last day (17 days later) » 

4:53 AM
A: Is Vinayaka an individual or a position like Indra?

Nog ShineGanesha or Vinayaka is a position. The reign over the obstacles is like a position. There have been various rulers of the obsttacles till now and the way they take births are also different. The son born of Shiva and Parvati was declared as the leader of the obstacles many times in the previous M...

You have misunderstood the Padma purana verses. "Obtains the position of Vinaayaka" doesn't mean a Jiva becomes Vinayaka. It means he becomes united with Vinayaka like how one attains sayujya with Vishnu or Shiva. Vinayaka is not position. As per Ganesha Puranas, Supreme Ganesha takes different forms differently in various Kalpas.
@NogShine It's your miscomprehension that a normal person can become Ganesha. Those verses say one attains state of Vinayaka which means he mingles with Vinayaka. To support you view, you should post names or stories of Jivas who became Ganesha. If Ganesha is post , then even Trimurties are posts with same logic. But obviously, Vedas disagree here.
@NogShine I have read many stories of origins of Ganesha in Various puranas. No Purana ever said Ganesha is post or a Jiva taking position of Ganesha. Even first story never said Ganesh has previous life. You are interpreting things out of context and concluding Ganesha is post. Simple, if you really think Ganesha is post, just post previous births of Ganesha.
@NogShine In Varaha Purana, it says there are many Vinayakas who are similar to Shiva' son Vinayaka. Why can't Padma Purana say they become one as those Vinayakas. This doesn't make Vinayaka a position. Also, this is what you are saying in above comments. Saroopya.
Excellent Q&A - What is the name of the ritual acc. to Vedas? Status of Shiva is attained through Sarvamedha Yagna - similarly, is there a vedic ritual as well for Vinayaka position?
How interesting, so Elephant head is not a prerequisite!
@LakshmiNarayanan Is there any Yajna to attain status of Narayana? Btw, what is Sarvamedha Yajna? Never heard of it.
@TheDestroyer Good question, There is no ritual to attain post of nArAyaNa, he is Purushottama - not a devata i.e., not a jivAtma that have to attain divine prowess through tapas, etc,. His Will is from a position of plenty and not a position of Hunger - the latter of which is the driving force of attaining to posts such as Indra, Shiva, Brahma etc,. secondly, "sarvamedha yajna involved sacrificing the interests of a smaller community for a broader and nobler cause"
@LakshmiNarayanan I think Sarvamedha Yajna is ritual created out of thin air by Vaishnavas. Please post vedic references or any scriptural reference for it. Similarly, Shaivaites must know some Yajna to attain status of Narayana.
4:53 AM
@TheDestroyer That's a strong allegation but easily dismissed - for example, read here ->
@LakshmiNarayanan But that page doesn't say it says one will attain status of Shiva. As said above in comments, Status of Shiva means Saroopya with Shiva which means he becomes like Rudra.
@TheDestroyer mahAdEva: sarvamEdhEMahAthmAhuthvaa aathmAnam dEvadEvO BhabhUva visvAn lOkAn vyApya vishtabhya keerthyA virAjathE dhyuthimAn KrutthivAsa: --MahAbhAratha: 20.12
@LakshmiNarayanan Mahabharata 20.12 means?
In Puranas, many times it is said one will attain status of Shiva, Narayana..
it doesn't mean they become Shiva and Vishnu, it means they attain sarupya with him.
Also, no verse explicitly in his answer says Ganesha is position.
If Shiva and Brahma becomes position in some interpretations, then Narayana should also be positions. None can destroy the concept of Trimurties.
5:00 AM
@TheDestroyer Why? Can you explain this through Astika arguments?
@LakshmiNarayanan Ok. He is Mahadeva which is lowest forms of Shiva. There are many such statements for Vishnu too.. Shiva purana says Shiva gave equal status to Vishnu.
@TheDestroyer please read @NogShine's answer again
@LakshmiNarayanan You tell me which statement.
He has to read more puranas to understand such statements. See Anurag comment.
@TheDestroyer Shiva is a prakara of nArAyaNa. Even Appaya Dikshitar and other learned scholars concede that nArAyaNa is the ultimate prakari
Shiva, Brahma etc,. do Tapas to attain and sustain their positions because their freewill is from Hunger like any other jivAtma whereas nArAyaNa sustains the Cosmos as his will is a manifestation of Plenty/Bounty.
