tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8685390517890816599.post8779588331796389626..comments2024-03-26T13:00:38.287+05:30Comments on Narayanastra – Defending Vaishnavism as the supreme Vedic position: Bhagavad Gita: Shiva in the Vibhuti Yoga and Vishvarupa ChaptersHumble Bhagavata Bandhuhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01932475050150832871noreply@blogger.comBlogger51125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8685390517890816599.post-36653332969832854282018-04-24T23:38:40.720+05:302018-04-24T23:38:40.720+05:30Cont'd from above....
Thus, even in this tAma...Cont'd from above....<br /><br />Thus, even in this tAmasic section, Shiva is not mentioned as the subject matter of the Bhagavad Gita though he is glorified in terms denoting supremacy. “tad aisvaram” refers to the individual self described in Chapters 1-6. <br /><br />Vyasa is simply saying Arjuna has seen Rudra and Krishna has instructed him on the nature of the Jivatma as distinct from the body. So Arjuna has knowledge of paramatma, the one to be attained (taken as Rudra here for the sake of arthavAda in a tAmasic context) and Jivatma, whose knowledge is needed to wean away from grief. There is nothing to suggest Rudra is being hailed as the subject of the Gita, or that "jnAnam tad aisvaram dicyam" refers to Rudra as our resident Mahapashupatastra imbecile thinks.<br /><br />Enough with this tAmasic section. Now that we have explained it, time to discard it wholesale as veda-virodha. Do not get deluded by the tAmasa purANAs, for that is their intent.<br /><br />~Finis~<br />Aaryamaanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8685390517890816599.post-57633512175496311152018-04-24T23:36:21.626+05:302018-04-24T23:36:21.626+05:30Cont'd from above...
Having explained this sh...Cont'd from above...<br /><br />Having explained this shloka, here is the next one:<br /><br />jñānaṃ tadaiśvaraṃ divyaṃ yathāvad viditaṃ tvayā /<br />svayameva hṛṣīkeśaḥ prītyovāca sanātanaḥ //<br /> KūrmP_1,28.59 //<br /><br />Meaning: You have the divine knowledge that pertains to the individual self that is the ruler of the body (aisvaram). It was declared to you with love by Hrishikesha, the Lord who is the controller of the senses and hence the indweller of the Jiva.<br /><br />“tad aisvaram” refers to the individual self. You would know from our Ishvara Gita commentary of the first chapter (last shloka) that the Jivatma is called "Ruler" as it is the ruler, supporter and nourisher of the body.<br /><br />The idea is, Arjuna has seen Rudra and he has knowledge of the Jivatma as distinct from the body as described by the Lord in Gita chapters 1-6. Thus, he should not grieve, which is mentioned in the next shloka:<br /><br />gaccha gaccha svakaṃ sthānaṃ na śokaṃ kartumarhasi /<br />vrajasva parayā bhaktyā śaraṇyaṃ śaraṇaṃ śivam // <br /><br />Meaning: Go to your residence. Do not grieve. Surrender with bhakti to Shiva who is worthy of being the refuge.<br /><br />Since this is a tAmasic section, it simply says Arjuna has no grief as he has seen Rudra and knows the nature of the individual self, rather than saying he knows Krishna. Rudra is taken as supreme here, for sure, but he is not mentioned as the subject of the Bhagavad Gita. <br /><br />Even here, it is not extremely inappropriate to take “sivam” as referring to the supremely auspicious Lord Narayana who is worthy of refuge. Alternatively, one can say it means he should surrender to Shiva with devotion for knowledge of Brahman. Context doesn’t matter in sections like these which are arthavAda. <br /><br />Cont'd...<br />Aaryamaanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8685390517890816599.post-35283533497965666752018-04-24T23:33:51.359+05:302018-04-24T23:33:51.359+05:30Cont'd from above...
Having explained lengthi...Cont'd from above...<br /><br />Having explained lengthily that worship of Shiva is good in Kali Yuga, we see the two shlokas that have been quoted. Interpreting them as follows:<br /><br />dṛṣṭavānasi taṃ devaṃ viśvākṣaṃ viśvatomukham /<br />pratyakṣameva sarveśaṃ rudraṃ sarvajagadgurum // KūrmP_1,28.58 //<br /><br />Meaning: Oh Arjuna! You have seen that god Rudra directly, who is the Eye of the Universe, whose mind reaches everywhere (Visvatomukham), who is the Lord of all, the universal teacher of the knowledge of Brahman.<br /><br />While this section takes Rudra as supreme, there is no compulsion to interpret each and every shloka that way. For even while declaring supremacy, tAmasa purANAs slip up and often leave it ambiguous enough to interpret it in terms of rudra’s jIvatva. Here, it can be said Rudra is the eye of the Universe since he is resorted to by all for the knowledge of Brahman. Note that “sarvajagad gurum” is mentioned.<br /><br />(Note: Some recensions have “sarvajagadmayam” which can be interpreted as “he whose body is the Universe”, which in turn can refer to RudrAntaryAmin. It is acceptable since Rudra being the medium of knowledge of Brahman is referenced by previous adjectives).<br /><br />Visvatomukham - The term “mukham” means “face” and can be interpreted as “mind” according to Sri Vedanta Desikan. “visvatomukham” thus means rudra’s dharma-bhUta-jnAna (attributive knowledge) has pervaded everywhere.<br /><br />Cont'd...Aaryamaanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8685390517890816599.post-36795551375723437582018-04-24T23:31:19.540+05:302018-04-24T23:31:19.540+05:30Cont'd from above...
