The Big Bang
Many scientists tell us the origin of the universe is a big bang. If there is an explosion in our neighborhood, the police will come to investigate to see what was the cause of the explosion. If we tell them that the explosion came spontaneously out of nowhere, they will not believe it. They will want to know who caused the explosion. Therefore is nonsensical to consider that the supreme source of all that exists is a big bang. Therefore we refuse to accept such dogma. Man is meant to use his rationality to seek out the ultimate cause of all existence. He is not meant to blindly accept such irrational theories.
Sankarshan Das Adhikari
It was really funny to read your answer. With due respect I beg to differ. Two days back also I wrote about this. I will be repeating this since I am quoting straight from scriptures. There is no difference between Lord Shiva, Lord Vishnu or Lord Brahma. None of them are demigods the way you have written. They are the symbolic representation of one truth, one reality Brahman. Everything in this world are HIS manifestations. In Hinduism people think there are millions of gods. Those who have studied some Puranas know that there is ONLY ONE God. But those who have studied scriptures-- Vedas and Upanishads go one step further and would say there is ONLY GOD nothing else.
So everything we perceive are His expression only. Since Vedas and Upanishads are the valid means of authority and Bhagavad-gita is in essence Upanishads only, so it is wrong to say in any other way. Since you believe in Lord Krishna, HE is Supreme. I believe in Brahman and so to me Lord Ganesh, or Lord Shiva or Lord Krishna are one and the same and are supreme. So please don't send wrong message through your answer. It is very painful.
Pranams.
Sukanya
My Dear Sukanya,
Please accept my blessings.
With all due respect to your good self, we beg to poignantly point out the discrepancies in your philosophical arguments.
You have stated that it is funny to read our answer, but we see how funny your statements are because while you claim to be quoting from scriptures, you do not give even one sastric reference. We back up our statements with direct sastric quotes, while you merely express your opinion. So it is quite funny that you would find our answer funny. This means you are finding the sastras to be funny. Actually to ignore the sastras and give more importance to mental concoction, as you are doing, is not funny; it is sad because the mental speculator remains entangled in the cycle of repeated birth and death.
Your first point is that there is no difference between Shiva, Brahma, and Vishnu because they are all nothing more than symbolic representations of the one reality, Brahman.
Here you are denying the existence of personality. If even these greatest personalities of the universe have no separate personal existence, this means that none of us have any separate personal existence. This would mean that everything is simply one. But if it were in fact all one, how can you disagree with us? If it were all one, you would be forced by the absolute oneness of things to agree with everything that we say. The fact that you disagree with us immediately negates your argument of undifferentiated oneness.
Plus, if there were no difference between Shiva, Brahma, and Vishnu, we would not find the following statement in the Rig Veda:
oṁ tad viṣṇoḥ paramaṁ padaṁ sadā paśyanti sūrayaḥ
"The demigods are always looking to that supreme abode of Vishnu."
--Rig Veda 1.22.20
If the demigods and Vishnu were one and the same, the Rig Veda would not make this distinction.
You also state that none of them are demigods. This is also not a fact. Of course, that Vishnu is not a demigod is confirmed in the above verse because His abode is described as the supreme abode. But that Shiva and Brahma are demigods is confirmed in the following verse from the Varaha Purana:
nārāyaṇaḥ paro devas
tasmāj jātaś caturmukhaḥ
tasmād rudro 'bhavad devaḥ
sa ca sarva-jñatāṁ gataḥ
"Narayana is the Supreme Personality of Godhead, and from Him Brahma was born, from whom Shiva was born."
That Krishna (the original form of Vishnu or Narayana) is the Supreme Lord is confirmed in Bhagavad-gītā (10.8) where the Lord says:
ahaṁ sarvasya prabhavo
mattaḥ sarvaṁ pravartate
iti matvā bhajante māṁ
budhā bhāva-samanvitāḥ
"I am the source of all spiritual and material worlds. Everything emanates from Me. The wise who perfectly know this engage in My devotional service and worship Me with all their hearts."