@LakshmiNarayanan Haha. Why do you just refere one Appaya Dikshitar?? There are many Scholars who give opposite statements to Him. But realized souls never see any difference between them. Acharyas can never be on par with Yogis and Rishis. Those who read more books but without realization, they become Acharays. But Yogis and Rishis are realized and their words are Vedas not interpretations on Acharyas.
5:06 AM
@TheDestroyer There is no currency for such statements, it is clear that understanding is lacking when one puts written books over living, breathing Acharyas who are sustaining the Sampradaya in acc. to Vedic Injunctions
@LakshmiNarayanan Scriptures also say otherwise. No Purana explicitly says Shiva and Brahma are Jivatmas. This is gross misunderstanding.
@LakshmiNarayanan Just cherry picking verses which they want.
Calling Shiva as Jivatma is direct attack on Shiva, Parameswara, This is biggest sin anyone can incur. By doing so, they are calling Narayana as Jiva.
@TheDestroyer Vedas themselves establish supremacy of nArAyaNa. Cherry picking verses is stating that some of the verses of Vedas are MahaVakyas as Advaitins are prone to do.
@TheDestroyer haha this sort of equating is a limitation of Bookish Knowledge i fear.
@LakshmiNarayanan I can even show Vedic statements which say Shiva is Supreme, Brahma is Supreme. Each sect just takes their own statements. Vaishnavas take Vishnu statements and interpret other statements as they like. Also, No Samhita explicilty says Narayana is Supreme. Purusha Sukta Deva is Purusha and Not Narayana.
@LakshmiNarayanan Interpretation of Shiva is Jiva is bookish knowledge without enlightenment.
@LakshmiNarayanan Vedas have anukramanika and one should know Deva of Mantra from that not can one claim their Ista Devas.
@TheDestroyer You dismiss Shaivas who admit that trying to impose nArAyaNa adjectively on Shiva is not sanctionable by Vedic Injunctions - that is truly cherrypicking not just verses but whole works! and then ask for any other evidence i can offer, this is farcical at best and frankly bland ignorance at its worst.
@LakshmiNarayanan Anyways, i generally don't care what some Scholars or Acharyas without realization say. Realization is different state and truth is beyond scriptures (said by Uoanishads themselves).
@LakshmiNarayanan Remember, saying "Vedic Injunctions" doesn't give any strong base to your statements. You should quote proper verses.
@LakshmiNarayanan my point is you misinterpreted that Mahabharata statement. It doesn't say a Jiva by doing that Yajna became Mahadeva. EVen Brahma offerered his self in Yajna.
5:16 AM
@TheDestroyer Yeah, you are exactly proving my point about confirmation bias. I wish to refrain from further discussion in such oppressive close-mindedness where Acharyas are discarded.
These have different meanings.
@LakshmiNarayanan Close mindedness is accepting only works of Acharyas but not Yogis.
@LakshmiNarayanan But don't do sin of calling any Deva as Jiva.
You don't know implications of such sins.
DeviPuraana Book 11, Chapter 18 - विष्णुत्वं लभते मर्त्यो यत्सुरेष्वपि दुर्लभम् । 27- "By doing that Vratam, a mortal attains Vishnutvam or position of Vishnu, which is rare even to Suras.
@TheDestroyer All Devas are jivAtmas who attained to divine positions as ordained by nArAyaNa
@LakshmiNarayanan Ok. No use in taking debate. When your mind is preoccupied, none can help you. You need to read Vedas without bias.
@TheDestroyer I am not afraid of your unwitting, offhanded threats of Sin, etc,. They are all irrelevant when srimannArAyaNa protects those who perform sharanagati to srimannArAyaNa alone.
Also, even small logic can help you. ALso, words of Yogis> words of Acharyas. If Acharyas words conflict with realized souls, then we should reject words of such Acharyas.
5:21 AM
@TheDestroyer You lack Acharya Anubhavam, that is why you are still making such statements! Acharyas of nam sampradaya are Yogis
@LakshmiNarayanan Yogis> Acharyas. No doubt.
@LakshmiNarayanan You can believe in supremacy of your Ista Deva but at the same time you don't need to demean other Devas.
