Vishnu (Narayana) OR Brahman?

[Vinayaka]

pranām V-ji
So no "Brahman" for you?

Only if I start thinking in philosophical terms, but since I'm not good at that, and a simple person, normally, no. All that exists is Siva.

 

[Poeticus]

All that exists is Siva.

And, I believe that makes more sense than "BrahmAn".

Kalicharan, let's add Vinayaka to our club of fervent worshippers that do not heed to this notion known as "BrahmAn" - this very notion that has made our rituals harder to practice. Muahahaha!

 

[Kalicharan Tuvij]

First of all, I would like to explain this joke to Vinayaka so he doesn't misunderstand what I am trying to say in my post above Kalicharan's:

I was saying that even if Vinayaka doesn't believe in "BrahmAn" or if he does, at least he said "Shiva, alone". Lord Shri Sada-Shiva is Har Har Mahadeva. This war cry means serious business. And, at the same time, his bholenaath nature is the foremost amongst all the Devas and Devis.

But I believe that by "Shiva" here, the whole Shiva family- or the "Family man Shiva"- is meant.
(V. Must clarify on this, though.)

Anyways, coming back to track - MitrAni and VarunANi - ummm. It is safe for me to say that I have not encountered MitrAni, but have encountered VarunANi.

I was just checking
Though clearly, the female versions (I don't see them as their wives) of Vedic Deities exist, no doubt. Regarding Mitrāni, we have something like "Mitanni", as I have read somewhere..

 

[Poeticus]

Wait a second, don't you mean Devi VaruNi?

 

[Kalicharan Tuvij]

Kalicharan, let's add Vinayaka to our club of fervent worshippers that do not heed to this notion known as "BrahmAn" - this very notion that has made our rituals harder to practice. Muahahaha!

Indeed! At this point however I will like see some Advaitins post here- lest the Brahman-bashing go far..

note: Varuna or Varunāni or Varuni- makes no difference to me!

 

[Poeticus]

Regarding Mitrāni, we have something like "Mitanni", as I have read somewhere..

Mitanni (Mi-it-an-ni) is a place/location - an ancient kingdom on the eastern side of the mighty Hittite Empire.

The place was ruled by an Indo-Aryan elite, governing a Hurrian population. They lost a battle to the Hittites and made a peace treaty with them invoking "In-da-ra", "Mi-it-ra[shil]", "Na-sa-ta-ya", and one more I can't remember.

 

[Poeticus]

lest the Brahman-bashing go far..

I wasn't bashing. Do you think I was? Where?

 

[Kalicharan Tuvij]

Mitanni (Mi-it-an-ni) is a place/location - an ancient kingdom on the eastern side of the mighty Hittite Empire.

The place was ruled by an Indo-Aryan elite, governing a Hurrian population. They lost a battle to the Hittites and made a peace treaty with them invoking "In-da-ra", "Mi-it-ra[shil]", "Na-sa-ta-ya", and one more I can't remember.

Got-cha!
Why they do still call it "INDO-Aryan", "INDO-Europian", etc? With deep pockets they have had their way, they have distorted history as much as they wanted, now they can very well label it: "Aryan", "European". Economy of space.

note: I quite enjoy Brahman bashing though.

 

[Poeticus]

I can't quite say. But, I know that the term "Indic" is becoming quite popular in the Journal of Indo-Iranian Studies (JIIS).

 

[Kalicharan Tuvij]

I can't quite say. But, I know that the term "Indic" is becoming quite popular in the Journal of Indo-Iranian Studies (JIIS).

That still deep-pockets.

OK, answer this, MV: what will you say before the Ferryman who is your destination?

 

[Poeticus]

That still deep-pockets.

OK, answer this, MV: what will you say before the Ferryman who is your destination?

Probably something along the lines of: my boat is better than yours, I can show you, but I'll have to charge.

 

[Andal]

Vannakkam,

Kalicharan So does it mean then that "NarayaNa", "Brahman", "Rām", etc- are PATHS? That is, the Ferryman Himself?

There is no ferryman outside of your own heart.

So are there many Ferrymen? This is ugly. May be I am getting something, somewhere wrong!
OR, ARE THERE MANY MOKSHA-S?

The Lord appears to the devotee in the form that pleases and attracts the devotee. There is no number of moksha. Moksha isn't a place. It's a state of being.