Here is a correct description of the Supreme Lord, given by the Lord Himself. The words sarvasya pra-bhavaḥ indicate that Krishna is the creator of everyone, including Brahma, Vishnu, and Shiva. And because these three principal deities of the material world are created by the Lord, the Lord is the creator of all that exists in the material and spiritual worlds.
In the Atharva Veda (Gopāla-tāpanī Upaniṣad 1.24) it is similarly said:
"He who existed before the creation of Brahmā and who enlightened Brahmā with Vedic knowledge is Lord Śrī Krishna."
Similarly, the Nārāyaṇa Upaniṣad (1) states:
"Then the Supreme Person, Nārāyaṇa, desired to create all living beings. Thus from Nārāyaṇa, Brahmā was born. Nārāyaṇa created all the Prajāpatis. Nārāyaṇa created Indra. Nārāyaṇa created the eight Vasus. Nārāyaṇa created the eleven Rudras. Nārāyaṇa created the twelve Ādityas."
Since Nārāyaṇa is a plenary manifestation of Lord Krishna, Nārāyaṇa and Krishna are one and the same. The Nārāyaṇa Upaniṣad (4) also states:
"Devakī's son [Krishna] is the Supreme Lord."
The identity of Narayana with the supreme cause has also been accepted and confirmed by Śrīpāda Śankarācārya, even though Śankara does not belong to the Vaiṣṇava, or personalist, school.
The Atharva Veda (Mahā Upaniṣad 1) also states:
"Only Nārāyaṇa existed in the beginning, when neither Brahmā, nor Shiva, nor fire, nor water, nor stars, nor sun, nor moon existed. The Lord does not remain alone but creates as He desires."
You mention that Brahman is the one truth, the one reality and that everything in this world are HIS manifestations. You are telling us that persons are not really real, that they are just symbolic representations of Brahman. If you are quoting from scriptures as you say you are, where are the verses to back up your points? You have not produced them. In discussions of Absolute Truth we must quote the authoritative references. Otherwise if I simply give my opinion and you give your opinion, the debate with go on endlessly without any conclusion.
We must understand what is the Brahman from the authoritative scriptures, not from mental speculation. Brahman is described in the revealed scriptures as the transcendental effulgence emanating from the body of Lord Sri Krishna. In the Bhagavad-gita Sri Krishna states:
brahmaṇo hi pratiṣṭhāham
"I am the basis of the impersonal Brahman."
--Bhagavad-gita 14.27
And in the Brahma Samhita, Lord Brahma states:
yasya prabhā prabhavato jagad-aṇḍa-koṭi-
koṭiṣv aśeṣa-vasudhādi vibhūti-bhinnam
tad brahma niṣkalam anantam aśeṣa-bhūtaṁ
govindam ādi-puruṣaṁ tam ahaṁ bhajāmi
"I worship Govinda (Krishna), the primeval Lord, whose effulgence is the source of the nondifferentiated Brahman mentioned in the Upanishads, being differentiated from the infinity of glories of the mundane universe appears as the indivisible, infinite, limitless, truth."
--Brahma-samhita 5.40
You are correct in stating that there is only one God. But when say that only God exists and nothing else, you are quite wrong. The eternal individual of God and the living entities is confirmed by Lord Sri Krishna in the Bhagavad-gita as follows:
na tv evāhaṁ jātu nāsaṁ
na tvaṁ neme janādhipāḥ
na caiva na bhaviṣyāmaḥ
sarve vayam ataḥ param
"Never was there a time when I did not exist, nor you, nor all these kings; nor in the future shall any of us cease to be."
--Bhagavad-gita 2.12
You have stated, "Since Vedas and Upanishads are the valid means of authority and Bhagavad-gita Gita is in essence Upanishads only, so it is wrong to say in any other way."
But where is the proof? How can the Bhagavad-gita not be authoritative when it is accepted by all the great sages of India, even Shankaracharya, the founder of the impersonalist school? You may disagree with all the great Vedic authorities, that is your prerogative. But that does not mean that we are going to be misguided by such foolish speculations.
