Vishnu and Shiva, life and death

[Solon]

Significantly, Vishnu (Krishna) here identifies himself with
Shiva. This seems a contradiction in terms since the former is
credited with the creation of the world and the latter with its
destruction (death). However, God clarifies matters:

"I am immortality (amrita) as well as death (mrityu)." (9.19)

"I am the all-depriving death and also the source of all future
beings." (10.34) BG.

Solon
___________________________

 

[Valjean]

Krishna is speaking as Brahman.

 

[Solon]

The universal oneness.

S

 

[Moses the God Archetype*]

:shout Yes The Same Same Side Of One Coin,there Is No Need To Seperate!!!!

 

[Solon]

If one considers that all things lead us back to the universal singularity, indeed it is so.

Solon

 

[Valjean]

So are we all in accord with an advaiti interpretation?

Somehow, I'm skeptical....

 

[mr.guy]

Is there not a difference between Brahman and Brahma? I thought the former was the universal consciousness and the latter the creation diety.

 

[YmirGF]

Aspects of the One, and the One in the many.

In the words of the master,
"I am he, as you are me, as we are, althogether."

I will dance my dance of joy, conscious in the awareness of my small part in the cosmic lila.
If only others could know the whisper of the Piper's call.

 

[Valjean]

Correct.

The former is also sometimes subdivided into Saguna Brahman -- Reality/Godhead with attributes, and Nirguna Brahman -- undifferentiated/featureless Being.

Brahman-with-attributes always seemed a contradiction in terms to me, as well as a useless complication in an already byzantine religion. Hinduism has all to many personifications of the myriad features of Being already.

 

[Solon]

In Ancient Egypt, although not commonly stated, every single God was in fact a manifestation of the nature of the sole God, whose names could never be known, not even by the Gods themselves.

Amun's hidden nature, is as hidden as his secret names.

S

 

[YmirGF]

Correct.

The former is also sometimes subdivided into Saguna Brahman -- Reality/Godhead with attributes, and Nirguna Brahman -- undifferentiated/featureless Being.

Brahman-with-attributes always seemed a contradiction in terms to me, as well as a useless complication in an already byzantine religion. Hinduism has all to many personifications of the myriad features of Being already.

My learned fellow, isn't that like saying a spacious symphony by Mozart has too many notes?

 

[Valjean]

My learned fellow, isn't that like saying a spacious symphony by Mozart has too many notes?

Sorry, you've lost me. Explain, please.

I do get the Amadeus allusion, though. :jiggy:

 

[YmirGF]

Sorry, you've lost me. Explain, please.

I do get the Amadeus allusion, though. :jiggy:

I have always enjoyed the rich diversity in Hindu thought. Do I believe every description and word? OF course not. But it seems to me the author did an exceedingly good job of mapping out the underlying fabric of they reality they were attempting to describe.

I agree, about the contracdictions and the mind boggling prefusion of manifestions, however when looked at as a whole, it paints a rather remarkable picture. A picture created for people who lived long long ago. Primitive? Yep. Accurate? I couldn't say.
Sensible? Not really. I look at it more as a work of art and dont pay much attention to meaningless labels.

Mozart indeed created some masterworks that could have been a little shorter and had more "umph". He could have made others pieces longer, but he didn't. He made them they way they are.

I do not mean to question your views, honest. Anyone thinking of these things is already well beyond the norm to begin with. My own pee brain simply taught me to not get too hung up on the details, as the prize was/is worth more than their combined error.

 

[Moses the God Archetype*]

:shout Oh seyorni this is very true that hinduism has to many personifications of the same divine being that is only manisfested in diffrent forms of the divine will, thats why i subscribed to bahkti-yoga as many guidence and dwell the godhead that is krsna!

 

[Jyothi]

however when looked at as a whole, it paints a rather remarkable picture. A picture created for people who lived long long ago. Primitive? Yep. Accurate? I couldn't say.
Sensible? Not really. I look at it more as a work of art and dont pay much attention to meaningless labels.

YmirGF

I do see your point when you said the prize is in the combined error. but with what i have quoted from you above, i do not agree - it is not a work of art, and it probably signifies more meanings than one could comprehend (Note:i used one and not you)

when the western world first found ayurveda being practiced in india - they called it primitive and inaccurate - today it is one of the only traditional yet scientific medical practices in the world , that does not claim to use magic or potions.

when the western world first saw indian mathematics, they called it primitive and inaccurate - now indians teach it to their children at home - indeed some US parents have also started using indian teachers on the web for vedic maths.

i do not want to go into each of those topics like, astrology, astronomy, reflexology, philosophy et al.

but i would say if you are really interested in understanding hinduism, you should first free yourselves of aham (yourselves) and therefore those boundaries and parameters you use for evaluation. submit yourselves to knowledge and keep questioning instead of arriving at conclusions or branding.

hinduism is not primitive, it is cryptic as is most of hindu thought, philosophy and ethos... all the best!!!!

 

[YmirGF]

Thank you for your thoughts Jyothi.
You might want to re-read what I am saying. You seem to have missed my point.

First:

I do see your point when you said the prize is in the combined error.

Jyothi, that is NOT what I said.

I said,

as the prize was/is worth more than their combined error

My point is that the Totality of the "big picture" is worth far more than the niggly little inonsistencies. The errors don't really mean that much when one looks at the "whole enchelada". Am I missing something here?

but with what i have quoted from you above, i do not agree - it is not a work of art, and it probably signifies more meanings than one could comprehend (Note:i used one and not you)

Again, that is not what I am saying.

I look at it more as a work of art

I am not saying it is like the great Indian Novella. I am saying that it is more like an art unto itself.

but i would say if you are really interested in understanding hinduism, you should first free yourselves of aham (yourselves) and therefore those boundaries and parameters you use for evaluation. submit yourselves to knowledge and keep questioning instead of arriving at conclusions or branding.

hinduism is not primitive, it is cryptic as is most of hindu thought, philosophy and ethos.

As someone who flirted with Krsna concsciousness for several years, you need not lecture me on the wonders of Hinduism. I have a reasonably good grasp. You are preaching to the converted, even though I cannot wear the label of one who is a follower.

Many concepts found in Hinduism form the foundations of my own understanding and I have to tip my hat with respect. PLEASE forgive me for treating the subject somewhat lightly, as I can only blame it on my bliss.

Perhaps primitive is being mean. However, I consider all of man's religions to be somewhat primitive, so at least I am not singling out Hinduism. I consider Hinduism to be perhaps the best representation of reality this sad little planet has to offer, strange, though it may seem to the uninformed.

you should first free yourselves of aham (yourselves)

If I "free" myself much more, I won't be here. LOL. :biglaugh:

In warmth and with respect
Paul

 

[Jyothi]

hi paul


maybe i misunderstood you a little bit


shanti and samadhan to you friend