Glory of Dvaita siddhanta QA

Courtesy : http://www.tatvavada.org/dvaita/faq1.htm

FAQ: Glory of Dvaita Siddhanta thru the guidance of Sri Rayaru

Answers by Shri Kesava Rao Tadipatri

Q1: When our own Lord Vishnu himself has so humbly admitted to Shiva's supremacy, why do you waste your precious time and energy in trying to prove otherwise.

A: The paramaguru (teacher's teacher) of Sri Raghavendraswamy argued with a great scholar for 9 days and dispelled all such doubts, as will be explained later. He did not think that it is wasting precious time. The scriptural rule is "sarvadA vishhNusarvottamatvaM pratipAdaya" (always establish Vishnusarvottamatva))

Q2: Why should one hold such a narrow standpoint by saying that one has to be punished only if he is a menace to the entire world (like Kamsa, but not Daksha)?

A: I only said that there is difference in Krishna killing his father-in-law and Shiva killing his father-in-law. Both of them are not the same category. Never did I say that only the menaces to the world are to be punished. Even in our daily lives, we see that a father punishes his son. Does it mean that the son is a menace to the world?

Q3: Again is it ok to blindly generalize statements? If one says that Daksha being a Devatha was good by nature, can one say Prahlada, and Vibheeshana being Asuras are evil by nature ?

A: Definitely not ! as there are exceptions for every rule! Though Daksha didn't have asuric qualities, characters like him and Ravana are so ungrateful and wily, that they try to overpower the very same source(God) from whom they seek/gain power.

There is difference between Mularupa and avatArarUpa. There are some rules, which have no exception. For ex.

1. All the devata-s are guaranteed moksha or liberation.

2. Lord is infinite in all the auspicious qualities.

The devatas are inherently good. Their occasional bad acts are due to "asurAvesha"(like Daksha had asurAvesha). Prahlada is a karmaja devata, by name Shankukarna, and due to the curse from Brahma is born in Asurayoni as Prahlada. Vibhishana is Kanvamuni in his mUlarupa. Ravana has two jivas (Hiranyakashipu and Jaya). Jaya and Vijaya were cursed to be born in Asurayoni (3 births).

Most of these asuras/raxasa-s believed that Shiva is more powerful than Vishnu and so did penance to Shiva (in some cases Brahma) and thru boons wanted to overpower Vishnu and so got crushed.

Q4: So, when all Faiths claim that Liberation can be achieved thru' their path, how could one claim that Lord Hari alone is capable of giving liberation, and is the supreme most?

A: The scriptures called the All-Supreme being as Hari, who is also known thru many other names. Not only that, he is sarva shabda vAchya (known thru all names and sounds). Since He has all the names, He lets others use His names. That does not mean others become Him. Just as someone gets named as Purushottama, yet he does not become Purushottama, so also the devatas, who have His names do not become Him.

Our scriptures clearly indicate that present Shiva is born in next kalpa as Adishesha (the present Adishesha will get liberated).

Rudrapadavi, Brahmapadavi, Indrapadavi are posts. There is no such thing as Narayanapadavi. Narayana is known by the name Rudra also, but Rudra is not known thru the name Narayana.

Only Narayana and Lakshmi can give liberation and Vayu can do so thru the permission from Narayana. Rudra (or Shiva) himself says that for moksha one has to go to Narayana.

If one goes thru the works of Rayaru, it will become quite evident that Shiva is not liberated. That in no way undermines Shiva. It is extremely foolish to think that there is a war between Shiva and Narayana in this list.

"VaishnavAnAM yathA Shambho". The greatness of Shiva and his Vishnu bhakti have been repeated ad nauseum. Those who brag to have poetic imagination must also have the ability to enjoy the poetic skill and also philosophical purport behind the great work of Sri vadirajaru.

Q5: Aren't philosophical debates an indication of intolerance? Why should they be there?

A: There is difference between "intolerance" and "influence". There were always philosophical debates and even Rayaru did engage in philosophical debates and defeated many scholars including those, who believed in "Shiva's supremacy". This does not mean that Rayaru was intolerant. The sole purpose is to establish right knowledge. This may help that person, who engaged in the debate. Another important factor is that this may help many people who follow these arguments and also many many more in the future generations!

Q6: Isn't Shiva prevedic? Vishnu and Brahma are just vedic.

