 |
||
|
||
| Advertise with us! |
|
|
.. stuff deleted ..
I am also finding the animated dialogue between Sunil and Kunal
amusing. Their "my god is better than your god" arguments are
just another form of the neverending quest for totemistic
superiority.
The dialog is not simply that my God is better than your God. The
dialog centers around the fact that many deities attempted to compete
for the title of the Brahman in Hinduism. The debate is about which
deity if any had prevailed in that regard. My study of history and
Hindu legends seems to indicate that Shiva had prevailed. I have
cited several legends in that regard and historians also agree that at
a certain point Shaivism overcame Vaishnavism and was actually the
first major "reformist" movement in Hinduism which opposed castism.
But Mr. Sethi naturally disagrees and is not willing to concede this
historical fact. He wishes to ignore that even the later religions
such as Buddhism used the philosophical framework of Shaivism as their
philosophical foundation. He wishes to furthermore disregard that it
was Shaivism that eventually prevailed over Buddhism.
This historical trend is also identified in legends where Vishnu
eventually assists Shiva in battling Asuras or other deities rather
than defeating them on his own. Later legends, such as Taraka's
describe Indra and Vishnu as being the first casualty in the war
indicating that they were not as philosophically advanced relative to
Taraka or other Asuras of the time. Vishnu and Brahma had to go to
Shiva to defeat such Asuras and this became a trend!
However, it is important to distinguish these arguments from
the serious attempt of the ancient philosophers to determine the
attributes of the Divine Absolute worshipped by the seers of the
Vedas. Rather than pooh-poohing any discussion of the religious
nature of the Divine Absolute, one should place these exegetical
arguments in proper context. Undoubtedly, there is only one Divine
Absolute -- on this point all the various philosophical schools
and religious traditions are agreed. However, the Vedanta and Vedic
tradition also speak many distinct divine beings -- Indra, Varuna,
Vishnu, Siva, Ganesha, Parvati, Lakshmi, etc.
Correct. It is certainly the case, not a possibility that both
Vaishnavs and Shaivites and even the followers of Brahma were at one
time attempting to describe the Divine Absolute and were thus mutual
competitors. That is the subject of the legend where Shiva manifests
consciousness to the other two while they were fighting for supremacy.
.. stuff deleted ..
The third approach taken by many traditional philosophers is that
the various epithets used in the Vedas, while apparently referring
to lesser deities, actually etymologically refer to the same Supreme
Divinity. While Ramakrishnan above may think this silly, this
exegetical method actually has the explicit approval of the
Vedanta-Sutras themselves and is perhaps the best way of reconciling
the various apparent contradictions in the Upanishads. Therefore,
while minds untutored in Vedanta may think that the word "vishnu"
refers to some lesser deity Vishnu, or that "rudra" refers to the
three-eyed being who is said to reside in a cemetery, they both
refer only to the All-Pervasive Supreme Self, with the true meanings
of "vishnu" and "rudra" referring only to those unique distinguishing
characteristics of the Absolute.
This is precisely what has happened. Once Vishnu was overtaken by
Shiva, the Vaishnavas borrowed the ideas of the Shaivites. If we
didn't have the legends we would have no way of knowing who introduced
consciousness into the system. We would have no way of knowing who
originated the concepts of yoga or samkhya. But we DO HAVE THE
LEGENDS, AND WE DO KNOW!
It is quite apparent by the time of the Skanda Purana that Vaishnavas
are now part and parcel of Hinduism which has combined Shaivism and
Vaishnavism. With the marriage of Shiva and Parvati and their
acceptance by the Vaishnava tradition, the Vaishnavas still found it
difficult to accept the supremacy of Shiva, particularly the
difference in their traditions. They felt that they had to justify
their vegetarian tradition somehow, and whenever they do so in the
Skanda Purana, they refer to the "original" dharma of Hari. Thus it
becomes obvious that the phrase was written by a Vaishnava. However,
it is also apparent by the phrase that the "original" dharma of Hari
is no longer quite as strong! ;-)
The intent of the dialog is not simply to prove the supremacy of
Shaivism but to make the Vaishnavas aware that several of their ideas
of material evolution have already been supreseded. Such concepts as
caste-based evolution based on karmic accounting that they have
attempted to defend are actually old ideas, as are ideas based on
assigning religious merit to vegetarianism and certain good/bad
actions to determine if someone will go to the next higher stage.
They all rely on the view of the material world as quite "real." That
these ideas are weak and can be broken down by using Shaivite theories
should be quite obvious by now and if people still wish to defend
these Vaishnava ideas, they are more than welcome to try!
|
||
|
||
| Advertise with us! |
|
|