06-02-2005, 08:04 AM
Sunder:
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Okay, we are back from Iskcon to this holier-than-thou rubbish that goes on in the name of advaita-bashing. First off, Hyagriva, you either have no idea of Advaita Vedanta, or you are purposefully misconstruing the argument and presenting it in a way which is asynchronous with traditional Advaita schools.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
We are not back from ISKCON to advaita-bashing, but back from ISKCON bashing to talking about the differences.
I just hightlighted the difference in approach of Vaishnavism vis a vis Advaita and you misconstruct it as bashing and call it 'holier then thou rubbish'. This reveals your mood for this thread although you make a great show of writing down godly rules in the first post.
You started with claiming some undercurrents, spoke of ISKCON as if all other Vaishnavites disowned them for some devilish reasons unknown, went on to find fault with Vaishnavas interacting with Christians and even asked if ISKCON asked its followers to read and follow Bible!! What didn't you accuse ISKCON of?
The fact that Vaishnavism believes the Shiva is an expansion of Vishnu such a big problem in the Hindu Society that you and Gangajal make it out to be? Or is it that you are tying to build Himalayas out of anthills? Creating a controversy where none exists?
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->First off, Hyagriva, you either have no idea of Advaita Vedanta, or you are purposefully misconstruing the argument and presenting it in a way which is asynchronous with traditional Advaita schools. <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes, you are right, I am not knowledgable in Advaita vada.
I only need to know how to differentiate Advaita-vada and what is wrong with it. I am not qualified to speak about Advaita so I am sorry that I even started to talk about it. All I said was that Advaitins claim that Shiva/Vishnu have no independent and real existence and are just names for the formless Brahman.
IS this right or wrong? You either say that Shiva and Vishnu exist seperately, truely and as real personalities OR you say they don't..
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->When an Advaitin "claims" <b>Shiva or Vishnu have no real existence</b>, they are refering to the "Name-Quality" combination. Guna, and Aakara are finite and limted as the Shruthi claims. But the Shruthis also says that a anyone who says "It" has a form is a fool, and one who says It is formless is a bigger fool. He who neither thinks of It as formed or formless perhaps may know it.
<b> Shiva and Vishnu DO exist </b>, and their existence is as real as your dreams are. The one permanent aspect in your dream and THIS reality is YOU, the Self. That alone is real. <b> Thus Shiva and Vishnu are Real, and in Reality, they are your Self. </b> <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You yourself agree that Shiva and Vishnu have no real existence, but go on to juggle words twisting them into sentences and dropping words like 'fools' liberally without necessity.
In the very next line, you do the twist again when you say, 'Shiva and Vishnu DO exist' and as poison is added to milk, go on to try to tie that existence to my dreams by saying ' their existence is as real as your dreams are'.. which is to say that my dream are just dreams which have no reality to them and that existence of Shiva and Vishnu are as good as my dreams.
This only plainly means that the existences of Vishnu and Shiva are only as objects in dreams with no inherent reality.
If dreams are dreams, what permanence can be found in them? You say the 'one permanent aspect in your dream'. You also say that 'THIS reality is YOU.' This refers to WHAT????
How can there be permanence when the basis of dreams is impermanence? And what reality can be in dreams? What reality are you talking about?
You end that para by saying, 'Thus Shiva and Vishnu are Real, and in Reality, they are your Self.'
How come 'thus'? What have you proved to end it as thus as if you have given all logical points and the conclusion is somehow self-evident. How is it that Shiva and Vishnu became one and they both as one became my 'self'? Doesn't this mean that Shiva and Vishnu don't really exist and all that exists really is my 'Self'?
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b> it is quite ironic that the Gaudiya followers with half-baked understanding of Shruthis talk about "Self made Gurus" and Charlatans. </b><!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
There you go again passing judgement that Gaudiya followers have 'half baked understanding of Shruthis'. Isn't this enough proof of your real intentions for this thread? To ridicule and find fault?
Should I make a long post of your past quotes that plainly proves this fact?
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->If your reference to Bhagavan Ramana Maharshi, be known that he did not confer any titles upon himself. As for Avathara this and Avatara that, Advaita is not averse to Avataras <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I did not mention any person in particular, only those <b>who claim themselves to be 'Bhagavan'</b>. Such people are dime a dozen nowadays and you need not bring in Sri Ramana. I also don't think Ramana confered this 'Bhagavan' title upon himself so naturally I am not refering to him.
This 'straw-man' fallacy is a old one. Sorry, it won't work.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Just like the Vision of Krishna in my dreams are in the framework of the mind, the external manifestation of Avatara, Amsa, Poornavathara, etc are within the framework of relativity. No two Avataras are distinct from 'each other', it is the same Self, (which is within this body too) is manifesting itself in a tangible form. <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So you mean to say that dreams need the framework of the mind?
You refer to the 'external manifestation of Avatara', then what is the 'Inner manifestation of avatara'? Is that manifestation in your dreams? Are these two different? Are there really two manifestations? Or is there more? If just two, why is it restricted to two? And this avatara is as real or false as your dream? Or is this all illusion?
What is this 'framework' of relativity? Relative to what? From which point of reference?
'It is the same Self (which is within this body too)' what else is in the body to qualify for your usage of 'too'?
It is an old trick of neo-advaitins to express themselves in sentences too unambigious and confusing to give their understanding a kind of aura. This gives a sense of satisfaction to the word juggler that after any longer debate they will say that this Brahman is indescribable, beyond grasp of thought and all human understanding.
The Vaishnavas say, 'ENOUGH of all this words. These words won't take anybody any nearer to the goal of self-realization. They are only good for arguments and more arguments. The only way is to sing the glories of Hari and seek the grace of pure devotion'
Sri Sankaracharya says,
Bhaja Govindam, Bhaja Govindam
Bhaja Govindam, Muda mathe
Samprapthe Sannihithe kale
Nahi Nahi rakshathi Dhukhrum Karane!
Hari Govinda, Hari Govinda
Hari Govinda - Anara Manda
Mrithyuvu Dapuna Mesaletapudu
Vyakaranamu kapadadura.
" Sing the glory of Lord Govinda, utter the name of Lord Govinda; Oh, you ignoramus! You should go on uttering the name of the Lord. It will not be possible for you to do so when death faces you and you are close to it. Reciting grammar cannot save you."
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--> On the one hand you say there is no deriding, but in the very next sentence mention that "We are superior to those xyz schools." There should be a healthy debate for any progress to take place, what I see is a stifling attitude where you say "We know we are superior, and hence you are inferior even though we donât mean it that way." If you say your views are valid (let alone superior), you have to back it up with Shruthi Pramana, and not padma-purana or kushmanda-purana. <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Now, you attack me by putting words into my mouth and blaming me as if I uttered them.
Firstly I never said that 'WE ARE SUPERIOR TO THOSE XYZ SCHOOLS'
My words were this: <!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--> Vaishnavism is the most complete science on Bhakti and has the easiest and surest way of understanding love for Godhead and therefore enjoys a preeminent position. <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Why do you wantingly inject these words like 'superior' to discredit me? Do you have enemity with Vaishnavism or myself? Again, what really is the purpose of this thread?! To pick up fights or to know?
Secondly, just because Vaishnavism claims itself to be more complete is not deriding of any other school of thought. Vaishnavism even seeks out and finds value in nastika religions like Christianity, Islam and such. Vaishnavism is catholic in outlook. It rejects no religion as outright wrong, but only gives a better understanding of what religion should be like. The anology of Dictionary and Encyclopedia has already been given to you.
The Encyclopedia has more complete knowledge than the dictionary which does not mean that the dictionary is wrong or useless. Ditto with Vaishnavism and other religions.
This also does not mean that the Encyclopedia is superior to dictionary. Both have different audiences and usage-contexts.
Some people would find the dictionary more useful than the encycolopedia which can be threating, imposing and a over-kill, but for some who need more, they will migrate from the dictionary to the encyclopedia.
If this explaination does not help you, please spare me, I don't want to fight with you.
I repeat: Vaishnavism is complete since it teaches the greatest religious dictum, that of undiluted Love of Almightly. All other religions and systems that claim to be complete do have inadequencies in love of Godhead.
Some like the Semetic religions have the self-interested and selfish goal of Heaven and its pleasures adulterating their love for God.
Others like neo-advaita, have intellectualism and Jnana obsuring and tainting pure love for God.
Narada Muni is quite clear when He says that reading of scriptures, shruthi is of no use since Brahma who holds and breaths out the Vedas himself has no chance of liberation if devoit of Bhakti. The Bhagavad Gita refers to Vedas as a flood of water when there is not a drop of water fit to drink.
When you ask for Shruthi pramana, are you sure you want to hear it? Because, to hear Shruthi, you will have to qualify as a Brahmacharin which means that you will have to stay at the Ashrama of a Guru and learn obedienty and submissively. If you really want to learn the Shruthi, you are most welcome to join any of the various Vaishnava mathas. The Bhagavat-Gita says,' Approach a bonafide master submissively and seek to learn'.. not arrogantly demand on discussion boards for Shruthis which aren't so cheap.
As for me, I am not that careless to throw about Shruthi pramanas around as you ask them. And more importantly, I am so disqualified to even talk about them. Actually I know nothing about them for I am just a student.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->You failed to say WHY it is the most complete science? The same claim can be made by christians who claim their way to be the path of Love, or islam that claims to be the only true religion of peace. You may want to back up your position on WHY Vaishnavism is more complete than say, Thiru Gnana Sambandhar's or Appar's way? A true bhaktha revels in ANYONE having bhakthi towards the Lord. To say that my interepretation alone is right, and yours is wrong is just laughable and is inconsistent go even with your own statement.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes, you are right that a true Bhakta revels in ANYONE having Bhakthi towards the Lord. Thats exactly why a Christian or Muslim having pure devotion is to be respected as religious person irrespective of his religious background.
Just a few post ago, you were blaming ISKCON for doing exactly the same: respecting Bhaktas from Christianity and Islam. Now you turn plates and claim it as a virtue Vaishnavism does not profess.
And at the top of it, you call for consistency while I spend huge paragraphs just repeating myself over and over again ad-nausuem!
Christian love is described as love for the neighbour as oneself. This is just one step of selflessness. There is more to Love of Godhead. Before one can talk about love of Godhead, ONE NEEDS TO KNOW ALL ABOUT THE GODHEAD. Only Vaishnavism talks about all the divine auspicious atributes of Godhead. Who is He, what he likes, what he wears, what he does, who are his associates, his residences, his expansions, pastimes, lilas, avataras, relationships and so on and on - a ocean of knowledge about the Godhead we worship.. show me where in Christianity and Islam do they have such complete understanding of their version of God and I will agree that those religions are as complete as Vaishnavism. Christianity and Islam haven't even succeeded in crossing the notion of this body as the true self. They don't even talk about soul in any appreciatable degree of detail, what to say about Godhead! They still think that the body that is dead with be physically resurrected without knowing that each soul is independent of the body and has had trillions... incountable bodies since time immemorial. For them, this birth is the only birth and this body the only truth. Vaishnavism is thus more complete in understand then Christianity of Islam.
As for Appar and Sambhandhar, Vaishnavas respect all Sages. They are Sages and one cannot comment on their understanding. Also, did I ever tell you that Sambhandhar or Appar are not Vaishnavas? Devotees of Shiva who himself is a devotee of Hari are also devotees as per Vaishnavite understanding, and thus Appar and Sambhandhar are devotees of Lord.
In Bhagavat Gita, Lord Krishna says that recipient of all worship is He alone.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Okay, we are back from Iskcon to this holier-than-thou rubbish that goes on in the name of advaita-bashing. First off, Hyagriva, you either have no idea of Advaita Vedanta, or you are purposefully misconstruing the argument and presenting it in a way which is asynchronous with traditional Advaita schools.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
We are not back from ISKCON to advaita-bashing, but back from ISKCON bashing to talking about the differences.
I just hightlighted the difference in approach of Vaishnavism vis a vis Advaita and you misconstruct it as bashing and call it 'holier then thou rubbish'. This reveals your mood for this thread although you make a great show of writing down godly rules in the first post.
You started with claiming some undercurrents, spoke of ISKCON as if all other Vaishnavites disowned them for some devilish reasons unknown, went on to find fault with Vaishnavas interacting with Christians and even asked if ISKCON asked its followers to read and follow Bible!! What didn't you accuse ISKCON of?
The fact that Vaishnavism believes the Shiva is an expansion of Vishnu such a big problem in the Hindu Society that you and Gangajal make it out to be? Or is it that you are tying to build Himalayas out of anthills? Creating a controversy where none exists?
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->First off, Hyagriva, you either have no idea of Advaita Vedanta, or you are purposefully misconstruing the argument and presenting it in a way which is asynchronous with traditional Advaita schools. <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes, you are right, I am not knowledgable in Advaita vada.
I only need to know how to differentiate Advaita-vada and what is wrong with it. I am not qualified to speak about Advaita so I am sorry that I even started to talk about it. All I said was that Advaitins claim that Shiva/Vishnu have no independent and real existence and are just names for the formless Brahman.
IS this right or wrong? You either say that Shiva and Vishnu exist seperately, truely and as real personalities OR you say they don't..
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->When an Advaitin "claims" <b>Shiva or Vishnu have no real existence</b>, they are refering to the "Name-Quality" combination. Guna, and Aakara are finite and limted as the Shruthi claims. But the Shruthis also says that a anyone who says "It" has a form is a fool, and one who says It is formless is a bigger fool. He who neither thinks of It as formed or formless perhaps may know it.
<b> Shiva and Vishnu DO exist </b>, and their existence is as real as your dreams are. The one permanent aspect in your dream and THIS reality is YOU, the Self. That alone is real. <b> Thus Shiva and Vishnu are Real, and in Reality, they are your Self. </b> <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You yourself agree that Shiva and Vishnu have no real existence, but go on to juggle words twisting them into sentences and dropping words like 'fools' liberally without necessity.
In the very next line, you do the twist again when you say, 'Shiva and Vishnu DO exist' and as poison is added to milk, go on to try to tie that existence to my dreams by saying ' their existence is as real as your dreams are'.. which is to say that my dream are just dreams which have no reality to them and that existence of Shiva and Vishnu are as good as my dreams.
This only plainly means that the existences of Vishnu and Shiva are only as objects in dreams with no inherent reality.
If dreams are dreams, what permanence can be found in them? You say the 'one permanent aspect in your dream'. You also say that 'THIS reality is YOU.' This refers to WHAT????
How can there be permanence when the basis of dreams is impermanence? And what reality can be in dreams? What reality are you talking about?
You end that para by saying, 'Thus Shiva and Vishnu are Real, and in Reality, they are your Self.'
How come 'thus'? What have you proved to end it as thus as if you have given all logical points and the conclusion is somehow self-evident. How is it that Shiva and Vishnu became one and they both as one became my 'self'? Doesn't this mean that Shiva and Vishnu don't really exist and all that exists really is my 'Self'?
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--><b> it is quite ironic that the Gaudiya followers with half-baked understanding of Shruthis talk about "Self made Gurus" and Charlatans. </b><!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
There you go again passing judgement that Gaudiya followers have 'half baked understanding of Shruthis'. Isn't this enough proof of your real intentions for this thread? To ridicule and find fault?
Should I make a long post of your past quotes that plainly proves this fact?
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->If your reference to Bhagavan Ramana Maharshi, be known that he did not confer any titles upon himself. As for Avathara this and Avatara that, Advaita is not averse to Avataras <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I did not mention any person in particular, only those <b>who claim themselves to be 'Bhagavan'</b>. Such people are dime a dozen nowadays and you need not bring in Sri Ramana. I also don't think Ramana confered this 'Bhagavan' title upon himself so naturally I am not refering to him.
This 'straw-man' fallacy is a old one. Sorry, it won't work.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Just like the Vision of Krishna in my dreams are in the framework of the mind, the external manifestation of Avatara, Amsa, Poornavathara, etc are within the framework of relativity. No two Avataras are distinct from 'each other', it is the same Self, (which is within this body too) is manifesting itself in a tangible form. <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So you mean to say that dreams need the framework of the mind?
You refer to the 'external manifestation of Avatara', then what is the 'Inner manifestation of avatara'? Is that manifestation in your dreams? Are these two different? Are there really two manifestations? Or is there more? If just two, why is it restricted to two? And this avatara is as real or false as your dream? Or is this all illusion?
What is this 'framework' of relativity? Relative to what? From which point of reference?
'It is the same Self (which is within this body too)' what else is in the body to qualify for your usage of 'too'?
It is an old trick of neo-advaitins to express themselves in sentences too unambigious and confusing to give their understanding a kind of aura. This gives a sense of satisfaction to the word juggler that after any longer debate they will say that this Brahman is indescribable, beyond grasp of thought and all human understanding.
The Vaishnavas say, 'ENOUGH of all this words. These words won't take anybody any nearer to the goal of self-realization. They are only good for arguments and more arguments. The only way is to sing the glories of Hari and seek the grace of pure devotion'
Sri Sankaracharya says,
Bhaja Govindam, Bhaja Govindam
Bhaja Govindam, Muda mathe
Samprapthe Sannihithe kale
Nahi Nahi rakshathi Dhukhrum Karane!
Hari Govinda, Hari Govinda
Hari Govinda - Anara Manda
Mrithyuvu Dapuna Mesaletapudu
Vyakaranamu kapadadura.
" Sing the glory of Lord Govinda, utter the name of Lord Govinda; Oh, you ignoramus! You should go on uttering the name of the Lord. It will not be possible for you to do so when death faces you and you are close to it. Reciting grammar cannot save you."
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--> On the one hand you say there is no deriding, but in the very next sentence mention that "We are superior to those xyz schools." There should be a healthy debate for any progress to take place, what I see is a stifling attitude where you say "We know we are superior, and hence you are inferior even though we donât mean it that way." If you say your views are valid (let alone superior), you have to back it up with Shruthi Pramana, and not padma-purana or kushmanda-purana. <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Now, you attack me by putting words into my mouth and blaming me as if I uttered them.
Firstly I never said that 'WE ARE SUPERIOR TO THOSE XYZ SCHOOLS'
My words were this: <!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin--> Vaishnavism is the most complete science on Bhakti and has the easiest and surest way of understanding love for Godhead and therefore enjoys a preeminent position. <!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Why do you wantingly inject these words like 'superior' to discredit me? Do you have enemity with Vaishnavism or myself? Again, what really is the purpose of this thread?! To pick up fights or to know?
Secondly, just because Vaishnavism claims itself to be more complete is not deriding of any other school of thought. Vaishnavism even seeks out and finds value in nastika religions like Christianity, Islam and such. Vaishnavism is catholic in outlook. It rejects no religion as outright wrong, but only gives a better understanding of what religion should be like. The anology of Dictionary and Encyclopedia has already been given to you.
The Encyclopedia has more complete knowledge than the dictionary which does not mean that the dictionary is wrong or useless. Ditto with Vaishnavism and other religions.
This also does not mean that the Encyclopedia is superior to dictionary. Both have different audiences and usage-contexts.
