Vishnu (Narayana) OR Brahman?

[Kalicharan Tuvij]

..Almost always I would say Visnu, or Krsna. But that is simply because in Acintya Bhedabheda Brahman is the..

First thing to consider is that not every Vaishnava is the same. There are vishishtadvaita vaishnavas, dvaita vaishnavas, dvaitadvaita vaishnavas, achintya bhedabheda vaishnavas etc.

One interesting point that comes to light is: "Is it necessary for a Vaishnava to subscribe to one or the other of the various Vedanta philosophies?". If not, then why is it practically the case? Can't one be a "simple bhakta" and yet not be denied "high tables"? This is another fundamental issue, because on the face of it a particular Bhakti has nothing in it to cause it to go hand-in-hand with a particular philosophy.

Some people do look at the whole diamond- they tend to be advaitans.

I guess they don't look at it at all. Moreover they don't worship the Ten, why, none of them.

There is no one unified approach to Vishnu.

Yes all approaches differ from each other in a fundamental way. Hence the need to look at the diamond via all facets.

Too many forms becomes too confusing for the bhakta looking for that relationship.

Try it.

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.

I had "NarayaNa" in mind.

This is why the 1008 names of Vishnu is such a wide spread practice

Even though you are angry (sorry if this dirtbag caused this), you are able to appreciate the point. However, just going through the envelopes isn't the same as opening each of them and receiving the gifts. I am not talking about 1008, only the 10.

However, the path of Bhakti states that we develop our relationship with Vishnu through the form that we find most attractive.

That is the entry point. After a while, Lord starts showing us His aspects, and other forms.


p.s.: no one finds KāLI "attractive", at least in the beginning, still She manages to get hold of some bhakta-s.

 

[Andal]

One interesting point that comes to light is: "Is it necessary for a Vaishnava to subscribe to one or the other of the various Vedanta philosophies?". If not, then why is it practically the case? Can't one be a "simple bhakta" and yet not be denied "high tables"? This is another fundamental issue, because on the face of it a particular Bhakti has nothing in it to cause it to go hand-in-hand with a particular philosophy.

It depends on what you mean by necessary. Not everyone subscribes to a philosophical school. If one is in one of the Vaishnava sampradayas they will by default have a philosophical school behind them even if they don't articulate it.

I guess they don't look at it at all. Moreover they don't worship the Ten, why, none of them.

Because it is at the desire of the bhakta. There is nothing stopping someone from worshipping the Dasavatara however it is a choice. It is not that one way is better than the other.

Try it.

For what purpose? I already worship 3 forms of the Lord and that sometimes feels like too much. Beside that, why go against millennia of tradition that has worked well for bhaktas thus far.

I had "NarayaNa" in mind

How are you distinguishing Narayana from Vishnu?

Even though you are angry (sorry if this dirtbag caused this), you are able to appreciate the point. However, just going through the envelopes isn't the same as opening each of them and receiving the gifts. I am not talking about 1008, only the 10.

I'm not angry in the least bit. I'm not quite sure where you are coming from on that one. Let me ask you this. Would you take 10 wives or 1.

p.s.: no one finds KāLI "attractive", at least in the beginning, still She manages to get hold of some bhakta-s.

Yes Kali devotees too. Attractive doesn't mean physically attractive. It is spiritual. I know enough Kali bhaktas who love and are deeply drawn to her.

Aum Hari Aum!

 

[chinu]

@ I will like to know whether you prefer the name "Vishnu (Narayana)" OR "Brahman" as the name of your Supreme?

Who am I to give "Him" the name, am I ?

 

[Kalicharan Tuvij]

It depends on what you mean by necessary. Not everyone subscribes to a philosophical school. If one is in one of the Vaishnava sampradayas they will by default have a philosophical school behind them even if they don't articulate it.

So I can reframe thus: "why do Vaishnava Sampradaya-s need to have a philosophical framework?" For Bhakti is best "done" without philosophy, or sophistry. Ask Vinayaka-ji for that matter.
So what are they really trying to achieve?

Because it is at the desire of the bhakta. There is nothing stopping someone from worshipping the Dasavatara however it is a choice. It is not that one way is better than the other.

What do you mean? Can even an Advaitin be a Vaishnava? Even though he may not worship any Avatāra? Is this possible??

How are you distinguishing Narayana from Vishnu?

It is based on my general impressions of modern Vaishnavism. By Narayana (for a lack of better word actually) they mean "Vishnu in the Yōganidrā in kshīr sāgar" as against only "Vishnu" who is very dynamic and involved in everything and also taking Avatāra-s. Though it is upto individual how he/she sees it.