You mention, "Since you believe in Lord Krishna HE is Supreme. I believe in Brahman and so to me Lord Ganesh, or Lord Shiva or Lord Krishna are one and the same and are supreme.. So please don't send wrong message through your answer. It is very painful."
You may speaking on the platform of your belief, but we do not speak on such a platform. We are speaking from the solid ground of Vedic authority. To say that all the gods are one and the same, that they are all supreme is not a fact as confirmed by the many authoritative verses quoted above. Besides that, if all gods were the supreme, there would then be no Supreme God. Supreme means one without a second. Just like for example, how many supreme courts are there in India? There can only be one. Otherwise, if there more than one, it is not the supreme court. To say that everything is the supreme is a round about way of saying there is no supreme. In other words, it is simply covered atheism.
The fact that is that all different branches of Vedic wisdom are authoritative because they are all coming from Krishna as confirmed here:
vedaiś ca sarvair aham eva vedyo
vedānta-kṛd veda-vid eva cāham
"By all the Vedas, I am to be known. Indeed, I am the compiler of Vedānta, and I am the knower of the Vedas."
--Bhagavad-gita 15.15
We are sorry that you are feeling pained by the Vedic conclusion. But still it our duty to present as it is. It may not be pleasant when the doctor tell us that we have a serious disease, but it is his duty to honestly inform us. So in this well-wishing mood of sincere service we are informing you that you been misguided by impersonalist philosophy which emphasizes the impersonal nature of God over the personal nature of God.
In the final analysis, we can see that God is both personal and impersonal, but that His original personal nature is more important than His impersonal aspect. Actually it is a matter of common sense. We always see that personality predominates over impersonality. For example, how many persons do we know who are impersonal? There are many. And how many impersons do we know who are personal? None. Therefore God must ultimately be a person Who also has an impersonal aspect, not an imperson Who has a personal aspect.
I hope that this clarifies in your mind what is the ultimate Vedic conclusion and that this meets you in the best of health and in an ecstatic mood.
Always your well-wisher,
Sankarshan Das Adhikari
Sankarshan Das Adhikari
Answers According to the Vedic Version:
Challenge: There is Nothing Except God
Hari Om,It was really funny to read your answer. With due respect I beg to differ. Two days back also I wrote about this. I will be repeating this since I am quoting straight from scriptures. There is no difference between Lord Shiva, Lord Vishnu or Lord Brahma. None of them are demigods the way you have written. They are the symbolic representation of one truth, one reality Brahman. Everything in this world are HIS manifestations. In Hinduism people think there are millions of gods. Those who have studied some Puranas know that there is ONLY ONE God. But those who have studied scriptures-- Vedas and Upanishads go one step further and would say there is ONLY GOD nothing else.
So everything we perceive are His expression only. Since Vedas and Upanishads are the valid means of authority and Bhagavad-gita is in essence Upanishads only, so it is wrong to say in any other way. Since you believe in Lord Krishna, HE is Supreme. I believe in Brahman and so to me Lord Ganesh, or Lord Shiva or Lord Krishna are one and the same and are supreme. So please don't send wrong message through your answer. It is very painful.
Pranams.
Sukanya
Answer: There is God and Us
From: Bhaktivedanta Ashram--Austin, Texas USAMy Dear Sukanya,
Please accept my blessings.
With all due respect to your good self, we beg to poignantly point out the discrepancies in your philosophical arguments.
You have stated that it is funny to read our answer, but we see how funny your statements are because while you claim to be quoting from scriptures, you do not give even one sastric reference. We back up our statements with direct sastric quotes, while you merely express your opinion. So it is quite funny that you would find our answer funny. This means you are finding the sastras to be funny. Actually to ignore the sastras and give more importance to mental concoction, as you are doing, is not funny; it is sad because the mental speculator remains entangled in the cycle of repeated birth and death.