Bhakti is what you want. Not proving supremacy of Narayana.
@TheDestroyer It is not demeaning anyone to say truth.
@TheDestroyer Please don't confuse concept of Bhakti with Saranagati which is a supreme.
@LakshmiNarayanan Obviously, demeaning and ridiculing. When Samhitas of Vedas himself say Rudra is Supreme but what can not be demeaning when you call him jiva. If you don't see index and interpret even Devas as you wish, then this is not Vedic at all, bringing Puranas to Vedas .
@LakshmiNarayanan It's simple. Main Scriptures for Sri Vaishnavas are poems of Alwars, Vaishnava Agamas, Upanishads and vedas (which Shankara adopted). So, with these as primary scriptures, one will come to conclusion that Narayana in Supreme and it;s not even difficult task.
@TheDestroyer How is it demeaning to say truth? What is dangerous is to reject the canonical conclusion of the Vedas.
Ramanuja tried to unify all these scriptures.
@LakshmiNarayanan Because without realization no one can say real truth and vedas themselves say Truth is not known only by scriptures,
5:28 AM
@TheDestroyer Vedas alone can stand strong as testament to the Supremacy of nArAyaNa - please read Ananda Lahiri of Appaya Dikshitar - I know you will say one scholar doesn't amount to much but if you open mind and read you will realise the crystal nature of his argument and may even be able to appreciate his laments.
@LakshmiNarayanan I can quote you works of Shankara to prove equality of Narayana and Shiva.
@LakshmiNarayanan Is Appaya Dikshitir realized soul?
Why just one scholar?
@LakshmiNarayanan First accept the same Vedic statement that Truth alone can't be known from scriptures alone.
@TheDestroyer If your teacher proves a theorem and it is not pleasing to you, will you search for other teachers or try to understand the truth in the proof?
@LakshmiNarayanan Again, statements of Yogis> Statements of Acharyas (unrealized.)
@TheDestroyer Are you a realised soul? Why should i listen to you or for that matter you to me? This is a clear strawman argument.
They can only show path but your efforts?
@LakshmiNarayanan I'm not sure if you can understand my point. I was telling a vedic statement which says truth is not can be known from Scriptures alone.
5:33 AM
@TheDestroyer Acharyas are Yogis, i cannot state this more clearly. Plus this concept of Sadhana as path to Moksha is not even a sure shot way. Saranagati & Perumaal Anugraha (which are not entirely independent of each other) is a way to avoid all this trifling requirement of Yoga as Sadhana - There is only Kainkaryam to srimannArAyaNa
on basic of this statement, interpretations of a Acharya can never be perfect. Even Shankara accepted this in his commentaries.
@LakshmiNarayanan Do you know meaning of Yogi? Not all Acharyas are Yogis. Many Acharyas just learned scholars. They are not realized.
@LakshmiNarayanan You can still follow your Acharyas and so Sadhana. But some statements are your Acharyas can cause problems to other Sadhakas and such controversial statements should be kept with you.
@LakshmiNarayanan There are Shaiva sects which replace above Narayana with Parameswara.
@TheDestroyer That doesn't prove anything.
@TheDestroyer Please be clear in what you are trying to convey.
If anyone calls your Ista Deva as Jivatma, how do you feel?
@TheDestroyer Yogi is one who practises Yoga.
Moreover, with gross misunderstanding of Vedas by reading selective works.
Let me tell you one thing. Conservative Hindus never go against words of their Acharyas. They revere them with much devotion. This is sometimes good and some bad too.
5:40 AM
@TheDestroyer You believe in a Ista Deva doesn't mean you have to equalise unequal things - it is better to accept truth of Vedas than chase around Devas for Moksha - they will firstly worry over loss of their beloved Sheep or Pashu before even thinking twice about the fact that they are in fact unable to grant Moksha - which is sole providence nay characteristic of srimannArAyaNa
@LakshmiNarayanan What can i say more to a Narrow minded person who lacks broad thinking. Better to agree to disagree. But, Calling Shiva is Jiva is offensive and will try to discuss with other members.
@TheDestroyer I couldn't care less for your imprudent characterisation of my state of being. Please go ahead and discuss with your retinue - just don't mistake Yesmanism and cacophony of opinions for truth.