I'm not angry in the least bit. I'm not quite sure where you are coming from on that one. Let me ask you this. Would you take 10 wives or 1

Good to know that you aren't angry (I can go on and on then:drool.
Regarding 10 or 1 wives, surely I will chose 10 if government and Devi allows me. I am not good with names,but having "spent" sufficient time with them, I can give you exact description how each of them would be like!
It can also translate into falling consciously in love with real people, sensing one or the other purity "vibing" in them. And then the distinction between Deva/ Devi gets blurred. So often Krishna Himself could be thus seen as "coming" from, say, a female bhakta coming out of an ISCKON. You can say it is madness, could be true. On the top of it, this can grow on you, not diminish, over the time.

Unlike the Devis, to make a comparison, I agree Vishnu is not "human enough" and thus attractive enough in some of his Avatāra-s. But in time a bhakta should be able to go beyond this seeming limitation.

Who am I to give "Him" the name, am I ?

It is same as saying "Brahman".

 

[chinu]

It is same as saying "Brahman".

Thanks, for the information.
Now, I will add one more name for "Him" in my list

 

[Kalicharan Tuvij]

Thanks, for the information.
Now, I will add one more name for "Him" in my list

Or, shall we say, one more name for "Tat" as called by SatyamaveJayanti in the previous page of this thread.
So, Chinu ji, do you have an ISTa Deva/ Devi?

 

[Satyamavejayanti]

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

If OM is same as Brahman or Brahman is same as Ohm, makes no difference to me, I am not much on Bhakti to a particular Deva or Devi, but mostly am a great bhakt to my Father and Mother, who to me are more then Ohm and Brahman combined.

 

[Silver Wolf]

My view on Vishnu may offend some Vashnaivas, so out of respect for them, I won't state it.
I prefer Brahman, because it reminds me of God in all of his aspects, both material, spiritual, form, and formless. His unending opulence and eternal playfulness. His role as dog, cat, mouse, human, deva, etc.

 

[Kalicharan Tuvij]

My view on Vishnu may offend some Vashnaivas, so out of respect for them, I won't state it.
I prefer Brahman, because it reminds me of God in all of his aspects, both material, spiritual, form, and formless. His unending opulence and eternal playfulness. His role as dog, cat, mouse, human, deva, etc.

SW, then you should better state it; believe me, this is the thread for it, you will also get over with it, and it may bring up something important here.

BTW Brahman is defined primarily as "neti-neti" (not this, not that), a far cry from your "God in all of his aspects". If I am wrong be kind enough to show me a verse or a song of Bhakti and love dedicated directly to the name of Brahman.

If OM is same as Brahman or Brahman is same as Ohm, makes no difference to me, I am not much on Bhakti to a particular Deva or Devi, but mostly am a great bhakt to my Father and Mother, who to me are more then Ohm and Brahman combined.

So what do you think is Brahman? Nothing-nothing, or everything-everything. I know you can play well with words, but a plain reply will be welcome.

namaste

KT

 

[Satyamavejayanti]

=Kalicharan Tuvij;3490211]
So what do you think is Brahman? Nothing-nothing, or everything-everything. I know you can play well with words, but a plain reply will be welcome.

namaste

Lol,

Ok, for the sake of clarity I think Brahman is something.

Is that plain enough.

 

[Kalicharan Tuvij]

Lol,

Ok, for the sake of clarity I think Brahman is something.

Is that plain enough.

Something is between Nothing and Everything. So you chose your words!

 

[Silver Wolf]

SW, then you should better state it; believe me, this is the thread for it, you will also get over with it, and it may bring up something important here.

I view Vishnu as an enlightened sage who was promoted to his position by God.

BTW Brahman is defined primarily as "neti-neti" (not this, not that), a far cry from your "God in all of his aspects". If I am wrong be kind enough to show me a verse or a song of Bhakti and love dedicated directly to the name of Brahman.

I was referring more or less, to his aspects as incarnate beings.

Forgive me if I gave you the idea I was a Hindu. I have been trying to learn more about the various religions of Sanatan Dharma, and I believe in an all-sustaining Brahman. I guess our ideas on Brahman are different. I am sorry if I have offended you. It was not my intention to misrepresent God.

 

[Indian Iconoclast]

Namaste Vaishnava Forum members.:bow:

I will like to know whether you prefer the name "Vishnu (Narayana)" OR "Brahman" as the name of your Supreme?

It is your wish to participate in this. Again, you are encouraged to tell from your hearts, rather than your brains, and so on, rather than what you might have simply read or listened to from somewhere.

I know, one may say, what is in the name? Be it Rām or be it Rahīm, Ha Ha! No offence to anyone but, it is indeed a matter of great concern to a devotee what name he attributes to his Deity, to his Supreme- the very Absolute!

And it really is nothing less than an insult when a devotee is told that some other "name"- other than the name he calls his Deity as- is higher. The way of telling may be very clever, or subtle, and may even use the finest possible philosophical tools available, still, It doesn't make a difference.

