New Deities

[Kirran]

I'm not going to argue. My post was mainly addressed to Aup-ji. I just wanted to let him know that even Advaitins have accepted the existence of Vishnu/Krishna/Rama as a major deity not as some type of "minor solar deity". It would help if he read the works or parts of Advaitin gurus.

I see. Well yes, definitely there are Advaitins who are Vaishnavas

 

[Aupmanyav]

Hanuman is married to Suvarchala according to some myths, both of them are Brahmacharis. About the 'pitr rina', I don't think Hanuman needs to do that, he is the son of Vayu, one of the Devas.

Nice story. Thanks for bringing it to our attention. Lord Hanuman has repaid his 'pitr rina' by begetting a son with Devi Suvarchala. 'Pitr rina' accrues irrespective of whether one is a God or a Human. 'Hari Anantha, Hari Katha Anantha'.

 

[Aupmanyav]

I'm not going to argue. My post was mainly addressed to Aup-ji. I just wanted to let him know that even Advaitins have accepted the existence of Vishnu/Krishna/Rama as a major deity not as some type of "minor solar deity". It would help if he read the works or parts of Advaitin gurus.

Axlyz, friend, when did I say that Lord Vishnu and Lord Krishna are other than Brahman? I am wholly in agreement with you.

 

[kalyan]

I would dispute that Brahman and Atman in the Vedas refer to Krishna and Rama. These are overarching terms, which aren't confined to Vaishnavism etc. So yes, the terms Atman and Brahman would, for you, relate to the forms of Vishnu, just as to a Shakta Brahman would be Adi Parashakti, and to a Shaiva Brahman would be Parasiva. But that doesn't mean that that's what's being said in the Vedas.

hi Kiran,

you are in no position to refute that as Sri Krushna in BhagawadGita himself claimed, I am at the aadi and am the aadi(start) , creation(creation is not a good term as sristhi does not mean creation, it tells about bringing out something which is already there, the Jivas and moola prakriti resides in Sri Krushna/nArayaNa at the time of start) and they are brought out by Sri Krushna in a stage called madhyama(middle) stage and then at the end Sri Krushna only takes them inside him along with their karma samskaaras.........He tells the atma of everything is him only, referred by Sri Krushna as 'aham'

Refer :10 chapter of BG, 20 th sloka.....your doubts will be dispelled, ! nArayaNa is the only Brahman referred by Vedas and Yes Vedas clearly say Sriyaathi the husband of Lakshmi is the Brahman they refer to... All the tamasic puranas which claim others are rejected by every Vaidika acharya and also by Adi Shankara

adiyen Chinna Jeeyar Swamy Daasa

 

[spiritualhitchhiker]

Nice story. Thanks for bringing it to our attention. Lord Hanuman has repaid his 'pitr rina' by begetting a son with Devi Suvarchala. 'Pitr rina' accrues irrespective of whether one is a God or a Human. 'Hari Anantha, Hari Katha Anantha'.

No, both of them are Brahmacharis, so there are no children. 'Pitr rina' is for people who come from humans, it is not for someone from Devas.

 

[shivsomashekhar]

hi Kiran,

you are in no position to refute that as Sri Krushna in BhagawadGita himself claimed, I am at the aadi and am the aadi(start) , creation(creation is not a good term as sristhi does not mean creation, it tells about bringing out something which is already there, the Jivas and moola prakriti resides in Sri Krushna/nArayaNa at the time of start) and they are brought out by Sri Krushna in a stage called madhyama(middle) stage and then at the end Sri Krushna only takes them inside him along with their karma samskaaras.........He tells the atma of everything is him only, referred by Sri Krushna as 'aham'

Refer :10 chapter of BG, 20 th sloka.....your doubts will be dispelled, ! nArayaNa is the only Brahman referred by Vedas and Yes Vedas clearly say Sriyaathi the husband of Lakshmi is the Brahman they refer to... All the tamasic puranas which claim others are rejected by every Vaidika acharya and also by Adi Shankara

adiyen Chinna Jeeyar Swamy Daasa

This is not any different from claiming that it is correct to say that all the Sri Vaishnava references to Narayana actually mean Sai Baba (based on Sai Baba = Narayana).