Some people would find the dictionary more useful than the encycolopedia which can be threating, imposing and a over-kill, but for some who need more, they will migrate from the dictionary to the encyclopedia.
If this explaination does not help you, please spare me, I don't want to fight with you.
I repeat: Vaishnavism is complete since it teaches the greatest religious dictum, that of undiluted Love of Almightly. All other religions and systems that claim to be complete do have inadequencies in love of Godhead.
Some like the Semetic religions have the self-interested and selfish goal of Heaven and its pleasures adulterating their love for God.
Others like neo-advaita, have intellectualism and Jnana obsuring and tainting pure love for God.
Narada Muni is quite clear when He says that reading of scriptures, shruthi is of no use since Brahma who holds and breaths out the Vedas himself has no chance of liberation if devoit of Bhakti. The Bhagavad Gita refers to Vedas as a flood of water when there is not a drop of water fit to drink.
When you ask for Shruthi pramana, are you sure you want to hear it? Because, to hear Shruthi, you will have to qualify as a Brahmacharin which means that you will have to stay at the Ashrama of a Guru and learn obedienty and submissively. If you really want to learn the Shruthi, you are most welcome to join any of the various Vaishnava mathas. The Bhagavat-Gita says,' Approach a bonafide master submissively and seek to learn'.. not arrogantly demand on discussion boards for Shruthis which aren't so cheap.
As for me, I am not that careless to throw about Shruthi pramanas around as you ask them. And more importantly, I am so disqualified to even talk about them. Actually I know nothing about them for I am just a student.
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->You failed to say WHY it is the most complete science? The same claim can be made by christians who claim their way to be the path of Love, or islam that claims to be the only true religion of peace. You may want to back up your position on WHY Vaishnavism is more complete than say, Thiru Gnana Sambandhar's or Appar's way? A true bhaktha revels in ANYONE having bhakthi towards the Lord. To say that my interepretation alone is right, and yours is wrong is just laughable and is inconsistent go even with your own statement.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes, you are right that a true Bhakta revels in ANYONE having Bhakthi towards the Lord. Thats exactly why a Christian or Muslim having pure devotion is to be respected as religious person irrespective of his religious background.
Just a few post ago, you were blaming ISKCON for doing exactly the same: respecting Bhaktas from Christianity and Islam. Now you turn plates and claim it as a virtue Vaishnavism does not profess.
And at the top of it, you call for consistency while I spend huge paragraphs just repeating myself over and over again ad-nausuem!
Christian love is described as love for the neighbour as oneself. This is just one step of selflessness. There is more to Love of Godhead. Before one can talk about love of Godhead, ONE NEEDS TO KNOW ALL ABOUT THE GODHEAD. Only Vaishnavism talks about all the divine auspicious atributes of Godhead. Who is He, what he likes, what he wears, what he does, who are his associates, his residences, his expansions, pastimes, lilas, avataras, relationships and so on and on - a ocean of knowledge about the Godhead we worship.. show me where in Christianity and Islam do they have such complete understanding of their version of God and I will agree that those religions are as complete as Vaishnavism. Christianity and Islam haven't even succeeded in crossing the notion of this body as the true self. They don't even talk about soul in any appreciatable degree of detail, what to say about Godhead! They still think that the body that is dead with be physically resurrected without knowing that each soul is independent of the body and has had trillions... incountable bodies since time immemorial. For them, this birth is the only birth and this body the only truth. Vaishnavism is thus more complete in understand then Christianity of Islam.
As for Appar and Sambhandhar, Vaishnavas respect all Sages. They are Sages and one cannot comment on their understanding. Also, did I ever tell you that Sambhandhar or Appar are not Vaishnavas? Devotees of Shiva who himself is a devotee of Hari are also devotees as per Vaishnavite understanding, and thus Appar and Sambhandhar are devotees of Lord.
In Bhagavat Gita, Lord Krishna says that recipient of all worship is He alone.