@TheDestroyer According to KS, Shiva is para, apara & aparapara. So he is Jiva also, He is Jiva in form of bound souls (Pashu) & also Lord of Jivas in form of pashupati.
@TheDestroyer How?
@Rohit. But He is Paramatma too.
5:51 AM
Yes @TheDestroyer Actually, everything is Shiva. He is ParmAtma also- efficient & material cause.
But Jivas in form of us.
so Jiva also.
@Rohit. But explicitly calling Him Jiva is wrong. Every Jiva is Shiva but Shiva is not Jiva.
It's Daiva Dooshana.
@Rohit. Interesting!
@TheDestroyer According to Kashmiri Shaivism, Shiva is the ultimate reality also.
@Rohit. So all jivAtmas are baddha acc. to KS?
@LakshmiNarayanan jivAtmas are bounds till PratyabhijnA.
5:57 AM
@TheDestroyer Acharyas should be rejected? OMG? Acharya is God and even superior to God. How could you say such statement?
@Rohit. Even Veda Samhitas declare that at many places and index of Vedas says Deva is Rudra. So, no doubt Shiva is ultimate reality. He is also called Bhagavan in Vedas where no other deity is even called Bhagavan in Vedas.
@TheDestroyer This is clearly a misrepresentation!
@TheDestroyer Yes, right. But Vedanta schools believe Vishnu as supreme. I don't subscribe to Vedanta schools.
@NogShine @TheDestroyer believes that Acharyas are not Yogis, what more can be said
@NogShine OMG, Did you read my statement? My statement is relative statement, where i said words of realized are important than Acharyas. Also, see lakshanas what a Sadguru should posses and check how many such qualities Acharyas possess.
5:59 AM
I think AchAryas & Yogis are two different terms. One can be Yogi but not AchArya and vice versa.
@TheDestroyer How can you say an acharya unrealised?
@NogShine Only followers think his acharya is realized, not all.
@Rohit. Not all. Only Vaishnava schools.
@TheDestroyer That is by definition of Vaishnava!
@TheDestroyer I did. Who certifies a realised soul? First of all, one is not an acharya who is not realised. How can you use unrealised for an acharya?
@NogShine Who is Achraya? Acharya means who show path. He need not be realized. He is like teacher but a student should revere his Acharaya,
@NogShine Because it's fact that all Acharyas are not unrealized.
6:02 AM
@TheDestroyer Maybe others as well. Haven't found rejections of my answers yet.
@TheDestroyer Wrong. One who doesn't know something can't teach others the same. You are confusinga teacher with an acharya.
@NogShine well said.
@TheDestroyer Yes, self realization is not an asset of any identity. It can appear anywhere.
@NogShine This shows you think there is only path. No. There are many paths and each Acharya shows a unique path,
Acharya is the one who does it by himself and shows path to others. To practices it and shows it to others.
6:04 AM
AchArya can be wrong because Self realization doesn't imply Omniscience?
If AchAryas were omniscient why they were reading scriptures?
Because to know something.
@TheDestroyer But I can follow one path at a time. You can't follow multiple paths at the same time. You'll be confused. You will reach where you started.
@Rohit. But without realization there will be different interpretations and one interpretation would conflict others.
One who is not omniscient is always prone to committing errors.
@Rohit. what is the logic here?
@NogShine Yes. If you follow one path, you should know you are following that path not truth is only achieved by that path. And you shouldn;t even use statements such AS Truth is only known through that path and Truth says this path is alone correct.
6:06 AM
@Rohit. If an acharya is wrong, why are you following him?
@TheDestroyer Bro, even after self realization there can be conflict. there have been many sufi saints who were self realized still adhered to their religion.
@Rohit. At this stage we are no one know to know exact truth.
@NogShine Because he won't be completely wrong either. Implement his teachings in life- If it makes you more lovable to the fellow creations. Adopt it or discard it otherwise.
But my point is there are many paths and no one claim exclusively that their path is alone true and Truth can be known by only one path.
@TheDestroyer Simple logic here, you follow the path which you believe is right. Why does one follow a path which doesn't lead to the destination?
6:09 AM
@TheDestroyer Clearly, Everyone believes they are correct. I follow those words who teaches me unity otherwise I discard.