Vishnu = Brahman is not the same as Brahman = Vishnu.

Vaishnavas concluding that Vishnu = Brahman does not make it a universal reality. Other interpretations exist and they are as valid as any. It only comes down to the skill of the debater.

 

[kalyan]

This is not any different from claiming that it is correct to say that all the Sri Vaishnava references to Narayana actually mean Sai Baba (based on Sai Baba = Narayana).

Vishnu = Brahman is not the same as Brahman = Vishnu.

Vaishnavas concluding that Vishnu = Brahman does not make it a universal reality. Other interpretations exist and they are as valid as any. It only comes down to the skill of the debater.

say what? where does the sai baba come into picture...what based on ? no offense but sai baba is a complete fraud who used to eat slaughter animals and eat non-veg and used to curse people in urdu , he died of fever and was BURIED in a muslim style and there are no real pics of him , this can be verified in the trust. The hype around him is created by trust to milk money...The followers of Sanatana Dharma never worship a dead body..Those who worship pretas will reach pretas only as told by Supreme Brahman Sri Krushna paramaatma.

Brahman refers only Vishnu...please read Adi Shankara commentaries on Bhagawadgita.

In his introductory section in bhagavad gItA bhAShya Shankaracharya writes:

"Vishnu, the one known by the name nArAyaNa, the primordial Creator" (Adi kartA nArAyaNAkhyO viShNuH), that he is "beyond the material universe" (nArAyaNaH parO avyaktAt) and that He is the original Creator of the universe (sa bhagavAn sRShTvEdaM jagat)

Narayana is beyond the Avyakta ;

(Sri Sankara's commentary to Bhagavad Gita, 10.8)

ahaM paraM brahma vAsudevAkhyaM sarvasya jagataH prabhava utpattiH | matta eva sthiti-nAsha-kriyA-phalopabhoga-lakSaNaM vikriyA-rUpaM sarvaM jagat pravartate |

"(Lord Krishna says) 'I, the Supreme Parabrahman known by name as vAsudeva, am the source of the whole world. From Me alone evolves the whole universe in all its changes, including existence and dissolution, action, effect, and enjoyment'":

credits and thanks to narayanaastra for translation of the quotes

adiyen Ramanuja daasa

 

[Chakra]

This is not any different from claiming that it is correct to say that all the Sri Vaishnava references to Narayana actually mean Sai Baba (based on Sai Baba = Narayana).

Vishnu = Brahman is not the same as Brahman = Vishnu.

Vaishnavas concluding that Vishnu = Brahman does not make it a universal reality. Other interpretations exist and they are as valid as any. It only comes down to the skill of the debater.

I think that you seem to think that this question (who exactly is Brahman?) is still in the air and up for interpretation. Maybe you forgot that 1000 years of debate from multiple sides have settled the issue quite nicely.

First of all, regarding your "other interpretations", which ones are you talking about? Surely not Shaiva and Shakta claims right? Because the Brahma Sutra rejects both Shaiva and Shakta maths, and this can be found in Shankara's own Brahma Sutra Bhasya.

BSB 2.2.37-41

You can check them out for yourself- http://www.estudantedavedanta.net/B...y Swami Vireswarananda [Sanskrit-English].pdf

Note the word "Mahesvaras"

Another source-
http://www.swami-krishnananda.org/bs_0/Brahma_Sutra.pdf

And then, this is what Shankara says regarding Pancharatra.