A: There is no such thing as prevedic, as Vedas are eternal. Only indologists use the terms like prevedic, postvedic, etc. Not only Madhvas, there are other schools also, which believe in the eternality of Vedas.

There are lot of people, who think that saying that Lord Shiva is not All-Supreme is condemning Shiva. They all live in a thorough state of confusion. Among them, those, who are open-minded and willing to listen, have hope for getting corrected. Those, who have closed mind, have no hope at all.

So, my request to all the devotees of Rayaru is to be open-minded. It is perfectly true that dry polemics is of no use. Dry Logic is of two kinds.

1. Non-usage of scriptures and using only logic 2. Indiscriminate usage of scriptures and disregarding consistency.

Rayaru has strongly condemned both and stressed on a disciplined usage of scriptures and having consistency as stated by Sri Madhvacharya.

Q7: How do we know that Rayaru thinks that Vishnu is all-Supreme. His teachings may have got diluted by some vested interests.

A: His works and life-history are standing testimony for the fact that he believed in Vishnu supremacy. That in no way interferes his blessing all kinds of people. Even ordinary people like us are mostly cordial to many people in our work places and daily lives, irrespective of their personal

faiths.

I am stating the following historical fact, which was recorded (as per the facilities of the time and passed on).

There was an extra-ordinary scholar (named Sri Lingarajendra), who knew by heart not only purana's, but vedas also and had exceptionally superb logical skills and believed in Shiva's supremacy. Sri Rayaru's Paramaguru, Sri Vijayindraru had a historical debate with him in the presence of the Tanjore king Chevvappa Nayaka. The debate went for nine days. The agreement for the debate was this. If Sri Vijayindraru loses he would take up Shaiva dikshe and become Sri Lingarajendra's disciple. If Sri Lingarajendra loses he would give up control over temples there and would not give Shaiva dikshe to anyone. Look at the level of self-confidence of Sri Vijayindraru. If he loses the bet, he has everything to lose (as he was pIThadhipati and yati), where as if the opponent loses, he does not have to become the disciple and has much less to lose. Guess what? It attracted people from all over for such a historical event. Every argument of Sri Lingarajendra was refuted.

The score is not 60-40, not 70-30, not 80-20, not 90-10, but a perfect 100-0. That is the greatness of our scriptures (and of course Sri Madhvacharya, Sri Vijayindraru, Sri Rayaru). If there is no perfect consistency, we will be left with lingering doubts. The greatness of the saint is further seen from his words to the opponent - "You lost because your assumptions were wrong, your theory was wrong, etc. , not because your logical skill is deficient. You are a fantastic debater."

The greatness of such classical debaters is that Sri Lingarajendra also did not wander all over and did not bring quotes from Christianity or Islam, etc. They knew the discipline of an argument.

Q8: Is it proper to compare various gods ? We are ordinary mortals. How can we compare?

A: Yes, we cannot compare on our own. We have no capacity. If the Shastra-s that informed us about them make the comparison, then we should make an effort to understand the reason and purpose behind it.

Q9: That is individual interpretation. Each one can interpret the shastra-s differently. That is why, we have so many schools of philosophy. We should respect them all. We should show tolerance towards them all.

A: Disagreeing is not disrespecting. Disagreeing is not intolerance. One must have ability to differentiate between social structure and philosophical structure. Rayaru has very well demonstrated that not only prior to entering Brindavana, but even after. He has blessed all kinds of devotees with materialistic prosperity, yet strongly believed in what he considered as right philosophy.

Disagreement can come out in two ways -

1. Where we express the disagreement

2. Where we do not express the disagreement

Let me give couple of worldly examples for both of them.

1. We may have a boss and an assistant, both of whom are atheists. We don't agree with their atheistic beliefs. We get on very well with them (at least in most of the cases). We don't argue with them either. Personally, it does not bother me. Also my religion or philosophy does not bother them. We have disagreement and tolerance too with no need for expression.

2. If a person says 2 + 2 = 7, we immediately say "No, 2 + 2 = 4, but not 7". Just because, we expressed our disagreement, are we said to have intolerance? Surely not.

Q10: In simple math, it is easy, but in complex philosophy, how can we be sure as to what is right? Every one can claim that his/her interpretation is right.

