[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: Siva as Yogi?
Ramakrishna Balasubramanian (or was that Ken Stuart? Aw, who
cares, they're all one anyway) wrote:
> susarla.krishna@studentserver1.swmed.edu (Hari Krishna
Susarla) wrote
> >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?
"I don't know" means that I don't know of any references for
Vishnu praising Shiva as the ultimate truth in the sattvic
texts. The ultimate authority for Vedic/Puranic knowledge is
the Bhagavatam, and it states that Siva is a devotee of Vishnu
in very clear terms.
>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.
Yes, Shiva is described as ultimate truth for those who do not
wish to accept Vishnu. But, nevertheless, it is Vishnu from
whom Shiva comes:
naaraayaNaH paro devas
tasmaaj jaats' caturmukhaH
tasmaad rudro 'bhavad devaH
sa ca sarva-jn~ataam' gataH
"NaaraayaNa is the Supreme Personality of Godhead, and from Him
Brahmaa was born, from whom S'iva was born." (Varaaha PuraaNa)
yo brahmaaNam' vidadhaati puurvam' yo vai vedaam's' ca
gaapayati sma kRSNaH
"It was Krishna who in the beginning instructed Brahmaa in
Vedic knowledge and who disseminated Vedic knowledge in the
past." (Gopaala-taapanii UpaniSad 1.24)
atha puruSo ha vai naaraayaNo 'kaamayate prajaaH sRjeyeti
"Then the Supreme Personality NaaraayaNa desired to create
living entities."
naaraayaNaad brahmaa jaayate
naaraayaNaad prajaapatiH prajaayate,
naaraayaNaad indro jaayate
naaraayaNaad aSTau vasavo jaayante
naaraayaNaad ekaadas'a rudraa jaayante
naaraayaNaad dvaadas'aadityaaH
"From NaaraayaNa, Brahmaa is born, and from naaraayaNa the
patriarchs are also born. From NaaraayaNa, Indra is born, from
NaaraayaNa the eight Vasus are born, from NaaraayaNa the eleven
Rudras are born, from NaaraayaNa the twelve Aadityas are born."
(NaaraayaNa UpaniSad - 1)
> 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.
I did not misunderstand. The classification is confirmed by the
acharyas of the four sampradayas, the same sampradayas which
the Padma Purana legitimates as genuine. Since the Padma Purana
has stated that these sampradayas are geniune, their teachings
must be considered to be authoritative.
The members of the authentic sampradayas are all Vaishnavas.
They have great respect for Lord Shiva, but they do not
consider him to be the same as Vishnu. And they all accept the
3-fold classification of the Puranas, with the sattvic ones
being most authoritative. The acharyas of these sampradayas
trace their teachings back to Vishnu Himself, so what they
teach is the same as what He taught. They do not teach anything
which is contrary to the will of Lord Vishnu.
As far as finding *scriptural* verses regarding the 3-fold
classification, it is not necessary because the guru in
genuine disciplic succession from Vishnu is the transparent via
medium through which the message of scripture is transmitted.
However, just to drive home the point, one need only look as
far as the Bhagavatam which I will quote later on in this text.
Vyasa states that the Bhagavatam is the essence of all Vedic
knowledge. Therefore, its teachings are final.
So, you see, in order for you to claim to believe in the Padma
Purana as scripture, then you have to be prepared to
acknowledge the disciples of Ramanuja, Madhva, Nimbarka, and
Vishnuswami as authorities on transcendental knowledge, since
the Padma Purana itself states that they are the acharyas from
whom we should receive such knowledge.
>
> 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.
Frankly, I am starting to doubt that this is an authentic
version of the Padma Purana. Before I can respond to any of
this, please provide the disciplic succession through which
this Purana was received. When I quote scripture, I only use
verses coming through Brahma-Madhva-Gaudiya sampradaya. That is
to ensure that the scripture is authentic. However, you have
not made it clear whose translation you are reading or whether
or not he is associated with a genuine sampradaya.
>
> 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.