So, let us examine this ...Cont'd from above...<br /><br />So, let us examine this section to see what it is actually saying:<br /><br />First, the tAmasatva of the section is established by these shlokas in the beginning:<br /><br />saṃdarśanād vai bhavataḥ śoko me vipulo gataḥ /<br />idānīṃ mama yat kāryaṃ brūhi padmadalekṣaṇa // KūrmP_1,27.6 //<br /><br />Meaning: Arjuna says: By seeing you, O lotus eyed one (Vyasa), my grief (on being separated from Krishna) has disappeared. Advise me on what to do.<br /><br />nānyat paśyāmi jantūnāṃmuktvā vārāṇasīṃ purīm /<br />sarvapāpapraśamanaṃ prāyaścittaṃ kalau yugeKūrmP_1,27.10 //<br /><br />Meaning: Vyasa says: In this terrible Kali Yuga, I do not perceive a better repentance for ridding the beings of sins than staying at Varanasi. <br /><br />Arjuna was dejected that Krishna had left for Paramapada. Vyasa is mentioned to be consoling him by extolling Varanasi, where Shiva resides, as the panacea for Kali Yuga. So, this section begins not with a generic inquiry, but with a specific intention to praise Varanasi. In doing so, it establishes that any praise of Shiva that follows is merely arthavAda that follows, an exaggeration to ensure that the kshetra and Shiva-bhakti is glorified. Thus this dialogue never happened<br /><br />Thus, in order to drive home the benefits of worshipping Shiva in Varanasi, this section assumes a tAmasic character in praising Shiva as the Supreme. The idea one reading this would gain is that even the sorrow of Arjuna in losing the Lord’s company is alleviated by worship of Shiva at Varanasi -- this is purely arthavAda.<br /><br />Hence, the section appears to praise Shiva as supreme and says bhagavAn is a shiva bhakta, but here and there concedes bhagavAn as supreme as well! Particularly referring to bhagavAn as Hrishikesha -- controller of the senses which implies he alone is the sarvAntaryAmin -- puruShottama --- and other names!<br /><br />Cont'd...<br />Aaryamaanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8685390517890816599.post-44062456671041950442018-04-24T23:29:54.383+05:302018-04-24T23:29:54.383+05:30Dear all,
That Mahapashupatastra blog author quot...Dear all,<br /><br />That Mahapashupatastra blog author quotes the Kurma Purana to “prove” that the subject of the Bhagavad Gita is Shiva as follows:<br /><br />dṛṣṭavānasi taṃ devaṃ viśvākṣaṃ viśvatomukham /<br />pratyakṣameva sarveśaṃ rudraṃ sarvajagadgurum // KūrmP_1,28.58 //<br /><br />jñānaṃ tadaiśvaraṃ divyaṃ yathāvad viditaṃ tvayā /<br />svayameva hṛṣīkeśaḥ prītyovāca sanātanaḥ //<br /> KūrmP_1,28.59 //<br /><br />gaccha gaccha svakaṃ sthānaṃ na śokaṃ kartumarhasi /<br />vrajasva parayā bhaktyā śaraṇyaṃ śaraṇaṃ śivam // <br /><br />These shlokas are a part of a supposed dialogue between Vyasa and Arjuna. We say “supposed” since this is a tAmasic section of the purANa that praises Shiva as supreme and thus should be discarded. <br /><br />Our friend however, thinks these are valid pramANAs for his stupidity and says this proves that the subject of the Bhagavad Gita is Shiva since the shloka succeeding the Rudra praising verse declares “jnAnam tad asvaram” has been discoursed by Krishna to Arjuna.<br /><br />Funny, this insight that Krishna is somehow the mouthpiece of Shiva is missed by all 3 Acharyas who commented on the Gita declaring that Krishna is Supreme. Only these ignorant Shaivas and Veerashaivas have invented this theory.<br /><br />Well, be that as it may. Even if a section is tAmasic and does praise Shiva as supreme, a tAmasa purANa never, ever says that Shiva is the subject of the Gita. It simply does not dare to in fear of overstepping its’ already veda-virodha liberties. <br /><br />Cont'd...<br />Aaryamaanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8685390517890816599.post-10594441190771420072017-09-24T17:42:19.150+05:302017-09-24T17:42:19.150+05:30It is one of the things we have planned as a futur...It is one of the things we have planned as a future article (or article series). Kindly bear with us.Humble Bhagavata Bandhuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01932475050150832871noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8685390517890816599.post-56245679207964137932017-09-22T20:48:53.252+05:302017-09-22T20:48:53.252+05:30Can you give a commentary on the ISVARA GITA of th...Can you give a commentary on the ISVARA GITA of the KURMA PURANA? Is it interpolation like shiva sahasranama of mahabharata?Jagat Singhnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8685390517890816599.post-26504254685958349042017-08-15T18:10:40.880+05:302017-08-15T18:10:40.880+05:30In summary, whenever bhagavAn tells any being, &qu...In summary, whenever bhagavAn tells any being, "see no difference between you and me", it only means "Understand that your antaryAmin for whom you are the body is none other than me. Therefore you are my servant and I am your master by our essential natures, and you should never regard yourself as independent."<br /><br />If people can understand this clearly, there will be no more confusion over any part if shAstra.Aaryamaanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8685390517890816599.post-5724153776049397592017-08-15T18:01:04.922+05:302017-08-15T18:01:04.922+05:30That only uses sharIrAtma bhAva. It is not identit...That only uses sharIrAtma bhAva. It is not identity. <br /><br />Words like "me", "you" etc denote the indwelling Lord who has the jIva as his body. Thus, for instance, "ahaM brahmAsmi" means "My inner self, denoted by "I", for whom I am the body, is Brahman". <br /><br />Thus, it establishes that you are the body of the Lord and hence, you are the sesha (servant) and he is the seshi (master). A body only exists to serve the self.