A: That is why a proper guru and proper guidance is needed. Rayaru has already demonstrated it. If his faith gave him the strength and if we trust him, what is the hindrance in following him? One must not go with "svakapola kalpita buddhi" (thoughts formed by one's own wild imaginations).

Q11: Can't we just not even talk about who is the greatest? Why do we need to know that. This will unnecessarily lead to frictions and hard-feeling. Always, the arguments can be made any which way. How do we know that such gradation exists?

A: It is like cat closing its eyes and thinking that no one is seeing it. Now let us approach it in two ways. One is simple logic and the other is pramana-s.

The need for pramana-s is to make sure that our approach is correct. The purpose of logic in this case is only to get the clue that we need to go to that concept of gradation.

Please note that "dry logic or polemics" can take us only to some extent in a correct path and has potential to take us awry.

Let us look at the following possibilities.

1. There is no gradation among gods. They are all equal.

2. There is gradation, but no one knows. We should not think about it and we should not talk about it as we are not fit to do that.

3. There is gradation and it varies depending on the thinking of the devotees.

4. There is gradation and scriptures have described it.

If 1. is chosen, then that also needs proof. One cannot just simply say "I like that way and so let us all go that way".

If 2. is chosen, it is like the blind cat's approach. Or ignorance is bliss policy.

If 3, is chosen, one must remember that it is not political system and there is no election process. The thoughts of devotees do not and can not determine gradation.

The only choice left is 4. We have to take refuge in scriptures only and seek proper guidance.

If we see contradicting statements, we have to go to qualified gurus. Then comes the next issue. There are conflicting ideas. What should one do? If multiple technical papers give conflicting result, do we sit back and say "let us not talk about it as it may give rise to friction and hard-feelings". We analyze and resolve. Similarly with the help of scriptures, we have to discuss and decide. That is why debates have taken place and they did not create animosities always. There were lot of good things that happened also.

Q12: Look at the jehadis - even they say their God is the greatest and all other God's are inferior. If we say our God is greatest, then are we not just like them?

A: No, we are not saying "OUR" God is the greatest, in the sense that we don't own God. We are saying "THE" God is greatest. When we say "OUR", that is only due to the feeling of high devotion to him.

1. Jehadis do not believe in "sarvabhUtadaya" (compassion to all the beings). Our system preaches "sarvabhUtadaya".

2. Jehadis believe in exterminating those who do not believe in their system. We do not even think of such intolerant process of extermination. Not only that, we do not even insist that all the others also should follow our beliefs only.

3. They believe in rejoicing in torturing the non-believers.

We are not supposed to hurt any one just because they do not believe in our system. (Some may argue that there are some intolerant Hindus, who did similar acts. I am not comparing the people here, but the system itself. Our definition of "dharma" is broad-based. Compassion is part of it. "dhAraNAt dharmaH" = Dharma is that which supports.)

4. Intolerance has no place in our system, where as intolerance is the guiding factor for Jehadis. So, where is the comparison?

Q13: What are the other devotees supposed to do if the tone and language that is used is not very nice and it is hurtful and objectionable?

A: The English language is not the best language to express such sensitive thoughts. It is also only a mailing process and people are free to suggest any alternate patterns of expression. Instead of going ballistic, one can give alternate expressions or alternate explanations that are agreeable and in accordance with our scriptures. These are just postings and not etched in stone as final authority. Improvements are always welcome. Constructive criticisms have positive effect and destructive criticisms have negative effect. The goal here is only to understand the heart of our scriptures.

If people go to crazy measures of saying "Hey dude, where did you get the right to talk about Lord Shiva like this?", what contribution is this person doing either to the society or to himself or to anyone?

The person, who is translating, also sings the songs on Shiva with devotion. What was written is the direct speech of Laxmi as envisaged by Sri Vadirajaru both poetically and also philosophically. The purpose of such tone and language is to crumble down the "cult-like" mind of the good devotees, which they may have gotten due to prArabdha.

Q14: If this is hurtful to all the members in the list and no one likes these, why bother even to go with such explanations? Why can't it just be stopped?

A: If it is hurtful to all, then truly it has to be stopped. However, that is not true. There were many personal letters, who expressed their joy at the postings with expressions like "tears rolling down their eyes" and "thrill at the wonderful presentation", etc. which outnumbered the letters of those, whose face is reddened with anger. Our acharya's statement "bahu chitra jagat, bahudhA karaNAt" (This universe is so strange and so varied with many diverse activities of many beings...") hits our face daily.

