[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: Siva as Yogi?
-
Subject: Re: Siva as Yogi?
-
From: Ramakrishnan Balasubramanian <rbalasub@ecn.purdue.edu>
-
Date: 13 Dec 1995 01:56:49 GMT
-
Approved: srh <srh@rbhatnagar>
-
Article: 716 of soc.religion.hindu
-
Newsgroups: soc.religion.hindu
-
Organization: none
susarla.krishna@studentserver1.swmed.edu (Hari Krishna Susarla) wrote
>In article <4a2cin$dch@babbage.ece.uc.edu>,
> rbalasub@culbertson.ecn.purdue.edu (Ramakrishnan Balasubramanian) wrote:
>>Subject: Re: Siva as yogi?
>>susarla.krishna@studentserver1.swmed.edu wrote:
>>
>>>rbalasub@engibous.ecn.purdue.edu (Ramakrishnan Balasubramanian) wrote:
>>In the Shiva Rahasya Chapter in the Skanda Purana, there is a shloka of 40
>>verses where Vishnu praises Lord Shiva as the Ultimate truth and it ends as
>>
>>Ithi Sthuthva shivam vishnu: pranamya cha muhurmuhu:
>>etc. so on and so forth.
>>
>>This is enough proof that Shiva is worshiped by Lord Vishnu. Of-course one
>>can invent yet another classification that these Puranas are tamasic so that
>>ignoring such verses or interpreting it according to one's convenience is
>>justified.
>
>Vishnu is also very devoted to His devotees. I don't know about this business
>about Vishnu praising Shiva as the "Ultimate truth." I do know, however, that
>such an idea is not supported by the Vedas or the sattvic puranas.
**
What do you mean "I don't know ...". Do you want me to xerox the portions and
send it to you? As I have already said in one of my other posts
"Sarvo vai rudras tasmai rudraya namo asthu" - MahaNarayana Upanishad.
Shiva IS at some places described as the ultimate truth.
And Shiva is also very devoted to his devotees.
**
>You write, "Of-course one can invent yet another classification that these
>Puranas are tamasic so that ignoring such verses or..." In fact, I did not
>"invent" this classification. It is there in the Puranas themselves, and is
>accepted by the acharyas whose philosophies are supported by the Puranas.
>
>The Padma Purana, one of the sattvic Puranas, describes which interpretations
>and schools of Vedic thought are authentic:
**
You seem to have misunderstood my questions. Where is the classification? It
must be said by none other than Vishnu himself, after the stanzas praising
Shiva AND in the same purana. I will not accept any other person's statements.
The Padma purana also has a "Veda sara Shiva stotra" said by Lord Krishna (in
possibly one of his tamasic moments?) in which Lord Shiva is praised as the
truth and Lord Krishna doesn't add any disclaimers about Saatvic, Rajasic or
tamasic. Infact one of the names Shiva is described by is "Vishnugarva hara".
Lord K also describes how the stotra came about. Brahma, Vishnu and Maheshwara
pray to Sadasiva and he gives them this sahasranama. After this Lord K does not
say "Standard disclaimers apply" :-). When Lord K himself tells this with no
qualification what-so ever in a "saatvic" purana (:-)), I fail to see what say
Bhrigu Muni has in this matter (I am quoting Vivek Pai's example in another
post). Find me a quote by Lord K, that he gave THIS particular sahasranama for
tamasic people, in the SAME Paadma purana, if possible.
In any case, if it's a "saatvic" purana, the methods Lord K gives in this must
be for Saatvic people. Oh, BTW this particular piece is in the "Bilvakeshwara
Mahatmya" section.
**
>These four sampradayas are all Vaishnava sampradayas (even the one founded by
>Lord Siva). And all Vaishnavas accept the 3-fold classification of the Puranas
>into sattvic, rajasic, and tamasic, and they give most weight to the sattvic
>ones, which, as Sri Narender Reddy pointed out, always present some form of
>Vishnu as supreme.
**
Where is the proof for this "tamasic purana" fiction? I have also indicated
that Lord Vishnu (or Krishna) himself must have said it right after the shlokas
on Shiva. Vaishnavite teachers' statements will be summarily rejected. So will
comic posts in srh about "tamasic puranas" with no good proof what-so ever.
**
>
>In fact, this same Purana also mentions Sankaracarya, and states that he was
>an incarnation of Lord Siva who was instructed to teach an incomplete
>understanding of the Vedanta (advaita) that would appeal to the shunyavadi
>Buddhists. Therefore, his philosophy of worshiping all the gods as the same
>God is not Vedic, but was simply made up by him as a temporary understanding
>to appeal to people who were otherwise not ready to become proper Vaishnavas.
**
Bwahahahahahah !!!! Fish, anyone? Actually I smell a putrid great white shark
:-). Since the puranas were compiled long before Sankara arrived, I strongly
doubt this version. Was this particular copy of the Paadma purana found in
Vaishnavite-ville by El-Vaishnava and translated by El "Let's change scriptures
to suit our purpose" acharya?
This only shows how much the Vaishnavas are scared of Sankara. Since the logic
is irrefutable, let's inject something into the puranas and claim puranic
superiority.