Bhagavatam is a saatvic purana. In fact, it is the *ultimate*
Puranic authority. Srila Vyasadeva writes therein:
s'riimad-bhaagavate mahaa-muni-kRte kim' vaa parair iis'varaH
sadyo hRdy avarudhyate 'tra kRtibhiH s'us'ruuSubhis
tat-kSaNaat
"This beautiful Bhaavatam, compiled by the great sage
Vyaasadeva [in his maturity], is sufficient in itself for God
realization. What is the need of any other scripture? As soon
as one attentively and submissively hears the message of
Bhaagavatam, by this culture of knowledge the Supreme Lord is
established within his heart." (SB 1.1.2)
Also:
nimna-gaanaam' yathaa gan'gaa
devaanaam acyuto yathaa
vaiSNavaanaam' yathaa s'ambhuH
puraaNaanaam idam' tathaa
"Just as the Gan'gaa is the greatest of all rivers, Lord Acyuta
the supreme among deities and Lord S'ambhu [S'iva' the greatest
of all VaiSNavas, so S'riimad-Bhaagavatam is the greatest of
all PuraaNas." (SB 12.13.16)
Note here that the Puraana states that 1) it is the greatest of
all Puranas, 2) Vishnu (Acyuta) is the greatest of all deities,
3) Siva is the greatest of all devotees of Vishnu.
So, the most authoritative scripture has stated who Vishnu is
and who Siva is. Even if other deities are presented as supreme
in other texts, this Purana asserts that its contents are the
final word.
>
> **
> >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
The proof is given by the acharyas of the 4 bona fide
sampradayas, or disciplic successions through which spiritual
knowledge is to be received. Their traditions are legitimated
by the Padma Purana, and they accept the 3-fold classification
of the Puranas into tamasic, rajasic, and sattvic and have done
so for many centuries.
Of course, we can accept the statements given by great
authorities such as Madhvacarya, Ramanujacarya, Sri Krishna
Caitanya, and so on, or we can accept Ramakrishna
Balasubramanian. But to be honest, I don't believe Ramakrishna
B. is a recognized authority on the Vedanta. If he is, someone
please give me the verses which substantiate him as a bona fide
acharya. I certainly would not want to commit an offense
against a great personality.
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.
The proof has already been given. The problem is that you
consider your interpretations to be more authoritative than
those of the acharyas and the Bhagavatam.
>
> Bwahahahahahah !!!! Fish, anyone? Actually I smell a putrid
great white shark
Maybe you should become vegetarian?
> :-). Since the puranas were compiled long before Sankara
arrived, I strongly
> doubt this version.
Vyasadeva, the compiler of the Puranas, could see into past,
present, and future like any great personality. He could
therefore describe certain events which were to take place.
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?
No, they were passed down in disciplic succession by one
acharya to the next. That is the way Vedic knowledge is to be
received.
> This only shows how much the Vaishnavas are scared of
Sankara. Since the logic
> is irrefutable,
Irrefutable? Oh, that sounds like a challenge. Please, tell me
of Sankara's logic. I can't claim to be a great debater in the
Vedantic tradition, but I have heard absolutely nothing to
convince me that Sankara's philosophy deserves serious
consideration.
Vaishnavas reject Sankara's philosophy because it misleads
people from surrendering to the Supreme Lord. Lord Krishna has
stated that the whole purpose of human life is "sarva dharmaan
parityajya, mam ekam saranam vraja." But the monists and
impersonalists don't want to do this, because they imagine
themselves to be on the same level as the Lord.
> let's inject something into the puranas and claim puranic
> superiority.
So far, it would appear that it is you who are
injecting/modifying/mistranslating to suit your own purposes. I
read your response to Ken Stuart, and would have responded to
it were there anything sensible therein. I found it most
amusing that you accused literatures translated/distributed by
ISKCON to be fabrications. Although not an ISKCON member
myself, I do note that in Srila Prabhupada's Gita translation,
his disciplic succession is printed just before Chapter 1. The
sampradaya is traced all the way back to Lord Krishna Himself
through great acharyas like Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati, Sri
Krishna Caitanya, and Vyasa Mahamuni, the compiler of the
Vedas. Considering that other sampradayas accept Srila
Prabhupada as an authentic Vaishanva and respect him as such,
that (along with the disciplic succession) substantiates him as
a genuine authority on the Vedanta.
