Vishnu and Shiva

[kalyan chakravarthy]

Namaskaaram,


>1) Much of your argument hinges upon the statement
>that praising other gods as supreme is really praising
>the Narayana within those other gods. I am curious --
>where did this come from?

Otherwise RV 7.40.5 becomes meaningless.

>3) Nirguna Brahman/turiya is completely untouched,
>therefore calling it Narayana cannot be correct. Even
>calling it "Brahman" or "atman" falls short.

Referring to Turiya, the Mandukya Upanishad says, sa atma, which means
Turiya is Atman.

Referring to the atman, the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad says - This Self which
can be descrribed as neti neti (nirguNa brahman).

Dont you find that Turiya or nirguNa brahman is the Atman?

>May be it
>would be more correct to call Narayana and Rudra as
>Saguna Brahman?

SaguNa brahman is not different from nirguNa brahman.

>which IMO,
>is what the contradictions in the Vedas hint at.

Sri Adi Shankara never said that vedas contradict each other.

>that Vishnu's function of
>sustaining/pervading depends upon a creation from
>Brahma and Rudra's function of destruction depends
>upon Vishnu's sustaining that creation, and again back
>to Brahma after destruction. Hence they are all
>inter-dependent

I will accept your argument if you show me one statement from the sruti
which says that Vishnu is dependant on others.

>The ONENESS beyond the three is turiya/Nirguna
>Brahman. Therefore it isn't possible to equate
>Narayana/Vishnu, who is one of the three, as the same.

Oneness has no meaning when there are no two entities. That is precisely the
reason why Turiya is called as Advaitam(negation of duality) rather than
Ekam(which indicates unity.)

Narayana is the Atma, as the sruti says so. So Narayana can be safely
applied to Turiya, as Turiya is the Atma. Thus Narayana is nirguNa brahman.

Best Regards
Kalyan



>From: Rolando Santos <sivadancer at YAHOO.COM>
>Reply-To: List for advaita vedanta as taught by Shri Shankara
><ADVAITA-L at LISTS.ADVAITA-VEDANTA.ORG>
>To: ADVAITA-L at LISTS.ADVAITA-VEDANTA.ORG
>Subject: Re: Vishnu and Shiva
>Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 11:22:22 -0800
>
>Namaste,
>
>1) Much of your argument hinges upon the statement
>that praising other gods as supreme is really praising
>the Narayana within those other gods. I am curious --
>where did this come from?
>
>3) Nirguna Brahman/turiya is completely untouched,
>therefore calling it Narayana cannot be correct. Even
>calling it "Brahman" or "atman" falls short. May be it
>would be more correct to call Narayana and Rudra as
>Saguna Brahman? Since they have qualities and are
>within the realm of creation, then my previous
>argument holds: that Vishnu's function of
>sustaining/pervading depends upon a creation from
>Brahma and Rudra's function of destruction depends
>upon Vishnu's sustaining that creation, and again back
>to Brahma after destruction. Hence they are all
>inter-dependent and more importantly, the three gods
>are really just states of the ONE being -- which IMO,
>is what the contradictions in the Vedas hint at. The
>contradictions make you contemplate "how can this be
>the greatest and that be the greatest at the same
>time?" Hopefully out of the contemplation arises the
>realization: "A Ha! This IS That!"...which is sort of
>a different version of Tat Tvam Asi, but is meant in
>the same spirit.
>
>The ONENESS beyond the three is turiya/Nirguna
>Brahman. Therefore it isn't possible to equate
>Narayana/Vishnu, who is one of the three, as the same.
>
>AUM
>Rolando
>
>--- kalyan chakravarthy <kalyan_kc at HOTMAIL.COM> wrote:
> > Namaskaar,
> >
> > In future I may or may not have time to write so
> > many replies. So I am doing
> > it right now.
> >
> >
> > >May that Divine Physician, ***First among gods,***
> > Either Brahman can be treated as a God or not. If
> > the former, then saying
> > that Rudra has derived his power from Vishnu is a
> > contradiction. If the
> > latter, then Brahman is That which is not understood
> > even by the Gods.
> >
> > >Prostration be to Thee, O Lord, ***Ruler of the
> > >universe,***
> >
> > Either the Narayana within Him is being praised. Or,
> > Shiva is identified
> > with the Praajna quarter of the Mandukya Upanishad.
> > In either case, there is
> > Narayana or Turiya  which is nirguNa Brahman which
> > is called as the Atman
> > and thus refers to Narayana.
> >
> > >mortality, ***Overlord over everyone,*** Bestower
> > of
> > >Blessedness, Ever-Auspicious,
> >
> > 1.Turiya being auspicious does not eliminate other
> > things from being
> > auspicious. Thus rudra can also be auspicious.
> > 2.The over lordship can be interpreted as Praajna of
> > the Mandukya Upanishad
> > and not Turiya.
> > 3. Again talks of blessedness can be interpreted as
> > praajna which is called
> > as anandamaya and not Turiya.
> >
> > All this is necessary, otherwise, Rudra cannot
> > derive His power from Vishnu
> > which means there is a contradiction with the Rig
> > Veda.
> >
> > >Prostration to the Primeval One and the ***Chief of
> > >beings;***
> >
> > Again Praajna and not Turiya.
> >
> > >***and
> > >is more auspicious than anything else.***
> >
> > Which in itself shows an indication of duality and
> > Turiya can be safely
> > eliminated.
> >
> > At this point I foresee an objection.
> >
> > Objection-There are many places where Narayana is
> > called as Lord etc. Why
> > not interpret that as Praajna and not Turiya?
> >
> > Reply-You can interpret that as Praajna. But also
> > note that Narayana is
> > called as the Self, which is meaningless if Narayana
> > cannot be said to be
> > Turiya.
> >
> > Objection - Why not say Rudra as Turiya?
> >
> > Reply - Then saying that Rudra derives his power
> > from Vishnu is meaningless.
> >
> > Best Regards
> > Kalyan
>
>
>
>__________________________________________________
>Do you Yahoo!?
>Yahoo! Web Hosting - establish your business online
>http://webhosting.yahoo.com


_________________________________________________________________
Cricket World Cup 2003- News, Views and Match Reports.
http://server1.msn.co.in/msnspecials/worldcup03/