Your first point is that there is no difference between Shiva, Brahma, and Vishnu because they are all nothing more than symbolic representations of the one reality, Brahman.
Here you are denying the existence of personality. If even these greatest personalities of the universe have no separate personal existence, this means that none of us have any separate personal existence. This would mean that everything is simply one. But if it were in fact all one, how can you disagree with us? If it were all one, you would be forced by the absolute oneness of things to agree with everything that we say. The fact that you disagree with us immediately negates your argument of undifferentiated oneness.
Plus, if there were no difference between Shiva, Brahma, and Vishnu, we would not find the following statement in the Rig Veda:
oṁ tad viṣṇoḥ paramaṁ padaṁ sadā paśyanti sūrayaḥ
"The demigods are always looking to that supreme abode of Vishnu."
--Rig Veda 1.22.20
If the demigods and Vishnu were one and the same, the Rig Veda would not make this distinction.
You also state that none of them are demigods. This is also not a fact. Of course, that Vishnu is not a demigod is confirmed in the above verse because His abode is described as the supreme abode. But that Shiva and Brahma are demigods is confirmed in the following verse from the Varaha Purana:
nārāyaṇaḥ paro devas
tasmāj jātaś caturmukhaḥ
tasmād rudro 'bhavad devaḥ
sa ca sarva-jñatāṁ gataḥ
"Narayana is the Supreme Personality of Godhead, and from Him Brahma was born, from whom Shiva was born."
That Krishna (the original form of Vishnu or Narayana) is the Supreme Lord is confirmed in Bhagavad-gītā (10.8) where the Lord says:
ahaṁ sarvasya prabhavo
mattaḥ sarvaṁ pravartate
iti matvā bhajante māṁ
budhā bhāva-samanvitāḥ
"I am the source of all spiritual and material worlds. Everything emanates from Me. The wise who perfectly know this engage in My devotional service and worship Me with all their hearts."
Here is a correct description of the Supreme Lord, given by the Lord Himself. The words sarvasya pra-bhavaḥ indicate that Krishna is the creator of everyone, including Brahma, Vishnu, and Shiva. And because these three principal deities of the material world are created by the Lord, the Lord is the creator of all that exists in the material and spiritual worlds.
In the Atharva Veda (Gopāla-tāpanī Upaniṣad 1.24) it is similarly said:
"He who existed before the creation of Brahmā and who enlightened Brahmā with Vedic knowledge is Lord Śrī Krishna."
Similarly, the Nārāyaṇa Upaniṣad (1) states:
"Then the Supreme Person, Nārāyaṇa, desired to create all living beings. Thus from Nārāyaṇa, Brahmā was born. Nārāyaṇa created all the Prajāpatis. Nārāyaṇa created Indra. Nārāyaṇa created the eight Vasus. Nārāyaṇa created the eleven Rudras. Nārāyaṇa created the twelve Ādityas."
Since Nārāyaṇa is a plenary manifestation of Lord Krishna, Nārāyaṇa and Krishna are one and the same. The Nārāyaṇa Upaniṣad (4) also states:
"Devakī's son [Krishna] is the Supreme Lord."
The identity of Narayana with the supreme cause has also been accepted and confirmed by Śrīpāda Śankarācārya, even though Śankara does not belong to the Vaiṣṇava, or personalist, school.
The Atharva Veda (Mahā Upaniṣad 1) also states:
"Only Nārāyaṇa existed in the beginning, when neither Brahmā, nor Shiva, nor fire, nor water, nor stars, nor sun, nor moon existed. The Lord does not remain alone but creates as He desires."
You mention that Brahman is the one truth, the one reality and that everything in this world are HIS manifestations. You are telling us that persons are not really real, that they are just symbolic representations of Brahman. If you are quoting from scriptures as you say you are, where are the verses to back up your points? You have not produced them. In discussions of Absolute Truth we must quote the authoritative references. Otherwise if I simply give my opinion and you give your opinion, the debate with go on endlessly without any conclusion.