<br /><br />Basically what the Lord is saying is this:<br /><br />"He who knows you, ie, your antaryAmin for whom you are the body, knows me, ie, I am the same as your inner self. He who follows you, follows me on this account, for any worship done to you is accepted only by your antaryAmin which is non-different to me (so do not get egotistical over worship done to you, giving boons to others, etc for that is achieved by me empowering you only)". <br /><br />Then bhagavAn adds, "Never think otherwise, ie, never consider yourself O Rudra, as independent to me. You are my body and thus my servant (sesha). I am non-different to your antaryAmin and hence your master (seshi). Just as a body is sustained by the self, depends on the self for existence and exists solely for the sake of the self, so Rudra, being my body, you are sustainef by me, dependent on me for your existence and exist solely to serve me".<br /><br />By this statement, bhagavAn is gently rebuking Rudra for fighting him. It is only because Rudra considered himself independent and forgot his subordinate status that he dared to attack bhagavAn.<br /><br />If identity were implied by the above, would it make sense for bhagavAn to say "Do not think otherwise"? For the statement itself implies that Rudra is a being capable of thinking otherwise and thus, forgetting his real nature, which implies a dosha.<br /><br />Aaryamaanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8685390517890816599.post-82710193785933782242017-08-15T11:34:29.659+05:302017-08-15T11:34:29.659+05:30Dear Sir,
The above section of Mahabharata descri...Dear Sir,<br /><br />The above section of Mahabharata describing the fight between Rudra and Narayana also states as follows:<br /><br />"He that knows thee, knows me. He that follows thee, follows me. There is no difference between thee and me. Do thou never think otherwise."<br /><br />The above verse establishes non difference of Lord Shiva and Lord Narayana. How to understand this verse?<br /><br />Regards,<br />Jagat<br /><br /> JAGAT SINGHnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8685390517890816599.post-35532196839037299352017-08-15T00:59:35.695+05:302017-08-15T00:59:35.695+05:30There is a section in the mahAbhArata which descri...There is a section in the mahAbhArata which describes a battle between nara-nArAyaNa rishis and rudra, and how nArAyaNa throttled rudra's neck till it became black. It is here below:<br /><br />http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m12/m12c042.htm<br /><br />In this particular episode, Rudra was overcome by tamO guNa and fought the Lord. Note that during the battle, Nara's axe broke when he used it against Rudra in the fight, but it was because Nara was an AvEsha, a jIva empowered by the Lord and not verily the Lord; whereas the Lord nArAyaNa cannot be overcome in battle, which was evidenced by him rendering the dart of Rudra ineffective by his humkAram.<br /><br />In any case, when this battle was going on, Brahma appeared and reminded Rudra of who the Lord was, upon which Rudra surrendered to the Lord. During the course of this dialogue, Brahma tells Rudra the following,<br /><br />"त्वं चैव क्रोधजस् तात पूर्वसर्गे सनातनः"<br /><br />Meaning: You (Rudra) too are born of his (nArAyaNa, as the indweller of brahma) wrath, being ancient (sanAtana) as you are prior to the creation of Brahma such as the prajApatIs etc. (pUrvasargE)<br /><br />Obviously, I wanted to show what "pUrvasargE sanAtana" means here since otherwise, some veerashaivas may misinterpret it.<br /><br />The above slOka by brahma is a direct upabrahmaNa of the following shruti vAkya describing Rudra:<br /><br />"virUpAkShAya brahmaNa putrAya jyEshtAya shrEshtAya"<br /><br />Meaning: Rudra, the one with dissimilar eyes, is the eldest and most celebrated son of Brahma.<br /><br />So, going back to the above slOka, we can correlate it with the shruti vAkya:<br /><br />- "brahmaNa putrAya" in the shruti vAkya is indicated by "krodhaja" - Rudra is born of Brahma's wrath.<br /><br />- "jyEshta" in the shruti vAkya is correlated with "sanAtana" in the above slOka. "sanAtana" means belonging to an ancient time. It does not indicate eternality in all contexts, but is used to indicate someone who has just been around for a very long time. As Rudra was one of Brahma's earliest sons, he is called "jyEshta" and hence, the term "sanAtana" refers to Rudra being very ancient in that sense.<br /><br />- "shrEshta" in the shruti vAkya is correlated with "pUrvasargE" - As Rudra is prior to the creation of brahma such as the prajApatis, it also implies he is the most celebrated of Brahma's sons. "pUrva" can also mean he is the first of brahma's sons in terms of jnAna, ie, he is the most distinguished of them all and hence is "shrEshta".<br /><br />Just a interesting dialogue between krishNa and arjuna. We have quoted this sloka in the above article, but we didn't notice our interpretation had been slightly off. Will correct it later on.Aaryamaanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8685390517890816599.post-66728122643299092972017-07-06T18:51:35.067+05:302017-07-06T18:51:35.067+05:30Final note: Additionally, one should not confuse t...Final note: Additionally, one should not confuse this with certain places in the gIta where bhagavAn himself says "know me in reality". The idea is that, when it is said about other created entities like Shiva, knowing them in reality is to know their true nature/essence is the Lord who is their antaryAmin. When krishNa says "know me in reality", in the gIta, it implies attaining a direct perception of the Lord through upAsaNa.<br /><br />Just a small note for clarification's sake.Aaryamaanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8685390517890816599.post-42795200184703970782017-07-06T12:14:03.459+05:302017-07-06T12:14:03.459+05:30Cont'd from above
