Vishnu and Shiva

[Dr. P.K. Nair]

Hari OM!

>From Kalyan below, "I was just trying to see how far the other traditions
are right
when they claim that one God(here Vishnu) is supreme. Personally I felt that
all are same."

I agree; "Ekam Sat, Viprah Bahudhah Vadanti". I am sure, there will be
people who will disagree with that also. After all, if we did not disagree,
many all the productive discussions will not take place. Taking the cue of
Sri Jaladhar, in a week or so I will be interested in a exploring Advaita in
Dvaita and Dvaita in in Advaita ( it will be for my own education - there
are quite a few learned people in this discussion group who can contribute
greatly in these subjects).

Pranam to all genuine seekers!

PKN




----- Original Message -----
From: kalyan chakravarthy <kalyan_kc at HOTMAIL.COM>
To: <ADVAITA-L at LISTS.ADVAITA-VEDANTA.ORG>
Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2003 1:48 PM
Subject: Re: Vishnu and Shiva


Namaskaaram,

Since I have started this useless discussion, let me try to end it. It is
not that any God is less or any God is more. It is rightly said that the
truth is one, and the wise refer It by different names. So, it does not
matter what you call That Brahman. That is Brahma, Vishnu, Shiva, Sakti,
Ganapati. Skanda, Surya etc etc etc. You can even add Allah probably.

I have realized that the most useless thing to do in the world is to look
for evidence as to who is greater. I apologize for wasting the time of many
members. I was just trying to see how far the other traditions are right
when they claim that one God(here Vishnu) is supreme. Personally I felt that
all are same.

I hope this is the end of this topic.

Best Regards
Kalyan








>From: "Jaldhar H. Vyas" <jaldhar at BRAINCELLS.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, 18 Mar 2003 02:06:04 -0500
>
>This is a reply to several points raised in the thread.
>
>Dr. P.K. Nair wrote:
>
> > Pranam to all the learned among the several discussants.
> >
> > I try to read most of your postings. I find several as intellectual
> > exercises and I do not see much spirituality. Will there be a return to
> > spirituality?
> > The term Parameshwara is used for Siva as well. In Advaita, is there a
> > difference between Vishnu and Siva? Aren't they the same? In Siva
>Sahasra
> > Namaavali one of the names (#638) of Siva is Padmanabha.
> >
>
>You are absolutely right.  to be fair, Kalyan did say his question was
>academic rather than practical.  From the point of Advaitic practice such
>bickering is totally pointless.
>
>And to address the bit about "return to spirituality", people write about
>what they are interested in.  If you aren't interested in the same things
>please write about something you are interested in.  (Like some of the
>names from the Shivasahasranama and their advaitic purport maybe?)  The
>beauty of the internet is there is an unlimited amount of space for
>everyone!
>
>Rolando Santos wrote:
>
> > If Brahma hadn't created, there wouldn't be anything for Vishnu to
> > protect, and if Vishnu hadn't protected anything, there wouldn't be
> > anything for Rudra to destroy...and if Rudra hadn;t destroyed, there
> > wouldn't be any room for Brahma to create again. All states of being
> > "get power" or are dependant on the other states.
>
>This is a very important concept to grasp imo.  Time moves along a wheel.
>So while it may seem to be in constant motion, the net effect is of
>stillness if you look at the big picture.  Nowadays we are learning more
>and more about the cycles of life.  Take for example forest fires.  In a
>forest you occasionally have a huge conflagoration that devastates entire
>areas.  But paradoxically, this is a good thing.  The fire destroys the
>deadwood that strangles new growth and its ashes fertilize the ground
>replenishing the source of nourishment.  So a forest fire is not just
>destruction but also maintainence and creation.
>
> >
> > 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.
> >
>
>Interestingly we read that as Shri not Hri.
>
> > >8.And in the Rig Veda itself, in the devi suktam, Devi mentions herself
>as
> > >having her source of power in the oceans. Who is the being in the
>oceans?
> > > Is
> > >it not Vishnu?
> >
> > Maybe Varuna, the lord of the oceans?
> >
>
>In an offlist conversation, a list member and I were discussing a Rk where
>Surya Bhagawan is called the Gandharva in the waters.
>
>Kalyan Chakravarthy wrote:
>
> > Again, in the Isa Upanishad, the Sun is asked to remove its rays so that
>the
> > Purusha within the Sun may be viewed. Does this not resemble Rudra being
>THE
> > solar diety and Vishnu being the source of strength for Rudra?
>
>No this is just illustrating the difference between the saguna and nirguna
>aspects of Brahman.
>
>I think a case can be made tht Vishnu Bhagawan is given a greater
>prominence in the Vedic texts.  In a followup posting, I'll explain why.
>
>
>--
>Jaldhar H. Vyas <jaldhar at braincells.com>
>It's a girl! See the pictures - http://www.braincells.com/shailaja/


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