**
>The idea that the Vedas present some conclusion other than monotheism came not
>>from the Vedas themselves, but from Christian fundamentalist missionaries
>whose ulterior motivation was to break the faith of the people in Vedic
>religion. By presenting the Vedas as inconsistent and preoccupied with
>superstitious worship of various demigods, they managed to gain many
>converts by showing that theirs was the only monotheistic faith. Although
>there are many facilities for worshipping various demigods for material
>benediction in the Vedas, the Vedas are nonetheless clear that Vishnu is the
>Supreme Personality of Godhead, and that worshipping Him is the goal of human
>life.
**
They do not. Consider the following verses from the first section of the
Taittariya Aranyaka (the Aranyaka section also contains the Taittariya
Upanishad and the MahaNarayana Upanishad), also called the Suraya Namaskara
Prashnaha.
Eva hyeva, Eva hyagne, Eva hi vayo, Eva heendra, Evahi pooshan, Eva hi devaha.
Clearly, they pray to all these Gods for benediction, and this is in the
Aranyaka section, by the Upanishadic seers themselves. No further proof is
necessary.
**
>>The same can be said of Buddhism. And Buddhism is against any desire, infact.
>>So what's the point?
>>
>
>Present day Buddhism is a far cry from what the Buddha himself preached. The
>real Buddha stressed ahimsa and vegetarianism, whereas many Buddhists take
>meat today with very little restriction. Actually, i know of one sect of
>Tibetan Buddhists that have some restrictions on meat-eating; they are
>forbidden from eating crocodile flesh, snake flesh, human flesh, etc. which
>means that they can go on eating practically everything else (I'm not kidding
>about this, I actually met some Tibetan Buddhist monks and asked them about
>their dietary restrictions!) *Most* of what is called Buddhism today is
**
Buddha in his discourses to Bikshus also talks about what food to accept as
alms. If a meat dish is offered they should accept it provided that it wasn't
specially cooked for them. See "The Lion's Roar" for instance. So Tibetan B. is
not probably "a far cry from what the Buddha himself preached".
**
>>Indeed. You were trying to club Saivism and Smarthaism together. I thought
>you
>>didn't know. I must have guessed better. It's again the "Vaishnavites
>>vs the rest of the ignorant folks tactic".
>
>I was trying to do nothing of the sort. But I will not continue to dignify
>such accusations with response. I find it more pleasing to talk about saastra
>rather than indulge in ego wars.
**
I am unable to follow what you are saying here. Is it your opinion that I find
it more pleasing to indulge in ego wars? It never struck me that we were
indulging in ego wars. I fail to see how you arrived at that conclusion. Is it
because I use sarcasm in my posts? In that case I should point out that you too
use sarcasm. Or do you feel if one vehemently dis-agrees with your philosophy
he must be indulging in ego wars? In either case you have arrived at the wrong
conclusion IMHO.
**
>If I accept your opinions on the Vedanta, then I have to conclude that the
>Christian missionaries were right after all, and the Vedic literatures are
>nothing more than a hodgepodge of contradictory truths. In fact, in order to
>accept this, I would have to ignore the authority of the Bhagavad-Gita, the
>Srimad Bhagavatam, the Vedas and Upanishads.
**
I should say the same thing. I have quoted ad nauseam from the Vedas, which
contradict your opinions. And there are NO contradictions I can see, atleast if
you accept the Advaitic philosophy.
**
>I'm sure you must feel very righteous going about it this way. After all, who
>would not feel like a hero who tried to speak out against bigotry? So, if you
**
I, for example. I wouldn't feel like a hero. What is heroic about it? It's
just a statement of fact. I don't feel heroic about speaking the truth. Do you?
Anyone else? If anyone else feels heroic about speaking the truth please e-mail
me. I would like to know the reason so that I too can start feeling heroic.
**
>are unable to substantiate your arguments, just label the other person or idea
>as bigot/prejudice/intolerance/etc and go on about your way. Frankly, I don't
>see why such a tactic should be used if you were so secure in your opinions.
**
When I see and quote examples contradicting the other person and he starts
inventing new concepts to justify his arguments, I feel that there is bigotry
and state it. Where is the in-security in my opinions because of this?
And by the way, isn't this a personal attack, trying to label my opinions as
insecure to lessen the weight of the evidence I have presented?
**
>By the way, I noticed that no one ever really addressed the point I made
>originally in this thread. It was asked why Shiva is always depicted as a yogi
>(which implies that he is a devotee of someone, an idea which runs contrary to
> contemporary Hinduism which considers him to be equal to Vishnu). I quoted
>saastra to show that he is the greatest devotee of Visnu, and that is why he
>meditates on japa beads. Other than the standard accusations of bigotry,
>sectarianism, etc no one has been able to conclusively explain how it is Shiva
>can be both the supreme God and a devotee of God. If you take the explanations
>given in the Vedic literatures, then a consistent picture of the Absolute
>Truth and the multiplicity of the demigods emerges. However, if we take the
>opinions of Ken Stuart and Ramakrishna Balasubramanian on this topic, then you
>have to accept that there is no absolute understanding; just believe whatever
>you want.
Well, Dakshinamurti sits in silence absorbed in the bliss of the SELF. And nice
imagination, he does not roll any rosary beads. I fail to see where you got
such a description of D. In all temples I have seen in T.Nadu, he is not shown
with any Rosary beads. It must say it is quite a comical interpretation of D.
For the real stuff see Shankara's stotra or the Skanda Purana.
[long exposition by Hari Krishna Susarla's containing his views on "sanctioned"
and "un-sanctioned" Hinduism with quotes from Einstein on scientific methods
deleted]
>With this thought, I remain.
>H. Krishna Susarla
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