Q15: Even if only a portion of people are angry, why can't this be stopped with consideration to those?

A: The goal in life is not to form fan clubs or cults with narrow beliefs. We have to see the truth in our scriptures. That is what Rayaru preached and lived for. If we need to tread his path, we need to have the courage to follow his teachings. All those, who have expressed their disapproval, how much have they read Rayaru's works? Are they at least aware of the works of Rayaru ? Have they even heard of a work called "Parimala", which is a commentary on "Srimannyayasudha"?

Q16: What about the prior incarnation of Sri Raghavendraswamy. Did he always believe in Hari sarvottamatva? Did his guru and paramaguru also believe in that?

A: The prior incarnations were Bhakta Prahlada and Sri Vyasaraja. in both of them, he believed in Hari sarvottamatva, as many are aware of. His Guru Sri Sudhindra and Paramaguru Sri Vijayindra tirtha and also his guru Sri Surendra tirtha were all proponents of Hari sarvottamatva.

Q17: Let that be. They can preach Hari sarvottamatva. Did they do refutal of Shiva sarvottamatva? Why can't both coexist?

A: They did the refutal as the history proves. There are several incidents from the life history of above saints, where they debated with those who preached shiva sarvottamatva. Sri Appannacharyaru had so much respect for Sri Rayaru and adored every quality of Rayaru, especially the debating skill of Rayaru, which is essential to remove wrong knowledge. The wrong knowledge and right knowledge cannot coexist.

Q18: Who are we to evaluate the qualities of Brahma Vishnu and Maheshwara?

A: Of course we are nobody to make our judgment. That is why we have to accept what shstra-s say. Then the next question is "what about so many kinds of interpretation?". For that the answer is "let us go by what Rayaru says".

Q19: Just as there is mention Maheshwara and Brahma accepting the supremacy of Sri Hari, there is also mention of Sri Hari and Brahma accepting the supremacy of Mehesvara. They could not reach or see end of Shiva linga, when Shive grew. Sri Rama and Sri Krishna worshipped Shiva. What about all these?

A: The answers and explanations for all these are present in our own scriptures. If people are interested, I will try to give the answers to these. As I mentioned Rayaru is well aware of all these and yet debated and defeated all those opponents.

Q20: All the gods are in harmony. All the devotees and the gods are in harmony. Why are we disturbing our harmony?

A: Of course. Does any one has to doubt "Is Sri Rayaru and Sri Rama devaru in harmony"?. When Sri Rayaru is a devotee of Sri Rama, they are in great harmony. Maheshwara and Brahma are even greater devotees. So, the harmony is even greater! The harmony grows exponentially, when the knowledge is pure and clear. How can our harmony be disturbed if we go in the lines of teaching of Sri Rayaru?

Q21: Don't the devotees do the Darshana of Lord Venkateshwara after taking the Darshana of Kapileshwara at Kapila teertha? Are not all the gods worship worthy?

A: Of course. We have to worship all the "devata-s" as parivAra devata-s of the Lord. The Lord has made not only that rule, but also that we have to understand proper gradation. Otherwise, we get all mixed up. That is why Rayaru followed Madhva siddhAnta and one of the important tenets there is "jiivagaNaaH hareranucharaaH nIchochchabhAvaM gataaH". (All the sentient ones, including Meheswara, Brahma and Durga are followers of Sri Hari and they have gradation)

Q22: During the Vanavaasa Rama and Laxmana stayed in Hampi and during the punyakara Chaaturmaasa and worshipped Sri Virupaksha devaru of Hampi. In Rameshvara, Rama worshipped Shiva. As Sri Krishna also, he worshipped Shiva. What about all these?

A: Whenever Sri Rama or Shri Krishna worshipped Shiva, Shiva just passed the prayers back to the Lord Hari, who is his antaryAmi. We have to remember one thing. Gods are not politicians standing for election and we are not voters to choose our candidate. We have to simply accept what shastra-s say and if they are confusing, take the helping guidance of ones like Sri Rayaru. We are not trying to make the things as per our understanding, but we are trying to understand things as per the making of shastra-s, based on the teachings of Sri Rayaru.