"mahAdeva tattvEna” re...Cont'd from above<br /><br />"mahAdeva tattvEna” refers to knowing mahAdeva in tattva or essence which is nArAyaNa, ie, he is the antaryAmin of mahAdeva and thus, is responsible for those “old acts”. The very reference to those acts is a direct reference to his antaryAmin. <br /><br />Then, the lines - he is the beginning, middle, end and universe acts by his will etc refer to paramAtma who is the innerself of Rudra and has Rudra as his body. So he last line describes that tattva, the antaryAmin only. <br /><br /><br />So, it is to say that mahAdeva’s boon to ashwattama is very great because his antaryAmin (nArAyaNa) has aided mahAdeva to perform wondrous acts in the past, such as tripurAsura vadham.<br /><br /><br />This word “tattva” echoes the upanishadic statement “nityO nityAnAm” and “satyasya satyam” – paramAtma is the reality of the many realities and the truth of the other truths as he is the inner self of the jivA, has the jivA as his body and makes them exist as well as empowers them. Mahabharata also says “nArAyaNatmaka” with respect to Rudra – spoken by krishNa himself.<br /><br />Still not convinced that “tattva” refers to vishNu? We direct you to the sahasranAma which says “tattvam tattva vidEkAtma”. Here, it is mentioned “tattvam” is a name of vishNu.<br /><br />And what is the meaning here? Bhattar gives the following meaning for “tattvam” nAma – “He who is the essence (sArAmSha) or principle of the Universe. Bhattar further adds - "dadhi dugdhayoriva dadhisAraH cit acitoH vyApti prayojanAbhyAm sArAmSaH tat-tvam" – Like butter which is the essence of milk and curd, bhagavAn, by His pervasion and usefulness in the sentient and non-sentient things, is the essence of all things. Butter gives texture, taste, the energy content, etc., to milk and curd. So also, bhagavAn is the essence of all things, by being the cause of their existence, the source of their sustenance etc.”<br /><br />And this is the meaning of “mahAdeva tattvEna” – this nArAyaNa is the essence of Shiva who by his pervasion, gives the attributes of mahAdevatvam, iSvaratvam and jnAnatva to Shiva.<br /><br />I did not write this for Veerashaiva as we are done with him and he is incurable, but for those interested in the sweet words of bhagavan who never speaks anything but the truth.<br />Aaryamaanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8685390517890816599.post-3780813437423111222017-07-06T12:07:11.840+05:302017-07-06T12:07:11.840+05:30Dear all,
If Veerashaiva has not bored everyone t...Dear all,<br /><br />If Veerashaiva has not bored everyone to tears already, I thought of making one last, quick note on this subject to properly explain the "mahAdevaM tattvEna" sloka of mahAbhArata. We had quoted this in another article on the blog but our explanation was not proper as we had just glossed over it. <br /><br />So here it is. It belongs to the Sauptika Parva, spoken by krishNa:<br /><br />nūnaṃ sa deva denānām īśvareśvaram avyayam jagāma śaraṇaṃ drauṇir ekas tenāvadhīd bahūn<br /><br />prasanno hi mahādevo dadyād amaratām api vīryaṃ ca giriśo dadyād yenendram api śātayet<br /><br />vedāhaṃ hi mahādevaṃ tattvena bharatarṣabha yāni cāsya purāṇāni karmāṇi vividhāny uta<br /><br />ādir eṣa hi bhūtānāṃ madhyam antaś ca bhārata viceṣṭate jagac cedaṃ sarvam asyaiva karmaṇā | (MBH 10:17:6-9)<br /><br /><br />Meaning: (KrishNa says:) Drona’s son has sought the aid of the Lord of Devas (Shiva), who is the Ishvareswara as he is the superior most to those others who are alos called Ishvaras (like sanat-kumArAs, etc) as they possess knowledge of VishNu, who is not incited or aroused by the senses ie, is not attracted to sense objects (avyaya).<br /><br />……..If Mahadeva is pleased, he can even grant mOksha, meaning, the knowledge that leads to Moksha. I know mahAdeva in reality, ie, his true nature which is nArAyaNa (tattva) and also his acts of old (like TripurAsura vadham, swallowing hala hala etc accomplished by the aid of nArAyaNa). He (ie, the rudra sharIraka paramAtma) is certainly is the beginning, the middle, and the end of all creatures. This entire universe acts and moves through his will”.<br /><br />avyaya - na vIyatE - he is not incited by the senses, and is detached. Other adjectives are self-explanatory.<br /><br />Krishna says “if mahadeva is pleased, he can grant even moksha”. The “hi” shows that this is not a deity that is renowned to grant moksha, hence the fact that shiva can grant moksha is a cause for wonder. So how can shiva grant moksha?<br /><br /><br />He can grant the knowledge of vishNu that leads to moksha. What is the proof for this interpretation? “jnAnam iccet IshvarAt”<br /><br />Mahadeva grants moksha because he grants knowledge of Brahman that leads to moksha. The speaker is krishNa who alone grants moksha to everyone. Thus, it is very easy for him to say "mahadeva grants moksha", for it only means "Those who surrender to Shiva for knowledge are never refused moksha as it is my will". The analogy is like a King saying "Talk to my minister, he can solve all your problems" - it only means the King solves everyone's problems when they approach the minister.<br /><br />"mahAdeva tattvEna" - Unlike vishvAmitra who simply says "ahaM vedmi rAmaM", sri krishNa says "vedAhaM hi mahAdevaM tattvena" - rather than just "mahAdevam". The reason is because while rAma has no antaryAmin, mahAdeva has that rAma (nArAyaNa) as his antatyAmin.<br /><br />Note that krishNa uses "hi" again - it implies that the true nature of Mahadeva is his antaryAmin which is hidden to all.<br /><br />Cont'd...Aaryamaanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8685390517890816599.post-49971994638939712442017-07-05T23:12:25.237+05:302017-07-05T23:12:25.237+05:30A slight correction.