[We do not intend to oppose the doctrine that nArAyaNa, who is superior the material universe, who is the supreme soul (paramAtmA), and the soul for all (sarvAtmA)... Nor do we mean to object to the inculcation of unceasing single-minded devotion on the Supreme Lord which appears in the Pancharatra doctrine under the forms of abhigamana (visiting Vishnu temples with utmost devotion in mind, with senses subdued) etc., for that we are to meditate on the Lord we know full well from shruti and smRti. - Brahma Sutra Bhashya, 2.2.42]

You can check this yourself here- http://www.swami-krishnananda.org/bs_0/Brahma_Sutra.pdf

Now, Pancharatra as you may know is vehemently against theories such as Shiva=Vishnu or Shiva>Vishnu. And yes, Shankara does not agree with it completely because he reasons that it talks about the creation of souls. But that's not we're focusing on. BSB 2.2.42 clearly says that the Vaishnava practices (going to temple, meditating on Vishnu, chanting his names) are completely Vedic and should be done by serious Vedantins like himself.

Vaishnavism is not some type of position that was picked randomly by Vaishnava Acharyas based on their proclivity to Vishnu. Acharyas have taken a lot of time to prove Vaishnavism and refute other for the benefit of everyone.

 

[Kirran]

I don't think 'who is Brahman?' really makes a lot of sense as a question.

Nirguna Brahman is not anyone, by definition. Nirguna Brahman has no attributes, and is basically potential-filled emptiness, inasmuch as one can ever describe That.

Saguna Brahman has attributes, and can be said to be Visnu. But that is only ever a face, only ever born from our perceptions. So no one face can be 'correct' in some way. We just think of Brahman as being this deity or that deity or this description or that description until we can transcend such descriptions. So Saguna Brahman can be said to be Visnu, Siva, Ganesha, or even Odin or Cernunnos if you so choose.

 

[SpentaMaynu]

Namaste all. This is a wonderful discussion and I enjoyed reading it, I also hope it will continue. Just one small amusement before I want to ask some questions and make a comment or two:- the debate/fight between some Vaishnavas (ISKCON?) here and the rest of you sounds a lot like the irritating debate/fight between Jehovah Witnesses and other Christians.

That said, I love the idea of some Hindus worshipping Christ as the Supreme Being named Christas or something similar and not becoming Christians, something like the Christo-Buddhists or Christian Atheists. I can imagine Christian theologians trying to explain it away.

Everything changes. The original Vedic Gods are replaced with Krsna, Ganesa, Hanuman & al. Now mandirs are starting to display murtis of Buddha, Gandhi and Jesus.

The Gods are tools. As we expand spiritually we will transcend them. Let's not get hung up on which image best helps our individual, spiritual focus.

I prefer calling the different Names and Manifestations of God symbols instead of tools, but I agree fully with you. I think it's even about more than just some random change, it is how we understand God today. As modern humans we understand modern symbols better than Krishna or Buddha or even Jesus who lived thousands of years ago while we can relate better with Sai Baba or Ghandi or even the current Dalai Lama. Of course not that it is wrong to worship the older Names and not that it is impossible for us to understand the ancient lessons. Here in South Africa I've been to a temple once where a picture of Mandela was displayed and I wondered how long it would be before we worship him as a symbol or manifestation of God.

Secondly, we must remember, sages will often say things to help the listener's understanding. So if they are talking to a Vaishnava, then they will use terms related to that tradition, and say that Brahman is Vishnu etc. But that doesn't mean they'd tell a Shaiva/Shakta/Christian/Neopagan that Brahman was Vishnu

Exactly. I believe that God is One with many Names and Manifestations and therefore it does not matter which Name we use to worship or describe Him. When I (not that I'm a sage or anything) speak with Christians I say Jesus and when I speak to Hindus I say Shiva or Ganesh or Krishna and when I speak to Muslims I say Allah, but when I go into my private place to worship I still worship the One Supreme Being.

Before I forget the question I wanted to ask - why can't Sri Hanuman or any of the others for that matter not marry more than one wife? I don't mean to insult, it's an honest question.

 

[Chakra]

Just to clarify, but Hanuman did not have a wife. He is a complete celibate.

 

[ratikala]

namaskaram

Just to clarify, but Hanuman did not have a wife. He is a complete celibate.