@NogShine How you know a particular path would lead to destination?
and not others?
@NogShine I have no problems with that. I have problems when they say Truth can only be known through this path and Truth says all other paths are wrong and lead to hell. I oppose such statements.
@NogShine Exactly. Everyone wants to follow their own paths which they are inclined.
@Rohit. Because my Acharya said it and I never doubt their words. There are other paths but I'm not sure abou t them.
The discussion is who is that same goal not what path. accepting that goal as sanctioned by vedas if you claim to believe in vedas is a basic requirement for consistency
"I'm not sure abou t them. This is correct and friendly way. :)
@NogShine Yes. Now, If you ever criticise terrorists, never ever. Because they also doing the same - They are following their prophets & never doubt on their words.
6:12 AM
@Rohit. Ohh No. This is deadliest thought.
and they are also not sure whether there are other paths or now.
@Rohit. Bro. They are not of unsure category. They says all other paths are wrong.
This is dangerous thinking.
@Rohit. That's what a wrong interpretation of a word or a sentence. This is what happens to us when there is a proper guidance while reading. :D
@NogShine Oh, then explain me interpretation again.
I am sure you won't go far .
@TheDestroyer meandering without understanding the goal is not a deliberate path
6:15 AM
I have a Muslim friend who is as sure as you in believing other paths are wrong.
@Rohit. It is clear that it is wrong way. It is clear and I'm sure it is wrong.
@NogShine Haha, My muslim friend too says the same - It is clear your religion is wrong and I am sure it is wrong. :P
@LakshmiNarayanan You have some problem with understanding why there are many paths. Please read Upanishads which say why Truth is beyond everything and it will give reason why there are many paths.
And Visit Buddhism SE also if get a time. They are also sure only Buddha's teaching is the path to Ultimate Nirvana.
@Rohit. Islam is not wrong. I have said to your before their misintepretations.
6:18 AM
@TheDestroyer Equating unequal things as a path is clearly not a right path.
@Rohit. The whole crux is "narrow thinking of believing their path only is correct". They don't even listen to other interpretations.
@LakshmiNarayanan Ok. I can understand you haven't read such Upanishad statements.
@TheDestroyer If professor explains a theorem and you don't understand and insist he has to prove it using only left hand then is that narrowmindedness of professor?
@TheDestroyer Thanks for your dull assessment.
@Rohit. You said terrorists in previous message!
@LakshmiNarayanan The problem is not with professor. It is with you who didn;t understand.
@TheDestroyer Yes, We should waste our energies more in loving our Gods or mArga than to think whether other mArgas are wrong or not. or Other gods are capable to give Moksha.
@NogShine Yes, why are they wrong ?
6:19 AM
Because other students understood it @LakshmiNarayanan How can you miss such a simple logic?
Why you think terrorists are wrong?
@TheDestroyer So you claim to understand the Vedas and that i don't - that seems to be the bottom line. How ironic.
@Rohit. They are killing people. Who supports killing innocent people? Does their religion support it? It is wrong interpretation.
I invest my energies in Loving or Surrendering my Ishta Deva than hating other other Devatas.
@LakshmiNarayanan The discussion is not about you and me. It's about professor and students and you. I think even you don't understand Vedas completely.
6:21 AM
@NogShine What's wrong in Killing people? You also kill minor creatures? Lord Krishna also killed many for Dharma Sthapna.
@NogShine Yes. It is wrong interpretation of word "Kafir". kafir in Arabic means to conceal. Those who conceal truth by ego are Kafirs. All the egoists are kafirs in true sense.
Swami Rama says it and even an Islamic scholar says it.
@Rohit. If you say killing innocent people is right, I can say nothing more. Lord Krishna didn't kill innocent people. He killed Rakshasas. Hope you know the difference.
going for lunch. Cya.
@TheDestroyer If one understand the Vedas completely, You and me won't be here chatting and talking. We would be in BrahmaLoka. :D
6:24 AM
What he says is very close to Swami Rama. Swami Rama learned Sufism like Ramakrishna.
@NogShine exactly.
We would stay in Mouna state,
and self realization is not copyrighted or personal assets. Anyone can get it irrespective of caste, religion, gender etc.