I had written "vEdAhamE...A slight correction.<br /><br />I had written "vEdAhamEdaM mahAdeva tattvEna" earlier. The actual mahAbhArata slOka is "vedAhaM hi mahAdevaM tattvena". Here, shrI krishNa, in the vein of "vedAhamEdaM puruShaM mahAntaM", says "I know that tattva (nArAyaNa/antaryAmin) of mahAdeva.<br /><br />I was quoting from memory, hence the slight.<br /><br />Similarly, Shiva is referred to as "apramEya prabhAva" where "apramEya" refers to shrI hari only.Aaryamaanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8685390517890816599.post-85472350410954496392017-07-05T19:52:42.950+05:302017-07-05T19:52:42.950+05:30One last note regarding our error on "devaM p...One last note regarding our error on "devaM prayato". <br /><br />The error was made as I typed out the vyAkhyAna via my mobile. I have to thank Veerashaiva for pointing out this error. It resolves a doubt I had in my mind.<br /><br />Earlier, I had interpreted it as "The god who has curbed his senses, the ruler of the universe on account of knowledge (vishveshaM), the destroyer of desire (haraM), one who does not abide in sense objects (akshayam)".<br /><br />There is a problem with this. If it is first of all mentioned he curbed his senses, then why does Haram and Akshayam again say he restrained his senses? A flaw of redundancy occurs.<br /><br />Fortunately, my senile savior pointed out my mistake which had escaped my notice (I hate ITRANS) - "prayato" refers to Arjuna.<br /><br />In which case, redundancy is removed and a beautiful sangathi is established as follows:<br /><br />1) Bow down with a pure mind Arjuna, to that god of sattvika nature (devaM prayato) --> ie, you must be sufficiently of ardent interest to gain brahmajnAna (prayato). Rudra is called "deva" as he, by austerities, has become associated with sattva guNa despite being born in tamas.<br /><br />2) Who is Vishvesham or Ruler of the Universe as he has knowledge of all brahma-vidyas and is a medium of knowledge for attaining Brahman. As the bhAgavata says - "ishaanas sarvavidyAnam, ishvaras sarvadehinAm" <br /><br />3) On account of that knowledge he has destroyed desire (haraM). He burnt kAma after all.<br /><br />4) On account of having no desire, he does not abide in sense objects (akShayaM).<br /><br />My silly mistake prevented me from removing the flaw of redundancy. Veerashaiva accomplished it. Thanks.<br /><br />Now, wait for the bit on Sridhara.Aaryamaanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8685390517890816599.post-34142268702359097202017-07-05T19:29:14.198+05:302017-07-05T19:29:14.198+05:30Btw, the harivamSha bhavishya parva sloka quoted b...Btw, the harivamSha bhavishya parva sloka quoted by Veerashaiva, on shiva giving the sudarshaNa chakra to vishNu is not from a section quoted by Shankara or anyone. The harivamSha has several interpolations such as a hari-hara aikya stuti that appears out of nowhere during the bAnasura charitra. This is also one of the interpolated sections.<br /><br />That it is an interpolation is clear from the fact that we have proof from ancient vedAntins' works as follows:<br /><br />In his "shaiva-sarvasya-khaNDanam", the dvaita guru Vijayendra Tirtha refutes the claim that vishNu performed a penance to obtain Sudarshana Chakra from Shiva. After establishing the truth, he then says "Such veda-virodha incidents (of Hari receiving the Chakra from Shiva), is mentioned in the following texts:<br /><br />1) In the tAmasa purANas<br />2) In the pUrva khANDa of varAha purANa and in padma purANa. <br /><br />For 2), he adds that the varAha purANa and padma purANa, despite being predominantly sAttvika, is mishra-sattva and has some tAmasic portions. The sattva nature of the purANas decreases gradually as we go from vishNu and bhAgavata purANas to shiva and linga purANas. <br /><br />Funny that Vijayendra Tirtha did not mention that this is found in Harivamsha also. So either - 1) he was lying or hiding it, which no vaidika, even his bitterest opponents, accepted, 2) It did not exist in the HarivamSha at all.<br /><br />2) is correct. HarivamSha is a part of mahAbhArata and hence has been subject to as much interpolations as the latter. <br /><br />The section of krishNa's penance that is quoted by vaidika acharyas starts with this,<br /><br />evaM bahuvidhairbhUtaiH pishAchairuragaiH saha | Agatya bhagavAnrudraH sha~Nkaro vR^ishavAhanaH ||3-87-1<br /><br />And even this section is referenced by sri vaishnavas only. Shri Shankara has only quoted the part where Shiva praises Vishnu.<br /><br />The section quoted by our resident looney-bin Veerashaiva is not quoted by anyone and has veda virodha arthAs like the interpolated drona parva/anushasanika section, and the hari-hara aikya stuti in the bAnasura section of harivamSha. Thus, it is an interpolation.<br /><br />However, the stuti of Hari to Shiva and vice-versa is quoted or referenced to by all AchAryAs and is genuine. That has been explained on the blog.<br /><br />Would be nice if they could stick to pramANAs quoted by AchAryAs instead of interpolated sections of mahAbhArata. It is wearisome.<br /><br />Aaryamaanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8685390517890816599.post-19775265032299076792017-07-05T17:51:18.589+05:302017-07-05T17:51:18.589+05:30Now, we really are done with this old dvEshi. Ther...Now, we really are done with this old dvEshi. There is no point in arguing with someone who keeps repeating things. And when he finds an innocuous error that changes absolutely no part of the meaning, he goes on about it without addressing the other points.<br /><br />Grandpappy's reasoning is this - I can't grammatically disprove "akShaya", "haraM" etc? Fine, I will just rant and rave about an insignificant error like an inebriated chimpanzee. That'll show 'em.