Jai Jai devoted to the service of Sita Ram

 

[Chakra]

Namaste all. This is a wonderful discussion and I enjoyed reading it, I also hope it will continue. Just one small amusement before I want to ask some questions and make a comment or two:- the debate/fight between some Vaishnavas (ISKCON?) here and the rest of you sounds a lot like the irritating debate/fight between Jehovah Witnesses and other Christians.

Ouch. Don't worry, this "fight" is going to end soon. I only came here to clarify a couple of things and add my opinion. Did not mean to stir up trouble. The OP is very interesting, but I do not have the experience or knowledge to comment right now.

Before I forget the question I wanted to ask - why can't Sri Hanuman or any of the others for that matter not marry more than one wife? I don't mean to insult, it's an honest question.

Well Hanuman is not going to marry anyone. I think that a man is generally only supposed to marry one woman, and vice versa. The idea of two is important in Hinduism. So important that unlike many other languages, Sanskrit even has a "dual" along with singular and plural.

I honestly don't know if someone can marry another person while being married. Maybe the intention/reason counts? A person marrying more than one woman due to hypersexuality would be a bad reason. A person marrying more than one woman for the woman's honor, like Krishna, would be a good reason.

 

[spiritualhitchhiker]

Before I forget the question I wanted to ask - why can't Sri Hanuman or any of the others for that matter not marry more than one wife? I don't mean to insult, it's an honest question.

Well Hanuman is not going to marry anyone. I think that a man is generally only supposed to marry one woman, and vice versa. The idea of two is important in Hinduism. So important that unlike many other languages, Sanskrit even has a "dual" along with singular and plural.

I honestly don't know if someone can marry another person while being married. Maybe the intention/reason counts? A person marrying more than one woman due to hypersexuality would be a bad reason. A person marrying more than one woman for the woman's honor, like Krishna, would be a good reason.

There is Draupadi who married 5 men. And why would it be bad to marry more than one person for hypersexuality?

 

[Chakra]

There is Draupadi who married 5 men.

That situation was entirely different. Draupadi was originally married to Arjun, but due to the mother's wish Draupadi married all 5 of them.

And why would it be bad to marry more than one person for hypersexuality?

As far as I know, our religion does not encourage kama and the sort. In fact, our religion tells us to restrain our desires at all time.

 

[kalyan]

I don't think 'who is Brahman?' really makes a lot of sense as a question.


Nirguna Brahman is not anyone, by definition. Nirguna Brahman has no attributes, and is basically potential-filled emptiness, inasmuch as one can ever describe That.

Saguna Brahman has attributes, and can be said to be Visnu. But that is only ever a face, only ever born from our perceptions. So no one face can be 'correct' in some way. We just think of Brahman as being this deity or that deity or this description or that description until we can transcend such descriptions. So Saguna Brahman can be said to be Visnu, Siva, Ganesha, or even Odin or Cernunnos if you so choose.

Kirann,

Nirguna/Saguna Brahman deciding on that as per advaita is a waste of time and it leads us nowhere! I don't think you are getting the point, Siva/Ganesha are the Jivas and they are also bound by Karma, they also go in the cycle of birth and death.....Siva/Rudra is the son of Brahma (the basic root of Rudra, when he was born he cried and got angry looking at Brahma's 4 heads, he became Siva later and Maha Siva is the one of the greatest Sri Vaishnavite which was concluded by Bhagawatham at the end ).Paramaatma is only one and is nArayaNa, The only way in Kali Yuga to meditate on the Krushna/Rama/ is to worship them in the archa or Vigraha form...The paramaatma himself said that he will not appear in movable forms in Kali Yuga but only in Archa avatara or Vigraha or deity....You can ask anything there and get it! If you try to go into emptiness/Buddhist way it is very dangerous and leads us nowhere. why would anyone worship a nirguna tattvam which is void of any attribute, so what to meditate on ? when the supreme tattwam with innumerable auspicious attributes appeared as Sri Krushna avataram ?