We must understand what is the Brahman from the authoritative scriptures, not from mental speculation. Brahman is described in the revealed scriptures as the transcendental effulgence emanating from the body of Lord Sri Krishna. In the Bhagavad-gita Sri Krishna states:
brahmaṇo hi pratiṣṭhāham
"I am the basis of the impersonal Brahman."
--Bhagavad-gita 14.27
And in the Brahma Samhita, Lord Brahma states:
yasya prabhā prabhavato jagad-aṇḍa-koṭi-
koṭiṣv aśeṣa-vasudhādi vibhūti-bhinnam
tad brahma niṣkalam anantam aśeṣa-bhūtaṁ
govindam ādi-puruṣaṁ tam ahaṁ bhajāmi
"I worship Govinda (Krishna), the primeval Lord, whose effulgence is the source of the nondifferentiated Brahman mentioned in the Upanishads, being differentiated from the infinity of glories of the mundane universe appears as the indivisible, infinite, limitless, truth."
--Brahma-samhita 5.40
You are correct in stating that there is only one God. But when say that only God exists and nothing else, you are quite wrong. The eternal individual of God and the living entities is confirmed by Lord Sri Krishna in the Bhagavad-gita as follows:
na tv evāhaṁ jātu nāsaṁ
na tvaṁ neme janādhipāḥ
na caiva na bhaviṣyāmaḥ
sarve vayam ataḥ param
"Never was there a time when I did not exist, nor you, nor all these kings; nor in the future shall any of us cease to be."
--Bhagavad-gita 2.12
You have stated, "Since Vedas and Upanishads are the valid means of authority and Bhagavad-gita Gita is in essence Upanishads only, so it is wrong to say in any other way."
But where is the proof? How can the Bhagavad-gita not be authoritative when it is accepted by all the great sages of India, even Shankaracharya, the founder of the impersonalist school? You may disagree with all the great Vedic authorities, that is your prerogative. But that does not mean that we are going to be misguided by such foolish speculations.
You mention, "Since you believe in Lord Krishna HE is Supreme. I believe in Brahman and so to me Lord Ganesh, or Lord Shiva or Lord Krishna are one and the same and are supreme.. So please don't send wrong message through your answer. It is very painful."
You may speaking on the platform of your belief, but we do not speak on such a platform. We are speaking from the solid ground of Vedic authority. To say that all the gods are one and the same, that they are all supreme is not a fact as confirmed by the many authoritative verses quoted above. Besides that, if all gods were the supreme, there would then be no Supreme God. Supreme means one without a second. Just like for example, how many supreme courts are there in India? There can only be one. Otherwise, if there more than one, it is not the supreme court. To say that everything is the supreme is a round about way of saying there is no supreme. In other words, it is simply covered atheism.
The fact that is that all different branches of Vedic wisdom are authoritative because they are all coming from Krishna as confirmed here:
vedaiś ca sarvair aham eva vedyo
vedānta-kṛd veda-vid eva cāham
"By all the Vedas, I am to be known. Indeed, I am the compiler of Vedānta, and I am the knower of the Vedas."
--Bhagavad-gita 15.15
We are sorry that you are feeling pained by the Vedic conclusion. But still it our duty to present as it is. It may not be pleasant when the doctor tell us that we have a serious disease, but it is his duty to honestly inform us. So in this well-wishing mood of sincere service we are informing you that you been misguided by impersonalist philosophy which emphasizes the impersonal nature of God over the personal nature of God.
In the final analysis, we can see that God is both personal and impersonal, but that His original personal nature is more important than His impersonal aspect. Actually it is a matter of common sense. We always see that personality predominates over impersonality. For example, how many persons do we know who are impersonal? There are many. And how many impersons do we know who are personal? None. Therefore God must ultimately be a person Who also has an impersonal aspect, not an imperson Who has a personal aspect.
I hope that this clarifies in your mind what is the ultimate Vedic conclusion and that this meets you in the best of health and in an ecstatic mood.
Always your well-wisher,
Sankarshan Das Adhikari
Comments
Post a Comment