So it isn't just name, after all. Rām is decidedly different from Krishna, not only by name but also by the content inside the name. If, one says, worshipping either Rām or Krishna leads to the same Narayana (and not to Rām and Krishna/ may be because they are same as Narayana), then will worshipping Shiva will also lead to the same, NarayaNa? Of course, this is the -"what is in the name"- notion.

Rama is God reflecting to humans how relationships among humans work. Krishna is God reflecting to humans how relationships between God and humans work. Both are avatars of Narayana. Rama and Krishna have different characteristics during their leelas but they are the same. They are Sri Vishnu. It's like looking at the facets of a diamond.

A consequence of this will be, when the Ferryman asks a devotee, who had worshipped Sri Rām throughout his life, regarding his destination, the devotee almost tells out "Rām" but suddenly something gets into his head, and he says "NarayaNa" instead of "Rām"!

Who is this ferryman you speak of? When one dies they are reborn according to their karma and God's desire.

Will you not like to see Earth itself become sorts of Vaikuntha, where NarayaNa is the only one worshipped. After all, why all this confusion (many religions many gods), and all this suffering arising of that confusion?

No. That is not the natural way of things. Not everyone is exactly the same. Not every Vaishnava even agrees. That's why we have the different vedantic philosophies. Who would decide which philosophy is right? Not everyone will feel attraction to God in the way I do or someone else here does. It is not fair to dictate what someone else's relationship with God should be. I would want Vaikunta on earth only to the extent it means all of us with our spiritual diversity can live in peace.

Aum Hari Aum!

 

[Sb1995]

Brahman is the supreme. All the deities are a part of Brahman. It's like Brahman is a car but the deities are all part's of the car that come together to form the ultimate one, which is Brahman.

 

[Metempsychosis]

Brahman because this name will be used by people who have had some prior knowledge of Vedic literature esp.Upanishads.Vishnu and Shiva are very famous/common Indian God names.

 

[Satyamavejayanti]

=Kalicharan Tuvij;3481732]
I will like to know whether you prefer the name "Vishnu (Narayana)" OR "Brahman" as the name of your Supreme?

If i had to choose, i would prefer just "Tat, or "OHM", or Ekam, but Vishnu or Brahman does not bother me either, nor does mata, pita, Deva, Devi, Agni, Indra ect ect.

 

[Kalicharan Tuvij]

Rama and Krishna have different characteristics during their leelas but they are the same. They are Sri Vishnu. It's like looking at the facets of a diamond.

namaste Andal.
Isn't the most right thing to do is to "look at the diamond" from all angles, before we die? Knowing it through all the facets, to have the necessary completeness?
So now answer this)): Why don't the Vaishnavas worship all of the Dasavatra-s : much in the same way as a Shakta does by worshipping all the Devis more or less equally? "Why don't the Vaishnavas see Vishnu not as a separate God (who is in Yoga-nīdr&#257 only- but essentially as the SUM of 10-aspects (related with the 10 Avatāra-s)?"
Like Devi Durgā is considered as primarily a SUM of Her purer aspects, or Devi-s. It is a simple question, but a highly important one too- I will like to know what are your (Vaishnava-s here) thoughts regarding this. Certainly, there is not even one Vaishnava (not I have met) who has worshipped Parshurām even once.

The point that Andal raised (Vishnu-ji and the facets) leads to this critical issue. This says: "Vaishnavas must worship all the Ten."

Of course I know the typical replies that may come forth, but I am not looking for them. I know, for instance, Krishna come more naturally to some compared to Rām, and vice-versa. But I can only say in this that many times we must do the "slogging" , must do things that do not come "naturally" to us: this is our mandate here on Earth, isn't it?

Who is this ferryman you speak of? When one dies they are reborn according to their karma and God's desire.

I inserted the Ferryman- deliberately without defining- just as to add more richness into the argument. So, here for example, you yourself have put your impression: "The Ferryman is nothing but Karma."

Who would decide which philosophy is right? Not everyone will feel attraction to God in the way I do or someone else here does.

A necessary condition for "right philosophy" will be: Its All-completeness.
So here we come to an important part of this thread:

Welcome, those who uphold Brahman as Supreme!

Brahman is the supreme. All the deities are a part of Brahman. It's like Brahman is a car but the deities are all part's of the car that come together to form the ultimate one, which is Brahman.

Namaste Sb. So does it mean that Brahman is superior to Sri-GaNesha who you worship? Then, why worship GaNesha at all?