The question you may want to ask is what is my goal ? are you meditating on atma to attain atma /am i meditating on paramaatma to attain his loka / where do you want to reach is the biggest question! you cannot become Brahman as we clearly are not the origin of the universe!


adiyen Chinna Jeeyar Swamy daasa
adiyen Ramanuja Daasa

 

[kalyan]

Not to mention, Sri Krushna is askhalitha Brahmachaari, he took a vow at the end of his avatara , when Kunti asks to save Arjuna's son wife's child as the child was the victim of war and was born as a piece of flesh...Then Sri Krushna makes 3 vows, the one among them is 'If am the askhalitha Brahmachaari' the child will become well, after Krushna completes his vows , the child gets well, then that automatically means what he said was true....One has to observe, that 16000 women are saved from Narakasura and they ask Krushna to give them shelter as they have no where to go and they enjoy the Krushna presence and his Love! If you see when Krushna ends his avatara, he says take thes 16000 to safe place and leave them there, arjuna could not even lift the bow when the theives attack him and leaves them and runs away and he realises at that point the whole source of power for him is Krushna ...Those 16000 at that point actual turn into RISHIS and vanish ! Krushna mainly has 8 wives in that avatara, those all are conisdered avatara of Sri Maha Lakshmi appearing in different forms to reduce Krushna independence in punishing us for our sins by different forms of behavior, the same way our mother try to behave in our childhood to deny punishments from our father,

bbye guys for now

Adiyen Chinna Jeeyar Swamy Daasa

 

[Aupmanyav]

No, both of them are Brahmacharis, so there are no children.

:scratches his head: But what do I know about ways of deities?

'Pitr rina' is for people who come from humans, it is not for someone from Devas.

I tend to disagree. Will Ganesha and Kartikeya have no obligation to Shiva or Parvati? Why did Ganesha stop Shiva from entering on Mother Parvati's instruction when she was bathing? Why did Ganesha go around his parents when asked to go around the world?

 

[Aupmanyav]

In his introductory section in bhagavad gItA bhAShya Shankaracharya writes:

And since when we are obligated to follow all that one Acarya or the other, or a book or the other says. Kalyan, this is Hinduism and not an Abrahamic religion.

Because the Brahma Sutra rejects both Shaiva and Shakta maths, and this can be found in Shankara's own Brahma Sutra Bhasya.

The answer is simple, Brahma Sutras may have written by a Vaishnava. The Shaivas, Shaktas and Smartas may have other views. And in this forum and Hinduism, we are supposed to respect differing views. 'Vipra bahudha vadanti'. That is a Veda Vakya. As you mention, even Sankara did not fully agree to it. Differences of pinion are valid in Hinduism.

I don't think 'who is Brahman?' really makes a lot of sense as a question.

No, it does not. Actually it settles all questions. Vishnu is Brahman, Shiva is Brahman, Shakti is Brahman, you are Brahman. I am Brahman. There is nothing other than Brahman in the universe.

I can imagine Christian theologians trying to explain it away.

Christian theologicians can say anything. They are a devious lot. But yes, Jesus was no other than Brahman and so was Osama bin Laden, only they did not realize this fact in their ignorance.

 

[Aupmanyav]

.. why can't Sri Hanuman or any of the others for that matter not marry more than one wife? I don't mean to insult, it's an honest question.

It is a deity's choice and there are no rules about it. Ganesha and Murugan married twice, Krishna 16008 times. Though the current Indian law does not permit it for Hindus (Nehru created this law to stop his sister's husband to marry a second time), there is no bar in tradition like this (though 'one marriage' (Eka-patni vrata) was always preferred. Arjuna could not defeat a Kamarupa (Assam) king because he observed 'Eka-patni vrata' while Arjuna did not.

As far as I know, our religion does not encourage kama and the sort. In fact, our religion tells us to restrain our desires at all time.

While I agree to what you say but physical differences can exist. In that case it will be wiser to marry again, rather than seek sexual satisfaction in any other way.