<br /><br />HBB and myself will address the comments on Sridhara soon. Then we will be done with this tedious character.Aaryamaanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8685390517890816599.post-13694933647633000992017-07-05T17:33:26.443+05:302017-07-05T17:33:26.443+05:30//On the other hand, Krishna is acknowledging that...//On the other hand, Krishna is acknowledging that Shiva's glory is beyond comprehension. It is only because of this greatness that Krishna undertook severe penance to seek boons from Shiva. The Kailasa Yatra episode is well recorded in the Mahabharata and in theHarivamsha and cited by Shankara in the VSNbhashya.//<br /><br /> <br />The blog explains the Kailasa Yatra stuti. As is his wont, the old fraud has neglected to mention – <br /><br />1) Shiva immediately praises vishNu as the *only* supreme being after the stuti<br /><br />2)Shankara only quotes the part where shiva extolls vishNu.<br /><br />3) Forget Shankara, our Acharyas have quoted this section.<br /><br />4) The section of the blog titled "prayers of shri krishna to shiva" explains how even the shiva stuti is praising vishNu only.<br /><br />5) Were the shiva stuti interpreted to praise shiva rather than his antaryAmin, there is absolutely no paratva. For instance, saying "kailAsha nilaya" or "namo nilakanthaya" does not prove supremacy as those are mere attributes. Whereas, the stuti sung by shiva to vishNu has paratva no matter how you read it.<br /><br />Now the old toad, who once dismissed sridhara swami as "not needed for vedic study", brings him up when it suits him.<br /> <br /><br />//śivārādhanārthaṁ puṇḍarīkīkṛtam akṣi yeneti vā—puṇḍarīkam paraṁ<br /><br />dhāma akṣam avyayam ucyate ity-ādi ślokokta-vyutpattyā puṇḍarīkīkṣeti<br /><br />sambodhanam iti vā | <br /><br />The gist is: The Lord’s eye is lotus-like because he ‘made’ his eye a lotus in order to worship Śiva. [There is a story which says that when Hari resolved to worship Hara with a thousand lotuses, at the end, (owing to a loving trick played by Hara), one lotus fell short of the number. Hari, undaunted by the shortage, offered his own eye as a lotus and completed his worship.]//<br /><br /> <br /><br />We have explained this earlier. Is this absolute mongaware that even Vaishnava acharyas quote this incident and explain it similarly as well? The comparison by Sridhara Swami is only to illustrate preeminence. That will be explained again in a later post.<br /><br />Stick to talking to other grandpas about retirement life and leave the interpretations to knowledgeable people. Mong.<br /><br /> <br /><br />Note that except for noting one insignificant grammatical error, he has absolutely no answer to our interpretation of “Akshaya” or “haram” etc. Get back to your strait-jacket.<br /><br /> <br /><br />Aaryamaanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8685390517890816599.post-63537074395505927492017-07-05T17:26:08.509+05:302017-07-05T17:26:08.509+05:30Now, our escapee from a senile asylum prattles on ...Now, our escapee from a senile asylum prattles on about “apramEya prabhAva”:<br /><br /><br />//While the word means: one whose glory/strength is beyond comprehension, the above interpretation only smacks of Krishna's extreme egoistic. Why should he askArjuna to bow to someone who has zero content of himself but has everything that is of someone else? Instead of doing all that, he could simply desist Arjunafrom bowing to Shiva and instead ask him to bow to Krishna himself. Arke chen madhu vindeta kimarthamparvatam vrajet? If honey is available in the courtyard, why go all the way to the mountain to get it? The whole exercise of Krishna initiating a dialogue with Arjuna is a waste, meaningless, if Krishna and Veda Vyasa had the evil intentions of this shiva-dveshi.//<br /><br />When you cannot argue the interpretation, all that you can do is write gibberish and babble like a chimp.<br /><br />Why do you assume Shiva has everything? There is *zero* proof that he is parabrahman and even this verse describes his birth. Arjuna should bow down to shiva to give him respect as a vishva guru.<br /><br />Shiva is described as krodhaja. That establishes he is avibhUti and hence “kAla”, possessing tamo guNa for destruction. Then, he is called “apramEya prabhAva”.<br /><br />Note that there is always a difference between howvishNu and shiva are described. The rAmAyaNa says “ahaM vedmi rAmam mahAtmAnaM satyaparAkramaM” – “I know that mahatma rAma”. This is comparable to the puruSha sUkta “vedAhamedaMpuruShaM mahAntaM”.<br /><br />Now, see how krishNa describes Shiva elsewhere in the mahAbhArata – “vedAhamEdam mahAdevatattvEna” – I know the tattva of Mahadeva. The term “tattva” is a name occurring in the vishNusahasranAma and refers to the Lord as antaryAmin. Thus, note the difference between how rAma and shivaare addressed – “ahaM vedmi rAmaM” and “vedAhamEdaM mahAdeva tattvEna”. It shows that Shiva is not being addressed, but his antaryAmin, whereas rAma has no antaryAmin.<br /><br />Similarly, vishNu is addressed everywhere as “apramEya”. The phrase “apramEya” by itself conveys “immeasurability” in all aspects. However, when joined to “prabhAvaM” to denote a created deity like Shiva, it clearly means something else, which is antaryAmitva of vishNu. Similar to the example of “vedAhamEdam”. Thus, "tattva" and "apramEya" convey vishNu in the 2 instances.<br /><br />Even in the pramANa - "visnOr cAtma bhagavatObhavasya amita tejasaH" - it clearly shows Bhava's "amita tejas" is that of vishNu's due to the latter empowering him. This alone is a pramANa as well for our interpretation.<br /><br />Veerashaiva can bang his head on the wall now.<br /><br />Cont'd...