Brahman because this name will be used by people who have had some prior knowledge of Vedic literature esp.Upanishads.Vishnu and Shiva are very famous/common Indian God names.

Namaste AR. Very practical. So is this how we must "explain" an otherwise inexplicable Hindu Dharma to the outsiders?

If i had to choose, i would prefer just "Tat, or "OHM", or Ekam, but Vishnu or Brahman does not bother me either, nor does mata, pita, Deva, Devi, Agni, Indra ect ect.

Namaste SatyamaveJayanti. Evidently, your thoughts are genuine. OHM is however construed to be same as Brahman. So the question is: have you ever genuinely indulged in the Bhakti of any Deva/Devi. I am just asking, not judging (genuinely).

pranām

KT

 

[Metempsychosis]

Namaste AR. Very practical. So is this how we must "explain" an otherwise inexplicable Hindu Dharma to the outsiders?

KT

Nope..Just my thoughts to be unique..Might backfire.

 

[Sb1995]

KT

No, Ganeshji is a part of Brahman, all the deities form one, which is Brahman.

 

[KrsnaDasa]

Namaste,

Almost always I would say Visnu, or Krsna. But that is simply because in Acintya Bhedabheda Brahman is the spiritual radiance of Śri Krsna, commonly known as Brahmajyothi, while Krsna is Parabrahman. So there is slight difference, and yet they are the same (inconceivable oneness and difference).

Hare Krsna

 

[Andal]

Vannakkam,

Isn't the most right thing to do is to "look at the diamond" from all angles, before we die? Knowing it through all the facets, to have the necessary completeness?

Right thing according to whom? Some people do look at the whole diamond- they tend to be advaitans. Others find one facet that draws their attention and completely captivates them. This person knows the full diamond through that facet. This person knows that facet so intimately that the entirety of the diamond's nature is contained in that one facet.

Either way is better. I choose the facet, someone else chooses the whole thing. There is no right or wrong way. Both people are describing and perceiving the same diamond in a way that matches their inclinations.

So now answer this(): Why don't the Vaishnavas worship all of the Dasavatra-s : much in the same way as a Shakta does by worshipping all the Devis more or less equally? "Why don't the Vaishnavas see Vishnu not as a separate God (who is in Yoga-nīdr&#257 only- but essentially as the SUM of 10-aspects (related with the 10 Avatāra-s)?"

First thing to consider is that not every Vaishnava is the same. There are vishishtadvaita vaishnavas, dvaita vaishnavas, dvaitadvaita vaishnavas, achintya bhedabheda vaishnavas etc. There is no one unified approach to Vishnu.

The next thing is every vaishnava venerates all of the incarnations of Vishnu. However, in vaishnavism one of the main approaches is bhakti. And bhakti is a deeply intimate relationship with God. Too many forms becomes too confusing for the bhakta looking for that relationship. We choose one form to take on as our beloved because it fits with our disposition. Bhakti isn't just worship. It is the most intimate relationship one can have.

Vaishnavas do not see Vishnu as a separate god. I'm not sure where you get this idea. Vishnu, Rama, Krishna, Vasudeva, Venkateshvara, Narasimha, Kalki, Matsya, etc are all Vishnu. Vishnu isn't separate.

The point that Andal raised (Vishnu-ji and the facets) leads to this critical issue. This says: "Vaishnavas must worship all the Ten."

Vaishnavas must? Who has said this? Vaishnavas do worship all forms of Vishnu. This is why the 1008 names of Vishnu is such a wide spread practice. However, the path of Bhakti states that we develop our relationship with Vishnu through the form that we find most attractive. Or the other way of thinking about it is the form that Vishnu decides to make known to our hearts.

Of course I know the typical replies that may come forth, but I am not looking for them. I know, for instance, Krishna come more naturally to some compared to Rām, and vice-versa. But I can only say in this that many times we must do the "slogging" , must do things that do not come "naturally" to us: this is our mandate here on Earth, isn't it?

Whose mandate is that? If my natural inclination is fall in love with God instead of mastering the art of scriptural analysis, wouldn't it make more sense for God to meet me at the level of the heart and not the intellect? (or the other way around). In the Vaishnava tradition, God is waiting for us to return to him and in the quickest way possible. This is why in the Gita Lord Krishna lays out the yogas for us. Each approach matching a different person's affinities.

Aum Hari Aum!