Mansur al-Hallaj (Arabic: ابو المغيث الحسين بن منصور الحلاج‎‎ Abū 'l-Muġīṭ Al-Ḥusayn bin Manṣūr al-Ḥallāğ; Persian: منصور حلاج‎‎ Mansūr-e Ḥallāj) (c. 858 – 26 March 922) (Hijri c. 244 AH – 309 AH) was a Persian mystic, poet and teacher of Sufism. He is most famous for his saying: "I am the Truth" (Ana 'l-Ḥaqq), which many saw as a claim to divinity, while others interpreted it as an instance of mystical annihilation of the ego which allows God to speak through the individual. Al-Hallaj gained a wide following as a preacher before he became implicated in power struggles of the Abbasid court and...
@NogShine According to them they are doing this for God as they have surrendered their life to almighty. They are doing it for Dharma Sthapna. So it is not wrong according to them .
@TheDestroyer Don't act coy, it is unbecoming of you. And stop making claims about my lack of knowledge when you have clearly have pegged certain concepts to infallible fancy on basis of nought
6:41 AM
@LakshmiNarayanan may Narayana bestow you proper knowledge.
Hari Om.
7:02 AM
may you be freed from this moha of Shiva & other Devas and behold the true nature of reality through anugraham of srimannArAyaNa.

Jai srimannArAyaNa!
11 hours later…
5:47 PM
Devi Bhagawatam, Book 11, Chapter 18- विष्णुत्वं लभते मर्त्यो यत्सुरेष्वपि दुर्लभम् ।
विष्णुनैतद्‌व्रतं पूर्वं कृतं स्वपदलब्धये ॥ २७ ॥ - By doing this Vratam, a mortal obtains Vishnutvam, which is rare even to Devas. Even Vishnu Himself did this Vratam earlier, to get His position.

तस्यांशमेकं सम्पूज्य देवा देवत्वमागताः ।
ब्रह्मा ब्रह्मत्वमापन्नो ह्यहं विष्णुत्वमेव च ॥ १,७१.५३ ॥
LingaPurana 1 Part Chapter 71
Vishnu says- Worshipping a mere part of Shiva all Devas got their position of Deva, Brahma got Brahmatvam, and I got Vishnutvam.
@AnuragSingh You have to open two eyes.
@AnuragSingh What is your definition of supreme?
@NogShine I have no definition of supreme. I meant to say that each Deva- Narayana, Brahma, Shiva, Ganesha and others are one. Yet all fight over them. So each Devata is Supreme and is playing JagadLeela and we are being bewildered by their Maya, and instead of devotion to them, we are fighting Vishnu is Supreme, Shiva is Supreme, Ganesha is Supreme, Devi is Supreme, Indra is Supreme et cetera.
@AnuragSingh Mahabharata verse is misinterpreted.
Sarvamedha is giving libations of own soul and projecting oneself as creation. So, by accepting Lord Shiva did Sarvamedha he is accepting that entire creation is Shiva its
Shatapatha Brahmana describes how Narayana became Purusha;
"puruṣo ha nārāyaṇo'kāmayata atitiṣṭheyaṃ sarvāṇi bhūtānyahamevedaṃ sarvaṃ syāmiti sa etam puruṣamedham pañcarātram yajñakratumapaśyattamāharattenāyajata teneṣṭvātyatiṣṭhatsarvāṇi bhūtānīdaṃ sarvamabhavadatitiṣṭhati sarvāṇi bhūtānīdaṃ sarvam bhavati ya evam vidvānpuruṣamedhena yajate yo vaitadevam veda" ( Sathapatha Brahmana 13:6:1:1)


"Purusha Narayana desired, 'Would that I overpassed all beings ! would that I alone were everything- here (this universe) !' He beheld this 'five days' sacrificial performance, the Purushame
There are many such statements in Vedas itself.
But calling a Deva as Jiva is gross Sin and Daiva Doosha.
All of them play their leelas in various forms.
@NogShine One being different forms.
6:07 PM
@TheDestroyer yes you are right. The fight between sects of worshippers, especially, Shaiva and Vaishnava , is very unfounded. All are fighting over God. Those who read even a verse of Purana easily get to know how ignorant it is to fight over Gods.
@TheDestroyer and as you said that Calling Devas as Jeeva is indeed very absurd.

  last day (17 days later) »