Q23: Our Mantralaya Sri Raghavendrateertharu has given a unique regard and respect to Shesha Garuda Rudradevaru along with Sri Hari Vayu Guru.

A: Surely. We have to do that exactly as per the teachings of Rayaru, which are like "neechochchabhaavaM gataaH" and "tadbhakti taaratamyena taaratamyaM vimuktigaM", etc.

Please note what Sri Appannacharyaru says about Rayaru

"sachchaastraatividuushhakaa khilam Rishhavaadiibha-kaNThiiravaH"

(He was like a lion to the elephants of debaters with pseudo-knowledge, who are defiling the flawless shaastra-s).

Rayaru blessed all kinds of devotees, including foreigners, but when it came to keeping the right knowledge and rejecting the wrong knowledge, he was "vedavyaasamuniishamadhvayatiraaT-Tiikaarya vaakyaamRitaM j~nAtva-advaitamataM halaahalasamam tyaktvaa..."(He understood the message of Sri Vedavyasa, MadhvayatiraaT, Tikacharyaru and rejected Advaita knowledge (of abhedavAda) as if it is Halahala poison. Please develop the ability to differentiate between philosophy and people.

Q24: Should we not welcome warmly all our world devotees in the folds of Bhakti of our Mantralaya Rayaru and Bichali Sri Appanacharyaru?

A: Of course. With open arms, we welcome all the devotees. Let us always remember the simple fact that Rayaru, out of grace and kindness, has made those great teachings much simpler for his devotees. Those who claim to be devotees of Rayaru and Sri Appannaacharyaru and yet don't follow the teachings of Sri Rayaru and the message given by Sri Appannacharyaru, are tantamount to be making an effort to back stab Sri Rayaru and Sri Appannacharyaru. Their efforts will not cause even a dent in Sri Rayaru and Sri Appannacharyaru, but will only boomerang. There is a big difference between "not understanding" and "opposing". Rayaru will forgive the former, but never the latter.

Q25: We need to feed ourselves and lead peaceful life and try to get Bhakti, Gnyana and Vairaagya. Many of us are all still in the first phase of Bhakti. Do we need all this?

A: The need for harmony and peaceful life must always be there. That is perfectly fine. Why should that interfere with quest for truth? When we are only in the first phase of bhakti, there is all the more reason not to oppose Rayaru and his teachings. Right?

Q26: Why can't we just use the mantra - Bichali Sri AppaNAcharya priya Mantralaya Sri Raghavendrateertha urubhyoa namaH and ignore all the debates?

A: While saying that, let us also understand what their message is. Correct understanding of shaastra-s is not a hindrance for cordiality, but a great asset for cordiality. As a final word, let me dispel all the wrong notions of some people by quoting our Acharya, who has exhorted "naanajanasya shushhruushhaa kaaryaa".

"We have to serve all kinds of people [not just our kind]."

Why do people get mixed up between philosophy and social life? Sri Satyadhyana tiirtharu quotes a good example for this. Two lawyers argue heavily in the court of law and after work, every day they go together for dinner and they show to the world that they are very close pals. When asked by the confused ones as to "how is it that you argue so much and yet act like this?", they answered "In the court room, the goal is to arrive at the truth. Just because we argue, it does not mean that we have enmity."

Most of us are cordial in professional life. We can continue to be cordial in social life as well. In philosophy, the sole goal is to nail the truth. It is even made easier by the grace of Rayaru. Let us drink the nectar of the teachings of Rayaru.

Q27: Paramatma - Iswar is one and gives blessings, darshan to his/ her devotees as they pray - whatever name or form they call out - narayana, mahadeva, bhagawati etc, by the grace of great avatars - bhaktas - Guru's like Shri Raghavendra Swamy, Shankaracharya, Namacharya, Ramanujacharya, Ramakrishna Paramahansa etc. We tend to get confused since Shiva Purana - says Shiva is superior, Devi Mahatmayam says Devi is the primordial Mother etc, Vishnu purana says Narayana is superior.

When a small child who cannot yet speak or is just able to cobble a few words, calls out to the Mother - Father, they come running to answer the child's heartful call, without bothering about the how the child grammatically spelled or called out the name.

I am sure the merciful Lord, who is full of Love, will respond to the pure and sincere call of the devotee. That's the biggest temptation - the call of Bhakta - which even the Lord cannot resist you may call it the Lord's weakness, the Bhakta's love.