Therefore, I must now ask the following. Who is your guru? What
sampradaya does he come from? On what basis do you say that the
Bhagavad-Gita As It Is is not authentic? What Vedic acharyas
have recognized you as an authority? Granted that these
transcendental literatures do not agree with your own personal
opinions, but I am stilling trying to figure out why I should
give your opinions more weight than the teachings of an acharya
in disciplic succession.
> **
> >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.
First of all, try to understand what you are saying before
trying to defeat someone else in argument. God is the Supreme
Being, and there can only be one Supreme Being by definition.
If there was more than one Supreme, then that would be
meaningless.You have translated the above verse as saying that
"they pray to all these Gods..." That makes no sense.
This verse mentions Agni, Vayu, Indra and other devas. However,
it does not state that they are on the same level as Vishnu,
God. People pray to the demigods for a variety of reasons. The
demigods are all empowered representatives of Lord Vishnu who
carry out specific tasks in the material universes as a service
to Him.
These devas, or demigods, are not on the same level as Vishnu.
The Bhagavad-Gita states that Lord Krishna is deva-deva
jagat-pate, the God of all gods (Gita 10.15). In 9.23 He states
that those who worship other demigods (anya devataaa) actually
worship Him only, but in a wrong way (avidhi puurvakam). The
verses are so clear that Krishna, or Vishnu, is on a higher
level than the other demigods. There is no way an honest person
can look at these and come to some other conclusion.
> 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".
None of the Buddhist texts can be traced back to the Buddha
himself, since the Buddha did not write anything. Instead, it
was his disciples who put his teachings into written form, and
they only did so once he passed on. As a result, the various
sects were born because each one let their own personal
interpretations color what they were taught. That's why you
have strange regulations like allowing people to eat meat
cooked by another person even though Buddha was emphatically
against violence of all kinds.
> **
> >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.
I don't present my opinions. I present the teachings of the
Brahma-Madhva-Gaudiya sampradaya, to the best of my
unfortunately limited ability.
And I have quoted from the Vedic literatures as well, the only
difference being that I have used sources passed down through
sampradaaya, as opposed to translations done by some non-Hindu
scholar or some new-age Hindu group.
And there are NO contradictions I can see, atleast if
> you accept the Advaitic philosophy.
I do not accept Advaita philosophy, because Advaita philosophy
is completely contradictory to both saastra and common sense.
Bhagavad-Gita clearly refutes Advatia philosophy, so there is
no need to accept it.
>
> 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?
Let's get back on base here. You have stated that it is bigotry
to declare any one deity (to the exclusion of other deities),
to be Supreme. Now, I have pointed out many places where Lord
Krishna is exclusively described as the Supreme, with other
devas being given secondary status. So, what is your answer to
that? Is Bhagavad-Gita a bigoted text? Is Arjuna, who accepted
Krishna's supremacy, a bigot? Are the Acharyas of the Vaishnava
sampradayas (which are authenticated by the Padma Purana)
bigots? They have very clearly stated in no uncertain terms
that the various devas are NOT on the same level as Hari.
> 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?
It's not anymore of a personal attack than calling someone else
a bigot, or saying that his translations are total
fabrications. Actually, the latter is simply arrogant. For you
to say that a translation or teaching is bogus, you have to do
so from the strength of a legitimate Vedic tradition. Until you
do, I can only accept your translations as personally-motivated
and not to be considered on the same level as the commentaries
given by the acharyas.
> Well, Dakshinamurti sits in silence absorbed in the bliss of
the SELF. And nice
The Bhagavatam says he is a devotee of Vishnu. You say
otherwise. Guess which side I'm going to believe?
> 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
Indeed, he is usually shown in his linga form. If memory
serves, this is because he was cursed by Brigu Muni to be
worshipped only in that form on the account of an offense he
committed. That same Brigu Muni also tried to anger Vishnu, but
instead Lord Vishnu surprised him by His merciful attitude, and
it was concluded by Brigu and the other sages that Vishnu is
the Supreme Lord.
regards,
-- H. Krishna Susarla
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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
Follow-Ups:
