Vishnu and Shiva

[kalyan chakravarthy]

Namaskaaram,

> >SaguNa brahman is not different from nirguNa Brahman.
>
>How so? so is brahman both saguna and nirguna at the same time?

You answered it. Brahman is nirguNa as such, but saguNa from the point of
view of maya.

>The most common attributes of brahman from the upanishads are satyam,
>gnyanam and anantam. These refer to the infiniteness of brahman, and in one
>sense, can be thought of as definitions of brahman.

There are others. Anandamaya, all pervading, eternal, etc. The best
definition is however neti neti.

>Ok, first I'd like to understand well what you mean by saying that vishnu
>is
>brahman. Does brahman stay in vaikuntha, have shankha, chakra etc? Does
>vishnu? If not, who is this new vishnu. If yes, and vishnu is brahman, does
>brahman now have qualities etc?

The point is not whether Vishnu is brahman or not. It is that rudra cannot
be brahman, Refer to my original post.

Best Regards
Kalyan





>From: Aniruddhan <ani at EE.WASHINGTON.EDU>
>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 19:06:53 -0500
>
>namaste,
>
> >Let me tell you an analogy. The vedas praise Brahman as having
>innumerable
> >attributes. This should mean that Brahman cannot be nirguNa at all. But
>the
> >neti neti of the Brihadaranyaka upanishad is enough to show nirguNa
>brahman
> >even though the other portions indulge in praising Brahman. Now, if I
> >accept
> >your arguments, then you must reject nirguNa brahman. Are you willing to
>do
> >that by trying to give another interpretation for neti neti? Infact
>nirguNa
> >brahman is the best interpretation for neti neti and so nirguNa brahman
> >MUST
> >be acccepted even though other portions talk about the gunas of Brahman.
>
>So is that a contradiction in the vedas? If saguna brahman is the same as
>nirguna brahman, what do saguna and nirguna mean here? As I understand it,
>the attributes of saguna brahman are just our conception of nirguna
>brahman's infiniteness in every dimension. Even though we think up such
>attributes for brahman, brahman still remains nirguna always.
>
> >SaguNa brahman is not different from nirguNa Brahman.
>
>How so? so is brahman both saguna and nirguna at the same time?
>
> >If I accept this as valid, then all the innumerable verses from the
> >upanishads which praise the attribute of Brahman could not have been
> >referring to Brahman. All this confusion is arising because you are
>seeing
> >saguNa brahman and nirguNa brahman as different.
>
>The most common attributes of brahman from the upanishads are satyam,
>gnyanam and anantam. These refer to the infiniteness of brahman, and in one
>sense, can be thought of as definitions of brahman.
>
> >>The Purushasuktam says H^rishchate LakshmIshcha patnyau. i.e. H^ri AND
> >>Lakshmi are the consorts of the Purusha. Usually H^ri refers to Parvati.
>So
> >>Rudra has as much right as Vishnu to be the Purusha of the
>Purushasuktam.
> >
> >If rudra is Brahman, then rudra must not be derivative from vishnu. RV
> >7.40.5.
>
>And since H^ri is usually not used to refer to Bhudevi, Vishnu is probably
>not the Purusha either...
>
> >And anyway you are not disputing
> >the fact that Vishnu is Brahman.
>
>Of course not, since I am a Smarta. :-)
>
> >Now Narayana being the Self can be
> >1.Source of Shakthi.
> >2.Identical to Shakthi.
> >
> >In the latter case, Shakthi is supreme and cannot have her source from
> >something else(the being in the oceans). What remains is the former which
>is
> >the only valid thing.
>
>So instead of just nirguna brahman/narayana, now there are two entities
>Narayana and Shakthi?
>
> >SaguNa brahman is not different from nirguNa brahman.
>
>Ok, first I'd like to understand well what you mean by saying that vishnu
>is
>brahman. Does brahman stay in vaikuntha, have shankha, chakra etc? Does
>vishnu? If not, who is this new vishnu. If yes, and vishnu is brahman, does
>brahman now have qualities etc?
>
> >Narayana as purusha has Lakshmi as His consort. Thus Narayana is Vishnu.
> >Your earlier objection as to relating to Hree as being the consort has
> >already been dealt with as directly contradicting RV7.40.5. Anyway you
>also
> >accept Vishnu as supreme. So, you and I dont have problems in this
>regard.
>
>Purusha also has H^ri as his consort. Who is this H^ri?
>
> >The word solar diety as I used means, the diety which presides the Sun
>and
> >not the Sun itself. Let sun be in fear of Brahman, who is the Reality
> > behind
> >the Sun.
>
>So you think when the vedas have a mantra to Surya, they are referring to
>the inanimate, gaseous ball of fire in the sky? Surya IS the diety behind
>the sun. So now, maybe you mean the diety behind Surya?
>
>Aniruddhan
>
>Sruti smRti purANAnAm Alayam karuNAlayam
>namAmi bhagavatpAda Sam.karam lokaSam.karam


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