A: Lord does not have any weakness. Compassion is not weakness, but strength. Surely the Lord is ONE. The Lord is "sarvashabdavAchya (all names and all sounds describe him)". The question here is not what name is given to the Lord, but how the Lord is extolled. The child can call his/her mother any which way it can. But if the child goes to someone else and calls her as mother, that someone else may help the child, but tells the child that she is not the true mother.

When gajendra prayed the Lord, he addressed the Lord as one, who is the root cause of everything and one who creates, maintains and destroys all, and one who controls it all, etc. No specific name was mentioned, yet all names were mentioned. Lord Hari came to save him.

When Lord Krishna preached Gita, he did not say that one can pray any one, whom he/she likes. He said that He alone is all supreme (again and again). In one place He says "Among Rudra-s, I am Shankara. Among senadhipati-s, I am Skandha, etc." People tend to interpret to imply non-difference between Hari and Shiva. That will be silly, because He also said "among weapons, I am Vajrayudha". Can we deduce that there is non-difference between Him and the Vajra?

Whom ever you pray with devotion for only material things, that god will come and fulfill your material things. if that is all what you want, then that is fine. If one has a higher goal like moxa, then one has to pray the Lord, who has that capacity. How to know who has that? You have to go by the scriptures that revealed them to you. That in no way disrespecting other gods. When you say that Lord is ONE, remember that Lord is ONE. If you start claiming that every Baba is Lord or every god is the Supreme Lord, then that is the source of confusion.

Q28: I sometimes wonder if these debates about supremacy of Shiva, Vishnu etc.. are in some way responsible for the sorry state of Hinduism today. People are converting to other religions unable to understand and come to terms with so many complexities of the religion.

I am common man and always wants to have things simple in life. My day to day life does not permit me to have scholarly debates.

Please answer me if the concept of One God is trash and which god (Shiva, Vishnu, Durga, Brahma) should I pray. I was told that we should not pray Krishna as there curse from Gandhari.

To pray to the almighty should I go thru this endless maze or should I stop believing in religion and become atheist.

Hope that I am able to convey a common man's thought process.

A: It is sad that many are getting confused from various things.

People are converting to other religions not because there is discussion about God's supremacy. It is because of the following reasons.

1. Social aspects (nothing to do with any religious aspects. Most of the ones , perhaps even all of them are totally ignorant of any religious aspects)

2. Monetary benefits (If some one gives food, the hungry man will do anything to get it)

3. Force from various quarters.

Surely one doesn't have to have any scholarly debates, but there is no need to give up common sense. What is common sense? What ever is the source, understand that source properly. There is no excuse for that and it does not suffice to say that one is not inclined for scholarly debates. It is like saying "I am not interested in technical jargon, but I need to understand highly technical analysis of all scientific theories".

There is terrible self-contradiction. On one side, there is an out pour asking "Please answer me if the concept of One God is trash". On another side, the very concept of "one God" is rejected by such people as they strongly imply "Take every one as God, Shiva is all Supreme, Krishna is all Supreme, Durga is all Supreme, Brahma is all Supreme, Mariamma is all Supreme, Srigalamma is all Supreme, Saibaba is all supreme, tomorrow my neighbor says 'Labbadabba' is all supreme, I don't want to hurt him and I don't care who is 'Labbadabba', but that one is also all Supreme. Then there are already half a dozen who are claiming as 'Kalki'. I love to make them also all Supreme.".

What a confusion !! Added to that confusion, some are not even aware of what Gandhari's curse is, because, they are not interested in scholarly debates! If it is not too much scholarly, Gandhari's curse is that the Vrishnis will be destroyed the same way as Kauravas. Those who subject to such confusion also forget that God is the independent force, who uses all the beings as tools to do as per His will. Krishna wants that only and so, He, being inside Gandhari, makes her say that as a tool in implementing God's will.

Perhaps, it is very scholarly to discuss why Krishna wants that!

Tomorrow one's son comes back from school saying "2 + 2 = 7", then don't hurt his feelings and say "That is right son"! Is that so?

If not, he may "convert to another parents"!

If someone is going to become atheist because there is discussion about supremacy of God, then that person can become atheist for even any other reason as well. Infact there is not much difference between atheism and a total confusion.

