can give you a job or buy something from you.
**
When we are at it, how about the following analogy? A new worker may get
confused by the different ways two managers ask him to execute a task. After a
while the worker realizes that the contradictory ways don't matter, Each one
just says it in a different way, choose the one which appeals the most and
seems the easiest. Till he come to that conclusion he is made to follow the
orders of a particular manager so that he is not totally lost.
**
>Since everybody is rather familier with the Sathya Narayana Puja (drawn
>form Skanda puran one of the six thamasic puranas), next time you go to a
>temple and perform the puja, observe the sequence. First, you do the puja
>to Navagraha (after Ganesh), then to the ashta-dikpalalkas, and then to
>the panch loka palakas. These loka palakas are Ganesh, Brhama, Vishnu,
>Shiva , and Parvathi. Then you start puja for Lord Sathya Narayana. This
>indicates that the dikpalakas have more power than the navagrahas, the
>loka palakas are controling the material world and have even higher
>power, and above all is Narayana.
**
BTW since the puja is from a tamasic purana, it must also be tamasic. Right?
Since, you were the person who introduced the readers of srh to the "tamasic
purana" concept, let me ask you if there is a tamasic portion of the Vedas?
Would the Rudram, Ganapati Upanishad etc come under the tamasic portion by some
strange coincidence?
**
>Yes, the God (Narayana) is always and will be supreme because he is the
>supporter of everything including the maya.
The only place where we seem to agree.
Ramakrishnan.
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Moderator: Ajay Shah Submissions: srh@rbhatnagar.csm.uc.edu
Administrivia: srh-request@rbhatnagar.csm.uc.edu
Archives: http://rbhatnagar.csm.uc.edu:8080/soc_hindu_home.html