I am thus proposing here that the question is real, and will therefore be eager to listening from all of you (if required, KāLI bhaktas, or any other, can answer the question with "Narayana" replaced with their Deity's name).


bhakta-to-bhakta,
praNām

The formed (SAAKAAR) has been depicted and praised in ancient India as:-

' SHAANTAAKAARAM! BHUJANGA SHAYANAM! PADMANAABHAM! SURESHAM!
VISHWADHAARAM! GAGANA-SADDRISHAM! MEGHA-VARNAM! SHUBHAANGAM!
LAKSHMI-KAANTAM! KAMALA-NAYANAM! YOGIRBHIH-DHYAANAGAMYAM!
VANDE VISHNUM! BHAWABHAYAHARAM! SARVALOKEIKANAATHAM!'
(Peaceful appearance! Resting on the coiled serpent (Vasuki)! Bearing a lotus grown form his navel! The Lord of the gods! The basis of the universe! Sky like countenance! Bearing the color of rain-clouds! Embodied with pleasantly formed limbs! The husband of Lakshmi (Goddess of abundance)! Lotus eyed! Beyond the imaginations even of the Yogis (Indian seers and sages)! Praised be Vishnu! The remover of fears of the universe! The One Master of all the worlds!)

The formless (NIRAAKAAR) has been depicted and praised in ancient India as:-

'AWYAKTAM! ADDRISHYAM CHA AWAANGMANASAH-GOCHARAM! NIRGUNAIVA NIRAAKAARAH! WYAAPTAH SARWATRAH-CHARAACHARAM! SWAYAMBHUH AMRITAH CHA JEEVITAH SHAASHWATAIVA CHA! AYONIH AJAATAH CHA KAALAATEETAH SAH ISHWARAM!'
(Never (truly) spoken of (defined)! Unseen and beyond the imaginations and reasons of the mind and intellect! Of no attributes and form! Omnipresent and omnipotent! Self formed and deathless and perpetually continuing (to live)! Of no progeny and no sire and (living) beyond the measures of time (not bound by time) that is The God!"

The Gayatri Mantrah of the Aryan 'OM BHURBHUWASYAH............' is claimed to be the definition of the word or sound AUM or OM which is symbolic for God, but that word is also used by all Sanatana Dharma people and Sikhs (Ik Omkaar) and Buddhists and Jains whether meaning God or otherwise.

I being an iconoclast and non conformist, use the term God in English and Ishwar in Hindi whenever referring to my unknown, unseen and imagined but always emotionally felt Almighty Creator in whom I have faith till now and who I praise wholeheartedly and to whom I pray very sincerely. I also have accepted Jesus Christ as my spiritual teacher and mentor, who I also address as Master and Sadguru.

========================================================================================================================
GURUR BRAMHAH GURUR VISHNUH GURURDEVAH MAHESHWARAH! GURUH SAAKHSHAAT PAARABRAMHAH! TASMAYE SHRI GURUVE NAMAH!

 

[chinu]

Or, shall we say, one more name for "Tat" as called by SatyamaveJayanti in the previous page of this thread.
So, Chinu ji, do you have an ISTa Deva/ Devi?

What is "Tat" and "SatyamaveJayanti" ? and What is ISTa ? according to you.

Perhaps, we might be having different definitions for them, Kalicharan ji.

 

[Indian Iconoclast]

Satyam! Bodhamayam! Nararoopam! Amalam! Pratyakhshah Sarveshwaram! Raktaaplutah kantakamukute shwetaambaray shovitam! Muktamaala vibhu****am cha hridayasinghaasanay sangsthitam! Bhaktaanaam varadam! Prasanna vadanam! Shri Sadgurum naumyaham!

 

[chinu]

Satyam! Bodhamayam! Nararoopam! Amalam! Pratyakhshah Sarveshwaram! Raktaaplutah kantakamukutah shwetaambaray shovitam! Muktamaala vibhu****am cha hridayasinghaasanay sangshthitam! Bhaktaanaam varadam! Prasanna vadanam! Shri Sadgurum naumyaham!

Now, what happened with all this ?

 

[Indian Iconoclast]

Now, what happened with all this ?

What happened? I do not understand that question Chinu! Do you need a translation? You who I believe to be from India and to my assumption knows enough Sanskrit to understand the post? Inform me please if my assumption is incorrect.

 

[Poeticus]

I also have accepted Jesus Christ as my spiritual teacher and mentor, who I also address as Master and Sadguru.

Please keep in mind that this is the HinduDIR.

 

[Indian Iconoclast]

Chinu!

NAA MAIN MULLA NAA MAIN KAAJI! NAA MAIN PANDAT NAA MAIN HAAJI! NAA MAIN WASSDA JANGAL WELEY NAA E MERA MULAK NADAUN!

BULHA! KI JAANAAN MAIN KAUN?

 

[chinu]

What happened? I do not understand that question Chinu! Do you need a translation? You who I believe to be from India and to my assumption knows enough Sanskrit to understand the post? Inform me please if my assumption is incorrect.

Actually, I just want to know from him, why he posted all that here ? or what relation do this have with this thread ?