The endless maze will only increase with confusion since there can be now "Labbadabba' or God knows how many millions of more Gods can enter the mind.

I hope I conveyed common man's thoughts.

Q29: In continuation, I thought of writing my opinion clearly. You are most welcome to prove me wrong. Today there is an assault from Islam and Christianity. Other religions are show casing the castes and exploitation in Hinduism and attracting people. I am not from lower caste still I really hate the caste divide in our religion.

The debate going on here is one form castiesm only. Scholars who are posting their opinion here would be better serving humanity and the lord if they use their creative energies in advancing a united Hinduism rather than dividing it. If my limited knowledge of religion is correct even Ram in Ramayan prayed to Shiva and established Shiva linga in Rameshwar. Then why are people wasting times here in these debates.

This religion has produced great saints like Swami Vivekananda, Ramakrishna, Shirdi Saibaba, Budda, Mahaveer, Guru nanak and none of them debated on topics like these. Any religion that does not give freedom and takes away self respect an ordinary human being will not flourish. Anyone who is interested in well being of the religion should ensure that we work for common good, not for intellectual convictions. Please let me know if my opinions are wrong.

A: Some are not interested in scholarly discussions and so how will they be able to handle the discussion of proving them wrong? How can they even prove any thing themselves? Can any proving be done without a discussion? A total lapse of common sense can be seen here. In fact one cannot prove any thing without any discussion, in these situations.

It is total ignorance to think that a discussion divides people. Then by the same token, there should not be any discussion anywhere. Will the discussion between Guru and shishya cause division between them? Can there be a total absence of discussion?

It beats me as to what caste has to do with current discussion. The reasons for conversion have been written. That is also pure common sense.

What is the link between "better serving community" and a philosophical discussion? How will a discussion prevent one from serving the community? Removing the confusion, thru a proper discussion, is also one of the tasks of serving the community, which means that the discussion is also one of the tools in the service of the community.

The purpose of this discussion is uniting Hinduism only as a thorough confusion cannot unite anything.

It is meaningless to say "...all these people did not discuss". Every one discusses what is relevant to them. They have many works, which discuss what they consider important for them". Without discussion, the knowledge cannot improve at all.

It beats me as to how this discussion of God's supremacy takes away self respect.

In fact if there is no "One Supreme God", how can any thing else make sense?

Q30: What is the detailed Explanation given by Rayaru on 'Vishnu and Brahma tried to see the head and foot of Shiva'?

A: Sri AppanAcharya says in Rayaru's stotra -

"vAgvaikharInirjitabhavyasheShaH"

Vagvaikhari is the work composed by Sri Vijayindra tIrtha, the paramaguru of Sri Raghavedra swamy. Utilizing that he defeated a great scholar Shesha pandita, who professed Shiva sarvottamatva.

Before going into the details that the Dvaita scholars used to answer the above type of questions, let me give a laukika example. Suppose a great scientist like Newton, wrote two technical papers(say A1 and B1) that contradict each other, then the scholarly people, who know the worth of such a great scientist expect to see a resolution also from the same scientist. Suppose there is another source from that same scientist, which says that A1 is prepared in the lines of some people, who have incomplete info and so B1 is actually meant to remove the info given in A1. This resolves the issue and that comes from the source itself and so is most reliable.

Now Sri Vijayindratirtha debated with Sri Lingarajendra, who had total control of all the temples in Kumbhakonam. He answered letter by letter and completely won over the debate successfully. The debate went for eleven days and at the end, Sri Lingarajendra accepted total defeat and prostrated to Sri Vijayindratirtha and handed over the controller ship of all the temples in Kumbhakonam.

Now the main question. Vedavyasa, who composed the Puranas, has divided them into sAtvika, RAjasa and tAmasa puranas.

"vaiShNavaM nAradIyaM cha tathA bhAgavataM shubhaM | gAruDaM cha tathA pAdmaM vArAhaM shubhadarshane | ShaDetAni purANAni sAtvikAni matAni vai | brahmANdaM brahmavaivartaM mArkaNdeyaM tathaiva cha | bhavishyadvAmanaM brAhmaM rAjasAni nibodha me | mAtsyaM kaurmamM tathA laingam shaivaM skAndaM tathaiva cha |

agneyaM cha ShaDetAni tAmasA nirayapradAH |"

There are six sAtvika puranas - 1. Vaishnava 2. NAradIya 3. Bhagavata 4. Garuda 5. Padma 6. Varaha

(The striking meaning of the major portion in these is palatable to the liberation-oriented people.)