<br /><br />Aaryamaanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8685390517890816599.post-83034001506254761492017-07-05T17:19:28.128+05:302017-07-05T17:19:28.128+05:30//In his enthusiasm driven by Shiva devesha to dow...//In his enthusiasm driven by Shiva devesha to downplay every adjective used by Krishna (and Veda Vyasa) genuinely applicable to Shiva, this Shiva deveshi goes on and on to refute Krishna and Veda Vyasa and thereby shame them under the illusion he is actually shaming Shiva. For example, the word 'akshayam' in the verse simply means: Shiva who is free of decay, that is eternal. The Shiva-dveshi does not want this epithet to go to Shiva who cannot be akshaya; only Vishnu can be eternal. So he cooks up a completely out of the world meaning for that word://<br /><br />Numbskull, the same verse declares he is “krodhajA”. He is born of Brahma’s wrath and is mentioned as “anapahatapApma” in the Satapatha BrahmaNa. Madhusudhana Saraswati himself quotes the mantra “eko ha vai nArAyaNa Aseet na brahma na cashankaraH”. Thus, he certainly is not eternal.<br /><br /><br />When a term can denote several meanings, you choose the one that fits the context.<br /><br />//How awful! There is nothing in the verse that warrants a 'residence' sense to that word. With his imbecile imagination and dogged by desperation he imports a meaning that is wrong in this context. How can someone who is Vishvesha not be literally akshaya? Thus, with anaprasiddha interpretation the pandita is making a fool of himself. He takes his readers for grantedand goes on deluding them.//<br /><br />El Retardo knows this is a grammatically correct meaning of akShaya, so he is unable to gleefully gloat and resort to his usual diatribes. In the context of describing a being who is krodhaja, who has performed austerities to attain the position of “devadeva”, it is clear “akshaya” means one who is not experiencing sense objects. A Sanskrit word has many meanings.<br /><br />OK, let us play his game. Even if “akShaya” means “imperishable”, it means by virtue of “aprthak siddhi” – one who is associated with something that is “imperishable”. One who is associated with brahmajnAna that is imperishable is “akShaya”.<br /><br />In the gIta, the self associated with a perishable body is called "kshara". This is due to inseparable association. Similarly, rudra is "akShaya" as he is associated with the imperishable and eternal brahmajnAna. <br /><br />Capsice?<br /> <br />“Vishveshvara” is on account of Shiva being a possessor of brahma jnAna and one who leads the seeker to vishNu. As he is an AvEsha of vishNu (visnorcAtma bhagavatO bhavasya amita tejasaH), he is vishveshvara.<br /><br /> Note that the bhAgavata describes Shiva as “Ishvaras sarva dehinAm” after saying “iShAnassarva vidyAnam” – on account of his knowledge, he is a ruler.<br /><br />Cont'd...Aaryamaanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8685390517890816599.post-16883303779812082472017-07-05T17:15:04.655+05:302017-07-05T17:15:04.655+05:30Veerashaiva has replied to this. Funny old fool. H...Veerashaiva has replied to this. Funny old fool. Here we go:<br /><br />//Our pandita is not even aware that the two words 'prayato' and 'devam' are not in the same vibhakti in order for them to be in an adjective-noun relationship. 'prayatah' is in prathamA and 'devam' is in dvitIyA. Thus, the word 'prayataH' should go with Arjuna (who is not named in this verse) but the word 'namasva', a verb in the madhyama purusha, is intended to Arjuna. So, the meaning is: Having purified yourself, worship Shiva.//<br /><br /><br />Yep, Veerashaiva is gleeful that he has found a mistake in my interpretation. Hats off to him. Unlike this senile old fraud who lives off false meanings on the net, we do not have time to crosscheck each and everything we post. Even in the ShatarudrIyaM, we found certain mistakes we corrected.<br /><br />In fact, we are still proofreading our articles.<br /><br /> <br />Why bleat about it? “devaM prayatO” simply means then, “With a pure mind, Arjuna, worship that God”. It does not change the meaning at all. Rudra is still a jIva, worshipped for obtaining knowledge of vishNu.<br /><br /><br />All cool, isn’t it now? Compared to this old fool who doesn’t have one logical thought in his head, one minute mistake is nothing.<br /><br />Cont'd...<br /> <br /><br /><br /><br />Aaryamaanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8685390517890816599.post-47488642162739636052017-07-03T14:26:50.362+05:302017-07-03T14:26:50.362+05:30Cont'd from above
Finally, Veerashaiva gives ...Cont'd from above<br /><br />Finally, Veerashaiva gives a "vyAkhyAna" for krodha guNa as follows:<br /><br />//One should also note that the term 'wrath' is no way derogatory. It is a necessity for the samhāra, dissolution/destruction, function along with the creation and sustenance functions. So Brahman, assuming the respective moods/emotions/gunas takes the form of the trimutis to carry out this function. Brahman cannot do this without resorting to these gunas. By default Brahman is nirgunam.//<br /><br />Except that the wrath here does not belong to Brahman, but to Brahma. Brahman being the antaryAmin of Brahma refers to his wrath as "my wrath". The wrath of Brahma is nothing great, just plain tAmasa guNa and that is why Rudra literally wept upon being born.<br /><br />Secondly, it says Rudra is born of wrath, not a "form assumed by Brahman out of wrath". <br /><br />Even in advaita, saguNa ishvara is vishNu only as he is under sattva upAdhi . Those forms of Brahman under rajO and tamO guNa upAdhis (Brahma and Rudra) are incapable of granting liberation, which has been established by all ancient advaitins.<br /><br />Such a simple concept, yet vishNu dvEshis seek to mangle it.<br /><br />Aaryamaanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8685390517890816599.post-24297950796575839292017-07-03T14:25:51.277+05:302017-07-03T14:25:51.277+05:30Additionally, Veerashaiva tries to dodge the "...Additionally, Veerashaiva tries to dodge the "krodhajA" mentioned in the mahAbhArata as follows. Quoting him: <br /><br />//In the Kūrma purāṇa Shiva gives a boon to Narayana that he will be born as the latter's krodha: अहं च भवतो वक्त्रात् कल्पान्ते घोररूपधृक् । [सुररूपधृक्] शूलपाणिर्भविष्यामि क्रोधजस्तव पुत्रकः ॥ [I will be born from your mouth at the end of the kalpa,with a fierce form/divine form. I will become endowed with the śula weapon, born of your wrath, as your son.] There is a background to this statement of Shiva in the Kurmapurana अयं मे दक्षिणे पार्श्वे ब्रह्मा लोकपितामहः । वामपार्श्वे च मे विष्णुः पालको हृदये हरः ।। २६.८९ प्रीतोऽहं युवयोः सम्यक् वरं दद्मि यथेप्सितम् । एवमुक्त्वाऽथ मां देवो महादेवः स्वयं शिवः ।२६.९० [This Brahmā was born from my right side and Vishnu from my right. Hara emerged from my heart.] I am pleased with your devotion. I offer you boon that you desire. ऊचतुः प्रेक्ष्य तद्वक्त्रं नारायणपितामहौ । यदि प्रीतिः समुत्पन्ना यदि देयो वरो हि न।२६.९२ भक्तिर्भवतु नौ नित्यं त्वयि देव महेश्वरे । Brahmā and Viṣṇu appealed to Shiva: If you are pleased with us bless us that we shall be devoted to you. After this Shiva says that he will be born to Vishnu as 'krodhaja'. This verse has been pointed out by Sri Appayya Dikshita in his Mahabharata sāra sangraha stotram.//<br /><br />The kUrma purANa is a tAmasa purANa and hence is not valid. So, Veerashaiva's quotes are in vain. The "krodhajA" reference to the mahAbhArata tallies with the reference in the Srimad bhAgavataM where Rudra is mentioned to be born of the wrath of Brahma. The bhAgavata is a sAttvika purANa and hence is authority, whereas the kUrma purANa is not. The account in the bhAgavata also tallies with the Satapatha BrahmaNa's description of Rudra's birth.<br /><br />Appayya's arguments born of his fertile imagination have been refuted by advaitins themselves, let alone vishishtadvaitins or dvaitins.<br /><br />But Veerashaiva is not done. He further says:<br /><br />//Mahabharata Anushasanika parva, Ch.45. Here Krishna says about Shiva that from Shiva have Brahma, Vishnu and Rudra have emerged. I have not given the translation of each verse: योऽसृजद्दक्षिणादङ्गाद्ब्रह्माणं लोकसम्भवम् | वामपार्श्वात्तथा विष्णुं लोकरक्षार्थमीश्वरः ||१८३||//<br /><br />Ah yes, the famous section of drona parva/anushAsanika parva which have beeb clearly proven to be interpolated and mentioned to be parts of the linga and aditya purANAs unscrupulously inserted into the mahAbhArata by ancient commentators themselves. Where else would Veerashaiva go to?<br /><br />These sections, referred to as interpolations by ancient commentators, contradict the statements in the mahAbhArata itself that are quoted by all vedAntins including advaitins:<br /><br />"visnOr cAtma bhagavatO bhavaH amita tejasaH" (karna parva) - vishNu is the antaryAmin of Rudra.<br /><br />"ahnaH kShayE lalAtAchcha suto devasya vai tathA krodhAviShTasya sa~njaGYe rudraH"... (Santi parva) - Rudra is born of the wrath of Brahma to be the samhAra-karta. Being born of wrath which is tamas, he possesses tamo guNa suited for destruction work.<br /><br />So, quoting interpolated verses is of no use when the shAstras are unambiguous.<br /><br />Cont'd...<br /><br /><br />Aaryamaanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8685390517890816599.post-37957925182001865982017-07-02T21:46:49.892+05:302017-07-02T21:46:49.892+05:30Cont'd from above...
The rest of the names no...Cont'd from above...<br /><br />The rest of the names now draw from this meaning sequentially and beautifully explain the qualities of Rudra.<br /><br />“umApatiM” – On account of being empowered by the Lord as mentioned above, he is “umApatiM”. “umA” is synonymous to “yashas” or “splendour”, thus Rudra has acquired the splendour of brahma-jnAna. Uma also refers to pArvati who is the teacher of the devas. She herself is renowned as a great jnAni and he is her husband and her teacher too, which again illustrates the greatness of his jnAna.<br /><br />“devadevaM” – On account of being a parama-jnAni and empowered by the Lord, he is a teacher of all the devas who are sAttvikas. Thus, despite his birth in tamO guNa, he is the chief of sAttvikas due to the grace of the Lord.<br /><br />“prayatO devaM” – The god who has purified himself by austerities. Alternatively, it means the god who has subdued his senses.<br /><br />“viShvEshaM” – As he has subdued his senses or performed austerities, he is the medium for knowledge of Brahman, and so he is called the Ruler of the Universe and all sAttvikas resort to him.<br /><br />“haraM” – As he possesses knowledge of Brahman, he has destroyed the desire for experience of sense objects. He is a mahA-vairAgyashAli.<br /><br />“akShayaM” – “kShaya” means residing or dwelling. “akShaya” means the opposite of that- he is not residing in the experience of sense objects as he has destroyed desire.<br /><br />yashcha te kathitaH pUrvaM krodhajeti punaH punaH| tasya prabhAva evAgre yachChrutaM te dhanaMjaya||<br /><br />Meaning: He is the one whom I have spoken of repeatedly before as being born of my (Brahma’s) wrath. O Dhananjaya! You have indeed heard of his greatness before.<br /><br />Why does krishNa again repeat that Rudra is “krodhajA”? The previous time, krishNa said he was “krodhajA”, born of anger of Brahma and thus possessed tamO guNa which was suited to his work of destruction. Now, krishNa is again saying he is “krodhajA” to imply that Rudra, despite being born of anger in an untimely manner in tamO guNa, possesses greatness.<br /><br />Thus, this slOka convincingly establishes Rudra is a jIvAtma empowered by the Lord.<br />Aaryamaanoreply@blogger.com