There are six rAjasika puranas - 1. Brahmanda 2. Brahmavavaivarta 3. Markandeya 4. Bhavishyottara 5. Vamana 6. Brahma

(The striking meaning of the major portion in these is palatable to the mixed-minded people, prone for everlasting samsAra.)

There are six tAmasika puranas - 1. mAtsya 2. Kaurma 3. Lainga 4. Skanda 5. Shaiva 6. Agneya

(The striking meaning of the major portion in these is palatable to the dark-minded people, prone for hellish ends.)

Now thru another approach, let us analyze the inconsistency in the statement -

'Vishnu and Brahma tried to see the head and foot of Shiva'

The episode goes that Brahma sets out to see the head of Siva on his Hamsa vAhana and Vishnu takes Varaha form and sets out to see the foot of Shiva by digging the Earth.

Let us take an analogy - if someone says "my neighbour tried to make a hole in the peanut and enter that hole", a normal person rejects that saying "it must be a joke".

The puranas also tell us how Vishnu saved the Earth by lifting it as the same VaraharUpa on His tusks. When He can lift the entire Earth like a play (Lila mAtra), where is the question of His digging the Earth? Similarly, when Brahma is the one, who created Rudra, where is the question of his trying to reach the head of Rudra?

Q31: Why Rama and Krishna worshipped Shiva?

A: While there is one extreme, who claim that Shiva is all Supreme, there is another extreme, who think "Oh, if Shiva is not all Supreme, then he is not to be worshipped". That is also wrong. Various gods are to be worshipped as per the gradation and as prescribed in our scriptures.

"parivAratayA grAhya api heyA pradhAnataH"

"Even though not Supreme, various gods have to be worshipped as the servants of Srihari and as per the gradation."

There are 2 reasons for Rama and Krishna worshipping Shiva.

1. To instruct the right-minded people to worship Shiva as per the gradation.

2. To delude the wrong-minded people further so that they continue their wrong sAdhana as per the will of the Lord.

We can see the proof of the pudding in its eating.

The Lord Hari worshipped Rudra because of the boon He gave to Rudra. Where is pramana for this?

One can see them in Varahapurana, Rudragita, Kurma purana, etc.

Sri Hari's boon to Rudra -

"AhamapyavatAreShu tvAM cha rudra mahAbala | tAmasAM mohanArthaM pUjayAmi yuge yuge|"

"Oh mighty Rudra, I, in my incarnations, for the sake of deluding the dark-minded people, worship you yuga after yuga."

Rudra prays to Sri Hari -

"anyadevaM varaM dehi...martyo bhUtvA bhavAneva

mama sAdhaya keshava | mAm bhajasva cha devesha |

varaM matto grahANa cha | enAhaM sarvabhUtAnAM pUjyAtpUjyataro.abhavaM | devakAryAntareShu mAnuShatvamupeyivAN | tvAmevArAdhayiShyAmi mama tvaM varado bhava |"

"Please give me this boon. By incarnating on Earth, Oh Lord, worship me and get boons from me. From this, I will become worship-worthy to all the beings. In all devakarya-s and by taking human forms, I will worship you only."

Remember just because, Krishna acted as a charioteer to Arjuna, will He become inferior to Arjuna? He is only fulfilling the boon that He gave to His devotees.

Just becasue Sri Rama bowed to Vishvamitra, Agastya, Bharadvaja and VashiShTha, will anyone conclude that they are superior to Sri Rama?

Every statement in shruti or smriti that gives apparent meaning of Shiva supremacy has an alternate interpretation and also the reasons can be known from the scriptures themselves, where as the statements of Vishnu supremacy are devoid of alternate interpretations.

Remember - if Krishna worshipped Shiva thinking that Shiva is superior to Him, how can He say the following?

"vedaishcha sarvairahameva vedyaH"

(I am the only one known thru the veda-s)

"mattaH parataraM nAnyatkinchidasti dhananjaya"

(Oh Dhananjaya, there is nothing else that is superior to me)

and many such statements.

Shri KrishnArpanamastu !!